Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
VR so far is very gaming centric and Apple as no interest in gaming.

To get framerates and image quality that don't cause motion sickness, VR needs very high end hardware. There is nothing from Apple that comes close to being able to drive decent VR.

VR seems to be the complete opposite of what Timmy's Apple stands for. So, it should be interesting to see what they come up with. Maybe a google-cardboard clone that takes 2 watches instead of a phone. People can't rave about how much better than 2 screen system is than google's one screen version.

I'd suspect the new Mac Pros are. When I boot my 6 core Mac Pro into Windows (on an external SSD in my case) I can toggle AMD's Crossfire to use both GPUs (BTW the drivers had to be made into a Frankenstein installation package using a combination of parts from Bootcamp and two Windows drivers to do this as the cards are special versions for Apple. The details of how to do this I found here on MR). I can get 90 frames per second in GTA V on my 27" Apple Thunderbolt display at 1920 x 1080 and +60 f.p.s. at full 2560 x 1440. OS X doesn't yet utilize both GPUs in this way, FCPro X uses one for computation but there is no reason Apple could not enable Crossfire for such things as VR in the future.

I admit this is a very expensive solution but dual GPUs could be brought to more Macs in the future.
 
I have been reading a rumor at what Apple is really going to do is develop an AR windshield for the Apple Car. Not sure how real that is, but cool if true.
 
VR. As though thousands aren't sufficiently disconnected from reality as it is, all enmeshed with their iPhones and watches, reading them while they walk, reading and texting in their own bubble among humanity.

Wow, what a short sighted view. Here is just one use out of millions: Imagine being stuck in a wheel chair and being able to explore Grand Canyon in a VR so realistic you feel you are there.
[doublepost=1454164744][/doublepost]
I have been reading a rumor at what Apple is really going to do is develop an AR windshield for the Apple Car. Not sure how real that is, but cool if true.

Cool? What would that be used for on a car windscreen? Although it would be good for learners to stay in the garage and think they are on the real road, but given the car most likely has auto drive I'd think maybe not needed. Wait ... I know, so you can nice scenery and sunny weather when auto drive is really taking you through the streets of Birmingham!
 
Laser focus or not, VR is a must if you want the apple reality distortion field work perfectly :p

IMO, the reality distortion field hasn't worked since Jobs passed away. He had the ability to convince you, you didn't just want something, but you needed it.

Frankly, part of Jobs success was how he framed products and how it solved a problem...something the current execs seem to miss.
 
At this point, a bigger surprise would be a company without an AR/VR project.
Apple isn't like any other company. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple on the brink of bankruptcy, he axed all skunkwork projects and let his engineers work only on marketable products. The company became successful, because it didn't waste time on projects that wouldn't make one of its products better. Cool technology isn't a product. AR/VR is not a product. A gaming console is a product. Is Apple entering the console market?
 
Apple isn't like any other company. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple on the brink of bankruptcy, he axed all skunkwork projects and let his engineers work only on marketable products. The company became successful, because it didn't waste time on projects that wouldn't make one of its products better. Cool technology isn't a product. AR/VR is not a product. A gaming console is a product. Is Apple entering the console market?

A big aspect of AR/VR is indeed gaming. But it's hardly the only application.
 
It makes me imagine coming home and putting on a headset (hopefully reduced in size with time and progress) and essentially living inside my computer.

They really need to just come along in Apple fashion and fix the problems of AR and VR devices in the past. Google Glass was a compelling concept but it was severely lacking and Hololens looks promising but is lacking in practicality if it's essentially a a rectangle screen in your vision rather than putting virtual 3D objects all around you.

So you see VR as something a person enjoys in their homes, or riding in their personal transportation as their cars drive them around from place to place? Or maybe at the office? I would think that kind of useful tech would be useful all the time.

The problem with Google Glass was not implementation or what it could do, the problem was how it looked to other people, and what it represented -- a complete, geeky, violation of other's privacy. The had horrible industrial design. Nothing about them worked from a social or fashion perspective.

So how does Apple fix this? Better, more fashionable designs? Camera "on" indicators others can see from the outside? Incorporate them into sunglasses which almost everyone wears for essential outdoor activities until the features are so indispensable everyone is willing to wear glasses all the time?

As long as people can wear these things in the privacy of their own homes, I don't see any problems ... Google glass tried to push it into the public space way too soon. At most they should have advocated home, and office.

