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
Buy one, leave it sealed. Earn millions in 40 years? Is that the plan everyone!!?
People are going to be dazzled by the tech, disappointed by the lack of any content, and shocked by the price. Apple's strategy is to get this into the hands of developers to create content, not consumers. As an AR developer I will be picking one up, but realize that it will take a device around $1k with some killer content before consumers are going to buy it. By that time Meta might have something very competitive that is compatible with its vast library of VR content. Should be interesting.
And once Tim reads that, he's buying the company up. Expect a launch in 2040!
I grew up in the 80's as well, but my experience was different. While I spent some time watching TV and playing video games, I spent the rest of the time socializing, mostly in person and some on the telephone, and playing outside. Growing up, there was a lot of socializing going on around the television as well, be it watching the tonight show or cheers with my family and sometimes friends, or watching boxing matches and other sporting events with friends/family. For video games I'd play couch co-op with my brother or play in tournaments (Street Fighter, etc.) with my friends...in person. All of this to say that my experience was far different than what kids experience today. Again, it's not all bad though, as long as kids aren't completely cut off from social interactions.
How do they show how sharp a Retina display is during a keynote?
Show it in 3rd person. A video of the person, with the 3D rendered UI surrounding them.
As I shared in the other thread, do something like this, but with higher production value:
I've been to an OmniMax theater, it's nothing like VR, except the photospheres in Google Earth VR. If anything, it will give people the wrong idea of how VR feels. One of the most "magic" parts of VR is manipulating nearby objects directly with your hands (even if they are holding controllers). You can't convey that with a screen that is several meters away.
I've sculpted VR worlds collaboratively. VR can be a great opportunity for creative collaboration. I find that much more valuable than passively watching TV. I just don't want to see it packed with micro-transactions and in-game currencies and all the crap that has infested the App Store.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I appreciate the "watch other people use goggles" video and idea. But at least for me, it doesn't hardly do anything to get me excited. It's like the approach of showing kids videos of other kids playing with toys. Yes, it's better than nothing but I doubt the kids not "there" gain much of an actual sense of the toy... just maybe that other kids seem to be having fun with the toy.
This seems like maybe there's some kind of psychological "envy" play at work... like the audience is intended to wish they were one of those lucky 4 people having those experiences with the goggles??? Again, better than nothing, but at least for me, that doesn't hardly do anything for me. Most of the pizzazz shown in there is not really the goggles but the choice of games and VR characters (like robot dogs and dinosaurs) they put into the demo. A cynical person could imagine that the goggles aren't working at all and that this is 4 actors seeing text messages to guide their "reactions" like movie actors in super hero films not actually fighting monsters & dragons... but just acting & reacting against chroma screens (where the rest of the film is filled in later).
How would Apple's version of this be? I'm picturing "friends of Apple" so-called "influencers" playing with goggles (much like these 4 people) and, of course (automatically) loving every bit of the experience, gushing and praising EVERYTHING... which is part of that very lucrative deal of pre-release access to get all the early eyeballs seeing all those ads and thus making them lots of money. Of course, they don't want to lose that gravy train. So of course, they will love it. if iJustine is one of the 4 people chosen, I have ZERO doubt she'll say anything negative no matter what is actually happening... and I might even resent this presentation choice vs. feeling the target(?) of envy wishing it could be me. Why? Because I know that THAT is just a big show.
Might as well make that video have Apple's own known personalities using the goggles and loving them... because they certainly would in any video that Apple chooses to create like that.
So while I can appreciate the demo being this "third person" view of other people experiencing "something" in goggles, I stand by the Omnimax concept simply because that would offer a demo where the audience could feel like they are the 4 people with goggles on. Yes, it would be a controlled demo that would NOT have individual interactions but it would also break the 2D wall that THIS is still very much presenting, demonstrating immersion much better than can be accomplished in any 2D screen.
Recall Jobs presentation in which he demonstrated iPhone. Jobs was the one demonstrating touch. That worked on a 2D screen because that experience is a 2D experience. So no, that audience couldn't pinch & zoom the gigantic iPhone screen being shown to them to experience doing the pinch, zoom, swipe themselves. But they could feel as close as possible to being Jobs and using his hand to interact with the interface.
