Some Apple Employees Fear Its $3,000 Mixed-Reality Headset Could Flop (appleinsider.com) 123
An anonymous reader shares this report from AppleInsider:
Apple has allegedly demonstrated its mixed reality headset to its top executives recently, in an attempt to generate excitement for the upcoming platform launch. While executives are keen on the product, others within Apple are not sure it's a home run hit. Eight anonymous current and former employees told the New York Times that they are skeptical about the headset, despite Apple's apparent glossy demonstration of the technology.
Manufacturing has already begun for a June release of the $3,000 headset, insiders say in the Times' article: Some employees have defected from the project because of their doubts about its potential, three people with knowledge of the moves said. Others have been fired over the lack of progress with some aspects of the headset, including its use of Apple's Siri voice assistant, one person said.Even leaders at Apple have questioned the product's prospects. It has been developed at a time when morale has been strained by a wave of departures from the company's design team, including Mr. Ive, who left Apple in 2019 and stopped advising the company last year....
Because the headset won't fit over glasses, the company has plans to sell prescription lenses for the displays to people who don't wear contacts, a person familiar with the plan said. During the device's development, Apple has focused on making it excel for videoconferencing and spending time with others as avatars in a virtual world. The company has called the device's signature application "copresence," a word designed to capture the experience of sharing a real or virtual space with someone in another place. It is akin to what Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, calls the "metaverse...."
But the road to deliver augmented reality has been littered with failures, false starts and disappointments, from Google Glass to Magic Leap and from Microsoft's HoloLens to Meta's Quest Pro. Apple is considered a potential savior because of its success combining new hardware and software to create revolutionary devices.
Still, the challenges are daunting.
Manufacturing has already begun for a June release of the $3,000 headset, insiders say in the Times' article: Some employees have defected from the project because of their doubts about its potential, three people with knowledge of the moves said. Others have been fired over the lack of progress with some aspects of the headset, including its use of Apple's Siri voice assistant, one person said.Even leaders at Apple have questioned the product's prospects. It has been developed at a time when morale has been strained by a wave of departures from the company's design team, including Mr. Ive, who left Apple in 2019 and stopped advising the company last year....
Because the headset won't fit over glasses, the company has plans to sell prescription lenses for the displays to people who don't wear contacts, a person familiar with the plan said. During the device's development, Apple has focused on making it excel for videoconferencing and spending time with others as avatars in a virtual world. The company has called the device's signature application "copresence," a word designed to capture the experience of sharing a real or virtual space with someone in another place. It is akin to what Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, calls the "metaverse...."
But the road to deliver augmented reality has been littered with failures, false starts and disappointments, from Google Glass to Magic Leap and from Microsoft's HoloLens to Meta's Quest Pro. Apple is considered a potential savior because of its success combining new hardware and software to create revolutionary devices.
Still, the challenges are daunting.
Just release and let developers loose (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly what Apple should do is release to developers only in June, with a targeted Q1 2024 general release date.
Because I don't think whatever Apple is planning, can hold a candle to what developers have planned - developers who have been working with Apple's ARKit and related libraries for years now.
I'm sure whatever Apple has planned will be nice (though I think co-presence will be about as widely adopted as meeting in the Metaverse, i.e. not at all). But Apple can lean heavily on developers really making the device compelling, if the hardware is good enough.
Re:Just release and let developers loose (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure whatever Apple has planned will be nice [...]
Nobody needs something nice, what we need for it is to solve a problem.
Re: Just release and let developers loose (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just release and let developers loose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just release and let developers loose (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody needs something nice, what we need for it is to solve a problem.
People keep saying this trying to sound what, pragmatic? Insightful?
Here's the problem: your monitor is 2d, the world most humans directly perceive is 3D. Anything you look at on a monitor has been projected and looks weird. There's your problem, a VR headset solves that. It is a new display technology capable of providing 3-dimentional, animated images accurately. If you have used such a headset you instantly realize it's a big step forward in display technology. It can be more, everyone is offering more. But this is enough.
I recall, working on HDTV in the early days, everyone saying it's going to bomb because nobody needs more than standard def, it's good enough. Nobody can perceive pixels that small as it is (yes, this was said). We built it, people bought it. Standard Def TVs are now hard to find, HDTVs are *much* better to look at. Smart Phones, I remember wanting one of those since the mid-90s. People kept saying nobody would want to have a computer in their pocket, computers are hard to use and nerdy. They built them, we even had a windows phone, and it was indeed hard to use and nerdy and crashed a lot. Apple figured that out though. Now everyone has a smart phone of one sort or the other.
