Bloomberg: Apple's AR/VR Gaming Headset Plans Altered By Internal Divisions

[cmaier]

The tension must have been palatable. Would have loved to be in that final meeting with Cook as a fly on a wall. Interesting that Rockwell stayed on after the dressing down. Unusual for an Apple Lead in this type of situation. With Ives finally out the door , I'll wager he will still be working on his original concept as a secondary project.

did you mean “palpable?”

I’ve doubt it went down like this - Gurman hasn’t been too accurate lately. And he works for a publication that claimed there were secret spy chips in apple’s servers, with no proof, none ever having been found, and everyone including the government saying it’s a lie, and they never corrected their story.

as you note, if it went down like Gurman reports, there is no way Rockwell would stay - he could go anywhere in Silicon Valley and make more money.

 

[duffman9000]

Dear Jony, please go away, you have ruined so many Apple products by making them worse performing actual products just so you think they look nicer.
Go away, stay away and shut the F up.

I'd be more than happy with an additional computer unit, say that was attached to your belt or something if it means the headset can be lighter, and perhaps the compute unit can be boosted in time without needing to replace the headset part as well.

I have a HTC VIVE Pro. That thing needs to be much, much lighter. People who want an AIO solution don't understand the limitations of the current AIO solutions. Offload as much processing to some external station and make the headset as light as possible. Ive was wrong in this regard and I hope that many of his design decisions are phased out of Apple's lineups.

Although the headset now in development is less technologically ambitious than originally intended, it's pretty advanced. It's designed to feature ultra-high-resolution screens that will make it almost impossible for a user to differentiate the virtual world from the real one. A cinematic speaker system will make the experience even more realistic, people who have used prototypes say.

******** quote of the year. Whoever believes this will believe Apple is working on a hover board or flying car.

 

[Deepshade]

It looks like an 90's VR headset!

What happened to sleek, stylish Apple market leadership?

All we are seeing lately is recycled hardware (how old is the button on an iPhone/iPad? - how cheap is 256 gb of ram?) and ridiculous prices for things as basic as furniture castors.....Mac Pro wheels (truly laughable).

There will come a point where the 'emperors new clothes' BS will be apparent to all.

Dear Apple - hire some design talent! Get back to basics and deliver innovation.

 

[insomniac86]

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?

Your logic confuses me, along with some others on here.

How I understand it:
There are two distinct products.
1. A VR headset, to be worn at home for entertainment from Gaming and Video experiences.

2. AR Glasses, to be worn everywhere both outdoors and indoors. This provides information overlay on real-world objects, along with notifications.

If the design goal for both products is to be as thin and light as possible then the following designs would be true.

1. Design a VR headset that is; as light as possible by having majority of its compute components external to the device. Due to its external counterpart, you can incorporate powerful cutting edge technology (GPU/CPU) that has not yet matured enough to be miniaturised for the small form factor requirements of having it integrated directly into the headset.
Technological design goals:
-must be an ultra high bandwidth wireless link.
-8k display per eye.
-added bonus goal: integrate a lower powered GPU/CPU into the headset for added mobility. This can’t increase the designs size and weight by more than 10%.


2. Create an ultra thin headset “Glasses” that can function with both transparent and opaque display modes. These devices will require external compute (for the foreseeable future) due to the ultra compact design.

Personally I think Cook and Ive have stuffed up if the statement is true. The reason why I think they would do such it’s because they don’t want people to be able to upgrade the sister component of the VR headset. Instead Apple will want you to buy a new headset (display) time and time again.
If you released an 8K per eye display with a decent FOV using a Microled display. People wouldn’t need to upgrade for a fair few years. And we all know there’s no money in that.

 

[twinlight]

I think they did the right decision. Who would buy a VR headset from Apple if it was targeted at hardcore gamers? Not to many.. it would be expensive and we would get VR remakes of coin master, angry birds and crap like that. You can forget the ultra brutal Doom or something else cool because there isnt a market for it.

They are doing this for average consumers. If they feel that this wont be like the Watch, they wont even release it. How many got google glasses? Hololens? Not that many.. playstation VR? Far to few for Apples attention.

 

[duffman9000]

Your logic confuses me, along with some others on here.

How I understand it:
There are two distinct products.
1. A VR headset, to be worn at home for entertainment from Gaming and Video experiences.