It was- in effect- watch Jobs "play" with the iPhone. But Jobs demo put them as "in there" as possible. We didn't watch as third parties while Jobs would do something and react with delight to accomplishing something. He let us see what he was doing to make things happen. It was as close to touching that phone ourselves as we could get as a group.
How do you do that here? Cook or someone else could try to stand in for Jobs. But in a 3D UI, how do you demonstrate that to an audience like they are there. I don't see that in a 2D screen. I don't see that working well as a third party. Put me in there and let me see the 3D space myself. Someone else can "drive the car" to demonstrate a UI, but if I'm in there with them, I can follow along like I'm the one doing the interacting. If I'm outside, I don't really know for sure if what the video is showing me is what they are seeing in the goggles. Maybe I'm just watching Iron Man and company fight hordes of aliens pouring out of the sky, all added in later by the Special Effects team.
Perhaps my imagination is not big enough to fully "get" a demo's punch by only seeing other people using goggles? But that's OK. In my- perhaps limited- imagination, I still find myself thinking if I was doing the demo myself, I probably line up those Omnimax theaters and take my audience inside faux goggles at least SOME... with some 2D commercials and perhaps some of this third person observation sprinkled in here and there too. That's easy to do on Omnimax screens.
My idea is clearly not going to happen or we would already know about it so we could- if desired- be making reservations at the nearest Omnimax theater. I'm just offering my best thinking about how I might demo a 3D interface and some goggles experiences with goggles ON in a situation where I want to control what my audience of many people see... but also very clearly illustrate how this is not another computing device that revolves around a 2D display of some sort.
Since "my" WWDC audience is dominated by much of the media, I need these people to be towards shocked that this is not some kind of upgraded Mac or some kind of new iPhone. This is an entirely different thing. I need them to quickly grasp that as a group. 1000 stories will be published BEFORE they get out of the hall and get to actually try real goggles for 5 minutes. I would want those first 1000 stories to be positively "freaking out" at the key differences of this from everything else I've ever seen from Apple. If the stories is mostly, "I got to watch iJustine petting a dinosaur and it looked cool" I'm not so sure that comes close to hitting the apparent target at least I'd be seeking if it was me running the demo.
After all, I could fire up an old game on an old iPhone and see a Pokémon in my own local park.
This seems like maybe there's some kind of psychological "envy" play at work... like the audience is intended to wish they were one of those lucky 4 people having those experiences with the goggles??? Again, better than nothing, but at least for me, that doesn't hardly do anything for me. Most of the pizzazz shown in there is not really the goggles but the choice of games and VR characters (like robot dogs and dinosaurs) they put into the demo. A cynical person could imagine that the goggles aren't working at all and that this is 4 actors seeing text messages to guide their "reactions" like movie actors in super hero films not actually fighting monsters & dragons... but just acting & reacting against chroma screens (where the rest of the film is filled in later).
How would Apple's version of this be? I'm picturing "friends of Apple" so-called "influencers" playing with goggles (much like these 4 people) and, of course (automatically) loving every bit of the experience, gushing and praising EVERYTHING... which is part of that very lucrative deal of pre-release access to get all the early eyeballs seeing all those ads and thus making them lots of money. Of course, they don't want to lose that gravy train. So of course, they will love it. if iJustine is one of the 4 people chosen, I have ZERO doubt she'll say anything negative no matter what is actually happening... and I might even resent this presentation choice vs. feeling the target(?) of envy wishing it could be me. Why? Because I know that THAT is just a big show.
Might as well make that video have Apple's own known personalities using the goggles and loving them... because they certainly would in any video that Apple chooses to create like that.
So while I can appreciate the demo being this "third person" view of other people experiencing "something" in goggles, I stand by the Omnimax concept simply because that would offer a demo where the audience could feel like they are the 4 people with goggles on. Yes, it would be a controlled demo that would NOT have individual interactions but it would also break the 2D wall that THIS is still very much presenting, demonstrating immersion much better than can be accomplished in any 2D screen.
