Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

As I've said in other posts, I don't think virtual monitors is a good use case. I don't think the vast majority of people want to spend their days with a VR headset strapped to their faces instead of looking at a real screen. I don't think most people want to work in some weird state of isolation with a huge screen in front of them. I think most people want to see what's around them, say hi to a coworkers who walks past his or her office, look out the window, etc. I'm sure there are antisocial people out there who dream of a Matrix-style VR experience, but I don't ever see that market being anymore than a niche.

That said, I agree, it definitely doesn't have to be a product for everyone. I have no doubt that Apple will sell a million or two units, but I think the headset will be on the level of Apple TV (or worse) sales-wise. I'm happy to be proven wrong and, although I have no interest in buying one, I'm very curious to see what they do.
 
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?
Yes, you can access the same content in an iPhone or iPad as you can on your laptop or PC. But their “form factor” adds value by allowing you to do so much more conveniently, freely, and for tasks suited to those devices, using a lot less energy. I own 2 desktops and a laptop, but I’m sitting on the couch typing this on an iPad.

There is no value added to consuming the same old documents, movies, internet, etc. in a VR headset over simply using a laptop, PC, iPhone, or iPad. There is nothing compelling about consumer VR for most people unless and until there is content worth consuming in that fashion. That is the difference.
 
I am hoping content creators will be able to make content that is compelling enough for people to adopt these in the medium to long term. If people are able to experience amazing VR content they might see the value in them. Right now, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.


the only thing that could get me excited for this is some solid content creation tools. unreal/unity is not optimized for mac and the userbase won't be buying a mac just to publish on mac.
 
I think a big issue with VR headsets is that it further isolates people from reality / the real world. I can see them being used in some work functions, gaming and watching movies, but further removing yourself from the environment by wearing a masked set of goggles just seems antisocial. It’s bad enough that people are on their devices so much. Yes I’m old…
Maybe we are the last generation to enjoy and embrace face to face interaction and all of the other benefits that go with it. Can’t believe some 26 years old is being considered outdated person sometimes.
 
Sorry but there is not one aspect of this headset that interests me. Not one. Each new leak does nothing to entice me to want this. If you are interested, enjoy, but I just have no desire to strap this to my head.
you can say this for about 99% of items that companies create.
 
I think a big issue with VR headsets is that it further isolates people from reality / the real world. I can see them being used in some work functions, gaming and watching movies, but further removing yourself from the environment by wearing a masked set of goggles just seems antisocial. It’s bad enough that people are on their devices so much. Yes I’m old…
The way things are going, VR might one day be an escape from a totally polluted, overpopulated, environmentally and chemically devastated world. For a lot of people, a VR world would be better than the one they're living in today and I suspect that number will only grow in the coming decades.
 
HOT TAKE: if you don't like it, don't buy it

people around these parts are acting as if apple is forcing you to buy this product. this way of thinking is worse than however bad you think this apple headset is. trust me. it's physically possible for you to not buy a product that apple releases. i do it all the time.
 
Really really curious to see how this device is positioned given to date VR has basically been about gaming of which Apple is a pretty minor player, especially in the AAA space. I can see it with an M2 and having no phone dependency being a good competitor for say a Quest at a technical level, but at the price points some have suggested so far it’ll need some major killer features in addition to gaming to justify the costs.

My other issue as a consumer is that these headsets are expensive but also seem very tied to their various ecosystems. Maybe I can afford one, but I probably can’t justify a headset for my PS5, an Apple one for that stuff and something else for PC. Even if I can afford it, is it a good experience to have to juggle headsets when switching tasks. I hope the manufacturers eventually look to consolidate the capabilities of these devices to some degree. While some such as this are full on computing devices, having it also function as a basic VR headset for another device would certainly add to the versatility. I mean, I probably wouldn’t buy a PS5 if the console was tied to Sony TVs, so same with displays id like to see VR headsets adopt more standard interfaces and support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rp2011
This first iteration would/should be mostly targeted towards developers. Even though I am highly curious and want to try it, I wouldn't go near it until at least gen 2. There will be more kinks resolved and more apps ready for it by then. Let early adopters and developers beta test it for you first.
 
