Apple's AR/VR Headset Could Be Less Than a Year Away

[seek3r]

At $3000 what exactly is the target market for this? About the only thing I could think of that’s at least generalized is business video conferencing, but that’s not usually the kind of thing Apple targets, and it would need some serious cross compatibility that Apple isn’t exactly famous for since it breaks the ecosystem model they have…..

hopefully Apple will surprise me though!

 

[metapunk2077fail]

Am only interested in AR dress glasses.

VR can go take a jump off the cliff.

 

[hoorayforhollywood]

This is either going to be utterly groundbreaking or laughably redundant. No middle ground on this one. WHAT IS IT FOR?

 

[citysnaps]

Do you think it will work independently? Or require a nearby iOS/macOS device?

I always wondered if the reason for the M1 chip in the iPad Pro - that seemed overkill, with no obvious features requiring it - was actually to prepare it for this VR headset.. ie. That the headset would require a minimum M1 device to connect to. Thereby enabling the headset to be very light on internal electronics.

But then I suppose the heaviest part of it is likely to be the battery, so that doesn’t really make sense either.

I believe it will be a set of glasses with miniature video cameras and a bidirectional wireless video link to a recent iPhone/iPad via UWB.

The AR/VR heavy-lift processing will be handled within the iPhone/iPad Ax/Mx-series processor where it belongs. That makes a ton of sense and will keep the device more glasses-like, rather than bulky goggles with an M1 chip, memory, and large battery. AR/VR apps will be downloaded to your iPhone/iPad rather than AR/VR glasses.

More importantly, it will keep the cost down (a lot), resulting in more market penetration. Anybody interested in an Apple AR/VR device will most likely already own an iPhone and/or iPad. No sense duplicating the processing electronics.

 

[Thebrochure]

If I buy and wear this thing during future Apple events, will virtual-Jobs host them and introduce something other than another iPhone with a better camera? Because if so, take my money!

 

[Rafterman]

At $3000 what exactly is the target market for this? About the only thing I could think of that’s at least generalized is business video conferencing, but that’s not usually the kind of thing Apple targets, and it would need some serious cross compatibility that Apple isn’t exactly famous for since it breaks the ecosystem model they have…..

hopefully Apple will surprise me though!

$3,000 is a suicidal price point. Other VR headsets are hundreds of dollars, not thousands.

 

[citysnaps]

$3,000 is a suicidal price point. Other VR headsets are hundreds of dollars, not thousands.

For sure on that. It will be less than $1K.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Apple appears bullish on AR, but VR has been interesting to me since the 80s. It’s easy to not see a big use case for something new. Most people didn’t see the opportunities on the WWW even if they had access to the internet/BBS.

 

[Rafterman]

For sure on that. It will be less than $1K.

For $3000, it better be a full blown holo-deck, like on Star Trek.

 

[Funky_Alphonzo]

The point of VR is to be immersive. So any actually practical use case would have to be something that benefits from full immersion. Why would you want to browse the web in an artificial 3D space? How would web-browsing benefit from this?
Or how would you edit video in VR? With gestures? How is that better than mouse + keyboard or a dedicated editing controller? How would you work ergonomically? I'm not a professional video editor so I really wouldn't know - I'm genuinely curious.

There's a lot of potential in VR for many things but I don't think that an artificial three-dimensional workspace, possibly without tactile feedback, would be that great. But that's pretty much what people said about on-screen keyboards when the first iPhone launched, so who knows.

Imagine AR, seeing yr physical keyboard and mouse but also a projection of a giant screen on yr desk tru AR… there are different possibilities.

 

[dwaltwhit]

I don’t doubt we will see this in the next year or so. I don’t doubt that it will be really cool. I do doubt that I will have any use for it, at least the first generation

 

[Flood4]

These look like a nightmare if they get hacked and some hacker is seeing what your seeing.

Hum, kinda like your phone…

 

[Flood4]

I don’t want to sound negative, but this smacks of a “one generation and done” kind of product.

Certainly not. Way to much work already put in there. And I’m cook itself says these is two things Apple is pushing. Ar/vr and health.

