That's why they are not releasing this anytime soon. Even the rumors are saying it is coming in 2022. The tech is just not at that level yet. Google glass didn't work, and Microsoft holo lens ended up only as novelty demo device.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bloomberg: Apple's AR/VR Gaming Headset Plans Altered By Internal Divisions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll take a cable over the VIVE's wireless module. If Apple decided to go wireless, it has to be worlds better than the VIVE's wireless.
Something based off Wifi 6”e” 6 GHz spec would be fine. At the moment I can run my oculus over an Apple TimeCapsule on 5ghz AC (as long as no other devices are on) not great, but ok. So having a Wi-Fi 6e dedicated access point should be fine.
EDIT: it’s saying that if this device had 8K resolution per eye. Yeah... maybe not? It really depends if they can get the compression algorithms down. Which if you keep up with the quest, it now runs over USB 2.0 without any noticeable visual difference.... In my opinion. While before it would saturate the crap out of a USB 3.0 port.
[automerge]1592582180[/automerge]
Some of the article's claims are a VR wishlist lol. All Apple needs is a good marketing phrase. Like... Reality Engine*!
*Yes, I'm going to borrow Sony's Emotion Engine here!
*Yes, I'm going to borrow Sony's Emotion Engine here!
It’s going to be very interesting with the next decade of tech. Especially if Apple make the jump to ARM for all their machines.
That’s of course if China don’t go into WW3 mode. 😂😅
It is a sketch from a patent, they are not meant to look anything like a finished product.
I'm seeing a lot of comments on here of people saying they would prefer a big station that does the processing for VR...as someone who works in the VR industry and has since 2014, I don't think it's a good move to build a headset that depends on anything external. The Oculus Quest has been the most successful VR headset (except for PSVR, but Quest users engage more with headset than PSVR users)...it's very important for the headset to be self-contained and portable. Oculus has proved this is possible to do with today's tech using Snapdragon processors. I can only imagine how much better a standalone headset would be that uses Apple's chips instead.
The only caveat is that Oculus sells the Quest at a loss ($400) because Facebook subsidizes the cost. I'd find it hard to imagine Apple selling any hardware at a lost or even close to at cost. So if Apple charges a hefty premium, it does shift them into the high-end PC VR headset market (and therefore they'd be more in line with having a standalone unit to do the processing). Regardless, an "all in one" is going to be the best for portability and accessibility -- think schools, hospitals, home use, showing to friends, etc. I can't wait for this headset!!
The only caveat is that Oculus sells the Quest at a loss ($400) because Facebook subsidizes the cost. I'd find it hard to imagine Apple selling any hardware at a lost or even close to at cost. So if Apple charges a hefty premium, it does shift them into the high-end PC VR headset market (and therefore they'd be more in line with having a standalone unit to do the processing). Regardless, an "all in one" is going to be the best for portability and accessibility -- think schools, hospitals, home use, showing to friends, etc. I can't wait for this headset!!
You did read that it apparently didn’t depend on anything external right? It was designed to also run in a standalone mode like the quest.
As someone that has worked with VR for so many years, you would be aware how much it bloody hurts after a couple of hours. Having the option for an external wireless component would allow for a much lighter headset. I do agree that the quest is popular due to its portability (really larger room scale) but it’s only become popular and hence doubled its steam user base since it’s had the ability to tether. Though you could also argue that’s due to half life Alyx.
The quest now delivers in both worlds of portability and as a PC powered solution. That’s why it’s becoming a huge hit.
QUOTE="drzen, post: 28574656, member: 1089584"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Your last sentence kind of negates the rest of your comment. Strange to be concerned about the option of buying interesting tech. I suppose eventually, like smart-phones, AR glasses could become fairly ubiquitous, but even there- people exist that have resisted the siren song of the pocket computer- as you have with the wrist computer. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Your last sentence kind of negates the rest of your comment. Strange to be concerned about the option of buying interesting tech. I suppose eventually, like smart-phones, AR glasses could become fairly ubiquitous, but even there- people exist that have resisted the siren song of the pocket computer- as you have with the wrist computer. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.
Great. So all the tech nerds can complain about why its not good enough, why PC systems will always be better and not buy it and general consumers can see it as a tech nerd product and also not buy it. If it’s a consumer wearable device, the focus absolutely has to be on general consumer UX.
If it was just a VR headset, there would be a strong argument for a box. But it’s reportedly a combo VR AR headset which could require mobility.
