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

[DeepIn2U]

I think people look very foolish wearing these large headsets.

who remembers The Lawnmower Man?

Apple where is my chair?

 

[MrX8503]

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.

You're over simplifying to make a point.

Everyone wears clothes.
People already carry things in their pockets and that's not attached to the body.
Not everyone wears hats
Not everyone wears glasses, let alone weird looking ones.
Watches aren't AS invasive because it's not on your head/face.

You honestly believe people would rather wear glasses/headset over a watch or carrying a phone in their pocket?

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[sinsin07]

You're over simplifying to make a point.

You have yet to describe how it is invasive.

Everyone wears clothes.
People already carry things in their pockets and that's not attached to the body.
Not everyone wears hats
Not everyone wears glasses, let alone weird looking ones.

All of the above is irrelevant as to whether a worn item is invasive or not.
You are dancing around the question asked.
How is a VR headset invasive?

Watches aren't AS invasive because it's not on your head/face.

So a watch is a little invasive but any technology worn on the head/face is totally invasive because you say so.

You honestly believe people would rather wear glasses/headset over a watch or carrying a phone in their pocket?

Nice deflection but it was noticed.
I never mentioned any beliefs one way or the other.
I never post beliefs.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

The concept exist in your mind, therefore no need to counter.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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...

Whether or not I lack imagination -- clearly you do not since you don't know me so obviously you imagined that characteristic of me -- you definitely can't read because my comments were to the consumer use of VR as this article is reporting on. In another post here I noted the positive uses of VR for training, but this article is not about that. It's about consumer use.

 

[melendezest]

Whether or not I lack imagination -- clearly you do not since you don't know me so obviously you imagined that characteristic of me -- you definitely can't read because my comments were to the consumer use of VR as this article is reporting on. In another post here I noted the positive uses of VR for training, but this article is not about that. It's about consumer use.

I did not need to imagine anything, you were very specific in your assertions and I was responding to that.

I guess you also need not throw stones in glass houses regarding reading comprehension, since I addressed both consumer and non-consumer use in the examples I gave. Neither Abzu nor Finding Nemo are non-consumer apps.

So, to be clear, I'm saying VR doesn't necesarily need to have negative, "society-deteriorating" consumer-level applications. Apps cannot be held responsible for what Parents should address. And regardless if I enjoy combat, why can't I have that?

 

[DeepIn2U]

You're over simplifying to make a point.

Everyone wears clothes.
People already carry things in their pockets and that's not attached to the body.
Not everyone wears hats
Not everyone wears glasses, let alone weird looking ones.
Watches aren't AS invasive because it's not on your head/face.

You honestly believe people would rather wear glasses/headset over a watch or carrying a phone in their pocket?

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

I'm going to chime in here. Like everyone here I LOVE technology that suits a purpose or a need, and not just technology with a cpu inside it.

Personally prior to 5yrs ago I'd NOT rather wear glasses/headset (I'm presuming you mean a feel headgear that covers my field of vision) or a watch or carrying a phone in my pocket.

Personally I love my Apple Watch and there are times a glance over email, sms, or denying a call is preferred using my Nike + Watch over using my phone in public transit as I'm a private guy (too man nosey people just being nosey).

BUT I NEED to wear glasses to read, especially over long term so NOW I prefer using glasses with a prescription that can do what my Apple Watch does without onlookers seeing the digital UI and my selections.

I Prefer a larger and wider glass screen for my Nike + Watch vs the SW2 42mm case offers.

Neither of the last two points I make are invasive for various reasons and needs. THAT is the beauty that both yourself and your detractor are failing to see. Preference is primarily based on needs before wants ... BEFORE the choice is even presented

 

[MrX8503]

I'm going to chime in here. Like everyone here I LOVE technology that suits a purpose or a need, and not just technology with a cpu inside it.

Personally prior to 5yrs ago I'd NOT rather wear glasses/headset (I'm presuming you mean a feel headgear that covers my field of vision) or a watch or carrying a phone in my pocket.

Personally I love my Apple Watch and there are times a glance over email, sms, or denying a call is preferred using my Nike + Watch over using my phone in public transit as I'm a private guy (too man nosey people just being nosey).

BUT I NEED to wear glasses to read, especially over long term so NOW I prefer using glasses with a prescription that can do what my Apple Watch does without onlookers seeing the digital UI and my selections.

I Prefer a larger and wider glass screen for my Nike + Watch vs the SW2 42mm case offers.

Neither of the last two points I make are invasive for various reasons and needs. THAT is the beauty that both yourself and your detractor are failing to see. Preference is primarily based on needs before wants ... BEFORE the choice is even presented

The use case would work for you because you already need corrective lenses.

