Oh man, this comment is one to be remembered. Can’t wait to look back on it in a few years when Apple has transformed the world once again.
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.
Kuo: Apple 'Well Prepared' for Headset Announcement Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apples and oranges. The iPod was several hundred dollars not several thousands of dollars. I also seem to remember not needing to buy a $3000 mac to get use out if it.
Most of this country’s population can’t hardly afford their groceries, you think that this will be a guaranteed buy for the bulk majority of the population or the 1-2%? Transforming the world would mean EVERYONE has access to it.
You cannot really compare the iPod with this new Apple XR thing.
When the iPod was released I was using Sony's MiniDisc system to listen to music on the go… Juggling slippery little disc cartridges was a pain! But the sound was really good. Tiny tech, gorgeous players…
Before MiniDisc I had several portable CD players… again, juggling slippery discs, scratches, jumps and jitters… but the sound was good enough to put up with those inconveniences.
Before the portable CD players I used variants of Sony's Walkman… pretty much every year since the first one was released I'd buy a new portable cassette player… The sound was… OK (But for the time it was stellar!) and it gave me the soundtrack to my life as a teenager young adult.
When iPod came along I grabbed the first one I could lay my hands on. Why? Because in one fell swoop the iPod solved all the issues the players above had. I recall (probably incorrectly) even Bill Gates back then was impressed.
The iPod was a bloody marvel.
It was the logical maturation of a concept (listening to music to while on the move) and it was fabulous! Price didn't come in to it. I paid and loved it… And kept paying every year for new models until the iPhone…
Ah, the iPhone. See the above… same. All the way from a shared farm party line, through to slimline cordless, massive stand on the table cell phones with monstrous 2 hour long battery lives… down to tiny Nokias et all…
The iPhone solved all the issues and gave me oh so much more. It changed the life of probably every person I know (whether they own an iPhone or an Android).
So…
Now, tell me what exactly am I doing today that these Apple goggles will just make better. At any price.
I mean, I love technology! I love Apple stuff (maybe not quite so much as I did when I was a single 30-something year old with loads of cash to splash) but…
Anyway. I'll wait and see. I am not a doomsayer. But I am also not a gung ho 20 something year old… I've been at these kind of rodeos before.
As I have said a few times here on MacRumours: If anyone can pull this off it will be Apple.
Exactly what this thing will be no one (outside Apple's secret circle) knows but I would love to be astonished. Bowled over. Drooling at the mouth. Peeing my pants. 🙂
I just don't see it right now.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
But I did... as I didn't already have a Mac and iPod wasn't PC friendly yet.
If you go back and look at the comments about it's price, they look just like the comments about the rumored Goggles price. Yes, inflation has not been so much that it is actually the same, but I'm talking perception vs. hard numbers. And those comments were made by Apple people AFTER the big reveal- when we all knew exactly what it was. With this product, we know almost nothing but are certain that the rumored $3K (which may not actually be the price either) is absolutely too high.
Of course it is…….🙄My reality is pretty damn awesome. Therefore, I choose not to don a AR/VR to escape it…….
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm farrrrrrrrr from fanboy myself. Look around at my posts and there is plenty that are critical of Apple. But it's very easy for me to be excited about this concept. Hopefully, it can deliver on some of the check my imagination is writing about it. If so, GREAT!
This product doesn't have to be essential to be a success. iPod and even iPhone are not essential either. For example, I don't have an iPhone and don't feel like I'm missing a thing. But iPhone is a success even if it doesn't make me pee my pants, etc.
These don't have to be for everyone to be a success. More people have Android than iPhone... far more people have Windows PC vs. Mac.
If something can show our eyes ANYTHING in a way that makes it look real... and if the companion product that already exists can play our ears anything (in support) to "fool" our hearing into believing we are "there" too, the applications of what these can do for us is far beyond anything we have now.
Perhaps you don't see it right now because there's nothing yet to see? Most of us couldn't see any sense in "a big iPod" called iPad until they were actually rolled out. What was the point of Watch before Watch was rolled out- we could do almost anything & everything it could do on the phone already with us (and still can)... and great quartz timekeeping was available for as little as a few dollars in the very well established watch market.
