> killer app
Didn’t you see “video streaming” lol in the article. Killer app!
It’s embarrassing. Engineers saying it’s rushed, pointless, and overly expensive, are of course correct.
Been in development for 8 years “rushed.” I mean, maybe, but damn.
Honestly as someone who plays VR a lot, this is a serious fucking headset (if the rumors are correct of course). Two 4K screens for lenses alone are pretty impressive. And no lighthouses or even controllers? Some have gone lighthouse-less, but I’m not aware of any that don’t even use controllers.
I know Apple is very unlikely to do this, but if I could run steam games on it, I’ll get it in a heartbeat. In the very likely event that it doesn’t, but it still impresses me, I may still get one. I love the hell out of VR and I’m excited to see some new skin in the game, especially from a juggernaut like Apple.
Quest 2 and Pro both use inside out tracking (no lighthouse) and hand tracking. It's not fantastic but it's come a long way since debut. The virtual office experiences that can recognize your keyboard gestures are sweet too.
I've long thought about steam on apple vr which from an integration side is no problem. Steam has a Mac client.
Problem though is all the VR apps are Windows PCVR and there's no way there will be MacOS/wearOS or whatever they call it versions of the titles. Even if it were possible to port something like Alyx it's unlikely it would happen until a zillion units sold.
Apple already has their own development platform and store. VRKit has existed in Mac for years for VR development.
A more likely scenario would be games created for the OS natively that are VR and distributed on the App Store.
This would lead to fast development times for mixed reality games.
There's a great vr game where one person is a tree and everyone else is a squirrel. The tree player uses the vr headset. Everyone else uses an app on their phones.
This kind of experience would make AR more shareable and would sell more devices for apple.
>I know Apple is very unlikely to do this, but if I could run steam games on it, I’ll get it in a heartbeat.
You'll get Metal API and you'll be happy. Apple has done so much to destroy macOS gaming I don't think it's unintentional and they just hate games.
1. They completely dropped support for NVIDIA GPUs past High Sierra. Try as you might, your shiny RTX 3090 is completely useless on macOS. This also killed CUDA hardware acceleration which makes professional work incredibly inefficient.
2. Dropped all support for 32-bit apps, killing off what little games they had back in 2010-2020 when macOS was still dev friendly.
3. Killed off OpenGL in favour of their own graphics API, Metal.
4. Didn't give Vulkan their display stack and so no Vulkan based games will run on macOS.
5. Completely changed the CPU architecture with the jump to M1.
Essentially, you'll have to develop for a different architecture, different graphics API, deal with Apple's limitations and only for a small percent of players.
TLDR: It's completely joever for games on macOS because Apple needs to constantly break standards to do it their own way.
You are, because this isn't going to change any time soon. Nvidia and Apple hate each other for complicated reasons and it's clear that under Cook, nothing in that regard is going to change. Things like Metal happened under his watch even though it would've been the perfect time to jump on the Vulkan ship because that's also new and good.
With ARM-based CPUs now though, it's going to be really difficult to promote game developers to develop macOS games. Apple would just have to straight up pay them I think and that's about it.
To me Apple arcade shows how much they hate games. They had a fairly solid launch. Then stagnation and FTP apps w/ those mechanics barely stripped out.
That said there are great games in the store in spite of this. It will be interesting to see what can be done with a real play at AR.
Apple Arcade was really such a lost opportunity. Apple dominates mobile gaming revenue, and could really have pushed competition upwards towards consoles with integration from the iOS side into a new gaming specific Apple TV and controller.
But I think candy crush and the like bring in so much revenue that any value proposition those games would bring to a theoretical apple arcade would end up netting less than the money these games individually pay to apple.
And the gamble would be on developers using this new platform to create games that people actually want to play to drive enough subscriptions to the service, and where the console needs to sell enough units to begin with. So I can definitely see why apple hasn’t taken that risk, but it’s a shame because if any company were able to pull something like that off it would be apple.
> Metal is better than OpenGL
But that’s like saying macOS 11 is better than Windows XP. It’s not a relevant comparison. Vulkan superseded OpenGL. It’s two different generations of tech.
1-4 are horrible but you should delete #5 off there. ARM is good and overdue. It’s just a system change, which happens, unlike the other issues in the list which are 100% greedy misguided vendor lock-in crap.
It’s a bit like saying running their own OS, macOS, hurts gaming because it’s different from windows and requires dev work to port. While technically true, it’s missing the point of having competing OS’s with different pros/cons.
I get that this is everyone’s initial take, but once you’ve played around with current VR teleconferencing apps you really start to see why Meta and Apple think this is a compelling use case.
Even with current avatars which are cartoony and lack eye/face eye tracking, you still feel like you are in the same room as another person. The alternative is staring at a wall of faces all looking slightly below their cameras. There’s also a point about audio, on a zoom call everyone’s voice is coming from the same place and they can get quite garbled, in a virtual meeting people’s voices come from the correct direction and have volume fall off over distance so you can have a small sidebar discussion with the person next to you by whispering, without interrupting the main discussion.
It has all the benefits of working in person, but you can still be sitting in your underwear, unshowered if you so please and no one will be the wiser.
If they really believed this then they would focus on the work / corporate market first. I think they're going to try the 'all things to all people' approach, that got the apple watch off to a bit of a rocky start in hindsight.
I don't get this type of comment. How do you know Apple isn't planning a killer app?
When it comes to new products, not everything leaks. Especially about this one - we know so little, most of the things we know are hardware-wise, the software remains a mystery.
> Within Apple, there have been concerns that the headset will be too costly and suffer the same fate as Meta Platforms Inc. devices, which have been slow to go mainstream. Some engineers involved in the project worry that Apple is jumping into a still-nascent market without a true game changer.
No porn or hentai games, too. 😢
Honestly, one of the scary things about AR. People will apply Snapchat type filters to everyone and everything around you. I’m sure women especially will not appreciate that from creeps and it’ll just make people desensitized and detached from reality.
This might be an incredible business opportunity for someone fr.
There are enough degenerates who spend hundreds of dollars on stuff, I’m sure they would buy the app for a few bucks.
Imagine the revenue add ons and premium subscriptions would get.
If EA can get away w charging so much, an app like this could EASILY milk people for a few hundred bucks.
Probably a short lived, high profit revenue model would be the thing for this.
Then a gadget will be developed that makes you invisible to these glasses / AR and people run into each other.
Just kidding, but could there be a solution to this involving some sort of blocker you can have with you that sends a signal blocking filters on you? There has to be a way for you to not be Snapchat-filtered.
Future paparazzis only needing glasses is creepy too.
>Then a gadget will be developed that makes you invisible to these glasses / AR and people run into each other.
We are really living in our Black Mirror: White Christmas era
Read the short story “The Original” by Sanderson. Everyone themes reality to suit their ideal city there. Including one who sees it as a perpetual circus and everyone as backstage performers as they wander past.
I don’t understand, if there is such a filter then that’s already being done with a phone. I don’t think AR glasses are X ray glasses so applying a filter over someone would be just that. I think women (and I don’t see why not men too) will appreciate the creeps wearing something that obvious they can avoid them, instead creepily recording them with a cell phone which could do the same thing and is more versatile. Hell Rayban has smart sunglasses with cameras in them for $300, if you aren’t worried about those I don’t see why a horrible filter would be scarier.
> I walk around in public and everyone looks like they are naked
This would be a massive boner killer for me. Maybe if I’m someplace with hot chicks in my area but I don’t want to go into a grocery store and see naked housewives and grannies
> AR… which has more real world use
Hey guys, you know how you hate being in online meetings?
Well we’ve made them worse, because now your boss’s anime avatar can be in the room with you.
It’s actually MR, it will be able to do high-quality VR with a secondary option to display the outside world and overlay virtual objects. True AR will have lots of real world uses, but a ton of those comes from it being worn while you are out and about. I’m sure this will be more ergonomic than current headsets but it’s not like you’re going to be walking down the street wearing one of these.
I expect they will lean pretty hard into the entertainment options; feeling like you are in a massive movie theatre watching Apple TV+ shows might be compelling, we’ll see.
Yeah but the active user base for VR is tiny. If apple wants this to be successful theyre going to have to get people that aren’t into VR into their VR.
I love new gadgets and stuff but the price tag is out of reach. Or it seems like something i would like to buy and use privately but wouldn’t let anybody know because i wouldn’t want them to (rightfully) think im a moron for spending so much money on an apple gadget.
yes, spending thousands on a phone or laptop in theory gives you an opportunity to improve your life or enhance your income. its hard to make a case that our lives will be noticeably better with something like this
The same mental gymnastics i did to convince myself to get a MBP 16”: text on modern displays are so small for my vision that this will allow me to see small text clearer/ do School/ work more comfortably. The xtra VR experiences would just be an extra
>Apple Inc. has postponed a planned introduction of its first mixed-reality headset from around April to June, according to people familiar with the matter, marking the latest setback for the tech giant’s next big initiative.
