Why would the micro displays be different between the two devices?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Rumored $3,000+ AR/VR Headset Said to Enter Mass Production in August-September
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know where this comes from, but let me tell you to not keep you hopes up. Companies are barely able to build a proper headset, let alone standalone glasses.
Other companies' headsets' UI and Input methods proved to be awful.
Apple will succeed at these. And people will finally understand what a difference it'll make.
That is true. Every innovation comes with a challenge.
We live in an era where most things are a distraction from life itself.
This will be no exception.
Why do you think it requires 2 8K display units? That would be massive resolution. they are more likely to be using foveate resolution where only a small area of the screen is rendered at full resolution. 4K per eye is still a lot of resolution to push. For a head mounted display, fast response is more important than raw resolution to avoid nauseating mismatch between proprioception and visuals.
The entry level hardware for each of Apples OS‘s is under $700. MacOS, iOS, iPadOS WatchOS, tvOS.
Broad adoption of a platform is an incentive for developers to support that platform. If the entry level device is 2-3k, fewer people overall will be on that platform, making it less attractive for developers, which in turn makes the device less attractive even for richer consumers.
The only way the device would be valuable would be for proprietary software, or if it could run preexisting apps and media well. (I think that may be part of their strategy)
They are clearly not targeting general consumers with this version of the product and you probably would want to wait for version 2 anyway. By then the price and performance would be more appealing.
Generous of you to assume there won't be any artificial scarcity in the virtual metaverse so that these companies can suck us dry even further.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Oh there WILL be that but I was responding to a guy worried about the cost of gas, inflation and rent but reading rumors about $3K ski googles. Those worrying about gas and rent probably shouldn't be giving too much thought to expensive VR/AR options... reality needs their attention right now.
I don't know... I think $3k might be the ticket. Remember, they still sell a monitor stand for $999.
Yup, me again, beating the same dead horse... (And, yes, the more I beat this dead horse the more likely it is that I will be completely horribly wrong ;-) )
Honestly, I expect the biggest "Killer app" for this device to be Fitness+ AR/VR premium downloads/purchases? I also expect it to tie into all the other services and all the relationships Apple has, and is rumored to be building in the future?
If Apple inks a deal with the NFL or one of the big football (not American football) leagues, or even F1, WRC, IMSA, Indycar... Expect that you will receive emails/offers to purchase workouts from your favorite teams/players/drivers from those sports. Pit crew endurance/strength training? Driver hand/eye coordination exercises? Sweeper cardio routines? These may also show up as notifications during said broadcasts? (Depending on your notifications settings, of course)
Same with Apple's long-standing relationship with Darth Mickey? Expect to see offers in AppleTV+ for exclusive Disney+ VR/AR *experiences* only available with the Apple Headset. This could even include the workout routine the leading actor/actress used to prepare for the role? You want Hemsworth's abs? Better have the Apple Headset and buy this exclusive Fitness+ workout add-on for the Apple Headset... Of, course expect exclusive AR/VR *experiences* that are purely entertainment driven as well, this is the Mouse after-all... And, Apple will be happy to take a cut of the sales... Other entertainment/TV/Movie production agreements will follow...
And, yes, with all the rumored 4K resolution and M1Max or M2 processing horsepower, you'd hope that there'd be some decent gaming content as well? With all the consolidation in the gaming market recently, could Apple leverage some of the growing anti-trust tension/concerns to secure some content that otherwise would never make it onto any Apple-branded hardware? Will any of those titles also offer some kind of Apple Headset exclusive Fitness+ add-ons? I wouldn't bet against it?
And, yes, all of this will make the Apple Headset the one device Apple sells that really ties users to all the Apple services... You want to share some great immersive video you shot on your iPhone 14 Pro 360degree cameras? Better be using iCloud+ and it's new "QuickTimeVR"* authoring/publishing features, to have the best streaming/sharing experience across all of your devices...especially the Apple Headset.. Want to get Tessa Thompson's glutes at the same time as your best friend in another state? That Fitness+ subscription with the AR/VR additional workout purchases.. from Fitness+, Apple Music (You and your friend will want your favorite music playing and synced up while you're getting those glutes toned, right?), AppleTV+, iCloud+.. This device will need all of them to get the most function out of it...
$999, includes 3 months of all these great services, auto-renewing on your iTunes/App Store/AppleID account, of course.
