Varjo's XR-4: Why a Truly Useful Mixed Reality Headset Is Expensive (ieee.org) 25
Long-time Slashdot reader BishopBerkeley writes: Varjo follows a completely different model from Apple and Meta for its new AR headset. Computing is done on a connected (via a cable) computer. The tradeoff is that the headset can use the extra computing power of the host computer to drive ultrahigh resolution displays that are far more pixel dense than Apple's Vision Pro.
The net result is that the headset is truly useful for demanding applications like professional flight simulators, where $10,000 for a headset is a sensible investment. Furthermore, the headset has a longer life span because its PC resident hardware and software are upgradeable.
From IEEE Spectrum: The Meta Quest 3 is a capable, accessible mixed-reality device. But if you're a mad scientist working on a secret project in an underground lab, it's not going to cut it. Finnish headset manufacturer Varjo has a solution: the XR-4, a new generation of flagship mixed-reality headsets built for unusually demanding users. Varjo, based in Helsinki, serves up displays with record-setting pixel counts, auto-focusing cameras, and a "Secure Edition" that looks like it was ripped straight from a Bond film. The goal? A photo-real mixed-reality experience that lets designers, researchers, and creatives build and work with objects that don't yet physically exist.
"How do you design a car without a clay prototype? How do you sell a yacht you haven't built yet? How do you train a pilot to fly a plane that's still on the ground?" says Patrick Wyatt, Varjo's chief product officer. "Jobs you do right now with physical things, we're virtualizing those."
Varjo's XR-4 headset comes in three different editions, each with escalating features (and price tags). The "entry-level" XR-4, which starts at €3,990 (about US $4,300), homes in on product design and data visualization work that requires crisp virtual reality alongside occasional use of mixed reality. Varjo achieves this with dual 4K displays that leapfrog even the resolution of Apple's upcoming Vision Pro headset... Simulators might benefit from the XR-4's more expensive sibling: the XR-4 Focal Edition. Priced at €9,990 (about $11,000), it justifies its cost with dual gaze-directed autofocus cameras... The Secure Edition is available with fixed-focused or autofocus cameras and priced at €7,990 and €13,990 ($8,700 and $15,200), respectively.
The net result is that the headset is truly useful for demanding applications like professional flight simulators, where $10,000 for a headset is a sensible investment. Furthermore, the headset has a longer life span because its PC resident hardware and software are upgradeable.
From IEEE Spectrum: The Meta Quest 3 is a capable, accessible mixed-reality device. But if you're a mad scientist working on a secret project in an underground lab, it's not going to cut it. Finnish headset manufacturer Varjo has a solution: the XR-4, a new generation of flagship mixed-reality headsets built for unusually demanding users. Varjo, based in Helsinki, serves up displays with record-setting pixel counts, auto-focusing cameras, and a "Secure Edition" that looks like it was ripped straight from a Bond film. The goal? A photo-real mixed-reality experience that lets designers, researchers, and creatives build and work with objects that don't yet physically exist.
"How do you design a car without a clay prototype? How do you sell a yacht you haven't built yet? How do you train a pilot to fly a plane that's still on the ground?" says Patrick Wyatt, Varjo's chief product officer. "Jobs you do right now with physical things, we're virtualizing those."
Varjo's XR-4 headset comes in three different editions, each with escalating features (and price tags). The "entry-level" XR-4, which starts at €3,990 (about US $4,300), homes in on product design and data visualization work that requires crisp virtual reality alongside occasional use of mixed reality. Varjo achieves this with dual 4K displays that leapfrog even the resolution of Apple's upcoming Vision Pro headset... Simulators might benefit from the XR-4's more expensive sibling: the XR-4 Focal Edition. Priced at €9,990 (about $11,000), it justifies its cost with dual gaze-directed autofocus cameras... The Secure Edition is available with fixed-focused or autofocus cameras and priced at €7,990 and €13,990 ($8,700 and $15,200), respectively.
I'm not putting anything on my head (Score:1)
Re: I'm not putting anything on my head (Score:2)
Every fart you smell (or which remains below the threshold) comes from someoneâ(TM)s posterior body part, and it lands particles on your face too.
Properly taking care of communally used tools is better than going out without gloves in a city for example.
But with the right model (Score:2)
With the right model, it will sell millions. I vote ScarJo for your Varjo.
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but doing the whole "sex sells" and fucking it up is something of a proud Finnish tradition. Remember NGage?
Varjo is a Finnish product, so they may just get tacky tits and ass ad. But probably not, since this is enterprise solution.
What Apple is thinking, after reading this (Score:4, Insightful)
"We really should look at raising our prices."
What is the Secure Edition (Score:2)
How is it different?
Re:What is the Secure Edition (Score:5, Informative)
Here, I'll google that for you. Straight off the product page. Took 5 seconds to find.
Unlike other headsets in the XR-4 Series, all XR-4 Secure Edition units are assembled in a state-of-the-art facility in Finland, ensuring full TAA compliancy.
