Kuo: Apple's AR/VR Headset Announcement is 'Last Hope' for Persuading Investors It Will Be the Next 'Star Product'

[robbietop]

Arguing with Kuo and market realities is how smart people successfully predicted the rise of personal computers and cellphones when the world said they didn't want them. Steve Jobs said in the past that you need to bet against what consumers say they want and produce products that they don't yet know they want.

All the 'evidence' you provide is the same evidence you'd see from every successful hardware market today, if we were to look into their early days with their own growing pains.

PCs used to sit on store shelves; years would go by without people buying them. They'd collect dust in homes; people couldn't figure out how to use them, or couldn't see any usecases.

The iPhone sold 1,000,000 iPhones in the first 90 days.
Oculus has 300,000 TOTAL LIFETIME

Smartphones were popular before the iPhone, it was a proven market. Apple just entered it with a revolutionary interface.
Same with computers. They existed before Apple. Intel introduced the first commercial CPU, the 4004, in 1971. April 1, 1976 is Apple's incorporation date.

Home computing was a hobby when Steve Wozniak entered a contest to create a computer with the fewest transistors. When he won, his friend Steve Jobs got the idea to sell them and thus Apple was born.

AR/VR has had some sort of market existence since the 1970s, and became a science fiction trope in the 1980s thanks to VPL Research. Tons of 1980s movies, including Tron, introduced the public to VR. Hell, 3D glasses with movies and TV and theme parks are themselves an analogue form of VR.

Nintendo is the only company to achieve any real market "success" with its Virtual Boy before the 2010s, when the technology was finally advanced enough.

VR is not some new idea, tracing its roots in some technicalities to the 1950s when people described a computer a virtual mathematician.

Smartphones were already a huge industry when Apple and Google jumped in 2007/2008 with iPhonesOS and Android. And a GUI on a computer or smartphone is already a virtual reality interface, simulating originally the work desktop and now a basic old fashioned Snack/Soda machine with widget/button interfaces or restaurant with Menu.

So, to say that VR is a nascent industry is not only uneducated, it is also incorrect.

There is a reason why Virtual Boy failed. It was not the lack of software, etc. The Mac/iPhone/iPad spent a few years of their lives growing software libraries. It didn't sell because of the Modus Operandi (Use Case). People like VR in movies because it looks cool, but as soon as the heavy helmet/cap is attached and the I/O Interface Operators are acquired, it feels cumbersome, bulky, uncomfortable and has a terrible inconvenience to their use.

Also, battery life is a severe issue as the device has to power multiple screens and computations to achieve Use Case. And to add insult to injury, almost all of the I/O in VR is analogue in some cases (moving body, limbs) where a digital and far superior I/O experience has been perfected in the handheld remote controller and Television going back to Pong and Atari. And the Mouse and Keyboard are far superior as well as Virtual Operators to move a cursor and achieve pinpoint precision in language use and targeting Objects in the OS.

Most people will read the reviews that Pogue and various others will eventually write that at the price point asked for, it's DOA. And even at a more affordable price, it is redundant as all of its features and uses can be done far more conveniently in the palm of your hand.

 

[Vasilioskn]

I have zero interest in this

 

[DarthBuzzard]

The iPhone sold 1,000,000 iPhones in the first 90 days.
Oculus has 300,000 TOTAL LIFETIME

Smartphones were popular before the iPhone, it was a proven market. Apple just entered it with a revolutionary interface.
Same with computers. They existed before Apple. Intel introduced the first commercial CPU, the 4004, in 1971. April 1, 1976 is Apple's incorporation date.

Home computing was a hobby when Steve Wozniak entered a contest to create a computer with the fewest transistors. When he won, his friend Steve Jobs got the idea to sell them and thus Apple was born.

AR/VR has had some sort of market existence since the 1970s, and became a science fiction trope in the 1980s thanks to VPL Research. Tons of 1980s movies, including Tron, introduced the public to VR.

Nintendo is the only company to achieve any real market "success" with its Virtual Boy before the 2010s, when the technology was finally advanced enough.

