VR has always been a stepping stone to AR. From watching this space for well over 5 years now it’s pretty clear Apple has a massive project afoot in the AR space and really doesn’t care that much about the dead end that VR is.
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 Struggles With Long-Rumored AR/VR Headset Detailed in New Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see any use for it, and it's not hard at all. Maybe gamers (not me), and maybe some robot control (not me), and that's about it.
Which is exactly why Apple isn’t making one.
Apple said to have ruled out a metaverse for its mixed reality headset
Apple has apparently rejected the idea of a metaverse for its mixed reality headset — a rejection of Meta's strategy.www.engadget.com
NOICE VERY NOICE
Because he is smart and didn’t screw people over like Zuckerberg And isn’t making racist death machines like Palmer Lucky.
PCs are a much of a dead-end stepping stone to smartphones as VR is to AR.
Which is to say that VR is not a dead-end and will always play a significant part in AR's future.
It is hard, because people are not good at imagining new concepts. The idea of a PC that allowed you to type commands to move pixels on a screen was once alien to the masses.
Think about the applications it has for communication, for exercise, for education, for travel/telepresence, for daily assistance and navigation. Those would scale well to consumers, and then there's the more specialized or enterprise stuff on top of that.
I guess I phrased it wrong. I see VR as subset of AR more than the two being exclusive. An AR device seems to be much more of a real world use platform to me than VR. Even Meta has just demonstrated passing real world imaging into their upcoming VR device…which makes it an AR device.
Does that make sense?
Everyone has imagination, I didn’t say everyone uses it. For the techies, it’s like a Star Trek holodeck in your head.
This, a new platform is always hard to imagine what can be done with it. Especially one that is based on entirely new (to the masses) interaction paradigms with the tech.
I see a TON of potential for AR….provided it has nothing to do with the Metaverse.
Jobs was very much a tech leader. Inventor? Not so much, but leader? Yes. Jobs was innovative and in touch with the reality of the tech 90% of the time. Cook is a bloody bean counter with a finance background.
Not me, I got in at the ground floor on computers and knew that's what I would do, even though I was still in Jr High. (1973 or so) I saw the math and speed that it could allow. That's way different than just a visual medium.
Don't see any applications for communications that isn't already covered by a flat screen. (phone or computer)
??? Seems that's more manual than ANYTHING else.
Maybe, but what can it add over what we already have?
Nah. Flat screen would work just as well.
>For daily assistance and navigation.
I just don't see how that would be better -- to me it would distract too much.
That's the only area I see it working, but it wont be cheap or mass market. (And I'm including medicine in this category)
Nothing there excites me, but than again, I'm not a very visually oriented person, so whatever. And the goggle look isn't appealing either!
Give me an addon memory device, a direct computer I/O link into my brain, a wearable computer I don't notice I have on. Those things excite me.
So what you’re really saying is, you’re not the appropriate demographic. Ok, got it.
I don’t think anyone here would expect Apple to target AR/VR for every consumer. We already know the price point will probably be out of reach for the average consumer, just because you dismiss this product, because it doesn’t appeal to you, means nothing, considering you have no idea yourself the potential behind this and its overall capabilities.
You are literally the person Henry Ford spoke about when saying, "If you asked people what they wanted, they'd ask for a faster horse" when he was working on the first motor vehicle engine.Not me, I got in at the ground floor on computers and knew that's what I would do, even though I was still in Jr High. (1973 or so) I saw the math and speed that it could allow. That's way different than just a visual medium.
Don't see any applications for communications that isn't already covered by a flat screen. (phone or computer)
??? Seems that's more manual than ANYTHING else.
Maybe, but what can it add over what we already have?
Nah. Flat screen would work just as well.
>For daily assistance and navigation.
I just don't see how that would be better -- to me it would distract too much.
That's the only area I see it working, but it wont be cheap or mass market. (And I'm including medicine in this category)
Nothing there excites me, but than again, I'm not a very visually oriented person, so whatever. And the goggle look isn't appealing either!
Give me an addon memory device, a direct computer I/O link into my brain, a wearable computer I don't notice I have on. Those things excite me.
Why take a new medication that cures caner when we already have chemo and radiation? That is what you sound like.
Who’s with me thinking that AR/VR is still a gimmick? I don’t think I could be less excited about any other technology
The metaverse and its surrounding technologies are gonna fail hard, it's all hype and no substance, there is no use case for the average person, it appeals to a small demographic that has no budget for this ****. It might take off 2030s onward but I wouldn't hold my breath for then either.
Still a gimmick yes, but we’re less than 10 years away from having the ability to project images and info onto the real world from what looks like a regular pair of glasses. *That* is going to open up whole new avenues of “ambient” computing.
Personally, I work on cars a lot. The first company that makes a Haynes manual-level AR assistant for working under the hood is going to have customer from me.
Can’t see where a hose snakes to? Okay, just overlay the schematics so I can see where it *should* go.
Don’t know what size wrenches I’m supposed to use before crawling under the car? No problem, the sizes, lengths, and torque specs will just be there when I look at them.
That kind of thing is easily 10+ years away as a platform needs time to build content, but there is massive potential in just industry alone. They’re doing this today with HoloLens, but the tech to cramming it into regular glasses grows tantalizingly closer every year….
I’m not exited about AR for any of the Social crap (I don’t use social media), it’s all the OTHER use cases that excite me. I hope the Metaverse crashes and burns spectacularly.
Yep. But then all I stated was opinion just like everyone else here.
They shouldn't if they do.
Just like what you say is just as meaningless. You don't know how the masses will react to it any more than I do. You like it, cool, use it, but that's about it.
You don't get me at all! I want something MUCH MORE than VR/AR goggles can give me. I don't want a faster horse. Think of a real holodeck, or direct brain input for AR. (always on)
With AR/VR goggles, all I see are the drawbacks, heavy, uncomfortable, sweaty, short battery life -- it's just not good enough.
That would be cool, I agree, bit not mass market.
Except, the difference between my post and yours, you totally dismissed AR/VR as an all-around statement. You have zero experience with an unreleased product that you have no idea what its capabilities are, let alone something that you have no interest in, and then you go on some side tangent about ‘gaming’, which you have no idea again, if that’s Apples intention or not for the main propose. So why are you here then?
I Strongly suspect that you just don’t have an idea of what this product is and where it leads into other sectors (I.e-entertainment/professional), but you’re focused on the ‘gaming aspect’.
You’re right, you are entitled to your opinion, but don’t dismiss something that you have no idea yourself of the capabilities, it just makes you look uneducated.
I get where you're coming from, though the terminology would be an MR (mixed reality) device where you can do both AR and VR or be in a blended state of both. The mixed reality spectrum describes the full spectrum from AR to VR and the inbetween.
That is ultimately the true potential of the technology. To be capable of not just AR, not just VR, but to do both either in the same device or allow users of the two sides to interact with each other through applications.
Ah, the typical macrumors personal attack, I knew it would come.
Why am I here, I like future tech, probably just like you, and discussing it is interesting. Even if I don't like every product.
Definitely decades? Seems to be the biggest issue around AR is battery life for the devices, like AR glasses. We haven't seen any significant advance in battery technology for decades and seems this is the exact kind of device that will need a serious battery bump to work.
<Snipped the semantics>
We got that part Bob, you don’t like AR/VR, it’s not for you, etc, ect. But that’s not what your post was indicating, so I questioned you and called you dismissing something entirely that you were indicating it was about ‘gaming’, when you yourself have no idea what Apples intentions are or other leading avenues. All you need to do is just back up your statement, that’s all.