Kuo: Apple Mixed-Reality Headset May Not Appear at WWDC as Mass Production Pushed Back Yet Again

[Jensend]

I think Meta has already projected that it knows this direction of AR is where things will be going, I read recently about one of their headsets now offer some sort of black and white pass through so you can see around you?

The Quest Pro has stereo color video passthrough. (well, mono color camera used to color the dual grayscale cameras.
My first VR headset in 2016, the HTC Vive, had mono passthrough video.
My second VR headset I purchased in 2020, the Valve Index, has stereo color passthrough.
The Quest and Quest 2 have stereo grayscale passthrough.
The PSVR2 has stereo grayscale passthrough.
Other headsets have video passthrough.

The quality on most of these are crap, and I expect Apple's device to have much better passthrough, but maybe learn a bit about the current market before speculating?

Obviously it’s not baked at all yet but I think it’s *Apple who will set the standard industry wide for what an AR UX is like*. That goes beyond just visual UI elements, AR is going to require context aware elements and interactions, gesture navigation that actually makes ergonomic sense and is natural (no Hollywood nonsense), audio cues, etc. I’ll eat my hat if that’s not the case.

That's a big part of the reason I'm excited about this Apple device, even if there's little chance that I will buy the initial device. I hope they can help set some UX conventions.

 

[NT1440]

The Quest Pro has stereo color video passthrough. (well, mono color camera used to color the dual grayscale cameras.
My first VR headset in 2016, the HTC Vive, had mono passthrough video.
My second VR headset I purchased in 2020, the Valve Index, has stereo color passthrough.
The Quest and Quest 2 have stereo grayscale passthrough.
The PSVR2 has stereo grayscale passthrough.
Other headsets have video passthrough.

The quality on most of these are crap, and I expect Apple's device to have much better passthrough, but maybe learn a bit about the current market before speculating?


That's a big part of the reason I'm excited about this Apple device, even if there's little chance that I will buy the initial device. I hope they can help set some UX conventions.

You’re outlining what I meant. It’s a “feature” on these devices, an add-on, half baked and ******. An AR ui needs to be addition ON to reality, so that full color believable representation of the world around you (or even better once glasses arrive actual reality around you) is the *starting point* for real AR UX.

These grayscale pass through nonsense are conceptually a different thing entirely because they’re not THE point of the product first and foremost. Hopefully I’ve outlined my thinking clearly on this? It’s kind of a nebulous thing but adding pass through video to VR does not an AR device make.

 

[Jensend]

That's why I said "if this is true". Did you not read that? I don't actually believe a lot of what I read here.

Of course WWDC is software focused. Previous rumours have said that iOS (for example) will focus on bug fixes and optimization. The last few OSes have been pretty minor, not game changing. Not much of what Apple has done (aside from maybe Apple Silicon) has been game changing or significant. This is why I say WWDC is going to be a big deal.

I ignored/blocked them. They were just quoting posts from me and others and going on random unrelated rants.

 

[Jensend]

You’re outlining what I meant. It’s a “feature” on these devices, an add-on, half baked and ******. An AR ui needs to be addition ON to reality, so that full color believable representation of the world around you (or even better once glasses arrive actual reality around you) is the *starting point* for real AR UX.

These grayscale pass through nonsense are conceptually a different thing entirely because they’re not THE point of the product first and foremost. Hopefully I’ve outlined my thinking clearly on this? It’s kind of a nebulous thing but adding pass through video to VR does not an AR device make.

I don't know what I'd do with a VR headset with perfect video passthrough that I wouldn't do with my current VR headset. It would be nice if I could see my environment around me while watching a video on a virtual 150" TV screen, I suppose, but that doesn't really fundamentally change what I'd do with the headset.

I used photogrammetry to get a photorealistic scan of the room I use VR in, imported it into Unity, and lined it up with the real room. It was neat to see the room around me so accurately represented from within VR. It makes finding the couch easier. But even if I could get that in real time wherever I went in my house, I don't think it would fundamentally change how I use the device. Can you think of a use case for an average consumer at home? I'm not going to be virtually rearranging my furniture in the IKEA app, or trying different paint colors on the wall, at least not more than a couple times a year.

Maybe I am unimaginative, like people who can't think of a single use for AR/VR at all?

 

[257Loner]

Unfortunately your "reality" has both input and output that is grossly limited relative to where tech is and even moreso to where tech is going.

Tech can make us "harder, better, faster, stronger", but not wiser.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I don't know what I'd do with a VR headset with perfect video passthrough that I wouldn't do with my current VR headset. It would be nice if I could see my environment around me while watching a video on a virtual 150" TV screen, I suppose, but that doesn't really fundamentally change what I'd do with the headset.

