AR/VR Headset Shipments Forecast to Hit 100 Million Units By 2021, Buoyed By Apple, Microsoft, and Others

[Jsameds]

It's a cool niche no doubt, but I doubt it becomes mainstream. Companies that invested heavily early on have lost money so far. For example Resident Evil 7 was the perfect game for it but VR didn't have enough of an install base for that game to succeed.

Bit of a bad example to choose, because RE7 was both a VR and non-VR game, playable through completely on a headset or a TV so we can't make a call sales figures based on VR.

A good example would be Farpoint. This game is a PSVR exclusive, and you pretty much have to buy another accessory to play it (Aim Controller). Despite this, it debuted at #2 in the UK weekly sales chart.

There is certainly interest in VR, but these losses you mention will turn to huge gains in the long term as it becomes more mainstream, and the way to make VR more mainstream is to continue supporting it, even if it does mean losing some cash in the short term.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

The reason why there won't be flying cars is simple: people can barely handle 2 dimensions on the road; add in a third dimension and there will be utter chaos. A thing may be technologically possible but that doesn't make it practical or reasonable or viable as a product. Even so, my primary point is that technologists always think it's right over the horizon and everyone will do it. That hasn't panned out in reality. I remember in 1999 watching all these prediction shows about what will happen in 2010, 2020, etc. Pretty much all were dead wrong but the adherents were very sincere in their belief.



It's great that you can see and smell it but that doesn't mean much of anything to the market as a whole. Many similar things were said about other technologies that failed. VR seems a lot like the old joke of smell-o-vision.



Sure, there are uses of VR in use today (and for some time now). But to say it will transform entire industries (as the IDC 'prediction' implied)... no. Definitely not anytime soon and certainly not in the next 5 years as predicted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...o-create-flying-cars-in-time-in-time-for-tok/

or this: https://www.wired.com/story/neva-airquadone-flying-cars-paris-air-show/

or this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

Flying cars won't come immediately but they are going to be around eventually. Other contractors are also working on that.

As for handling 2 dimensions on the road. You're kidding? Cars have been around since 1808 in its earliest guise. Before that, it was by horse carriage. So all of that is in 2D? More like 3D. People have been driving for ages so I think society is doing okay on the road despite the road rage and idiot drivers who don't know any better.

And if you think flying cars are not coming around, are you also stating self-driving cars as well?

VR is definitely not a joke. It's clear to me you have never tried it.

As for transforming industries, it's already doing that but in a subtle manner. I know for a fact that in the creative scene, artists are using Tilt Brush for VR and are trying it out. This is an amazing tool that has promise for future uses in 3D illustration or design work.

 

[MrX8503]

Oh, I do get it. But using the iOS device is not going to be the only way. Watch. You may want AR glasses or goggles to use without holding an iPad or iOS device for long period of time.

If you said you don't have to buy additional hardware, then why is Apple making a headset so late in the game?

Putting technology on your body is very invasive, especially on your head. You have to ease the public into it.

Apple hasn't confirmed that they're releasing a headset and even if they were, it's far into the future where it'll be more socially acceptable.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I don't think VR games will catch on as much as the usual video games, where you use either a controller or a keyboard. Sure, it will have it's following, but I see it more like a gimmick, something majority will try just for fun, like "wow, that's cool" and than move on to some other distractions, that will "revolutionise industry" . Just like Wii U or Google Glass or something like that. Nice idea, but somehow it just didn't became anything people really use.
It's not a product for gamers, it's a product for VR fanatics, I don't see any serious numbers of gamers using VR

Oh really? Then ask yourself why Sony make the PSVR?

I've seen a gaming lounge that has 2 HTC Vives. Video games with controllers or keyboards are not being replaced by VR but supported. VR does not replace that since they have 3D controllers for this reason.

They're not cheap but they do exist: https://www.vive.com/us/accessory/controller/

And they work very, very well. And very responsive. This is what the Wii Controllers tried to do but lacked depth.

