They can imagine what they could've spent the three grand on instead of this dud. 💸
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's AR/VR Headset Announcement is 'Last Hope' for Persuading Investors It Will Be the Next 'Star Product'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They can imagine what they could've spent the three grand on instead of this dud. 💸
According to all the reporting it’s not going to be an AR device (because the technology isn’t there yet). So Tim Cook has to convince people that MR isn’t VR and is something that consumers will want to buy. I feel like Cook has staked his reputation on AR the way Nadella and others are staking theirs on AI.
Apple needs to convince me that I need this, and that convincing is going to have to overcome the form factor. I truly hope that the final product looks nothing like the concept renders we've seen again and again, because I can't see the ski-goggle look becoming common among the populous. I don't use social media, and don't really want to. I tried the North Focals, and while they were pretty good in functionality, the weight of them caused strain and headaches. The battery life wasn't great either. The Amazon Frames aren't bad, and it's nice to have my alerts read privately to me with just a tap, but the battery life is still not good enough. (And no... I DO NOT want to be one of the people who experiences life entirely through "transparent" audio with my white AirPods in my ears all the time.)
Apple has all the potential to knock this out of the park... Give us something that is light to wear, has an AR HUD and can be used to watch content from our iPhones. Include bone conduction/directional audio for semi-privacy or allow the unit to work with audio to AirPods. And, don't give us some silly looking ski goggles. If they're glasses, they need to look like glasses and function as glasses -like the Apple Watch is a watch first and foremost with additional functionality.
Apple has all the potential to knock this out of the park... Give us something that is light to wear, has an AR HUD and can be used to watch content from our iPhones. Include bone conduction/directional audio for semi-privacy or allow the unit to work with audio to AirPods. And, don't give us some silly looking ski goggles. If they're glasses, they need to look like glasses and function as glasses -like the Apple Watch is a watch first and foremost with additional functionality.
You are the first person I've ever seen say Apple does too much.
I suspect the $3000 rumors may be a bit of smoke and mirrors, much like how the iPad was going to cost thousands and then dropped at $499.
The iPad really is the oddball Apple product launch in that it was almost immediately adopted en-masse. The Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, Apple Watch all took some time to mature and grow the userbase, and what they became wasn't always what they started as.
I also think the model to own will be the second generation, when Apple fixes the 'obvious' pain points that were in the first.
Kuo's newsletter is for investors, not Apple rumor hounds. Of course those investors want to think they drive the market.
This is one of those things where I say, "let's look back in three years and see how it's going, but for now I'm not interested."
Chat GPT decrypted the encoded message:I wouldn’t be surprised if this headset ends up like Google Glass.
View attachment 2184956
Google Launches New $999 Glass AR Headset for Enterprise Customers
Google today announced the launch of a new enterprise-focused Google Glass headset, the Glass Enterprise Edition 2. The Glass Enterprise Edition 2...www.macrumors.com
..."We will no longer sell Glass Enterprise Edition. We will instead wait for Apple to figure out this product. Once they do, we will copy/paste and relaunch. Just like we did with Android"... 😏😁
"Apple's announcement event is likely the last hope for convincing investors that the AR/MR headset device could have a chance to be the next star product in consumer electronics". Buah hahahaha, the next star product. Yeah right! Oh Kuostradamus, you slay me! 🤣
Good point, but either way Kuo would still have it wrong. Short term investors may be disappointed, but long term investors will not because they would be looking at the bigger picture and trusting the management team at Apple to execute a long term vision. AR/VR is also not a make-or-break moment like Kuo is framing it as.
Kuo seems to be trying hard to stay relevant, or he is just frustrated because there haven’t been major leaks about the product. He can only compare with what is available today. Smart phones were also available before the iPhone, for less money, and on more networks. But nothing available was as revolutionary as the iPhone.
I don’t see wearable AR/VR being as large as the mobile phone market anytime soon if ever, but Apple must see long term potential in it.
At least some people are being gainfully employed, but I don't know anyone who is even remotely interested in this thing.
Exactly.
And at $3,000 or more, they will sell very, very few of them, I read 1-200,000 as an estimate on here. With that tiny a user base, nobody is going to bother investing in a killer app for it.