2. AR Glasses, to be worn everywhere both outdoors and indoors. This provides information overlay on real-world objects, along with notifications.

If the design goal for both products is to be as thin and light as possible then the following designs would be true.

1. Design a VR headset that is; as light as possible by having majority of its compute components external to the device. Due to its external counterpart, you can incorporate powerful cutting edge technology (GPU/CPU) that has not yet matured enough to be miniaturised for the small form factor requirements of having it integrated directly into the headset.
Technological design goals:
-must be an ultra high bandwidth wireless link.
-8k display per eye.
-added bonus goal: integrate a lower powered GPU/CPU into the headset for added mobility. This can’t increase the designs size and weight by more than 10%.


2. Create an ultra thin headset “Glasses” that can function with both transparent and opaque display modes. These devices will require external compute (for the foreseeable future) due to the ultra compact design.

Personally I think Cook and Ive have stuffed up if the statement is true. The reason why I think they would do such it’s because they don’t want people to be able to upgrade the sister component of the VR headset. Instead Apple will want you to buy a new headset (display) time and time again.
If you released an 8K per eye display with a decent FOV using a Microled display. People wouldn’t need to upgrade for a fair few years. And we all know there’s no money in that.

Apple would love to sell $2000 headsets to consumers every couple of years LOL.
I didn't get into the incredible technology Apple would have to implement to meet the ridiculous claims in the article. 8K per eye microLED panels. Optics without compromises. A perfect fit to achieve the "can't distinguish from the real world" claim. Wide FOV. I can make up ridiculous claim after claim too.

 

[insomniac86]

I think they did the right decision. Who would buy a VR headset from Apple if it was targeted at hardcore gamers? Not to many.. it would be expensive and we would get VR remakes of coin master, angry birds and crap like that. You can forget the ultra brutal Doom or something else cool because there isnt a market for it.

They are doing this for average consumers. If they feel that this wont be like the Watch, they wont even release it. How many got google glasses? Hololens? Not that many.. playstation VR? Far to few for Apples attention.

Can’t disagree with you more.
The oculus quest sales have gone mental all of a sudden. Why’s that you ask? Oh because now you can tether it to a very powerful computer instantly upgrading all of the graphics and capabilities of the unit. And thanks to its lowest spec built-in compute you can still take it Mobile. Only since the tethering capability has been released have sales gone nuts.

 

[cmaier]

Can’t disagree with you more.
The oculus quest sales have gone mental all of a sudden. Why’s that you ask? Oh because now you can tether it to a very powerful computer instantly upgrading all of the graphics and capabilities of the unit. And thanks to its lowest spec built-in compute you can still take it Mobile. Only since the tethering capability has been released have sales gone nuts.

oculus quest has sold what, 500,000 units? If Apple only sold 500,000 units of ANYTHING it would be a huge disastrous failure for them.

 

[insomniac86]

Apple would love to sell $2000 headsets to consumers every couple of years LOL.
I didn't get into the incredible technology Apple would have to implement to meet the ridiculous claims in the article. 8K per eye microLED panels. Optics without compromises. A perfect fit to achieve the "can't distinguish from the real world" claim. Wide FOV. I can make up ridiculous claim after claim too.

it’s very possible to implement a sister component with that grunt and market it as a “Pro” component. The thing is if you release something like that there’s really no need for customers to keep upgrading every year or so as “apparently” it’s better than any other product on the market. Realistically that would need something like 2x the grunt of an RTX 2080, and that would be ridiculously expensive.

So then you can use common sense and scale it back to have something more affordable with a display that isn’t as high rez. But now you’re entering the territory that existing manufacturers already have products on the market. So now your product isn’t really any better.

The reality is, if you want the best compute capability with the lightest and smallest headset you require a dual component design.
[automerge]1592578942[/automerge]

oculus quest has sold what, 500,000 units? If Apple only sold 500,000 units of ANYTHING it would be a huge disastrous failure for them.

Honestly mate I don’t think you’re in the loop. Oculus quest have been sold out for weeks on end. People are selling the 64 gig units secondhand with a markup of $500 more than the 128 gig model brand-new (retail). They literally cannot make units fast enough.

 

[The Cappy]

For once, Ive was right...thin is better.

Which is why there are soooo many Macs capable of powering an Oculus. The altar of thinness has brought us to this low state, and here you are still worshipping.