Recall Jobs presentation in which he demonstrated iPhone. Jobs was the one demonstrating touch. That worked on a 2D screen because that experience is a 2D experience. So no, that audience couldn't pinch & zoom the gigantic iPhone screen being shown to them to experience doing the pinch, zoom, swipe themselves. But they could feel as close as possible to being Jobs and using his hand to interact with the interface.
It was- in effect- watch Jobs "play" with the iPhone. But Jobs demo put them as "in there" as possible. We didn't watch as third parties while Jobs would do something and react with delight to accomplishing something. He let us see what he was doing to make things happen. It was as close to touching that phone ourselves as we could get as a group.
How do you do that here? Cook or someone else could try to stand in for Jobs. But in a 3D UI, how do you demonstrate that to an audience like they are there. I don't see that in a 2D screen. I don't see that working well as a third party. Put me in there and let me see the 3D space myself. Someone else can "drive the car" to demonstrate a UI, but if I'm in there with them, I can follow along like I'm the one doing the interacting. If I'm outside, I don't really know for sure if what the video is showing me is what they are seeing in the goggles. Maybe I'm just watching Iron Man and company fight hordes of aliens pouring out of the sky, all added in later by the Special Effects team.
Perhaps my imagination is not big enough to fully "get" a demo's punch by only seeing other people using goggles? But that's OK. In my- perhaps limited- imagination, I still find myself thinking if I was doing the demo myself, I probably line up those Omnimax theaters and take my audience inside faux goggles at least SOME... with some 2D commercials and perhaps some of this third person observation sprinkled in here and there too. That's easy to do on Omnimax screens.
My idea is clearly not going to happen or we would already know about it so we could- if desired- be making reservations at the nearest Omnimax theater. I'm just offering my best thinking about how I might demo a 3D interface and some goggles experiences with goggles ON in a situation where I want to control what my audience of many people see... but also very clearly illustrate how this is not another computing device that revolves around a 2D display of some sort.
Since "my" WWDC audience is dominated by much of the media, I need these people to be towards shocked that this is not some kind of upgraded Mac or some kind of new iPhone. This is an entirely different thing. I need them to quickly grasp that as a group. 1000 stories will be published BEFORE they get out of the hall and get to actually try real goggles for 5 minutes. I would want those first 1000 stories to be positively "freaking out" at the key differences of this from everything else I've ever seen from Apple. If the stories is mostly, "I got to watch iJustine petting a dinosaur and it looked cool" I'm not so sure that comes close to hitting the apparent target at least I'd be seeking if it was me running the demo.
After all, I could fire up an old game on an old iPhone and see a Pokémon in my own local park.
Last edited:
The oily foreheads problem can be solved but meeting the demands for trying it out will be a different story. People will go to the store just to check out the new hyped tech. I predict that they will have to reserve a trying-out spot in advance. I may eventually be interested in doing so but not until the set drops below $699 …
I've demoed VR to people in real life. The reactions in that video match up with what I've seen. And those people in the video are actually seeing the virtual environment. They aren't simply acting like they can see the environment.
I didn't post that video for any other reason than to show how filming from a 3rd person perspective would work. I'm not making any suggestion that Apple should show off first reactions to the device. It could just as well be Apple employees showing off all the features.
But OmniMax feels nothing like using AR/VR! And even if it did, I don't know why'd they'd invest in a marketing method that only a few hundred people would see rather than the millions of people who will stream the Apple Keynote at home.
If they want to show it to a few hundred people, they'd do better to do individual demos of the actual device, even if they had to schedule them over a couple week long time period.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's funny because I've been in goggles and the view within them reminded me of the view on Omnimax screens... that every bit of vision I had had some "picture" in it... including the extreme periphery. If I looked left or right to see what was that thing moving "over there," I would see something over there come into primary focus.