And I'm not really sure how acceptable they will ever be. Don't get me wrong, I can imagine how useful they would be at a big formal party with facial recognition telling me he names and titles of everyone in the room. No more forgetting colleagues names I work with in my industry. But in the other hand, a room full of people wearing glasses who otherwise don't need them is kinda weird. And, while I do wear glasses, the tech would have to be built in seamlessly into my existing frames. Contact lenses would be an important step toward this end. But frankly, I'm not sure I wouldn't just rather have stuff like that whispered into my ear, a la the movie "HER". That seems a far more acceptable and inconspicuous way to go.

While I see this as essential development for some applications, I still see it suffering from Google Glass social problems for anything other than private use, or task specific endeavors.
 
VR so far is very gaming centric and Apple as no interest in gaming.

To get framerates and image quality that don't cause motion sickness, VR needs very high end hardware. There is nothing from Apple that comes close to being able to drive decent VR.

VR seems to be the complete opposite of what Timmy's Apple stands for.

You mean 'great products that enrich people's lives'? No, this clearly doesn't fit Tim Cook's Apple. </s>

Also, Apple doesn't have powerful enough hardware... Yet. We heard rumours about mobile payments before the iPhone 6, but no one said 'the iPhone 5S didn't have NFC... This must be false!' I'm still shocked at how many people believe if Apple hasn't released X, it isn't capable of doing X and doesn't have it in the lab.

Apple does have interest in gaming: look beyond the Mac. Look at the iPhone and the Apple TV.
 
A big aspect of AR/VR is indeed gaming. But it's hardly the only application.
Yes. Hololens isn't really about gaming is it? I remember when Microsoft first showed it off Engadget ran a piece wondering when Apple became the boring company. So I find some of the comments here pretty amusing since the recurring theme with Apple seems to be a lack of innovation. Then when we hear about new things they're exploring the theme becomes Apple is working on too many things (or just becoming a me-too company) and betraying Steve Jobs. But we can't compare the Apple that Steve Jobs came back to, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, to the Apple of today that has $200B+ cash on the balance sheet. A lot of this stuff will probably never become products for sale but that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't be researching it. I would be more concerned if Apple wasn't doing R&D in this space.
 
This must be the same team that's also working on an Apple car. It's going to be a virtual car because it will never see the light of day. Apple sure is wasting a lot of money on secret teams and projects when what it really needs is a visionary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit
Remember when Apple used to lead with technology? Now it flails about chasing down blind alleys and the flavor of the week.

Apple is leaderless and clueless. Besides padding their own pockets they seem to have little focus or ideas these days.
[doublepost=1454180591][/doublepost]
A big aspect of AR/VR is indeed gaming. But it's hardly the only application.
Indeed, there's also inducement of nausea, dizziness and headaches.
 
Really trying to figure out how virtual reality will expand beyond video games...

I guess you could design a house or something and virtually walk thru it before you build/buy it.

merely being able to do and see and visit things and places when you otherwise could not afford it, whether financially/emotionally/physically or otherwise, i'd say the potential market is astronomical.

considering how cheap and 'advanced' google cardboard is in its fledgling state, the market isn't even exclusively Western. merely educational purposes in 3rd world countries could score a resounding win for VR, even if the silly Westerners do nothing but shoot each other on non-existent battlefields with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit
Remember when Apple used to lead with technology? Now it flails about chasing down blind alleys and the flavor of the week.

Apple is leaderless and clueless. Besides padding their own pockets they seem to have little focus or ideas these days.
[doublepost=1454180591][/doublepost]
Indeed, there's also inducement of nausea, dizziness and headaches.

For some. And it depends on the material being viewed. However while Google Cardboad devices have been intriguing - they (and the phones) lack the proper sensors to make the experience better.

Gear VR has additional sensors and it makes a world of difference in terms of head tracking and motion. Rift is supposed to be even better.

So have you used a Gear VR or the newest Rift. Or are you just speaking from the side of your mouth of from articles you've read.
 