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.
The PS VR(2) uses a flimsy rubber gasket to block light. The Quest Pro has optional light blockers.
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.
The same thing I'm using to type as I'm sitting on the couch right now, a keyboard with a trackpad. But you could also augment that with eye and hand tracking. People here imagine gorilla arm from waving their arms in space, but you could use even less effort that a traditional setup if you could keep your hands on the keyboard, but click buttons and select text fields and such without even having to remove your hands from the keyboard.

I'm assuming the whole UI can be controlled without any peripherals external to the headset, just like any iDevice, but you'll be able to connect keyboards and other devices, just like with an iDevice.

And don't worry, you'll be able to see the keyboard from within VR.

As I've said in other posts, I don't think virtual monitors is a good use case. I don't think the vast majority of people want to spend their days with a VR headset strapped to their faces instead of looking at a real screen. I don't think most people want to work in some weird state of isolation with a huge screen in front of them. I think most people want to see what's around them, say hi to a coworkers who walks past his or her office, look out the window, etc. I'm sure there are antisocial people out there who dream of a Matrix-style VR experience, but I don't ever see that market being anymore than a niche.
Well, I work from home, so I don't see my coworkers.
But I have played cards and watched movies in VR with friends who live in different states and countries.

Behind my virtual monitors, I could have a stream from a 360 webcam out in nature. That would be more interesting than my work space.

You very well may be right about most of the population not wanting to wear any sort of VR kit, regardless of the comfort and any benefits it provides. But I think many people are judging feasibility based on the comfort and capabilities of today's headsets, and are simply unimaginative when they can't think of any potential benefits from VR/AR. You at least acknowledge some.
 
Apple wouldn’t release it if they didn‘t feel they have something.

…Or so I hope.


I hope it can function while you walk around the house or even outside.

It will probably perform VERY well, generations ahead of oculus so it could likely run half life alyx pretty dang well.


Emm, ye. Expensive Pro version 1st with resulting outrage. But just slap the “PRO" tag on it, it should make people realize this is for devs and the gearheads for now.



Love it or hate it… AR/VR is here and I hope it will lead to interesting new apps. Although, perhaps just let there be parity between oculus store and apple app store, with prices to outright buy games and apps without subs and extortive in-game currencies..
 
Yes, you can access the same content in an iPhone or iPad as you can on your laptop or PC. But their “form factor” adds value by allowing you to do so much more conveniently, freely, and for tasks suited to those devices, using a lot less energy. I own 2 desktops and a laptop, but I’m sitting on the couch typing this on an iPad.

There is no value added to consuming the same old documents, movies, internet, etc. in a VR headset over simply using a laptop, PC, iPhone, or iPad. There is nothing compelling about consumer VR for most people unless and until there is content worth consuming in that fashion. That is the difference.
Watching a movie on a VR movie theater screen from the comfort of my couch is a value add over watching a movie on a phone screen. Having multiple screens available from the comfort of my couch can be a value add, depending on the task.
 
History has show it’s foolish to bet against Apple, but wearing goggles\glasses has always been a hard sell, and this is going to have to have some killer apps.
 
Compelling content is certainly necessary, and that is why I think Apple has been hard at work on the software side to create enough use cases. I think developers will buy up a lot of these devices to jump on the opportunity, because users will be hungry for content and probably willing to try out a lot of things. Like in the early iOS and iPad days, how the apps early to market had a real advantage.
 
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.

Yes, people tend to run to this "extreme", seeming to imply this would be the ONLY monitor option and thus full-time, all-the-time requirements of goggles strapped to all of our heads.

Instead, I see this like a new kind of laptop screen, of which I currently try to use as sparingly as possible because I'd rather work on screens considerably larger than 16". However, when mobile, the choice is big (16") laptop screen, smaller (but up to biggest) tablet screen or smaller (but up to biggest Phone screen). None of those are as nice- or efficiently productive- as my desktop 40" ultra-wide. I wish I could have that much screen RE when I'm on the road, in the plane, etc.

Therein lies an opportunity. The problem: some people seem to want bigger and bigger screens for everything. Companies are experimenting with folding phone screens now and some people are buying them because they want a screen bigger than the non-folding kind. Some are experimenting with screens that roll up and some people are buying. Why? Because they want screens that are big but take up less space. How else could a bigger screen be available to the mobile computing user?

