Apple Working on Cheaper Version of AR/VR Headset Priced Similarly to iPhone

[svish]

A lower priced headset is required for wider adoption of the product. Wonder when it will be released.

 

[richinaus]

I don’t care how much it costs really, I’m just not interested in the product.

I feel like some Apple fan boy promotion guy at the moment but we know nothing about the product really.

The magic will be in the interface and how it operates, plus how it feels to wear.

 

[Jensend]

And it’s much harder on the body to spend all those hours in a headset vs a phone you can quickly and easily pick up and put down.

The only way that current VR is necessarily "harder on the body" is pressure on your face or forehead. That is a very significant issue with current VR equipment.

Not the same product, but I remember having the first PlayStation VR and how annoying that experience was. That…doesn’t make me excited for this.

PS VR was a decent headset that relied on old components that weren't specifically developed for VR, like the camera, controllers, and the PS4 itself.

What if it was good enough to not cause fatigue? Also, people don’t take their current TVs outside either but they’ll still drop thousands of dollars on a fancy setup in their homes just to watch some content for a few hours

It's funny how people just assume the shortcomings of current devices will always be with these devices. It would be like people predicting that pocketable computers wouldn't be successful because their processors aren't powerful enough and their screens are too small for getting real work done or even just browsing the web.

I cannot see how this makes video calls better because you cannot make eye contact. Avatars are much less compelling than actual human faces so I don't see this being useful for work.

I personally find hanging out with VR avatars to be more compelling than hanging out on a video call.

Remember 3D glasses? Nobody liked them. People don't like wearing things unless it has a benefitting purpose.

I'm not convinced that 3D cinema and 3D TV would have been significantly more successful if the 3D video experience was exactly the same quality but glasses-free.

Now over 20 years since these AV/VR devices were proposed and there is no volume take-up of any product of any manufacturer.

AR/VR devices were proposed a lot earlier than that, but the technology needed to make decent VR has only been around for 10 years or so. Multiple companies have sold millions of VR headsets each.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

If like the watch, it’s tied to a phone, with no consideration for iPad or Mac owners, I’m going to sell my stock.

 

[contacos]

Is this device supposed to be for the B2B market where price matters less cuz your company covers the expenses like I don’t understand who this is for. Apple isn’t really known for gaming (they can hardly get anything for Arcade) either 🤷🏼‍♂️

Didn’t Apple learn from its previous first generation flops due to being priced too high? (Basing this off of the MR article a few days ago) „HomePod“ is the last device that comes to my mind

 

[giggles]

I think this is the first time we read this cheaper N602 headset will get an iPhone-grade Ax SoC instead of the Mac-grade Mx SoC in the N301 headset, interesting. This could mean it won’t need the external waist-mounted battery.

So xrOS, just like iPadOS, will both run on A-series and M-series..

 

[9594864]

this was obvious.
I have no idea why everyone was complaining about a $3000 headset when it is clearly for developers to create experiences for a more consumer model, which by the time it is released will have some great content and apps developed.

no doubt the negativity will start and tell us all there are no uses for this and its doomed.

I would equate this point in XR the same as mobile phones were when you used to have to carry the briefcase battery with them.

You just need a waistband battery for the headset

 

[Bcn]

Several other companies are already out with similar machines, I don’t know anyone, who has them or seen much in the news.
I’m not that excited. Maybe in a few years, it could be something exciting.

 

[9594864]

I think many don’t realize how much of a game changer retinal quality AR pass through will be in a mass consumer device. If I could replace every single display I own with this one device, then that alone would be worth it. And on top of that it will have the processor of a full laptop as well.

I think $3000 is a bit much though so I hope it’s just an overestimated rumor just like the iPad was but who knows.

I’d love to know what you all think are the reasons it won’t be revolutionary, because I fully believe it could be!

AR glasses could be but a VR headset will not be because it’s too large and cumbersome. You aren’t going to be leaving the house or office with it.

However, even with AR glasses you have an enormous hurdle of convincing humans to wear glasses which we all know that no one likes to wear. That’s why there are contacts and LASIK.

 

[Jensend]

AR glasses could be but a VR headset will not be because it’s too large and cumbersome. You aren’t going to be leaving the house or office with it.

I’m not going to leave the house or office with either, so I may as well go with the one that offers the best image.

However, even with AR glasses you have an enormous hurdle of convincing humans to wear glasses which we all know that no one likes to wear. That’s why there are contacts and LASIK.

I wear contacts because they offer superior vision compared to glasses (and as a kid I was self-conscious about my image… but many people like what they look like with glasses). If glasses could give me better vision than contacts, I’d probably wear glasses.

 

[giggles]

I wear contacts because they offer superior vision compared to glasses (and as a kid I was self-conscious about my image… but many people like what they look like with glasses). If glasses could give me better vision than contacts, I’d probably wear glasses.

Good point.

If AR Glasses will offer “20/20 Plus” tech-augmented vision (i.e. with the addition of all the overlayed info to make your daily life better) people may put up with wearing them on their face just like they put up with glasses or contact lenses.

 

[Pezimak]

Still find it too gimmicky. 😖

Call it AR/VR Headset SE model.

Why not find out if people are even interested in that $3,000 (without tax) Apple AR/VR headset first?

Imjust don’t get the concept one bit? It seems utterly pointless, all other headsets with this idea have failed, all of them. Google came closest to something consumers would use design wise and that failed too.
people like their phones, and some watches too. But why would you wear a headset or glasses to do the exact same thing? Just in a different way. Not to mention not one headset has resolved the issue for those who wear actual glasses which is a significant number.
These devices seem to be good for developers of scientists to play around with, not much beyond that. I’d rather have tech like on windscreen overlays in cars showing directions or warnings etc. That type of AR.

