Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My question is who (a name and credentials, please) came up with the $3,000 cost?

All you have to do is search the macrumor archives.

" ... A recent report from JP Morgan said that Apple's headset will be targeted at the top end of the consumer market. According to The Information, Apple has discussed pricing its headset at around $3,000. This would place it the range of Microsoft's mixed reality HoloLens 2 headset, which retails for $3,500. ...
...
Bloomberg recently explained that Apple is planning to launch a AR/VR headset as a "pricey, niche precursor" to a more ambitious AR glasses product that is set to follow at a later date. ...."

 
All you have to do is search the macrumor archives.

" ... A recent report from JP Morgan said that Apple's headset will be targeted at the top end of the consumer market. According to The Information, Apple has discussed pricing its headset at around $3,000. This would place it the range of Microsoft's mixed reality HoloLens 2 headset, which retails for $3,500. ...
...
Bloomberg recently explained that Apple is planning to launch a AR/VR headset as a "pricey, niche precursor" to a more ambitious AR glasses product that is set to follow at a later date. ...."


In a word, conjecture.
 
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. )
I know what is being reported re. multiple processors, etc., but what's being reported on is a rumor. See my comment regarding how the reported specifications are completely unrealistic given battery size limitations in any wearable most people would be willing to wear in public. Apple wants to sell its wares to millions of folks, not a few geeks who think wearing a helmet in public is cool.

Re. 'why would the AR app reside in the phone when the vast majority of the data is on the headset': because transmitting sensor (I used that word to encompass cameras, microphones, etc.) data requires a lot less power than making sense of the data (i.e. interpreting the environment and augmenting it with CPU-generated objects).

Re. your Apple Watch analogy: I've had those watches since v1.0 and don't recall battery issues associated with running apps remotely. But even if there were, I currently don't see any CPU intensive, highly complex Apple Watch apps. Certainly nothing approaching the immense CPU requirements of recognizing objects and manipulating image streams in real time. Aside from screen real estate, battery capacity is the main reason. Now imagine a wearable that's even more sensitive to weight - like AR glasses. To be comfortably worn, they'd have to weigh < 20-30g - that's less than an Apple Watch! So one must assume the battery in any AR glasses will be smaller - necessitating less use of power-intensive tasks.
 
I know there are a lot of naysayers for this product but this is a potential iPhone moment

This is MacRumours! Of course, there are Nay Sayers. Apple consumers are some of the most Anti-Technology people you'll find online. They pretend to be experts on marketing, Operating systems, design and Sofware apps. My fav is the Marxist resentment over pricing. The good news is, that Apple does NOT listen to their embittered customers. I'm excited to see this coming to fruition. I hope it comes in above the suggested $3000 price point. This is not a sub-$1000 consumer product.
 
But, what (and who) is it for exactly?

It is not for people with little imagination. Apple does not ask those of you who don't know what a product is for. This mixed reality headset is part of the lead wave of the coming Tech device Tsumani that will crash onto the beach and make the current world of Zoom and Microsoft Teams seem primitive and open endless possibilities for meaningful use. If I were guessing-- just as the Apple II series first saw significant success in the Education market, I'm betting that professional Medicine will be an important early adopter of Mixed reality devices.

Those who have to ask what it's for? Get out of the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singhs.apps
Hopefully there will be a (much cheaper) VR version too. I have no interest in AR at this point, nor am I willing to spend that much.

Would have already bought the new Oculus Quest 2, had it not require me to be connected via Facebook all the time.
If Apple gives us a good alternative here, it would be great.
Apple has said that this is not a consumer device. Early adopters, affluent customers and Developers. the last thing we need is yet another sub-$1000 Oculus gadget. I hope it comes in above $3000.
 
I agree. While the community has produced a lot of VR content, and those targeting AR capable devices have also created some amazing experiences, wide-spread adoption can't happen till content creators can comfortably and productively spend more time creating within the devices. The first iteration of next-gen VR/AR/MR hardware needs to be comfortable and have remarkable clarity for hours of prolonged use. With that in place as a tool for content creators, iterative progression of the hardware will ultimately lead to form-factors that can be most widely used by everyone. But, just like phones, I don't think anyone is going to be using these devices 100% of the time, no matter what form they are in. Heck, even wearing lightweight sunglasses 100% of the time isn't normal. The only way that immersive hardware would be used 100% of the time is if it was in the form of contact lenses, and that is surely decades away.