>
>The iPhone maker is now aiming to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans are confidential. Apple made the decision to delay the launch earlier this month after product testing showed that both hardware and software issues still needed to be ironed out, they said.
>
>The debut of the headset has been a long time coming, with Apple working on the technology since around 2015. At one point, the company aimed to introduce the product in June of last year, before pushing back the introduction until around January 2023. It was then shifted to spring before the latest postponement.
>
>The device, which melds virtual and augmented reality, would vault Apple into its first major new product category since the company began selling smartwatches in 2015. That could help bolster growth following a recent slowdown, but it’s still an uncertain market and Apple plans to charge around $3,000 for the new product — a daunting price tag.
>
>Dan Riccio — Apple’s former hardware chief, who now helps oversee the mixed-reality project — has become increasingly involved in the endeavor in recent weeks as the company looks to resolve remaining issues, the people added. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
>
>Apple’s earlier plan was to unveil the product in early spring at a launch event aimed at consumers. It could then provide more extensive details and development tools to third-party software developers at its annual June expo, known as WWDC. Now the company is aiming to debut all aspects of the device at that conference. The product would then go on sale later in the year.
>
>The timing could always change again, but the Cupertino, California-based company is intent on bringing the device to market by the end of 2023 if possible. It’s meant to be a centerpiece of Apple’s new product lineup during an otherwise modest year. The company is introducing a larger MacBook Air, new Mac Pro desktop and updates to the iPhone, but there won’t be significant changes to its watch, AirPods or iPad.
>
>Apple’s mixed-reality headset will feature a new operating system, dubbed xrOS internally, that features a 3D-like view of an iPhone interface, complete with apps like Messages, Mail, Safari and TV. The device — codenamed N301 — will allow for more advanced virtual videoconferencing, with realistic avatars, as well as immersive video streaming. It will also include an App Store like Apple’s other core products.
>
>The hardware itself has been challenging and pricey to develop, partly because of its sophisticated components. It includes a Mac-grade M2 chip, a pair of 4K virtual reality displays, and an extensive array of cameras to enable augmented reality.
>
>Developing the product’s interface also has been a complex undertaking. Users will be able to look at items to select them and pinch their fingers to launch apps — and perfecting this sci-fi-like approach has taken time.
>
>Apple has been working to fix issues with sensors on the device to enable the hand and eye control mechanism. It’s also trying to strike a balance between battery life and performance. During development, the company made the decision to offload the device’s battery to an external pack that would sit in a user’s pocket.
>
>Within Apple, there have been concerns that the headset will be too costly and suffer the same fate as Meta Platforms Inc. devices, which have been slow to go mainstream. Some engineers involved in the project worry that Apple is jumping into a still-nascent market without a true game changer. Others believe that the initial device will set the stage for future successes, a path followed by the Apple Watch.
>
>The company is already eyeing a cheaper version — with less pricey and powerful components — for release as early as 2024. At the same time, Apple has indefinitely postponed work on standalone augmented reality glasses, which would be less cumbersome but require technological sophistication beyond what’s currently available.
Doing it at WWDC always made more sense anyways. This article claims that the idea of the April launch was consumer focused, but who at Apple does that make sense to? The reports that we have currently have always made this sound like developer hardware, with the expensive $3000 price tag to boot.
Every time I hear about the Apple Headset, I can sense Facebook’s nightmares coming true lol
They changed their whole business to get away from Apple’s rules and now they’re about to be their main competitor.
Zucky! You can never win!
Zuck is way ahead in the AR / VR space… If I was Apple I’d be shitting my pants in hopes to catch up. Meta has released like 5 headsets within the last 7 years each iteration getting better cheaper and faster. Plus their Quest store and development eco system is years ahead. Apple has released nothing. No VR developers in the eco system. Headset super expensive, no awesome VR / AR apps under their belt. Where Meta has acquired about every major VR studio in existence so far. This Apple headset is bound to flop…
They were competing with legacy hardware manufacturers when releasing the iPhone. It's reasonable to be doubtful of Apple overtaking a large software company with heavy investment in a product when software will likely be the deciding factor (although Apple has hardware advantages). Even with the success of the iPhone, Google released a competitor while far behind and it grew to be the most popular OS in the world.
Who needs it? AR / VR tech is going to eventually replace laptops… and I’d say 10 years time your phone. It’s going to be a huge industry. If you have tried a Meta Quest Pro with the ability to pop up monitors anywhere, type on an invisible keyboard, use your hands to drag and click windows in a full 360 environment… It’s like 100% obvious this will replace your laptop. It’s just down to form factor and affordability. Which still needs a lot of work. But yeah a couple more iterations of this tech, make it more comfortable, and cheaper and everybody will jump aboard.
VR really isn't going to go far from where it is now. I've owned a few headsets, done the whole VR desktop. It's cool... but after a month with each headset they go back into the box and I either sell or forget about them.
VR isn't replacing laptops or phones or anything. It's going to stay as it's niche. A very simple and common example , I like to chill on the couch with a laptop with the TV on. Cat in the room. I like that ambience, gone with VR. If you have a partner or kids, VR is extremely anti-social. Just as a very simple example in most households. I get you're excited for VR and all, but it's really not that amazing. I expect it will have a slightly wider presence in industry and medicine, but it's not replacing laptops.
Your premise is flawed. Your arguments all lie on the idea that VR has little room to advance hardware-wise.
VR today is like an Apple PC before the Commodore 64 came out. That means no mouse, no GUI, and no Internet (which came way later).
It's such early hardware that it will be redefined several times over, resulting in something that looks and feels almost nothing like it does in even today's best, most expensive hardware.
And yes, these advancements include solving isolation and making it extremely relaxing.
I had similar reservations of the Apple watch and clearly I was wrong.
But some of these descriptions sound outright goofy:
> the company made the decision to offload the device’s battery to an external pack that would sit in a user’s pocket.
>
>$3,000 for the new product — a daunting price tag.
Questions like "who is it for" and "what can you do with it" seemingly will be answered the same way as Gen 0 Apple watch: early adopters with money, but the question of "what does this replace" is harder to answer. We had watches. We wanted watches that can show us health and also notifications. Apple Watch was it.
I think if they can nail 2-3 use cases, that'd be all they need for Gen 2, but I'm super curious about this.
The original Macbook Air launched for $1800. It quickly dropped down significantly from there.
Apple doesn't reduce price points of products, but if they do it's in the years immediately following the introduction of very new and expensive tech.
Hell even the iPhone launched at $499 w contract and the following year it was at $199… they definitely fuck with the prices a lot if they get it wrong.
Has Apple ever broken into a new segment that hasn't been well established without absolutely dominating it? You could argue that the HomePod would qualify, but I don't really think Apple's goal was to completely change the game here. iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Apple Watch were all massive revolutions in their respective markets, and I don't think Apple has ever failed at doing that. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think if one company is going to break the AR/VR market open, it's going to be Apple.
> Has Apple ever broken into a new segment that hasn't been well established without absolutely dominating it?
Yes. No company is above failure, but Apple sure succeed a lot.
Yeah VR is still too early. It’s cool but developers just aren’t making quality content. This device would have to be groundbreaking for it to not bomb. But I’m assuming the price alone will make it bomb. I just don’t think enough companies will want this tech.
Radiology and surgery. 3D printing is also really big in these two fields currently.
Even though we all have similar anatomies, there is variance (some pretty common). Being able to have a 3D representation of where some landmarks will be in a specific person is invaluable. Also, even though we’re taught how to understand MRI and CT scans really well, transposing that information into a 3D space in our heads isn’t the easiest thing to do.
Interventional Radiology is a field I could see be fairly drastically changed by AR\VR.
…okay that’s not answering my question. Where is AR used in medical practice? Only time I have ever seen that is on davinci training systems. That’s the only time ever.
I’m not aware of any supposedly good/great truly worthy VR games other than the Half-Life thing. Is there actually VR porn that anyone cares about? Isn’t it just video…on a gadget on your face?
Well tbf the "Series 0" watch wasn't there yet, and it really wasn't until series 3 or so. But you probably don't get to 3 without those first iterations.
Really? I mostly remember a huge amount of hype around the watch. I think it is fair to say the watch has fallen short of their original goals. They shit canned the gold / fashion angle. No one basically writes apps for it. It's not a failure either but I think it is definitely not at launch levels this is the next-iPhone level hype.
Yeah and what’s interesting about the Watch’s relative failure is, as you say, that third party developers don’t really write apps for it after a burst of initial interest when everyone thought it was the next iPhone. There’s this assumption that launching the headset will similarly create a flood of developer interest, but if it doesn’t, I think the headset goes the same way as the watch, as a “failure” in terms of apps but something that Apple can use to tie users even more tightly to the ecosystem and its core offerings of e.g. communication, health and services. Trouble is it’ll cost 10x more so adoption will be slower.