What about those that don't need corrective lenses? A watch is less invasive than glasses or head gear and so the barrier of entry for a watch is a lot lower than glasses.

 

[DeepIn2U]

The use case would work for you because you already need corrective lenses.

What about those that don't need corrective lenses? A watch is less invasive than glasses or head gear and so the barrier of entry for a watch is a lot lower than glasses.

I agree but I counter ... what about those same users feel about sunglasses?? Do they see those as less invasive than prescription glasses and would their use cases for a digital UI work in this debate at that point?

 

[MrX8503]

I agree but I counter ... what about those same users feel about sunglasses?? Do they see those as less invasive than prescription glasses and would their use cases for a digital UI work in this debate at that point?

Think about when and where you can wear a watch.

Sleeping, in the bathroom, at night, at dinner, in a meeting, while swimming (or any outdoor activity), at a funeral...etc.

You can wear a watch for any occasion at any time. You can't do that with sunglasses.

Sunglasses, prescription glasses, or head gear has very specific use cases that are quite small compared to a watch. At this time the barrier for glasses is too high for the masses to accept.

If someone were to create AR/VR contact lenses, then it would solve a lot of the issues I discussed with eye glasses.

 

[ghost187]

Ummm...you mean like this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...vr-tech-gives-navy-engineers-new-perspective/

or this?

https://www.thevoid.com/

Those are just tech demos though, just like the countless tech demos that show battery breakthroughs that never make it to market.
[doublepost=1498044688][/doublepost]

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.

There is certainly interest, but the whole experience needs to get substantially better and cheaper, fast.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I did not need to imagine anything, you were very specific in your assertions and I was responding to that.

I guess you also need not throw stones in glass houses regarding reading comprehension, since I addressed both consumer and non-consumer use in the examples I gave. Neither Abzu nor Finding Nemo are non-consumer apps.

So, to be clear, I'm saying VR doesn't necesarily need to have negative, "society-deteriorating" consumer-level applications. Apps cannot be held responsible for what Parents should address. And regardless if I enjoy combat, why can't I have that?

Yes, I was specific as to the consumer entertainment uses of VR because that is the subject of this thread. Period.

Yes, I noticed your mention of consumer uses, but your main criticism was that I had "no imagination" because I didn't mention non-consumer uses of VR. I didn't mention other uses because the article is about consumer sales, not a catch-all on the merits of VR. Just because one doesn't mention a facet of something in an argument doesn't give another license to conclude the author is ignorant of that aspect.

And as for "Apps cannot be held responsible for what Parents [sic] should address...." Actually, from a legal perspective, they can. They certainly have no exemption I know of. But beyond that VR has a much greater psychological impact than even the most graphic 2D game because it is immersive, hence the name virtual reality. That is the potential societal danger here with VR as a consumer application.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Those are just tech demos though, just like the countless tech demos that show battery breakthroughs that never make it to market.
[doublepost=1498044688][/doublepost]

There is certainly interest, but the whole experience needs to get substantially better and cheaper, fast.

Nice try. But The Void IS for real. Definitely not a tech demo. Also the military application isn't a demo but done for real.
[doublepost=1498053375][/doublepost]

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

And guess what? SONY is still around. So is the PS4. Deal with it. Can you game on your Apple TV? That thing is a joke compared to the actual game consoles and PCs. Oh, I'm sorry. Where's your actual TV set? Apple couldn't do what SONY could manufacture so they had to go with a set-top box approach.

But I could go on. The PSVR is a remarkable product and it's clear you have never experienced VR at all. NONE. I have experience using the HTC Vive and Oculus.
[doublepost=1498053783][/doublepost]

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

Apple Watch in a nutshell.

Either you're kidding or just smoking, there is a huge flaw in that. It will NOT work with people who have astigmatism nor those who have vision problems. Second, Apple will have to go through the FCC for that to happen. Chances are it won't. That kind of stuff won't happen until 50 years from now. Seriously. Considering the current political climate today and the health care bill that can make it very difficult for others to acquire these kind of lenses. It would take years to undo the political damage and get things back on track.

Anyway, as far as VR is concerned, you may have foreseen it in 1996 as the next big thing, but I saw it coming way, way before that when I grew up watching TRON and Lawnmower Man. Especially Star Trek's famous Holodeck sequences, although The VOID ( VR in a physical space ) is close enough right now.
[doublepost=1498054622][/doublepost]

Think about when and where you can wear a watch.

Sleeping, in the bathroom, at night, at dinner, in a meeting, while swimming (or any outdoor activity), at a funeral...etc.