Critical thinker, non-fanboy me can imagine countless things these can deliver that nothing else we already have can deliver. I've shared many tangible examples in this and other Goggle threads. How much would some of us pay for an any-size screen MBpro? This might be able to deliver ANY size screen as a virtualized top half of a MBpro, putting Goggles plus the bottom half of MBpro in the laptop bag for a whole new kind of laptop computing experience. EVERY time I have to switch to using a 16" laptop screen, it feels insanely cramped and the experience is much worse vs. the desktop 40" ultra-wide on which I do most of my work. What if these let me virtualize that 40" ultra wide anywhere I want to use a laptop? Is that worth only $1K more than what I paid to park that desktop screen in one physical spot forever? Absolutely! ABSOLUTELY!
How many are thoroughly longing for an iMac bigger? Some want 27". Some want 30". Some want 32". Some want ultra-wide. What if all of those iMac screens and then some are virtualized in these goggles? How much would we spend for our desired iMac "bigger"? If Goggles could deliver what looks like iMac "bigger", it becomes iMac "bigger" ANYWHERE relatively portable and mobile Goggles can go.
How much would some of us pay for NFL ST VR (NBA, MLB, Soccer, Tennis, Hockey, NCAA, etc too)? How much would some of us pay to be able to attend all of the broadway shows if we can't easily get to NYC or can't afford all of the trips there to see all of them?
Back in post 172, I show a very real value concept: courtside tickets for sale when I posted that at $43,350 for ONE game. How much would someone not able to come up with $43,350 to actually sit in that seat, spend to virtually sit there? That would be a far superior experience to watching "for free" on our TV or Computer. If these deliver a view of reality that looks as good as reality, it could look as real as being there as actually being there.
Once you can sell ONE virtual seat for relative "peanuts", why not sell that same, prime virtual seat to others? How many others would pay peanuts to virtually sit in that same seat? How many pay for NFL ST to only watch NFL games through a 2D "window" now? How many of those would be willing to pay a bit more than they pay for NFL ST to go from watching games through a 2D Window to feeling as close to being right there as actually being there?
Sport owner makes much more money by selling phantom seats they can't jam into physical areans. Apple takes their big cut right off the top. Buyer gets "next best thing" to being there for far less than $43K... something obviously superior-to-far-superior to watching on television.
No interest in sports? How about doing the same with Concerts? How about Live theater? Opera? Ballet? Attend every Cirque show in the world? Visit every place you want to visit but can't actually afford or just can't work into a busy schedule?
That's all relatively simple stuff. There's not a mountain of brand new software to code to deliver that stuff... nor does it have to be way out in the future somewhere. What is that worth to some of us? Because it will only take "some" to make Goggles a big success... like it's a relatively small number of Mac owners that make Macs a successful business, and even mighty iPhone is not king of the smart phone market in volume.
Bottom line: maybe Goggles is not for you? And that's OK. iPhone is not for me. And that's OK too. One of those is a monster success without me. Maybe Goggles could be a big success without you?
And "just not seeing it right now" is fine too... because right now, there is nothing at all to see. We'll all be able to see something once Apple actually rolls out whatever this is. Goggles could be one big misdirection smokescreen and Apple will roll out the also-rumored car instead. Some kind of Goggles were used to work out the car's UI and the leakers misunderstood. That seems about as plausible as Goggles right now. Or perhaps this is "for another day" delivered: the all-new Mac Pro?
Last edited:
It really is. It's crazy that this somehow upsets you. Hopefully (real) life gets better for you soon! I'm pulling for you. 😁
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of what you've posted, but when it is all said and done, donning a headset and pretending you are at a Broadway show or pretending you are sitting first row on the 50 yard line at the Super Bowl is just that, pretending. You're not really there, and you didn't really go to the Super Bowl. Are you going to tell people you actually went to the Super Bowl because you put on an VR headset? I certainly hope not. Just because you put on a VR headset doesn't mean you are sitting courtside. You are sitting in your house or wherever you donned the headset, plain and simple. I guess I'm just not that into pretending, and I haven't been since I was around 11 years old. The VR experience will be nothing like actual reality in our lifetimes, and who knows how much longer after that, if ever. How would they ever handle just smell alone. Not happening. I think people want VR to be awesome so badly because their reality is not good. I'm not saying you are one of these people by the way. But someone posted a twitter response earlier in this thread about someone thanking a VR company for saving their life and their wives life. Anyone of sound mind has to wonder, what kind of life were they living prior to throwing on a VR headset.