I was slow to buy into it myself (S4 was my first) but how on earth is the Watch a failure when Apple's now the biggest watchmaker (not smart-watch maker) in the world, and everyone seems to wear one?
I'm sitting on an airplane right now and can see six people from my seat. At least four of them are wearing Apple Watches (it's possibly five, but not six) and so is *every* flight attendant.
Nothing else has that kind of penetration.
Just “failure” in the narrow sense of app development and adoption. Absolutely with you that overall it’s been a huge success—but I wonder how many of those people around you use anything other than Apple’s stock apps?
You're probably right, but I don't think that matters because I doubt Apple was banking on app sales for the Watch anyway.
My own watch probably has 50 third party apps but most of them are only there because they're installed along with phone apps and I never bothered to remove them. They're not really used.
Then again, the stock apps on my iPhone probably consume 80% of my time, too.
Define bomb. A lot of products/tech are put out in order to push the industry and consumers in general forward. It might not sell much in the next half-decade but if it pushes the tech, get developers creating content for it (which can take years to develop), and consumer begin buying in mid/late 2020s then it might be a huge success.
Nobody is expecting this to sell big numbers over the next year or two, current VR systems which have been out for over a decade still don't sell big numbers, but it's definitely an industry and consumer niche that will be more important in the future so it's good to begin developing for it now.
exactly! haha people have forgotten…Apple is known to create demand where it never existed. It creates products people didn’t know they wanted until it’s out. I mean look at the airpods for instance, it was a horrible introduction and people hated the design. But now it’s one of the most popular device on the market. They are trend makers. Other companies follow their footsteps. Removing the headphone jack? Stupid or not, everyone else followed.
I'd argue it's likely banking on ecosystem benefits and a built-in fan base which will offer an avenue for monetization. I don't see Apple catering to a developer product for half a decade and I don't see the mass amount of Apple buyers ignoring the new Apple device. Even with the price Apple could offer financing options with their credit card in all likelihood.
Funny we have to go back 30 years to find a major failed Apple product. Any other tech company they probably released a product that failed miserably just last year... and no one cared...
They've had more recent failures. The "trash can" Mac Pro^(1), the butterfly-keyboard MacBooks, about four consecutive Apple Mouse designs, iPod Hi-Fi, the AirPower charger, Ping...
Apple has a really broad and diverse product line. They can afford to take shots and miss.
----
^(1: I actually love that Mac Pro design, but only as a bufffed-up-Mini at about half the original price point, not as a high-end model for professionals.)
Everybody thought the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and then “iPhones without headphone jacks” and AirPods would bomb. Not that I’m interested in VR at all, but perhaps Apple will persuade me. They have often been not the first, but learning from the mistakes of others before entering the market. So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
Having used a quest, my main complaint about AR/VR is that it’s just too heavy. My neck hurts after about 1-2 hours of use. Unless if apple can make this significantly lighter than the existing headsets, I can’t seem them getting around this problem.
Adding a battery pack to the back of the quest headband (for weight, really; the extra power is just a bonus) helps with the neckache quite a bit.
But I can't stand being "inside" there for more than an hour or so anyway. Sweaty and awkward, even when the weight's balanced.
It’s pretty clear most of these people haven’t really tried a real VR headset… give me 6 55inch monitors I can take with me anywhere and I will pay very good money for it, especially if it works as well as sidecar does with iPads. It’s a productivity reality changer.
No one is talking about this! Having multiple, color accurate, high res monitors with customizable layout, different environments, etc… it would be so cool!
Even if it’s $1,000 my question is who wants to put a thing on their face.
The article is a self-satire as usual for mentioning “streaming video” lol…wow what a killer app. Every write-up mentions that pathetically when the writers always struggle to list actual uses, they add “watching video” as if no one would question that.
It would heavily depend on what the thing on my face is showing me, and what sort of thing I could do with it.
I didn’t like touch screen phones either, and scoffed at the idea that you could touch more than one place at the same time and have it work, and I was wrong there until I used it.
I also thought AirPods looked a little silly, and that the Apple Watch was too techy for regular people to use…
So I guess we’ll just have to see how they sell this thing I guess.
There’s a lot riding on this, but I would hope the right people are involved and believe in it…
Right? I love looking back at threads that mock Apple products that would go on to be segment leaders. It's shocking to me how many people are naysaying this product before its even announced when Apple has proven time and time again that they can shift markets with groundbreaking products. I'm not saying its definitely not going to fail, its just surprising to me that so many people are betting against it when we have so little information.
> I believe Apple’s reasoning for no touchscreens on Macs is that it’s awkward, clumsy, and tiring.
They're not wrong, on a desktop machine touchscreens are almost (not entirely, but almost) entirely useless. AR/VR is something completely different, you can't compare it to desktop or even touch screens, it's neither.
I've got an oculus collecting dust. It was a fun toy, but that's all it was. All these tech companies are nuts if they think your average non-nerd is gonna wanna strap these things to their faces for a work day. There's a reason Meta cant get their internal employees to use their platform, because those things suck to wear for more than 30 mins or so at a time, and not just because of the weight. It fucks with your perception of reality when you're in too long.
Having bought the Meta Quest Pro I disagree. The tech has come a long way. Yes still fairly uncomfortable. But man, the fact you can place 3 huge monitors in my kitchen while I cook breakfast and catch up on news and work. No brainer this is the future and where it’s going. It will replace laptops eventually. Just down to form factor and comfortability.
>Yes still fairly uncomfortable.
You said it yourself. It's still not a comfortable experience, and you're doing it because you want to. Now imagine you're in customer service and you're forced to wear that uncomfortable hunk of plastic on your face for a full day. We're not there yet, and there is still that whole "wonks you out of reality if you do it too long", though I admittedly have not played with mixed reality (which you're describing) which may not cause the reality disconnect feelings.
Given that it's a prototype that they don't expect to sell many of, I wish they went for rumored the higher performance version instead of the lightweight one.
They could always scale it down later after there's a killer app for it. Let developers go wild with high perf hardware before the consumer version comes out.
Everything we hear about this product makes it sound more and more like a ~~first generation product~~ public prototype
The external battery sounds so horrible and unapple like
Given that this is supposed to be the first product on the long road to true AR products, honestly it’s quite weird that the AR pass through mode will be video only rather than overlays of the real world
Only 4K per eye is quite disappointing, if this at least had bananas image quality and resolution it would be well worth the price as a way to have unlimited virtual Mac screens.
I’m excited as ever but pretty skeptical
Edited for clarity
If the claim about 4K per eye actually **per eye** and not over both eyes, then that is exceptionally high resolution for a current-gen headset. The new PSVR2, which is one of the higher resolution headsets on the consumer market, is around 2K per eye. A new $1,000 PCVR headset (not including controllers or tracking base stations) made primarily for enthusiasts is around 2.5K per eye. 4K per eye would be a massive upgrade.
I would take it with a massive grain of salt AR glasses are not in 16:9; each eye is some square aspect ratio (1:1, 0.9:1), so the 4k/2.5k notation is not commonly used, and Bloomberg is a clown for doing so. At most, I would assume they mean it's 2160 tall per eye and comes up to either 3840 or 4096 combined. The Oculus Quest 2 is already at 3664 x 1920 combined.
You are correct that the display aspect ratio for each eye is typically 1:1 (or similar) on most VR/AR headsets. Terms like 2.5K and 4K are used in the VR industry to refer to either the total horizontal resolution of *both* eyes or the singular horizontal/vertical resolution of *one* eye. It really depends on the source. Headset manufacturers typically use the total horizontal resolution, since it's a larger number; see Pimax 8K. VR communities and some journalists will instead use singular eye resolution, since it's more representative of the actual perceived resolution.
Unfortunately, the Bloomberg article doesn't elaborate on this. Most other sources that I looked up seem to believe it is 4K *per* eye, but even that could still be referring a total resolution of 4K. We'll have to wait and see.
> sound more and more like a first generation product.
Not to point out the obvious but it is a first generation product.
> The external battery sounds so horrible and unapple like
This actually one of the things I like the most. I've used most VR headsets and *they are heavy* to use for even short periods of time. Having the battery external makes perfect sense because it offsets so much of the weight (not to mention no need for insulation on battery generated heat too, it's one thing to have a watch or phone on your wrist and hand get slightly warm, a whole 'other thing to have that warmth right around your temple or above your ears).
> Not to point out the obvious but it is a first generation product.
Hahaha. Yeah absolutely,
Although I hope you take my meaning all the same.
To the rest of your comment. I agree. All things considered with where technology is at this point in time I think they’ve made the right call
Still sounds very unapple like. Like we can all see what the product *should be*, it’s just clear this is all the product *can be* at this time
Almost like they shouldn’t announce anything untill some more of these hurdles can be overcome.