You can wear a watch for any occasion at any time. You can't do that with sunglasses.

Sunglasses, prescription glasses, or head gear has very specific use cases that are quite small compared to a watch. At this time the barrier for glasses is too high for the masses to accept.

If someone were to create AR/VR contact lenses, then it would solve a lot of the issues I discussed with eye glasses.

I wear sunglasses all the time when I go out. Even prescription glasses when I have to do my reading, work or design/illustration projects for clientele. There's nothing invasive about my glasses. If you guys think it's "cool" to have a camera on a watch and then call AR glasses invasive, then I'll paint you guys as hypocritical. Why? Because if you have a camera on a watch, employers are not going to be happy about it. It can be a security issue. Also, out in public, if you try to slip your wrist under a woman's skirt just for giggles for a snap, you're toast.

A guy got busted for doing EXACTLY the same thing with his phone. Don't believe me? It was on the news several years ago. So, no matter what, people need to get over it. AR inside glasses or goggles are a thing and that will most likely be common place in academic and professional spaces.

Contact lenses for VR/AR will NOT be effective because everyone's eye sight is different. A 'One for All Apple Approach" is not a very effective strategy for this reason. Plus, it would require FCC clearance and approval by other medical entities, insurance companies (if it can be covered ), and so on.

I never wear a watch. EVER. But when I do, I use my old school Pebble ( I didn't pay a dime for it ) for simplicity when going out in the city or at fencing class. And have no interest in Apple Watch because it is overkill for my needs. Why would a watch try to compete with the phone that does the same thing? If I were to wear a watch, it would have to be used to notify me of incoming text messages, watch my heart rate/blood oxygen ( extremely important ), and time. That's it. Because I'm deaf, I rather have it vibrate to alert me from a nap, or when I'm out drinking at an arcade bar, it can alert me when someone is trying to text me without having to pull my phone out ( handy when you walking in the streets so black market thugs don't make you out seeing what phone you have. Think about that ), and I'm a fencer so I need to watch my heart rate but also blood oxygen so nothing happens again like pneumonia I suffered two years ago, and also keep an eye on incoming messages so I don't have to keep checking my phone stashed in the gym bag.

I don't care about emoticons, maps/GPS, phone calls, or any stupid trivial app on a watch. My phone can do all these when I need to access them.

 

[MrX8503]

I wear sunglasses all the time when I go out. Even prescription glasses when I have to do my reading, work or design/illustration projects for clientele. There's nothing invasive about my glasses.

That's YOUR use case, not the masses. I'm willing to bet more people would wear a smart watch everyday for every occasion over wearing smart glasses. Guess what? That happened with the Apple Watch vs Google Glass.

If you guys think it's "cool" to have a camera on a watch and then call AR glasses invasive, then I'll paint you guys as hypocritical.

Never said this and the Apple Watch doesn't have a camera.

Why? Because if you have a camera on a watch, employers are not going to be happy about it. It can be a security issue. Also, out in public, if you try to slip your wrist under a woman's skirt just for giggles for a snap, you're toast.

What planet are you on? That argument isn't even remotely close to what we're discussing.

It's a fact that something worn on the wrist is less invasive than something worn on the face/head. A phone is the least invasive out of the 3, which makes it a perfect segue into AR. It's not difficult to see why Apple has chosen this path.

 

[Col4bin]

Either you're kidding or just smoking, there is a huge flaw in that. It will NOT work with people who have astigmatism nor those who have vision problems. Second, Apple will have to go through the FCC for that to happen. Chances are it won't. That kind of stuff won't happen until 50 years from now. Seriously. Considering the current political climate today and the health care bill that can make it very difficult for others to acquire these kind of lenses. It would take years to undo the political damage and get things back on track.

(Dude, my initial post was in jest—there was literally sarcasm dripping from it.) So hopefully you're just trolling here? Otherwise I'll make sure that my best friend Tim Cook consults you first when developing Apple's emerging VR tech—lol.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

(Dude, my initial post was in jest—there was literally sarcasm dripping from it.) So hopefully you're just trolling here? Otherwise I'll make sure that my best friend Tim Cook consults you first when developing Apple's emerging VR tech—lol.

Definitely not trolling. If this comment of your's was in jest, you could've at least mentioned the sarcasm originally to set the tone and impression to avoid confusion. Seriously.
[doublepost=1498072898][/doublepost]

That's YOUR use case, not the masses. I'm willing to bet more people would wear a smart watch everyday for every occasion over wearing smart glasses. Guess what? That happened with the Apple Watch vs Google Glass.



Never said this and the Apple Watch doesn't have a camera.



