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

Apple's AR/VR Headset Said to Feature Digital Crown, Waist-Mounted Battery Pack, and More

I'll reserve judgement until this product is released, but it sure sounds weird. Who is going to spend $3K for a fancy video conferencing device? No emphasis on gaming? Really?! That's kind of crazy. 3D Apple Maps...oooo...that's reason to drop $3K! 🤯 To all the people saying it will be great for watching movies (which I don't doubt)...do you plan to buy one for every family member?

What's the "killer app"? I mean, you can buy a tricked out MacBook Pro for less than $3K...or this novelty device. I just can't imagine who, outside of a limited number of hardcore Apple fans, is going to buy this thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
Timo_Existencia said:
I have a nice home theater set up. 300" screen. Reclining sofas. During a 2 hour movie, I'm constantly reaching for the can of mineral water, the popcorn, my laptop, my iPhone. And I frequently forget where exactly I placed them and have to scan left/right to find and grab them. Further, because I have a family and pets, they are constantly walking in wanting to show me something, talk, sit, express an idea, etc. I can do all of that, managing distractions, while keeping the movie playing. But if I have to stop it, take the goggles off, to simply locate my can of mineral water...that will be annoying.
Click to expand...

Owning a set of these Goggles doesn't eliminate any of that. But you can't take that 300' screen on the plane with you, on the train, out to lunch from the office, etc... all the places where you might catch up on some video on a phone screen yourself.

I make no such case that Goggles means all other screens should be replaced... that everyone should only wear goggles for visual consumption... etc. It's simply an option... like checking the sports scores in the back of a cab... or at the beach... or while standing in line somewhere. I see buds and headphones everywhere. I bet at least some of those people have exceptional stereo systems at home. And yet I see buds and headphones everywhere. What if Goggles is headphones for the eyes, used like we use headphones now? Not to replace all A/V sources but to supplement them wherever we might like some "eyephones?"
 
klasma said:
The basic use case seems to be 3D video calls. Remote meetings but they feel like in-person. And they can have added value for collaborative engineering of 3D objects (instead of just 2D screen sharing). This is targeting the enterprise market, not the casual consumer.
Click to expand...

Full screen video calls are better and feel in person. You shouldn’t need to walk about in 3D. Just sit and talk.

A 3D object in your monitor is three dimensional even if your monitor is flat. All those things can be done already without the inconvenience of a head set.

Engineering is done in engineering apps already without anyone asking for a head set. Everything can already be rotated around on the screen. Engineers and designers need to use their keyboard a lot for number entry and short cuts so they don’t want a head set blocking their view of the keyboard.

There are some cases where you want to show a client the inside of an architecture plan. So you can show them in VR. This has been done on the screen already and in VR headsets as an option.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
klasma said:
The basic use case seems to be 3D video calls. Remote meetings but they feel like in-person. And they can have added value for collaborative engineering of 3D objects (instead of just 2D screen sharing). This is targeting the enterprise market, not the casual consumer.
Click to expand...
Apple is crazy if they think businesses are going to spend $3K per unit on a bunch of video conferencing devices. As good as the tech might be (we shall see), there's no way 3D conferencing will add that much value to justify the cost when current methods of conferencing are essentially free. Workers already have a computer with a webcam. Is a 3D virtual environment worth spending $3K per employee? Hardly.
 
Haven't been as curious about a looming Apple product launch since the '07 iPhone. And while a VR/AR headset doesn't come bundled with the same anticipation as a mobile phone (or an iPad, or an internet communicator) did, I do think it will prove more of a pivotal moment in tech/Apple history than some here believe.