Last edited:
Yes, and we all are playing games on our Pippins right now!
Even some of their successes are failures. I would argue that their watches are failures. It is a niche product at best. Developers are dropping like flies. The headset will be a subset of watch users, the diehards who buy anything Apple.
I’m more thinking it will be a subscription. You choose between a “retina” quality prescription service for $59.95 per month. Or you can get a blurry 720p resolution for just $29.95.Since Cook wears glasses himself, I'd bet the sun and the moon that it will accommodate glasses or offer some way to adapt for any prescription sans glasses.
Or Apple being Apple, Apple-branded lenses for Goggles will be available for "only $999 per eye" with an exclusive connector so that they are ONLY available from Apple.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right. This is in NO WAY a replacement for actually being there. And people will still strive to actually be there. I expect the $43K seat to sell, and a physical body to be sitting in it at that game even if someone could virtually sit in that same seat for $200. The experience of ACTUAL feeds the rest of our senses: you'll smell the air, you'll feel the audience, the excitement, the vibrations, etc. For some, it's about being seen THERE in person, which can't work if one is not there.
However, pretending is also every other way we watch something now when we are not there. Every movie/show we watch is not us on the set watching that being shot LIVE. Every game we watch on TV is us not actually being at the game, etc.
Is there ANYONE here who can effectively make it in person to EVERY "show" that can also be watched on TV or other screen? I doubt it. Some of us just don't have the time. Some of us don't have the accommodating schedule. Conflicts won't allow us to be in 2 places at once. Many won't have the money.
Up to now, a fallback option is to watch on some kind of screen. But this MIGHT give us a new way to watch that somewhat splits the difference: not actually there but it looks & sounds like it... certainly (seemingly) better than watching through a 2D "Window" at home or in our hands.
And for many of those examples, consumers pay a LOT of money to watch through the 2D Window. Would some of those people pay MORE for an option to not just peek through a rectangle but have the illusion of actually sitting there among fans in the best seats in the place? I have to think YES.
Millions pay up for NFL ST to NOT attend NFL games in person but get to see some games through a 2D window. Would that level of sports fan pay a bit more for NFL ST VR to project themselves into those stadiums? Now add soccer, basketball, baseball, tennis, etc and all forms of live entertainments.
Would this kill the in-person experience? No. The BEST way to view live entertainment will still be live. There are many other senses stimulated by actually being there. Live social experiences will be superior to virtual ones. But perhaps a group of people can't come up with $43K for one game and yet come up with maybe $200 to virtually attend instead. I have to think that market exists... and that it is probably sizable. Only 1 butt will be able to actually occupy that seat. But up to millions more could virtually sit there too.
And in that context, $43K vs. $3200 doesn't make $3K look so crazy (to me anyway)... especially if after the hefty initial outlay, the same "toy" can be used for upwards of at least the next few years virtual experiences for only the service fee of whatever the desired event(s) one wants to attend... but can't... or can't afford in person.
Last edited:
I see what you are saying. I know that this is just my take here, but between watching the Super Bowl at home on my TV for free with my friends and family, and strapping on a VR headset for hours, paying for my virtual seat (trust me, you'll have to pay something) and pretending I'm watching the Super Bowl live and in person via VR, I'm going to take option one every time. I have to believe that I am in the vast majority here. How is VR going to make me feel like I'm at the Super Bowl anyway outside of the screens being strapped to my head via the headset. It's not like I'm going to be looking at the actual people next to me at the game. I can't eat a hot dog or nachos unless someone makes it for me at my house or wherever I'm watching the game. I can't go buy a Super Bowl t shirt from a vendor. I just think that people are under the impression that VR is ready for primetime when it's decades or more away from anything close to a decent experience.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Actually, yes. With goggles on in this sporting event scenario, if you look left & right (or behind you), you would see fans. Even in the peripheral vision, you'll see the parts of surrounding fans as if you are sitting there. Have a look at this- particularly the segment at about 32 seconds- when a live human (player in this case) steps into your virtual view of this game from courtside. That could just as easily be a live fan in actual seats next to the VR camera...