I used photogrammetry to get a photorealistic scan of the room I use VR in, imported it into Unity, and lined it up with the real room. It was neat to see the room around me so accurately represented from within VR. It makes finding the couch easier. But even if I could get that in real time wherever I went in my house, I don't think it would fundamentally change how I use the device. Can you think of a use case for an average consumer at home? I'm not going to be virtually rearranging my furniture in the IKEA app, or trying different paint colors on the wall, at least not more than a couple times a year.

Maybe I am unimaginative, like people who can't think of a single use for AR/VR at all?

No disrespect intended, but yes I consider that unimaginative. Think ahead without constraining oneself to what one knows works (VR games and Ikea furniture and the like), or to what may be immediately salable.

Things like imagine an engineer designing SoC, visualizing from within the SoC. Or, I am a scientific diver; I can imagine being inside a critter or at a depth humans cannot go, all with real time visual data i/o that transcends our past perception of such i/o. There are a zillion such possibilities if we open up our thinking without constraining to things like "Can we sell xk units in Q4 at $4k each..."

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Tech can make us "harder, better, faster, stronger", but not wiser.

Tech gives us more/better data and better UI, which indeed should help allow us to grow wiser.

 

[NT1440]

No the tech for outright regular looking glasses isn’t there today, that’s a fact. But you set the actual AR UX in the meantime. That’s what whatever Apple is launching is going to be for in the grand scheme of things. Build a UI for today that sets the stage for the hardware that will bring it to new heights tomorrow.

The foveated lenses, processor node power draw improvements, and component miniaturization commercial trajectories are all on target to make genuinely regular looking smart AR glasses a reality in the latter half of the decade.

They’ll be here sooner than people realize. I’m not convinced that society is ready for the mainstream AR UI that is built on advertising and spamming (I’m sure that’s what Meta’s answer to Apple’s glasses will be), but I’m pretty confident the company that does this “right” is going to be Apple.

 

[Jensend]

Things like imagine an engineer designing SoC, visualizing from within the SoC. Or, I am a scientific diver; I can imagine being inside a critter or at a depth humans cannot go, all with real time visual data i/o that transcends our past perception of such i/o. There are a zillion such possibilities if we open up our thinking without constraining to things like "Can we sell xk units in Q4 at $4k each..."

I was specifically asking what video passthrough AR would bring to that. Those use cases would work with just plain old VR.

And I can think of AR use cases for when AR sets are similar in size to normal glasses and have almost full transparency.

But I'm only going to want to wear a passthrough video headset if my primary focus is on the digital content. I'm not likely to wear them if I just want to occasionally glance at extra information while doing some real world task.

I'll give one use case so I don't seem completely unimaginative: overlaying chord fingering for a guitar.

 

[Jensend]

No the tech for outright regular looking glasses isn’t there today, that’s a fact. But you set the actual AR UX in the meantime. That’s what whatever Apple is launching is going to be for in the grand scheme of things. Build a UI for today that sets the stage for the hardware that will bring it to new heights tomorrow.

The foveated lenses, processor node power draw improvements, and component miniaturization commercial trajectories are all on target to make genuinely regular looking smart AR glasses a reality in the latter half of the decade.

They’ll be here sooner than people realize. I’m not convinced that society is ready for the mainstream AR UI that is built on advertising and spamming (I’m sure that’s what Meta’s answer to Apple’s glasses will be), but I’m pretty confident the company that does this “right” is going to be Apple.

The nice thing is, you don't need an AR device to develop applications and UX for AR. You simply need to add another layer within a VR app. I could be playing Half-Life: Alyx in VR, and bring up an AR measuring app and measure things in the VR world using exactly the same code I'd use to measure things in the real world. Or place furniture, or attach a picture to the wall, etc. There is already some ability to do something like that with SteamVR.

 

[NT1440]

The nice thing is, you don't need an AR device to develop applications and UX for AR. You simply need to add another layer within a VR app. I could be playing Half-Life: Alyx in VR, and bring up an AR measuring app and measure things in the VR world using exactly the same code I'd use to measure things in the real world. Or place furniture, or attach a picture to the wall, etc. There is already some ability to do something like that with SteamVR.

There is a fundamental difference between slapping an AR UI onto a device, and designing the entire UX (far more than just visuals) as a AR *first* device. You may not agree with that, but it’s a different paradigm when considering *every* interaction has to take place in AR.

 

[itsboi]

Not sure how this thread steered to Americans not wanting to wear masks = Mixed Reality flop. A percentage of those Americans didn't want to wear masks out of pettiness, big bad government taking muh rights, or whatever politic olympics. Also I don't see how the argument,"why would people want to wear glasses?!" works when 64% of people (4 billion people apparently) wear glasses today which is the end goal form factor for AR anyway. This is a first generation headset equivalent to a Macintosh 128k.

