Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Very interesting details. Sounds like Apple has over engineered this thing. I guess we shall see if the fancy curved design is enough to make consumers pay a far bigger premium than the competition. If the design is really a big factor in the price, it seems like Apple would have guaranteed more sales by using a more conservative approach. Especially since most current VR headset owners don’t use their devices very often.

I’m definitely looking forward to hearing hands on previews from people who are actually in the VR space. Of course the MKBHDs and iJustine’s will have glowing things to say but the smaller channels with VR focus who aren’t afraid of being critical will be important for giving us a realistic view of this headset and if it’s actually worthy of the high price.
What are you smoking? MKBHD is absolutely not afraid to criticize Apple and takes them to task all the time (Siri, iPhone, iPad software, etc). I never expect glowing reviews from him. I fully expect him to be partially wowed but have a list of critiques about why it’s not ready for prime time. Will be shocked if he gives a glowing review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MareLuce
Four more days left… 👀

IMG_3493.jpeg
IMG_3494.jpeg
IMG_3495.jpeg
IMG_3496.jpeg
 
Apple complaining about production problems caused by their own design. That's what happens when you pull the I can do this with one hand tied behind my back and blindfolded.😒 Hubris.

No diopter adjustment built in? Apple giving those of use with less than perfect eyesight the FU.😠 One more reason not to buy this.

I'll get one once the technology reaches Den-noh Coil level usefulness.
FWIW I suspect tossing in contacts also solves this issue
 
is awful and half baked. i mean they need to have something like unity or unreal.
it's a good start for non existing product. that's what wwdc 2023 for.
Yeah, I don't take anything written above seriously, thanks for the grain of salt advice.

Cuz Apple definitely understands gaming, and not Sony who has bested not one, not two, but three competing companies in the space. Where is the Sega helmet? Where is the Xbox helmet? Has Nintendo made a VR helmet? How is Oculus doing?
I am just adding salt on top of another salt. Silly, I know.

Understanding gaming only belongs to one company? That's news.
 
At this point Apple should just buy Sony, instant game studios and media library.
 
Whoah! Where did you find this? If this is a leak, you scooped Macrumors cos this should be front-page news! If true this confirms the $2k price point I thought this likely to come in at. 8k screens are far beyond anything in the VR market and amazing if true. I've tried Oculus headsets before and the low res/visible pixels issue is the main reason why I wouldn't buy one.
And they're calling the CPUs "X1". Clever. Likely rebranded M2 chips as we've seen they have a glut of them due to poor sales this cycle. If these can replace the need for Apple's damn expensive but drool-worthy 6k monitors in a workstation environment I'm on board. Pretty excited for this. Nay on the naysayers!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Surf Monkey
One sympathizes. Since 7th grade.
Same here, until I got surgical vision correction. It was so worth it, and for less of the price of this rumored device. Look into LASIK or ICL (implantable contact lenses) if above 400+ correction. Seriously, I got ICLs about a decade ago and don't regret it for a moment. After surgery I tested 20/10 vision. But you really need to suss out your provider. For example, LASIK vans that visit your city now and then! (for real, cheap isn't worth it for things this important and there are some scams that leave people hurt)
 
Ads on your face. Y’all want that? Looking like a gigantic dork with your face toy on. Y’all want that?

This product is destined to fail. Tim Cook’s Newton.
 
Same here, until I got surgical vision correction. It was so worth it, and for less of the price of this rumored device. Look into LASIK or ICL (implantable contact lenses) if above 400+ correction. Seriously, I got ICLs about a decade ago and don't regret it for a moment. After surgery I tested 20/10 vision. But you really need to suss out your provider. For example, LASIK vans that visit your city now and then! (for real, cheap isn't worth it for things this important and there are some scams that leave people hurt)

Does nothing for astigmatism. Plus, lots of us have no interest in shooting lasers into our eyes, especially when the reasoning for doing so is based on wanting to buy a toy.
 
Same here, until I got surgical vision correction. It was so worth it, and for less of the price of this rumored device. Look into LASIK or ICL (implantable contact lenses) if above 400+ correction. Seriously, I got ICLs about a decade ago and don't regret it for a moment. After surgery I tested 20/10 vision. But you really need to suss out your provider. For example, LASIK vans that visit your city now and then! (for real, cheap isn't worth it for things this important and there are some scams that leave people hurt)
+1 My wife and myself got lasik a few years back tested 20/15 or surgery, can read signposts a mile away, but needs a selfie stick to read her phone :oops:

I got 20/15 in one eye and 20/25 in the other, quite by accident after it was discovered I have "bumpy corneas" and they had to redo one eye with a new technique normally costing ALOT more). Best of both worlds IMHO.