VR is not some new idea, tracing its roots in some technicalities to the 1950s when people described a computer a virtual mathematician.

Smartphones were already a huge industry when Apple and Google jumped in 2007/2008 with iPhonesOS and Android. And a GUI on a computer or smartphone is already a virtual reality interface, simulating originally the work desktop and now a basic old fashioned Snack/Soda machine with widget/button interfaces or restaurant with Menu.

So, to say that VR is a nascent industry is not only uneducated, it is also incorrect.

There is a reason why Virtual Boy failed. It was not the lack of software, etc. The Mac/iPhone/iPad spent a few years of their lives growing software libraries. It didn't sell because of the Modus Operandi (Use Case). People like VR in movies because it looks cool, but as soon as the heavy helmet/cap is attached and the I/O Interface Operators are acquired, it feels cumbersome, bulky, uncomfortable and has a terrible inconvenience to their use.

Also, battery life is a severe issue as the device has to power multiple screens and computations to achieve Use Case. And to add insult to injury, almost all of the I/O in VR is analogue in some cases (moving body, limbs) where a digital and far superior I/O experience has been perfected in the handheld remote controller and Television going back to Pong and Atari. And the Mouse and Keyboard are far superior as well as Virtual Operators to move a cursor and achieve pinpoint precision in language use and targeting Objects in the OS.

Most people will read the reviews that Pogue and various others will eventually write that at the price point asked for, it's DOA. And even at a more affordable price, it is redundant as all of its features and uses can be done far more conveniently in the palm of your hand.

The iPhone was the start of maturity for smartphones. VR has not hit that level, so you can't compare the two.

The only accurate comparison you can make is akin to an early 1980s PC or late 1980s cellphones, though it's probably best to go with the former because VR's form factor is closer to a PC since its meant to be an indoor device.

Home computing took much longer to take off than you think it did. Throughout the entirety of the 1980s, there were many reports on companies dropping out, skepticism surrounding the need or use for one in the first place, machines collecting dust, clunky interfaces, high expense, and just a ton of growing pains and negativity that mirrors this thread.

AR has had no market existence at all for consumers other than fringe AR devices for specific usecases like Nreal Light, but there has never been a consumer launch for a generalized consumer AR device so far.

VR had no market in the 1970s - it didn't start selling on shelves until the 1990s, and that was a very short run by a few small companies (Nintendo doesn't count, the Virtual Boy is not VR) which lead to the market dying off and entering hibernation until the 2010s. Since technology development and progression is a factor of investment more than anything, idle time during the late 1990s and 2000s makes no sense to count. This means VR has had at most one decade of products being on shelves; compare that to the PC or cellphone market and you'll see that those markets took about 15 years to take off.

 

[Macalway]

Newton Message Pad was $900 at release in 1990. That’s roughly $1,800 in today dollars. I’m not sure I’d characterize that as “affordable.”

Remembering Apple’s Newton, 30 years on

On its 30th anniversary, we look at the groundbreaking product’s enduring legacy.

arstechnica.com

Not sure about that, but it was affordable for me.

For me. This will not be.

I remember walking along in Brentwood CA (UCLA) and seeing an Apple Newton store. I had never bought anything Apple, but that store was something else. Just Newtons on shelves. Like something out of a SYFI flick. I had to have one. As I recall it was around $600, which I could handle then, considering I HAD to have it LOL. It was pretty worthless, but so cool.

 

[CarAnalogy]

As I already said: he's doing rocketeering now.

Sorry reading comprehension is low today.

Interesting all these notable people are suddenly interested in getting off-planet.

 

[robbietop]

The iPhone was the start of maturity for smartphones. VR has not hit that level, so you can't compare the two.

The only accurate comparison you can make is akin to an early 1980s PC or late 1980s cellphones, though it's probably best to go with the former because VR's form factor is closer to a PC since its meant to be an indoor device.

