Apple's Unusual Headset Design Has Led to Unprecedented Production Challenges

[5786735]

I've been thinking a bit about this product and also trying to think about what we know about Apple.

Here are a few thoughts:

• Unless Apple makes a sudden departure from their past model, they will not sell this product at a loss (or even break-even).
• Apple is likely able source their bill-of-materials at costs far below what many people expect. I suspect the $3,000 price is a leaked "anchor" price that will make something like $999 or even $1,999 an instant buy for many ("Heck, I thought it would be $3,000! So $1,999 is a slam dunk.") This happened with iPad (albeit Steve did it in his presentation).
• Apple is not really a "market-maker". They are actually a more conservative company than a lot of people think. They have historically seen where they can execute a product better—often much better—than others have been doing. And they see clear demand and a demand ramp. That said, this was under the Steve-regime. I'm not sure how great their product vision is these days.
• As Apple has built out their product families they've been complimentary, even "accessories" to something existing and then, over time, loosen or cut the umbilical cord. Apple seems to be building out a product and service ecosystem. This will be no different. So how does this fit into and compliment the existing ecosystem?
• Apple is now a mass-market company. They must see something that can sell millions of units. It might not need to be iPhone levels if it compliments the rest of the ecosystem (see previous point). But it still needs to make sense for millions of people. Likely anything less than a few millions units per year for a decade or so will be a failure—in their business model. This leads me to be skeptical of any kind of niche product (i.e., medical, developers, etc.)
• Apple seems to be much more concerned with personal health as something of a pillar of their overall mission. I think they view this as a potentially world/life changing to apply technology. How does this product fit with that?
• Although they've become more comfortable with launching a new product category that includes a couple of tiers (Watch), I expect them to launch a single thing here (a la iPhone, iPad). They have to tell a bigger, compelling story. Multiple product levels at this time will confuse. It's possible (normal and Pro) but unlikely.
• The longest (that I can recall) Apple went between intro and launch was 6 months with the iPhone (January to June). But I suspect that at least one reason for that was regulatory. They were going to get "outed" by regulatory filings for iPhone. Steve didn't like having his thunder stolen. The announce early and release much later probably solved that problem. NOTE: Original Macintosh was January and then released in March I think, but that may have had more to do with the timing of the trade show at that time. I think this means we're unlikely to see an announcement in June and a product release/ship much later than fall of 2023.

All of this said, this could be Tim Cook's Newton. Some great ideas. Too far ahead of its time. An attempt to show the world that he too can be a product genius. I'm not sure Cook is that insecure. I think Sculley had something to prove. Cook much less so. But he might think he does. Who knows.

 

[laptech]

If it is hard to build then it is going to be very hard to repair. Expect high repair prices on the headset.

 

[eifelbube]

So many people said that when the iPhone premiered

And I truly believe they would have passed on the iPhone if it had to be worn on one’s face to be able to use it. I do think that the smartphone and VAR headsets are functionally too different to be compared on the basis of “so many people said that“ …

 

[JamesHolden]

Four members of the family cannot use a computer at the same time either, but they can take turns.

For sure, but my comment was in response to someone saying that a 200" TV screen will be a selling point. It might be for wealthy single people, but not for a family. There might be other selling points for that family of four, but a big wearable 200" TV probably won't be one of them.

 

[JamesHolden]

And I truly believe they would have passed on the iPhone if it had to be worn on one’s face to be able to use it. I do think that the smartphone and VAR headsets are functionally too different to be compared on the basis of “so many people said that“ …

They would have also passed on the iPhone if it had cost 5x what it did. Comparing a headset to the iPhone is just silly.

 

[mjs916]

Can't be more challenging than producing these designs with a straight face.View attachment 2210149View attachment 2210151

I’d 100% rock these

 

[name99]

People freaked out about wearing masks on their face during covid. I know a lot of people who wear contacts or get lasik surgery to avoid wearing eye glasses. Maybe this will be different. People say it'll just be used in the home, but in that case it seems like an expensive purchase. It's just hard telling how the general population is going to react to this device.