Hololens isn't really about gaming is it?
HoloLens is about nothing, the website has an "apply" button, but no "buy" button. Google Glass was at least temporarily for sale. This is exactly the kind of publicity driven research Apple wouldn't do. They wouldn't want all the attention for something that isn't for sale right now.
I remember when Microsoft first showed it off Engadget ran a piece wondering when Apple became the boring company.
Apple is not an entertainment company, even less a content provider for Engadget. And Engadget is not a source for solid information and analysis about Apple.
So I find some of the comments here pretty amusing since the recurring theme with Apple seems to be a lack of innovation.
It's dumbfounding how wrong one can be. The most innovative company is treated as if it's only selling overpriced luxury items to deluded fans.
Then when we hear about new things they're exploring the theme becomes Apple is working on too many things (or just becoming a me-too company) and betraying Steve Jobs.
We never hear about anything. These are all just unconfirmed rumors. We only see finished products and read in depth reviews about the actual thing. So-called projects never leave the Apple campus. Not before and not after the presentation. Sometimes we see pictures of prototypes revealed during a trial, but never released by Apple itself.
But we can't compare the Apple that Steve Jobs came back to, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, to the Apple of today that has $200B+ cash on the balance sheet.
Sure we can. It's that kind of forced focus (forced by threat of bankruptcy) which allowed Apple to innovate and iterate faster on only a handful of products. Every additional product risks to overstretch limited capacities in both development and management. There aren't too many highly educated people in the world and they can't work two things at once.
A lot of this stuff will probably never become products for sale but that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't be researching it.
That's exactly what it means. If your want to make money and not advance science with foundational research, than there needs to be a marketable product in the end.
I would be more concerned if Apple wasn't doing R&D in this space.
Nobody cares what you are concerned about. Let Google and Microsoft waste a fortune on aimless R&D. We who absolutely depend on Apple computers in our life, don't want them to waste time on virtual reality, unless it becomes a useful addition to our workflow.
 
Yeap, a secret team working on the future too. Oh! Not to mention a secret team working on how to rebirth Jesus as well.
 
...Let Google and Microsoft waste a fortune on aimless R&D. We who absolutely depend on Apple computers in our life, don't want them to waste time on virtual reality, unless it becomes a useful addition to our workflow.

Vr could be the concept that kills any and all current tech company(s) that isn't at the forefront of it. who needs high-end beautiful physical products when you can put on eyewear and you can use any 'computing device' a company could dream up and deliver with computer generated 'magic' and a competent physics engine?
 
I think apple and other large companies should totally be investing in any new tech boundaries that arise.

I also feel like VR in it's current form is a product with zero potential. The nausea inducing ride that is VR needs so much computer power that portable is not possible for many years as currently dual titan x cards are needed to get high enough refresh rates 120Hz minimums!

Without eye tracks, without sub 2ms tracking of movements to video output you really can't stop the nausea.

Augmented reality has some potential but microsoft has huge issues expanding the area it can display it's currently a small box out infront, it needs to be the entire vision.

I fail to see uses yet, are we expecting people to use these sat down or maybe waving their arms about like kinect (also a failure) or maybe people will use it while driving or walking? I don't think gamers could benefit at all over a good monitor.

It's cool and all to see in 3D but didn't they want to do the same to your TV, and that didn't work out well now did it.

Hopefully someone can add that value but i don't suspect apple or any of the others will find it anytime soon.
 
I think apple and other large companies should totally be investing in any new tech boundaries that arise.

I also feel like VR in it's current form is a product with zero potential. The nausea inducing ride that is VR needs so much computer power that portable is not possible for many years as currently dual titan x cards are needed to get high enough refresh rates 120Hz minimums!..

It's cool and all to see in 3D but didn't they want to do the same to your TV, and that didn't work out well now did it.

sounds like you're one of the unlucky ones.. nausea affects the minority according to nearly unanimous reports.

secondly, i don't see what 3D tv has to do with the vastly different experience of VR on your face (& holophinic audio in your ears) any more than other current experience that comes from a 2D source 2-3+ feet away from your eyes.. peripheral vision is key to a subversive experience.

no one thought smartphones would be where they are today based on the offerings pre-2007, so VR has absolutely limitless potential right now. the world's best devs are already scrambling to create excellent content, including and not limited to gaming, education, simulation, travel, .......

and if it takes a high end mac pro to power the Apple VR 1, then they'll see a lot more sales of mac pros until they get their less powerful models compatible.
 
Nobody cares what you are concerned about. Let Google and Microsoft waste a fortune on aimless R&D. We who absolutely depend on Apple computers in our life, don't want them to waste time on virtual reality, unless it becomes a useful addition to our workflow.

But we should all care about what you're concerned about. I'm pretty sure Apple can have a small team researching VR while focusing on "Apple computers" too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
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.

So you have a huge problem with giving cash to increase Zuckerberg's billions, but have absolutely no problem with increasing Apple's billions?
 
Vr could be the concept that kills any and all current tech company(s) that isn't at the forefront of it. who needs high-end beautiful physical products when you can put on eyewear and you can use any 'computing device' a company could dream up and deliver with computer generated 'magic' and a competent physics engine?
That's weird, you quote me but I never wrote that! I agree Apple may well come up with something really cool.
 
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.
Visualization of the market ticker has been going on for decades. Some of the first VR applications were assigning the shape, color, transparency and even acoustic properties of objects to the ticker and related indexes to assist in buy / sell recommendations. This and other efforts have been part of replacing a wall of real time graphs to create something more intuitive. A lot of this is leaking out to public in different reports.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.