 

[twinlight]

Can’t disagree with you more.
The oculus quest sales have gone mental all of a sudden. Why’s that you ask? Oh because now you can tether it to a very powerful computer instantly upgrading all of the graphics and capabilities of the unit. And thanks to its lowest spec built-in compute you can still take it Mobile. Only since the tethering capability has been released have sales gone nuts.

I would like a good headset also but surely you cant mean that people would have to buy a Mac Mini-like device to do the lifting? They need to sell millions of this to get the money back.

i have heard about one guy who got some Oculus gear and two who got the PS VR.. so cant really call it a huge sales surge. But obviously going from 5000 sold to 10000 looks good but its really a niche device still.

Apple is going for a market that uses the Glasses for skiing, driving, bikes, everyday usage.
If they wanted us to use a full blown hardcore headset a device with a really good gpu is needed. Sure they can make a custom design but it will still cost hundreds of dollars extra.

 

[cmaier]

Which is why there are soooo many Macs capable of powering an Oculus. The altar of thinness has brought us to this low state, and here you are still worshipping.

You don’t wear a mac on your face.

And he wasn‘t worshipping - he literally said “FOR ONCE, Ive was right”. That’s the opposite of worshipping.

 

[mattspace]

Who would buy a VR headset from Apple if it was targeted at hardcore gamers?

A headset for "gaming" is exactly the same as a headset for "professional tasks" - they both have the same requirements:

• high framerate
• high resolution
• high gpu power to maintain "realistic" quality
• accurate tracking
• balanced distribution of weight

This isn't like Apple's Mac business, where they can get away with low end GPUs and claim they're "professional" because they're only good at 2D tasks (and Apple doesn't class 3D viewport performance as a "professional" thing).

Work-oriented VR tools are hosted within Game engines (as increasingly are architectural visualisation tools etc) - that's why Gaming performance is important, and why Apple won't get anywhere in VR without it.

Also, I think people are over-playing the importance of wireless connectons on headsets. Cable management is something you develop an instinctive ability to handle fairly rapidly - you naturally incorporate it into your proprioceptive body model. The people who have a problem with it, are the people who try VR once, and that's their only impression. Given most VR happens in dedicated playspaces, there's a number of interesting options to run the cable on bungie'd tethers from the ceiling, that provide full freedom of movement, without tripping hazards for new users.

 

[insomniac86]

Which is why there are soooo many Macs capable of powering an Oculus. The altar of thinness has brought us to this low state, and here you are still worshipping.

On a side note to what I’ve been saying to others. I can’t agree more with your statement. I have to agree with the consensus of why on earth would Apple be trying to release such a high end powerful VR device and focus on gaming when they have neglected GPU power in their computers for years?
[automerge]1592579749[/automerge]

A headset for "gaming" is exactly the same as a headset for "professional tasks" - they both have the same requirements:

• high framerate
• high resolution
• high gpu power to maintain "realistic" quality
• accurate tracking
• balanced distribution of weight

This isn't like Apple's Mac business, where they can get away with low end GPUs and claim they're "professional" because they're only good at 2D tasks (and Apple doesn't class 3D viewport performance as a "professional" thing).

Work-oriented VR tools are hosted within Game engines (as increasingly are architectural visualisation tools etc) - that's why Gaming performance is important, and why Apple won't get anywhere in VR without it.

Also, I think people are over-playing the importance of wireless connectons on headsets. Cable management is something you develop an instinctive ability to handle fairly rapidly - you naturally incorporate it into your proprioceptive body model. The people who have a problem with it, are the people who try VR once, and that's their only impression. Given most VR happens in dedicated playspaces, there's a number of interesting options to run the cable on bungie'd tethers from the ceiling, that provide full freedom of movement, without tripping hazards for new users.

They are valid points. So again why cut out the high end sister component, which is at this point in time, the only way which you can deliver high end graphic performance. Creating a quest like product isn’t really groundbreaking in anyway. Unless it has a tethering capability.

My personal experience with cables and VR is that they fricking suck. So implementing a 6Ghz AXe wireless spec would be your goal for “bleeding edge” product.

 

[citysnaps]

I'm so pleased Ive is still on-board consulting for Apple.

And also glad Tim Cook realizes Ive is responsible for a good chunk of Apple's success.