There are tons of 3D VR videos posted on YouTube right now. I can watch them and imagine them with goggles on because I've had experiences with goggles on. However, if I didn't know what it's like, I might see those videos as looking weird/warped/not very good.
Hopefully the WWDC audience has already had experiences with VR so that if Apple chooses to show a video of other people experiencing goggles, they can imagine what its like being those other people.
As to reactions, yes, I believe those 4 people were probably seeing what we were being shown and those were real actions & reactions. But look at the incredible pessimism and cynicism about this product in this thread... on a site loaded with very passionate fans of Apple. How hard would it be for these very pessimistic (about this product) people to NOT believe that what we're being shown is what an iJustine or an Apple personality is actually seeing in the Goggles?
I think some of this demo has to simply convince people that there is something very significantly new and different here. Given the nature of the core of what this thing is, the first thing I would want to do is break the 2D limitations we are all accustomed to in every other Apple product.
Maybe it would be a bit of "here's what Justine is experiencing and how she's loving every bit of it" and then flip to "and here's what it looks like to her." I sort of see that in that demo video... but again, I'm seeing her view on a 2D screen in another 2D screen. I'm not seeing that she is immersed and that even her periphery has visual stuff in it.
Ever watch a movie originally made for 3D glasses in 2D. It always looks weird. Why? Because one of the big punches of it is stripped away. Is it not most core to this goggles concept that we are immersed in them? If so, how do you get a whole audience of size to have the most comparable sense of that too? I lack the imagination range to picture that on a 2D screen. I'll see how Apple tries to do it in a few weeks.
For me anyway, I suspect that that kind of demo will be Apple dazzling, but it will leave this sense of needing to try the actual goggles on to fully "get it." If so, all that media that is there may publish a ton of WWDC stories not quite getting it yet... also needing to actually try goggles on themselves to much more fully get it. But again, maybe my imagination is too limited.
Last edited:
…Stuff I said in 2007 when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone. “I already have a phone. I already have an iPod. You’ll never catch me buying that thing.”
Ok, I guess this is what our disagreement is stemming from. Almost all of your examples have been about 180° (or 360) stereoscopic video. OmniMax is good for 180° video. I don't believe any of the domes can also offer 3D over the whole dome, though.
Although the Apple headset will allow you to watch content like this, I think it would be vastly over-powered for a device that offered that as a primary use case. For that use case, you could use something like the $199 Oculus Go (discontinued). Apple could easily offer a much improved version of the Go for under $1000 if they saw that as THE main use case.
Maybe OmniMax would be good to show off a VR nature documentary coming to Apple TV+, but that's really just showing off content, not how you interact with the device and the virtual environment, and that's the area that Apple innovation will be important.
Finally a nice rendered pic at the top of the article!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, if you want to show a movie made for Omnimax in goggles capable of showing the full "half dome", it would presumably look just like an omnimax movie looks.
But that's NOT the point. Let me try it more simply. Here's a VR ride on a roller coaster on a 2D screen...
Now you with a history of demonstrating VR and me with some history of experiencing it both know we can do something different with this video. We can click on it and drag the video around to see left, right, up down, even behind us. And because we already know the VR experience, we know that instead of clicking and dragging, we can just look around and have those same views with goggles on.
We also know that the peripheral vision will be seeing more off the left & right up and down than we can see in the 2D frame of the video... that some of what is out of sight to the left will actually be visible if we were watching this with goggles on (we'd see "over there" in our peripheral vision).
Watch this video with goggles on and it very much looks like we are on this ride. Anywhere and everywhere we might look will show us sights as if we are actually there.
However, to the audience only getting to see this on a 2D screen, does any of this look any more immersive than this looks on whatever screen we are using now? No. Because what is to our left, right, up and down is not the view of the surroundings of the view we have on the coaster but whatever else is around the 2D screen around our own computer or mobile device. If we're sitting with friends and one is right over the rim of our phone, his or her head is just above the coaster track, not the sky. We're not immersed. We're watching yet another video on a phone.
