Apple Headset's Capabilities Said to 'Far Exceed' Those of Rival Devices

[jchap]

Sorry, this isn't going to be mainstream successful because most people aren't going to be walking around with this on their face.

Maybe you won't, but kids will. I can definitely see this happening. Many kids care a lot less about how they look to the outside world, and might just want to enjoy the fun of VR/AR wherever they go, at the behest (or sometimes approval?) of their parents.

 

[jchap]

They have already been released by Apple, they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple has taken the stage and given people some uses of them.

This thing is still mostly behind the curtain, mockups have no Apple logo, Apple has not yet taken the stage. So it appears our collective imaginations are limited to some variation of Meta Oculus. Most of us can't seem to think beyond this concept that if this thing is able to show us an alternate reality that looks as real as actual reality, it can show us anything we could possibly want to see... which then creates opportunities for everything we would pay to see to come to us wherever we are.

Now, tack on some buds and perhaps the second most important sense can hear anything we want to hear... to further the illusion of being ANYWHERE at ANY point in time, experiencing anything that might please those 2 (biggest?) senses.

Those 2 ANYTHINGS are insanely powerful. Fool both the eyes and ears into seeing & hearing ANYTHING and the applications of that power could be dazzling.

I foresee PLENTY of "killer apps" potential with those 2 powers delivered well. I have 0% perception that the bulk of the punch of this product is games, where we are cutting bricks flying at us in half. Apple has been at this much too long to roll out Apple Oculus ++.

We're supposed to be the "think different" crowd. And yet- on this product- we seem to only be able to imagine "the same." Are we the ones who are supposed to "think different" or is only the corporation able to do that and we need them to show us new and different things because our imaginations are completely shot?

Fire up those imaginations! What would you really love to see but can't for whatever reason?

• How about courtside at the playoffs (how much are courtside seats to a single game?). How much would courtside be to ALL of the games? For a whole season if you really love some sport(s)?
• How about front row center for a season of Broadway? How much would those tickets cost... and flights to/from NYC... and lodging for each show?
• How much would it cost to see ALL of the Cirques all over the world in person and in the best seats in the house?
• How about NFL Sunday Ticket VR (the same offering Hulu bought repackaged as a VR service exclusive for this)?
• How much is front row for Taylor Swift going for? How about all of your favorite music acts?
• Olympics?
• Museums far far away?
• Lunch on the Moon? Dinner once every week in Paris or London or anywhere?
• How much is that African safari (that you may not every really get to do)?
• How much on the bucket list may be beyond ever being achieved in person but could possibly come to you this way for "next best thing" experiences?
• The Beatles in Hamburg about 1962? Elvis in 1956? ANY historical event is only a VR coding project away (all modern gaming is pretty much already 3D worlds created from nothing... but most of us can only view those worlds through a 2D rectangle). VR apps of desirable historical events could be coded much like immersive games are coded. Ed Sullivan: "And here they are... the Beatles!"
• There's already hologram-based shows like the Frank Sinatra concert. This could have Frank come perform wherever you are. Frank Sinatra seeming to be there LIVE in your living room... not on a 2D rectangle but apparently in 3D... as if he is really there with you... performing for you.
• If you had a time machine and could go see anything that has ever happened, where would you go? Talk about "walking with dinosaurs"??? WOW! What would you pay for even a 30-minute reality tour in the Cretaceous period?
• And on... and on... and on.

"Think different!" You can still do it if you try. Try!

Perhaps the point is that it's all just an illusion, fed to you in your googles or glasses as long as you wear them. Once you remove the device, the illusion is over, and you're back to the real world.

Maybe some people can benefit from such illusions for a spell, as entertainment or as education or simply to give them a "break" from what we perceive to be the "real world," but they should never for an instant believe that what they see and hear in their goggles is a world in which they can permanently exist.