 

[mattspace]

I would like a good headset also but surely you cant mean that people would have to buy a Mac Mini-like device to do the lifting? They need to sell millions of this to get the money back.

What they were probably angling towards is effectively a dedicated VR eGPU - it would need a specialised connection to the host system as thunderbolt is particularly unsuited for VR-driving GPUs, given it only provides 1/4 of the bandwidth a standard GPU would get in a PCI slot.

 

[Rogifan]

Your logic confuses me, along with some others on here.

How I understand it:
There are two distinct products.
1. A VR headset, to be worn at home for entertainment from Gaming and Video experiences.

2. AR Glasses, to be worn everywhere both outdoors and indoors. This provides information overlay on real-world objects, along with notifications.

If the design goal for both products is to be as thin and light as possible then the following designs would be true.

1. Design a VR headset that is; as light as possible by having majority of its compute components external to the device. Due to its external counterpart, you can incorporate powerful cutting edge technology (GPU/CPU) that has not yet matured enough to be miniaturised for the small form factor requirements of having it integrated directly into the headset.
Technological design goals:
-must be an ultra high bandwidth wireless link.
-8k display per eye.
-added bonus goal: integrate a lower powered GPU/CPU into the headset for added mobility. This can’t increase the designs size and weight by more than 10%.


2. Create an ultra thin headset “Glasses” that can function with both transparent and opaque display modes. These devices will require external compute (for the foreseeable future) due to the ultra compact design.

Personally I think Cook and Ive have stuffed up if the statement is true. The reason why I think they would do such it’s because they don’t want people to be able to upgrade the sister component of the VR headset. Instead Apple will want you to buy a new headset (display) time and time again.
If you released an 8K per eye display with a decent FOV using a Microled display. People wouldn’t need to upgrade for a fair few years. And we all know there’s no money in that.

I misread. Didn’t know this was about a gaming VR headset. Still none of us were in the room so who knows how much of this is accurate or not biased in any way. Also Ive no longer works at Apple so if he was wrong dust off the other prototype and move forward with that.
[automerge]1592580326[/automerge]

Which is why there are soooo many Macs capable of powering an Oculus. The altar of thinness has brought us to this low state, and here you are still worshipping.

Aren’t most Windows laptops (outside of dedicated gaming machines) as thin and light as Macs?

 

[insomniac86]

You have to decide what your market is before designing a product.

You either make VR cool and hip in the Apple fashion, which would have to be semi affordable and not that powerful so that everyone buys one.

Or go after a small market with a very high end pro solution that not many people can afford.

In my opinion. Apple could’ve reached both markets by having a headset that runs in standalone mode and has the ability to get a huge compute boost via tether

It would make more sense for them to simply release Mac Pro computers with decent graphic cards and that essentially is your “sister unit” for tethering.

 

[mattspace]

They are valid points. So again why cut out the high end sister component, which is at this point in time, the only way which you can deliver high end graphic performance.

Because Apple fundamentally don't get VR - what's the phrase, it's impossible to make someone understand something, when their position depends on them not understanding it.

Apple is a 2D computing paradigm company - everything they do, everyting they've ever done, is based on the idea that computing is done on a screen, where there is a standard language of interactive tools, that are furnished by the operating system - the UI chrome. That is a legacy model for computing, that the iPad was already showing, as each app furnishes its own take on UI.

VR doesn't fit in that worldview - the tools obtain no UI elements from the host operating system - mac or windows, which is relegated to a dumb pipe to the hardware, and all that matters is the 3D power of that hardware.

Look at what apple did to put "VR" into Final cut Pro, or rather, look at what they tried to pass off as "VR" (spherical video). Had they been truly ready to embrace VR, they would have built a VR editing workspace, where you actually edit on screens that can be the size of movie theatres, where your timeline can wrap all the way around you, where you can stand to work, and actually work with your body, rather than walking on a treadmill at a standing desk, looking at a screen.
[automerge]1592580957[/automerge]

Aren’t most Windows laptops (outside of dedicated gaming machines) as thin and light as Macs?

A thin & light Windows laptop can easily have more 3D graphics power than an iMac Pro - iMac Pro tops out at about Nvidia GTX1080, there's thin MaxQ Nividia laptops with RTX2060/70 GPUs in them, and the RTX2080 MaxQ designs are pretty much comparable to the 16" macbook pro.

