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

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

I have zero expectation of 99.9% to buy anything. It's not even close to that for $1000+ iPhones, Apple's most popular product.

The comparison of headphones to goggles was about how people already feed virtual/artificial things worn on their heads to their ears vs. what sounds are actually around them. And that is everywhere. Something that does the same for the eyes seems like it could be interesting for a segment of the tech-buying population.

I know plenty of people who think iPhones are at ridiculous price levels... and say so. And yet, not long after they voice that, you bump into some of them using their new iPhone. I think Mac Studio Ultra has beyond ridiculous pricing and yet I'm typing this on one myself right now.

I agree that $3K seems crazy high pricing for this rumored product from Apple. However, I recently spent $2K for an ultra-wide to pair with that Mac Studio (both basically chained to a desktop in one location for the life of use)... and I'll soon spend towards $3K on a MBpro to get another little screen on which I can also do some computing. Through a "think different" lens, those 2 screens are redundant for my purposes. What if Goggles could deliver both screens- and any other size- to my eyes just as well as the actual screens? For me anyway, that would be terrific. At all times I'm using a laptop anywhere I'm using it, I wish I had that ultra-wide with me instead.

Then maybe it is goggles plus a keyboard and trackpad in the bag to double as both desktop and laptop screens anywhere I happen to be. Since I will net spend much more than $3K for only those 2 monitors, why wouldn't I be interested in a way to have a portable "monitor" that could scratch both itches? Seems like a great way to at least consider $3K for some.

 

[JamesHolden]

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.

The question is, will this device improve the full screen video call experience enough to justify spending $3K per person on the call? I seriously doubt it.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

THat's regarding Nokia digital health products. Not related to the topic we were discussing - cellular telephony.

That was an example. If you want someone to post a long list of Nokia and Motorola patents you’re asking for a very long list. Anyway Nokia Android phones sell well enough in Scandinavia.

 

[AnotherOpinion]

This is a n amazing amount of technical info which helps to see Apple's commitment to this project. I am guessing that these will first be promoted for professional content creators, designers, engineers, etc. With the content they create viable as AR with iPhone and iPad… the cost also prohibits a majority of people who already have a Mac, iPad, iPhone. I would imagine that there will need to be very valuable exclusive content required to experience to really get people to jump on this. I am excited and hope it can help me make AR content to incorporate into my professional offerings.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

The question is, will this device improve the full screen video call experience enough to justify spending $3K per person on the call? I seriously doubt it.

Considering video calls means we see our genuine facial expressions which can be very subtle, it is doubtful serious people want to see that replaced with Memojis.

 

[klasma]

Sure. Here are a couple:

LCD Transparent Displays and kits

LCD Transparent displays and kits (also known as translucent) from 5.7" to 98" are ideal for unique applications such as transparent showcases and kiosks.

crystal-display.com

The problem that you can see in the video is that the display can only add light, not remove light that comes from behind the display. That is a major restriction of how you can use such a display.

 

[richinaus]

And you have still not shown me the sci-fi impossibles in anything I've shared in spite of slinging the accusation many times now. Tell me what this rumored technology + the right software could not do that I've imagined it might do.

Don't bother going for the bait. Just use the ignore function, works a charm.
I thought your post was more than reasonable, and the opportunities for AR [XR] are immense.

The funny thing is, at my studio we are testing all sorts of magical things. These dismissive people have no idea [and I wont suggest what they are as it is my IP at present]
RecentlyI showed one person who is developing a metaverse gallery project, and asked her why. Then proceeded to show her a prototype AR experience on my phone in the middle of a basketball game. Her reaction was priceless, and was saying 'how the hell did you do that'.

But it is a long game, and we are in the infancy of the technology, so no doubt it will be expensive, require development, have quirks and faults with areas where it can be criticised.

The headset will help it be more immersive, but it's not like a pair of headphones where music has been around for ages, so it is simply plug in and play with masses of existing content providing a better experience. This headset need content.

My big criticism of Apple, is that they should have released better tools for creators to develop experiences on and is all a bit convoluted. We need something like Logic / Final Cut for XR experiences.

 

[JamesHolden]

Considering video calls means we see out genuine facial expressions which can be very subtle, it is doubtful serious people want to see that replaced with Memojis.