Home computing took much longer to take off than you think it did. Throughout the entirety of the 1980s, there were many reports on companies dropping out, skepticism surrounding the need or use for one in the first place, machines collecting dust, clunky interfaces, high expense, and just a ton of growing pains and negativity that mirrors this thread.

AR has had no market existence at all for consumers other than fringe AR devices for specific usecases like Nreal Light, but there has never been a consumer launch for a generalized consumer AR device so far.

VR had no market in the 1970s - it didn't start selling on shelves until the 1990s, and that was a very short run by a few small companies (Nintendo doesn't count, the Virtual Boy is not VR) which lead to the market dying off and entering hibernation until the 2010s. Since technology development and progression is a factor of investment more than anything, idle time during the late 1990s and 2000s makes no sense to count. This means VR has had at most one decade of products being on shelves; compare that to the PC or cellphone market and you'll see that those markets took about 15 years to take off.

Ok, we'll see how Apple does better than Meta. Microsoft has essentially abandoned HoloLens. And PSVR2 is selling about as well as 3DTVs.

And to show you how much the market has shown the success of VR in any capacity, look how well Microsoft's Xbox VR is selling. Kinect was a flop, and the company has not ventured anything else since.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

As Ive always said, never bet against Apple..........BUT the negative leaks are concerning this time around.

I mean...I bet against them regarding HomePod and late Intel Macs, and I was right!

 

[Surf Monkey]

The iPhone was the start of maturity for smartphones. VR has not hit that level, so you can't compare the two.

The only accurate comparison you can make is akin to an early 1980s PC or late 1980s cellphones, though it's probably best to go with the former because VR's form factor is closer to a PC since its meant to be an indoor device.

Home computing took much longer to take off than you think it did. Throughout the entirety of the 1980s, there were many reports on companies dropping out, skepticism surrounding the need or use for one in the first place, machines collecting dust, clunky interfaces, high expense, and just a ton of growing pains and negativity that mirrors this thread.

AR has had no market existence at all for consumers other than fringe AR devices for specific usecases like Nreal Light, but there has never been a consumer launch for a generalized consumer AR device so far.

VR had no market in the 1970s - it didn't start selling on shelves until the 1990s, and that was a very short run by a few small companies (Nintendo doesn't count, the Virtual Boy is not VR) which lead to the market dying off and entering hibernation until the 2010s. Since technology development and progression is a factor of investment more than anything, idle time during the late 1990s and 2000s makes no sense to count. This means VR has had at most one decade of products being on shelves; compare that to the PC or cellphone market and you'll see that those markets took about 15 years to take off.

Here’s the fundamental problem with VR/AR/MR: it goes on your FACE. That instantly excludes a HUGE percentage of people from EVER buying it. Just think about the negative pressure around something like simple optically corrective glasses. There’s a reason contact lenses exist and are so popular. People do NOT want to wear things on their faces if they can avoid it. The pandemic kind of drives that point home too.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Ok, we'll see how Apple does better than Meta. Microsoft has essentially abandoned HoloLens. And PSVR2 is selling about as well as 3DTVs

This is a long game to play. Apple are trying to sell an expensive device here so it clearly won't sell nearly as many units as the 17-18 million units that Oculus Quest 2 have sold.

Apple won't be expecting to sell that many units until they release a sub $1000 device.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Here’s the fundamental problem with VR/AR/MR: it goes on your FACE. That instantly excludes a HUGE percentage of people from EVER buying it. Just think about the negative pressure around something like simple optically corrective glasses. There’s a reason contact lenses exist and are so popular. People do NOT want to wear things on their faces if they can avoid it. The pandemic kind of drives that point home too.

You could argue that this may be the point that stops mass adoption, but that is yet to be known. Society may decide that the value is at a level where they don't mind wearing it.

Also in the case with AR, if the tech can be made small enough, then it would just replace a user's need for eyeglasses anyway.

 

[robbietop]

This is a long game to play. Apple are trying to sell an expensive device here so it clearly won't sell nearly as many units as the 17-18 million units that Oculus Quest 2 have sold.

Apple won't be expecting to sell that many units until they release a sub $1000 device.