It's the same if we don't make it as passive (experience) as this. Let's walk with dinosaurs. Our peripheral could see that there is a dinosaur coming up on the left long before it gets out in front of us so it shows in our 2D window of the world. If we click and drag so we can look left, we can discover it there too. But we can already do that on whatever device we are using right now. There's no magic to that. I'm clearly not there. I'm wherever I actually am looking through a rectangular window into a 3D world of dinosaurs.
Apparently there is a new 3D UI in these Goggles. If I get to see that UI only through a 2D window, do I really get it? If I see it in a 2D window, I can see the EXACT same view on any 2D screen I already own. It will look just as 3D there as it does in the demo. So what's so magical about Goggles?
You and I know because we already know what having Goggles on can do. Does the audience already have the experiences so they can take that leap that even though what they are seeing is being shown on a 2D screen, they can project themselves into it as if they have Goggles on... so they can better imagine the roller coaster ride, better imagine walking with dinosaurs and/or using the interface?
In an Ominmax half dome, I could illustrate that with various bits of the presentation that is breaking the 2D "Window" view. In Cupertino where I only have a big 2D window, I don't envision a demo being any more immersive than the roller coaster one I just shared, or walking with dinosaurs viewed the same way, or any 3D world AAA game that people have played for years now... or even a brand new 3D interface.
In my head, I need to put the audience in the goggles. I can't in a typical group presentation like WWDC. So what's next best thing? I don't think that is using a 2D screen for the whole demo. I sometimes need them to feel like they are immersed in whatever I am showing... like they have goggles on.
Would there still be room for 2D elements and the inevitable 2D TV commercials they want to show. Of course, Omnimax has no trouble isolating a rectangular 2D window out front that looks much like any other 2D theater screen. I wish I could find an Omnimax intro reel to somewhat illustrate but the next best thing is an IMAX intro reel where the opening bit (to about the 8) in the countdown is a small rectangle that then expands out into an immersive view.
Obviously, IMAX is not half dome immersive but also a gigantic 2D flat screen out front but if this was an Omnimax demo, as one is flying through numbers and such, those holes & edges, etc would been the periphery such that you would feel as if you are flying through 3D objects instead of your periphery seeing the edges of the screen, some of the walls, maybe some speakers, steps, rails, etc. of the theater.
I fully grant that Omnimax screens could not fully demo VR either... but- in my head- it could better punch the immersion... that THIS product is not limited to a rectangular window out in front of us to show us whatever we are wanting to see. And in a controlled demo, I could tell people I want to look left to see what we hear over there and discover the dinosaur or tell them I'm turning my head around to see who else is on this roller coaster with us. Yes, their heads would be fixed looking into the dome, but their view (all of what their eyes could see) would be the view that I describe and it would be very clear to them that we are not looking through a 2D window out in front of us with this product... unlike every other major product they've ever seen from Apple.
Again, I fully understand an Ominmax demo is not going to happen... that the dazzle is going to try to be in Cupertino on a 2D screen... and I'm sure it will be impressive. I just can't quite picture HOW it will really get the PUNCH if all of the immersion potential is viewed through a 2D screen. All of us have seen 3D worlds in 2D screens for many years now. What can be shown only in a 2D screen that really screams how different this product is from everything else? I don't know.
Those guys are paid millions in part to come up with engaging product launches. I am not. If it WAS me, I want to try to put this big audience filled with influential media players fully inside the goggles. I can do this for the 5 minute demos after the big show but a 1000 stories about the goggles will already be published by then. Will they pretty fully "get it" if everything they've seen is not immersive but through a 2D window into the 3D worlds available with goggles on? Again, I don't know.
But that's NOT the point. Let me try it more simply. Here's a VR ride on a roller coaster on a 2D screen...
Now you with a history of demonstrating VR and me with some history of experiencing it both know we can do something different with this video. We can click on it and drag the video around to see left, right, up down, even behind us. And because we already know the VR experience, we know that instead of clicking and dragging, we can just look around and have those same views with goggles on.
We also know that the peripheral vision will be seeing more off the left & right up and down than we can see in the 2D frame of the video... that some of what is out of sight to the left will actually be visible if we were watching this with goggles on (we'd see "over there" in our peripheral vision).
