Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TheShadowKnows!

macrumors 6502a
Sep 30, 2014
860
1,734
National Capital Region
"Apple has expanded its research efforts in virtual and augmented reality, building out a large team that is experimenting with headsets and other technologies, reports Financial Times"

Two thoughts came off immediately from that intro:
  1. The bloat goes on. Chime me for being skeptical, but the old and successful Apple paradigm was a small talented engineering group leading development -- only Tim's Apple now thinks of hiring to no end and then finding that schedules were not met.
  2. A good home for Augmented Reality lies with Tim's hyperbolical marketing and pricing teams. Not only augmented but distorted realities as well.
I own many Apple products, so do not lambast me.

But we are seeing the effect of a bean counter promoted to lead the old Apple, and the best he can do is speak with empty platitudes. Apparently, there is neither a hyperbolic adjective nor adverb Tim has ever disliked.

Lambast me if you will, but his China approach to extract minimum production cost and derive maximum profit is a one-trick pony, until proven otherwise.
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
According to developers, the new kit coming out has "solved" (and I mean that in a non-serious way) the motion sickness problem by increasing the frame rate. The problem, obviously is that Apple laptops and desktops are under-powered to run a VR headset at the necessary frame rate.
Not just frame rate but also predicted motion path to update the worn display. The Oculist Rift has this where the totally nipped-in-the-butt this issue. Also the entire Jaron Lanier, VPL patent suite expired a few years ago making it an open field. Jaron is now teaching at Berkeley. Don't know if he has made any public statements on latest generation of VR systems.

Like the most logical thing to do is to create two independent "GPU"'s that reside in the VR visor and connect via Displayport as a PCIe link so the Mac or iOS device isn't doing the rendering. However such a VR headset would cost 3000$, so niche product, very much yes.
There are custom VR environments where you walk into a chamber with everything around you a video projection wall. These systems go up to several million dollars and has seen very exclusive work. Most are not open to public.

The counterfeits that will inevitably come out of China will be the ones that induce sickness, and that will spell the end of the VR foray as people looking for a 200$ VR headset and not wanting to pay 1000$+ for one will not know what they are getting.
I've really been impressed with the entire Google Cardboard effort. Any modern smartphone has an order of magnitude processing power beyond a back in the day Silicon Graphics Reality Engine. From that, the smartphone motion tracker is drives updating two frames in the screen view.

In all honestly, the most obvious application for a VR headset is actually to watch film/tv (eg 3D movies, bad films, porn) privately in a space that nobody else can see. A more practical application is to have a virtual 50" monitor, however that would still leave the requirement of "typing" on an interface that doesn't have a physical property.
I suggest you take a look at these VR headsets out that you slip in your smartphone Bluetooth paired with a small joystick controller. Most are less than $50. For the cost, they are quite impressive and has created a groundswell VR developer community. Yes, porn is always the first application of any new media format. One reason why VHS won over Beta.

So the headsets will come out, but the entire "VR" experience is likely going to set back people more than 5000$ and that's just too much money for what amounts to a very gimmicky toy.
I don't see it going that way at all. My take is if Apple does anything it is just custom viewer that will work with either iOS or Mac. I don't see them doing a full independent product category. Would not be surprised to see a "VR/AR accessory" priced at under USD$1000 out the door.
 
Last edited:

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
But we are seeing the effect of a bean counter promoted to lead the old Apple, and the best he can do is speak with empty platitudes. Apparently, there is neither a hyperbolic adjective nor adverb Tim has ever disliked.

Lambast me if you will, but his China approach to extract minimum production cost and derive maximum profit is a one-trick pony, until proven otherwise.

From the 60 Minutes piece, the body language of the board shows me that Angela Ahrendts has become right hand of Tim Cook. Look at the Apple executive page and you see her in the #2 position on the page. Before her arrival, the other boys had a lot more influence and access to Tim before she arrived. That is driving a lot of product decisions. Everything else is not center to the Cupertino court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

TallManNY

macrumors 601
Nov 5, 2007
4,727
1,580
Less than 0.5% of the population is going to spend the money you've spent on VR. Until the price comes down substantially, it's not going to be of interest to most people. Not until the entire setup, headset and processing power, are under $400 total will VR see widespread adoption, and even then they may need to lower the threshold even more.