One way MIGHT be VR glasses/goggles perhaps delivering a MUCH larger screen (or screens) on demand. Instead of a clamshell in a bag, maybe it's a keyboard + goggles in a bag for some people? That seems quite plausible to me. There's already laptop/tablet hybrids that separate screen from keyboard (2 separate pieces). There's already portable screens that are only screens for sale. Presumably one could pack a Mac mini or Studio and one of those in a bag for a very powerful mobile desktop.

If these arrive with M2 or M3, is the Mac computing power in them? If so, bring a bluetooth keyboard and some have a desktop-power Mac with any size screen. Others not interested or not needing a screen bigger than 16" can stick with the "as is."

Those working at a desk 8-10 hours in a day will likely have a screen(s) already in place that suits their work. It's the mobile scenarios where I foresee an opportunity for a 17" MB without a physical case big enough to make that work... or an 18" or a 20" or a 30" or a 50", etc... all fitting nicely inside of a smallish, laptop-like travel bag.

I foresee NO scenario where people are roaming around full-time with goggles strapped to their heads. I foresee no scenario where the only monitors anyone can use in the future are goggles strapped to their heads. All of the existing options for screens would still be available for anyone who prefers existing options.

I also see no scenario where people are roaming around full-time with an open laptop on their laps. People bring along the laptop (screen) when they need a laptop. Perhaps other people bring along a goggles (screen) + a keyboard (bottom half of a laptop) when they need a modestly different kind of laptop?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesHolden
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 name is virtual reality. If a reality is presented to our eyes so that they are fooled... that it looks as real as actual reality, it should appear retina.

It's not "virtual reality" if it's a blurry mess. That's called bad experience.

I have to believe Apple will deliver very sharp images to our eyes befitting the tag "reality." If so, it seems it should look as real as the desktop screen on which I'm typing this right now. Yes, that's a 5K screen but I'm probably 24-30" from it. These rumored 4Ks (two of them) are apparently within an inch or two of our eyes.

We'll see if there's anything to this or not. But I watch a seemingly super-sharp, 4K TV from perhaps 8 feet away every evening. Very small print that shows on select commercials is readable and clear... with eyes 8 feet away. I have to suspect jamming 4K pixels into a space small enough to fit inside goggles is going to be serving up what will seem to be incredible resolution to eyes only and inch or two away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
Watching a movie on a VR movie theater screen from the comfort of my couch is a value add over watching a movie on a phone screen. Having multiple screens available from the comfort of my couch can be a value add, depending on the task.
If you really feel your only choices for watching a movie on a large screen from your couch are a phone or a VR HMD, knock yourself out. I‘ll stick with a TV for that while at home. Bonus points over an HMD for being able to reach for snack or drink without knocking it over. I doubt anyone who owns a TV would find an HMD adds value for the movie use case.
 
Interesting numbers to think about —

About 30% of iPhone users own an Watch, about 41% own a Mac, and about 69% own an iPad. If only 1% of iPhone users bought the VR/AR device, this would be over 10M units. The data I see on the Meta Quest 2 shows about 15M units sold to date. So I think Apple could easily, over time, overtake Meta — and I think developers understand this from a simple ratio perspective.
 
We'll see if there's anything to this or not. But I watch a seemingly super-sharp, 4K TV from perhaps 8 feet away every evening. Very small print that shows on select commercials is readable and clear... with eyes 8 feet away. I have to suspect jamming 4K pixels into a space small enough to fit inside goggles is going to be serving up what will seem to be incredible resolution to eyes only and inch or two away.
Actually, no. That small print on the 4K TV 8 ft away looks readable and sharp because the pixels are very small at that distance. In VR each pixel on that panel 2 inches from your eye is rendering a volume in virtual space defined in part by the field of view of the 3D scene because it’s a projection of 3d space on to a 2d panel. Think of it as a cone projecting outward from the pixel into the 3D world. Even with 4K panels one of its pixels would be rendering the equivalent of multiple pixels on the “virtual” 4K screen you are looking at. More pixels in the HMD panel reduces the angle of that “cone” I described but 4K per eye is still a fraction of what is needed.
 
