Apple Reportedly Completes Production Tests for AR/VR Headset

[Jensend]

Any leaks of the controllers?

This is what worries me the most. Just like the iPhone and iPad can be operated without a stylus, I'd guess that the realityOS and built in apps will be navigable just by hand tracking. But hand tracking alone won't cut it for many apps and games. Many developers will want to port their existing VR apps to this headset, and most existing apps were designed around controllers that have a thumbstick, two buttons (plus a system button), an analog trigger, and a grip trigger.

I’m still holding by my guns that this could in addition to acting as a stand-alone device, also be a secondary display for a Mac. If Apple can sell a 6K monitor for $5000, they can sell a 4K per eye headset for $2000 - $3000. Just as not all monitors are created equal, not all VR headsets are either. No one is comparing the Oculus to a Varjo for instance.

The biggest issue with that comparison is that nothing needs to be specifically made for that $6K 6K monitor. It has value if I'm the only one who uses it. It wouldn't be better for me if millions of other people also had the monitor. If few people have this VR headset, fewer developers will make software for it, and it becomes less valuable to me if I want to use it for more than just a virtual monitor.
I do think the virtual monitor / movie theater screen is an important use case, so if that is the only thing someone is buying the VR headset for, I suppose the analogy to a monitor works.

 

[UltimateSyn]

If it’s really going to ship this year I’d expect a WWDC preview of the platform.

 

[richinaus]

This is what worries me the most. Just like the iPhone and iPad can be operated without a stylus, I'd guess that the realityOS and built in apps will be navigable just by hand tracking. But hand tracking alone won't cut it for many apps and games. Many developers will want to port their existing VR apps to this headset, and most existing apps were designed around controllers that have a thumbstick, two buttons (plus a system button), an analog trigger, and a grip trigger.

The biggest issue with that comparison is that nothing needs to be specifically made for that $6K 6K monitor. It has value if I'm the only one who uses it. It wouldn't be better for me if millions of other people also had the monitor. If few people have this VR headset, fewer developers will make software for it, and it becomes less valuable to me if I want to use it for more than just a virtual monitor.
I do think the virtual monitor / movie theater screen is an important use case, so if that is the only thing someone is buying the VR headset for, I suppose the analogy to a monitor works.

They won't sell many of the first or second gen. This will be slow burning like a lot of other apple products.
lucky that Apple has deep pockets.

 

[_Spinn_]

I'm still very skeptical of AR/VR but I'm excited to see what Apple can do with it.

 

[mobiletech]

AR/VR will never take off its mostly a gimmick outside industrial purposes. The expense plus the space needed makes it a hard selling point. You will need $3,000.00 USD for AR.... and your mortgage will probably be around $2,500.00/month for the free space to risk not destroying everything around you. For $3,000 you can buy latest Apple A/R... or the newest Iphone, Macbook, and a Playstation 5 with money left over for a real game.

Also $3,000.00 is the kind of money where you can make milestone financial changes to your life. Like good investments, starting a business, downpayment on an apartment that is not in a bad neighborhood.

 

[TroyBoy30]

swimmers called. they want their goggles back

 

[nastysailboat]

I look for the whos the informer first...if its Digitimes, i dont read anything else
But i guess, they took my click already

Why, it’s called macrumors not macnews.

 

[nastysailboat]

swimmers called. they want their goggles back

Reminds me more of a ski goggle

 

[Highfalutintodd]

Everyone seems to be flipping out about the supposed pricing of this thing, but I'm thinking there could be some classic Apple misdirection at play here. We know that Apple has, historically, allowed bits and pieces of information (and misinformation) to "leak" out in order to either 1) gauge reaction, 2) set expectations, or 3) fully misdirect.

I think we're seeing a bit of 2 and 3 here.

First off, do I think that we'll be seeing Oculus Quest 2 pricing? No. The Headset (or whatever it will be called) has way more raw power than a Quest 2 and will probably be priced accordingly, especially since this is Apple we're talking about after all.