Each headset runs completely offline and can be configured to have no radio components, ensuring they are suitable for exceptionally high-security situations and closed-loop network environments.
The XR-4 Secure Edition comes with access to world-class support with less than one business day support guarantees, guided onboarding sessions, priority shipping, and more.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, buddy, you're a way less lazy than I am.
They are insane (Score:3)
Requiring an account just to install and use an XR-4 is insane given market and cost. Making the "privilege" of lack of forced accounts a selling point reserved for ultra high end model with no advertised price is sleazy at best.
In contrast HP-G2 doesn't require any accounts to install or use and costs several times less.
Re: They are insane (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are thinking from a consumer pint if view, and that's not the market these headset are targeted at.
For what it's worth when I said "market" I assumed education/commercial use was a given.
For business a headset like that is peanuts compared to all the other costs.
Any thoughts on why they bothered with a series of wildly different price points?
Re: (Score:2)
Different businesses have both different needs and different price tolerances.
DOA (Score:4, Insightful)
Foremost among them was that it lacked developer support.
Meta fell flat because it's VR first.
Vision Pro has succeeded far more than any predecessors because it started as a utility that focusses first on adding value to existing tasks. They also made it work with the entire apps store. And the 3D and AR stuff is just a value add.
This headset starts its journey by trying to imagine "there must be a use for this! I'm sure if you buy it and spend lots of money on development, you might find a use"
AR glasses are a mobile accessory.
If you make an affordable set of AR glasses, provide useful utility like a clock, telephone notification and telephone screen mirroring, you have a product people will actually want to use. Add the ability to use a remote computer desktop and you're making progress.
If you make AR or VR glasses and expect people to pay a lot of money for novelty without utility, you don't have a product.
Re: DOA (Score:2)
You are comparing general / higher-end consumer or business products to high-end industrial product. They are not competing in the same category, although there might be some overlap. The compute and feature demands are at a different level.
Varjos latest turnover seems to be about 22 million euros (it has been growing since the inception), but I would guess the market for their niche will continue to expand. As a company they have not been profitable yet, but they are still in the growth phase.
Re: (Score:1)
Varjo is doing this since 2019, it's their 4th iteration with improvements based on their clients feedback. They know their market and use case, this design is optimized for it and not for general consumer.
slightly misleading ... but this is slashdot (Score:2)
You can get an XR-4 for $4,000 - check it out - https://b2b-store.varjo.com/ [varjo.com]
I'm sure if you talk to sales, they have plenty of options to take you right up to $10,000 if you want.
I'm sure the XR-4 blows the Quest 3 out of the water in terms of display density, FoV etc. etc.
It also has eye tracking too.
But you have to ask yourself, is the base model 3,500 dollars better than a Quest 3?
They do have a consumer device, the Varjo Aero, for $1000.
$500 more than a Quest 3 & have to be tethered to a PC - which
Re: slightly misleading ... but this is slashdot (Score:3)
>Sure, Varjo are in a different market segment, but requiring tethering is such a pain in the ass. It really is a messy setup no matter how high-end you go.
For a professional flight simulator ... where you sit in the same cockpit for hours?
Re: (Score:2)
>Like or loathe Meta, the Quest 2/3 designers and developers (I'm sure with a lot of guidance from John Carmack), realised that to make VR properly immersive and useful for the masses, the tether had to go.
Did that help? VR and AR seem have largely died and no one seems to care about them outside specific business applications. Consumer versions are just dead in the water. Those who have it seem to be mostly using it for beat saber still.
I just want a monitor replacement (Score:3)
I just want a monitor replacement. Something that looks like regular glasses, and throws virtual monitors up in the air in front of me.
No HQ full-colour cameras necessary, not even motion tracking - it can use low-res IR cameras and IR beacons on my desk for that. No wireless necessary, I'm fine with a cable running behind my ear, down my neck, and to my desk. Which also solves the power issue. Maybe add speakers and a mic, though, so I can use VOIP and videoconferencing. And yes, all the processing can be done on my PC. Without requiring Internet, thank you.
When that is on the market and available at a decent price point, most monitors become completely unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The xreal air might be exactly what you're looking for. It looks like a pair of sunglasses and works well as one or more external displays. You can even anchor their position so they appear to stay in the same place even as you move your head. The viewing angle is pretty narrow, but you can still see an entire virtual display clearly when you're looking at one, so it hardly matters.
It ticks your other boxes as well. No camera (it's only 3dof), built-in mic and speakers, you even need to plug it directly
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Thank you - I might just, if I can confirm there is an adapter for its USB-C connector. All I have is HDMI, DVI, and DisplayPort.
I've been looking for something like that for a long time. I may have to overcome my aversion to Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
I was able to connect over HDMI, but I didn't get any of the extra features. It had just one virtual display but I couldn't set it to 'lock' in place. It was like I was wearing a monitor on my head. There might be a way to get more displayes or access those other features as there's a windows driver, I think, and some other program, but I haven't tried any of it. I usually use it with their beam accessory, which lets you connect the display wirelessly and handles processing for the advanced features. Th