Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Teases Dawn of a 'New Era' and Coding 'New Worlds' at WWDC

HobeSoundDarryl said:
I'm one of those people and from all I've seen (which is not just uninformed speculation from "experts" around here), there is either a great illusion being cast by existing VR glasses products that the virtual desktop is a much better experience than it is even on 1080p-based tech, OR it is quite good on inferior tech and the rumored superior tech allegedly coming from Apple in a few days will do it much better.

For example, I look at this "review(?)" of a relatively cheap AR product based upon 1080p lenses working with Apple hardware (he tries it with iPhone and Mac)...


The guy apparently attempts to position them in front of the video camera to let us watchers have a peek at what he apparently sees with glasses on. It looks quite good to me. If Apple's Goggles can look only that good, that will be plenty for my "any size, new-kind-of-laptop" hopes. Apparently, Apple's Goggles will up the resolution 2X in both directions. So if these can look that good for work purposes, Apple's should be able to be much sharper than that.

This "reviewer" could very well be like the "friends of Apple pre-release reviewers" and the "look through" could be special effects FAKED to look better than it actually looks... but others trying out the same are also either the "friends of Apple" type with what seems to be collectively positive experiences with this tech inferior product or there is something good here.

In a few days, we'll no longer be guessing. And at some point after that, the extremist pessimists and optimists should be able to step into a store and see whatever these can show with their own eyes. If it's terrible, we can soon see for ourselves. If it's incredible, we can soon see for ourselves. And then all of the guess-driven comments can be refined into stating what it's really like vs. how each of us is choosing to imagine it.
Click to expand...

Very nice thanks for sharing and they cost $300
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Yes, if those can look that good at only $300, what does Apple's project at the rumored pricing? It seems it would HAVE to be superior to something that already appears to look quite good.
Click to expand...

This one must be the biggest product launch since the Apple Watch. I'm guessing it'll have its own app store. Imagine a weather app displaying augmented reality future weather conditions or astronomy apps showing planets and galaxies, maps and street view driving assistant app, watching movies with a theatre like experience, emulating desktop monitors etc. Stuff like that will justify a higher price for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps and TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
canadianreader said:
This one must be the biggest product launch since the Apple Watch. I'm guessing it'll have its own app store. Imagine a weather app displaying augmented reality future weather conditions or astronomy apps showing planets and galaxies, maps and street view driving assistant app, watching movies with a theatre like experience, emulating desktop monitors etc. Stuff like that will justify a higher price for sure.
Click to expand...

The potential goes way beyond that.

Allegedly, this will be able to fool our eyes into seeing anything as if we are actually there. Existing Apple offerings can support this illusion by doing the same for our sense of hearing. If our eyes can see ANYTHING and our ears can help make it seem like we are there, it's only a matter of software being developed to put us anywhere at any point in time seeing or somewhat doing anything.

A very practical example that is no big leap at all is a new kind of PPV sport service. As is, millions of people pay for NFL ST to watch additional football games on their television exactly as if they were located in those distant markets and watching it from those other cities.

Imagine NFL ST VR where a camera put in a prime location of the stadium could virtually put these fans THERE- in the stadium... in seats that might otherwise cost $5K-$100K to physically occupy in person. Yes, this would not be as good as actually being there (thus there would still be buyers for the prime seats to watch in person) but this could open up an opportunity to sell that same virtual seat to any number of people wanting an experience beyond watching through a 2D window we call television.

Same with NBA, MLB, Tennis, NHL, Soccer, Olympics, etc... and all concerts all over the world and all live theater all over the world, etc. There's ALREADY VR "I'm there" videos at sporting events posted on YouTube. The camera technology has existed for years. What if Apple's recent apparent negotiations for stuff like NFL ST was not for that offering at all... but this new, different offering that might be called NFL ST VR?

The NFL could still sell the existing ST to command those billions in revenue AND, basically, offer the same product in a different way to make even more money from it. Apple could take their big cut right off the top to chip in on that "services" revenue they increasingly tout. One-time cost of admission might be the rumored $3K and then some smallish fee to whatever sports/concert/show/etc one would love to attend if they could... if they could afford it... if they could make the travel time to go there... etc. And this could open VR subscriptions as "season ticket VR" services.

I suspect arena owners would LOVE to be able to sell the same prime seat to thousands or millions of people instead of only a single person. And even in select events where an in-person seat might be tens of thousands, it takes only a small number of people buying the same virtual seat for even $50-$200 or so to yield MORE money than selling the one person that one seat (which they would still do too).

How much do lots of people pay for select PPV events to watch something through a 2D window. How many of those people would rather pay the same, more or less to feel much more like they are actually there, without paying what is usually the much more expensive price to actually be there (plus travel, lodging, etc too)? Everybody gets more in that scenario:
  • sporting league/arena owners make more money than what is possible with live and/or PPV on tv only options,
  • sports fan willing to pay for special packages can get a much more "like being there experience" for their money,
  • Apple takes their cut of that package right off the top to add much more revenue to "services."
Seems like an obvious, relatively "easy" application to me. I shared this concept in another thread and the pessimists came back with how difficult it would be because leagues can't even seem to show games in 4K yet... but 4K broadcasts requires tons of cameras and related equipment, where this virtual seat can be done with as little as a single camera positioned in a prime spot: relatively CHEAP and easy.

Here's a commercial for it with a few demo views between all the marketing blabber...


Here's another shot with many cameras but there are a few scenes from the sidelines (try watching from about :55 or so). Click while this video runs and drag around to simulate how you might look around with Goggles on (no clicks necessary)....


I could see this kind of sport/concert/show service being a BIG player in early Goggle offerings... basically repackaging the same product in a new way for a new global market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: citysnaps and canadianreader
I’ve a feeling this is not going to be very good and be very expensive at that.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
The potential goes way beyond that.