The lack of imagination like the other user said, kinda wild and ironic since this is one of the things Apple gets flack for.

 

[itsboi]

AR is intresting for sure but let’s be real how will it change your every day life .. the answer is none, you going to wear glasses walk into a shop explore clothing .. when you can use your own eyes ? are Shops going to stop selling clothes and start using mirrors that require AR glasses ..

This is like... a concern that no one would have because clothing shops aren't going to suddenly stop selling clothes physically for you to stare at mirror with digital clothes on in an empty store losing its brand identity and homogenizing commerce. If that were the case, I'd imagine it to speed up the fitting room process if the sensors were accurate enough to determine the fit. Virtual clothing only makes sense through online shopping to get a gist of what you're buying.

What it can do is use it to identify the price tag, size, materials, whatever through AI without needing to waste paper and print labels anymore. Or see the comparative prices in other stores, alternative options. A 10 year old could have thought of this. Tech has to start somewhere. AR flopped on phones because its ease of use, user experience on such a limited form factor is not enticing or immersive enough. Your field of view is on a 5 inch display built on the most barebones building blocks whose primary intention as a device was not intended for AR. It's functional at the bare minimum, but it's like asking a photographer to use an iPhone 5 instead of a DSLR.

 

[Jensend]

There is a fundamental difference between slapping an AR UI onto a device, and designing the entire UX (far more than just visuals) as a AR *first* device. You may not agree with that, but it’s a different paradigm when considering *every* interaction has to take place in AR.

Can you give an example of an interaction or UI element that would be fundamentally different in AR than VR?

 

[Alasdair_Scott]

What leads you to believe it will cost $3K?

all the supply-chain analysts are quoting $3k as a figure based on bill of materials. Figuring a target consumer price point of $1,499 at scale, a dev kit cost of 2x makes sense.

But of course I actually have no clue except what I’ve read from German, etc!

 

[Alasdair_Scott]

Dismissal of a waist mounted battery pack as real-world inconvenient simply identifies the commenter as grossly unimaginative and negative just for the sake of being negative. Wedding photogs, for instance, used waist mounted battery packs for many decades because the value add exceeded the inconvenience. My guess is that a scientist, for instance, looking at real-time drone data while inspecting a failed nuclear power plant would also opine that the value add exceeded the inconvenience.

I agree. I use both Oculus and PSVR2 - anything that removes weight from the headset it good. A power cable is not a big deal, especially if it terminates at an external battery in your pocket.

The Apple obsession with thinness isn’t always relevant but for something you wear on your face, getting rid of excess weight is key.

 

[nt5672]

Haha 😂 if you actually believed that then you’re more gullible than first thought. wWDC 2023 will be the same as the last 5 years , it will focus on software, with the iOS , OS Mac and iPad OS shown a better connection between them and updates to music and health.

so by that logic ever brand is being destroyed, if it takes years to destroying. Your literally just saying anything to suit your argument

They are limiting their products to what teenagers want .. mmm what ? They have designed a mix of products that cater to audience. They have laptops , phones that cater to all groups , and teenagers are your future audiences so why wouldn’t you target them ? All companies target teenagers , Samsung , Sony because that’s where the money is. But apple have laptops that target high end customers phones that target high end customers.

They have so many problems so they run to media ? Again every company is in trouble then .. since everyone jumped on the media bandwagon, when Netflix came out everyone started to make shows and movies, and want the rights to it it’s called market share , your expanding your brand and audience by entering new markets and attracting new customers

You are literally not making sense. You want tech innovation yet you can’t suggest the next tech innovation because it doesn’t work. Companies are being innovative they are taken products and innovating ways to use them. Apple have taken how you use the watch to a whole new level under Tim Cook before watches smart watches where limited to just a few things now we have watches that improved health, the iPhones have been innovating how you pay for stuff , how you talk to other devices through apple OS , before all that you had to use wires ans USB pens etc. apple car now allowing a better interaction with cars before that you couldn’t even get calls to work on a car

Does apple have problems of course they do , but they are like every company. They are getting various parts of their market and expanding their Brand. You don’t just cater to one audience and focus on people who want laptops or high end products, the world has changed and how you use devices has changed.

The reality distortion field is strong with you it be.

 

[NT1440]

Can you give an example of an interaction or UI element that would be fundamentally different in AR than VR?

Taking a walk. Spotting a plant, pulling up information on it because your curious, then getting back along your way.

AR will be physically freeing (once the glasses are available). VR is by definition escapism and isolating oneself from reality.