Even if they do, is it worth the cost? Businesses need to see value in something in order to invest. Their employees already have computers with webcams. Video conferencing costs essentially nothing. Buying each employee a fancy headset for video conferencing seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[klasma]

The question is, will this device improve the full screen video call experience enough to justify spending $3K per person on the call? I seriously doubt it.

$3K really isn’t a lot for tech employees. It’s a week of salary, or even less.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

Even if they do, is it worth the cost? Businesses need to see value in something in order to invest. Their employees already have computers with webcams. Video conferencing costs essentially nothing. Buying each employee a fancy headset for video conferencing seems highly unlikely to me.

Certainly not worth the cost otherwise they would have done it already with the VR that already exists. Last time I was invited to a video conference call with a business I was the only person who turned on the webcam. Many just hate conferencing in general. Mostly send an email with PDF presentations and then one weekly meeting around the table that people want to leave as soon as possible.

 

[richinaus]

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.

I agree and don't think Apple are doing this - thats Zuckerbergs odd dream.

 

[JamesHolden]

$3K really isn’t a lot for tech employees. It’s a week of salary, or even less.

Wow, that's one privileged answer. While most people are struggling to pay for the basics, I'm so glad to know that "tech employees" are rolling in the money.

Beyond that ignorant, offensive answer, however, there's the reality that "tech employees" are still a very very small market. They alone will not make a product like this successful. I read a report today that Apple has slashed component orders for a variety of products. People aren't throwing money at tech the way they used to and the vast majority of people simply can't afford to spend $3K on a frivolous device.

Sure must be nice in your bubble!

 

[richinaus]

Sure, like Next Gen stats on my Amazon Fire Stick on my 300" theater screen for NFL Thursday night football. No goggles needed... and you may very well have a very cool app. But like I have the AR app to show stars and constellations on my phone. I pull it out 1 time per year to show someone, who says "cool" and then goes on with their life. The MetaVerse is being created/hyped by corporations and individuals who want to make money on it because typical revenue streams are dying. But they aren't yet actually locking into actual consumer needs/wants.

right.
I was showing her a practical consumer related AR solution whilst at a basketball game. It was more about being able to use the tech anywhere, rather than related to basketball.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

Wow, that's one privileged answer. While most people are struggling to pay for the basics, I'm so glad to know that "tech employees" are rolling in the money.

Incredible how detached people are from reality. They think people are rolling in loot and sleeping on a bed made of money and badly want to spend all their life savings on every tech fad and health fad and fashion fad. On top of the criminal rents that they are being charged.

 

[Naraxus]

First... Since you feel so strongly Apple's AR device will flop, and Apple doesn't know what they're doing spending millions of $$$$, write a letter to Tim Cook and set him straight.

Is there a reason why you always have to be so condescending in nearly every post you make?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I was responding to YOUR use case.

And "to catch up on some video on a phone screen" will not be a convenient use of goggles. I'm not going to take my goggles out my backpack, make sure the battery is attached, cut myself off from the visual world to watch that latest reel on Instagram. I'm not going to do it in a bank. Or at a restaurant. Or walking down the street. Or sitting in park. The only place I'd be comfortable doing this is in the privacy of my home (where as I've said, I already have a really nice home theater) or in your 1 use case, on an airplane. But even there, is it worth hauling the goggles around the world and making sure you have 3+ batteries charged when I already have my phone screen?

All that opinion is OK. It looks like these will not be for you. That's fine. I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else. This is a product rumor thread. We Apple people are offering opinions about a product. Some obviously see no use for this whatsoever and others see many use cases. There's no way to know if any potential applies because we have no actual product to see what they can do yet.

However, many of us seem to be pooling towards the extremes where the "these are useless" people want to make everyone see it their way and vice versa. I have no interest in making that segment flip. I don't work for Apple or Meta. I could even readily talk up big concern about the rumored (and it's only a rumor) price point myself. I do NOT want to spend $3K on another Apple product.

I simply don't envision Apple goggles being so difficult to use. That's not Apple's way. Ease of use does seem to be a long-term concern of Apple's approach to developing things. I have some faith that these will reflect that too.

Personally- and this might be just me- I do tend to favor pulling a MB out of the bag to catch up on internet stuff. IMO, tiny little iDevices basically beg for bigger screens for most of what I want to consume or do. So I'm already generally reaching in the bag to pull out a hunk of technology to do something with it. Most of the reason I go to that trouble is for the bigger screen... which is something to feed information to my eyes. If this is another way to deliver for my eyes, I'm interested... especially if the net size of the package may come in smaller than laptop + tablet + phone.