And I agree, if it's a group party at your house or mine, the traditional way of gathering around the TV will likely win for years to come. On the other hand, what if it just you and one other friend and you both have a set of VR goggles... and you both have purchased virtual season tickets to all of the games... much like friends will buy season tickets to actual games.
You would then have the option to watch on TV or slip on your goggles and both you and them be virtually there and see each other virtually there, as if you are there together. This is basically FaceTime 3D matured into Whole Body 3D, projected into an event instead of sitting in front of a computer or iDevice.
Depending on how this works, your view of each other could be without goggles, as if you are there. The other thread showed an example in which a person's face is scanned and then that face is what shows for FaceTime calls (not avatars). If that works, this scans how we look and then dynamically animates our virtual faces and bodies to project us there as if we are there sans goggles. Our friends also in goggles see us without goggles... and we them. Here's that demo (thank's MichaelPrescott)...
In this concept you or I and her are virtually at the game. She is in goggles and you/I are in goggles. We've pre-scanned ourselves for googles experiences so we see her at the game looking like that and she sees us looking like we do (with no goggles) at the game.
Sound insane? Sound like it can't possibly happen for many years in spite of that example? Apple already scans our faces so well they can be used to securely lock and unlock Apple devices. How much of a leap is it from that detailed scan already on file for YEARS to slugging in that same face (our face) for this kind of use? Seems short tech hop to me.
As to not being able to buy hot dogs & t-shirts at the event, you are right. You can't. This is not actually being there. However, no one else who is not at the Super Bowl in person can do that either... which is almost ALL of the people who watch the Super Bowl... more than 99% of the people who watch the Super Bowl can't buy a hot dog or t-shirt there already.
And I agree, if it's a group party at your house or mine, the traditional way of gathering around the TV will likely win for years to come. On the other hand, what if it just you and one other friend and you both have a set of VR goggles... and you both have purchased virtual season tickets to all of the games... much like friends will buy season tickets to actual games.
You would then have the option to watch on TV or slip on your goggles and both you and them be virtually there and see each other virtually there, as if you are there together. This is basically FaceTime 3D matured into Whole Body 3D, projected into an event instead of sitting in front of a computer or iDevice.
Depending on how this works, your view of each other could be without goggles, as if you are there. The other thread showed an example in which a person's face is scanned and then that face is what shows for FaceTime calls (not avatars). If that works, this scans how we look and then dynamically animates our virtual faces and bodies to project us there as if we are there sans goggles. Our friends also in goggles see us without goggles... and we them. Here's that demo (thank's MichaelPrescott)...
In this concept you or I and her are virtually at the game. She is in goggles and you/I are in goggles. We've pre-scanned ourselves for googles experiences so we see her at the game looking like that and she sees us looking like we do (with no goggles) at the game.
Sound insane? Sound like it can't possibly happen for many years in spite of that example? Apple already scans our faces so well they can be used to securely lock and unlock Apple devices. How much of a leap is it from that detailed scan already on file for YEARS to slugging in that same face (our face) for this kind of use? Seems short tech hop to me.
As to not being able to buy hot dogs & t-shirts at the event, you are right. You can't. This is not actually being there. However, no one else who is not at the Super Bowl in person can do that either... which is almost ALL of the people who watch the Super Bowl... more than 99% of the people who watch the Super Bowl can't buy a hot dog or t-shirt there already.
Last edited:
The first video just looks like a POV video of a basketball game and not VR to me. That doesn't make me feel anymore at the game than watching it on my TV would. Anyway, I'm not saying the idea isn't fascinating and that there won't be a use for it at all. However, I think the excitement of what could be is clouding what the reality of AR/VR is right now. I've tried several VR headsets going back to the original Oculus Rift and I have been extremely disappointed every time. In 10 to 20 years I'm sure it will be a different story. Hopefully Apple can bring something to the table that no one else has yet.