People talk about it being a niche gaming product. It won't work there either at that price point. Sure some gamers will be happy to fork over $3k or more for the hardware, but game developers make their products for the hundreds of millions of people on $500 hardware, not the millions on $3,000 hardware. There's no shot they'll develop products for a 6-digit target demographic (if this thing even reaches 6-digits of unit sales).
Unless they sell by the 10's of millions nobody will develop for it, and not many people will buy a $3,000 product that nobody is developing content for.
Ouch this is Google and they've a track record of backing out of projects. I hope Apple does not go down this path. Not a good look!I wouldn’t be surprised if this headset ends up like Google Glass.
View attachment 2184956
Google Launches New $999 Glass AR Headset for Enterprise Customers
Google today announced the launch of a new enterprise-focused Google Glass headset, the Glass Enterprise Edition 2. The Glass Enterprise Edition 2...
You don't follow VR/AR circles then because everyone in the VR community has been patiently waiting to see the Apple Reality. Hell the VR community has been more excited for Apple Reality rumors than you guys have been.
I look on this two ways - there's the AR/VR experience and the product proposition.
Granted, not one of us really knows what the full potential of this technology is, but what we can do is take educated guesses at how it could be meaningful to us and other peoples lives.
I can imagine a mechanical engineer using it to understand how many components of a part are assembled.
A person walking through a natural history museum and watching a huge dinosaur skeleton come to life, to understand how the beast moved.
An artist could literally create pieces of work virtually on huge canvases, and share the work with others however they pleased for their own pleasure.
A senior-aged person could immerse themselves in a world long past, and in doing so help them to battle dementia.
A music fan could be 'at' a festival taking place on the other side of the world and even meet friends there.
At school, children could 'see' and understand chemical reactions that would otherwise be too dangerous to perform in such a setting.
Architects could tour the very buildings they design, using the experience to improve their vision.
In short, the possibilities are limited by your imagination.
However, the issue with AR/VR at this present time is that the technology hasn't caught up with the level of convenience required to make it a compelling product.
If you think about any of Apple's successful product lines, the hardware was always roughly close to what would benefit users.
The Macintosh 128k was radical as an all-in-one, and despite being underpowered Apple got the form exactly right. The iPhone started life as a ping-pong table-sized touchscreen, miniaturised into something that could fit into a pocket. The Apple Watch combines many sensors effectively into something as discrete as a pebble strapped to a wrist, in the familiar guise of a watch. The Apple Pencil is used just like an actual pencil.
For AR/VR to reach these levels of discreet design where the outcome is almost inevitable to the user, as Jony Ive used to put it, the technology needs to advance significantly to the point where such a headset isn't too different from a pair of glasses.
In the past, Apple has been patient and waited until the time was right. But it appears in this instance that Apple is employing a strategy, entering the market early with a cumbersome product in order to get developers (and a niche consumer audience) used to the idea of AR/VR in the first place.
From a investor and PR standpoint, this is the issue - everyone just expects Apple to sell millions of whatever it releases for no other reason than the company is successful.
But Apple doesn't need to sell millions of these units for it to be 'successful'; what will be success is when the potential of the experience is realised. Unfortunately, it's going to take a very, very, very long time before a headset can be both physically discreet enough and cheap enough to get mass market attention.
I mean, can you imagine Jobs approving an iPhone that had the size and battery life of a Motorola DynaTAC?...
"You're holding it wrong!"
Granted, not one of us really knows what the full potential of this technology is, but what we can do is take educated guesses at how it could be meaningful to us and other peoples lives.
I can imagine a mechanical engineer using it to understand how many components of a part are assembled.
A person walking through a natural history museum and watching a huge dinosaur skeleton come to life, to understand how the beast moved.
An artist could literally create pieces of work virtually on huge canvases, and share the work with others however they pleased for their own pleasure.
A senior-aged person could immerse themselves in a world long past, and in doing so help them to battle dementia.
A music fan could be 'at' a festival taking place on the other side of the world and even meet friends there.
At school, children could 'see' and understand chemical reactions that would otherwise be too dangerous to perform in such a setting.