Ok, well, we'll see how well they do if it is announced in June. Apparently, Apple's executive team and shareholders have very negative views of Apple wasting their time in this direction instead of the car

And given the completely out of left field Stage Manager's confusing introduction and instability in their software across multiple product lines, I don't have much of a belief that Apple has anything new with the headset other than as a gaming accessory. Because any other use case is so niche and tiny, you need advanced education to even be of use.

 

[Surf Monkey]

This is a long game to play. Apple are trying to sell an expensive device here so it clearly won't sell nearly as many units as the 17-18 million units that Oculus Quest 2 have sold.

Apple won't be expecting to sell that many units until they release a sub $1000 device.

Doesn’t matter how cheap it becomes. So long as it mounts on your FACE many people, perhaps a large majority, won’t even consider it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

You could argue that this may be the point that stops mass adoption, but that is yet to be known. Society may decide that the value is at a level where they don't mind wearing it.

Also in the case with AR, if the tech can be made small enough, then it would just replace a user's need for eyeglasses anyway.

“Society” couldn’t agree to wear a piece of cloth on their face as a matter of LIFE AND DEATH. So I seriously doubt that a face mounted technology toy is going to magically break through that kind of resistance.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Doesn’t matter how cheap it becomes. So long as it mounts on your FACE many people, perhaps a large majority, won’t even consider it.

You don't know that though. Societal habits can and have changed for technology.

A mask isn't the same value proposition as VR/AR. A mask is about protecting people to get back to a sense of normalcy. VR/AR are about adding things to our lives, not taking a -1 and putting it back to a 0.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Sorry reading comprehension is low today.

Well hey no one reads my posts regarding the VR industry and community anyhow so it balances out

This forum is going to make me become the Joker.

 

[Surf Monkey]

You don't know that though. Societal habits can and have changed for technology.

Whatever you say, four eyes.

See what I mean?

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Whatever you say, four eyes.

See what I mean?

Yeah, I see what you mean. Glasses were a weird idea at first, but now most adults use them.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Yeah, I see what you mean. Glasses were a weird idea at first, but now most adults use them.

At first?? You mean several hundred years ago?

Eyeglasses History - Origins of Glasses and Sunglasses

www.glasseshistory.com

As to “most adults” using them, sure. Because they HAVE TO in order to SEE. And even then nearly 1/3 of those people choose to wear contact lenses instead. Because people don’t generally opt to wear things on their faces that aren’t critical… and even then they strongly resist it.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

At first?? You mean several hundred years ago?

Eyeglasses History - Origins of Glasses and Sunglasses

www.glasseshistory.com

As to “most adults” using them, sure. Because they HAVE TO in order to SEE. And even then nearly 1/3 of those people choose to wear contact lenses instead. Because people don’t generally opt to wear things on their faces that aren’t critical… and even then they strongly resist it.

The point is not the time period in which it was weird, but that people at one time did think it was weird. If there was resistance to glasses, then it didn't stop it from eventually being the norm.

Unless you have a better source for contact lenses, 140+ million would only be a fraction out of the billions of glasses wearers.

People in modern society generally need a phone. What if AR glasses also become something that you need to generally function in society?

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

The iPhone sold 1,000,000 iPhones in the first 90 days.
Oculus has 300,000 TOTAL LIFETIME

Incorrect. The Quest 2 as of last October sold over 30,000,000 units, as much as the PS5 has. That's 30 million units in the span of two years.

And again: 100 million monthly SteamVR users.

So, to say that VR is a nascent industry is not only uneducated, it is also incorrect.

Consumer VR as we know it didn't really start until HTC and Valve released the Vive in 2016, which later lead Oculus to their 6DOF headset the Rift, and then Microsoft started Windows Mixed Reality. VR has been in many forms but for sake of argument the VR we normally talk about that Apple's entering with Apple Reality, is consumer 6DOF VR, specifically standalone VR.