Agreed with all of this. When the iPod came out, there were already music players on the market. A portable music player was already a mainstream consumer device. When the iPhone came out, phones were already a huge market. The main criticism of the iPod was that it was a trivial product that "tech nerds" didn't care about; the main criticism of the iPhone was that it didn't have a keyboard. In both cases, the criticism wasn't "there's no market for this". VR/AR goggles are currently not popular. They are incredibly niche. This isn't a better version of something that's already mainstream. It's potentially a better version of something that hasn't seen mainstream adoption yet. Will this be the turning point when VR/AR goggles become the new hit product that everyone has to have? I don't know, that's what we're going to find out. But this isn't really directly comparable to any past Apple product. We can't determine how popular or unpopular it will be based on previous releases from Apple. This is something entirely new.
2023 is shaping up to the year of AI. Apple is betting it's going to be the year of AR/VR. I guess we'll see if they bet on the right horse.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's because you are not in goggles. What's different in that first video vs. most YouTube videos and anything on a TV is you can click in it and drag it around to see things around you. Try it: look left, right, up and down (by dragging while it plays). Things you can't see by not dragging become visible because you are simulating looking in whatever direction you choose.
In Goggles you would just look around (no click, no drag). AND, in goggles you wouldn't be looking through a 2D rectangle: your entire vision would be filled with stuff surrounding where your eyes are focused. The illusion that you ARE there would be maximized because nothing in your full range of vision would see anything other than sights as if you are there.
For example, sitting at the game, your periphery can probably see your own lap, some of the person sitting left of you, some right, and much of what is up above your focus on the court (a chunk of the scoreboard hanging up there? Maybe the top of the arena). Can't replicate that right now because we generally view all video in a 2D Window of the game.
There's an old saying that seems relevant right here: "The frog down in the well thinks the sky is small because they see only the little circle of sky at the top of the well. If they surface, they will have an entirely new view."
When I look left of the edge of that video, I see the wall that is to the left of my monitor. But in goggles, there is no wall, there is no monitor, there is no desk or keyboard under the monitor. All of the visuals I can see by dragging around in that VR movie can fill in all of the space where there is no game view while watching it this way.
That's what they mean by immersion. You're IN there, not OUT here, looking through what could be thought of as a window into the game. Other people are choosing what we see by selecting exactly what will show inside that rectangular frame. If you are watching something and would like to look up at the scoreboard, you have no power to do that. Either the producer happens to show the board right then or you are not seeing it.
In goggles, you just look and it's there. Crazy streaker running onto the field? You'll never see that in the TV "window." VR viewer would have the same "power" as fans who are there. You look and you see whatever you want to see, exactly as you could if you were actually there. "Look at the blimp up there!" VR you look, TV you only get to see if the producer decides to show it to you. Watch all the little shows that live attendees get to see while commercials are running for those watching on TV. VR probably lets you see all of that. TV will show you the commercials.
Basically, we are all the frog down in the well in all the ways we watch video now. It will look very different if we surface and discover that there is far more to see there.
Last edited:
Right, I've worn several VR headsets but what I am saying is this doesn't make me feel anymore at the game than watching it on TV does, because I'm not at the game either way. It might be more immersive overall, but I still don't feel like I'm really there. Anyway, I appreciate our discussion and I enjoy listening to different view points. It's not about right or wrong to me, it's about learning and broadening horizons.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Seems plausible to me for 2 reasons:
- All rumors and logic implies that these will need a great deal of intense processing to work better than existing competition. M-series offers great power while demanding low energy. This could be where PPW matters most. M3 will be able to deliver more processing punch while sipping even less energy. That seems very important to this type of product.
- Rumors of late are implying big reveal at WWDC but not launching until "this Fall" or later. By this Fall or later, M3 may be ready to roll (some still think maybe the rumored air just might go M3 at WWDC). Apple will certainly have functional M3s by now in limited quantities, so this could use M3 for the demos and then go with M3 when M3 is ready to roll out in volume later this year or early next.
Last edited: