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 Reality Pro' to Be First of Three Apple AR/VR Headset Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No mention of the NCC-1701...Thats the one to wait for!!!!!!!![]()
Apple is working on at least three augmented-reality and virtual-reality headset devices, the first of which will likely launch with the name "Apple Reality Pro," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
In the latest edition of his "Power On" newsletter, Gurman explained that there are a minimum of three Apple headsets actively in development that he is aware of, under the codes "N301," "N602," and "N421."
The first of these devices, N301, is what Gurman believes will be called "Apple Reality Pro." Apple Reality Pro is said to be the company's "high-end rival" to Meta's upcoming Quest Pro headset. N602 is reportedly the successor to the first Apple Reality Pro headset and could come in at a lower price point. N421 is Apple's long-rumored augmented reality glasses device, though Gurman cautioned that it may not launch for some time.
Gurman's latest report is the first concrete indication of what Apple's first headset product could be called. It is worth noting that the "Reality Pro" name lines up with Apple's recent trademark filings. Last week, Bloomberg reported that Apple has trademarked several terms believed to be associated with its upcoming headset devices, including "Reality Processor," "Reality Pro," and "Reality One."
According to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple is planning to announce its first headset as soon as January next year, with potential features including two 4K micro-OLED displays, 15 optical modules, two main processors, Wi-Fi 6E connectivity, eye tracking, object tracking, and hand gesture controls. The device's approximate price point is as yet unclear, but some reports indicate that it could cost around $3,000.
Article Link: Gurman: 'Apple Reality Pro' to Be First of Three Apple AR/VR Headset Devices
Well, that’s definitely a more clever name than anyone’s AR/AV that’s been released so far.
Weight and bulk are definitely issues to overcome, but look how small and light the iPhone camera lenses are these days and they're only getting smaller. (Well maybe except for the iPhone 14.) Further weight will be reduced by removing the traditional eyeglass lenses which will no longer be needed since they can be replaced with thin lightweight screens just large enough to cover your range of vision. And the battery doesn't have to be built on the frame. Power could be conducted from an external battery pack through the straps or maybe even wirelessly. I'm not saying I have all the answers, only that we may be closer to a solution than anyone here realizes.
More than one decade. We'll need direct optic / auditory nerve stimulation for it to be really acceptable. I know I wont be buying it as it doesn't help me do anything and monster goggles aren't my thing...
Their most successful product of all time was named iPhone, not just "phone". It fit with the i generation of the time, with the i prefix added to a descriptive word like iPod, iPhoto, iCloud, or iTunes did. It had its own marketable name that was obvious what it did but couldn't be confused with another brand's device.
The current generation of products and services are simple descriptive words with an prefix:
Watch
Music
Fitness
TV
Reality could work without all the added suffixes but it sounds like it's describing a service or an OS.
Vision would be my choice for the device. Like iPhone took the "phone" and added a prefix, Apple Vision would take the "vision" from television preceded by the Apple logo. It could fittingly be used as describing a human augmentation: "I have Apple Vision" to say that your vision is augmented with Apple's RealityOS overlaid.
If, on the other hand, the AR device is a complementary accessory to the iPhone and/or Apple Watch instead of a standalone device as is most likely for the first several generations, then it could inherit the Air name like its audio counterpart AirPods. AirView would be my preference but Samsung already uses it, though with a different syntax.
I agree that anything Apple sells will probably sell regardless of the name but marketing and branding is important, specially for establishing an early trendsetting aura around a product, a strategy Apple is very familiar with.
I seem to remember them saying that about 3D TVs. I'm actually going to bet on it being more of a niche product, with fantastic possibilities in industrial applications and, of course gaming. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
"They" said that the practical implications of 3D TVs would be limitless?
Fixed-perspective stereoscopic displays are, at best, an enhancement to flat video, even if flawlessly implemented. I'm sure that some people predicted that stereoscopic TV would replace color TV just like color TV replaced B&W TV, and they aren't correct, and probably won't be any time soon. But even if they had been correct, it wouldn't have changed all that much with how we watch movies and TV. Maybe smartphones would all have a stereo display and an extra camera it the parallel universe where 3D TV took off, but that wouldn't fundamentally change all that much about how people use their smartphones. In that sense, 3D is more akin to a technology like HDR.
But even with the crude VR setups of today, I've had new kinds of experiences, not just enhancements to what I was already doing. I can watch any 3D movie in 2D. I can't play every VR game on a traditional monitor with a traditional control setup.
I think that because of the stereoscopic capabilities of VR, many people just view VR as a step on a B&W->Color->Stereoscopic 3D->VR continuum. I don't think that's a useful way to look at it.
Last edited:
I don’t have a horse in this race but logically this is a well written argument.
I like Vision. But Reality is good too — though double the syllables. How about Lens? I’m just glad I don’t have to come up with these names — I would drive myself crazy second guessing my decision.
Everyone in this thread thinking Apple is not going to launch the VR headset in a couple months are the same people who doubted Meta would succeed with the Oculus’s as it surpassed Xbox sales. They are also the same people who swore by the blackberry an was convinced the iPhone would die within a year of its conception…Look at us now. Sit down naysayers!
Yeah I get you, and the render everyone is using doesnt even have a nose cut out :/
So funny thing, I actually made some of the renders for the Sadly its Bradley youtube channel, for the original Quest pro leak and one of first Apple HMD renders: Apple Vision Renders
Problem is, most news sources seem to want something that matched The Informations sketch for the Apple headset, maybe they see it as 'safe', hence those watch style headbands.
I've been working on a design I think will be closer to the released, but the patents point in multiple directions, and the most descriptive by far is one from 2008 , so if you have some consolidated info / thoughts please send my way.
In the mean time, heres a fun little mockup I made ages ago with a snowboard headband, still more believable than the silicone bands.
Attachments
Last edited:
That's not much better, although I applaud you for the nice rendering. I guess we have to wait and see if this product will be something industrial, where I could see those straps necessary to keep it on you head. Alternatively if it is more consumer based they are going to have to figure out some sort of retaining mechanism that isn't as intrusive as a huge band around your head. Granted, the size and weight of the unit most likely won't make this possible. Personally I believe VR/AR's largest hurdle, by far, is having a large bulky headset strapped to your head and inroads won't be made until the units are small enough to use glasses style handles, or at the very least some retaining mechanism around the ears but not the head.
Yeah. These suffixes are the worst. Either tasteless people are coming up with names at Apple...or even our Apple is trying to follow trend. I hope the 2nd is not true at least.
And 'Reality', this name is anything but simple. Really, how can anyone with the least of brain can expect people to say it like an everyday word, like 'iPhone'. If seriously 'Reality' becomes the name, I'll be obliged to think no name creatives are at Apple, like those at Samsung and Google. Hope Apple doesn't become one of them.
Stay SIMPLE, Apple.