The design issue is really one of [edit: function and] scope for the respective technologies. Apple would have been wiser to have created two separate products--one for VR and one for AR.
VR is designed to create its own independent world and thus is more limited in scope and consequently area of use (e.g. living room). This means VR does not need to be comprised of a single independent device but may be dependent on another device such as a computer or server.
On the other hand, AR is designed to interact with the world around the user. It is dependent on the world at large and is really intended to interact with the entirety of reality and is conseqently unlimited in scope). This requires AR equipment to be its own independent device.
Based on their intended functions, Rockwell's vision was more ideally suited to VR whereas Ive's vision was more ideally suited for AR. Collapsing VR and AR into one technology was the mistake.
VR is designed to create its own independent world and thus is more limited in scope and consequently area of use (e.g. living room). This means VR does not need to be comprised of a single independent device but may be dependent on another device such as a computer or server.
On the other hand, AR is designed to interact with the world around the user. It is dependent on the world at large and is really intended to interact with the entirety of reality and is conseqently unlimited in scope). This requires AR equipment to be its own independent device.
Based on their intended functions, Rockwell's vision was more ideally suited to VR whereas Ive's vision was more ideally suited for AR. Collapsing VR and AR into one technology was the mistake.
Yup. But they are still having a headset and seperate glasses/AR Only product.
There’s no reason why having an AR function on a VR headset being a problem.
The question is, why is it bad to have a VR+AR headset capable product operate in both a standalone mode, with the ability to have a beefed up sister component . IMO there isn’t one. But you’re better off making that tether component a Mac.
Yes! Now that Ive is gone maybe we will finally get the “wireless hub” “portable Mac mini” that I have been pleading for for almost 10 years now. Imagine having a thin and cool laptop on your lap wirelessly connected to a powerful ARM based Mac mini that gets hot as it needs to, sitting on the desk connected to USB devices and hi res displays. No more clamshell compromise!
Wasn’t trying to correct - merely wondering if what you wrote is actually what you meantYes, thanks for the correction.
. Would have been very metaphorical.
I posted this this morning from my iPhone, so I couldn't be as verbose as I normally like to be. Here's more...
1) A lot of people in this thread are conflating the two different products: VR and AR. Yes, AR glasses should be sleek and lightweight. They merge the outside world with the computer-generated graphics. VR takes you into the VR world entirely and are not well-suited for wearing outside, or on a train or plane. You need a space of at least about 6' around you to move around, turn around, look up and down, etc. There are a small number of use cases where you can be pretty motionless and just turn/tilt your head, but those are the minority. It *is* useful to have the VR system be portable enough to easily move to a different room in your house, or more importantly, to take to a friend's house, or on vacation. So a unit that is wirelessly tethered to a smallish box is A-OK IMO, especially if it results in
2) Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of "I don't get the appeal of VR". I suspect most of you have never tried it. You really need to try it before you can give an opinion on it. It's simply impossible to imagine the experience without ever having tried it.
I'm not a gamer, but a few years back (after going to Universal Studios and Disney World in Florida) I thought the rides that included a lot of VR-like effects (e.g., Spiderman) were so cool that I wanted to try out a VR system. I did not have a powerful standalone PC, and had no interest in getting one due to the bulk and cost, so I bought into PSVR. This involved buying a PS4, as I didn't already own one. But I had zero interest in playing traditional PS games...all I wanted it for was the VR games/experiences. The PSVR is pretty great, but I really hated the bulky system (couldn't easily move to another room or bring to someone else's house) and I really disliked the "feel" of using it because of the wired tether.
When the Oculus Go came out, I made an impulse buy on that. The total wireless aspect of it was great, but most of the games were "meh" and it lacked 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) which meant that you could turn/tilt your head, but you couldn't get the full VR experience that requires being able to crouch or move your body forward/back/left/right. Later (now) it looked like Oculus stopped caring about the Go.
When the Oculus Quest came out I got one of those. Adding 6DoF and better controllers was a huge improvement, and they had a few good titles. But new top-tier titles seemed to dry up quickly.
I want to believe that Apple plans to enter the VR market with something great, but I'll believe it when I see it. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony was first to provide something that provides either an all-enclosed VR visor or a connected-via-wireless-to-PlayStation next-gen PSVR, combined with top-tier games/apps.
To each their own. IMO this has massive, massive potential and I really can’t wait to get a pair
This could well be dead before it gets out the starting gate.