Watch this video with goggles on and it very much looks like we are on this ride. Anywhere and everywhere we might look will show us sights as if we are actually there.
However, to the audience only getting to see this on a 2D screen, does any of this look any more immersive than this looks on whatever screen we are using now? No. Because what is to our left, right, up and down is not the view of the surroundings of the view we have on the coaster but whatever else is around the 2D screen around our own computer or mobile device. If we're sitting with friends and one is right over the rim of our phone, his or her head is just above the coaster track, not the sky. We're not immersed. We're watching yet another video on a phone.
It's the same if we don't make it as passive (experience) as this. Let's walk with dinosaurs. Our peripheral could see that there is a dinosaur coming up on the left long before it gets out in front of us so it shows in our 2D window of the world. If we click and drag so we can look left, we can discover it there too. But we can already do that on whatever device we are using right now. There's no magic to that. I'm clearly not there. I'm wherever I actually am looking through a rectangular window into a 3D world of dinosaurs.
Apparently there is a new 3D UI in these Goggles. If I get to see that UI only through a 2D window, do I really get it? If I see it in a 2D window, I can see the EXACT same view on any 2D screen I already own. It will look just as 3D there as it does in the demo. So what's so magical about Goggles?
You and I know because we already know what having Goggles on can do. Does the audience already have the experiences so they can take that leap that even though what they are seeing is being shown on a 2D screen, they can project themselves into it as if they have Goggles on... so they can better imagine the roller coaster ride, better imagine walking with dinosaurs and/or using the interface?
In an Ominmax half dome, I could illustrate that with various bits of the presentation that is breaking the 2D "Window" view. In Cupertino where I only have a big 2D window, I don't envision a demo being any more immersive than the roller coaster one I just shared, or walking with dinosaurs viewed the same way, or any 3D world AAA game that people have played for years now... or even a brand new 3D interface.
In my head, I need to put the audience in the goggles. I can't in a typical group presentation like WWDC. So what's next best thing? I don't think that is using a 2D screen for the whole demo. I sometimes need them to feel like they are immersed in whatever I am showing... like they have goggles on.
Would there still be room for 2D elements and the inevitable 2D TV commercials they want to show. Of course, Omnimax has no trouble isolating a rectangular 2D window out front that looks much like any other 2D theater screen. I wish I could find an Omnimax intro reel to somewhat illustrate but the next best thing is an IMAX intro reel where the opening bit (to about the 8) in the countdown is a small rectangle that then expands out into an immersive view.
Obviously, IMAX is not half dome immersive but also a gigantic 2D flat screen out front but if this was an Omnimax demo, as one is flying through numbers and such, those holes & edges, etc would been the periphery such that you would feel as if you are flying through 3D objects instead of your periphery seeing the edges of the screen, some of the walls, maybe some speakers, steps, rails, etc. of the theater.
I fully grant that Omnimax screens could not fully demo VR either... but- in my head- it could better punch the immersion... that THIS product is not limited to a rectangular window out in front of us to show us whatever we are wanting to see. And in a controlled demo, I could tell people I want to look left to see what we hear over there and discover the dinosaur or tell them I'm turning my head around to see who else is on this roller coaster with us. Yes, their heads would be fixed looking into the dome, but their view (all of what their eyes could see) would be the view that I describe and it would be very clear to them that we are not looking through a 2D window out in front of us with this product... unlike every other major product they've ever seen from Apple.
Again, I fully understand an Ominmax demo is not going to happen... that the dazzle is going to try to be in Cupertino on a 2D screen... and I'm sure it will be impressive. I just can't quite picture HOW it will really get the PUNCH if all of the immersion potential is viewed through a 2D screen. All of us have seen 3D worlds in 2D screens for many years now. What can be shown only in a 2D screen that really screams how different this product is from everything else? I don't know.