Yet most people adapted to wearing a mask long term.
The same was true of bluetooth headsets.
The same is true, as you get older, of wearing normal glasses.

yeah, there's a degree of hassle. But if the value proposition is there, you're willing to accept the hassle to get the value.

 

[kkee]

Here is what we know so far:

1. It's difficult to manufacture
2. Software has been difficult to tailor for it
3. Many executives seem to doubt market penetration and success
4. Potential competitors have struggled in the market to grow
5. It will be prohibitively expensive, putting it outside of average consumer affordability
6. Not very portable, making it useless in a public use case outside of the home
7. Most software made for the device category has been video gaming or severely niche industries requiring post-graduate education and government licensing.

So, how is this the next iPhone?

How? Easy, Apple solved all the problems above.
1. Apple has solved the manufacturing issues.
2. Apple has solved the software issues.
3. Apple has convinced executives and now they are happily onboard.
4. Potential competitors don't have the tech, experience and resources Apple as accumulated these years in producing niche products that no one wanted but then sold like hotcakes from the get go.
5. Apple has solved the cost issues.
6. Apple has solved the portability and make it super light, fashionable and trendy to be worn in public just like how they do it with their Watch.
7. Apple has expanded the use of the device beyond the gaming categories into work environment, social, entertainment to appeal to much broader users.

See, this is how it will be the next iPhone.

edit: please take both the arguments and counter arguments with a grain of salt at this stage.

 

[name99]

For sure, but my comment was in response to someone saying that a 200" TV screen will be a selling point. It might be for wealthy single people, but not for a family. There might be other selling points for that family of four, but a big wearable 200" TV probably won't be one of them.

Non-wealthy families of four are not Apple's primary market for NEW technology...

If this stuff stays at $3000 and is still priced that way in ten years we may have an issue. But most likely what will happen is that in ten years there'll be a Visor Pro at say $3000, a Visor at $2000, and a Visor SE at $1000, or something similar.

If most of the cost is in the initial tooling, and the R&D for the lenses and displays, all that cost goes down dramatically as we move along the learning curve...

 

[JamesHolden]

Non-wealthy families of four are not Apple's primary market for NEW technology...

Well, the headset is only targeted at wealthy people, family or not.

If this stuff stays at $3000 and is still priced that way in ten years we may have an issue. But most likely what will happen is that in ten years there'll be a Visor Pro at say $3000, a Visor at $2000, and a Visor SE at $1000, or something similar.

Still not going to replace the TV. Most people will still want a big screen to share with family and friends. I get the "big TV" use case for travel, etc., but even at $1000, I really can't see many families buying headsets as a TV replacement. Not to mention the fact that you'll need extra headsets when you invite friends over for movie night. It's just not a compelling use case. Apple will need to do a lot better than that to convince people they need to spend many thousands on a headset.

If most of the cost is in the initial tooling, and the R&D for the lenses and displays, all that cost goes down dramatically as we move along the learning curve...

That might be true, but when has Apple ever passed those savings on the customer? Never. Look at Apple's pricing. They never introduce a new product and then dramatically drop the price. They might release an SE headset down the road, but expect next year's headset, and the ones that follow, to stay within a few hundred dollars of the launch price.

 

[citysnaps]

Except, Tons of people said the storage space was too small (*"less space than a nomad, lame")..

Ha! Are you saying Steve Jobs was not being truthful when his iPod tag line was "A thousand songs in your pocket!" back in 2001?

I think I just felt the Earth tilt an extra 20 degrees.

 

[5786735]

Still not going to replace the TV. Most people will still want a big screen to share with family and friends. I get the "big TV" use case for travel, etc., but even at $1000, I really can't see many families buying headsets as a TV replacement. Not to mention the fact that you'll need extra headsets when you invite friends over for movie night. It's just not a compelling use case.

This. 👍

 

[5786735]

Yet most people adapted to wearing a mask long term.

Really?