 

[michaelprescott]

Maybe you won't, but kids will. I can definitely see this happening. Many kids care a lot less about how they look to the outside world, and might just want to enjoy the fun of VR/AR wherever they go, at the behest (or sometimes approval?) of their parents.

Also, it doesn't make sense to me that we should wait for another 10 years for perfection of lightweight AR glasses and eventually contacts before we start creating non-flat, non-rectangular content, apps, and services. Improvements to hardware and the platform will be continuous and iterative, but we can start building next gen media, tools, and apps for it now.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple is obviously staging for all of that and more. All of that, AND immersed in new types of movies/worlds/media PLUS attending those events with your friends and family no matter where they are, they can be right there with you. Sure, nothing beats the real thing, but I'd still love to sit down with a cup of coffee and talk with friends or family anytime, anywhere.

I completely see that... a whole range of services.

In that context, the actual seat might cost a few thousand for one event... and only one butt can sit in it. Most people would love to be right there but can't afford the seat... and even among those who can, the seat can only accommodate ONE person. However one VR seat could accommodate up to an infinite number of butts... thus a VR "best seat in the house" experience could be sold for a fraction of the actual reality price to all those people who could never afford reality and/or just can't be there for any other reason. Actual seat sellers will still sell the actual seats for full price but now they can make much more money by allocating a little space for this virtual seat for upwards of thousands to millions of people who can't be at the event... or can't afford that seat at that event... but would be willing to pay a fraction of the "actually there" price.

Myself? I've just watched seemingly countless people happily lay out upwards of about $2K for a monitor that will likely sit in one place for its entire useful life. How much would they pay if they could easily have that monitor with them anywhere they go... like a MBpro 27" without the onerous size & weight of the ASD in some kind of MB giganto-package? What if goggles can deliver any size screen like that?

This actually SEEMS like the EASIEST application for goggles to deliver. Certainly, it will be able to simulate a 2D screen. If so, can it simulate a 2D computer screen? If so, I imagine this as a new kind of laptop "form factor" in which bottom half of MB is still "as is" but top half is virtualized in these Goggles. If so, this delivers the oft-wanted 17" (screen) MB... or an 18" or a 20" or a 24" or 30", etc. This might be the much-wanted iMac 27", 30", 32", ultra-wide, multi-screen setup, etc too.

What if Apple is also pursuing the same thing that is motivating the competition to roll out foldable screens: how to deliver even bigger screens in a still mobile package? But instead of only copying a folding screen, Apple is trying to deliver any size phone screen, any size tablet screen, any size laptop, any size desktop, any size TV screen, any size movie screen, etc. ALL if this ONE thing. We'll never get ALL of the desirable sizes of all such products in actual products from Apple. But the screen portion virtualized could deliver all of them in 2023, designed and "manufactured" in California without having to pay a nickel to supply chain screen makers for these many new "Apple" screens.

Conceptually, if our eyes are fooled into thinking we are seeing reality, why not THAT reality too? And if so, a relatively small package that fits in a bag not so different than a laptop now may become an option for any-size screen computing on demand... used just like we use laptops now except now we have whatever size screen we need for any job.

When I go from my 40" ultra-wide desktop screen to a 16" MB, it feels insanely cramped. I actually HATE that screen RE shrink when I need to get things done away from the desk. Yet that's the biggest MB screen available. A 17" would not be any better. A 20" would not be much better. A 40" MB makes no practical sense.

What if this lets me have my 40" wherever I happen to be? Would I pay $3K for that? I certainly would. Would I pay $3K for ONLY that one benefit? I certainly would. I paid about $2K for a screen that will be locked in one spot for its entire life. Only $1K more to have it with me at any time, wherever I am? Sign me up!

 

[svish]

Looking forward to seeing it in action at WWDC.

 

[michaelprescott]

What if goggles can deliver any size screen like that?

I don't disagree with you at all. But rather would like to add to that, to inspire another idea. Why replicate screens at all. Why be constrained to the rectangular paradigm? Sure, legacy apps will find new sizes and placement throughout your workspace, but going forward new apps will take on new dimensions and shapes.