Definitely NOT a gimmick. I think those who shoot down the idea of VR are the ones AFRAID of technological progress.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

VR is progress. It has a lot more applications than just games.

Right. I understand the training aspects for business, military, police, etc., but this article isn't about that. It's about consumer sales. And that is what my comment is regarding. Let's not change the subject of the article.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Putting technology on your body is very invasive, especially on your head. You have to ease the public into it.

Apple hasn't confirmed that they're releasing a headset and even if they were, it's far into the future where it'll be more socially acceptable.

I understand the invasive nature of Google's Glasses and somehow I'm sure there are ways to close the gap and provide privacy to it. It's all about putting up rules where people have to respect establishments in not wearing the goggles. Unless that establishment is a gaming center or a workplace that utilizes that technology on certain projects.

But on the flip side, using AR on the open is also invasive to nosy spectators. IF you're doing something that's work related out in the open, trying to do your job, the last thing you want is people looking over your shoulder watching the AR thing on your iPad or iPhone.

Security is also a problem if police or security officers see something odd, they will question people why they're pointing their devices to the walls. The only explanation is if this establishment has an AR project or event going on, say, in a museum, then it would be okay.

 

[sinsin07]

Putting technology on your body is very invasive, especially on your head. ...snip

What or how is it invasive.

 

[MrX8503]

I understand the invasive nature of Google's Glasses and somehow I'm sure there are ways to close the gap and provide privacy to it. It's all about putting up rules where people have to respect establishments in not wearing the goggles. Unless that establishment is a gaming center or a workplace that utilizes that technology on certain projects.

But on the flip side, using AR on the open is also invasive to nosy spectators. IF you're doing something that's work related out in the open, trying to do your job, the last thing you want is people looking over your shoulder watching the AR thing on your iPad or iPhone.

Security is also a problem if police or security officers see something odd, they will question people why they're pointing their devices to the walls. The only explanation is if this establishment has an AR project or event going on, say, in a museum, then it would be okay.

No, that's not what I meant.

You have to get the user to USE the device in the first place before any outside forces come into play. People aren't going to wear headsets or goggles, so the issue of privacy or establishments doesn't MATTER.

The goal is to get people to USE it. That's what ARKit and iPhone does for the masses.

What or how is it invasive.

Because it's on your body. It's easier to get people to use something in their hand, than something on their face/head.

 

[Stella]

Let's not change the subject of the article.

Not trying to!
[doublepost=1497972120][/doublepost]I think it all depends on how much the prices come down dedicates how popular VR gaming will be though 'regular' games will always be more popular.

The price of a VR capable gaming rig is not that expensive now. Its the cost of the VR hardware that hurts. Oculus has reduced their prices, but the Vive is still very expensive. Even the console enabled headsets are still $400 or more.

I don't think VR games will catch on as much as the usual video games, where you use either a controller or a keyboard. Sure, it will have it's following, but I see it more like a gimmick, something majority will try just for fun, like "wow, that's cool" and than move on to some other distractions, that will "revolutionise industry" . Just like Wii U or Google Glass or something like that. Nice idea, but somehow it just didn't became anything people really use.
It's not a product for gamers, it's a product for VR fanatics, I don't see any serious numbers of gamers using VR

 

[nwcs]

As for handling 2 dimensions on the road. You're kidding? Cars have been around since 1808 in its earliest guise. Before that, it was by horse carriage. So all of that is in 2D? More like 3D. People have been driving for ages so I think society is doing okay on the road despite the road rage and idiot drivers who don't know any better.

Yes, 2 D as in ultimately it's left/right/forward reverse. All on a single plane of travel. And people are only OK with it. Having random people flying is a terrifying idea given how much damage a flying object can inflict. Forget terrorists, think about all the people who drive under the influence today and end the lives of so many people. It would be an even higher total if they were to fly under the influence. As the technology has increased so has the traffic and so has the fatalities.