Architects could tour the very buildings they design, using the experience to improve their vision.
In short, the possibilities are limited by your imagination.
However, the issue with AR/VR at this present time is that the technology hasn't caught up with the level of convenience required to make it a compelling product.
If you think about any of Apple's successful product lines, the hardware was always roughly close to what would benefit users.
The Macintosh 128k was radical as an all-in-one, and despite being underpowered Apple got the form exactly right. The iPhone started life as a ping-pong table-sized touchscreen, miniaturised into something that could fit into a pocket. The Apple Watch combines many sensors effectively into something as discrete as a pebble strapped to a wrist, in the familiar guise of a watch. The Apple Pencil is used just like an actual pencil.
For AR/VR to reach these levels of discreet design where the outcome is almost inevitable to the user, as Jony Ive used to put it, the technology needs to advance significantly to the point where such a headset isn't too different from a pair of glasses.
In the past, Apple has been patient and waited until the time was right. But it appears in this instance that Apple is employing a strategy, entering the market early with a cumbersome product in order to get developers (and a niche consumer audience) used to the idea of AR/VR in the first place.
From a investor and PR standpoint, this is the issue - everyone just expects Apple to sell millions of whatever it releases for no other reason than the company is successful.
But Apple doesn't need to sell millions of these units for it to be 'successful'; what will be success is when the potential of the experience is realised. Unfortunately, it's going to take a very, very, very long time before a headset can be both physically discreet enough and cheap enough to get mass market attention.
I mean, can you imagine Jobs approving an iPhone that had the size and battery life of a Motorola DynaTAC?...
"You're holding it wrong!"
Maybe this will be like the Newton or the MacCube? Not necessarily successful in it's own right, but the foundation upon which future products will be built.
And then discovering that while I've been living and working inside some goggles, some shyster came along and robbed me blind - conveniently leaving my goggles and half computer behind. But, y'know... I've probably still got my Apple Watch with Apple Pay on, so at least I can buy another Starbucks to drown my sorrows.
The issue is that investors are used to modern Apple. The original Apple was dealing with the equivalent of the Motorola DynaTAC, just in the form of PCs since that's what Apple was all about at the start.I look on this two ways - there's the AR/VR experience and the product proposition.
Granted, not one of us really knows what the full potential of this technology is, but what we can do is take educated guesses at how it could be meaningful to us and other peoples lives.
I can imagine a mechanical engineer using it to understand how many components of a part are assembled.
A person walking through a natural history museum and watching a huge dinosaur skeleton come to life, to understand how the beast moved.
An artist could literally create pieces of work virtually on huge canvases, and share the work with others however they pleased for their own pleasure.
A senior-aged person could immerse themselves in a world long past, and in doing so help them to battle dementia.
A music fan could be 'at' a festival taking place on the other side of the world and even meet friends there.
At school, children could 'see' and understand chemical reactions that would otherwise be too dangerous to perform in such a setting.
Architects could tour the very buildings they design, using the experience to improve their vision.
In short, the possibilities are limited by your imagination.
However, the issue with AR/VR at this present time is that the technology hasn't caught up with the level of convenience required to make it a compelling product.
If you think about any of Apple's successful product lines, the hardware was always roughly close to what would benefit users.
The Macintosh 128k was radical as an all-in-one, and despite being underpowered Apple got the form exactly right. The iPhone started life as a ping-pong table-sized touchscreen, miniaturised into something that could fit into a pocket. The Apple Watch combines many sensors effectively into something as discrete as a pebble strapped to a wrist, in the familiar guise of a watch. The Apple Pencil is used just like an actual pencil.
For AR/VR to reach these levels of discreet design where the outcome is almost inevitable to the user, as Jony Ive used to put it, the technology needs to advance significantly to the point where such a headset isn't too different from a pair of glasses.
In the past, Apple has been patient and waited until the time was right. But it appears in this instance that Apple is employing a strategy, entering the market early with a cumbersome product in order to get developers (and a niche consumer audience) used to the idea of AR/VR in the first place.
From a investor and PR standpoint, this is the issue - everyone just expects Apple to sell millions of whatever it releases for no other reason than the company is successful.