I'd like to see MacRumours require the posting of resumes and CV's of those of you who speak with such authority. "That is surely decades away". Would you please link your Linked in Profile or a PDF of your CV. BTW.. who said people are going to wear "these devices 100% of the time"? Did Apple say that? Did Meta? What is the basis for these statements?
 
Can’t wait.

If the tech proves to be useful to my professional career and personal use cases, I’m all for this. I’d say the possibilities are truly endless.
 
Did you accidentally type another $0 on the end of $300 ?!!! $3,000 really is way too expensive for consumer markets.
In this landscape of $200 earbuds, $300 speakers, $400-500 smart watches, $1500 iPhones, $2500 iPads that require extra $350 keyboards, and foldables that apparently give you the pleasures of both a phone and a tablet together going for between 1500 and $2000,is it really that insane?
The new 16 inch MacBook Pro starts at 2500, would it really be that insane to say for something that’s close to just as powerful, but strap to your face and futuristic and revolutionary an extra 500 bucks?
Sure it won’t be a runaway success until the second or third generation that cuts the price dramatically because they’re a lot easier to produce, but this is normal stuff for Apple
 
In this landscape of $200 earbuds, $300 speakers, $400-500 smart watches, $1500 iPhones, $2500 iPads that require extra $350 keyboards, and foldables that apparently give you the pleasures of both a phone and a tablet together going for between 1500 and $2000,is it really that insane?
The new 16 inch MacBook Pro starts at 2500, would it really be that insane to say for something that’s close to just as powerful, but strap to your face and futuristic and revolutionary an extra 500 bucks?
Sure it won’t be a runaway success until the second or third generation that cuts the price dramatically because they’re a lot easier to produce, but this is normal stuff for Apple

It’s not a Mass market device. Tim Cook said as a much a year ago. They’re not going to build an Oculus level headset at a low price point. If you find Apple products expensive you should move off the platform. I am always amused by the Marxist market analysis on MacRumor by those who resent Apple’s pricing. I’m betting they’ll stick with the high price point for several years. I just can’t see Apple go for the sub-$1000 gamer/META market. I’m glad it’s priced for Developers, Content creators and the affluent. That’s the market that matters.
 
Imagine what 'Maps' is going to look like with this tech. You'll be able to rotate the globe, pinch to zoom, and move around any space in 3D. You will also be able to get a directional overlay of where you're walking, with your own personal hud. This is going to absolutely stun people when it comes out.
Not with this headset. It will be for home use or office use.
Few people will want to walk around in public with so much weight on their head and their haircut ruined.
Once they develop sunglasses with such functionality your idea might come true.
 
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?

the “average” consumer doesn’t matter. Headsets at the sub $1000 price point are abundant. Apple does not market to the “average” consumer. Content creators, Developers, enterprise, early adopters and affluent consumers are the ONLY market that matters for this release. I would argue that among the educated classes the device and it’s successors will become a “near necessity” This is not an egalitarian product. The masses can use Oculus. And that is as it should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singhs.apps
the “average” consumer doesn’t matter. Headsets at the sub $1000 price point are abundant. Apple does not market to the “average” consumer. Content creators, Developers, enterprise, early adopters and affluent consumers are the ONLY market that matters for this release. I would argue that among the educated classes the device and it’s successors will become a “near necessity” This is not an egalitarian product. The masses can use Oculus. And that is as it should be.

OK Mike....get out of the sun and have a cool drink....

Greetings from a member of the educated class who has no interest in this device....
 
I've been following this tech for years now, Apple's acquisitions, and their research and development. From my perspective, every advancement they've made in both services and hardware has all been cleverly, strategically, progressing towards this one objective, to deliver world-changing next-gen VR/AR/MR technology. Impressively, they've monetized many of the results along the way, and it seems they're right on the cusp of bringing it all together.

Meta, Sony, and others are also making advancements. Competition and collaboration in the space are just going to accelerate progress.

