Or the rumors surrounding the device are true regarding issues and manufacturing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rumored to Announce 'Game-Changer' AR/VR Headset in January 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Likely this device isn't even geared for that. Granted it could be used for it. I doubt that's the intention.
Developers will certainly need time to create content and games for this. I like this timing.
They've had nearly 5 years to do that - that's how long ARKit has been available. Tim Cook in the interview in which he told us to stay tuned also mentioned that there are more than 14,000 AR apps already. Presumably they'd run unchanged on whatever new headset will come out - especially if that headset will simply act as a display and sensor for an AR app running inside the iPhone.
But not really, right? Not at $3,000. Maybe a pro-level equivalent?
Unlike the mobile phone space in 2007, there’s barely an existing market to revolutionize. Neither is there a broad perception of such a device being a near necessity. And at the price point, Apple is very unlikely to create consumer-level enthusiasm, particularly if inflation continues to force belt-tightening.
If that price or even $2k turns out to be correct, this won’t be an iPhone (existing market) or iPad (creating a need) moment. And I doubt even Apple believes it could be. As predicted, this is a enterprise-level device with productivity software and a defined market. Perhaps there’s a small chance it will provide so fantastic an entertainment experience that average consumers will feel compelled to go into multi-period long debt to have it, but when has that ever happened?
I’m going respectfully disagree that the product is DOA if it is released as a combined AR/VR product.
I do agree that doing so will nearly eliminate its viability as a product to take with you out of the house. But I think there’s enough usage potential within the home to justify the product’s existence.
If it brings utility in elevating the work from home experience, home entertainment, and home workouts, that’s more than enough to justify the purchase to me. If I only take it out of the home for very specific reasons maybe once a month, that’s just icing on the cake.
I personally don’t have the imagination to see how I could utilize the device in my line of work, so unless I’m proven wrong, that makes the purchase much harder to justify.
I’m just waiting for European regulators to announce that it must also run Android to be sold in the EU.
What is the source of the $3,000 price many people here insist on clinging to? Apple? An "analyst?" MR? Someone's guess?
It's as if people are grasping onto that price in order to have a ready-made argument as to why the device won't be successful.
Last edited:
Well, you're kind of taking away the wrong conclusion from what I was implying: I don't think the technology is there to implement VR "headsets" in the way Kuo described - at least not in a form that potential Apple customers would be willing to wear them. They'd have to be stylish and be comfortably wearable for prolonged periods of time. I'm not talking about content creators (developers) wearing these headsets for prolonged periods of time - I'm talking about the end user! Apple and Tim Cook have said, time and again, that their goal is AR, not VR. Understandable, since Apple wants to create a market the size of iPhone if not bigger. That is not going to happen with VR.
Maybe Apple will introduce VR goggles that can also do AR - but if they cost $3,000 as the article suggests and have all their intelligence on-board rather than offloaded to an iPhone, I think those goggles will be duds on the order of the Newton. If they are lightweight goggles that use the iPhone for the 'heavy lifting' and sell for $1000, I can see some success. And the experience can be carried forward into future AR glasses that weigh 20g and can be worn all day.
There is of course truth here and Apple will show their hand in time but it also doesn't have to be an exact retread of the iPhone pattern. Despite global/economic turbulence people do buy luxury items and Apple's barrier to entry continues to climb for a lot of people.
People do buy into the concept of home cinemas, high end speakers, £500 headphones, £400 smart watches (years after watches were declared dead), dedicated consoles, smart fridges, £2.5k+ computers, £1300 phones and so on and so forth. I absolutely would expect it to be pitched as a higher end, luxurious but transformative product.
It all hinges on solving core problems with this product category and sharing a vision/narrative that people can buy (marketing).
Using the internet analogy from earlier, people in the 90's weren't clamouring for £2000 computers or £1400 touch screen phones until Apple created the desire and need to do so to remain in the loop as part of the connected world.
If this product is demonstrably immersive, easy to use, a true cinema experience at home, a method of operating an intuitive 100" Mac Whiteboard, a way to visit other worlds with clarity and so on or so forth, people will show up.
But we just have to wait a little bit longer to see what they've been up to, if anything!
Google search for Apple VR Headset Price. How were you not aware of the rumors? Time will tell if they are true or not, but that's the information we have.
Keeping my hopes up that Apple understands what they need to deliver in that (glass-lens and wide FOV) price-range. The more wide-FOV VR equipment hits the market the better; it's one of the major hurdles with immersion than only a handful of devices have yet addressed.
I was aware of the rumors. I've yet to see one that has *any* credibility at all. Just someone's guess.
Hilarious how people instantly latch onto that kind of nonsense and assume it's fact. Even when it doesn't pass the smell test.
People do that because they need a reason to knock an unannounced product, especially when it's from Apple, in order to feel good. Pretty funny.
Excited! Might be available to buy only later on though.
Not very much, for one thing we already had the Sony Walkman which had been a huge success. The only people who were downbeat about digital music were the ones heavily invested in vinyl and CD's.
I mean watch the terminator movies and tell me you wouldn't want to see the world through the terminators eyes. Only better because his display was mostly red as I recall
ha haprom videos will maybe look super amazing
A couple of factors.
