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.
Gurman: Apple Headset Could Feature 'In-Air' Typing for Text Input, No iPhone Pairing Required
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think such people aren't being remotely realistic or fair to Apple, and I say that as someone who isn't particularly interested in the headset. I also think such people are all more recent Apple fans who became Apple fans because of the iPhone. The iPhone blew their minds and they now expect every product to do the same. People who have been fans for a lot longer are more appreciative of how innovative Apple is today.
Whenever someone says Apple isn't innovative, I challenge him/her to name a more innovative company. And the response is always...silence. Multi-touch was a leap, much like the GUI. Not every innovation is a leap. Most innovations are small and incremental and often build in order to ultimately enable the next leap.
To be fair to the naysayers, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy a short ten years prior to the iPhone; a time of bloated product lines and no clear direction.
I get this argument, but I don't think most people want to wear a monitor. No one wants to spend the day at work with a headset strapped to his or her face for 8-10 hours. I'm a skier and I wear goggles. While I don't mind wearing them, I also look for every opportunity to remove them and give my face a rest. No matter how comfortable, having something strapped to your face for hours isn't great. That's problem number one in my mind.
I also think people who make the "biggest monitor in the world" argument are so focused on the benefits of a huge screen that they ignore the obvious shortcomings. I think most people want to see what is around them. I know I do. I don't think most people want to be in some weird tech-induced isolation chamber with a huge monitor floating in space. I also don't think most people want to experience some pass-through reality where the headset displays real-world surroundings with a giant virtual screen in front of the user. Either way, you have a device strapped to your face and everything you see is fake. I don't think the human brain likes or wants that experience and certainly not as a daily desktop monitor alternative.
What does that have to do with anything? Ten years is a lifetime in tech. I say this as someone who has been an Apple customer since 1982. They've had ups and they've had downs, but they've always been innovative and I would argue consistently more innovative than any other tech company.
The time you reference was a time when Windows had an absolute monopoly on the desktop and if your platform didn't have Microsoft Office, you were screwed. People made buying decisions based on Microsoft Office, absurd as that sounds these days. I won't argue that, ten years prior to the iPhone, Apple was at a low. The Mac had been limping along (financially) for years and the Newton had failed, but was that a lack of innovation? I would say no. The Mac was still a reasonably innovative platform and the Newton was a very innovative device for its time. People just weren't buying enough and that was largely due to Microsoft's lack of platform support.
I would also push back on the suggestion that Apple had no direction. They most certainly had a direction. It just wasn't working. They knew macOS's days were numbered and they tried to develop a new OS, but those efforts failed. I wouldn't call that a lack of innovation, though. Not every innovation is ultimately successful.
What saved Apple was NeXT's reverse take-over, Job's return, NeXTSTEP becoming the foundation for macOS, and, finally, the iPod. The iPod changed the public's perception of Apple, which I think was essential to the iPhone's success years later. They went from being a "computer company", the anti-Microsoft, to a consumer electronics company. The iTunes Store changed how we purchase music forever. That was a huge innovation. All of this happened long before the iPhone.
I would argue that, even in the dark days, Apple was still an innovative company and that people complaining about a lack of innovation aren't being realistic or fair.
It is known how to solve this, it is just that early headsets had to cut corners to hit lower prices. They just need to get specs closer to real vision. That means increasing frame-rate and reducing latency to hit real-world levels. Our brain already has a latency lag, we just need to fit rendering in to that space that already exists. They need inward facing cameras to make sure the headset adjusts to the users eyes. I would expect Apple's headset not to have issues with motion sickness as long as any third-party developers don't follow bad practices.
I disagree. Existing VR is already good enough to hit early markets for it. Apple will certainly be taking that a bit further, but that isn't going to be what is initially compelling. The VR/AR use cases will be a slow incremental improvement over time.
For VR to succeed it counter-intuitively needs to be good at non-VR stuff. That is where I think Apple will really make a difference. That means you need high resolution optics that can render your normal apps and media with virtual screens that are as good as real screens. Once it can do legacy stuff well, then you layer on the new stuff. With 4K displays and support for iOS and macOS (through a paired Mac) software, Apple will at least be close to achieving this.
Last edited:
Many (most?) movie theaters are still 2K, and a lot of movies are mastered at 2K.
Also, this rumored Apple device has a resolution of 4K wide per eye, but you won’t want the movies you’re watching to actually take up the full physical width of the panels in the VR headset. So standard movies are enough.
Now, if you want some 180 or 360 video produced specifically for VR, yeah, you'll want a ton of resolution.
4K spread over 100 degrees won't give you "Retina" resolution. My usage of 4K displays is typically at about a 45 degree FOV.
The iPhone and iPad typically display the same content as a laptop or desktop PC I use. They are interesting for their form factor. I'm not sure how VR is different?
It's just weird how many people feel compelled to tell others how uninterested they are in the tech. I don't wear a watch, but I don't feel compelled to go in the Apple Watch section of this forum to tell people how uninterested I am.
I think we are a long way from VR/AR replacing any other product categories. I supposed it could limit development in some areas, like smartphones have limited the development of compact digital cameras, or take away some of Apple's resources from other areas.
Many people have mentioned virtual monitors as a use case. That use case doesn't apply to current headsets because they don't have good enough resolution/optics/comfort/software. And sure, that may not be an interesting use case for you at all. Why does this have to be a product for everyone?
Millions of people have already found use cases for current generation VR.
I don't like being strapped to my desk. But I can't do my work on a laptop because I need multiple large monitors. It would be nice to sometimes recline on a couch to work. Or stand (you could make any desk into a standing desk just by having a platform to support your keyboard and maybe a mouse).
I agree. But what if the form factor were more like a baseball cap, with the screen/lenses hanging down from the bill?
Sounds like basically nobody but developers and hobbyists should buy the 1st gen of this headset considering what we are hearing in rumors. The 2nd gen will be a giant leap in cost and performance form gen 1.
Curious Apple's angle to make this compelling to normal people - again the watch has health - the phone has everything in your pocket. This headset ? What's the killer utility? The leaks clearly have not shown what this is yet.
Curious Apple's angle to make this compelling to normal people - again the watch has health - the phone has everything in your pocket. This headset ? What's the killer utility? The leaks clearly have not shown what this is yet.
I still would prefer this over an EyePhone like from Futurama. I can't deal with contact lenses.
There aren't going to be enough people with these to have a conference call.
I don't know. I think these kind of use cases aren't very realistic. If I'm reclining on the couch, what am I using for a mouse, a keyboard? Air typing? That doesn't sound conducive to getting any real work done in my mind. Whether I'm seated or standing, the other issues are the same too. I still have something strapped to my face. I can definitely see using something like that for specific tasks/apps or while I'm on a plane and just want to tune everyone out. But, generally speaking, I don't think having a monitor strapped to one's face is an improvement and I don't think most people will see that feature as a selling point.
The devil is in the details, as they say, and I'm certainly open to Apple delivering a better form factor. That said, I don't see what you suggest working very well. As an AR overlay, yes, but not VR. You need to block out as much of reality as possible. A cap with a visor isn't going to accomplish that. You need something strapped to your face.