I also saw Meta's preview, and had mixed thoughts about it. #1 they've addressed a number of challenges, #2 they have a hint of what Apple is about to introduce and it's better to show some of their hand before, not after, #3 they want to own the metaverse, and their hardware is a means to that end. If they rely on Apple's platform, they won't have unfettered access to private user information. If they have their own platform, they'll have 100% of user information. So, having several players competing, will ultimately be good for consumers. I hope Meta's products retain a fair presence in the market and they don't just give up on hardware development and switch back to software only.

Immersive and augmented view devices will gradually replace phones and tablets, PCs and laptops, and even compliment group viewing devices like television screens. Most, if not already all, of the hardware is in place for next-gen devices. From this point forward it becomes an iterative improvement cycle, further miniaturization, improved power efficiencies, and steady progress on resolution, emitters, and lens technology.
I have a Quest 2 and a gaming PC, and I’m enjoying where we’re at with the tech. Apple entering the game will only drive innovation further, but likely at a high cost initially. I’m excited for the next 5-10 years in this space.

Also, I think Facebook slightly changed course on that because they are now part of a consortium with several other large companies to create an open metaverse.
 
Other than map overlays in the real world (yawn), I have not seen one compelling use case for either AR or VR. It's an intensely niche market already. And in the 5 years of ARKit, what have we seen? Measurement tools? Interior decoration? That Pokemon Go thing that everyone turns off after the first time they use it? Some gimmicky block building games? And in the side show VR space we've got what? Some extremely limited games plus err... vrchat?

Good luck getting people to wear bulky headsets in private, let alone public for those use cases.
 
Apple has said that this is not a consumer device. Early adopters, affluent customers and Developers. the last thing we need is yet another sub-$1000 Oculus gadget. I hope it comes in above $3000.
From what I understand, consumer VR/AR adoption in recent years has been really slow. Had Apple released a good VR device (Oculus Quest alternative), it could bring a good boost of this technologies into the mainstream. Oculus Quest 2 is not bad and costs $300, Apple could easilly charge twice as much with something really well made, probably even more.

The last thing we need atm is (solely) another $3000+ AR niche device, that only a handfull of enthusiasts will ever get their hands on (situation we've had with MS HoloLens for a long time now). Two-tier products for both developers and consumers is a good thing IMO.
 
Last edited:
The market for any $3000 device is going to be small. I wouldn’t be willing right now to commit to getting one when I don’t know what software is going to be available for it and what purposes Apple has behind it.

Are there people that will spend $3000 on an immersive gaming headset? Yes. Is it a large market? Not right now, and not with the Apple not being a factor in the high end PC gaming market with either players or developers.

Are there other use cases? The answer to that is-Maybe? It depends on what that market is, and for this I see possibilities but no drop dead guaranteed use case.

I honestly think Apple needs to show WHY you should want to pay for a $3000 VR/AR device ahead of announcing its existence. With the iPhone people already had an iPod (or some other MP3 player) and people had internet connected wireless phones. The iPhone combined these two existing pocket/purse items into one, with a way to buy that music that wasn’t in a perpetual threat of being shut down for violating copyrights by music companies.

Can I think of things a VR/AR can do? Yes. Do I have any idea what Apple’s system will do? No. Are there people that will buy one just to be first? Yes, but I don’t think that there are enough people to justify the cost unless there is really compelling software that will be there for day 1.
 
“Two Tier” Products. I definitely agree. That said, this is emerging space as we all know. I am amused by the many Apple consumers with little imagination who need to be guided to AR/VRs “purpose”. And they pretend to be marketing analysts. (Man I”d like to see the CV’’s/Résumé’s of Commenters here!) Laughs.
 
Not with this headset. It will be for home use or office use.
Few people will want to walk around in public with so much weight on their head and their haircut ruined.
Once they develop sunglasses with such functionality your idea might come true.
Once they develop sunglasses with such functionality your idea might come true.

Right!! Apple and Microsoft and others should just suspend any and all development until they can release “sunglasses with such functionality” . The absurdity of some of the comments here is a reflection of the forum at large.
 
Not with this headset. It will be for home use or office use.
Few people will want to walk around in public with so much weight on their head and their haircut ruined.
Once they develop sunglasses with such functionality your idea might come true.
Yeah, I’m thinking of where it’s headed. So much potential.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.