Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Technology

Apple Buys AR Headset Startup Mira (theverge.com) 75

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Apple has acquired Mira, a Los Angeles-based AR startup that makes headsets for other companies and the US military, according to a post from the CEO's private Instagram account yesterday seen by The Verge and a person familiar with the matter. Apple confirmed the acquisition. From a report: The news comes just one day after Apple unveiled the Vision Pro, a $3,499 mixed reality headset that the company has billed as a new spatial computing platform. It's unclear how much Apple paid for Mira, which raised about $17 million in funding to date. Jony Ive, Apple's former design chief, was an advisor to the startup at one point, according to two former employees who requested anonymity to speak without the company's permission.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Buys AR Headset Startup Mira More

Apple Buys AR Headset Startup Mira

Comments Filter:
  • Huge companies should not be allowed M&A. They just buy up and shot down potential competitors.

    • I couldn't find any patents that Mira has filed. Surely they have some and theoretically that's what Apple is after. It's better to own the patents than have to license them and share them with your competitors. Not that Apple has any competitors in the narrow niche it has carved out as a customer/fan base.

      • in the narrow niche it has carved out as a customer/fan base.

        Apple has a market cap of 2.8 trillion. Narrow and niche are not good adjectives for Apple.

        • in the narrow niche it has carved out as a customer/fan base. @MikeDataLink I think the poster meant that as tongue-in-cheek

        • Half the US smartphone market but less 20% of the global market. But man they make way better margins on their smaller customer base than the Android makers.

          For laptops and desktop computers, Apple is very much niche when you look at the number of units. They make a great computer, but they have their customer base and I don't see that changing in size very quickly. I think Apple has probably hit the limit of short term growth in the US, especially in computing. Clearly their only strategy for ceasing being

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nucrash ( 549705 )

        Military contracts are lucrative. This is one time where Apple is buying up a company for who they know, not what they produce.

        • I doubt it enters into the equation. I work on larger contracts with government and telecoms and I'm not even remotely famous.

      • Nah, Apple buys companies for the devs all the time, even without patents.

    • we printed money because the economy was growing. That's good and normal. If you don't print when the economy grows the economy stops growing.

      Trouble is we gave it all to the top, and they've used it to buy up any nascent company that could compete with them. Now we've got virtually no competition anywhere.

      It's annoying but mostly harmless for tech gadgets. But it's not like it's just tech gadgets. There's only a few airlines. There's fewer and fewer grocery stores every year. Heck medical facilitie

      • You wanna get angry about consolidation? Look up Denny Sanford's many tendrils of consolidation. Dude's name is on everything from Hospitals to Arenas to Sports complexes around here. Pretty soon we'll start seeing cities renamed "Sanford." My dad's met the man a few times and he says he could see a stack of hundred dollar bills laying on the ground and in the time it took him to reach down and grab it he would have made more money than that stack could possibly be worth. It seems a bit imbalanced that a gu

    • They just buy up and shot down potential competitors.

      Just as often, the buyer isn't a real competitor until they buy out someone else who does it better.

    • LOL really? Mira was no competition. Many people create startups because they want to be bought. They have some niche invention but know they can't compete in the overall space.If the chance of being bought didn't exist, investors wouldn't take the risk/gamble of investing in startups. End result would be a lot of great ideas never see the light of day.

    • Many smaller specialist companies could never exist if not for acquisition as an exit strategy. Launching an entire complex product would require a massive risky investment, whereas launching a company to focus on a small niche and (if successful) be sold to a company that makes those products is more practical.

      Sure, it would be even better if we had dozens of competing companies churning out jet airliners, and nuclear submarines, and 3nm chip foundaries. But the global economy isn't large enough to supp

  • Apple's headset is inverse AR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @04:02PM (#63581421)

    Apple figured out what everyone else missed. VR alone is isolating and feels like you're in a someone else's dream. AR alone is kinda dumb can be done with a phone. To sample reality constantly and insert it into a VR rendering is new. Think of it as inverse augmented reality.

    The most improtant thing about this mode it allows you to carry your body into VR. This is key because this is how you experience the world -- through your flesh that you can see. If there is a killer app for AR/VR, I believe it will be found in this mode.

    • Re:Apple's headset is inverse AR (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @04:26PM (#63581489) Homepage Journal

      The problem is that nobody has found a killer app that will make people want to drop $3,500 on this thing.

      • crying all the way to the bank (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @04:52PM (#63581553) Homepage Journal
        I heard Mira had a patent on giving users anime catgirl eyes on the front-facing LCD.