Do I think we're going to see a $2,000 - $3,000 Headset? Again, probably no. Especially not if Apple is legitimately wanting to make a consumer play here (which they probably are). I'm guessing that the Headset will probably be in the $1,000 - $1,500 range. Which is expensive for what we've come to think of as a stand-alone VR headset (Quest 2), but not expensive at all when you think about high-end VR headsets (HTC Vive / Valve Index). Especially when you consider that the high-end units ALSO require a pricing gaming PC to make them work. And even more especially when the rumors point to having M1 Pro levels of processing power which will make it akin to a high-end PC rig (cheapest M1 Pro MBP starts at $2k).

So what does Apple do? They "leak" that the Headset will cost up to $3,000 so that when they announce that it "only" costs $1,000 (to start), the conversation won't be about how expensive it is, but rather what a bargain it is (compared to what everyone thought it would be).

We've even got precedent - look at the original iPad. For months, the rumors pointed to it being $800 - $1,000 or more. What was its starting price when announced? $499. And everyone went nuts about how "inexpensive" it was.

OR, how about this? What if there's going to be two versions? Headset and Headset Pro? Headset is for consumers, starts at, say, $1,299, and has a bunch of accessories that you can add on to it (sold separately). Headset Pro is for businesses / professionals, starts at $2,499, and comes bundled with a bunch of stuff (or just has more gigawatts, gewgaws, LiquidMagicXDRRetina, or whatever).

Just thinking out loud.

 

[macduke]

Those dual 4K displays would also need to hit at least 90Hz to keep people from getting very sick from motion, and 120Hz is preferable. That's a lot of graphics for an M1 to drive, especially if anything about this is intended for gaming. Between that and the price and the potential use cases vs. current tech which is quite proficient, I don't see this going anywhere anytime soon. And as far as first generation products go, I think this may end up being one of the most underpowered and may make one of the largest leaps between first and second generation. Hopefully this thing will get the M2 instead at a minimum, but at this price it should be getting an M2 Pro at a minimum. No way to keep that lightweight though...

Who is the market for this thing? It's a big ass set of dorky goggles. No way I'm leaving my house wearing that thing. So if it's only for home use, is it for ingesting immersive content? Wouldn't be surprised to see a tie-in with Apple TV+ and some kind of 3D video thing. Apple loves integrating things on multiple levels like that. Think spatial audio.

 

[ThisIsMike]

I don’t know how many times it has to happen. I can’t see how anyone with some imagination cannot the see the potential of this product.

That’s EXACTLY the issue, lol so you should be able to see it really well. Most people actually DON’T have some imagination. Full stop. I’ve seen this over and over again, every time, with every possible thing, whether tech related or not.

That’s why there are so many people who don’t understand the potential of this. These are the same people who took ten years to give up on their blackberries, who assumed Tesla or electric vehicles were never going to go mainstream, who dismissed comic books as just kids trash, on and on.

I’ve lived through so much of this already that I just ignore it now. If you want to know what’s going to succeed, just look into whatever the nerds and geeks are excited about. Because they are the ones who have an imagination.

I’m personally not super into this. But I’ve thought through enough scenarios that I get this is going to happen whether I’m “into it” or not.

 

[ThisIsMike]

On a personal note, if I am ever required to put on a ****ing AR/VR headset to attend a meeting, I'll quit my job on the spot lol.

We’ll then, hopefully you have tremendous resources to fall back on. ?

 

[Daddygenderson]

Oculus $299, Apple 3k. This isn’t a price point apple should want to hit

Yeah but the oculus really really sucks. The image quality is really really terrible.

 

[ThisIsMike]

Apple need to take a leaf out of Googles book when it comes to pricing

They should, it's the polite thing to do. And to be fair to Google, it's never easy reading a book under a tree.

 

[Highfalutintodd]

Yeah but the oculus really really sucks. The image quality is really really terrible.