The sheer enormity of how far AMD is behind Nvidia, especially in mobile GPUs, when it comes to 4K 3D performance (which is the best VR analog) is a real issue. VR on macbook pros always required eGPUs when Steam still supported macOS. Similar size PC laptops did it onboard at higher quality.

 

[redman042]

I would say: do what Oculus (Facebook) did. Put out a stand-alone headset that sells well on its own merits. Then down the line, add the capability to tether to a remote machine for higher-powered games. I'm sure they could pull this off. I bought my Quest for stand-alone gaming, but after adding the capability to link to a PC, I'm now enjoying a whole new world of high-end VR on the same headset. I bought the Quest without any expectation of a capability like this. It's pretty amazing.

However, though I'm excited for the possibilities for Apple VR hardware, especially with their in-house silicon design group, I am skeptical how the software ecosystem will turn out. The App Store continues to be awful for developers and I don't see them jumping to produce great VR games that I'd enjoy. I do not want to have to buy game coins to play freemium VR games. I will have no part of that.

 

[insomniac86]

Because Apple fundamentally don't get VR - what's the phrase, it's impossible to make someone understand something, when their position depends on them not understanding it.

Apple is a 2D computing paradigm company - everything they do, everyting they've ever done, is based on the idea that computing is done on a screen, where there is a standard language of interactive tools, that are furnished by the operating system - the UI chrome. That is a legacy model for computing, that the iPad was already showing, as each app furnishes its own take on UI.

VR doesn't fit in that worldview - the tools obtain no UI elements from the host operating system - mac or windows, which is relegated to a dumb pipe to the hardware, and all that matters is the 3D power of that hardware.

Look at what apple did to put "VR" into Final cut Pro, or rather, look at what they tried to pass off as "VR" (spherical video). Had they been truly ready to embrace VR, they would have built a VR editing workspace, where you actually edit on screens that can be the size of movie theatres, where your timeline can wrap all the way around you, where you can stand to work, and actually work with your body, rather than walking on a treadmill at a standing desk, looking at a screen.

Cool thanks for your reply. I agree with what you’re saying. I’m talking to a few people here and not really focusing on what my personal opinion is holistically.

As I just mentioned (latest comment) it really depends what your target audience is for what the type of hardware it is you’re trying to create. Apple is seriously behind on the VR space.

Based on these rumours, What they are planning on launching will probably end up being successful as it sounds like it’s an Oculus quest 2.0. (Apple Edition). Thanks to their brand popularity, they will probably be the company to make “the quest/VR” mainstream.

Just as many were bitching that no one wears a watch any more. Or that AirPods are stupid. Erm like yeah... Eat ya words now guys.

But I absolutely agree with your points. Apple really need to pick up the Pro audience and deliver some kick arse VR toolsets. Otherwise it’s just a quest 2.0.

 

[Piggie]

Am I the only who is NOT excited about any of these AR / VR stuff.

Probably not alone, but you need to understand this IS the future.
This WILL replace phones in the future, and much of other current computing.
Almost everyone will be wearing some form or AR just like smartphone ownership now.

It's simply a matter of time, which will end in either contact lens's being worn or direct brain/occular implants.

It will happen, it is just a metter of time

 

[insomniac86]

I would say: do what Oculus (Facebook) did. Put out a stand-alone headset that sells well on its own merits. Then down the line, add the capability to tether to a remote machine for higher-powered games. I'm sure they could pull this off. I bought my Quest for stand-alone gaming, but after adding the capability to link to a PC, I'm now enjoying a whole new world of high-end VR on the same headset. I bought the Quest without any expectation of a capability like this. It's pretty amazing.

However, though I'm excited for the possibilities for Apple VR hardware, especially with their in-house silicon design group, I am skeptical how the software ecosystem will turn out. The App Store continues to be awful for developers and I don't see them jumping to produce great VR games that I'd enjoy. I do not want to have to buy game coins to play freemium VR games. I will have no part of that.

yeah I’m in the same boat with you with my quest.

 

[tubular]

All right, Jony, let's compromise, it will be a high-powered 3D display but it will only cover one eye.

 

[insomniac86]

Well **** guys I think we did it! We had a fairly decent conversation without name-calling. Who are these people 😂