Again, I’m not exactly rooting for these massive technological changes. I think it’s pretty clear by now that as a species we were and are not emotionally intelligent enough to handle the hyper connectivity that the internet and social media have brought.

I am, however, looking forward to an AR adblocker incorporated into legitimate AR glasses. I never asked for Pepsi signs everywhere I go, I can’t wait to block all advertising in the public sphere. That’ll be a hoot. A reverse “They Live” if you will.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Your imagination is the only place that people are paying three grand for this.

So maybe v1 is only engineers and entrepreneurs like me whose purchase intent is not ownership of an uber-functional, perfectly operating new widget, but rather to learn and to stimulate our thinking as to how we might put the new tech to use - - or how we might put the next gen of the new tech to use.

You continue to fail to grasp the concept that this is new tech and as such can largely be pure research as opposed to applied research. Probably the headset announcement when it comes will be applied research since Apple is a tech products company, but that does not deny the reality that Apple is big enough and wealthy enough to be heavily investing at the pure research level. V1 product - no matter how flawed or unprofitable - brings it to the rest of us so we too can contribute to the evolution of the tech.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Taking a walk. Spotting a plant, pulling up information on it because your curious, then getting back along your way.

AR will be physically freeing (once the glasses are available). VR is by definition escapism and isolating oneself from reality.

Or to continue your example further: Taking a walk. Spotting a plant, seeing tiny interesting critters on said plant, using the iPhone Pro 17's uber-camera to investigate macro, glean Lidar info on the critters fed back to the AR glasses, etc...

[Oh wait. I forgot that Lidar is useless. Bimbos here tell us that all the time.]

 

[257Loner]

My guess is that a scientist, for instance, looking at real-time drone data while inspecting a failed nuclear power plant would also opine that the value add exceeded the inconvenience.

That sounds like an excellent business opportunity for Microsoft, who already is developing AR headsets for the U.S. Army. Though according to Business Insider (free article here), that $22 billion deal is in jeopardy. If Microsoft is having difficulty selling AR headsets to the U.S. Army, who can Apple sell enough of these headsets to?

 

[itsboi]

Taking a walk. Spotting a plant, pulling up information on it because your curious, then getting back along your way.

AR will be physically freeing (once the glasses are available). VR is by definition escapism and isolating oneself from reality.

I’d imagine AR to be even less of a distraction than phones. Doing the thing you mentioned about plants would take a couple extra steps with phones.

Also I reckon public places to be less of a nuisance without tourists for example walking and looking down at their phones unaware of their surroundings, looking back up, looking down again at directions, restaurant reviews, or whatever. With AR, that information is just in your FOV in an instant through seamless geolocation.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

...If Microsoft is having difficulty selling AR headsets to the U.S. Army, who can Apple sell enough of these headsets to?

My point is that Apple does not necessarily need to sell enough of these headsets to make the effort long-term worthwhile. The glasses can be full-on Newton commercially, yet still be a right step to take.

 

[257Loner]

My point is that Apple does not necessarily need to sell enough of these headsets to make the effort long-term worthwhile. The glasses can be full-on Newton commercially, yet still be a right step to take.

I personally enjoy my iPhone 13 mini. In my heart of hearts I firmly believe it to be the perfect size for someone such as myself who doesn't use his phone to watch videos or play games. And yet because the iPhone 13 mini enjoyed a "Newton-level" of commercial success, Apple discontinued it. Producing the mini was the right step, I thought. But because Apple didn't sell enough of them, there won't be newer models to buy in the future. Likewise, the Apple goggles might be a fine gadget, but without enough sales they will go extinct.

 

[Jensend]

Taking a walk. Spotting a plant, pulling up information on it because your curious, then getting back along your way.

AR will be physically freeing (once the glasses are available). VR is by definition escapism and isolating oneself from reality.

Hey Siri, what plant is this? It uses eye tracking to tell what you are looking at. Still not unique to AR, though. I could do the same in a VR app while visiting a virtual museum. The only difference is the machine learning used to categorize the image of the plant.

And I think it will be quite a while before the form factor gets to the point where you’ll want to wear the tech while on a walk. Pulling out a phone to take a picture of the plant may take slightly more effort*, but is that tiny savings in effort worth wearing a device on you face for the whole walk? Once it is literally in a form factor of traditional glasses, sure. Your example doesn’t even require a screen on the device.

*but it will also be easier to take a closeup photo with a phone.

I definitely see uses for AR. I just don’t think that with current technology, the fact that Apple’s device will have better passthrough than existing headsets will significantly change use cases for the device. It may make it more convenient to use, as you won’t be as cut off from the real world, but I don’t think that would significantly change what I’d use the device for.