Edit: I was tinkering with a new AR app the other day, and a small animated character was running around my desk. What was really cool is it "sensed" the placement of new objects on my desk and would hop onto those items or walk around them and with a neat occlusion effect so I could see when it hid behind various obstacles. But, new apps could be even simpler, but more interesting and engaging. Imagine a new stack of documents or messages accumulating on your desk, easily distributed or sorted and stacked. As if I need more clutter on my real desk, but... those things would be virtual and easily "cleaned up", but more naturally handled.

And, I'm still thinking too 2 dimensionally. Really creative minds will find even better ways to provide useful and interesting apps and visualizations.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You'd think the "think different" crowd would have similar imagination running wild... instead of filling every Goggles thread with mountains of pessimism because we can't imagine anything more than what we've seen from Oculus and or gaming consoles.

For a crowd who flips out when any competitor dares to copy or even remotely copy something from Apple, you'd think we could assume that Apple could do more than copy Meta or Sony with this 6-7+ year creation. I thoroughly doubt this will be Oculus++ with an Apple logo on it for many times the Oculus price. I read some people's posts and its as if they can only imagine this is exactly that: scrape off the Meta branding, stick on an Apple logo, jack the price and that's what Apple has been working on for 6+ years.

Read the words people: VIRTUAL REALITY. Think about what that means. If these can show our eyes ANYTHING in a realistic way where it seems like we are "there", what could be done with that capability? If you can make a list of things you would pay to see if you could only afford it and/or if you only had a way to be there, some of those things may become the "content/apps" for this offering. Yes, you would not actually be there but then you might not actually be paying as much as being there either... and can "next best thing" to being there for much less cost.

I suspect there is substantial markets- and very profitable revenue- in such opportunities... like instead of selling one seat to something for $8K, you sell 3,000 virtual seats in that same spot for $200. Many people might not be able to afford $8K for one event, but $200 starts getting near PPV pricing, but for an experience that is much more like actually being there.

Apple takes their big cut and that's still far more revenue for one seat for 3000 people to "sit" there than selling that one seat to one person to sit there. Apple win$. Vendor win$. This kind of (many) customers get to VR attend instead of not attending at all (for $0 revenue).

Again, sports fans: who would like to be courtside for the playoff games right now? Why aren't you? Is there any room for something much more like being there than watching on television? How much would you pay for that?

Concerts. Destinations (you may never actually visit in person but want to). Experiences. Present an alternate reality to the eyes that seems just as real as real and all of the stuff we may not be able to afford to see (or perhaps are unable to see for other reasons) may be able to come to us. What is that worth to us? I can't make my television get me into Broadway shows. I can't make TNT put me courtside for whole games. I can't make my TV show me all Cirques around the world. Etc.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Prob gonna be waiting in line for this one just like I did for the orig iPhone...

Time to get the popup sidewalk campsite ready...

Nah, pre-order online then just wait for it to get to you

 

[MrTemple]

They need a killer app to make it successful but what is that?

No killer app for the iPhone. Or iPad. Or Apple Watch.

FACT: They don’t need a killer app.

If you look at the other VR headsets they are usually novelty gifts on Christmas Day put in a drawer to never be reused.

Why are you assuming it’s going to be a VR device? Just because the MacRumors mockup image looks like it?

VR is a novelty.

Apple has been laser focused on AR, not VR.

AR is ENORMOUSLY different in its usefulness and life-integration potential.

And if you don’t understand how key that distinction is, then in 5y you are gonna look back on your post and shake your AR-rig-wearing head that you didn’t see it.

 

[michaelprescott]

then in 5y you are gonna look back

I don't think it'll take 5 years. AI is evolving much faster than anyone anticipated, and it's a multiplier to many industries. Content and app creation for this new platform will progress exponentially faster than it did with our old rectangular devices.