 

[coolerkid]

Need to see this in person before passing judgement. The original iPhone was $649, unsubsidized. That was a LOT of money for a phone, or personal electronic device back then, but once I held one in my hand I didn't blink before throwing down my credit card, and now people happily paying significantly more. Everyone knows their first headset wont be a blockbuster success, and will probably get trashed like crazy by the media, but if this is the first device that cracks AR/VR in the same way the iPhone did for cellphones, there are plenty of people like myself who wont hesitated to spend $3k on this. If it's just a nicer version of what's already out there with a high price tag, then yeah the first version is going to be a colossal failure. But either way, in the long run I really believe Apple will be the ones who bring AR/VR to the masses.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I have a 40" ultra wide (physical) screen. I won't be able to bring it on the plane, or train or set it up impromptu and use it anywhere that I would use a laptop... nor would I want to lug it to all such use locations even if it was allowed.

But a virtual 40" ultra-wide screen requires no physical space. I could have my best desktop Mac setup ANYWHERE I go. For my work, that would be much better than doing what I do now, which is try to make do on a much more cramped 16" screen. I'm ultra-efficient with abundant screen space. I'm not on 16".

So I would use the 40" UW at my main desk and use Goggles in "road warrior" mode, exactly as I do now but subbing in MBpro when on the road. The value proposition is that 40" or bigger screen(s) RE anywhere I am wanting to get some work done (efficiently) on that laptop.

One common misconception is an idea that if Goggles as screen = no physical screens. That's not what I envision. Instead "as is" physical screens still get used in many cases- particularly desktops and for side-by-side collaboration, etc. But the laptop practically begs for new innovation. We want bigger screens. People around here regularly post desire to revive the MBpro 17". Sometimes I see 18" and 20" wants too. Do we want MBpro folding screens (and the thickness and weight that would come with that)? Any other way to get much more screen RE without the physical burden? Maybe this offers a new kind of mobile laptop computer for some of us? I hope so.

I’m a commercial artist who’s spent 20+ years inside the Adobe Creative Suite. I just don’t see the value in a virtual screen.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Do you wear glasses? If Apple gets this light enough, I could see myself wearing one. But I already need to wear glasses when doing anything that requires any reading, so it isn't such a big leap to go from regular glasses to smart glasses.

I do. But I also have contacts. I wear glasses because I have to. Not because I chose to.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Not at all, but I'd go out of my way to avoid people like you.

Since you know exactly nothing about me I’ll take that reply for what it’s worth.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to agree with the vast majority that experiences out in the real world are beyond placing a value on and can’t be replicated by a headset.

 

[5786735]

Need to see this in person before passing judgement. The original iPhone was $649, unsubsidized. That was a LOT of money for a phone, or personal electronic device back then, but once I held one in my hand I didn't blink before throwing down my credit card, and now people happily paying significantly more.

Adjusting for inflation, they really aren't. That $649 in 2007 is approximately $949 in today's dollars*.

So, if we used this as a benchmark, then I could imagine $999 or even $1,499 as a target launch price for this thing. I'm guessing that $3,000 is off—pure speculation based on a lack of insider knowledge about Apple's manufacturing costs.

*By the way, this means Apple is selling an iPhone (the SE) for less than half the price of the original iPhone (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that is significantly more powerful than the original iPhone.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I’m a commercial artist who’s spent 20+ years inside the Adobe Creative Suite. I just don’t see the value in a virtual screen.

And thats fine. Maybe it’s not for you. Adobe Creative Suite is not for me, and that’s fine too. I won’t jump on every thread putting that suite down just because I don’t see a need for it. Perhaps others- like you- do see a need for it? I can respect that. Perhaps you could try the same with this Goggles product?

 

[Surf Monkey]

And thats fine. Maybe it’s not for you. Adobe Creative Suite is not for me, and that’s fine too. I won’t jump on every thread putting that suite down just because I don’t see a need for it. Perhaps others- like you- do see a need for it? I can respect that. Perhaps you could try the same with this Goggles product?

Right. You don’t see the need for software like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc.

Not buying that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Right. You don’t see the need for software like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc.

Not buying that.

Yes, I don't have those apps. And since I don't use them, apparently no one should. That's how you come off in all these Goggle threads. You see no point of Goggles, so no one else should. To each his own.

I certainly have the capacity to imagine that others could see great value in offerings like Creative Suite. I don't use it myself. But I won't jump in 500 threads about Creative Suite and put it down over and over trying to convince everyone to see no value in it... because I don't use it. That's basically you in these Goggles threads.