* Yes, I'm still beating that dead horse too. QuickTimeVR being killed off (due to loss of talent to Google) just as Apple was beginning to sell devices (iOS) that really could have made the most out of the QuickTimeVR experiences available at the time.. yup.. still grinds my gears. Apple had.. HAD.. a huge lead in the VR space... I can only hope that we see some kind of consumer/prosumer level content creation for this device that brings back what we had with QTVR+Sprites.. Of course, we could have a tool ready to go for that if Apple hadn't killed Aperture.. God damnit! Git off my lawn y'all!
There is no reason this would need to immediately appeal to consumers to be a revolutionary device. The article mentions that it is initially targeting pro verticals. That would be wonderful.
Unless this is mainly a Heath/Fitness/Lifestyle play, where entertainment/gaming is , "oh yeah it does that too".. But does it all better, lighter, more comfortable than what's out there now? I'm not seeing the upside either? I am convinced that it will be more of a services play than anything (Fitness+ mainly)
I'm looking from the outside on this? I built an iracing rig with the intention of using VR, but honestly, with the triple 27" LCDs in a dark room, the world disappears without something being strapped to my head? I still haven't purchased a headset?
Now, if in addition to all the rumored/speculated stand-alone features (and my Fitness+ thoughts), this Apple Headset can also connect to a PC for use with Flight sims/Racing sims? The value starts to come into focus?
I'm skeptical as well? Excited to see what comes from it all though?
The X-Ray Specs feature will be a $49.99 add-on in the RealityOS Store.
And, for a limited time, you can get the X-Ray Specs/Sea Monkey bundle for Just $4.99 more!
;-)
Last edited:
There's also that Apple premium on the price... /s
I would like Apple to create an awesome headset, but they would definitely need to be compatible with existing platforms to make them more appealing to more customers. I have a Quest 2 with Link and SteamVR. If I ever did pick up an Apple headset, it would be great to have my entire library already available. I have yet to see any rumors of controllers, so I doubt they have any serious intentions with gaming. Their hand tracking needs to be leaps and bounds better than what exists with current headsets. Even with that, there are some games that just wouldn't work well with hand tracking alone.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
My crack at most killer app through my own lens: front row center seats to any sporting event, any show, any concert. One camera setup to support this in the right spot would let any number of buyers/subscribers enjoy virtually having the best seat in the house for what could be a pretty attractive fee.
Right now- in the real world- that prime seat can hold only one person. At select sporting events, a single game can make that seat cost $2000-$20,000 for ONE game. If you could virtualize that experience, the sellers of physical spaces like that could price it much more aggressively and then seat many thousands of people in that same seat. They make much more money by selling that same spot to thousands while charging much less money than physically selling that seat to one person.
Think of all the sports in the world, all the concerts, all the shows: how many would like to go to more than the 1 or 2 they can occasionally afford for the price of the 1 or 2 they can occasionally afford. Everyone wins: Apple sells "expensive" hardware, Apple & Show partners sell "software" passes to virtual seats and consumers can take in events from the best seat in the house that otherwise he/she could never attend in reality.
Would this kill theaters? Of course not. There's still some added something to actually being there in person. I bet you can't make a S.O. happy that every date night is sitting in your place with 2 sets of goggles strapped to your faces.
But I'm visualizing virtual worlds comparable to what the time share industry does: sells the very same thing to countless many people, making far more than they could be selling it in full to only one person. And they'll be able to charge much less to still make much more.
Now that's only one bit of the VR side of this. AR has it's own pile of goodies to potentially realize.
IMO- that concept is not even that imaginative. Think about the many possibilities of a device that can substitute all of what one's eyes can see and all of what one's ears can hear. Those 2 senses dominate our perception of the world. Control them and any kind of experience could be potentially delivered.
Right now- in the real world- that prime seat can hold only one person. At select sporting events, a single game can make that seat cost $2000-$20,000 for ONE game. If you could virtualize that experience, the sellers of physical spaces like that could price it much more aggressively and then seat many thousands of people in that same seat. They make much more money by selling that same spot to thousands while charging much less money than physically selling that seat to one person.
Think of all the sports in the world, all the concerts, all the shows: how many would like to go to more than the 1 or 2 they can occasionally afford for the price of the 1 or 2 they can occasionally afford. Everyone wins: Apple sells "expensive" hardware, Apple & Show partners sell "software" passes to virtual seats and consumers can take in events from the best seat in the house that otherwise he/she could never attend in reality.
Would this kill theaters? Of course not. There's still some added something to actually being there in person. I bet you can't make a S.O. happy that every date night is sitting in your place with 2 sets of goggles strapped to your faces.