Fundamentally though, we need to stop talking about VR/AR/xR and just focus on the headset and what it can do. It's a major improvement in display technology. I'm sitting at a desk right now with 5 monitors staring at me, this setup takes a quarter of my room. I can replace it all with a headset and come out ahead on display surface area, that's if I do nothing but project 5 VNC windows inside my headset. That's already worth $3k-$4k. Give me a nice UI that, say, tracks my eyes so KVM focus goes to the right place, maybe a nice background on the beach somewhere with my windows floating in front. I'm out of my swivel chair and in a recliner computing in comfort. I'm sold. This is just a super easy thing to do, one barely needs to write any software that doesn't already exist.
Like flying RC planes or drones? Would you see it from the cockpit? I think that's going to happen. Want to redecorate your house and see what it will look like, accurately, before opening the wallet? They're already doing that with ARkit etc, but it's still a little clunky because your viewport is 2D and limited. These are just a few easy problems that it solves.
What we're fucking up on, and John Carmack had some similar words, is trying to conceive of this as a monolithic environment that encompasses all things and solves all problems (the developer could think of/cared about). If Apple flops on this, it will be because, like Meta, like Google glass, it's providing a solution to a problem Apple thinks exists rather than providing a platform on which end users can solve their own problems. Surely Apple should provide some applications to showcase the technology and provide examples to developers, but it should mostly be about the platform and enablement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem: your monitor is 2d, the world most humans directly perceive is 3D. Anything you look at on a monitor has been projected and looks weird. There's your problem, a VR headset solves that. It is a new display technology capable of providing 3-dimentional, animated images accurately. If you have used such a headset you instantly realize it's a big step forward in display technology
Coming from someone that's been regularly using VR since 2016, I think the problem is that VR really isn't good enough--well, depending on the kind of market and application you're trying to target. When most get one of these first gen VR headsets, it is certainly incredible. Most go through a period that's come to be known as the "VR Honeymoon". E.g. that's what many PSVR2 users are experiencing right now.
But over time you realize that there are a ton of problems with the way VR displays currently wo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure whatever Apple has planned will be nice [...]
Nobody needs something nice, what we need for it is to solve a problem.
What problem does the latest iteration of the iPhone solve that the last half dozen models didn't?
With Apple, they can count on fanatic customer loyalty alone to propel a certain percentage of sales. There will always be those Apple fans that have to have the latest version of Product X.
The question is, 3 grand for a headset is in Mac Pro territory. Are there enough Mac Pro-type customers out there to support something like this?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Many will (Score:2)
Not an issue (Score:3, Informative)
Yah. Damn straight. Can anyone help me get my Newton connected to my pippin?
No problem, since the Newton is now the iPad and the Pippin + Mac TV is the Apple TV + Apple Games... and you can easily connect the iPad via AirPlay.
As I said, Apple doesn't give up, even if sometimes they take a pause and re-evaluate.
Re:Just release and let developers loose (Score:5, Insightful)
It's dead, Jim!
There is, at best, minimal real world use for this.
I don't make a lot of future predictions, especially about tech, but this thing is a bomb right out the door. Ka-boom! Big loser.
I'd be better off putting 3 grand into something stupid like bitcoin. At least I could still sell my bitcoin to some crypto bro. For now.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't make a lot of future predictions, especially about tech, but this thing is a bomb right out the door. Ka-boom! Big loser.
Oh, good. That means it's going to be a giant hit!
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, good. That means it's going to be a giant hit!
People tend to misremember that the tiny detail that the iPod only became a big success once Apple stopped selling it as a "halo accessory" intended to sell Macs and added Windows support. If hell hadn't froze over [sfgate.com], we'd probably be saying Slashdot's track record for Apple product popularity predictions is rather accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
There are real world uses, and Apple might just be big enough to make them happen. It really depends if the technology is good enough.
For example, you could have an app that labels up an engine you are working on, with instructions and animations showing how to remove parts. The problem right now is twofold. First the system needs to recognize the engine and how it is oriented in space, and secondly it needs to project the data in a way that doesn't give the user motion sickness or glitch out constantly.
Som
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, let's go with your example.