I DO imagine positive uses for Goggles. I appreciate that you don't. That's fine. Perhaps I'll want & use the Goggles product just like you want and use the Creative Suite product? I can't even say that with confidence myself yet because none of us even know what this product is yet, what it can do, how much it costs, etc. Perhaps after the big reveal, I'll be in your camp about Goggles... because I'll see no point too?

None of us should be passing any absolute judgement until we KNOW whatever it is, what it can do, how much it costs, etc. All to be determined... hopefully in a few days.

 

[topdrawer]

whatever this thing is, apple better announce some amazing content creation software cause xcode ain't it and third parties are not gonna provide a full experience.

 

[kkee]

whatever this thing is, apple better announce some amazing content creation software cause xcode ain't it and third parties are not gonna provide a full experience.

Reality Composer.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Apple's mixed-reality headset will reportedly be the most complicated hardware product ever made by the company, sporting an unusual design that has proven to be an unprecedented challenging to manufacture, The Information reports.

Apple headset concept by Marcus Kane​

The headset apparently features an "unconventional curved design, thinness, and ultralight weight." Several renders seen by The Information "show a piece of curved glass with edges wrapped in a smooth aluminum frame that appears to be slightly thicker than an iPhone." The thin profile requires users who wear glasses to buy prescription lenses that magnetically clip into the headset.

Apple had to develop a first-of-its-kind "bent motherboard" to fit inside the headset's curved outer shell. Carbon fiber is used inside the headset to reinforce the structure without adding additional weight.

A small dial is located above the right eye, allowing users to transition between augmented and virtual reality, and a power button is located above the left eye. A round connector that looks similar to an Apple Watch charger attaches to the headset's left temple and runs down via a cable to a waist-mounted battery pack.

The headset's headband is primarily made of a soft material and attached to two short, hard temples which also contain the left and right speakers. A soft, removable cover attaches to the back of the headset for comfort against the wearer's face. Apple is said to have debated adding additional eye-tracking cameras or further adjustments to the motorized lenses to accommodate more face shapes.

Apple's industrial design team apparently pushed for the front of the headset to be made of a thin piece of curved glass, requiring more than a dozen cameras and sensors to be concealed for aesthetic reasons. There have apparently been concerns about the glass warping the images captured by the cameras, which could cause nausea if left unfixed, and the material is more prone to shattering than an iPhone screen due to its shape, leading to worries about broken glass from the headset injuring users.

The design is said to be the main driver behind the device's ~$3,000 retail price. Assembly workers apparently struggle to maneuver tools and install components at awkward angles inside the device due to its shape and densely packed electronics. Testing of the glass housing and cameras also takes far longer than equivalent processes for other Apple devices.

The headset's microOLED displays are also said to be so expensive that Apple has to fix defective units rather than discard them. Sony, the displays' supplier, could struggle to manufacture enough panels for more than 250,000 headsets this year due to their small size and pixel density.

Apple has struggled to build prototype headsets due to its complicated design. At an earlier stage in development, Apple was making 100 headsets a day, but only 20 units were up to the company's standards. In mid-April, the headset underwent design validation testing, where it reportedly remained for an unusually long period compared to more mature products like the iPhone. Apple apparently made unusually late design tweaks as late as April, to make it easier to manufacture.

While mass production of the headset has not yet begun, Luxshare, its sole manufacturer, has purportedly told workers that the factory that will make the headset must be fully staffed by July. The Information believes this points to a launch in the fall or winter. Apple is expected to ship less than half a million headsets during the first year of its release. For more details, see The Information's full report.

Article Link: Apple's Unusual Headset Design Has Led to Unprecedented Production Challenges

Sounds fantastic!

If it will be $3000.00 it might be out of financial range of many of us Apple fans, but I'll be trying to get one of these "extended reality" devices as soon as possible to check it all out!

Very exciting that this seems to be coming - after a long long wait.

To all those who seem to have time to post here that you do not want it and you want to "pass" - I don't know why people do that. These are sure to be interesting gizmos to play with - lighten up!

 

[topdrawer]

Reality Composer.

is awful and half baked. i mean they need to have something like unity or unreal.