VR is definitely not a joke. It's clear to me you have never tried it.

As for transforming industries, it's already doing that but in a subtle manner. I know for a fact that in the creative scene, artists are using Tilt Brush for VR and are trying it out. This is an amazing tool that has promise for future uses in 3D illustration or design work.

Where did I call VR a joke? You're putting words in my mouth. It has limited application and certainly won't be transforming industry wholesale within 5 years as IDC predicts. You're the true believer and I'm the skeptic. In the end the market will decide something likely between our positions. However I suspect it will be closer to my position but if I'm wrong I won't care that much.

 

[Kachelaar]

No, that's not what I meant.

You have to get the user to USE the device in the first place before any outside forces come into play. People aren't going to wear headsets or goggles, so the issue of privacy or establishments doesn't MATTER.

The goal is to get people to USE it. That's what ARKit and iPhone does for the masses.



Because it's on your body. It's easier to get people to use something in their hand, than something on their face/head.

I think VR headsets will always remain bulky and in your face, whilst AR has the possibility to become glasses like we see every day. And already we become used to people wearing VR headsets in public. I also wonder how much influence cardboard headsets like the Google Cardboard or the Aryzon headset (for augmented reality) have on the attitude towards AR and VR of normal people.

 

[Col4bin]

Forget the outdated headsets, Apple needs to embed this tech in contact lenses or via corneal implant!
[doublepost=1497975306][/doublepost]

I still remember how big VR was somewhere around the end of 90's. It was predicted to be THE NEXT BIG THING by so many! And guess what? It never happened! The product was terrible - most of the VR helmets of that day caused you to throw up in no time. We even had this contest, who will survive longer. The record? About 7-8 minutes...
And that was one of the best products on the market, then.
Anyway. Do we need it? Nope.
Does anyone like to wear these silly contraptions? NOPE!
Does anyone care enough to buy not only the helmet, but also upgrade their hardware? OF COURSE NOT!

I am not saying, that the idea is doomed, it's just it's a niche product. And it always will be.

BTW: remember Google Glass? Exactly!

During my senior year of high school in 1996, I did my year-end 20+ page term paper for English class all on Virtual Reality. (I'm almost now 40 years old.)
[doublepost=1497975508][/doublepost]

A thing may be technologically possible but that doesn't make it practical or reasonable or viable as a product.

Apple Watch in a nutshell.

 

[MrX8503]

I think VR headsets will always remain bulky and in your face, whilst AR has the possibility to become glasses like we see every day. And already we become used to people wearing VR headsets in public. I also wonder how much influence cardboard headsets like the Google Cardboard or the Aryzon headset (for augmented reality) have on the attitude towards AR and VR of normal people.

AR on the iPhone will leapfrog headsets/glasses because millions of people can/will use AR the day apps release.

With headsets/glasses you have cost, hardware limitations, lack of market share, and user acceptance hurdles to overcome.

Apple has thought this through.

 

[sos47]

i dont care about virtual world

 

[nwcs]

Apple Watch in a nutshell.

To some extent that is true. Even though I have one (though I wouldn't have bought one if I could go back in time) it really is a solution in search of problems.

 

[wol]

Has anyone tried VR with a phone? I can't imagine how it would be any good. My Vive uses special lenses to immerse me. Just putting a phone in front of your face would just put 2D images really close to your eyes right?

The slightly better versions of Google Cardboard also come with better lenses (e.g. Braun B-VR PRO is quite affordable and has achromatic lenses, which can be adjusted in focus and to fit the distance between your eyes). The limiting factor is the screen resolution. With the iP7s you get for each eye 960x1080 pixel, which is probably a factor of 3x3 or 4x4 coarser than "Retina Display resolution" when viewed throught the headset.

The nice part about Google Cardboard-type heatsets is that there are no external cables.

 

[mumpitz77]

As of the whole AR vs VR debate. VR is still in front, because it is easier to replace one reality with another than to melt both of them into a augmented one. Also the use cases are different.