 

[MrTemple]

There are definitely some silly gooses around these forums who will buy it no matter what, but without a regular use case I don’t see how this will have widespread adoption. It’s not better for Facetime than the thing that’s already nearest you (phone/iPad). It’s not better for at-home fitness than a TV - who’s going to want to strap themselves into this thing and work out? There’s definitely a gaming potential in this category, but that would require, well, games, and Apple’s fumbled that bag so much in the past I don’t have a lot of faith.

Are you honestly questioning the usefulness of having a customizable HUD between you and the real world?

 

[5105973]

No offense to anyone here, but online forums often make me want to go out and interact with live human beings and make new friends... 😏 (Not that anyone is not a human being here...)

Saying that might make me a bot!

Joking aside, I'm not sure why anyone would bother wearing VR glasses or goggles in public places like that, unless it gave them some much-needed assistance that they normally couldn't have without them, and they didn't mind looking like a fool and looking at the world through a filter. If the technology really slims down to the point where it's unnoticeable, I'm sure its popularity in the public eye will increase.

Isn't it a little frightening to think that people who are wearing those things might be able to instantly scan you as they walk by you, and quickly call up all relevant social profiles? I can see that future coming eventually, once the technology makes it possible. Creepier and creepier. We can of course snap photos of people with our smartphones and do image searches on them now, but it's not as easy, and it's very easily noticed. I wouldn't dare.

That's actually the use case I'd buy them for. I have a problem in that I can't remember people's names after introductions. For me to remember a person's name and associate it to their face, I have to spend a considerable amount of time with them or see a name tag on them.

If you're wearing a name tag and we are introduced, I will remember your name. If not, I won't have any memory of your name whatsoever, even if we converse extensively for an hour.

When I used to be a bank teller, I instantly memorized every customer I waited on and basic information I needed to know about their account. I still remember this information and these people decades later. Even though most are likely passed away by now. It's because they'd walk in and I'd see their identification and the computer told me their pertinent data. It all came together in a way my brain could put together and commit to memory.

So my memory is weird. And it's a constant source of embarrassment to me and a point of friction against making new friends at the school functions I attend. It makes my life uncomfortable because I can't remember the names of the staff at my mom's assisted living facility even after they've introduced themselves, sometimes more than once. Apparently my inability to match names to faces after verbal introductions is weird and offensive.

Because I've noticed a lot of people seem shocked and a little insulted when I have to say "I'm sorry but could you tell me your name again.". If I could find a way to never have to ask that question again, and avoid these looks from people, I'd be delighted.

So, if Apple ever makes a pair of glasses that can discreetly remind me the name of a person in front of me, I'd pay $3,000 for it. I don't want to be creepy. I want to be "normal." I want to be polite.

Unfortunately I think we're a long way away from normal looking glasses that can do that. I wonder if these goggle things are an early prototype of my dream glasses.

 

[filmantopia]

it's not so much "an app" as the packaging. Which is what all the doubters are missing. The smartphone, by the time it matured in about 2010 brought mobile computing, media consumption, still camera, camcorder, communication and more all into a pocket sized, affordable device. For most people's everyday needs it did more than any computer at a lower price. It killed the camcorder, cell phone, point and shoot camera, PDA, portable DVD player, UMPC, mp3 player, and most of the ereader market by combining a 'good enough' version of those devices in one cheap package.

AR will do the same but also roll up TVs and computer monitors at the very minimum. Plus once mature will allow a user to fundamentally alter the fabric of their reality, to see infrared beams or turn Black objects blue. To make their jog in a gym feel like a mountaintop stroll. This first gen device is likely mostly useless, unless there's some super great integration with AppleTV and Macs (ideally also with PCs and Roku, but that's a pipe dream) to replace monitors and TVs for many users, but it will allow developers and early adopters to start developing the AR future.