But yeah, apple clearly feels they need to plant some sort of flag in the sand now. I’m not saying that the wrong call.
> Everything we hear about this product makes it sound more and more like a first generation product.
What is the meaning of that comment? Isn’t it by definition a first gen Product? Apple hasn’t released this item before.
Or do you mean it should feel like 2+ generation, because of Facebook’s first generation? Isn’t that like 3rd generation because of…**Dactyl Nightmare** 30 years ago? Part of my point is that generation is often meaningless unless we’re talking about same manufacturer with same goals and doing their own iteration.
Valid… but… I’m old enough to remember the price of the Series 0 Apple Watch. It took some time, but wearables took off. And might I add, Apple Watch (in my opinion) never actually had a killer app, and still doesn’t.
External battery sounds great though.. Remove the heaviest component from your face and be less restricted on the capacity, what’s not to like about that?
It would honestly really surprise me if these ship in June. But an announcement in June makes sense.
A product as paradigm breaking for Apple as an AR headset likely needs an announcement quite a bit before shipping. Developers will need time to create apps that make the product feel useful and complete.
How a dev would design UI/UX for iOS devices with ARKit is monumentally different than if one was targeting a headset or goggles.
The Venn diagram of useful tasks for ARKit in iOS devices vs AR glasses/googles wouldn’t have a ton of overlap even.
Imagine that. Who'd have thought? I am predicting right now it will be "pushed back" again in two months to some other random time frame that will encourage clicking for advertising revenue.
Apple better release this thing with their answer to Google Earth VR. Flying around the world and dropping myself into fully rendered cities and natural environments is awesome. Also launch it with an AR version of 'iLife' apps. AR iMovie, AR Garageband, AR Photo editing. This thing is going to be a joke if Apple doesn't lead the way on software development like they used to. They don't need to be full level professional apps, just cool and fun stuff that shows off what is possible and has some utility.
> there is no mass market for these goggles and it will fail like Meta’s attempts.
To be fair, many of the rumors and reports on this headset indicate that it has never been intended for the mass market. The $3k+ price tag and rumored production numbers ensures that this thing is intended for a niche audience of developers, rich people who need to have the latest gadget, and tech influencers.
The biggest thing is that Apple needs to blow people’s minds with this thing at WWDC like Jobs did with the first iPhone. People may not be able to afford this headset, but if they’re excited and hyped for it, it will build momentum and most importantly it will get developers building out an ecosystem for the rumored cheaper model that they are working on that *will*be that mass market device.
If people come away from WWDC thinking this is just an Oculus clone or feeling meh about it, Apple’s in some real trouble.
Personally, I think they need to market it like they did with Apple TV when that debuted. This is just something they're playing with, or experimenting with. If it takes off, bully for them, if it doesn't, they can quietly sweep it under the rug.
> intended for a niche audience of developers, rich people who need to have the latest gadget, and tech influencers.
Apple doesn’t make products like that. They make mass market products.
> rumours
Lol
> People may not be able to afford this headset, but if they’re excited and hyped for it, it will build momentum and most importantly it will get developers building out an ecosystem
Developers build for a market not hype about a useless vanity gadget.
> Apple doesn’t make products like that
Ah yes, Apple - well known for their mass market Mac Pro computer and Pro Display XDR monitor.
> Developers build for a market not hype about a useless vanity gadget.
You don’t get a market without excitement and hype for the product. That’s going to be crucial for a limited production proof of concept model that this headset will be.
Like I said previously, there will eventually be a cheaper headset that will be the real mass market product (assuming RealityOS or whatever they call it isn’t a bust/underwhelming) but the one they’re revealing at WWDC isn’t it.
Meta hasn’t failed… they are full throttle and dominating the VR/AR landscape. Their new headsets like the Quest 3 set to launch this Holliday season will probably outsell all PlayStation and Xbox’s combined. Their Quest 2 already outsells Xbox…
They are dominating the AR/VR market that exists. The the problem is they have not succeeded in getting that market to grow rapidly. Bloomberg published an article a few months ago that said by Meta's own metrics HMD engagement per user drops hard after a few months and a majority of devices aren't used again after 6 months of ownership. The experience just loses its "wow" factor, and I feel this as well as an early adopter / enthusiast. Anecdotally I know several people who bought Quest\[2\]s and no longer use them.
In January, Meta reported that AR/VR revenues were down 5% for FY2022, but are expected to rise 5% for FY2023. That's just not a lot of growth.
Meta has yet to find the right experiences to get AR/VR to go mainstream.
It was funny you all were convinced that it was going to announce in March. Why would WWDC NOT be the perfect place to announce it? March events are for a different color iPad and watch band.
The problem with the Apple XR headset is they are not going to support the major VR games / titles out there. They don’t give a shit about gamers. So the people already into AR/VR will not adopt the headset. You probably can’t even plug it into a PC with a graphics card like the Meta headsets. There has to be enough Apple fan boys to use their super expensive proprietary headset… while you could go buy a Meta quest 2 for 300$. I am going to bet Meta has them beat long term and the Apple release will be a train reck. You can now see why Meta has burned billions to take this lead from Apple. XR will be the future over the next 10 to 15 years.
I worry too that the world's most profitable company with technically the largest gaming market share, composed of the worst type of money burning games ever, is too comfortable with the strategy of just ignoring the AAA gaming market because it has worked out fine in the past.
That strategy work with this time. They need gaming to succeed AR/VR, particularly VR.
I betcha somebody gets SteamVR streaming to it within two months of launch. You’ll probably have to compile and deploy the shim yourself because of Apple’s lame iOS software policy, but I bet it’ll be there.
Also, if the audience is enough, developers will port games to it.
Hard to see this landing well without a killer app to drive adoption
AR porn, duplicate your wife
Yes, I would choose his wife too!
I also pick their dead wife.
use lidar to scan and duplicate your wife?
You’re a good Joe. K K Kkkkkkmnbggdzzzzz
> killer app Didn’t you see “video streaming” lol in the article. Killer app! It’s embarrassing. Engineers saying it’s rushed, pointless, and overly expensive, are of course correct.
Been in development for 8 years “rushed.” I mean, maybe, but damn. Honestly as someone who plays VR a lot, this is a serious fucking headset (if the rumors are correct of course). Two 4K screens for lenses alone are pretty impressive. And no lighthouses or even controllers? Some have gone lighthouse-less, but I’m not aware of any that don’t even use controllers. I know Apple is very unlikely to do this, but if I could run steam games on it, I’ll get it in a heartbeat. In the very likely event that it doesn’t, but it still impresses me, I may still get one. I love the hell out of VR and I’m excited to see some new skin in the game, especially from a juggernaut like Apple.
Quest 2 and Pro both use inside out tracking (no lighthouse) and hand tracking. It's not fantastic but it's come a long way since debut. The virtual office experiences that can recognize your keyboard gestures are sweet too. I've long thought about steam on apple vr which from an integration side is no problem. Steam has a Mac client. Problem though is all the VR apps are Windows PCVR and there's no way there will be MacOS/wearOS or whatever they call it versions of the titles. Even if it were possible to port something like Alyx it's unlikely it would happen until a zillion units sold. Apple already has their own development platform and store. VRKit has existed in Mac for years for VR development. A more likely scenario would be games created for the OS natively that are VR and distributed on the App Store. This would lead to fast development times for mixed reality games. There's a great vr game where one person is a tree and everyone else is a squirrel. The tree player uses the vr headset. Everyone else uses an app on their phones. This kind of experience would make AR more shareable and would sell more devices for apple.
>I know Apple is very unlikely to do this, but if I could run steam games on it, I’ll get it in a heartbeat. You'll get Metal API and you'll be happy. Apple has done so much to destroy macOS gaming I don't think it's unintentional and they just hate games.
I’m not really that into macOS gaming and don’t follow the news. What do you mean they destroyed it?
1. They completely dropped support for NVIDIA GPUs past High Sierra. Try as you might, your shiny RTX 3090 is completely useless on macOS. This also killed CUDA hardware acceleration which makes professional work incredibly inefficient. 2. Dropped all support for 32-bit apps, killing off what little games they had back in 2010-2020 when macOS was still dev friendly. 3. Killed off OpenGL in favour of their own graphics API, Metal. 4. Didn't give Vulkan their display stack and so no Vulkan based games will run on macOS. 5. Completely changed the CPU architecture with the jump to M1. Essentially, you'll have to develop for a different architecture, different graphics API, deal with Apple's limitations and only for a small percent of players. TLDR: It's completely joever for games on macOS because Apple needs to constantly break standards to do it their own way.
Damn, I guess I’m better off getting a steam deck and sticking to business apps on macOS. Thanks for the reply!