If we're talking home hobby car guys, the (anecdotal) ones I know only work on old cars (because they're locked out of new ones) and old cars are pretty simple. They know what they're doing and either don't have 3k, don't need help, or would just use a browser to look something up on occasion.
If we're talking trained pro mechanics at a dealer, those guys have to get certified on the cars they work on. No dealer is dropping 3k of revenue on an ar/vr system so their guys don'
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the number of people out there, that to them, $3K is pocket change...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the number of people out there, that to them, $3K is pocket change...
Okay, let's do that math.
"Pocket change"...we'll call that $3, about how many quarters I keep in my pocket for parking at a parking meter.
Let's put that against the average annual salary of $56,420, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2022.
And, I *could* do the proportions, but we'll keep it simple and just multiply $3 x 1000 to get the $3,000 the headset costs...so we're looking at the percentage of earners who receive $56,420,000 annually. As of 2018 [marketwatch.com], that's a whopping 205 of such people in Am
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can easily drop 3k and not miss it.
However, that doesn't mean I don't value 3k or that I like throwing away money on things with zero value.
That's why I never bought any crypto, either.
Re: (Score:2)
At 3K I don't see these selling much, but I know there are people that will buy any new tech toy just because. What they need to do if they want to see these succeed is get those tech-toy-joy people to salivate over it. I won't pretend to know what will do that, though I suspect infinitely configurable virtual monitors might work for some subset, since that's the main reason I would want a VR headset. Porn, clearly, would be another, but not the one that the tech-toy folks would brag about publicly. And the
Re: (Score:2)
In order to succeed it still needs to -do- something a lot of people need or want or enjoy.
At this moment in time, that "something" remains a mystery.
Hype alone won't get it there.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, this is Apple. They will convince one of the car manufacturers to make it the mandatory, only way that their cars can be worked on. These are the same manufacturers that don't even let the customer open the bonnet anymore. $3k on the AR system is nothing when you see what they charge for official diagnostic tools and software to update the car's firmware.
Not that it will work very well for that. They will never get the latency low enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure when it comes out it won’t have wireless and will have less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, augmented reality is quite useful - much more than VR:
- tourism: I'd like to see renderings of ancient places how they looked at the pick of their splendor overexposed on the real ones (usually ruins)
- general: navigation in cities, passing restaurants menu/prices/reviews
- and most importantly: laptops can get rid of balky screens and all one had to carry was the AR goggles and a box in backpack, plus some keyboard either real or virtual.
Re: (Score:2)
For 3 grand?
The laptop costs a grand. Going to replace it with a 700 box gadget and a 3000 glasses set? Hmmmm, really?
Navigation: I can see menus on my phone via Yelp app. For the cost of a phone I already have anyway. So basically either free or just a part of the cost of the whole phone for that feature depending on how you want to account for it.
Overlays on vacation? 3k is a nice extension to my travels or a lot of upgrading my current trip or more stuff I can buy/bring home. All that va getting an
Re: (Score:2)
"For 3 grand?
I just referred to the validity of AR, the price is a barrier for a wide implementation - but isn't it the case for any new technology? Do you remember the early days of portable computers or wireless phones for that matter?
"... There is no killer feature. People (meaning the general populace) don't buy tech, they buy features."
I think:
- reach people buy status and prestige,
- ordinary people buy convenience or fashion
- and engineers buy features.
Re: (Score:2)
The earliest "portable" computers were obviously not,portable. However, they were still fully functional computers and did the things people needed computers to do. My dad bought the first IBM "portable" which weighed 8 kazillion pounds and had a razor sharp plastic handle. It sucked but it still ran all the same x86 dos programs his tower PC ran.
What does this virtual goggles system do?
Re: (Score:2)
I see we differ in our assessment of the future of AR, I agree it's pricey, and I am not going to buy it for 3k, I am pretty sure the price might go down if it takes a hold, also personally I'd like to have an AR replacement for a laptop screen - but not for this price. I guess we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I agree that -successful- technologies that get mass produced come down in price. That's an easy one.
But the key here is what could possibly make this successful?
Let's go all the way on this: Apple ships a free goggle set to every person on the planet. Totally free, no nonsense. Free. There are now 8 billion free goggles out there.