 

[Flood4]

I wouldn't say they are "good enough" at all. As you said, there are models models from $300, and they're still totally niche. Apple can't succeed when they enter a market via price reduction. In fact, the Mac Pro and HomedPod didn't fail because of price: the Mac Pro due to its design/concept (the new Mac Pro is actually more expensive) and the HomePod because it didn't bring any significant innovation.

I don’t think it’s niche anymore. Quest 2 is a finished product I don’t have any problem recommending it to anybody. Great games, great experience. Totally worth it.

 

[Flood4]

Can someone point me to a good use case of VR for the general public that is not a gimmick? Even pornography and gaming seem to be novelties in VR that will get you to use the headset once before it collects dust.

These are not novelties.
Gaming is already great.
Porn is ok, granted it could be better but still a nice experience.

It’s already ready for the general public.

 

[Flood4]

This is either going to be utterly groundbreaking or laughably redundant. No middle ground on this one. WHAT IS IT FOR?

Not sure about that.
Oculus is pretty cheap, around 300$us, I would pay like 500$ to get better graphic and resolution. (But if it’s really 3000$, yeah not sure who is the target market.)

 

[Flood4]

VR headsets are really bad for your eyes. You'll quickly develop nearsightedness. They should be banned.

I was wondering that but didn’t find any source (but I didn’t research for that long). Have you?

It doesn’t worth much but I feel my eyes worse after 1h with my phone than 1h with my quest 2.

 

[UltimateSyn]

I’m gonna trash this and say there’s no possible mass consumer use case for it until the day it releases and I put in a $3k order for one.

 

[4jasontv]

Not sure about that.
Oculus is pretty cheap, around 300$us, I would pay like 500$ to get better graphic and resolution. (But if it’s really 3000$, yeah not sure who is the target market.)

Hololens 2 is $3500. If this is an AR solution that can simulate a mac 3K will be a steal.

 

[lovehateapple]

This thing is dead on arrival if it's anywhere near $3,000. I agree with the people guessing it will be (around) $999.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Can someone point me to a good use case of VR for the general public that is not a gimmick? Even pornography and gaming seem to be novelties in VR that will get you to use the headset once before it collects dust.

If it's actually a VR headset like "pictured", then nothing more than current VR headsets. But if it is more like a pair of glasses, and AR, not VR, then just have a google for "uses of AR" for a mind blowing list of possibilities.

 

[Macaholic868]

VR head sets are fun for gaming. Guess who doesn’t care about gaming? Apple.

 

[ChromeCloud]

Hasn't it been like 10 years with VR and it just hasn't taken off? My brother and a friend both got the Quest this year and played with it for at most a month and forgot about it... It's a nifty little toy thing, nothing more. (at least at this point, generally...) I could take off it could also... not.

The same idea executed in a different way can lead to a very different outcome.

Take Tesla as an example: electric cars have existed for decades and were never successful until Tesla made them S3XY (pun intended).

Same could be said for smartphones: they were clunky and aimed at a niche market until Apple set a new standard with the iPhone.

And the same can be said for VR headsets. Or for any other category of product.

I'm not saying that Apple for sure will be successful, but it's short sighted to judge a product based on what category it belongs to.

Ideas and concepts mean nothing. Execution is what really matters.

EDIT:
Just to be clear, Apple doesn't always shine at executing. Take Siri as an example: it's a revolutionary idea, but very poorly executed.

 

[Flood4]

Hololens 2 is $3500. If this is an AR solution that can simulate a mac 3K will be a steal.

HoloLens is for business oriented market.

I don’t think AR tech is ready. Pretty sure it will be VR.

With his one, they may target their pro audience for photo/video/music editing, but I doubt it.

But who knows, they may have find a real incentive for business people who are already in the Apple ecosystem to get this thing to solves a need people haven’t yet realize they got.

In any case, I’m really curious to check it out.

 

[rp2011]

A lot of people, (me included) have always wanted to try AR. Now wiith Apple making it mainstream and accessible, i expect Apple to have a huge hit on it’s hands.

And by the same token, i can’t think of anyone wanting Google Glass type glasses. That sounds like torture walking around with data popping in and out as you walk and look like a creep.