How it would work in a VR headset though I have no idea, is screen visibility based on your near or far vision?
 
Who SAID it will replace the TV? Anyone who knows anything about tech knows that mostly new tech augments older tech, it does not replace it. Hell, AM radio still exists.
But just as, today, I might shift where I am watching content from TV to iPad to phone in the course of one day, so glasses can now also enter that mix.
Fair point. But whether it augments or replaces a TV, at $3K (if that's really the price), it will simply be too expensive for most people to afford...which brings us back to the chicken and egg problem facing developers. Without sales, there's no incentive to develop. We see this now already with Apple TV and even the Watch to some extent. Furthermore, a 200" virtual big screen TV doesn't need all of the AR features, the cameras, etc., so this particular device (assuming the rumors are mostly correct) is extreme overkill for that particular feature.

Overall your complaint seems to have entered the inevitable stage of EVERY Apple thread on the internet where it becomes a whine about prices. This is where I leave the conversation.
Price matters. The new Quest is under $500. Will Apple's product be better? Of course. But it's hard to imagine people spending 6x the cost of a Quest when none of these headsets is particularly popular in the first place. I have no doubt that Apple's device will dazzle, but I don't see a big market at the rumored price point. AR/VR is already a tough sell. The vast majority of buyers are gamers while the average user still sees no value in it. Apple promised us all kinds of great apps on our TVs too and what happened with that? No one develops for Apple TV because it simply doesn't sell enough units to make it worth a developer's time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Same here, until I got surgical vision correction. It was so worth it, and for less of the price of this rumored device. Look into LASIK or ICL (implantable contact lenses) if above 400+ correction. Seriously, I got ICLs about a decade ago and don't regret it for a moment. After surgery I tested 20/10 vision. But you really need to suss out your provider. For example, LASIK vans that visit your city now and then! (for real, cheap isn't worth it for things this important and there are some scams that leave people hurt)
I don't qualify for LASIK. Diabetes.
 
it's a good start for non existing product. that's what wwdc 2023 for.

I am just adding salt on top of another salt. Silly, I know.

Understanding gaming only belongs to one company? That's news.
Apple has not remotely in any way shape or fashion influenced the gaming industry and hasn't ever had even remotely a success in the gaming industry, period.

In PC gaming, they have been even smaller than their desktop share against Windows.

In console gaming, they had a raucous and ultimately futile attempt with the Pippin.

Steve Jobs once famously caved on letting Mac OS ship with a game, but it had to be Chess. He also famously called video games a child's amusement.

And Apple Arcade is mostly already successful games plus solitaire clones.
 
Fair point. But whether it augments or replaces a TV, at $3K (if that's really the price), it will simply be too expensive for most people to afford...which brings us back to the chicken and egg problem facing developers. Without sales, there's no incentive to develop. We see this now already with Apple TV and even the Watch to some extent. Furthermore, a 200" virtual big screen TV doesn't need all of the AR features, the cameras, etc., so this particular device (assuming the rumors are mostly correct) is extreme overkill for that particular feature.


Price matters. The new Quest is under $500. Will Apple's product be better? Of course. But it's hard to imagine people spending 6x the cost of a Quest when none of these headsets is particularly popular in the first place. I have no doubt that Apple's device will dazzle, but I don't see a big market at the rumored price point. AR/VR is already a tough sell. The vast majority of buyers are gamers while the average user still sees no value in it. Apple promised us all kinds of great apps on our TVs too and what happened with that? No one develops for Apple TV because it simply doesn't sell enough units to make it worth a developer's time.

This $3,000 price has been thrown around a lot. I'm actually skeptical that Apple will debut at that price. Given the current competition, I can imagine them coming in at $999 maybe even less. They won't undercut. They will shoot for the higher end. But $2,999 is a wild—and probably wildly inaccurate—guess. People seem to underestimate Apple's buying and (component and manufacturing) pricing power compared to most of the competition. Especially Meta.
 
