Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The top VR systems were tethered, but now wireless to a separate unit. Without that the other systems were underpowered. Apparently N301 could run either way, so the best of both worlds for current technology. It doesn't mean it would have to be that way for ever.
 
6B89A713-0698-4E6A-907F-A31F1E5E076F.jpeg
 
For AR/VR to really be immersive, you need the best possible hardware. This is Ive and Tim really blowing it. You can’t half ass it. Gamers want all the power they can get their hands on. Same for education and entertainment.
.
The good news is that if Apple doesn‘t release something to it’s full potential, someone else will. It’s not like the rest of the world sits still.
 
Last edited:
Early versions of the Apple Watch where dependent on having an iPhone. Perhaps they should differentiate the two products, a wearable VR headset and then a AR stationary product with external processing unit.
 
Got to say that's an interesting conundrum. Still though, if Apple used its A chip tech and GPUs, it could still be pretty powerful. But then iPhones do certainly get warm under heavy load and you wouldn't want that heat transferring into your face.

I think they should have gone the break-out box route for version 1. It'll be a niche product to start with. Simply plugging it into the wall and then using local wireless tech to maintain freedom in the room its used would be a worthy compromise for the best experience. It would still be untethered and keep the cool factor.

Hell, I use an Oculus Rift, the first one, and that's plugged in and needs two separate cameras. The difference over that would be huge.

Unless they think the use-case of these being used on public transport is viable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: decypher44
Hmm....don't you need an iPhone to use an Apple Watch?
Exactly. Which soon could very well be a high powered solution for feeding both future Apple watches and VR sets their content.
Now, a VR headset isn’t a portable wearable, and you have to define the “bounds” that are safe on which running out of bounds will warn you. Some comments are siding with both Jony and Tim or proposing using a high powered unit on a belt or something... not the case, not needed. The separate box that would take care of doing the expensive processing could very well be in another room. I still see no issues with using VR headsets like that.

Unless we are talking “lets go play VR in the park”... if the separate box is a Mac Mini with battery power laptop-like then it’s still portable.
 
More power could help in reducing motion sickness. Unless they solve motion sickness, this will never sell to the masses. Also, having the bulk of the hardware in a separate device would reduce weight and improve comfort. I don't really consider this a wearable product either, we are not going to be walking down the street with one.
 
Bloomberg of all sources, who reported about "The Big Hack", which turned out to be toal crap:

Gurman, is one of the very few journalists which so far has not given in to clickbait - we'll see ...
 
So whenever VR headsets become a mainstream reality (pun intended), my concern is having yet another piece of soon-to-be-essential hardware and having to shell out thousands by being forced to constantly upgrade every couple years. Refrigerators and TVs and automobiles never needed constant upgrading. This is why I still wear an analog watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satkin2
A product starts somewhere and it evolves over time. I don’t agree with Ive on this one. How many customers will be using the advanced AR/VR headset out of the home? I would say very few. Provide customers with the most advanced graphics and experience, even if it’s wireless tethered in the first generation, and work hard over time to expand the range and reduce the size of the supporting stationary hub.

Controversial statement: I am happy that Ive has left Apple. It’s time for Apple to return to a better balance between form and function. In my opinion, function was too often neglected by Ive.
 
I agree with Ive on this. Requiring a wearable to be tethered (albeit wirelessly) to a hub is just silly for a consumer product. That simply means the tech available is not ready yet.

The tethered to a hub version only make sense for a specific niche applications. Eg. Game arcades where they have a fixed room for the devices. Or a lab or hospital with fixed rooms. But Apple probably wanted this for consumers.
Pssst... Watch Series 1 & 2 were tethered to a “hub” and they were pretty great products.
 
I don’t get this whole A/R thing and why Apple is so nuts about it but assuming this report is true am inclined to side with Ive and Cook here. Who would buy a bulky headset that required a separate box to operate? Maybe gamers but I doubt that’s who Apple is going after here. Seems to me a big reason this stuff hasn’t taken off is because these A/R and V/R glasses make you look like a complete dork so no one outside of a gamer or in a specific business setting would wear them. Since Apple makes mostly consumer products selling some big bulky dorky headset doesn’t make any sense.

Edit: if this is about a VR headset the I can understand the other side though I’m skeptical Apple will ever ship a VR headset. Aren’t VR headsets mostly for gaming? What are the other use cases?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nwcs
It likely won’t be a mass market device in either configuration. VR is now going on close to 40 years without mainstream adoption. Perhaps it is still a solution looking for a problem? Certainly there are a few niche places where it makes sense but this is a lot like 3D TVs: initial cool factor but wears off quickly with the requirements needed to enjoy plus limited content.
 