Now what? What does everyone actually do with them?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
StuporKendall has evolved from worshipping Apple's design prowess to worshipping his and his fellow masterbator's design prowess. Just throw any old garbage into the market, I and my fellow emacs heroes will prove out its genius!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the hardware spec each time I hear about it gets reduced. A few years ago it was supposed to be 8K per eye. Now it's 4K per eye.
Re:Just release and let developers loose (Score:5, Informative)
You really believe that, don't you? This isn't the first time you've gushed about whatever it is you imagine that Apple will produce. Though it's starting to looks like you're just setting up developers to take the blame for what is certainly going to be a spectacular failure.
The problem with AR, as I've explained to you before, is that what the technology can do, and what people want it to do, are not the same.
You mention co-presence, where your workmates appear as ghosts haunting whatever space you happen to be in. The things that need to happen for that effect to be even remotely convincing are things that we can't really do. At least, not in real time with convincing accuracy. Now, that's about as minimal a vision of co-presense as you'll find anywhere. The fantasy of co-presense, the thing people actually want when they talk about it, is sharing your environment -- bringing people into your space, or to being present in someone else's space. That simply isn't possible. (I can offer details as to the 'why' if it's not obvious to you.)
That's really the case for most AR applications. The things that actually are possible are less interesting. A large virtual display seems neat, but it's not going to be very good as a display. Translation is certainly cool, but it'll be clunkier and not necessarily as appealing (especially for tourists) as what can already do with a smartphone. The holographic chess game in Star Wars is doable, but anything that needs a model of the users environment is going to be a clunky mess.
That's the real sticking point, isn't it? Awareness of the users' environment is absolutely essential to AR, and that part is not even close to being solved. Doing home repairs or cooking with AR overlays guiding you along, chasing monsters in the local park, or living with a virtual pet. The technology simply isn't there and an expensive headset and few hobbyist programmers isn't going to change that.
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of a bunch of niche applications for a really good headset - things like sailing/golf/race car driving. But these are not big markets. People who do 3D modelling would probably like a set, but on the other hand there are already products for these users by way of existing VR headsets. Again a very niche market.
I think if the thing could emulate a full workstation setup then that would be a big market, but there is no way that can be achieved with the current state of the art.
I can definitely see
Re: (Score:2)
(though I think co-presence will be about as widely adopted as meeting in the Metaverse, i.e. not at all). But Apple can lean heavily on developers really making the device compelling
What else is "compelling"? Apple hardware has never been any good for gaming.
Re: (Score:1)
What else is "compelling"? Apple hardware has never been any good for gaming.
Good thing then the Apple device is not built AT ALL for gaming, even though I'm sure some games will be ported to it.
You want compelling? Run something like chatGPT in the background getting input from the many integrated sensors and cameras, and then offering visual suggestions overlaid on the world around you.
I don't think any of us understand just how useful AR can be, but we will learn.
Is $3k very expensive? Yes. But just a
Re: (Score:2)
"Let loose"? Apple? Developers will get a tightly walled garden with exactly the things permitted Apple envisions, you can be as creative as you wish, as long as it's within Apple's vision of what they want for their product.
I you hope for Developers to break the mold and produce the killer app, forget it.
it will be just like.. (Score:3)
Zero interest here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about TV but curved monitors for gaming sell well, you can find many reviews. The existence of a market for curved monitors means there is going to be curved TVs available as well, even though it's less compelling for TVs.
Recent reviews
https://www.tomshardware.com/r... [tomshardware.com] (Mar 2023)
https://www.softwaretestinghel... [softwaretestinghelp.com] (Feb 2023)
https://www.rtings.com/monitor... [rtings.com] (Feb 2023)
https://www.digitaltrends.com/... [digitaltrends.com] (Jan 2023)
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/th... [pcmag.com] (Nov 2022)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree with you on the general argument that there is zero or near-zero interest in VR headsets.
Re: (Score:2)
it will be just like 3D TV, Curved TVs, etc etc etc.
No it won't. 3D TV is forced upon people who had zero interest in it.
VR on the other hand is a very expensive special purpose purchase that has showed exponential increase in sales showing demand not only exists, but is very much rising.
It has already surpassed 3D TV long ago.
Google Glass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google glass mostly died due to bad PR. It had it's niche and was expanding, till it became politically incorrect.
If Apple simply launched light weight AR glasses with a small FoV HUD and a camera (ie. a modernized Glass). It would sell and their reality distortion field would allow them to succeed where Google failed. That's not what their AR headset appears to be though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was not politically incorrect, it was simply incorrect. A device that sends everything you see to its master is something that will get you kicked out of every place where people generally don't enjoy being under constant public surveillance. Which is pretty much anywhere.