There is a reason why Virtual Boy failed. It was not the lack of software, etc. The Mac/iPhone/iPad spent a few years of their lives growing software libraries. It didn't sell because of the Modus Operandi (Use Case). People like VR in movies because it looks cool, but as soon as the heavy helmet/cap is attached and the I/O Interface Operators are acquired, it feels cumbersome, bulky, uncomfortable and has a terrible inconvenience to their use.

The Virtual Boy failed because it hurt people's eyes being black and red as well as being stuck on a tripod. Do people keep forgetting that? Not only that but it released at a time when all eyes were on the PlayStation 1, and people were awaiting the Nintendo 64.

Also, battery life is a severe issue as the device has to power multiple screens and computations to achieve Use Case. And to add insult to injury, almost all of the I/O in VR is analogue in some cases (moving body, limbs) where a digital and far superior I/O experience has been perfected in the handheld remote controller and Television going back to Pong and Atari.

Uhh...the Quest 2 and Pro have hand tracking now, so you can use the headset without touch controllers. Apple Reality's patents suggest it will have hand tracking as well.

Most people will read the reviews that Pogue and various others will eventually write that at the price point asked for, it's DOA. And even at a more affordable price, it is redundant as all of its features and uses can be done far more conveniently in the palm of your hand.

That's what people said about the iPad. "Why would I want this, my iPhone does everything it does as well as phone calls." Or the Apple Watch. "Why would I want this I can just check the time and notifications on my phone."

 

[Surf Monkey]

The point is not the time period in which it was weird, but that people at one time did think it was weird. If there was resistance to glasses, then it didn't stop it from eventually being the norm.

Unless you have a better source for contact lenses, 140+ million would only be a fraction out of the billions of glasses wearers.

People in modern society generally need a phone. What if AR glasses also become something that you need to generally function in society?

My man. Glasses are a medical device. They address a disability. What essential medical purpose does VR/AR/MR solve for people? What disability does it help fix?

Point stands. Even when it comes to necessary medical devices the resistance to wearing it on the face is very strong. The idea that everyone is just completely chill with wearing glasses isn’t accurate.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

My man. Glasses are a medical device. They address a disability.

A lot of people wear glasses for fashion, not just as a medical device.

Glasses are cool. Case in point: These two:

What essential medical purpose does VR/AR/MR solve for people? What disability does it help fix?

Well mixed reality has been useful for physical therapy

How Virtual Reality Is Transforming Healthcare

In healthcare, practitioners are exploring exciting ways that VR can assist patients and health providers to achieve better treatments and outcomes.

www.uschamber.com

Point stands. Even when it comes to necessary medical devices the resistance to wearing it on the face is very strong. The idea that everyone is just completely chill with wearing glasses isn’t accurate.

I mean...sunglasses are a thing.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

My man. Glasses are a medical device. They address a disability. What essential medical purpose does VR/AR/MR solve for people? What disability does it help fix?

Point stands. Even when it comes to necessary medical devices the resistance to wearing it on the face is very strong. The idea that everyone is just completely chill with wearing glasses isn’t accurate.

AR glasses in their mature form would do a lot for disabilities.

• Perform all the functionality of separate eyeglasses in one pair.
• Enhance vision through zooming functionality, highlighting objects clearly ("Siri, Find my keys"), nightvision, predictive trajectory for moving objects, x-ray vision in pre-mapped environments.
• Replace need for hearing aids and enhance sound beyond normal by allowing volume control of individual people.
• Visual annotations when talking to people so you can bring up notes/see names or have notes around your house.
• Audio annotations for the blind using eye-tracking and AI-driven object segmentation to understand what a user is looking at and how close it is.

VR/AR would also both present as great life experiences for housebound people who can't get out and do much, and could be used to treat various neurological conditions such as anxiety, social anxiety, chronic pain, PTSD, and stereoblindness to a degree.

 

[tcp/ip]

What will make or break this device is the Movie and Porn industries without them it's doomed.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

What will make or break this device is the Movie and Porn industries without them it's doomed.

Don't forget games. Games are a big factor for XR. Many people bought headsets just to play Half Life Alyx.