I don't understand the demographic for this thing.

If gamers and fancy virtual meetings are what they're after, then a separate wireless "console" shouldn't be a problem. I'd understand if you had to carry it around on your body, but you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cajun67
Glad to see Kim Vorrath finally moved on from SWE. She singlehandedly sculpted the group that destroyed Apple’s software quality. Unfortunately no one left has the faintest clue what a culture of quality looks like.
 
Pssst... Watch Series 1 & 2 were tethered to a “hub” and they were pretty great products.
But that "hub" is an iPhone, also a mobile device.

Imagine having an Apple watch tethered to a Mac or Apple TV.
[automerge]1592573375[/automerge]
Hmm....don't you need an iPhone to use an Apple Watch?
Yes, an iPhone which is a mobile device on its own.

Would you want an Apple Watch that is tethered to an Apple TV? Seem alike that's the idea of this.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Ive on this. Requiring a wearable to be tethered (albeit wirelessly) to a hub is just silly for a consumer product. That simply means the tech available is not ready yet.
That's like saying that it was just silly to make the Apple II computer in 1977 because it didn't fit in your pocket like an iPhone.
 
Would you want an Apple Watch that is tethered to an Apple TV?

Of course not. An Apple Watch is a mobile device and meant to be worn practically all the time, especially when you're out and about. VR is completely different. Most people will only ever use it in one room in their house and it makes perfect sense to have it tethered to a hub if it's a wireless connection and will drastically improve the experience.

Umm... Not for the past few years, no.

Android users who want to use an Apple Watch (and it's not hard to find them) would certainly disagree with you.
 
Edit: if this is about a VR headset the I can understand the other side though I’m skeptical Apple will ever ship a VR headset. Aren’t VR headsets mostly for gaming? What are the other use cases?

VR is a workspace - Let me give you an example I've actually used. I built a sculpture that was installed on stage at a theatre - it was ~7m tall, and effectively a giant marionette puppet, in that it was suspended from a truss that was hauled up into the theatre rigging.

It was bumped into the space a couple of days before the play started, and had no opportunity to be fully assembled prior to bump-in. It was a complex 3 dimensional object, which had to be designed in full stereoscopic 3d, because the eyelines are critical when working on something at a specific scale.

So I was able to use tilt Brush, a 3D VR painting environment, to model the work in 3 dimensions at full scale, walk around it, look up through it etc - literally the sort of creative process that you can't do on a flat screen.

I've also worked in a VR version of SketchUP (architectural drafting), where you do all your modelling in the world around you. There really isn't any way to substitute the qualitative difference of the working experience in a VR workspace. What a number of apps do, is literally give you a giant empty post-industrial warehouse space as the working environment.

Check out this demo of Tvori:


What's important about this is the way you do the work - it's working with your hands in a traditional artisan sense. So much of any 3 dimensional workflow is spent on trying to kludge around the fact you're looking at a 2D screen - manipulating your viewport. In VR, you can just move your head.

It's something you really need to try yourself (if you do the sort of thing that it's amenable to) to appreciate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator and Ulfric
Not that my opinion matters but I think they were quite successful using this "light compute" method on the Apple Watch and so why wouldn't they do the same thing for the AR glasses?

By the 3rd generation the computing power will have caught up like it did with the Apple Watch.
 
I have an Oculus Rift on my PC. I would say that it's still a novelty item. We are still in early adopter stage with this tech. While it does provide a unique gaming experience, it's uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time. It's lightweight, but the longer you wear it the more you feel the weight. It presses down on my sinuses. I spend the first five minutes I have it on trying to adjust it on my face to find the "sweet spot," where I can see the screens clearly and the discomfort of wearing it is tolerable. Then there's the fact that VR gives you motion fatigue/motion sickness. Some folks are more susceptible than others. But I find that my VR gaming sessions typically last 30-45 minutes at a time--and this from a guy who spends most of his leisure time playing PC games.

All that said, I don't yet understand what market Apple is going after. It can't be the gaming market; Apple has neglected gamers for decades, and has no overall strategy for gaming on the Mac, and no exclusive A-list game developers as partners. But gaming is where the big money is for VR right now.

Maybe Apple will ship this headset with Windows gamers as their primary target? That seems like a big change in strategy for Apple.

Is this going to be Apple VR TV? I've attempted to watch movies with my Rift, but again, the growing discomfort of wearing the headset makes this a difficult proposition. Plus, the prospect of just sitting there, not doing anything but watching, only makes you notice the discomfort more.

I understand why Apple is doing the R&D on this; VR is here to stay, and is only going to get bigger. But Apple is not in the best position to take advantage of this market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rogifan
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.