I wouldn't say really really sucks. It's perfectly adequate, especially for $300. That having been said, every time I use our kids' Quest 2, I have the impression of using a glorified tech demo. It's really cool, a lot of fun, and surprisingly engaging... but it's definitely rough around the edges. I don't hate the image quality as much as you do, but I agree that it could be significantly enhanced. When you're in the "sweet spot" the illusion is pretty good; when you're not, or around the edges of the image, that illusion is shattered quickly.

 

[ThisIsMike]

I have to assume Apple will lock out porn. It may be apocryphal, but the story goes that the technology porn adopts is the victor (vhs over Betamax, Blu-ray over hd dvd).

Do we think Apple buckles and allows porn, or does it try to position itself as the wholesome option? I figure the latter.

I'm pretty sure you can watch porn on an iPhone. At least, uh, that's what I hear.

 

[Jensend]

AR/VR will never take off its mostly a gimmick outside industrial purposes. The expense plus the space needed makes it a hard selling point. You will need $3,000.00 USD for AR.... and your mortgage will probably be around $2,500.00/month for the free space to risk not destroying everything around you. For $3,000 you can buy latest Apple A/R... or the newest Iphone, Macbook, and a Playstation 5 with money left over for a real game.

Also $3,000.00 is the kind of money where you can make milestone financial changes to your life. Like good investments, starting a business, downpayment on an apartment that is not in a bad neighborhood.

For some use cases, VR can also require less space than a traditional desktop setup. With VR I can have a multimonitor setup anywhere I can fit a keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
VR gives you the option to take advantage of more space. That doesn't mean it will be required for all apps.

 

[ThisIsMike]

No, people around here probably don't assume gaming. As you say, Apple has had MANY opportunities for that and never seriously gone after it (off phone).

If pricing rumors are true, it needs to bring something very desirable. For example, I just spent over $2K on a widescreen, high-resolution monitor for my next Desktop. There's some believing this product could virtualize ANY size monitor so your "big"/"best" monitor could always be with you. If so and if it works well (no headaches), I'd much rather have shot that $2K towards THIS instead.

My last big screen TV cost much more than the rumored price. If this could allow me to bring an equivalent big screen TV with me when traveling, I could rationalize a pretty good outlay for it.

The question will be: if something can fool your eyes into seeing ANYTHING, what anythings are worth whatever the actual MSRP will be? That's not a hard list to make. For example, sports fans might pay upwards of several thousand dollars for court-side seats to ONE game. A service that creates a realistic sense of sitting front-row center for any sporting event/show/etc seems like it would easily sell for several thousand dollars plus an ongoing service fee.

Peloton gets about $50/month so that you can ride a bike with instructors through a variety of places in 2D. If you could feel much more like actually being in those places (if you could look side to side and even behind you and see that you are THERE, is that not worth at least the same subscription cost? If so, how much is 2-3 years of that kind of experience worth?

Exercise/Dine with celebrities? Turn staycations into something that feels much more like true vacations? Go to a "live" Beatles concert in approx. 1963? Go be a part of ANY historical event that can be rendered for this? Lunch on the moon? (Superman) fly around anywhere? Swim down to check out Titanic first hand (and not be crushed by the pressures). Etc.

Many of us seem to only think gaming and that this is going to have to deliver a way for us to slice boxes flying at us in 3D upwards of 4X-6X better than Oculus. But gaining control of what our eyes see and what our ears hear has tons of possibilities far beyond what we've seen so far.

As others say, the software will make this sale. If the software dazzles, the demand will be there.

I see you've actually taken some time to think this through. You really shouldn't be in here.

 

[suns93]

I'm pretty sure you can watch porn on an iPhone. At least, uh, that's what I hear.

Hah yeah, I just heard someone talking about that too. Probably the same guy.

I’ll be honest, I’m not super familiar with VR headsets. You believe that Apple will be forced to include something like SafariVR that allows for unfettered access to the internet? I assumed everything on the set would be App driven and Apple would have the same censorship power they do now. You don’t think Apple would be able to lock it down that tight?