VR
While immersed in a VR, it doesn't matter, what you look like, so it has to be immersive and comfortable to wear in the first place. I see VR being best suited for gaming and education (museums, art, VR sightseeing, etc.) on the consumer side, while the professional side is designing/building (architecture, engineering, etc.) and training purposes. As far as gaming goes, PS Move and XBOX Kinect weren't successful, because when excitement wore off and you realized their limitations (not being able to walk past a certain fence) it wasn't worth the effort of jumping around and waving arms anymore and consumers went back to controllers, where the immersion is smaller but exploration (aka walking around) felt more natural (in context of all interactions went through the controller). Same thing will happen to VR games except for cockpit games, where you hold your seated or standing position. I think that these kind of work really good in VR and will stay. Vive has extended that space a bit, but it's still fairly limited. I can see some kind of escape room puzzler or other specific games but I think that the inhouse use will be a niche. VOID on the other hand extends that space to a great degree. But it will stay some kind of theme park sensation or esport/enthusiast-hobby.

AR
The real breakthrough will come, when the technology will be able to be worn unnoticed by others and the fusion of both realities work seamless (aka feels natural). Right now there are some hurdles to overcome. A good starting point for AR to take over would be a pair of normal looking see-through glasses that can project and block out light, tracks your eyes and adapts the focus depths of the displayed additional information in context of the direction and size of your pupils. I don't know how much of this Microsofts Hololens has already achieved – for example: how does it handle the projection of darkness (TFT?) or if the fade to black on their visor needed to fulfill that role (and then compensated via projection of light in the otherwise darkened area) – but I think that they are going in the right direction.

While it's easier to accept some of these limitations in a new (virtual) reality, they feel uncomfortable in the known reality. So a handheld screen is a well accepted intermediate step, before the technology advances while opening up the gates for content creators in the meanwhile. Apples leap with the ARKit lies in the provided API, so that developers can solely focus on content. Because the technology would be nothing without content and developers won't produce content if there is no consumer base. I see the point of running around with a tablet held in front is NOT the ultimate goal, but I also don't see the use of releasing such glasses today. Neither content nor technology are yet in a state, that some kind of glasses/goggles/visor will succeed. See what happened to Google Glass. So Apple is not really behind by not releasing such a device yet. But I think, that it won't take long from now until such breakthrough.

And with that breakthrough AR will be huge, because it can be used for nearly everything ... including all the VR use cases and much more.

 

[Kachelaar]

AR on the iPhone will leapfrog headsets/glasses because millions of people can/will use AR the day apps release.

With headsets/glasses you have cost, hardware limitations, lack of market share, and user acceptance hurdles to overcome.

Apple has thought this through.

They have indeed. I always found it to be a bit strange to have large scale VR adoption before AR. VR is such a big step for most people. AR is a lot more intuitive and less awkward. That might have been one of the reasons why Apple isn't really active in VR.

These are exciting times, I wonder where AR will lead us.
[doublepost=1497979490][/doublepost]

I don't think people get it. The writing is on the wall.

With ARKit and millions of iPhones being AR ready, Apple just leapfrogged the competition. Apple's solution is accessible and you don't have to wear a headset, so it'll be more socially acceptable. The other important part of the puzzle is creating the tools for developers to create AR apps.

This is what Tim Cook was referring to when he thinks AR will be big.

I'm thinking Mr. Cook was referring to a headset, I think his quote was something like 'as a big idea like the smartphone'. ARKit will have the benefit of having developers in the AR scene developing for 2D AR and even 3D AR with solutions like this. This builds up content and interest for a smooth introduction of the AR headset.

 

[jwdsail]

Earlier this month at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple revealed its first big push into the augmented reality and virtual reality spaces, with a new ARKit developer framework and high-performance iMacs with native support for VR content creation.

On Monday, research firm IDC published new data forecasting significant growth in both markets, with dedicated AR and VR headset adoption expected to increase from just under 10 million units last year to 100 million units in 2021.