      • I was guessing in another thread (inspired by other posts) that this headset is not a consumer device and that maybe Apple hopes B2B startups will be created around this headset for customers who can easily pay $3.5K + whatever you charge per seat if the app makes or saves them a lot more. If successful niche apps emerge and the product lives, the longer the people dig the better the chance that they will unearth the consumer market killer app(s).

        This despite my own conviction that you already intuit what t

        • this headset is not a consumer device and that maybe Apple hopes B2B startups

          Except that literally goes against everything Apple has ever done. They target the consumer market and ignore business. All of their devices are consumer devices. All of their software practically ignores business users.

          • The difference is unlike every with other new Apple product, this one, an AR thing, is expected from Apple, if for no other reason than that they commited to it during the hype.

            And unlike every other of their products this one doesn't have a clear purpose in anyone's mind. Even the watch had it, lame though it was. So maybe, if they are going to use a wildcard, this is the time.

          • Except that literally goes against everything Apple has ever done. They target the consumer market and ignore business.

            Their Mac Pro line is a recent counterexample to your point. A desktop PC starting at $7k (also available in rack-mount configuration) doesn't exactly scream "consumer market".

        • that this headset is not a consumer device

          You may want to tell Apple. They were very busy pitching this device in their video as a way for you to reminisce about your family videos in VR. Presumably the person is reminiscing since his wife took the kids and left after finding out he spent $3500 on a VR headset.

      • The problem is that nobody has found a killer app that will make people want to drop $3,500 on this thing.

        I wonder what you are going to say when it sells out on the first day...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It might, although check out the crowd's reaction when the price is announced: https://twitter.com/TikTokInve... [twitter.com]

          Even Apple fans dedicated enough to go to this event thought it was overpriced.

          The other issue is that it has front facing cameras and can record video, just like Google Glass. In other words, wearing one makes you a glasshole.

          • check out the crowd's reaction when the price is announced: https://twitter.com/TikTokInve [twitter.com]...

            Yes that's because it was $500 more than rumored.

            Even Apple fans dedicated enough to go to this event thought it was overpriced.

            You totally misunderstood. Once people actually tried it, not that many thought it was overpriced.

            Once you understand what it can be used for, and how well it works, pricing seems reasonable.

            The other issue is that it has front facing cameras and can record video, just like Google Glass.

            A)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Google Glass had a big flashing LED too.

              I still can't see any really compelling uses for this. Maybe if you travel a lot and want to use big monitors on the go.

              • I still can't see any really compelling uses for this.

                Any use you might have for a laptop, plus all possible AR uses on top of it. It also replaces a lot of home theaters.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  It would suck as a theatre for me because I'd need to buy two of them so my wife can watch with me. And a couple of spares for visiting friends.

                  Then I'd have to change my TV and have that thing strapped to my face when I want to watch it.

                  Also I don't think there is a port of Kodi or Smart Tube for iOS.

                  Maybe this is the future where people live in 5m square apartments that look much bigger in AR.

                  • It would suck as a theatre for me because I'd need to buy two of them so my wife can watch with me. And a couple of spares for visiting friends.

                    I have a theater right now, friends and spouses can watch that, but for stuff where I really want quality I'd use the headset. It means you can greatly reduce what you have for home theater to good enough for shared watching (basically one large TV with soundbar), vs. a headset for anyone who really cares about quality. My wife is not among people who care about

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Hmm, it still sounds dystopian to me. I also realized that I can't have a couple for friends because it needs to be set up for each individual. Apparently you have to go to an Apple store where they do a high res scan of your face.

                      I wonder how much the corrective lenses will cost, and if they will be easily swappable. Is this something you could share with your SO or is it pretty much for you only?

    • Until I see a killer app that improves on it, people are already augmenting reality by just holding their cell phone in front of their face. It has already been proven to be isolating enough - I can't imagine a full head wrap improving on the isolation of holding a tiny phone screen.

      • Yeah, well, I agree, but the phone is AR, this headset is "inverse" AR, a more different beast than the name indicates, much closer to VR than to AR. VR alone is unlikely to have a killer app but IAR might be closer to having one and Apple is hoping someone will find it, is my guess.

    • I think you're referring to optical see-through vs video see-through:

      https://medium.com/@thirdeyege... [medium.com]

      The Vision Pro is Video See Through. But the "reverse" part (I can't say for sure if it's novel) is that the Vision Pro also renders your eyes on the front of the goggles, so people talking to you can see you as you see them - so it seems like you're wearing tinted ski goggles instead of blinders... hopefully...