What planet are you on? That argument isn't even remotely close to what we're discussing.

It's a fact that something worn on the wrist is less invasive than something worn on the face/head. A phone is the least invasive out of the 3, which makes it a perfect segue into AR. It's not difficult to see why Apple has chosen this path.

I didn't say the Apple Watch has a camera but am implying that there have been users on here clamoring for such a feature which I was against at for good reason. Even if they put a camera in there, I can certainly say that stores or business establishments will ban that use for privacy reasons. Especially using your phone's camera. I once took a picture of a product in a hobby store so I can share it with a friend, the store manager/owner asked me not to do it again. There's some boundaries to be had when using cameras in phones or portable devices.

Even if they did start with the phone, they need to get moving with the glasses/headset for 'mixed reality' (AR/VR) or straight up AR usage. I, for one, would not want to keep holding up the iOS device for long periods of time for this reason.

As for my use case, it's based on my situation. Apple's Watch doesn't fit that scenario. It's overpriced, in my opinion. Oh, and another thing Google Glass is not dead. It's just going through iterations. If Apple had a watch device with stripped down features focusing on notifications, time and health/exercise, it would have been cheaper and accessible. I just don't think having a watch do everything to compete with a phone is a good idea.

 

[Col4bin]

Definitely not trolling. If this comment of your's was in jest, you could've at least mentioned the sarcasm originally to set the tone and impression to avoid confusion. Seriously.

C'mon, VR-enabled contact lenses? Will probably come with a Mac TeleporterPro.

 

[MrX8503]

I didn't say the Apple Watch has a camera but am implying that there have been users on here clamoring for such a feature which I was against at for good reason. Even if they put a camera in there, I can certainly say that stores or business establishments will ban that use for privacy reasons. Especially using your phone's camera. I once took a picture of a product in a hobby store so I can share it with a friend, the store manager/owner asked me not to do it again. There's some boundaries to be had when using cameras in phones or portable devices.

Even if they did start with the phone, they need to get moving with the glasses/headset for 'mixed reality' (AR/VR) or straight up AR usage. I, for one, would not want to keep holding up the iOS device for long periods of time for this reason.

As for my use case, it's based on my situation. Apple's Watch doesn't fit that scenario. It's overpriced, in my opinion. Oh, and another thing Google Glass is not dead. It's just going through iterations. If Apple had a watch device with stripped down features focusing on notifications, time and health/exercise, it would have been cheaper and accessible. I just don't think having a watch do everything to compete with a phone is a good idea.

My argument has nothing to do with cameras on watches.

AR on the phone will blow away all initiatives we've seen with glasses/headseats. There are rumors of Apple working on glasses/headsets, but it'll be on the phone first because of reasons I've stated.

Google Glass is dead. It may reanimate in the future and have mass market appeal, but as it is currently, it's dead. No where near the success of the Apple Watch.

 

[melendezest]

Yes, I was specific as to the consumer entertainment uses of VR because that is the subject of this thread. Period.

Yes, I noticed your mention of consumer uses, but your main criticism was that I had "no imagination" because I didn't mention non-consumer uses of VR. I didn't mention other uses because the article is about consumer sales, not a catch-all on the merits of VR. Just because one doesn't mention a facet of something in an argument doesn't give another license to conclude the author is ignorant of that aspect.

And as for "Apps cannot be held responsible for what Parents [sic] should address...." Actually, from a legal perspective, they can. They certainly have no exemption I know of. But beyond that VR has a much greater psychological impact than even the most graphic 2D game because it is immersive, hence the name virtual reality. That is the potential societal danger here with VR as a consumer application.

It's silly to complain about someone rebuking you about statements YOU make. I wasn't addressing your entire post history. My main criticism was in regard to these statements, specifically:

"Bleh. I hope VR is a short-lived fad otherwise society -- not Apple -- is doomed."

With that statement, you are indicticting the ENTIRE VR industry as a contributor to the downfall of society. Hyperbole.

Then in a droll way you give an example of your perception in this: "

"All we need to take yet a further step in glamorizing and making amusement of the horrors of war and other violence."

This is as ridiculous as pointing out that having smartphones will cause societal degradation because we have porn or radical/fascist/bigoted propaganda available at all times in a widespread fashion.

"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."

Then you go on to sarcastically allude to the industry "keeping kids indoors." While that may be true in some cases, is it really having a significant societal impact? Is there a downtick in peewee football, baseball, basketball enrollment? Do you have any data, anecdotal or otherwise, to support that apparently hyperbolous claim?

All this is, at best, a limited (aka unimaginative) view, from my perspective. I flatly disagree with your position.