Mr_Ed, in all threads about goggles, you are perpetually negative about them. I’m not. These have been rumored for about 5+ years now. I suspect ANYTHING Apple works on for 5+ years will deliver a very good experience.

So I appreciate your pessimism about goggles and acknowledge that every negative thing you’ve offered in all threads may prove to be true. But until we actually see what Apple rolls out, I’ll simply be more hopeful that whatever this is is more likely to be great than a big pile of…

All things I’ve purchased from Apple for a few thousand dollars have been a delight to me. If these are the rumored $3K, I expect a great new kind of product.

Again, it’s plausible Apple has wasted 5+ years and who knows how much money developing a pile of…

…but I’ll- perhaps naively- just assume something better.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Ed, in all threads about goggles, you are perpetually negative about them. I’m not. These have been rumored for about 5+ years now. I suspect ANYTHING Apple works on for 5+ years will deliver a very good experience.

So I appreciate your pessimism about goggles and acknowledge that every negative thing you’ve offered in all threads may prove to be true. But until we actually see what Apple rolls out, I’ll simply be more hopeful that whatever this is is more likely to be great than a big pile of…
My pessimism comes from direct experience using this technology as part of my job. If Apple manages some sort of quantum leap in the delivery of light to your eyes so pixels as we know them are not involved, they may indeed overcome the inherent problems posed by the disparity between the resolving power of the human eye and the mathematical realities (ie. blur) of scene projection to rasterized 2d space. Could that happen? Sure. But even then, they’ll need to give people a reason to buy and use it, hence my “content” complaint.

As for Apple’s ability to deliver a good experience, you are clearly more optimistic than I, and that’s ok. I’ve been an Apple consumer since 1993. I don’t think they will turn out a ”pile of…” as you put it, but I have no reason to believe it will be any more compelling as a product than competitors in VR who are also working to improve their own offerings. Even you must admit it is likely to cost significantly more than the competition.
 


Apple's first mixed-reality headset may feature "in-air" typing capabilities and can be used independently without an accompanying iPhone, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.


apple-mixed-reality-headset-concept-by-david-lewis-and-marcus-kane.jpg


Apple headset concept by David Lewis and Marcus Kane


In the latest edition of his "Power On" newsletter, Gurman explained that Apple's headset is unlikely to require a paired iPhone, in contrast to the original Apple Watch. The device can purportedly be set up without an accompanying iPhone and download a user's content independently, including iCloud data. A data transfer from a user's iPhone upon setup will be an option rather than a requirement.

"In-air typing," Apple's method for text input using eye movements and hand gestures with the device, is apparently enabled on the latest internal prototypes. The feature is "finicky," Gurman warned, explaining that "you still may want to pair an iPhone to use its touch-screen keyboard... The hope within Apple is to make rapid improvements after the device is released."

Apple is still planning to unveil the first version of the headset, likely called "Reality Pro," at WWDC in June this year, with the device shipping toward the end of 2023 at the earliest. The company is also developing multiple other headset models for further in the future. There is a cheaper model with a lower-end display and processor components planned for launch at the end of 2024 or in 2025, likely under the "Reality One" name, as well as a second-generation Reality Pro headset.

The second-generation Reality Pro headset is apparently focused on performance improvements. While the first-generation model will contain the M2 chip alongside a secondary chip for AR and VR processing, it is apparently not powerful enough to output graphics at the level Apple wants. For example, FaceTime will only support realistic VR representations of just two people at a time, rather than everyone in a conference call, with the first-generation headset. The second-generation Reality Pro could have a variant of the M3 or M4 chip to bolster its graphics capabilities, Gurman said.

Article Link: Gurman: Apple Headset Could Feature 'In-Air' Typing for Text Input, No iPhone Pairing Required
Air typing sounds disastrous. This is going to be like the watch - overpriced and looking for a reason for being. Apple will figure out the why of its existence as its users tell them.

It is a product in search of a need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect and nvmls
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, do remember a whole generation of people have been born and grown to near adulthood since the iPhone was released. Also, when it comes to innovation, so many other companies are ahead of Apple in so many areas. Apple’s strength is bringing it all together into a holistic package.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.