 

[Pezimak]

I’m not going to leave the house or office with either, so I may as well go with the one that offers the best image.

I wear contacts because they offer superior vision compared to glasses (and as a kid I was self-conscious about my image… but many people like what they look like with glasses). If glasses could give me better vision than contacts, I’d probably wear glasses.

I used to wear contacts, they were great, but my vision deteriorated and I think one eye is slightly worst then the other, and I need to take my glasses off to see close up now. So I had to stop with the contact, firstly because it would mean having different strengths for each eye and I know I’d mix that up, and also because they’d have to be bifocal for close up vision and they cost a bomb.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

I believe the main competitors in this space are Magic Leap and Hololens. Magic Leap 2 is $3,299 to $4,999, and Microsoft's Hololens 2 ranges from $3,500 to $5,200. I think a lower cost version from Apple down the road might be in the $1500-2000 range, but considering what they’re putting into this device, it will be challenging.

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

I personally find hanging out with VR avatars to be more compelling than hanging out on a video call.

That's unfortunate but you do you.

 

[giggles]

That's unfortunate but you do you.

He has point, we could be all here in the macrumors comment section VR room hanging out without worrying about being presentable, being doxxed or our face being revealed.

Case in point: your avatar (not your actual face) and nickname (not your actual name).

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

He has point, we could be all here in the macrumors comment section VR room hanging out without worrying about being presentable, being doxxed or our face being revealed.

Case in point: your avatar (not your actual face) and nickname (not your actual name).

There's a difference between personal calls and forum posts. duh.

As for VR forum version of macrumors... 🤣🤣😝

Good luck trying to have a structured conversation in a room full of avatars talking over each other. All those clubhouse and spaces chats have far fewer people and they are chaos.

 

[Jensend]

Not to mention not one headset has resolved the issue for those who wear actual glasses which is a significant number.

and I need to take my glasses off to see close up now. So I had to stop with the contact, firstly because it would mean having different strengths for each eye and I know I’d mix that up, and also because they’d have to be bifocal for close up vision and they cost a bomb.

There are headsets with diopter adjustment, which resolves the issue for many who wear glasses. Also, since current VR headsets only have a single focus distance, bifocals aren’t needed. That’s one deficiency of current VR tech that can be a benefit for those of us with aging eyes.
I’m almost certain that the Apple headset will have diopter adjustment and/or a way for the headset to be used with custom lenses.

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

There are headsets with diopter adjustment, which resolves the issue for many who wear glasses.

It does not resolve the main issue that they can't use VR for long without feeling nausea and every time they have to take a headset off they have to wear their glasses again and then take their glasses off again to wear the headset and then repeat that process ad naseum.

 

[windywalks]

This is the one Apple product that seems genuinely exciting in the upcoming lineup.
I don't feel like swapping my iPhone out for a new one, but I'd definitely splurge on this one.

 

[1557750]

If they AR/VR goggle render that we’ve seen a million times ends up being true, I’m buying a set.

I will be the coolest looking guy at the ski resort and on the slopes for a day, then I will return them.

 

[xraydoc]

My 22 year old kids bought an Oculus or something like that for $300. They have tons of fun with it. Can't see what an Apple-branded one is going to bring to the table for 10x the price.

 

[Pezimak]

There are headsets with diopter adjustment, which resolves the issue for many who wear glasses. Also, since current VR headsets only have a single focus distance, bifocals aren’t needed. That’s one deficiency of current VR tech that can be a benefit for those of us with aging eyes.
I’m almost certain that the Apple headset will have diopter adjustment and/or a way for the headset to be used with custom lenses.

I have tried VR a few times and yet you can wear them without glasses, but I think it’s very difficult to wear them with glasses even if they are adjustable. But I suspect it’ll be ridiculously expensive as being portrayed and remain for professional use.

 

[1557750]

Anyone else think TC wants these made so bad so he can roll around in his money virtually, because his hired hands are tired of taking it all out of the vault so he can do it for real?

Just me…? Okay.

 

[dullydude]

AR glasses could be but a VR headset will not be because it’s too large and cumbersome. You aren’t going to be leaving the house or office with it.

However, even with AR glasses you have an enormous hurdle of convincing humans to wear glasses which we all know that no one likes to wear. That’s why there are contacts and LASIK.

The rumors suggest it will weigh at least half of what the Quest 2 weighs, plus a significantly thinner optics with the pancake lenses, microOLED displays, and making the power source be external to the device. I think that should be enough to make it smaller and less cumbersome than every other HMD on the market.

And rather than thinking about it as getting LASIK to avoid the inconvenience of glasses, think of it as getting glasses in the first place. Going from not being able to see to suddenly being able to see is revolutionary. When I was a kid I could never see what time it was because of my poor eyesight. So what did I do? I asked my parents for a watch. In a world where I couldn't see, I found devices to bring what I wanted to see into my view.

We live in a world where everyone wants a screen everywhere and we can't get enough. We imagine TVs the size of walls, we go to movie theaters for a better experience on a huge display, we get double, triple, ultrawide monitors for our desktop computers, and we carry around a screen on our phones with us nearly at all times. We have all these devices to more fully immerse ourselves in it. But what if we had a single device that could do all of that at once? Rather than getting a watch to see the time, why not get glasses to be able to see EVERYTHING?