0.5% of the population is 35 million people. You can definitely do a business that caters just to 0.5% of the population. I don't think we know how widespread the adoption is until we see how useful or fun the devices are. Cars cost many times the dollars we are talking about and they are widely owned because they are super useful. I think VR might be so much fun that it basically puts all non-VR gaming and video watching out of business. Many people might stretch for VR if it becomes their main entertainment center. But the first few generations may not be good enough for that. And after a few generations price should come down.

In fact, I think you could apply some Moore's Law calculations starting with a $2,000 all in rig cost now and project how those dollars would play out.
 

Chuckum3ntary

macrumors newbie
Jan 29, 2016
1
4
You were looking forward to a VR headset until they were bought by a giant corporation, now you're going to buy a different headset from a different giant corporation? Huh.

I was looking forward to the Oculus Rift until Facebook bought them out. No way I am giving any money to help support Facebook and increase Zuckerberg's billions. Hopefully Apple comes out with something that is a good competitor quick enough to prevent the Rift from dominating the market.
 

TallManNY

macrumors 601
Nov 5, 2007
4,727
1,580
Hopefully we'll also hear soon enough about another secret team working on the updated MBP.

There is a secret team working on a 17" MBP. But unfortunately they are so secret and their non-disclosure agreements are so tight they haven't been able to tell the rest of Apple about their work for years!
 

PJL500

macrumors 6502
Nov 27, 2011
299
174
This team really needs to get the finger out... . It is puzzling that this product has not been available for several quarters now.
 

mcfrazieriv

macrumors 65816
Jan 30, 2012
1,100
2,830
Another "exciting" product brought to you by Dr. Cook.






Apple has expanded its research efforts in virtual and augmented reality, building out a large team that is experimenting with headsets and other technologies, reports Financial Times in a detailed post on the company's virtual reality work that covers recent hires and acquisitions.

Hundreds of employees are part of a "secret research unit" exploring AR and VR, with the team consisting of experts hired through acquisitions and poached from Microsoft and Lytro, the company that developed the Immerge, a Light Field power camera able to blend live action and computer graphics for a live action VR experience. Apple has also hired Doug Bowman, said to be one of the leading virtual reality experts in the United States.

In addition to recent AR/VR-related acquisitions Metaio, Faceshift, and Emotient, Apple has also just purchased Flyby Media, a startup that worked on augmented reality technologies. Flyby Media created an app that worked with Google's "Project Tango" smartphone with 3D sensors, allowing messages to be attached to real world objects that were then viewable by one of Google's devices.

apple_patent_video_goggle.jpg

Most notably, Apple's AR/VR team is said to have built prototype virtual reality headsets that are similar to the Oculus Rift and the Hololens from Microsoft. Multiple prototypes of "possible headset configurations" have been created in recent months, with Apple's interest reportedly inspired by the Oculus Rift.

It is not clear if and when Apple's work on a headset prototype will make it past the development stage into an actual product, and the company often secretly works on technologies that never see the light of day. The scope of what Apple is building is also unknown, but Financial Times says that the company's work could potentially be useful for the Apple Car project.

Apple has had a team working on virtual and augmented reality technologies since at least early 2015, when rumors suggested there were a small number of employees investigating how Apple could incorporate the technologies into its products. Apple's interest in virtual reality dates back much further, however, and Apple has filed multiple patents over the years, for products like video goggles, motion-sensing 3D virtual interfaces for iOS devices, and 3D "hyper reality" displays.

Apple CEO Tim Cook was recently questioned on whether he believed virtual reality could go mainstream. He explained that he does not see virtual reality as a niche product, describing it as "really cool" with "some interesting applications."

Article Link: Apple Has Secret Team Working on Virtual Reality Headset
 

TheShadowKnows!

macrumors 6502a
Sep 30, 2014
860
1,734
National Capital Region
From the 60 Minutes piece, the body language of the board shows me that Angela Ahrendts has become right hand of Tim Cook. Look at the Apple executive page and you see her in the #2 position on the page. Before her arrival, the other boys had a lot more influence and access to Tim before she arrived. That is driving a lot of product decisions. Everything else is not center to the Cupertino court.

^^^This.

Not sure, though, as I did not bother to see the 60 minutes piece. (Can't take empty platitudes well.)

Maybe what you see on the exec page is alphabetized (have not bothered to check), with a pinch of political correctness, and a pound of "I hired her."