Allegedly, this will be able to fool our eyes into seeing anything as if we are actually there. Existing Apple offerings can support this illusion by doing the same for our sense of hearing. If our eyes can see ANYTHING and our ears can help make it seem like we are there, it's only a matter of software being developed to put us anywhere at any point in time seeing or somewhat doing anything.

A very practical example that is no big leap at all is a new kind of PPV sport service. As is, millions of people pay for NFL ST to watch additional football games on their television exactly as if they were located in those distant markets and watching it from those other cities.

Imagine NFL ST VR where a camera put in a prime location of the stadium could virtually put these fans THERE- in the stadium... in seats that might otherwise cost $5K-$100K to physically occupy in person. Yes, this would not be as good as actually being there (thus there would still be buyers for the prime seats to watch in person) but this could open up an opportunity to sell that same virtual seat to any number of people wanting an experience beyond watching through a 2D window we call television.

Same with NBA, MLB, Tennis, NHL, Soccer, Olympics, etc... and all concerts all over the world and all live theater all over the world, etc. There's ALREADY VR "I'm there" videos at sporting events posted on YouTube. The camera technology has existed for years. What if Apple's recent apparent negotiations for stuff like NFL ST was not for that offering at all... but this new, different offering that might be called NFL ST VR?

The NFL could still sell the existing ST to command those billions in revenue AND, basically, offer the same product in a different way to make even more money from it. Apple could take their big cut right off the top to chip in on that "services" revenue they increasingly tout. One-time cost of admission might be the rumored $3K and then some smallish fee to whatever sports/concert/show/etc one would love to attend if they could... if they could afford it... if they could make the travel time to go there... etc. And this could open VR subscriptions as "season ticket VR" services.

I suspect arena owners would LOVE to be able to sell the same prime seat to thousands or millions of people instead of only a single person. And even in select events where an in-person seat might be tens of thousands, it takes only a small number of people buying the same virtual seat for even $50-$200 or so to yield MORE money than selling the one person that one seat (which they would still do too).

How much do lots of people pay for select PPV events to watch something through a 2D window. How many of those people would rather pay the same, more or less to feel much more like they are actually there, without paying what is usually the much more expensive price to actually be there (plus travel, lodging, etc too)? Everybody gets more in that scenario:
  • sporting league/arena owners make more money than what is possible with live and/or PPV on tv only options,
  • sports fan willing to pay for special packages can get a much more "like being there experience" for their money,
  • Apple takes their cut of that package right off the top to add much more revenue to "services."
Seems like an obvious, relatively "easy" application to me. I shared this concept in another thread and the pessimists came back with how difficult it would be because leagues can't even seem to show games in 4K yet... but 4K broadcasts requires tons of cameras and related equipment, where this virtual seat can be done with as little as a single camera positioned in a prime spot: relatively CHEAP and easy.

Here's a commercial for it with a few demo views between all the marketing blabber...


Here's another shot with many cameras but there are a few scenes from the sidelines (try watching from about :55 or so). Click while this video runs and drag around to simulate how you might look around with Goggles on (no clicks necessary)....


I could see this kind of sport/concert/show service being a BIG player in early Goggle offerings... basically repackaging the same product in a new way for a new global market.
Click to expand...

Impressive! I would add the travel industry to the list. Enjoying a tropical beach sunset without being there in person, or visiting wildlife sanctuaries without being there polluting and disturbing animals. This stuff has an unlimited potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps and HobeSoundDarryl
canadianreader said:
Impressive! I would add the travel industry to the list. Enjoying a tropical beach sunset without being there in person, or visiting wildlife sanctuaries without being there polluting and disturbing animals. This stuff has an unlimited potential.
Click to expand...

Right, and people will say it's not better than actually being there... and they are RIGHT... but not everyone can afford to visit every place they might ever want to visit... and/or make the time... and/or fit it into busy life schedules. As is, the choices are live in person or watch it on a screen. This may add an in-between option that appeals to some number of people.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps and canadianreader
I’ll be interested to see what Apple come up with to ensure it stands out from the crowd. I was initially wowed by the Quest 2, but after about 2 weeks of play it’s gathered dust in the spare room, forgetting it’s even there. It becomes a chore to readjust the headset, set boundaries etc. Hopefully all of this will be less of an issue with the Apple headset, just have a horrible feeling the price will hobble the product and any development in a OG Homepod kinda way.
 
JTK Awesome said:
Optimistic prognostication:

AR/VR headset is a smokescreen.

AI-enabled Siri 2.0 will be the real star of the WWDC show.
Click to expand...
There’s practically no way the AR/VR headset is a smokescreen. But I am so with you on the hope for an AI enabled Siri 2.0.
 
NINE years since Apple watch! I hardly believe it has been that long. Yet still it is non-compelling because Apple refuses to make it standalone. I couldn't imagine, 9 years ago, that today it would still be just an iPhone accessory. Damn.
 
JM said:
If you play that video while playing the Beatles White Album at the exact moment Paul says “See” the blob makes the picture of Goggles

😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
Click to expand...
You are so old 😂
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JM
It's great seeing a few more people warming up to the potential of Apple AR and imagining possibilities.

What puzzles me are folks who insist on keeping their minds closed to what's possible. It's like they're heavily invested in failure.
 
so looking at the events, this turned out to be more like "code new worlds on pc and port them to mac"
 
citysnaps said:
No need to focus on marketing the trivial.

iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, AirPods, and a slew of Macs are what created Apple's success, along with close to a billion customers staying with the Apple brand. Apple's AR device will add to that.
Click to expand...
The watch is a mee to product, doesn’t bring anything new to the table and it’s not exciting at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back