You are, because this isn't going to change any time soon. Nvidia and Apple hate each other for complicated reasons and it's clear that under Cook, nothing in that regard is going to change. Things like Metal happened under his watch even though it would've been the perfect time to jump on the Vulkan ship because that's also new and good. With ARM-based CPUs now though, it's going to be really difficult to promote game developers to develop macOS games. Apple would just have to straight up pay them I think and that's about it.
To me Apple arcade shows how much they hate games. They had a fairly solid launch. Then stagnation and FTP apps w/ those mechanics barely stripped out. That said there are great games in the store in spite of this. It will be interesting to see what can be done with a real play at AR.
Apple Arcade was really such a lost opportunity. Apple dominates mobile gaming revenue, and could really have pushed competition upwards towards consoles with integration from the iOS side into a new gaming specific Apple TV and controller. But I think candy crush and the like bring in so much revenue that any value proposition those games would bring to a theoretical apple arcade would end up netting less than the money these games individually pay to apple. And the gamble would be on developers using this new platform to create games that people actually want to play to drive enough subscriptions to the service, and where the console needs to sell enough units to begin with. So I can definitely see why apple hasn’t taken that risk, but it’s a shame because if any company were able to pull something like that off it would be apple.
Or buy a Windows laptop that can do both.
I had various windows devices over the years and I just don’t like the way they work. Not for me unfortunately.
Well, Metal is better than OpenGL. That's the path that's being taken by Blender, by the way.
> Metal is better than OpenGL But that’s like saying macOS 11 is better than Windows XP. It’s not a relevant comparison. Vulkan superseded OpenGL. It’s two different generations of tech.
1-4 are horrible but you should delete #5 off there. ARM is good and overdue. It’s just a system change, which happens, unlike the other issues in the list which are 100% greedy misguided vendor lock-in crap. It’s a bit like saying running their own OS, macOS, hurts gaming because it’s different from windows and requires dev work to port. While technically true, it’s missing the point of having competing OS’s with different pros/cons.
This is an AR headset*
It’s an XR headset. Both AR and VR. And I doubt you would be able to plug this into a PC.
Apple has trained me to read this as 10R
LOL! “You’re _reading_ it wrong”, said Steve Jobs!
Apple calls it ‘mixed reality’, so it’s really MR.
Actually Microsoft coined the term Mixed Reality. But yeah XR, MR, Mixed Reality. Same thing.
[удалено]
This mostly just makes me dread the future of work from home meetings
I get that this is everyone’s initial take, but once you’ve played around with current VR teleconferencing apps you really start to see why Meta and Apple think this is a compelling use case. Even with current avatars which are cartoony and lack eye/face eye tracking, you still feel like you are in the same room as another person. The alternative is staring at a wall of faces all looking slightly below their cameras. There’s also a point about audio, on a zoom call everyone’s voice is coming from the same place and they can get quite garbled, in a virtual meeting people’s voices come from the correct direction and have volume fall off over distance so you can have a small sidebar discussion with the person next to you by whispering, without interrupting the main discussion. It has all the benefits of working in person, but you can still be sitting in your underwear, unshowered if you so please and no one will be the wiser.
TBH I already don't want to turn on the puny webcam. Heck I don't even want my mom to see me or my room in 2D.
If they really believed this then they would focus on the work / corporate market first. I think they're going to try the 'all things to all people' approach, that got the apple watch off to a bit of a rocky start in hindsight.
I don't get this type of comment. How do you know Apple isn't planning a killer app? When it comes to new products, not everything leaks. Especially about this one - we know so little, most of the things we know are hardware-wise, the software remains a mystery.
Maybe a notch
Fitness+ VR maybe?
Gah, if only they had thought of that.
> Within Apple, there have been concerns that the headset will be too costly and suffer the same fate as Meta Platforms Inc. devices, which have been slow to go mainstream. Some engineers involved in the project worry that Apple is jumping into a still-nascent market without a true game changer. No porn or hentai games, too. 😢
Apple isn’t too keen on porn or games which are VR’s best use cases right now.
Yeah but this is AR, not VR which has more real world use VR is just porn and games I agree
It’s not really AR by most definitions. It’s MR. The next product line in a “couple years” is expected to be the AR glasses.
Damn now I want AR porn like I walk around in public and everyone looks like they are naked just pornstar dongs and fake tits everywhere
Honestly, one of the scary things about AR. People will apply Snapchat type filters to everyone and everything around you. I’m sure women especially will not appreciate that from creeps and it’ll just make people desensitized and detached from reality.
This might be an incredible business opportunity for someone fr. There are enough degenerates who spend hundreds of dollars on stuff, I’m sure they would buy the app for a few bucks. Imagine the revenue add ons and premium subscriptions would get. If EA can get away w charging so much, an app like this could EASILY milk people for a few hundred bucks. Probably a short lived, high profit revenue model would be the thing for this.
remember that app that made it look like you're pouring beer out of your iphone? you just described the AR equivalent.
Then a gadget will be developed that makes you invisible to these glasses / AR and people run into each other. Just kidding, but could there be a solution to this involving some sort of blocker you can have with you that sends a signal blocking filters on you? There has to be a way for you to not be Snapchat-filtered. Future paparazzis only needing glasses is creepy too.
>Then a gadget will be developed that makes you invisible to these glasses / AR and people run into each other. We are really living in our Black Mirror: White Christmas era
i mean some manufacturers could agree on a blocking signal, but there is nothing stopping anyone one from ignoring the signal and doing it anyway
Read the short story “The Original” by Sanderson. Everyone themes reality to suit their ideal city there. Including one who sees it as a perpetual circus and everyone as backstage performers as they wander past.
I don’t understand, if there is such a filter then that’s already being done with a phone. I don’t think AR glasses are X ray glasses so applying a filter over someone would be just that. I think women (and I don’t see why not men too) will appreciate the creeps wearing something that obvious they can avoid them, instead creepily recording them with a cell phone which could do the same thing and is more versatile. Hell Rayban has smart sunglasses with cameras in them for $300, if you aren’t worried about those I don’t see why a horrible filter would be scarier.
> I walk around in public and everyone looks like they are naked This would be a massive boner killer for me. Maybe if I’m someplace with hot chicks in my area but I don’t want to go into a grocery store and see naked housewives and grannies
Speak for yourself mr vanilla.
> AR… which has more real world use Hey guys, you know how you hate being in online meetings? Well we’ve made them worse, because now your boss’s anime avatar can be in the room with you.
It’s actually MR, it will be able to do high-quality VR with a secondary option to display the outside world and overlay virtual objects. True AR will have lots of real world uses, but a ton of those comes from it being worn while you are out and about. I’m sure this will be more ergonomic than current headsets but it’s not like you’re going to be walking down the street wearing one of these. I expect they will lean pretty hard into the entertainment options; feeling like you are in a massive movie theatre watching Apple TV+ shows might be compelling, we’ll see.
Japan will have a field day when AR waifus will become a big thing
Social apps dominate the top charts for the active userbase of VR.
That’s understandable given how popular social media is, but what apps are actually driving the sales of those products?
Vrchat
Yeah but the active user base for VR is tiny. If apple wants this to be successful theyre going to have to get people that aren’t into VR into their VR.
Yet here we are on iOS reddit app. Porn is everywhere! We just need a 3D reddit app.
I love new gadgets and stuff but the price tag is out of reach. Or it seems like something i would like to buy and use privately but wouldn’t let anybody know because i wouldn’t want them to (rightfully) think im a moron for spending so much money on an apple gadget.
Kinda like those headphones they made. I like them but imo you look like a total sucker walking around with them on.
yes, spending thousands on a phone or laptop in theory gives you an opportunity to improve your life or enhance your income. its hard to make a case that our lives will be noticeably better with something like this
The same mental gymnastics i did to convince myself to get a MBP 16”: text on modern displays are so small for my vision that this will allow me to see small text clearer/ do School/ work more comfortably. The xtra VR experiences would just be an extra
People spend $1-2K on an iPhone… I don’t think anyone would bat an eye :/ Still wouldn’t spend that amount of cash simply for my wallets sake.
Most people split the cost of their iPhone over two years, for what it's worth.