 

[dugbug]

Who is the market for this thing? It's a big ass set of dorky goggles. No way I'm leaving my house wearing that thing. So if it's only for home use, is it for ingesting immersive content? Wouldn't be surprised to see a tie-in with Apple TV+ and some kind of 3D video thing. Apple loves integrating things on multiple levels like that. Think spatial audio.

Thats not what you would use them for.
The competitors (as we think)
Consumer example ($300): Oculus
https://www.oculus.com/

Commercial/Industrial example ($3500): Microsoft Hololens
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens

 

[Abazigal]

Who is the market for this thing? It's a big ass set of dorky goggles. No way I'm leaving my house wearing that thing. So if it's only for home use, is it for ingesting immersive content? Wouldn't be surprised to see a tie-in with Apple TV+ and some kind of 3D video thing. Apple loves integrating things on multiple levels like that. Think spatial audio.

My guess is that there will be two versions. A bulkier VR headset for home use, and a more lightweight pair of AR glasses (which I imagine will be almost identical to a normal pair of spectacles) that you can wear outdoors all day just by tethering to your phone.

With Apple, the best way to approach this is to imagine what sort of experiences a product can enable. Live sports and concerts would be an interesting way to start.

 

[Daves0024]

$3000? Are you kidding me.....Anything over $500 and I'm out

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Apple need to take a leaf out of Googles book when it comes to pricing. Google's original Google glasses failed because of it's projected price point $1,500, which along with other issues those glasses never made into full production. Even their latest glasses are priced $999 and they only market it to workplaces.

Apple's version will sell because there are always Apple fans who will purchase anything Apple produce but for the majority, anything over $1000 is a product killer in my opinion because there are already good alternatives out there and they are a lot lot cheaper.

Google does not set the standard for hardware product launches — Apple does.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

This lends further proof of the possibility of announcing rOS at WWDC. The hardware may not ship until much later, but developers need time to develop!

 

[deconstruct60]

The biggest issue with that comparison is that nothing needs to be specifically made for that $6K 6K monitor. It has value if I'm the only one who uses it. It wouldn't be better for me if millions of other people also had the monitor. If few people have this VR headset, fewer developers will make software for it, and it becomes less valuable to me if I want to use it for more than just a virtual monitor.

There probably will not be a huge gap between this headset's AR mode and the AR mode on a iPhone. The immersive impact/effect would be different but pretty good chance would not have to completely rewrite the app from scratch.

There is a two fold scale impact there. First, a limited subset of developers could do AR app development on iPhones ( like already doing for last couple of years). Second, some AR headset app developers have an outlet beyond the headset for the slightly different app build for iPhones/iPads.

The primary market for the $3K headset probably is business ( would pay for custom apps anyway... so not interest in lower common denominator consumer solution anyway) and developers for Apple's eventual other product priced below this. If the rumor was that this was Apple's only AR product for the next 5 years there would be an issue. To some extent this can be the "chicken or egg" first step. At least on the AR side.

Apple's explicitly stated priority is AR; not VR. They may evolve VR over a period of time, but that is't what they have been laying the largest amount of foundation for years at this point.

For the first year or two I would surprised if Apple try to push this as a "who has biggest app store" and try to turn this into some developer app submission , 49er mania gold rush. Race to the bottom pricing on the apps. tracking headset wearers to make money. etc. A bit more focus of quality over quantity would be warranted here at first. ( Apple will get some decent quantity with AR apps because already prepped that. )

The "don't buy an Xbox/PS .. buy an Apple VR headset instead" crowd I doubt Apple is deeply interested in chasing after initially.

I do think the virtual monitor / movie theater screen is an important use case, so if that is the only thing someone is buying the VR headset for, I suppose the analogy to a monitor works.

By a VR headset instead of an XDR to watch movie crowd? I doubt Apple is seriously chasing that crowd either. Take their money yes. Real focus of the product? No.

Something like doctor doing robotic surgery where the super high screen fidelity had deeper substantive impact on making a difference. Rather than for better giggles.