But 720p video streams aren't very heavy. Makes more sense if they want to put the characters into some interactive environment like a video game.
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: FaceTime for Apple AR/VR Headset Could Rely on Memojis and SharePlay
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think i will be ok if i am in a meeting and i am fired by a cute dog, and not my ugly boss.
You mean how practical is this thing that we don't know what it looks like, what exactly it does, and how much it'll cost except for in rumors?
Not very practical at all
BREAKING: "Nobody wants this" claims an anonymous poster online about a product that we don't know what it looks like, what it does, or how much it will actually cost.
Someone tell the folks at Apple, quick.
Yet here we all are on this forum, not using our actual photos or names to connect and converse with each other...
I think we might be the creepy ones
well said
so many here seem to be taking this rumor as fact and are reacting accordingly ?
Meeting in VR is a different experience than a mass FaceTime/Zoom meeting. There can be awkward pauses and interactions as it is very different then actually meeting in real life. VR is far closer to real life interactions as the visible component mixed with spacial audio makes it more life like. Just like any crowded real life room it can be chaotic if everyone is talking at once, but one person can pull everyone in and focus can be shifted naturally to that one person. Same can happen in VR. VRChat is as chaotic as it comes, mainly little kids going nuts in strange environments, but it feels more natural when interacting with people. Spacial audio helps as well as the rooms feel like they have depth and if someone is on your left you hear them on your left. I am trying to convince a friend who recently moved out of province to pick up a Quest 2 to communicate that way as I find conversing is much more natural (strongly) in VR.
Memojis instead of actual people. Maybe for fun. But no real use with this.
I mean, look at the big picture. What is extent of this gadget's capabilities other than what has been mentioned and revealed? Could it be true this hardware could give me wings? Also, based on far more than anecdotal evidence, Apple will be expecting top tier pricing to be paid for this new toy (see AirPods Max).You mean how practical is this thing that we don't know what it looks like, what exactly it does, and how much it'll cost except for in rumors?
Not very practical at all
My Memoji sucks. How about Apple releases an app that converts a photo of a person into a Memoji.
Ugh more metaverse crap. Please no. I want to see my grandpa’s smile. With his real face. When he’s telling me about a problem he’s dealing with, how can I judge how serious it is if I can’t see the concern in his eyes? If I’m traveling, I want to see my real kid’s faces light up when I call to tell them goodnight. Those subtle emotions don’t really come through on an avatar, and even if they did at some point, they’re not the same.
Kinda funny that I hadn’t considered this before, but even if they get this reduced down to a glasses-like design it still won’t be able to see your face unless you use a mirror for real FaceTime.
Kinda funny that I hadn’t considered this before, but even if they get this reduced down to a glasses-like design it still won’t be able to see your face unless you use a mirror for real FaceTime.
I‘m quite skeptical of this as well. How well can a set of cameras interpret facial features with a set of goggles compressing skin against facial bones and cartilage — if even made to minimize discomfort. The facial expressions would seem to be at least muted if not distorted.
But how can we see the big picture when we don't understand what is technologically possible and what innovations and use cases Apple has up its sleeve?
For example, I could imagine (not saying this will happen) an AR/VR headset where you can have as many monitors as you like when you're working on your computer - they'd just exist in a virtual world instead of using actual monitors you have to buy and have room for. That alone would eliminate the cost of buying additional monitors and would save hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
So until we understand what use cases it solves, I cannot see a way to realistically determine what price is reasonable, because it totally depends on the job to be done and its value to users.
I guess this is just not a product for me. Don't have a memoji and wouldn't use one if I did. Don't play video games. Don't have any desire to watch video with other people not in the same room with me. My wife and I facetime with our grandson (3 years old), our son and daughter in law, but we want to see the real them, not avatars. I want to see the actual people I care about. Conference calls might as well be audio only for all the good avatars will be.
I suspect that is something that technology can solve at some point. Cameras or maybe just infrared 3D mapping inside the visor could fill in the parts of the face that the external cameras couldn’t see. There would be the seal where the headset casing actually touches the face that couldn’t be seen by either the external or the internal cameras but that would be a small enough gap such that I am pretty sure the missing info could be interpolated quite accurately. If it is only 3D mapping giving contour info inside the mask I suspect colour and texture info could also be quite accurately interpolated possibly by a combination of a baseline reference taken via an enrolment process done without the headset on so that the external cameras could see the area around the eyes (that would pick up birthmarks and other skin discolourations) and during a call adjusting that around-the-eyes baseline based on real changes seen in the area of the face that is visible to the external cameras.
I’m not saying this would be in the slightest bit affordable right now but I think you are underestimating how far technology can take us given time. For instance look at how much 42” flat screen TVs cost when they first came out, they were pretty much only affordable by the 1%, whereas now I can go into my local PC/tech store and find a good range of 85” TVs I could easily afford let alone a wide range of what are almost bargain basement 65” TVs. The days of paying $15K for a 42” plasma TV in 1997 (which with inflation probably equates to over $30K in today’s money) seems ludicrous to us now - https://archive.canadianbusiness.com/technology-news/the-ode-the-plasma-television-1997-2014/
Exactly. Our iPhones has a camera that can easily take a few side photos and front facing photos to conjure up a Memoji.
Skin tone and smaller adjustments after the fact would be easier than sitting and spending hours on end adjusting a Memoji.
We can’t. But this could be another HomePod all over again. A lot more expensive than whatever currently is in use, better in some technical details while being harder to use with other people, and without software to generate excitement by early adopters. At this price point it needs a LOT of excitement to get average people to buy it. In short, what market need are they trying to fill? And why do I need Apple's solution instead of the devices already for sale, which haven’t been selling all that quickly or generating a lot of interest? I can see why I would want to use this if I don’t want who I am talking to to see my face bely my words but I don’t want them to have the same advantage when it comes to lying.
I want a holodeck style video conference. A device you set on a desk/table that projects realtime holographic images of people standing/sitting in the room next to me. No mask required. When they do that, I'm in. The headset is a kludge. They can't do the real thing so they are doing headsets in the meantime. I'll wait for the real version.
I want the phones and tablets from "The Expanse" too. Not some foldable crap.
In the interim, what I would like, is the ability to do FaceTime with my Apple TV on the 75 inch screen in my den, sitting on the couch instead of holding a phone or and iPad or sitting at a desk and that multiple people at both ends of the conversation could participate in. That sounds like something Apple could do without breaking a sweat.
I want the phones and tablets from "The Expanse" too. Not some foldable crap.
In the interim, what I would like, is the ability to do FaceTime with my Apple TV on the 75 inch screen in my den, sitting on the couch instead of holding a phone or and iPad or sitting at a desk and that multiple people at both ends of the conversation could participate in. That sounds like something Apple could do without breaking a sweat.
Last edited:
Have I missed something in the rumors?
How are they aiming for gaming? I haven't seen any rumors of controllers for this device. If they plan on only using hand tracking, that's not going to work for gaming, or at least most of them. Even right now on the Quest, the games that do implement hand tracking are limited in the controls. They have some clever ways of extending the functionality like turning your hand over or pinching your index finger and thumb or middle finger and thumb. Not a great fit for all games. Also, if they are planning on having Apple Arcade quality games, no thanks.