The Newton was basically useless, and a 2007 iPhone was honestly not all that either, but it laid the groundwork for huge societal changes to come over the next few years. Well executed, AR headsets can be the next smartphones.

I think AR headsets will be the next Macs, and AR glasses will be the next iPhones.

 

[MrTemple]

I don't think it'll take 5 years. AI is evolving much faster than anyone anticipated, and it's a multiplier to many industries. Content and app creation for this new platform will progress exponentially faster than it did with our old rectangular devices.

It’ll take time for such a revolutionary product to find its real stride and become effectively the smartphone replacement.

The first 2-3y will just be spooling up the developer ecosystem.

And it takes a certain amount of time in enough real people’s hands (on heads?) before we really know what kind of functionality truly embeds into our lives.

The coding of the apps won’t take long with or without AI. It’s figuring out what we all want that takes some iteration and a ton of actual human-hours of use.

The killer apps that sell a hundred million of the 4th version of the AR glasses hasn’t even been imagined yet.

Can’t really be imagined until we start using them and collaborating our imaginations with what everybody else is doing at the outset of this revolution.

 

[jchap]

That's actually the use case I'd buy them for. I have a problem in that I can't remember people's names after introductions. For me to remember a person's name and associate it to their face, I have to spend a considerable amount of time with them or see a name tag on them.

<snip>

So, if Apple ever makes a pair of glasses that can discreetly remind me the name of a person in front of me, I'd pay $3,000 for it. I don't want to be creepy. I want to be "normal." I want to be polite.

Unfortunately I think we're a long way away from normal looking glasses that can do that. I wonder if these goggle things are an early prototype of my dream glasses.

I can understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age in which many people object to having their photos taking without their permission, regardless of how the photos are used. There are actually laws regarding personal image rights in some countries, in which the image of a person is considered to be intellectual property.

Of course, if you're asking them for permission first, then legally you would be in good shape. Naturally, when such technology actually hits the mainstream, it will be worse than smartphones and video cameras in this respect—we will no longer be able to tell whether we are being photographed. (Actually, many countries, regions and businesses open to consumer traffic practice public surveillance for the "greater good," which means that your photo or even video image could have been taken countless times without you knowing it.)

 

[MrTemple]

So, if Apple ever makes a pair of glasses that can discreetly remind me the name of a person in front of me, I'd pay $3,000 for it. I don't want to be creepy. I want to be "normal." I want to be polite.

Unfortunately I think we're a long way away from normal looking glasses that can do that. I wonder if these goggle things are an early prototype of my dream glasses.

Bingo. This is exactly it.

For the first two years of iPhone apps didn’t exist. It was basically a tech demo that was necessary to get to the iPhone that was actually what we’d call a smartphone.

These glasses are not going to be what you want. But it 💯 is coming.

Name tag, maybe with a little note you set “Jeff’s friend”. Heck you could even have it show their last couple social posts to see what they’ve been up to.

Or who knows something entirely different we can’t imagine yet, because we’ve never yet experienced the connected world actually set free to fully integrate into the real world. 🤷‍♂️

 

[corinthos]

I am locutus of borg. Resistance is futile. We think you are going to love it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m very confused about this question of a “killer app”. What is the “killer app” on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac?

For the iPad, apparently, it’s a calculator app with an Apple logo on it.

 

[MrTemple]

I can understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age in which many people object to having their photos taking without their permission, regardless of how the photos are used. There are actually laws regarding personal image rights in some countries, in which the image of a person is considered to be intellectual property.

Of course, if you're asking them for permission first, then legally you would be in good shape. Naturally, when such technology actually hits the mainstream, it will be worse than smartphones and video cameras in this respect—we will no longer be able to tell whether we are being photographed. (Actually, many countries, regions and businesses open to consumer traffic practice public surveillance for the "greater good," which means that your photo or even video image could have been taken countless times without you knowing it.)

Absolutely ZERO chance that the Apple Glasses can take a picture.

Only overlay info. Will never be able to record.

