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

Apple's Mixed Reality Headset to Feature iOS-Like Interface, Advanced Hand Tracking, and Will Work as Second Display for Mac

anthogag said:
Apple's AR/VR could be more like a wearable computer, not built for gamers.
Click to expand...
I'll be highly interested if it will let me tour the whole world while wearing AR/VR headset via Apple Maps. But that's unlikely to happen. I honestly prefer a physical computer instead of some hologram. Major headache attack and I'm going to lose focus. I prefer good ol' Retina Display.

Sometimes I wish Apple had worked on introducing a completely built-in Projector on an iPhone. Something like this embedded on the back of the iPhone. Who wants to wear a headset 8 hours a day?


maxresdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: svish, SFjohn and macos9rules
2 hour battery life, swap batteries in and out? Battery pack you wear on your belt? I’m just so lost who is going to buy this thing. This is the most clunky un-Apple like design imaginable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sorgo †
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
I'll be highly interested if it will let me tour the whole world while wearing AR/VR headset via Apple Maps. But that's unlikely to happen. I honestly prefer a physical computer instead of some hologram. Major headache attack and I'm going to lose focus. I prefer good ol' Retina Display.

Sometimes I wish Apple had worked on introducing a completely built-in Projector on an iPhone. Something like this embedded on the back of the iPhone. Who wants to wear a headset 8 hours a day?


maxresdefault.jpg
Click to expand...
Talking about Apple Maps, you could probably see street view and use your head to turn the view and perhaps make a swimming motion to move forward 🏊‍♂️
 
subjonas said:
VR? I would think virtual displays in AR would make much more sense.
Click to expand...
I think people are getting too hung up with the terms. For most apps you will be able to choose if the "background" is the real world* or a virtual world.

*camera passthrough or a 3D scan. The issue with camera passthrough is that the cameras aren't precisely where your eyes are, so the software has to attempt to distort the video to match the correct stereo depth.
 
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
For $3000.00 including tax, It's overly expensive.

I'm not sure if this world is even ready for this Apple AR/VR headset. Siri connecting with Apple AR/VR headset??? Yeah... I don't know about this one.
Click to expand...
Do not forget the extra Airpods and what not. What I read from the article it is wasted money for the experience you get back. Seeing your Apple Devices up close and meetings? Nah. Not even mentioning the potential eye damage after prolong use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sorgo † and TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Why does every tech company think that VR is smash hit consumer product?? I only know one person that owns an Oculus and that’s been out for how long??? Lmao

VR is great tech, don’t get me wrong. But trying to make it a consumer device instead of a tool for certain industries is beyond me. Every consumer use case for it sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
RinkDinkus said:
Why does every tech company think that VR is smash hit consumer product?? I only know one person that owns an Oculus and that’s been out for how long??? Lmao

VR is great tech, don’t get me wrong. But trying to make it a consumer device instead of a tool for certain industries is beyond me. Every consumer use case for it sucks.
Click to expand...
Apple makes consumer devices, right.

Not needing controllers in the hand is a great move and maybe why other headsets suck.
 
KaliYoni said:
And we thought sidewalk iPhone users made it hard to walk around without bumping into distracted, oblivious people...
Click to expand...
Even if people wear this around town (which they won’t), they would certainly not be in VR mode because they would be completely blind to their surroundings and would immediately trip or hit something. They would be in AR mode which is not at all like looking down at a phone screen while walking which is dangerous. AR is perfectly safe (assuming it’s designed correctly) because your head is up with a clear view of the world. You’d merely see pertinent digital versions of signs here and there, which are no different than physical signs which don’t cause people to walk into walls and off cliffs. But probably don’t want to be driving of course, as even too many physical signs and billboards can be too distracting. I would think safeguards would be built into the headset software so it knows that the faster the user is traveling, the less digital overlays are allowed.
But of course this won’t actually be worn around town on the go because it’s huge and has 2 hour battery life. It’s meant to be used in specific places and situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surfbutler
Don't you BOOMERS understand? This is the FUTURE!

The Matrix...ExistenZ... Ready Player One... Here...TODAY.

The Zuck & Timmy are visionaries.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been hyped about VR since the very first Oculus demo and then trying the dev kit what seems like nearly 10 years ago at this point.