VR headsets account for much of the device volume so far, with VR headsets powered by a smartphone proving the most popular, according to IDC. The second half of 2016 also saw an increase in volume of Sony PlayStation VR, HTC Vive, and Facebook's Oculus Rift.
Although IDC believes VR headsets will continue to dominate the market in terms of volume for the foreseeable future, the firm believes AR will have a much bigger impact on the industry as a whole, in part thanks to Apple's recent entry onto the scene.

IDC believes AR headsets will become increasingly popular in markets such as healthcare, manufacturing, field service workers, and design, with commercial shipments to account for just over 80 percent of all AR headsets shipped in the next 5 years. "We believe that many industrial jobs will fundamentally change because of AR in the next 5-years," said Ryan Reith, IDC program vice president. "These are much more opportunistic markets for dedicated AR headsets than the consumer market."

Mobile app developers have been sharing early creations using Apple's new ARKit, suggesting huge enthusiasm for the possibilities for AR on iOS devices. As for VR, Apple's enthusiasm was clear during its WWDC keynote, with the company showing off the power of its new iMacs through a live demo of VR content creation using a HTC Vive, made possible via a new Metal 2 developer kit that has provisions for external GPUs and VR headsets.

Article Link: AR/VR Headset Shipments Forecast to Hit 100 Million Units By 2021, Buoyed By Apple, Microsoft, and Others

I'm conflicted with all of the Apple AR/VR news. I want to be excited, but I've been heartbroken before.

I wonder with Apple jumping on the VR/AR bandwagon how far away we may be from a major update to the AppleTV that would support a sit-down AR/VR viewing experience? A year? Two?

AR/VR content that can play on the TV w/ AR elements accessible via iPad/iPhone sure, but also a headset experience where the AppleTV and headset take in your home/surroundings and put the content in your home? Edd China is restoring a 71 TR-6, in your living room? A murder mystery series, where the blood-covered weapon is sitting on your coffee table? I'm not sure the narrative/story-telling content will really work, but cooking, home-improvement, automotive shows? It would be insanely great to see Apple make this, "just work".

But.. All of this feels like Apple playing catch-up, which is sad. Apple HAD a huge head start in immersive imagery with QTVR, then, just as they finally began to make devices like the iPhone and iPad, that could have really made it useful and mainstream, they let it die. (From what I've read, key people left and went on to create Google Earth.) Now, here we are TEN years later, playing catch-up? It makes my brain itch.

They talked about 360 video support in FinalCut, has that update been released? Will that update require the new iMac Pro and High Sierra to run?

My hope is that Apple will not only sell me the Mac and software that is capable of editing 360 videos and AR/VR experiences, but will also sell the people I want to share that content with, capable devices (Macs, AppleTVs, iPhones, iPads) that they can actually afford. I really hope this can go from playing catch-up to racing ahead. It just makes my brain itch that Apple needs to catch-up at all.

 

[sinsin07]

Because it's on your body.

You were clothes are on your body [hopefully]. Is that invasive?
People put phones in their pocket. Is that invasive?
People where hats on there head? Is that invasive
People where glasses on their face? Is that invasive?
People where watches on their wrist. Is that invasive?

Seems like you are over dramatizing to make a point.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I use a ceiling hook. Nice and discreet and does the job. Your cables have to be long though.

Yeah... I heard someone else mention that some demo set ups do that. I don't really want to put a hole in my ceiling, but maybe that is going to be the best solution...

Looks like the Vive uses around 10 Gbps... 802.11ac Wifi offers 1.3 Gbps... so we're going to need some wifi that's around 7x faster to make it go wireless...

802.11ax Wifi is in development and is aiming for 5.2 Gbps... might be able to run some VR over that, but it seems a bit on the slow side...