Google found out the hard (but obvious in retrospect) way that you can’t sell a product that lets people take discrete photos.

You will never ever see an image that comes out of the camera of these. Never see an Apple-gate article about somebody with these in a locker room, etc.

And for good reason.

 

[t0rqx]

In my opinion: It took the Apple Watch 6th generations to be even considered useful.

 

[steve09090]

All right, I concede your point. I was being a little harsh.

You might agree, though, that the "spectacle" (pun intended) of a gaggle of human beings wearing goggles to "enhance their reality" is a bit unnatural.

Of course, we do a lot of things that would not have seemed "natural" two centuries ago, like riding inside these metal boxes that carry us from place to place.

Totally agree. I think we have all seen things seemingly strange, only to become the norm later on.

If it costs even half of what’s predicted and doesn’t ship with strong gaming capabilities and catalog (which seems unlikely), I really feel like any tech advantage won’t be enough to win out consumers.

Apple really needs to find a very compelling use case, otherwise I feel they’re better off shipping something technically inferior but at a price point where people feel they can dabble in the tech a bit. So far every article is discussing apps and capabilities that exist on iOS and Mac, and while this might extend those apps much further, it’s also a device that’s unlikely to have as much utility and portability too which is a big trade off.

I’m not convinced it is aiming to be a device that all consumers will want, and it will be more a niche device. For example, the LiDAR on the iPhone 12 Pro & iPad Pro were what I felt I needed at the time to make it easier to make floor plans etc. It was. The AR headset may have some specific purposes, be it health, mapping or some other reason. I can’t see it being bought as a FaceTime device, but I would expect it could be used as such.

Three things Apple have excelled in.

1. Bringing different technologies together in a way to create something that is much bigger than a sum of its parts.
2. Making products that we didn’t think we needed or wanted
3. Creating a market that is blatantly copied/stolen or built upon.

 

[steve09090]

Absolutely ZERO chance that the Apple Glasses can take a picture.

Only overlay info. Will never be able to record.

Google found out the hard (but obvious in retrospect) way that you can’t sell a product that lets people take discrete photos.

You will never ever see an image that comes out of the camera of these. Never see an Apple-gate article about somebody with these in a locker room, etc.

And for good reason.

I'm not convinced. If these goggles have a form of ‘transparency mode' they will need at least a camera pair.

You know what is better than a Google Car driving down your street once a year? People walking around the streets capturing a depth map every day using built in stereo cameras.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Will it be easier to navigate the Music app with this thing?

 

[SpaceCrystal]

Not buying a first gen product.

This. Just look at the AirPods Max with some of its flaws such as no power on/off button & having to rely on its carrying case just to charge it.

 

[Tagbert]

No offense to anyone here, but online forums often make me want to go out and interact with live human beings and make new friends... 😏 (Not that anyone is not a human being here...)

Saying that might make me a bot!

Joking aside, I'm not sure why anyone would bother wearing VR glasses or goggles in public places like that, unless it gave them some much-needed assistance that they normally couldn't have without them, and they didn't mind looking like a fool and looking at the world through a filter. If the technology really slims down to the point where it's unnoticeable, I'm sure its popularity in the public eye will increase.

Isn't it a little frightening to think that people who are wearing those things might be able to instantly scan you as they walk by you, and quickly call up all relevant social profiles? I can see that future coming eventually, once the technology makes it possible. Creepier and creepier. We can of course snap photos of people with our smartphones and do image searches on them now, but it's not as easy, and it's very easily noticed. I wouldn't dare.

I'm still sure I would not wear them, and it's not for me. Would rather see the world outside through my own eyes. Maybe there are medical and technical professionals who will benefit from this, though. For instance, surgeries, car repairs and home maintenance and so on. Like any technology, it will have its benefits to society, and also some drawbacks and scary implications to deal with.

I doubt that this version of the device is intended for wearing in public places though that won’t stop some from trying it.