From the story at the start of this thread.
"... The headset is rumored to feature a lightweight design, two 4K micro-OLED displays, 15 optical modules, two main processors, Wi-Fi 6E connectivity, eye tracking, object tracking, and hand gesture controls, and more. ..."
1. Micosoft Hololens is higher than the current mainstream VR headsets. It uses a unique chip for part of the rendering computation ( not just solely an off-the-shelf Qualcomm VR SoC. ). Apple is also focused more on AR than VR. They are also rumors to be using multiple "compute" chips in the headset (and definitely will be custom. )
[ wouldn't be surprising at all if needed TSMC N3 (or better) fab process. So not cheapest SoC dies either. ]
2. Some early rumors had this at two 8K displays. Now 'merely' two 4K display. If make those two micro-LEDs 4K at bleeding edge fabrication/manufacturing processes then they will be expensive. Likely also really not high volume production either ( if the amount can make is limited , then lowering the price will produce an even deeper shortage).
3. Weight. Similarly the lens are reported to be optimized to be lighter weight. And anything else that trades lower weight for higher cost.
4. Displays on the outside also. ( Reportedly some at Apple thought it would be more interactive for folks looking tat the wearer to still see the "eyes"/expression of the wearer). [ Somewhat likely also that the settings user interace could use the front display so that the device is fully independent. Again an edict of no tethering that also doesn't really defray costs. ]
Most VR Headsets on market are not near 4K/eye. Nor using micro-LEDs. 15 sensor modules/cameras. Eye tracking/foveal rendering? barely.
WWDC 2022 introduced Apple's upscaling so 4K probably is going to be weaved into foveal rendering( eye tracking) so not hyper reality focus , but more on removing eye discomfort and perception glitches with just "cheaper" screens that hit lower price points.
The other major factor is that Apple is also reportedly working on a AR only headset. So the AR/VR headset does not have to achieve high volume. That's is one of the baked in presumptions when comparing to Quest 2 or PSVR 2. "Apple won't sell as many as the existing VR headsets". That isn't what they are out to do. If they want to sell high volume AR glasses then the VR headsets are not the primary competition.
The AR/VR headset arrives a couple years earlier because can't shrink the tech into the AR glasses yet. Bigger headset would allow development on earlier tech to mature so that would be ready to merge later when the AR glasses can hit high volume hardware production. (e.g. use a Mac to developer iPhone apps. There doesn't have to be a 1:1 ratio of Macs sold to iPhones. )
If Apple's objective is to create something that drives more human interaction as opposed to an escapist world , then they are on a different path the the "metaverse" folks.
My question is who (a name and credentials, please) came up with the $3,000 cost?
Doubtful they would run well completely unchanged. Most apps are going to have presumptions about the screen size and shape baked in. Those presumptions won't necessarily match the screen shape of a AR/VR screen (which is going to be more tuned to the eye perception parameters than the shape of a hand/palm. )
There would not be a need to complete re-writes , but just because build something for an iPhone doesn't mean it runs and displays well on an iPad or Mac. AR/VR and VR headsets probably need some limited adjustments. So Apple does have a solid library and 'developer skill set' foundations, but not completely finished apps.
Like the iPhone there could be an AR/VR headset emulator to help with screen layout modeling. So apps that needed minor adjustments could be done in the six month lull between announce and ship. (presuming Apple updates XCode right away at the announcement. Little good reason they wouldn't. ). So likely closer to the case they have a substantive amount of apps that could be pivoted to a headset in a reasonable amount of time.
It probably isn't "just a display". If the headset is WiFI 6E and the overwhelming vast majority of the iPhones are not ... that is a bandwidth mismatch issue.
Reportedly there are several multiples of more cameras on the headset than the iPhone so why would be AR app run on the iPhone when vast majority of the data is on the headset? Perhaps the headset "chews" all the data and just pushes down a compressed 3d object map. Shipping all that down and back may not make sense if can just put an approximately scoped "iPhone SoC" into the headset. One SoC more tuned to doing sensor fusion. And another SoC that has similar parameters to iPhone (e.g., Studio Display ... although actually use it for app running. )
That Apple Watch phase where app compute was split over the phone and watch had issues with batter consumption for both devices. And ARKit apps ran on iPhones a couple of generations ago. ( if take the current Apple GPUs to TSMC N3 could make a smaller , lower powered SoC that could run the apps at lower power. Once get to point where doing it local is lower than than the to/from radio transmission power (and latency ) costs then it doesn't make sense to go remote. )
If Apple makes a custom fixed function logic subsystem for the sensor data fusion that could leave decent thermal/battery headroom to get a minimal iPhone SoC and Flash NAND into the device. They could also not tune it well for "long distance" Wi-Fi and forgo all cellular (leave that stuff for an iPhone ) .
There could be some custom 'external display' mode for the Phone ( i.e., phone call comes in and answer it on the AR/VR headset.), but not the "normal operating mode" to farm out most of the rendering work to the iPhone ( and/or Mac via WiFi 6E ). If Apple has trimmed the battery and weight so far on the headset that they are required to farm out the computational load then this is more of a narrow corner case product. (and probably won't work well in group situations. lots of RF spectrum excessive consumption. )