      • Vision Pro I believe is not a "see through" at all. Stereo optical and (maybe) LIDAR data is the input to the system, the scene is analyzed and broken down and converted into 3D objects, then those objects are rendered inside an arbtirary 3D generated world. Trivially the generated 3D world is blank and you render all the input objects on it as they are, and you go from there -- separate these input objects with a 3D panel of apps icons, replace some input objects further away with generated wall/skybox etc

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Did you notice how all the shots of the Vision Pro where the user's eyes are visible were carefully aligned with the front of it?

        It's going to look very weird having 2D eyes pasted a few centimetres in front of your face, unless the viewer happens to be looking directly at you.

        For Facetime it's going to have to recreate the parts of your face covered by the device itself.

        It's also got front facing cameras so users qualify as glassholes.

        • Yes, although for the glassholes part, I don't think Apple is marketing this as something you would wear "on the go" (on a roller coaster or to a cocktail party) like google did. Mostly the use cases in the demo video were somebody alone in a room or on an airplane. Although there was the dad at his daughter's birthday party, which was not well-received.

          Since they aren't see-through they clearly aren't suitable for wearing while driving, although I'm sure somebody will do it in order to write a scathing

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      To sample reality constantly and insert it into a VR rendering is new.

      Well, it's not new. The challenge has been balancing "hey how much are we willing to spend on cameras/sensors to try to feed adequate quality to brag about". Camera based AR with virtual elements interacting with the camera displayed reality has been demonstrated a lot. It's just that even when going for an over a thousand dollar cost, it's not very good looking. Apple's answer is that by 2024, $3.5k is enough to make it cool.

      The most improtant thing about this mode it allows you to carry your body into VR

      Again, other passthrough let you see your own hands, your own phones, etc. Th

      • "The 'bringing your body into *V*R is most closely represented by their 'virtual facetime' avatar."

        I didn't mean your body in the sense of Zuck's Horizon Worlds, lack of legs notwithstanding; I meant from the first person. You look at you from within the rendered scene and it's your hands, your belly, your legs, even if what is around them is computer-generated.

        Their facetime generated avatar is atrocious in my opinion.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Junta ( 36770 )

          Well, that was the other part of my comment, any VR product offering color passthrough sees your own body in 'vr'. The ones that do color generally also offer tracking of at least some of your body to interact with virtual objects too. In my experience, it kind of sucks because it just emphasizes the disconnect between seeing an interaction with your body and not feeling anything at all.

          • "it just emphasizes the disconnect between seeing an interaction with your body and not feeling anything at all."

            That is exactly where current VR UI gets it wrong in my opinion: it makes no sense to hold a sword in VR for example if you don't feel its weight or its impact.

            The solution is to make in-VR controls appear holographic, ie. pure light. If those existed in the real world, you would see and interact with them but not feel any solidity. If a button or a dial is rendered inside the VR as a holographic

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Junta ( 36770 )

              I suspect not even that will really fully fix things. Something as simple as feeling the controller in your hand adds a lot, with vibration helping, and interesting resistance on controller triggers helps. Ultimately some things are just out of reach (you 'clang' a sword against a shield and... uhh it just keeps going..)

              I think for non-immersive UI this isn't a huge deal (e.g. you are controlling an utterly virtual app without trying to 'pretend' to be doing something). But for gaming it's a challenge.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dohzer ( 867770 )

      Apple figured out what everyone else missed. VR alone is isolating and feels like you're in a someone else's dream.

      Note. I don't remember ever feeling that. But fell free to fit my AR experiences to Apple's sales narrative.

    • Apple figured out what everyone else missed.

      Apple hasn't figured out anything. VR and AR are two different things with two different target audiences.

      To sample reality constantly and insert it into a VR rendering is new.

      Errr no it's not. Sampling reality and bringing it into VR is something we've done before Apple even announced it was entering the field. It has been the subject of over a decade of R&D by VR companies. The first ever consumer headset with inside out tracking not only sampled reality, it actively required the use of AR during setup to define the boundary of the play area. Even the several year old Q

      • I was referring to their inserting "reality" into VR not as a matrix of pixels but as proper 3D objects with which you can do whatever you want. I think this computational step is new, at least in VR ie outside of Kinect, and the term "spatial computing" is appropriate.

        Not a fanboy here btw, of all the Apple products I've only ever owned an iPhone. But I give them credit for understanding the user, good engineering comes from there.

  • I can't wait to see how the Cupertino campus reacts to the company becoming a military supplier.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close