Apple's AR/VR Headset Expected to Enter Mass Production in October Ahead of Late 2023 Launch

kirk.vino said:
Because it follows the other VR products that have been around for a while now. I indicated that in my original comment.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the iPhone following other cellular phones (from Motorola, Erickson, and Nokia, commonly referred to as MEN in the cellular phone industry) being around for awhile? Where are MEN now?

Or maybe like the Macintosh following the IBM PC, which was around for awhile?
 
User 6502 said:
I think it’s quite clear what the headwinds are, but I can summarise them.

It is a very niche market already crowded with competitors with a lot of experience who have been releasing products for years, at significantly more affordable price points than what the rumours suggest apple will do. Sure, apple might introduce some marginal improvements over then status quo. Will it justify a price five to six times higher? Doubtful. Not to mention the fact that the other companies already have established stores with hundreds of apps, games and experiences. Apple starts from zero. Sure, it might convince developers to develop, but it is not granted. It succeeds with the iPhone app store, not as much with the watch store (very few apps are available and in fact some big names removed their apps) or the Mac App Store.

The biggest problem though is that for most people this thing is a solution to a problem nobody has. Everybody (or most people) needed or wanted an iPod, a phone and an internet communicator. iPhone was a huge success because of it. People wanted these things and a product that combined them all was hence very appealing. Very few people have any interest in spending a lot of time with their head in an awkward mask. Even the few who find the experience appealing would probably refrain from doing it in public. A big difference with iPhone, that people have always been proud to use and show around.
Click to expand...
I think you're remembering that pretty inaccurately. People didn't know they needed or wanted iPhones/iPods when they came out. There wasn't huge interest or demand in the phones that had these features and the ones that did it well were relatively niche. People were happily using phones with no internet or cameras and the idea seemed ludacrous to begin. The main difference here is a vast majority of people were using phones of some sort when they iPhone came out, whereas with VR there are many people not using it currently. That being said, many people did not use MP3 players or access music in any other way when they bought their first iPod. When the iPod came out and could hold 1000 songs, nobody thought that was a problem they had, that they NEEDED 1000 songs. But as new technology is introduced it enables people to do what they couldn't before whether or not it was a problem.
 
SpringKid said:
”Editor’s note: For anyone thinking this is real, if David had the actual script, we would definitely send it back to Apple.”
Click to expand...
Tim would never do a one more thing. If that's how they imagine Apple will present the headset then it has no hope :p:p
 
75Batt said:
That being said, many people did not use MP3 players or access music in any other way when they bought their first iPod. When the iPod came out and could hold 1000 songs, nobody thought that was a problem they had, that they NEEDED 1000 songs. But as new technology is introduced it enables people to do what they couldn't before whether or not it was a problem.
Click to expand...
You must be kidding.

R.1ac04d3ac8e30479fcd43493e686f526
 
I heard that one of the big use cases is going to be video conferencing. I was really struggling to visualize what that might be, but I just saw the Nvidia keynote where they explain that this is the transition from doing what we've done for the past 60 years, which is to send a signal from one end to the other, to generating the image artificially.

You can see what it looks like at about the ten minute mark:

(The whole video is mind blowing, but this specific part is relevant to this thread.)
 
citysnaps said:
Kind of like the iPhone following other cellular phones (from Motorola, Erickson, and Nokia, commonly referred to as MEN in the cellular phone industry) being around for awhile? Where are MEN now?

Or maybe like the Macintosh following the IBM PC, which was around for awhile?
Click to expand...
That’s arguable, as those prior smartphones had fundamentally different technologies behind them. The touchscreen and the corresponding interface reinvented the whole field.
 
Longplays said:
For $3k I rather get a replacement for the 2020 iMac 27". It's 34 months old by WWDC 2023.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but I don't believe Apple is trying to sell to consumers yet. I expect something much more focused on developers. Apple had a much smaller ecosystem when they started OS X. They also spent years talking about what they were about to do. I think this is a big enough shift in Apple's business model to warrant a similar treatment.

The iPhone was a new product ready for the masses to try. The iPod was the first version of the software that eventually built the iOS. This is a whole new software ecosystem that will require trial and error for both Apple and their software partners. I expect only developers to be able to buy this device for at least the first 6 months.

I hope there is a larger iMac on the way. The all in one layout avoids much of the pain from large numbers of cables. My iMac is currently maxed out with cables and the desktop under my monitor is a mess as a result. Larger screens are really inexpensive and a huge benefit.
 
75Batt said:
It didn’t hold thousands. It player casettes which were around 60 minutes so about 20 songs.
Click to expand...
Right, and that was the problem being solved. Duh.

Just to be clear, you said people were perfectly happy with the way things were. No, they weren't. No one was happy listening to 20 songs. We carried cases of cassettes with us to have more variety. We wanted to listen to more than 20 songs. MP3 players solved that problem. I don't believe for a second that the iPod created a need that didn't previously exist.
 
Last edited:
ptmmac said:
I agree with you but I don't believe Apple is trying to sell to consumers yet. I expect something much more focused on developers. Apple had a much smaller ecosystem when they started OS X. They also spent years talking about what they were about to do. I think this is a big enough shift in Apple's business model to warrant a similar treatment.

The iPhone was a new product ready for the masses to try. The iPod was the first version of the software that eventually built the iOS. This is a whole new software ecosystem that will require trial and error for both Apple and their software partners. I expect only developers to be able to buy this device for at least the first 6 months.

I hope there is a larger iMac on the way. The all in one layout avoids much of the pain from large numbers of cables. My iMac is currently maxed out with cables and the desktop under my monitor is a mess as a result. Larger screens are really inexpensive and a huge benefit.
Click to expand...
If it will follow the same price progression as the iPhone then the AR headset would go beyond $3k over time.

Original 2007 iPhone 2G was $500(?) and the current Pro Max base model is $1,099?

Unlike the iPhone I'd probably delay purchase to a decade(?) just like what I did with the Watch when I waited for the EKG in the Series 4, 4 years later.
 
Longplays said:
If it will follow the same price progression as the iPhone then the AR headset would go beyond $3k over time.

Original 2007 iPhone 2G was $500(?) and the current Pro Max base model is $1,099?
Click to expand...
In 15 years the price of the base iPhone only increased by $200. $599 to $799 for the iPhone 14.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top