But Apple doesn't need to sell millions of these units for it to be 'successful'; what will be success is when the potential of the experience is realised. Unfortunately, it's going to take a very, very, very long time before a headset can be both physically discreet enough and cheap enough to get mass market attention.
I mean, can you imagine Jobs approving an iPhone that had the size and battery life of a Motorola DynaTAC?...
"You're holding it wrong!"
The Apple II, Apple III, Lisa, Macintosh. All of these are bulky machines that were extremely difficult to use. This is what VR/AR is like today. Smartphones were a much easier engineering task since it was an iterative technology; VR/AR are the hard days again, just like how PCs/cellphones were the hard days.
If people would actually understand how things were before the iPhone, then maybe people would be more receptive to the long trajectory needed for VR/AR, but it has effectively made people think that hardware needs to be an overnight success which just isn't possible.
I think the fundamental problem isn't a technology problem. It's a human problem. People do not want to wear things on their heads to interact with technology. It's not a human experience. 3D TVs had the same issue
The dizziness (more like full-on motion sickness) is caused by:
a) a lag between physical motion and the display updating, and even though there's been an immense amount of work done on reducing it, this cannot be eliminated with any modern display tech. Classic video games don't work on modern displays because there's too much lag between pressing the controller button and the effect on the screen and
b) a disconnect between what your eyes tell your brain and your kinaesthetic sense tells your brain. There is no possible way for an optical headset to mitigate the conflict. Maybe a direct machine-brain link could do it, but nothing that's not out of speculative science fiction can even come close. Given this issue, it will never be done my "a physically correct set of photons". Photons are just one minor piece of the pie.
This remains to be seen. The right value proposition could cause people to be fine with wearing devices on their heads. Clearly 3D TVs did not meet that value proposition.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
And if you're not joking, no one will be "blind" inside goggles. Rumors of cameras all around are abundant because they are key to the AR side of this thing. In my ONE use scenario, a little AR creates the our own hands overlay so that we can take looks at the keyboard for hand and finger placement.
The same cameras all around monitor for bad guys getting too close and the "one more thing" LASER rises out of a hidden compartment and vaporizes them.
Oh it's very viable, just not for use cases Apple has any meaningful marketshare; Gaming and professional training. VR has gotten quite big in gaming, the only thing holding people back is money. Good VR gaming headsets are still rather expensive and progress is VERY slow.
And then there's training for all kinds of professions. Flying for example, VR is fantastic for learning to fly, an absolutely brilliant way in fact. But high-end gaming headsets used for this (high resolution to read instruments and more field of view than the measly 120° tops you usually get) are still very rare with slow progress and hugely expensive. But the concept is proven and very well accepted by the aviation industry as an example.
So you're completely wrong in saying that it would never be viable. Well it already is, just not for Apple. And it's Apple's fault alone that they never wanted to enter any of these markets in the past few years.
Yes it's not a mass market thing, I give you that. But does everything being developed these days need to be mass market in iPhone proportions to be considered "viable"? I hope not!
It's true that no modern display tech available right now can outright fix the latency issue for everyone, but extrapolating out into the 480Hz and beyond range of displays and this very much becomes a solvable issue. It's just a matter of when that threshold is met for everyone.
It may be the case that you cannot fix the inner ear disconnect; I know there is research on tricking the inner ear with vibrations, but it's not yet known if that can apply to everyone. The good news here is that you don't have to fix this issue to avoid it. You avoid it through software by giving people comfort options, especially teleportation. This may damper things for gamers (although maybe not as much as people think given the high praise of Half Life Alyx which many people would have played with teleportation as their movement option), but is almost never something to care about outside gaming.
I thought Apple was avoiding hardware initially. Apple has been looking at Augmented Reality for last few years being used to enhance web content to show more accurate representations than the 2D like content now. Everything would be done via iOS 17, IPadOS 17 or MacOS 14 Safari browser extensions I think at the start or some kind AR viewer application that deals with the enhanced media online or the cloud.
Will be interesting to see what happens, after Tim presents this device. It could be taken as an evidence, that Apple is not able to innovate without Jobs.