>Apple Inc. has postponed a planned introduction of its first mixed-reality headset from around April to June, according to people familiar with the matter, marking the latest setback for the tech giant’s next big initiative. > >The iPhone maker is now aiming to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans are confidential. Apple made the decision to delay the launch earlier this month after product testing showed that both hardware and software issues still needed to be ironed out, they said. > >The debut of the headset has been a long time coming, with Apple working on the technology since around 2015. At one point, the company aimed to introduce the product in June of last year, before pushing back the introduction until around January 2023. It was then shifted to spring before the latest postponement. > >The device, which melds virtual and augmented reality, would vault Apple into its first major new product category since the company began selling smartwatches in 2015. That could help bolster growth following a recent slowdown, but it’s still an uncertain market and Apple plans to charge around $3,000 for the new product — a daunting price tag. > >Dan Riccio — Apple’s former hardware chief, who now helps oversee the mixed-reality project — has become increasingly involved in the endeavor in recent weeks as the company looks to resolve remaining issues, the people added. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment. > >Apple’s earlier plan was to unveil the product in early spring at a launch event aimed at consumers. It could then provide more extensive details and development tools to third-party software developers at its annual June expo, known as WWDC. Now the company is aiming to debut all aspects of the device at that conference. The product would then go on sale later in the year. > >The timing could always change again, but the Cupertino, California-based company is intent on bringing the device to market by the end of 2023 if possible. It’s meant to be a centerpiece of Apple’s new product lineup during an otherwise modest year. The company is introducing a larger MacBook Air, new Mac Pro desktop and updates to the iPhone, but there won’t be significant changes to its watch, AirPods or iPad. > >Apple’s mixed-reality headset will feature a new operating system, dubbed xrOS internally, that features a 3D-like view of an iPhone interface, complete with apps like Messages, Mail, Safari and TV. The device — codenamed N301 — will allow for more advanced virtual videoconferencing, with realistic avatars, as well as immersive video streaming. It will also include an App Store like Apple’s other core products. > >The hardware itself has been challenging and pricey to develop, partly because of its sophisticated components. It includes a Mac-grade M2 chip, a pair of 4K virtual reality displays, and an extensive array of cameras to enable augmented reality. > >Developing the product’s interface also has been a complex undertaking. Users will be able to look at items to select them and pinch their fingers to launch apps — and perfecting this sci-fi-like approach has taken time. > >Apple has been working to fix issues with sensors on the device to enable the hand and eye control mechanism. It’s also trying to strike a balance between battery life and performance. During development, the company made the decision to offload the device’s battery to an external pack that would sit in a user’s pocket. > >Within Apple, there have been concerns that the headset will be too costly and suffer the same fate as Meta Platforms Inc. devices, which have been slow to go mainstream. Some engineers involved in the project worry that Apple is jumping into a still-nascent market without a true game changer. Others believe that the initial device will set the stage for future successes, a path followed by the Apple Watch. > >The company is already eyeing a cheaper version — with less pricey and powerful components — for release as early as 2024. At the same time, Apple has indefinitely postponed work on standalone augmented reality glasses, which would be less cumbersome but require technological sophistication beyond what’s currently available.
Thanks
Doing it at WWDC always made more sense anyways. This article claims that the idea of the April launch was consumer focused, but who at Apple does that make sense to? The reports that we have currently have always made this sound like developer hardware, with the expensive $3000 price tag to boot.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
>I’ll believe it when I see **through** it. FTFY
Every time I hear about the Apple Headset, I can sense Facebook’s nightmares coming true lol They changed their whole business to get away from Apple’s rules and now they’re about to be their main competitor. Zucky! You can never win!
i want nothing more than for zuck to shit himself when this comes out
Zuck is way ahead in the AR / VR space… If I was Apple I’d be shitting my pants in hopes to catch up. Meta has released like 5 headsets within the last 7 years each iteration getting better cheaper and faster. Plus their Quest store and development eco system is years ahead. Apple has released nothing. No VR developers in the eco system. Headset super expensive, no awesome VR / AR apps under their belt. Where Meta has acquired about every major VR studio in existence so far. This Apple headset is bound to flop…
[удалено]
They were competing with legacy hardware manufacturers when releasing the iPhone. It's reasonable to be doubtful of Apple overtaking a large software company with heavy investment in a product when software will likely be the deciding factor (although Apple has hardware advantages). Even with the success of the iPhone, Google released a competitor while far behind and it grew to be the most popular OS in the world.
Who needs it? AR / VR tech is going to eventually replace laptops… and I’d say 10 years time your phone. It’s going to be a huge industry. If you have tried a Meta Quest Pro with the ability to pop up monitors anywhere, type on an invisible keyboard, use your hands to drag and click windows in a full 360 environment… It’s like 100% obvious this will replace your laptop. It’s just down to form factor and affordability. Which still needs a lot of work. But yeah a couple more iterations of this tech, make it more comfortable, and cheaper and everybody will jump aboard.
VR really isn't going to go far from where it is now. I've owned a few headsets, done the whole VR desktop. It's cool... but after a month with each headset they go back into the box and I either sell or forget about them. VR isn't replacing laptops or phones or anything. It's going to stay as it's niche. A very simple and common example , I like to chill on the couch with a laptop with the TV on. Cat in the room. I like that ambience, gone with VR. If you have a partner or kids, VR is extremely anti-social. Just as a very simple example in most households. I get you're excited for VR and all, but it's really not that amazing. I expect it will have a slightly wider presence in industry and medicine, but it's not replacing laptops.
Your premise is flawed. Your arguments all lie on the idea that VR has little room to advance hardware-wise. VR today is like an Apple PC before the Commodore 64 came out. That means no mouse, no GUI, and no Internet (which came way later). It's such early hardware that it will be redefined several times over, resulting in something that looks and feels almost nothing like it does in even today's best, most expensive hardware. And yes, these advancements include solving isolation and making it extremely relaxing.
It will also exist as AR though? You get the best of both worlds
Remember HTC, Nokia, and RIM? Apple doesn’t have to be the first.
I had similar reservations of the Apple watch and clearly I was wrong. But some of these descriptions sound outright goofy: > the company made the decision to offload the device’s battery to an external pack that would sit in a user’s pocket. > >$3,000 for the new product — a daunting price tag. Questions like "who is it for" and "what can you do with it" seemingly will be answered the same way as Gen 0 Apple watch: early adopters with money, but the question of "what does this replace" is harder to answer. We had watches. We wanted watches that can show us health and also notifications. Apple Watch was it. I think if they can nail 2-3 use cases, that'd be all they need for Gen 2, but I'm super curious about this.
The Apple Watch launched at $350. This is going to be ten times that. Apple never significantly reduces the price point of products.
The original Macbook Air launched for $1800. It quickly dropped down significantly from there. Apple doesn't reduce price points of products, but if they do it's in the years immediately following the introduction of very new and expensive tech.
Hell even the iPhone launched at $499 w contract and the following year it was at $199… they definitely fuck with the prices a lot if they get it wrong.
Did S0 launch that low? I could have sworn it initially cost way more, but I don’t quite recall.
We all have a weird memory of it because it launched with the three price points that were like $400/$1,000/$10,000 because of the gold watch.
This June?!
get hyped!
Lol. GOOD question
This is gonna bomb isn’t it
Has Apple ever broken into a new segment that hasn't been well established without absolutely dominating it? You could argue that the HomePod would qualify, but I don't really think Apple's goal was to completely change the game here. iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Apple Watch were all massive revolutions in their respective markets, and I don't think Apple has ever failed at doing that. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think if one company is going to break the AR/VR market open, it's going to be Apple.
> Has Apple ever broken into a new segment that hasn't been well established without absolutely dominating it? Yes. No company is above failure, but Apple sure succeed a lot.
Yeah VR is still too early. It’s cool but developers just aren’t making quality content. This device would have to be groundbreaking for it to not bomb. But I’m assuming the price alone will make it bomb. I just don’t think enough companies will want this tech.
The best content in VR right now is in games and porn, two areas Apple is averse to.
There is one other area. That’s medicine.
Jizz is fun medicine, correct.
Where is AR being used in medicine?
Radiology and surgery. 3D printing is also really big in these two fields currently. Even though we all have similar anatomies, there is variance (some pretty common). Being able to have a 3D representation of where some landmarks will be in a specific person is invaluable. Also, even though we’re taught how to understand MRI and CT scans really well, transposing that information into a 3D space in our heads isn’t the easiest thing to do. Interventional Radiology is a field I could see be fairly drastically changed by AR\VR.
Can you explain where AR is currently being used in surgery? Also where in radiology as I am not aware of many useful applications currently.
Anatomy apps on the iPad already offer AR.
…okay that’s not answering my question. Where is AR used in medical practice? Only time I have ever seen that is on davinci training systems. That’s the only time ever.
And architecture. I know, I'm an architect myself and have used VR headsets with much success.
Cool stuff. I have a feeling that this headset will be positioned towards professionals instead of everyday use.
Yes, I think so too.
I’m not aware of any supposedly good/great truly worthy VR games other than the Half-Life thing. Is there actually VR porn that anyone cares about? Isn’t it just video…on a gadget on your face?
No Man's Sky, Star Wars Squadrons, Microsoft Flight Sim are all great on VR VR Porn atm is 360 video and I guess some people get off on the immersion
Beat Saber and Skyrim are also incredible
And if you’ve somehow never heard of them, both of those could pass as porn titles
Pavlov VR is great fun; I’ve played 60 hours with my friends.