If it gives me the ability to summon a gigantic desktop-like screen or even a TV-size screen in the same-sized package, all the better (for me anyway). I like screen RE. No, I do not want to drag my TV or desktop monitor around everywhere to have it with me... but I might be willing to drag goggles around if they can fake that good enough.

I don't find pulling out headphones and using them difficult/aggravating, etc at all. If I want headphone sound, I just roll with the task to put them on. In my imagination, these can be headphones for the eyes. We'll see if they are that or not when rumor becomes reality. But based on that imagination, I don't envision the onerous difficulty in using them being any more difficult than using headphones... which I see in use everywhere.

 

[citysnaps]

The telephone is a consumer facing device.

Of course. And? Is that a revelation or something?

 

[Ethosik]

You know whats gonna make this thing take off? OnlyFans

Adult entertainment has always been the industry that drives these things into the mainstream. It is what made the Internet popular because it was discrete. After OnlyFans, you will see creators in different industries create content that allow you to immerse yourself in their world. Imagine going through a OMG! iJustine product review with what seems like Justine right there in your living room or her studio. The same for MKBHD, you could actually be his presence and actually see and listen to his monologue like he's right there and even have interactions like asking questions. This is also gonna be great for live concerts.

I doubt Apple would allow its image to be connected heavily to the adult industry.

 

[Le0M]

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"

I truly hope you're right, cuz I'm not buying it either, and just the idea makes me shiver.....

 

[richinaus]

Even if they do, is it worth the cost? Businesses need to see value in something in order to invest. Their employees already have computers with webcams. Video conferencing costs essentially nothing. Buying each employee a fancy headset for video conferencing seems highly unlikely to me.

I agree with this and it is unlikely to happen in the near future.

My studio is small and can afford one headset for testing etc.

My partners studio has 180 people - there is no way on the planet they will spend $3k per person for a headset.

The other big issue is you need all the other firms you work with to be on the same platforms with the same tech. Not going to happen quickly at all. I give it min 5 years, more likely 10 to pick up mass adoption.

 

[JamesHolden]

I doubt Apple would allow its image to be connected heavily to the adult industry.

Which is, of course, hilarious because the App Store is full of hookup apps that are driving the huge surge in STDs. There are lots of sexually-themed role playing games in the App Store too. Apple is already very much connected to the adult industry.

 

[richinaus]

But my iphone paired with apps has been able to do this for years...and it is so rare a use case now. Almost nobody is using it. And again, no goggle required. I can lift my phone to the real world now and have access to AR data. And I rarely use it.

yes you can and I was showing her on my phone

more about potential I guess and the fact that I believe the metaverse is a bit of a dead end.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

"switching to the real world". I wear glasses for reading and working. Try fitting those in.

When you wear sunglasses do you put them on over your prescription glasses? When you look through binoculars, do you leave your prescription glasses on? Why would you do that? Any headset worth a thousand dollars should provide enough optical focus adjustment that you shouldn’t need to wear glasses at the same time, whether the 3d overlay is on or off. Glasses should be redundant. This headset should be able to zoom and adjust image clarity and lessen the stress on your eyes by adjusting focus for whatever distance you’re looking at. If v1 doesn’t do it, which it almost certainly won’t, eventually these things will, because the only utility glasses provide is focus, which is extremely simplistic and limited compared to all the potential that a cybernetic upgrade like AR carries within it.

 

[citysnaps]

But my iphone paired with apps has been able to do this for years...and it is so rare a use case now. Almost nobody is using it. And again, no goggle required. I can lift my phone to the real world now and have access to AR data. And I rarely use it.

"And I rarely use it."

That's nice.

And I have only once used my iPhone for FaceTime-ing with friends and relatives. I use a laptop or desktop computer instead.

But I would never project my personal non-use/use iPhone habits onto others who frequently use their iPhone for FaceTime.

 

[Le0M]

The problem that you can see in the video is that the display can only add light, not remove light that comes from behind the display. That is a major restriction of how you can use such a display.

Sure. But on the other hand, glasses that can be electronically obscured to a very high degree already exist as well. Put these techs together and there you have your see-through, AR and VR headset.