Those guys are paid millions in part to come up with engaging product launches. I am not. If it WAS me, I want to try to put this big audience filled with influential media players fully inside the goggles. I can do this for the 5 minute demos after the big show but a 1000 stories about the goggles will already be published by then. Will they pretty fully "get it" if everything they've seen is not immersive but through a 2D window into the 3D worlds available with goggles on? Again, I don't know.
Last edited:
Haha 😂, been commenting on this story previously, so here we have it a month before the big event and the so called experts are now arguing with one another one is saying they are fully ready to unveil it and another saying it’s delayed… drum roll .. next week story will emerge it’s delayed.
Been saying it since day one and will say it again, this AR/VR headset will not make an appearance, it’s all just fan boy internet garbage. Apple have done they research , and it’s shown that AR is falling from a great height, even PSVR2 is not shifting units , apple are not going to show off a brand new 3000 quid device when half of the world is a cost of living crisis and they know for a fact the phone market is going up in prices too. Anyone with a brain will tell you to hold off.
Been saying it since day one and will say it again, this AR/VR headset will not make an appearance, it’s all just fan boy internet garbage. Apple have done they research , and it’s shown that AR is falling from a great height, even PSVR2 is not shifting units , apple are not going to show off a brand new 3000 quid device when half of the world is a cost of living crisis and they know for a fact the phone market is going up in prices too. Anyone with a brain will tell you to hold off.
What have you used? Have you used a device with tracked controllers and/or hand tracking? Because your descriptions sound like someone who has only experienced Google Cardboard style VR.
A lot of the fun of VR is interacting with things at close range. A virtual drumset. Mini-golf. Punching or slicing targets. Painting. Sculpting.
I mean, I get your point about physically turning your head to look around instead of panning the view on a phone with your finger, but I'd guess that the majority of people who will be in-person at WWDC will likely have tried some form of VR... and you only need a few seconds in a headset to experience how the visuals work.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can't think of any group demonstration way to get individual members of the audience interacting with things... like playing virtual drums. So the one guy on stage doing the demonstration would have to play the virtual drums and the audience would only see what he is seeing. Audience looking into the dome could see the drums and see an overlay of him playing those drums... or maybe an AR overlay of his arms playing the drums so it looks just like his (presumed) view.
To deliver that level of VR "fun" seems to beg for the one-on-one demos, which will come AFTER the big event. I want to get them stirred before the end, so that first batch of countless, somewhat, pre-written stories is freaking out at the revolution of Apple Goggles.
The same with the rumored UI. Demonstrator will be "playing" the UI like playing the virtual drums. It would seem to me that the audience needs to see it like he/she does... not on a 2D screen showing a 3D UI. Else, it doesn't look any different than any imagined 3D interface on any screen we already have. Here's a random mockup of a 3D interface...
Tadah, there it is on the 2D screen we're looking at right now. Now we know in goggles we can interact with it as if it is an interface that may be up to all around us. We might be able to step through layers of it, or swipe it around us. But on a 2D screen for a group demo. it will look as it looks right there. Since the viewer can see it now on the device they already have, what's so special about seeing it in Goggles?
Now imagine it in the dome. Presenter could swipe some bit to the left and it slides over to the left, well out of the view of the 2D rectangle shown above, but still in the periphery. Presenter could say he/she is going to look to the right and the view would shift to the right as they look to show UI elements "over there" not currently visible at all through the 2D window above, but yes, there is a bunch of UI tools "over there" too.
I can't quite picture the punch if it's all group presented on a 2D screen. Yes, we can see people who have used Goggles gushing at it (as they do every product), we can watch other people using goggles and reacting to whatever they are seeing in them, we can see 3D presentations inside the 2D window, etc. But ALL of that will look exactly the same on our iPhone or Mac or TV too. So why Goggles? The demo needs to show them why. And I think it needs to break the 2D view to easily do so.
In this hypothetical dome, they can have their full range of vision engaged... more like goggles are ON instead of having to imagine goggles are on while looking at 2D screen demonstrations. Instead of requiring them to take a leap of imagination, strive to reduce the chasm.