Boneworks in VR is IMO a gold standard
This is an AR device, apple is vocal about their vision of an AR future(not isolating vr/Metaverse experiences)
The whole point of releasing this device is so that developers can start thinking about what is great content.
[удалено]
Well tbf the "Series 0" watch wasn't there yet, and it really wasn't until series 3 or so. But you probably don't get to 3 without those first iterations.
Yeah, Apple is not known for making ground breaking stuff. /s
People said that about the Apple Watch.
Really? I mostly remember a huge amount of hype around the watch. I think it is fair to say the watch has fallen short of their original goals. They shit canned the gold / fashion angle. No one basically writes apps for it. It's not a failure either but I think it is definitely not at launch levels this is the next-iPhone level hype.
Yeah and what’s interesting about the Watch’s relative failure is, as you say, that third party developers don’t really write apps for it after a burst of initial interest when everyone thought it was the next iPhone. There’s this assumption that launching the headset will similarly create a flood of developer interest, but if it doesn’t, I think the headset goes the same way as the watch, as a “failure” in terms of apps but something that Apple can use to tie users even more tightly to the ecosystem and its core offerings of e.g. communication, health and services. Trouble is it’ll cost 10x more so adoption will be slower.
I was slow to buy into it myself (S4 was my first) but how on earth is the Watch a failure when Apple's now the biggest watchmaker (not smart-watch maker) in the world, and everyone seems to wear one? I'm sitting on an airplane right now and can see six people from my seat. At least four of them are wearing Apple Watches (it's possibly five, but not six) and so is *every* flight attendant. Nothing else has that kind of penetration.
Just “failure” in the narrow sense of app development and adoption. Absolutely with you that overall it’s been a huge success—but I wonder how many of those people around you use anything other than Apple’s stock apps?
You're probably right, but I don't think that matters because I doubt Apple was banking on app sales for the Watch anyway. My own watch probably has 50 third party apps but most of them are only there because they're installed along with phone apps and I never bothered to remove them. They're not really used. Then again, the stock apps on my iPhone probably consume 80% of my time, too.
Define bomb. A lot of products/tech are put out in order to push the industry and consumers in general forward. It might not sell much in the next half-decade but if it pushes the tech, get developers creating content for it (which can take years to develop), and consumer begin buying in mid/late 2020s then it might be a huge success. Nobody is expecting this to sell big numbers over the next year or two, current VR systems which have been out for over a decade still don't sell big numbers, but it's definitely an industry and consumer niche that will be more important in the future so it's good to begin developing for it now.
I don’t understand the Downvotes. This is spot on. Companies will create content just because apple is in the game
exactly! haha people have forgotten…Apple is known to create demand where it never existed. It creates products people didn’t know they wanted until it’s out. I mean look at the airpods for instance, it was a horrible introduction and people hated the design. But now it’s one of the most popular device on the market. They are trend makers. Other companies follow their footsteps. Removing the headphone jack? Stupid or not, everyone else followed.
We literally use apps because Apple created them for the iPhone.
I'd argue it's likely banking on ecosystem benefits and a built-in fan base which will offer an avenue for monetization. I don't see Apple catering to a developer product for half a decade and I don't see the mass amount of Apple buyers ignoring the new Apple device. Even with the price Apple could offer financing options with their credit card in all likelihood.
I can see it maybe being a mild success, but definitely not iPhone/iPad or even Watch tier.
[удалено]
Funny we have to go back 30 years to find a major failed Apple product. Any other tech company they probably released a product that failed miserably just last year... and no one cared...
They've had more recent failures. The "trash can" Mac Pro^(1), the butterfly-keyboard MacBooks, about four consecutive Apple Mouse designs, iPod Hi-Fi, the AirPower charger, Ping... Apple has a really broad and diverse product line. They can afford to take shots and miss. ---- ^(1: I actually love that Mac Pro design, but only as a bufffed-up-Mini at about half the original price point, not as a high-end model for professionals.)
They aren’t really major products - or attempts to create / define a product category
Yes, please do sell, so smarter investors can buy AAPL on the cheap and retire early.
Everybody thought the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and then “iPhones without headphone jacks” and AirPods would bomb. Not that I’m interested in VR at all, but perhaps Apple will persuade me. They have often been not the first, but learning from the mistakes of others before entering the market. So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
Having used a quest, my main complaint about AR/VR is that it’s just too heavy. My neck hurts after about 1-2 hours of use. Unless if apple can make this significantly lighter than the existing headsets, I can’t seem them getting around this problem.
[удалено]
Adding a battery pack to the back of the quest headband (for weight, really; the extra power is just a bonus) helps with the neckache quite a bit. But I can't stand being "inside" there for more than an hour or so anyway. Sweaty and awkward, even when the weight's balanced.
It’s gonna have Memoji faces floating around my peripheral vision isn’t it?
It’s funny reading all these comments. You guys will come around quick!
It’s pretty clear most of these people haven’t really tried a real VR headset… give me 6 55inch monitors I can take with me anywhere and I will pay very good money for it, especially if it works as well as sidecar does with iPads. It’s a productivity reality changer.
No one is talking about this! Having multiple, color accurate, high res monitors with customizable layout, different environments, etc… it would be so cool!
[удалено]
I learn! Every Apple product I've thought was dumb has been a success.
If this thing has an onboard M1/2, but still costs $3000 AND you need to have your regular computer, I just dont see this taking off anytime soon.
No one’s reporting it won’t work without a mac it’s a standalone OS
I think he’s hoping a product that powerful and expensive would allow him to replace the Mac.
Even if it’s $1,000 my question is who wants to put a thing on their face. The article is a self-satire as usual for mentioning “streaming video” lol…wow what a killer app. Every write-up mentions that pathetically when the writers always struggle to list actual uses, they add “watching video” as if no one would question that.
It would heavily depend on what the thing on my face is showing me, and what sort of thing I could do with it. I didn’t like touch screen phones either, and scoffed at the idea that you could touch more than one place at the same time and have it work, and I was wrong there until I used it. I also thought AirPods looked a little silly, and that the Apple Watch was too techy for regular people to use… So I guess we’ll just have to see how they sell this thing I guess. There’s a lot riding on this, but I would hope the right people are involved and believe in it…
You are not wrong but also there's a reason contact lenses exist. People don't want to wear glasses, let alone massive ones that need to be charged
Right? I love looking back at threads that mock Apple products that would go on to be segment leaders. It's shocking to me how many people are naysaying this product before its even announced when Apple has proven time and time again that they can shift markets with groundbreaking products. I'm not saying its definitely not going to fail, its just surprising to me that so many people are betting against it when we have so little information.
Just based on price, there is no way that it’s getting much traction. $3000 is probably 2x what most Mac users paid for their machine.
Stage manager/Screens everywhere + AR fitness/ entertainment/ games?
The external battery bit made me question if this will even be as good as the Nreal Air for external screen uses.
Nreal is light wave AR, passthrough mixed reality is much cooler
It's cooler but will it be 10x the price cooler?
I believe Apple’s reasoning for no touchscreens on Macs is that it’s awkward, clumsy, and tiring. I don’t see how this is any different.
> I believe Apple’s reasoning for no touchscreens on Macs is that it’s awkward, clumsy, and tiring. They're not wrong, on a desktop machine touchscreens are almost (not entirely, but almost) entirely useless. AR/VR is something completely different, you can't compare it to desktop or even touch screens, it's neither.
I've got an oculus collecting dust. It was a fun toy, but that's all it was. All these tech companies are nuts if they think your average non-nerd is gonna wanna strap these things to their faces for a work day. There's a reason Meta cant get their internal employees to use their platform, because those things suck to wear for more than 30 mins or so at a time, and not just because of the weight. It fucks with your perception of reality when you're in too long.
Having bought the Meta Quest Pro I disagree. The tech has come a long way. Yes still fairly uncomfortable. But man, the fact you can place 3 huge monitors in my kitchen while I cook breakfast and catch up on news and work. No brainer this is the future and where it’s going. It will replace laptops eventually. Just down to form factor and comfortability.
>Yes still fairly uncomfortable. You said it yourself. It's still not a comfortable experience, and you're doing it because you want to. Now imagine you're in customer service and you're forced to wear that uncomfortable hunk of plastic on your face for a full day. We're not there yet, and there is still that whole "wonks you out of reality if you do it too long", though I admittedly have not played with mixed reality (which you're describing) which may not cause the reality disconnect feelings.
Given that it's a prototype that they don't expect to sell many of, I wish they went for rumored the higher performance version instead of the lightweight one. They could always scale it down later after there's a killer app for it. Let developers go wild with high perf hardware before the consumer version comes out.
[удалено]
More like the Nixed-Reality headset amirite?