 

[melendezest]

Bleh. I hope VR is a short-lived fad otherwise society -- not Apple -- is doomed. All we need to take yet a further step in glamorizing and making amusement of the horrors of war and other violence. Oh, right, it's not about that. It's about giving kids the chance to play baseball or even Pokemon GO without having to even go outside. Yep. Progress.

That is a very droll way of looking at it. You lack imagination, my friend. It doesn't have to be that way.

Everything from the education industry to mental health and wellness can benefit from VR.

An earlier post showed an ad where the goal is to "do what you can't" in real life. For some that could mean the difference between suicide/a life of suffering and (some) life-saving relief.

For me, I could imagine a game like Abzu or a Finding Nemo game that takes place in the ocean, without the dangers of travel, decompression, or wildlife. Or a "Fantastic Voyage-like" learning experience inside the human body.

VR is the future, and it is here. The next step is the Matrix, but that one I won't live to see...

 

[The Game 161]

The market is there for this. That I;m sure of.

 

[shamus99]

I recently purchased a PlayStation 4 Pro and PlayStation VR headset. I'm mid-40's and hadn't sat down to play a videogame in many, many years, but I was intrigued by the entire concept after taking a trip to Disney/Universal and experiencing some of the VR-based rides. I hadn't treated myself to splurging on a gadget in a long time, so I figured why not. I hemmed and hawed a bit because there was no place around where I could test it out ahead of time.

The experience is amazing and put a huge smile on my face the first day I played a couple of the demos. If you haven't tried it, don't knock it till you have.

Someone commented about the PSVR having a bad screendoor effect, and I believe this person is mistaken about what screendoor is. It's my understanding that the display tech the PSVR uses isn't subject to that, and I know that I haven't seen it. Mind you, the headset/display isn't perfect:

- Resolution is a little lower than I'd like it to be and the perimeter of your vision can look blurry/out-of-focus (I have to physically move my head around for any text in the perimeter to look sharp).
- The cable is cumbersome. I'll probably jury-rig something so that it floats behind me somehow so as to keep it out of the way. But you're not usually walking around too much (VIVE games may be different, but most PSVR games are designed for you to be stationary and just move your head around).
- The biggest issue I have is just not being able to see the real world around me without removing the headset, which then requires me to re-adjust it to get things into focus. It would be great if they put a camera on the outside of the headset so that you could push a button to temporarily pause your game/whatever and see the outside world without having to take the headset off.
- The other big problem I have is just navigating around the PlayStation UI. Specifically, I start a game and can't figure out how to get back to the main menu of the game (I can press the home button to get all the way back to the PS home screen, but often there seems to be no way to just go "back" to the in-app main menu.
- There's still a shortage of games, and prices are higher than I'm comfortable paying.
- I'd love to see the next iteration of the hardware improve resolution further, but I don't see how they'll be able to do higher resolution *and* wireless in the near future. It might be one or the other. I should note that contrary to some of the negative things I've read, or even my comments about blurriness above, even with the PSVR being a little lower-res and blurrier than I'd like, you can quickly get past that and get fully immersed in the experience, so it's not a deal-breaker.

The AR demo that Apple did got me to thinking that maybe an iPhone + cheap headset might be the future. They were moving the phone around and we saw the AR adjust (things getting bigger and perspective changing as they moved closer to the table). So it seems like the iPhone's hardware might be capable of delivering a good-enough experience. Everyone already owns their phone, so then they just need an inexpensive headset and external controller(s) so that you can bring your hands into the experience. And because the phone has a rear-mounted camera, they could implement something like I mentioned above to allow you to easily see the outside world.

Anyways, that's my hope...that we see a headset and external controller and not just AR apps/games designed to have you holding the phone (like the ones demoed by Apple). Those can be great, too, but the immersive experience of being inside of the VR world is another thing altogether.

I love my psvr. You probably missed out on the screendoor because you are using a pro. I recently upgraded to the pro and it it greatly improved the experience.

 

[Gudi]

Oh really? Then ask yourself why Sony make the PSVR?

Ah yes, SONY. The brand that stands for failure.