Again, look through ANY goggles thread at what passionate Apple fans think about Goggles. We- the "think different" crowd- seem to be struggling with imagining what is possible with these. Pessimism is rampant. And there is very little to hinder our imaginations right now since so little is actually known. For all we know, this could be a new Mac Pro with M20 processors for "only $3K."
If this crowd can't imagine very big and positive (and unique) things we can do with these, I don't know if I want to leave so much to not-quite-so-passionate members of the press, etc imaginations. Make it a stunning show. Blow their minds... instead of hoping they can imagine enough to blow their own minds. How? I go right back into the dome screen to fake a few things that don't seem possible any other way in a group presentation like this.
To deliver that level of VR "fun" seems to beg for the one-on-one demos, which will come AFTER the big event. I want to get them stirred before the end, so that first batch of countless, somewhat, pre-written stories is freaking out at the revolution of Apple Goggles.
The same with the rumored UI. Demonstrator will be "playing" the UI like playing the virtual drums. It would seem to me that the audience needs to see it like he/she does... not on a 2D screen showing a 3D UI. Else, it doesn't look any different than any imagined 3D interface on any screen we already have. Here's a random mockup of a 3D interface...
Tadah, there it is on the 2D screen we're looking at right now. Now we know in goggles we can interact with it as if it is an interface that may be up to all around us. We might be able to step through layers of it, or swipe it around us. But on a 2D screen for a group demo. it will look as it looks right there. Since the viewer can see it now on the device they already have, what's so special about seeing it in Goggles?
Now imagine it in the dome. Presenter could swipe some bit to the left and it slides over to the left, well out of the view of the 2D rectangle shown above, but still in the periphery. Presenter could say he/she is going to look to the right and the view would shift to the right as they look to show UI elements "over there" not currently visible at all through the 2D window above, but yes, there is a bunch of UI tools "over there" too.
I can't quite picture the punch if it's all group presented on a 2D screen. Yes, we can see people who have used Goggles gushing at it (as they do every product), we can watch other people using goggles and reacting to whatever they are seeing in them, we can see 3D presentations inside the 2D window, etc. But ALL of that will look exactly the same on our iPhone or Mac or TV too. So why Goggles? The demo needs to show them why. And I think it needs to break the 2D view to easily do so.
In this hypothetical dome, they can have their full range of vision engaged... more like goggles are ON instead of having to imagine goggles are on while looking at 2D screen demonstrations. Instead of requiring them to take a leap of imagination, strive to reduce the chasm.
Again, look through ANY goggles thread at what passionate Apple fans think about Goggles. We- the "think different" crowd- seem to be struggling with imagining what is possible with these. Pessimism is rampant. And there is very little to hinder our imaginations right now since so little is actually known. For all we know, this could be a new Mac Pro with M20 processors for "only $3K."
If this crowd can't imagine very big and positive (and unique) things we can do with these, I don't know if I want to leave so much to not-quite-so-passionate members of the press, etc imaginations. Make it a stunning show. Blow their minds... instead of hoping they can imagine enough to blow their own minds. How? I go right back into the dome screen to fake a few things that don't seem possible any other way in a group presentation like this.
Last edited:
Nah, no one spending that kind of money thinks wow $2799 is way cheaper than $3000. Simple math shows that’s still over $3k with sales tax. Let’s say they do sell it for $2400, that’s still significantly more than the next closest competitor. Most consumers don’t spend $2k on television sets that they use daily. This will be a total niche product for the Apple junkies that try everything once that has an apple logo on it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The very passionate Apple fans will identify VR stuff that costs a LOT more than the rumored $3K.
The pessimists about this product will identify anything they could find that includes a VR tag and costs as little as as possible. There's a Viewmaster toy branded with VR for about $14, "so $3K is completely insane" (ignore that there are smart phone toys priced as low as $10, so "iPhone pricing is completely...")
The correct answer is that we have nearly no idea because we barely know anything about this product right now. It could be so many things or only an Oculus+ with an Apple Logo on it. None of us have much more than guesses, hopes, misdirection and possibly a few clues that could as easily turn out to be wrong as they may be right.