Regardless: "God Save the Queen"
 

ProVideo

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2011
497
688
You were looking forward to a VR headset until they were bought by a giant corporation, now you're going to buy a different headset from a different giant corporation? Huh.
I'm not happy with everything Apple or Google do but they are not as evil as Facebook. The CEOs of Apple and Facebook are not on legal record calling their users "dumb f---s" either for handing over private data either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,084
31,014
From the 60 Minutes piece, the body language of the board shows me that Angela Ahrendts has become right hand of Tim Cook. Look at the Apple executive page and you see her in the #2 position on the page. Before her arrival, the other boys had a lot more influence and access to Tim before she arrived. That is driving a lot of product decisions. Everything else is not center to the Cupertino court.
#1 the board was not featured in the 60 minutes piece. All we got was a shot of a weekly executive meeting. #2 Angela is second in the executive page because Cook's directs are listed in alphabetical order.

^^^This.

Not sure, though, as I did not bother to see the 60 minutes piece. (Can't take empty platitudes well.)

Maybe what you see on the exec page is alphabetized (have not bothered to check), with a pinch of political correctness, and a pound of "I hired her."

Regardless: "God Save the Queen"

Executives are listed in alphabetical order. There's nothing more to read into it.

Perhaps we need to consider the idea that Steve Jobs and the culture he created did not set up Apple well for what they've grown into: a very large company. When you're doing $230b of revenue and $54B of profit in a year and when you have $200B+ cash on the balance sheet you can't be run like a startup. You can't have small teams and all this secrecy where one team doesn't know what another team is doing. Isn't it possible that there are aspects of the Steve Jobs way that don't scale? Or do people want Apple to go back to being a much smaller company that just churns out Macs? People complain that Apple is no longer innovative and just pushing out boring, incremental updates yet when a story comes out that they have a team working on what might be the next big thing in technology it's ridiculed and Tim Cook is knocked for being a "bean counter". I don't get it.
 
Last edited:

Mac2me

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2015
965
445
Anyone who has been following for QUITE some time what companies Apple has been buying (at least the ones we know from the press) should have had a CLUE that they are probably pursuing this technology area. So where is the big surprise? Why not run a story like this before the Quarterly reporting? Now, what Apple will turn their research into is still under wraps but it just kills me to listen to all these supposed informed tech analysts that say Apple is dying, nothing happening there, they just sit on their stockpile of cash. So the sometimes barrage of negative outlook stories send the stock down yielding an opportunity to take advantage of it going down or up. Doesn't take a genius to know that they make their money from trading and/or spreads with customer funds...so motivate or scare investors to pull out and invest in something else and then maybe rebuy. I see the stock market today as nothing more than a game to make money. People aren't investing in companies, their technology and their employees. Apple has got the reserve to weather through this stuff but a lot of smaller companies during these tougher world-wide times aren't as fortunate.

Oh and don't you just love how Apple took a beating over the guidance that due to monetary changes and a weaker demand in general for goods that they would be lowering their guidance for the upcoming quarter. It seems like analysts feel that only Apple is facing these world-wide conditions and should be punished marketwise for them. Apple tries to give realistic guidance like it did for this past quarter when they said they still saw things going well and turns out they had some outstanding numbers given the changing economic climate. Only a very few acknowledged this from the coverage I saw.

I've watched one particular financial network for a few years now and even when Apple was on it's long climb upward they had more negative comments on the company than not. I'd laugh when Apple would beat estimates quarter after quarter and see them try to point out all the reasons why it wasn't a good investment any longer. After many, many quarters of looking kind of dumb betting against Apple, they kind of got quiet on it. So seeing this story on "possible VR" days after having nothing positive to report on Apple just made me laugh again.
 
Last edited:

dojoman

macrumors 68000
Apr 8, 2010
1,934
1,089
They have to or else Mac's/OS X will be dead if VR explodes. Not going to guarantee that VR is going to be a hit but I spent over $1500 upgrading my gaming PC and another $600 for a oculus rift preorder because I'm looking few new experiences. Not one penny went to Apple.
If Apple does not jump on it early their entire computer business is in trouble with "mainstream" buyers. It will be too late once the cost of premium headsets come down. If it wasn't for Samsung's incompetence in upgrading their flagship phones I would be using a Galaxy S6 with gear VR.

VR has nothing to do with Mac. Most people still use computer for work you know?
 