Forget those employees (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Forget those employees (Score:2)
This isnt going to be marketed at normal techies, itll be aimed squarely at trendy rich hipster fanboys. Who thought anyone would pay $1000 for a digital watch that has to be charged every day back in 2015?
Re: Forget those employees (Score:2)
They don't work (Score:2)
Apple has so much money none of this matters they can afford to waste a lot of it and they won't even notice. But augmented reality and VR aren't ever going to be mainstream because somewhere between 25 to 30
Re: (Score:2)
augmented reality and VR aren't ever going to be mainstream because somewhere between 25 to 30% of the population can't use it.
The problem can theoretically be solved with a holographic lens which produces a proper depth of field, and such devices are in the prototype stage now. "Ever" is probably wrong.
Rolex? (Score:2)
When was the last time Rolex made a digital watch? Even Seiko don't bother any more.
Re: (Score:3)
This isnt going to be marketed at normal techies, itll be aimed squarely at trendy rich hipster fanboys.
They won't buy a big fucking thing to put on their heads, and they won't buy something with the limited feature set that can be fit into something that isn't a big fucking thing. QED, if Apple is really planning to charge three grand for a headset, Apple is fucking delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
They all know it's a flop. Those are the ones willing to kiss exec ass or at least keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
> Whatever they're smoking/popping/injecting must be primo
Cold hard cash is a potent hallucinogen. These are Richie-Rich rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should have consulted [slashdot.org] us. Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Diehard Apple fans will not think twice about spending $3,000 for a Macbook Pro or top of the line iPhone with a matching iPad.
That price tag isn't going to scare them off, but I'd imagine that most people will wait for the 2nd gen model and hope that it's half the price.
Re: (Score:2)
$3k is the made up price for an unannounced product.
I am old enough to remember when people were sure the iPad was going to flop because of a $1k price tag that they made up.
Glasses with a virtual monitor (Score:1)
Why not just a pair of glasses that have a virtual monitor or hud.
Assuming the image is of sufficient quality there should be lots of uses for something like that with no need for a huge amount of capability past that.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently there is a model from Lenovo ($1500) to use as virtual monitor, and Vuzix ($921) marketed for technicians who need to watch videos to do their job. https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com] Then you have Microsoft and Apple who want to charge over $3000 for the same thing.
You think? (Score:3, Insightful)
$3000 makes this an exotic specialty item with no market chance at all outside of serious industrial applications. Which do not exist at this time.
Mark my words... (Score:1)
Flopple (Score:2)
Strikes again.
Don't be fooled, folks. I'm sure this is just a way to get some more patents into their collection so that they may be able to 'tax' someone else's creation that *DOES* provide a worthy experience.
3 grand!? Fail? Ya think?? (Score:3)
Jfc, who has 3 grand to toss at some ar/vr junk with no real purpose that solves real real problems anyone actually has?
3 grand is definitely not a consumer device. Is there some huge industry need for this somewhere to justify its existence?
Teledoc has been solved with Zoom-like videos. Most of those could've been a phone call. What else?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming it's a VR headset with camera pass through for a moment, maybe some laser tag venues?
Pushing FoV up and weight down on the existing state of the art of see through AR would sell well in a lot of industrial/medical niches, but those aren't really Apple's preferred markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Jfc, who has 3 grand to toss at some ar/vr junk with no real purpose that solves real real problems anyone actually has?
The same people that buy a new top-of-the-line iPhone every time Apple releases a new one.
I don't understand why that's a thing, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok yes there are lots of stupid people with too much money but at least the iPhone -does something-.
Re: (Score:2)
The same people that buy a new top-of-the-line iPhone every time Apple releases a new one.
I don't understand why that's a thing, but it is.
I'm gonna defer to ChatGPT on this one:
Apple releases new iPhone models approximately once a year, starting in 2007. The most expensive iPhone model has varied over the years, so to answer this question, we'll assume that the most expensive model was purchased each year since the first iPhone was released.