But I'm visualizing virtual worlds comparable to what the time share industry does: sells the very same thing to countless many people, making far more than they could be selling it in full to only one person. And they'll be able to charge much less to still make much more.
Now that's only one bit of the VR side of this. AR has it's own pile of goodies to potentially realize.
IMO- that concept is not even that imaginative. Think about the many possibilities of a device that can substitute all of what one's eyes can see and all of what one's ears can hear. Those 2 senses dominate our perception of the world. Control them and any kind of experience could be potentially delivered.
Still no article from Macrumors talking about a possible competitor to Apple Glasses?
blog.playstation.com
First look: the headset design for PlayStation VR2
The inspiration behind the latest VR hardware design.
blog.playstation.com
Still no article from Macrumors talking about a possible competitor to Apple Glasses?
First look: the headset design for PlayStation VR2
The inspiration behind the latest VR hardware design.
Most reports of potential “Apple killers” usually don’t end up well for the competition in the long run.
I mean you could always just find an actual human being to have old fashioned intercourse with.... probably more expensive in the long run, I'll admit that as much as any other married person with children... ? But I still think it's probably more .... ehm... realistic.
I guess it's one of those markets that is blatantly overestimated until someone finds the right application for it and then it becomes virtually ubiquitous. No company wants to be left out, and since Farcebook is now apparently willing to do the heavy lifting PR wise a lot of players feel like it's the right time to enter the market. VR has been the next great thing since the 80's, and it will continue to be until someone finally does it. It's always just around the corner. Like fusion power.
That your face gets warmer. That's the worst that can happen. Sub UV radiation doesn't have the energy to break molecular bonds. That's a fact, and one we've known for decades, and everyone parroting this 5G dystopian nonsense is either messing with you or lacks basic physics education. It's just like people still believe a nuclear power station could spontaneously become a nuclear bomb - hilarious.
In general: I remember an article about this talking about the fact that the actual computer driving these glasses would be located in these glasses. I think I even remember it mentioned it would run an M1 Max. That would be sufficiently novel since it would technically allow true wireless AR/VR without any lag, and lag is the biggest issue with current wireless implementations. However ... that would mean you'd have to "wear" the insides of a MacBook on your face. So maybe we already kinda know how these glasses will actually look like? ?
Of course, would also mean a 2K pricetag would be hardly avoidable if that were true.
lol who the hell wants a full-size browser in front of you? literally everyone has chosen to be on smaller (mobile) screens over laptop/desktop counterparts for web consumption. nobody wants their web browser to be bigger lol.Google only proved that it wasn't able to make a good enough product for wide adoption.
With the advent of AR and other "keep your phone in the pocket" situations (which is already happening with Apple Watch) it's gonna be great for fitness, notifications, navigation, media consumption and web browsing (have a full size virtual web browser in front of you, instead of slouching at a 6" screen held at your chest level).
If it's light enough and non-intrusive people will wear it as another "accessory" that will allow them to not reach for their phones ever! Just the glasses and earbuds and you're fine!
Not to mention a lot of professional use cases as well
what a ridiculous comparison. gaming pcs are an established market with tons of AAA titles available. nobody wants a $2,000 VR device with no software. even oculus quest which has been out for years is still struggling with getting decent apps/games for it, and most people are buying them now because the price has dropped significantly.
While I agree that hardly anyone would want to be "immersed" in a web page, especially considering how most of those look .... I very much prefer an actual, decently sized monitor over a laptop for web content. In fact I'm typing this sitting at a 34 inch ultra wide and I am very happy about it. Might out me as a Gen X dinosaur (you know, Gen X is the new Boomer), but I find myself constantly preferring a stationary device when I am... ehm... stationary.
That's a good point. But maybe it also explains why VR hasn't taken off: Thinking of VR as a gaming technology is the obvious thought. But we've also seen that it comes with a lot of problems and pitfalls, has hardly ever been done properly, and as such still struggles to find significant market saturation. Maybe we got it all wrong, and AR/VR is really much better for something else entirely nobody has yet come to think of except Tim Apple himself. And this is only halfway sarcasm: the iPhone was laughed out of the door by half the people when it was released, and before most people were adamant it could not be done. Intel even famously claimed that a low powered CPU for the iPhone was out of the question since it simply wouldn't sell. Well ... how the turntables, ey?
That being said: if Apple's entire spin would be that you can use this to play "Amazing games that are right for everyone on Apple Arcade" and "Experience the internet front and center like never before" (best Tim Apple impression I can muster) .... then it's effing DOA.