Mac2me

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2015
965
445
Of course computers are still used majorly for work purposes. However VR has other applications beyond gaming and that's where stock analysts are focusing.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Perhaps we need to consider the idea that Steve Jobs and the culture he created did not set up Apple well for what they've grown into: a very large company. When you're doing $230b of revenue and $54B of profit in a year and when you have $200B+ cash on the balance sheet you can't be run like a startup. You can't have small teams and all this secrecy where one team doesn't know what another team is doing. Isn't it possible that there are aspects of the Steve Jobs way that don't scale? Or do people want Apple to go back to being a much smaller company that just churns out Macs? People complain that Apple is no longer innovative and just pushing out boring, incremental updates yet when a story comes out that they have a team working on what might be the next big thing in technology it's ridiculed and Tim Cook is knocked for being a "bean counter". I don't get it.

I can agree with this. Also - if all or most of your products are tied to an ecosystem, how much sense does it make to put teams in a vacuum? Not much.
 

shameermulji

macrumors newbie
Jan 28, 2016
9
8
Vancouver, BC
#1 the board was not featured in the 60 minutes piece. All we got was a shot of a weekly executive meeting. #2 Angela is second in the executive page because Cook's directs are listed in alphabetical order.



Executives are listed in alphabetical order. There's nothing more to read into it.

Perhaps we need to consider the idea that Steve Jobs and the culture he created did not set up Apple well for what they've grown into: a very large company. When you're doing $230b of revenue and $54B of profit in a year and when you have $200B+ cash on the balance sheet you can't be run like a startup. You can't have small teams and all this secrecy where one team doesn't know what another team is doing. Isn't it possible that there are aspects of the Steve Jobs way that don't scale? Or do people want Apple to go back to being a much smaller company that just churns out Macs? People complain that Apple is no longer innovative and just pushing out boring, incremental updates yet when a story comes out that they have a team working on what might be the next big thing in technology it's ridiculed and Tim Cook is knocked for being a "bean counter". I don't get it.

Hit the nail right on the head. Well said.
 

Mac2me

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2015
965
445
....Perhaps we need to consider the idea that Steve Jobs and the culture he created did not set up Apple well for what they've grown into: a very large company. When you're doing $230b of revenue and $54B of profit in a year and when you have $200B+ cash on the balance sheet you can't be run like a startup. You can't have small teams and all this secrecy where one team doesn't know what another team is doing. Isn't it possible that there are aspects of the Steve Jobs way that don't scale? Or do people want Apple to go back to being a much smaller company that just churns out Macs? People complain that Apple is no longer innovative and just pushing out boring, incremental updates yet when a story comes out that they have a team working on what might be the next big thing in technology it's ridiculed and Tim Cook is knocked for being a "bean counter". I don't get it.

Speaking specifically to the comment in bold print, I see Steve's small teams and secrecy approach serves to let those teams develop different ideas and approaches to things from each other instead of going full guns on one idea and then maybe not ending up with the best in the end. You never know what will come out of the research that goes into that approach. Maybe all of the work won't get used for a current project but something gets learned in the process even from teams that don't move forward with their project. From what I read Steve was always finding ways to challenge his engineers to be more creative, defend their approach and refine their ideas. If you don't push people to shoot for the moon, they'll never get there.

I don't think Apple has ever been afraid to drop a project that didn't make sense for one reason or another or cannibalize an older product or feature for a new one when they felt the time was right. As much as some people griped about moving to a lightning connector a while back, I have to say I absolutely have loved the thinner phone/ipad as a result. You'll never please everybody and we don't have any idea what is a ways down the development path to see the reasoning for what they do. You can bet there will be companies that will follow just to be more Apple-like.
 
Last edited:

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,084
31,014
I can agree with this. Also - if all or most of your products are tied to an ecosystem, how much sense does it make to put teams in a vacuum? Not much.
It still blows my mind that when the iPhone was being developed the team working on the software wasn't allowed to see the hardware and vice versa. The designers taped a piece of paper with a fake UI on to the hardware. All because of Steve Jobs obsession with secrecy. Don Melton, who created Safari and lead the Safari team at Apple for many years said the biggest thing he wished the company would change is its obsession with secrecy inside the company and employees not allowed to know what other employees are working on.
 

GQB

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2007
1,196
109
Yeah, most of this stuff is goofy looking now. But read something like Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge to get a better idea of how it will integrate in 20 years, probably less. AR really is the next step.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicky G
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.