Here's a breakdown of the most expensive iPhone model each year and its starting price:
2007: Original iPhone (8GB) - $599
2008: iPhone 3G (16GB) - $499
2009: iPhone 3GS (32GB) - $599
2010: iPhone 4 (32GB) - $299
2011: iPhone 4S (64GB) - $399
2012: iPhone 5 (64GB) - $399
2013: iPhone 5S (64GB) - $399
2014: iPhone 6 Plus (128GB) - $949
2015: iPhone 6S Plus (128GB) - $949
2016: iPhone 7 Plus (256GB) - $969
2017: iPhone X (256GB) - $1,149
2018: iPhone XS Max (512GB) - $1,449
2019: iPhone 11 Pro Max (512GB) - $1,449
2020: iPhone 12 Pro Max (512GB) - $1,399
2021: iPhone 13 Pro Max (1TB) - $1,599
Adding up the prices of the most expensive iPhone model each year results in a total cost of:
$599 + $499 + $599 + $299 + $399 + $399 + $399 + $949 + $949 + $969 + $1,149 + $1,449 + $1,449 + $1,399 + $1,599 = $16,907
Therefore, if you had purchased the most expensive iPhone model each year since the first iPhone was released, you would have spent a total of $16,907.
So, you could've always had the latest, most expensive iPhone (excluding the 14 Pro Max because ChatGPT's data set is a little outdated and I'm lazy), or an economy sedan. TBH, I know lots of people who spend more time on their phone than in their car (and also on their phone while in their car, but let's not go there).
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether there are enough who will drop $3K on a headset. My bet is no. Some people use their phones constantly, so it may make sense to have the best they can afford, but very few people are going to spend a lot of time in VR.
Could? (Score:2)
Literally nobody wants it. Even video gamers don't care, and they'll buy any overpriced crap that gives them an in game advantage.
Google Glass was the perfect mixed reality design and it cratered. Now is no different.
Just too expensive, even for Apple (Score:2)
Quest 2 was a big success because the $299 launch price point for a stand-alone headset was seen as affordable and a great value. They followed the game console (or inkjet printer) model where they basically sold the thing at-cost and made their profit on the software sales.
Apple's device immediately prices itself out of the consumer market (which is where the real sales volume is), and the Quest Pro's failure already demonstrated that there isn't a large enterprise market for this sort of device. If the ma
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame, really, as I'd love to see an affordable VR headset made by Apple.
Apple rarely does affordable, and when they do it is a) not all that affordable actually and b) crap. Consider the Performa.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple's device immediately prices itself out of the consumer market
The Poor Consumer market.
Apple assiduously avoids this market to keep its products as faux status symbols.
Many people enjoy the idea of being elitists.
Every VR & MR headset flops (Score:2)
Every VR & MR headset flops. Because almost nobody wants one or gives a fuck. OK, I'm slightly interested so maybe I do give a fuck. But it's in the same way as someone watching several people I don't really like have a low speed car crash.
Who the fuck wants to wear a huge pair of spectacles? I have worn specs for over 40 years and I still don't like them. I have modern super light titanium rimless frames and excellent thin and light lenses. They solve a problem. That's OK. But out of choice? Go f
Re: (Score:3)
Every VR & MR headset flops.
If you consider 20 million Quests sold (not even counting the PS4 sales) to be a flop, then yes. Otherwise, no. I don't know what the sales figures are for Mixed Reality headsets, but I expect they are far less than for VR. MR seems to have far less market appeal than VR.
Make a decent vlogging camera (Score:3)
Besides gaming, a killer app for VR is virtual partying, presence (real estate, learning etc), news, and tourism. But current cameras for capturing 360 video are appalling. First off the form factor is stupid. Handheld is dumb. It needs to be a jacket or a cap with cameras on it. That's the best way to capture 360 video for vlogging. If you have enough cameras capturing at a high frame rate of same 120fps, the image can be stabilized by extrapolating views. Second the pixels per degree is terrible (it needs to be 60ppd minimum, not 15 like today).
Re:Make a decent vlogging camera (Score:5, Insightful)
a killer app for VR is virtual partying,
You're going to have to do a better job at describing this, because at face value it sounds like "drinking alone with extra steps".
Re: (Score:2)
We just had one of the perfect storms for creating a VR based internet:
* Several trillion dollars worth of companies were investing in VR.
* The technology was easily affordable to middle class consumers.
* Companies and individua
invest in a future that you can't quite imagine (Score:2)
Apple is taking a risk with this, many buyers will also take that risk because they must. Others have abandoned similar projects because of lack of support. I think that gamers might be the first beneficiaries of this technology; therefore they should invest if they can. Scientists, military and others too. There's no guarantee that this will lead to some miracle product, but it's clearly possible only if there is sufficient interest today.