Now, regarding your comment about parental responsibility, I don't know what you are talking about. Provide sources regarding the "legality" of app accountability to parents, etc.

What I was driving at in my comment is that parents should control what their children are exposed to.

Or rather, you cannot blame the product as much as you cannot blame a pencil for what is written or a gun for who or what gets shot. A gun can and has been used to shoot up a school. It has also been used in defense of the defenseless, and to stop great evil.

How you look at it, is up to you, but it may not be the truth.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It's silly to complain about someone rebuking you about statements YOU make. I wasn't addressing your entire post history. My main criticism was in regard to these statements, specifically:

"Bleh. I hope VR is a short-lived fad otherwise society -- not Apple -- is doomed."

With that statement, you are indicticting the ENTIRE VR industry as a contributor to the downfall of society. Hyperbole.

Then in a droll way you give an example of your perception in this: "

"All we need to take yet a further step in glamorizing and making amusement of the horrors of war and other violence."

This is as ridiculous as pointing out that having smartphones will cause societal degradation because we have porn or radical/fascist/bigoted propaganda available at all times in a widespread fashion.

"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."

Then you go on to sarcastically allude to the industry "keeping kids indoors." While that may be true in some cases, is it really having a significant societal impact? Is there a downtick in peewee football, baseball, basketball enrollment? Do you have any data, anecdotal or otherwise, to support that apparently hyperbolous claim?

All this is, at best, a limited (aka unimaginative) view, from my perspective. I flatly disagree with your position.

Now, regarding your comment about parental responsibility, I don't know what you are talking about. Provide sources regarding the "legality" of app accountability to parents, etc.

What I was driving at in my comment is that parents should control what their children are exposed to.

Or rather, you cannot blame the product as much as you cannot blame a pencil for what is written or a gun for who or what gets shot. A gun can and has been used to shoot up a school. It has also been used in defense of the defenseless, and to stop great evil.

How you look at it, is up to you, but it may not be the truth.

Context, my friend, context. My post was an opinon on the article, nothing more. Sorry, but you can't extrapolate anything extra out of it. Well before your first response to my post, in this very thread, I noted to another posted that VR has positive uses, but the context of my post is in regards to consumer use. That's the long and short of it. If it doesn't satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy you. We'll have to disagree and leave it there.

 

[melendezest]

Context, my friend, context. My post was an opinon on the article, nothing more. Sorry, but you can't extrapolate anything extra out of it. Well before your first response to my post, in this very thread, I noted to another posted that VR has positive uses, but the context of my post is in regards to consumer use. That's the long and short of it. If it doesn't satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy you. We'll have to disagree and leave it there.

I can only extrapolate from what you state. The fact that your post is within the context of consumer use doesn't change my disagreement on your position, particularly because I understood that your perspective was from the consumer side, which is why I gave consumer-level examples.

So to avoid any more the "context-related" arguments, I'll clarify the jist of my argument:

I feel consumer-level VR applications can potentially enhance the education, mental health and quality of life of individuals. Thus, the VR platform doesn't have to be a contributor to the detriment of society. It can help elevate it.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Think about when and where you can wear a watch.

Sleeping, in the bathroom, at night, at dinner, in a meeting, while swimming (or any outdoor activity), at a funeral...etc.

You can wear a watch for any occasion at any time. You can't do that with sunglasses.

Sunglasses, prescription glasses, or head gear has very specific use cases that are quite small compared to a watch. At this time the barrier for glasses is too high for the masses to accept.

If someone were to create AR/VR contact lenses, then it would solve a lot of the issues I discussed with eye glasses.

Um ... I beg to differ ... maybe a slight alteration in prescription glasses that have a variance of darkness based on sunlight or light ... youth today do not follow the same levels of decorum, manners or decency/respect us us older people ... they'd wear sunglasses at night (the future so bright I gotta wear shades, or, I wear my sunglasses at night), dinner in a meeting ... ok maybe not swimming but DEFINITELY at a funeral.



The challenge ensues but I like variable viable thinking discussion opens my mind at least.

Cheers.

 

[MrX8503]

Um ... I beg to differ ... maybe a slight alteration in prescription glasses that have a variance of darkness based on sunlight or light ... youth today do not follow the same levels of decorum, manners or decency/respect us us older people ... they'd wear sunglasses at night (the future so bright I gotta wear shades, or, I wear my sunglasses at night), dinner in a meeting ... ok maybe not swimming but DEFINITELY at a funeral.



The challenge ensues but I like variable viable thinking discussion opens my mind at least.

Cheers.

There are more places you can wear a watch vs sunglasses. That's a fact.