I’m really curious to see what Apple’s product is, even though I’m fairly sure
I won’t be buying at that price. In terms of the overall space, progress has honestly been slower than I’d like and innovation seems to trickle out rather than frequently see new headsets that blow you away. That said, what Meta did with the Quest 2 and to sell it so cheaply, was pretty magic.
 
subjonas said:
Even if people wear this around town (which they won’t), they would certainly not be in VR mode because they would be completely blind to their surroundings and would immediately trip or hit something. They would be in AR mode which is not at all like looking down at a phone screen while walking which is dangerous. AR is perfectly safe (assuming it’s designed correctly) because your head is up with a clear view of the world. You’d merely see pertinent digital versions of signs here and there, which are no different than physical signs which don’t cause people to walk into walls and off cliffs. But probably don’t want to be driving of course, as even too many physical signs and billboards can be too distracting. I would think safeguards would be built into the headset software so it knows that the faster the user is traveling, the less digital overlays are allowed.
But of course this won’t actually be worn around town on the go because it’s huge and has 2 hour battery life. It’s meant to be used in specific places and situations.
Click to expand...
I would have this in my backpack and take it out if I sit down for a short while. Just put it on my head and start moving my arms. It's the next level, above all those people walking around talking to themselves because they have AirPods in the ears on a phone call.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gusmula and subjonas
Will the outside of the goggle have a screen that shows the users eyes, so receptionists can interact with people without taking the goggles off?
 
Jensend said:
I think people are getting too hung up with the terms. For most apps you will be able to choose if the "background" is the real world* or a virtual world.

*camera passthrough or a 3D scan. The issue with camera passthrough is that the cameras aren't precisely where your eyes are, so the software has to attempt to distort the video to match the correct stereo depth.
Click to expand...
It’s not a trivial difference. You’d need to be able to see your computer peripherals, things on your desk, and other items in the real world to remain fully functional.
A display floating in VR just for the sake of being in VR (ie. not using a VR-specific application) doesn’t make much sense except for in the case of consumption. But Macs are designed mainly for productivity.
 
subjonas said:
It’s not a trivial difference. You’d need to be able to see your computer peripherals, things on your desk, and other items in the real world to remain fully functional.
A display floating in VR just for the sake of being in VR (ie. not using a VR-specific application) doesn’t make much sense except for in the case of consumption. But Macs are designed mainly for productivity.
Click to expand...
In AR you could place a screen, keyboard, and mouse using hand tracking for all the people who can't wrap their heads around AR/VR.
 
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
This looks like it’s only designed for professionals. Not targeted towards a regular consumer market. Thanks for sharing tho! Pretty cool.
Click to expand...

For sure. More sharing to show potentials in the space, since many here seem to struggle with the why and how of such an endeavor by Apple. While a lot seem to compare to Oculus, maybe what Apple has planned is not what Meta has planned. Mere food for thought. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mescagnus and TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
SoldOnApple said:
Will the outside of the goggle have a screen that shows the users eyes, so receptionists can interact with people without taking the goggles off?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question, and would be good, but the description kind of sound like the real world is displayed on the headset’s screen via the cameras, no glass. But I hope I’m wrong.
 
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
Steve Jobs made sure to make the iPad extremely cost-effective. By offering it at $499 it was appealing to many users thus it became a successful product. That's something Steve Jobs was very good at. But Tim Cook doesn't seem to be that way. In 2017, If Tim Cook is telling us $999 is a "value price" for an iPhone (Base Model) imagine what he is preparing to tell the world in 2023. (6 years later). I highly doubt it's going to cost $1799. Apple is going to need all the money it needs for the ROI. It's a niche product, targeted toward the cool rich kids living in Beverly Hills.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. The VR headset is a gateway. Through that he'll be able to sell millions of *virtual* iPhone and MacBook upgrades! Profits margins on those products will be >99.9%!!
 
Last edited:
subjonas said:
It’s not a trivial difference. You’d need to be able to see your computer peripherals, things on your desk, and other items in the real world to remain fully functional.
A display floating in VR just for the sake of being in VR (ie. not using a VR-specific application) doesn’t make much sense except for in the case of consumption. But Macs are designed mainly for productivity.
Click to expand...
Even with an otherwise fully VR background, you'll be able to view your keyboard in the virtual world. Oculus devices can already do that.
My point is not that AR and VR are exactly the same, it's just that with most apps you'll be able to customize the level of AR passthrough, so any time someone says VR, you can just assume they mean VR or AR.
All "VR" devices in the future will have AR capabilities. Many already do.
 
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