Same here, until I got surgical vision correction. It was so worth it, and for less of the price of this rumored device. Look into LASIK or ICL (implantable contact lenses) if above 400+ correction. Seriously, I got ICLs about a decade ago and don't regret it for a moment. After surgery I tested 20/10 vision. But you really need to suss out your provider. For example, LASIK vans that visit your city now and then! (for real, cheap isn't worth it for things this important and there are some scams that leave people hurt)
If I were to get lasik I’d have the “one eye is high beam and the other eye is low beam”. To get used to this I’d have to wear contacts for months. It’s a really weird sensation using one eye for near and one for distance.
 
I just don’t see who is going to pay that much for an apple headset. The gaming market will want more immersive games. Ar is a fad right now, and didn’t really work with a much less “fashion daring” design from Google. The only thing I can think is that theyll find a way to make it a m2 mac with virtual displays and get people to buy into it based on work productivity.

I just don’t see the audience. Casual iphone candy crushers aren’t spending 3k on a headset. And gamers have much better choices for games, even if they’re inferior technically.

What do I know though right. I’m just the target demographic. Maybe they’ll blow me away and I’ll buy in day one.
 
I just don’t see who is going to pay that much for an apple headset. The gaming market will want more immersive games. Ar is a fad right now, and didn’t really work with a much less “fashion daring” design from Google. The only thing I can think is that theyll find a way to make it a m2 mac with virtual displays and get people to buy into it based on work productivity.

I just don’t see the audience. Casual iphone candy crushers aren’t spending 3k on a headset. And gamers have much better choices for games, even if they’re inferior technically.

What do I know though right. I’m just the target demographic. Maybe they’ll blow me away and I’ll buy in day one.
I doubt the target audience will be games whatsoever. The potential for everything except games is whats exciting about Apples entry into the market IMHO.
 
You parade around "You wear it on your face" like it's some big obvious negative thing. Who cares, seriously? You hold it in your hand. You wear it on your face. Big whoop. Have some imagination.

Because the VAST MAJORITY OF HUMAN BEINGS don’t want to wear anything on their faces, ESPECIALLY something that obscures their eyes from view. And no, a screen displaying a picture of your eyes is not the same thing as your actual eyes any more than looking at a video feed of what’s in front of you is the same as looking directly at what’s in front of you.

Sorry, but the fact that these are goggles will instantly preclude most people from buying them and subject most who do to ridicule.
 
Because the VAST MAJORITY OF HUMAN BEINGS don’t want to wear anything on their faces, ESPECIALLY something that obscures their eyes from view. And no, a screen displaying a picture of your eyes is not the same thing as your actual eyes any more than looking at a video feed of what’s in front of you is the same as looking directly at what’s in front of you.

Sorry, but the fact that these are goggles will instantly preclude most people from buying them and subject most who do to ridicule.
How do you know what most people want? Did you conduct a survey?

Sure, the idea of looking at a video feed of what is in front of you, rather than looking directly, is a bit odd. But in this case, it serves a useful purpose, in that you can place virtual objects in front of you. So I'm willing to give this a try, and if it works for me, I won't care if other people think it's ridiculous.
 
How do you know what most people want? Did you conduct a survey?

How many people do you see walking around with ski goggles on? Have you heard of contact lenses and lasik surgery? How do I know? Come on now.

Sure, the idea of looking at a video feed of what is in front of you, rather than looking directly, is a bit odd. But in this case, it serves a useful purpose, in that you can place virtual objects in front of you. So I'm willing to give this a try, and if it works for me, I won't care if other people think it's ridiculous.

Niche product for people who don’t mind being weirdly isolated, ensconced behind a screen that encompasses their entire field of view and have no problem being relentlessly mocked for wearing “geek goggles.”

Look, the issue with AVP is that Tim Cook seems to think it’s visionary (it isn’t) and that it will fundamentally change Apple’s business in the same way iPhone did (it won’t.)

Think about it. When iPhone came along lots of people already had cell phones and many were already using smart phones. Lots of companies were moving toward the idea of a “super computer in your pocket.” There was significant rank and file demand for a product like iPhone. Those of us with iPods had been clamoring for an “iPod phone” for years.

Do you see the same wide spread demand for FACE COMPUTERS? Of course you don’t. Do you see ANY significant demand for any of the “smart glasses” that have rolled out from Google, Snapchat and Ray-Ban to name just a few? Nope. The demand to wear tech on your FACE simply isn’t there.

So if you’re into it, great. But don’t imagine this will ever be a ubiquitous every day object like iPhone, because it won’t. Ever.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.