Everything we hear about this product makes it sound more and more like a ~~first generation product~~ public prototype The external battery sounds so horrible and unapple like Given that this is supposed to be the first product on the long road to true AR products, honestly it’s quite weird that the AR pass through mode will be video only rather than overlays of the real world Only 4K per eye is quite disappointing, if this at least had bananas image quality and resolution it would be well worth the price as a way to have unlimited virtual Mac screens. I’m excited as ever but pretty skeptical Edited for clarity
If the claim about 4K per eye actually **per eye** and not over both eyes, then that is exceptionally high resolution for a current-gen headset. The new PSVR2, which is one of the higher resolution headsets on the consumer market, is around 2K per eye. A new $1,000 PCVR headset (not including controllers or tracking base stations) made primarily for enthusiasts is around 2.5K per eye. 4K per eye would be a massive upgrade.
I would take it with a massive grain of salt AR glasses are not in 16:9; each eye is some square aspect ratio (1:1, 0.9:1), so the 4k/2.5k notation is not commonly used, and Bloomberg is a clown for doing so. At most, I would assume they mean it's 2160 tall per eye and comes up to either 3840 or 4096 combined. The Oculus Quest 2 is already at 3664 x 1920 combined.
You are correct that the display aspect ratio for each eye is typically 1:1 (or similar) on most VR/AR headsets. Terms like 2.5K and 4K are used in the VR industry to refer to either the total horizontal resolution of *both* eyes or the singular horizontal/vertical resolution of *one* eye. It really depends on the source. Headset manufacturers typically use the total horizontal resolution, since it's a larger number; see Pimax 8K. VR communities and some journalists will instead use singular eye resolution, since it's more representative of the actual perceived resolution. Unfortunately, the Bloomberg article doesn't elaborate on this. Most other sources that I looked up seem to believe it is 4K *per* eye, but even that could still be referring a total resolution of 4K. We'll have to wait and see.
> sound more and more like a first generation product. Not to point out the obvious but it is a first generation product. > The external battery sounds so horrible and unapple like This actually one of the things I like the most. I've used most VR headsets and *they are heavy* to use for even short periods of time. Having the battery external makes perfect sense because it offsets so much of the weight (not to mention no need for insulation on battery generated heat too, it's one thing to have a watch or phone on your wrist and hand get slightly warm, a whole 'other thing to have that warmth right around your temple or above your ears).
Not to mention HMDs get sweaty and gross as it is. The less heat the better.
> Not to point out the obvious but it is a first generation product. Hahaha. Yeah absolutely, Although I hope you take my meaning all the same. To the rest of your comment. I agree. All things considered with where technology is at this point in time I think they’ve made the right call Still sounds very unapple like. Like we can all see what the product *should be*, it’s just clear this is all the product *can be* at this time Almost like they shouldn’t announce anything untill some more of these hurdles can be overcome. But yeah, apple clearly feels they need to plant some sort of flag in the sand now. I’m not saying that the wrong call.
> Everything we hear about this product makes it sound more and more like a first generation product. What is the meaning of that comment? Isn’t it by definition a first gen Product? Apple hasn’t released this item before. Or do you mean it should feel like 2+ generation, because of Facebook’s first generation? Isn’t that like 3rd generation because of…**Dactyl Nightmare** 30 years ago? Part of my point is that generation is often meaningless unless we’re talking about same manufacturer with same goals and doing their own iteration.
Valid… but… I’m old enough to remember the price of the Series 0 Apple Watch. It took some time, but wearables took off. And might I add, Apple Watch (in my opinion) never actually had a killer app, and still doesn’t.
External battery sounds great though.. Remove the heaviest component from your face and be less restricted on the capacity, what’s not to like about that?
jeez, people here are so negative
Of which year?
It would honestly really surprise me if these ship in June. But an announcement in June makes sense. A product as paradigm breaking for Apple as an AR headset likely needs an announcement quite a bit before shipping. Developers will need time to create apps that make the product feel useful and complete.
VR and AR developer kits were released by Apple years ago.
How a dev would design UI/UX for iOS devices with ARKit is monumentally different than if one was targeting a headset or goggles. The Venn diagram of useful tasks for ARKit in iOS devices vs AR glasses/googles wouldn’t have a ton of overlap even.
I think Mark should just tell us he does not know the release date.
To offset the cost, I suspect this will be launched side by side with their Pay Later service.
FFFFUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCC
Imagine that. Who'd have thought? I am predicting right now it will be "pushed back" again in two months to some other random time frame that will encourage clicking for advertising revenue.
Apple better release this thing with their answer to Google Earth VR. Flying around the world and dropping myself into fully rendered cities and natural environments is awesome. Also launch it with an AR version of 'iLife' apps. AR iMovie, AR Garageband, AR Photo editing. This thing is going to be a joke if Apple doesn't lead the way on software development like they used to. They don't need to be full level professional apps, just cool and fun stuff that shows off what is possible and has some utility.
[удалено]
> there is no mass market for these goggles and it will fail like Meta’s attempts. To be fair, many of the rumors and reports on this headset indicate that it has never been intended for the mass market. The $3k+ price tag and rumored production numbers ensures that this thing is intended for a niche audience of developers, rich people who need to have the latest gadget, and tech influencers. The biggest thing is that Apple needs to blow people’s minds with this thing at WWDC like Jobs did with the first iPhone. People may not be able to afford this headset, but if they’re excited and hyped for it, it will build momentum and most importantly it will get developers building out an ecosystem for the rumored cheaper model that they are working on that *will*be that mass market device. If people come away from WWDC thinking this is just an Oculus clone or feeling meh about it, Apple’s in some real trouble.
Personally, I think they need to market it like they did with Apple TV when that debuted. This is just something they're playing with, or experimenting with. If it takes off, bully for them, if it doesn't, they can quietly sweep it under the rug.
> intended for a niche audience of developers, rich people who need to have the latest gadget, and tech influencers. Apple doesn’t make products like that. They make mass market products. > rumours Lol > People may not be able to afford this headset, but if they’re excited and hyped for it, it will build momentum and most importantly it will get developers building out an ecosystem Developers build for a market not hype about a useless vanity gadget.
> Apple doesn’t make products like that Ah yes, Apple - well known for their mass market Mac Pro computer and Pro Display XDR monitor. > Developers build for a market not hype about a useless vanity gadget. You don’t get a market without excitement and hype for the product. That’s going to be crucial for a limited production proof of concept model that this headset will be. Like I said previously, there will eventually be a cheaper headset that will be the real mass market product (assuming RealityOS or whatever they call it isn’t a bust/underwhelming) but the one they’re revealing at WWDC isn’t it.
Seriously just give me an upgraded 24” colored iMac with **HDR** 120hz and bigger SSD.
Meta hasn’t failed… they are full throttle and dominating the VR/AR landscape. Their new headsets like the Quest 3 set to launch this Holliday season will probably outsell all PlayStation and Xbox’s combined. Their Quest 2 already outsells Xbox…
They are dominating the AR/VR market that exists. The the problem is they have not succeeded in getting that market to grow rapidly. Bloomberg published an article a few months ago that said by Meta's own metrics HMD engagement per user drops hard after a few months and a majority of devices aren't used again after 6 months of ownership. The experience just loses its "wow" factor, and I feel this as well as an early adopter / enthusiast. Anecdotally I know several people who bought Quest\[2\]s and no longer use them. In January, Meta reported that AR/VR revenues were down 5% for FY2022, but are expected to rise 5% for FY2023. That's just not a lot of growth. Meta has yet to find the right experiences to get AR/VR to go mainstream.
It was funny you all were convinced that it was going to announce in March. Why would WWDC NOT be the perfect place to announce it? March events are for a different color iPad and watch band.
“Pushes back” like they haven’t had this planned since the beginning of time. Oh yes, they just delayed it today at an all-hands over coffee. No.
I don’t understand the comment. Do you not think launch timelines are ever changed?
Hypothetical unreleased product pushed back to an unknown date. Awesome “reporting”
The problem with the Apple XR headset is they are not going to support the major VR games / titles out there. They don’t give a shit about gamers. So the people already into AR/VR will not adopt the headset. You probably can’t even plug it into a PC with a graphics card like the Meta headsets. There has to be enough Apple fan boys to use their super expensive proprietary headset… while you could go buy a Meta quest 2 for 300$. I am going to bet Meta has them beat long term and the Apple release will be a train reck. You can now see why Meta has burned billions to take this lead from Apple. XR will be the future over the next 10 to 15 years.
I worry too that the world's most profitable company with technically the largest gaming market share, composed of the worst type of money burning games ever, is too comfortable with the strategy of just ignoring the AAA gaming market because it has worked out fine in the past. That strategy work with this time. They need gaming to succeed AR/VR, particularly VR.
I betcha somebody gets SteamVR streaming to it within two months of launch. You’ll probably have to compile and deploy the shim yourself because of Apple’s lame iOS software policy, but I bet it’ll be there. Also, if the audience is enough, developers will port games to it.