Is it niche? Today it is. And the launch day price point will likely reflect said niche. But I fully expect an entire product line - not unlike the family of iPhones, laptops, desktops, watches, etc. I am certain Apple has bigger plans here. This is more than a platform. It's the next way we will interface with our tech. Keyboard, mouse, touchpad, touch, voice. This is the next input method. Like it or not. Should be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B4rbelith, Mescagnus and the future
JamesHolden said:
Apple is crazy if they think businesses are going to spend $3K per unit on a bunch of video conferencing devices. As good as the tech might be (we shall see), there's no way 3D conferencing will add that much value to justify the cost when current methods of conferencing are essentially free. Workers already have a computer with a webcam. Is a 3D virtual environment worth spending $3K per employee? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Yeah can you imagine a business that employs a dozen or hundreds of people spending that much and their employees are stuck with a head set and not looking at each other like normal people? That’s the Zuckerberg vision and he’s a complete psychopath unfeeling robot.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JamesHolden
jz0309 said:
battery on the belt, lasting 2 hrs - why? my question is about the runtime, not the location.
Click to expand...
The tech probably still draws a lot of power. Motorized 2x4K micro-LED displays with 3D processing of a number of camera images and LIDAR sensors, realtime eye tracking, wireless data streaming, etc. They don’t want the battery to be too heavy either on the belt.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
I make no such case that Goggles means all other screens should be replaced... that everyone should only wear goggles for visual consumption... etc. It's simply an option... like checking the sports scores in the back of a cab... or at the beach... or while standing in line somewhere. I see buds and headphones everywhere. I bet at least some of those people have exceptional stereo systems at home. And yet I see buds and headphones everywhere. What if Goggles is headphones for the eyes, used like we use headphones now? Not to replace all A/V sources but to supplement them wherever we might like some "eyephones?"
Click to expand...
It's not an option for 99.9% of people if the price is $3K. Get real. Very few people can afford to spend that kind of money on a supplemental device. Buds and headphones can be had for under $100. You can't compare a cheap set of headphones to a $3K device. Most people can afford the former. Very few can afford the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
citysnaps said:
Nope. I don't cling to rumors. It's my own assessment it's going to be much less than $3K.
Click to expand...
$3K sits roughly between MacBook and Mac Pro pricing. That sounds reasonable for a product targeting the enterprise market.
 
klasma said:
$3K sits roughly between MacBook and Mac Pro pricing. That sounds reasonable for a product targeting the enterprise market.
Click to expand...
A one trick pony product? Hardly. Enterprise customers are going to laugh this out the door at that price. Do you really think businesses are going to spend $3K per unit on a bunch of headsets for video conferencing. That's delusional.

Plus, what's with the focus on "enterprise market" anyway? Apple is a consumer electronics company. They don't target the enterprise market for anything. Sure, they are happy to have enterprise customers, but they've never focused on that market.
 
klasma said:
As someone who regularly does both in-person meetings and full screen video calls, no they’re really not the same, totally different social dynamics.
Click to expand...

A 3D virtual meeting isn’t an in-person meeting. You’re just an avatar or video on a screen stuck to the face. Unless you expect to be walking around the person you chatting too, but that would be creepy in VR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
ponzicoinbro said:
"switching to the real world"

I wear glasses for reading and working. Try fitting those in.

I don't want any weight on my head.

I don't want creases on my face.

Or having the band leave a dent going through my hair after I take goggles off.

So it's not on my menu.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you want a monitor, not a AR/VR headset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
purplerainpurplerain said:
Nope they are everywhere. For example,

www.apple.com

Nokia and Apple sign agreement, settle all litigation

Nokia and Apple announced that they have settled all litigation related to their intellectual property dispute and agreed a multi-year patent license.
www.apple.com
Click to expand...

THat's regarding Nokia digital health products. Not related to the topic we were discussing - cellular telephony and Motorola/Ericksson/Nokia's dominance before Apple entered that market.
 
Apple is focused on videoconferencing on the device, with digital avatars
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. There's something missing in what The Information purports is a primary use case. This isn't solving an actual problem. Looking forward to whatever Apple is cooking up, but it needs to have a better value prop than "FaceTime w/ Memoji but mounted on your head instead of in your hand"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Le0M, richinaus and purplerainpurplerain
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