$3k sounds like a lot, but that's what we paid for some early comput
My prediction record (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the iPod would fail. Then I thought the iPhone would fail. I was also in that crowd that thought that the iPad was a stupid name, and that it would fail.
Keep in mind I've owned Apple computers since my first Mac SE in 1990 or so. Color Classic, PPC progression, transparent iMac, iMac on a stand, Intel iMacs. I'm an Apple booster. The only thing that seems to suck about Apple are the things that I'm sold on and sticking to, according to the market.
I don't feel positive about a VR headset for $3000, which is probably why it will be a massive hit.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm guessing you were all in on the iPod Hi-Fi?
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to be wrong again.
I think the difference is (Score:2)
The place everyone wants this is in business, because businesses will pay a *lot* of money for silly conference gear. But if even 10% can't use it that makes it more or less worthless, if only because of the Americans with Civil Disabilities Act.
iTunes (Score:1)
If I need to install iTunes for my PC to connect with it, then I don't want it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I need to install iTunes for my PC to connect with it, then I don't want it.
I just plain don't want it.
Follow Amazon model: extra $3k for no ads version? (Score:2)
And Prime Real Virtual Apple Reality (C) that shows other non-Apple products otherwise redacted.
What's it going to be, Apple? (Score:2)
Do you care more about "appearing" to be the thought leader in technological advancement, or are you actually going to do the work, which involves failing a step, in order to learn and progress from it?
$3,000 (Score:2)
Try $299 otherwise no way. You can get a full gaming rig for less.
Yes we will see characters in X-Men Super Apocalypse Extravaganza wearing it, as well as celebs Nikki Minaj wearing one in her videos, but that price will still keep most wallets closed.
As customers are now accustomed to being reamed with telemetry and such to 'make products cheaper', releasing something like this for 3 grand makes no sense in this day and age.
Ugh - Who needs a enduring facepalm? (Score:2)
Ugh - Who needs a heavy-handed facepalm strapped to your face for hours, like a just-hatched Alien from the Alien movies?! And pay an order of magnitude more than other headsets.
Just put a pair of tiny wide-angle cameras on a pair of specs, OK? And maybe a MEMS gyroscope and magnetic sensors. Send the video to a phone. Where it can be annotated and layered to your hearts content.
The user can glance at his phone if he wants to augment his reality.
Make it $50.
$3,000? (Score:2)
too expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a LOT of people out there in the world, particularly in the US to whom $3,000 is merely pocket change...chump change, etc.
It is not a lot of money to a lot of people.
There's plenty of folks out here that can drop $3K and not even blink.
Fear it could flop, Maybe 3,000 reasons why !!! (Score:2)
Those lenses had better be interchangeable (Score:2)
Those prescription lenses for those of us who wear glasses (which is most people with the money to buy it, across the world) had better be interchangeable.
Otherwise I've got to buy one for each member of my household even to try it out and that will not be OK.
But it's Apple! (Score:2)
But honestly this will never take off as a consumer product at that price and if it has any kind of similar restrictions to their other products it won't really be a viable development or experimentation tool.
Meta got laughed at for the Oculus Pro at half the price and with a better track record. Good luck, Apple.
Jony Ive (Score:2)
A fairly old article : https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
Looks like Ive wasn't keen on VR at all and wanted it to be a pure AR device:
Exactly right.
But then there's this:
Uses (Score:2)
Things it would be useful for:
Designing 3-D Models: Architects, Engineers, Game Designers.
Visualisation: Film Makers, Directors, Set Designers.
Gaming: Flight Sims, Driving Games, + others.
Direct Control: Drones.
Teaching: A whole host of subjects, albeit only as a small part of an integrated package.
I'm ignoring possible augmented realities, such as directions while walking around, useful location info, such as opening times or sales, or virtual assistance, such as facial recognition and on demand bio's for
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to know that the HomePod is an audiophile product, the experts here told me so. It was quite an achievement considering it had zero audio inputs.
Re: (Score:2)
It was quite an achievement considering it had zero audio inputs.
What a bunch of rubes -- no true digital audiophile would buy a zero-input device because such a product cannot support $600 USB cables [wireworldcable.com] with $5500 [audioquest.com] power cables.