Report: Apple Executives Cautious of Mixed-Reality Headset Amid Compromises

[xnu]

I understand how Tim Cook could envision an eye glass only AR version that is the future, but perhaps we need the intermediate step of developing the applications and discovering new benefits to this type of development first. More like iPod to iPhone development. Look forward to seeing what is coming. Could be a Newton, could be an iPod... not sure.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

High end stationary bikes cost around a grand even with no screen/service. They have a well established value, and a dedicated and loyal following. The spin community is huge and largely affluent. Peleton was able to tap into that, VR is different.

An Apple headset with a Fitness+ subscription is competing with a Quest II and a Supernatural subscription. I don't see a winning value proposition at the rumoured $3000. Once the headset comes down to around $1000 and Apple learns what fitness users need, it will be a different story.

I'm not the one who volunteered fitness as an example. I simply offered up the Peloton example to show that there are LOTS of people willing to pay a lot one time for the hardware and then an ongoing services fee for the "software" to use it for fitness... that its not impossible to motivate people to spend up towards $3K only for fitness hardware + software.

Whether this has a crack at any of those same people or not doesn't matter to me. I was just chipping into that branch of the conversation. If it does, great. Buyers who find their fitness itch scratched here will also get a bunch of non-fitness benefits for the same money. If not, that's fine too. This apparently does many other things.

And I'm right with you in terms of wishing that this product- and all Apple products- were much more affordable so that they could all better compete with similar offerings from various competitors. However, price competition is very clearly NOT Apple's game. So I'll wish for $1000 goggles with you but not be surprised if they are indeed $3K.

Whether they are worth $3K or $1K is fully TBD. We have almost no clues- only piles of speculation and imagination and someones first guess at a price (with no alt guesses whatsoever ever since).

 

[seek3r]

I’ve never seen so much misdirection around a product before. The headset is reportedly apparently purportedly not ready after 7+ years of development, allegedly. And given the secrecy around this project, how is it that we’ve been reading about these things for so many months?

Do wonder if this Apple leaking things to "lower expectations" so they can wow people in 3 weeks with something that might not have wowed folks otherwise. I guess we'll see.

 

[RodThePlod]

OK, the point there was that there is a good sized market that will spend a big chunk of cash one time and then an ongoing subscription "services" fee for ONLY a fitness application. If someone looked it up, they would find that that pricing in total is not exactly far from the rumored $3K here.

And then consider that there are apparently other uses than only fitness with these goggles.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Apple released the headset on a subscription model? Consumers are well versed with that, now, you can even buy cars (Volvo/PoleStar. etc.) on an pure subscription basis, so it might be a cool way to sell it. Apple are heavy into their financial products and solutions now (buy now, pay later, etc.) so I could see them doing something different in this area with the introduction of the headset.

That might be one way of softening the $3K blow that will put off many users.

For $3K, I wouldn't entertain the thought of purchasing. But... for a reasonable monthly subscription? Where's the damn "take my money" gif when you need it??! And especially if you have the option to give it up early.

Macrumors - can you do a headline of "Apple to sell VR headset on a subscription-only model". That'll satisfy my inner-Gurman, anyway

Also regarding Tim Cook's vision of wearing these 'glasses' all day. I suspect that's a very, very long term view, and not something to be expected in the first few generations. Much like people where 'normal' glasses all day, every day, I imagine there'll be an Apple-branded augmented reality glasses solution that would be used in the same way. Maybe iin, say, 10 or 15 years time. This is all laying the groundwork for that.

Imagine when 'normal' glasses were first introduced and people walked around with these big lenses over their eyes to help them see things. They must have looked weird, right? But people quickly acclimatize to that, and accept the benefits. And it all became normal...

I remember seeing the Apple renders and reading about Jonny Ive's goal many years ago of having an iPhone as just a single, flat, pane of glass. After 16 years or iteration after iteration, we're not quite there yet! We're edging closer with each generation with the relegation of sensors and things under the display. But these things take time, as will Tim Cook's vision for his goggles. Can't wait to see how they announce it all next month!

 

[anselpela]

Knowing that this is demo hardware for the glasses product's software...yeah I would be too.

 

[anselpela]

I understand how Tim Cook could envision an eye glass only AR version that is the future, but perhaps we need the intermediate step of developing the applications and discovering new benefits to this type of development first. More like iPod to iPhone development. Look forward to seeing what is coming. Could be a Newton, could be an iPod... not sure.

No, he's just unwilling to wait for that hardware to materialize because its as much as a decade away, and they've already built the software for it.

 

[anselpela]

Do wonder if this Apple leaking things to "lower expectations" so they can wow people in 3 weeks with something that might not have wowed folks otherwise. I guess we'll see.

The software is wow. The hardware is not. The software was designed for an entirely different form factor that they are unable to build for the foreseeable future. So instead they're shipping the hardware they built for developing the software internally.

 

[jclardy]

AR/VR is cool but only for 5 minutes. After that it gets old.

Apple better not blame the customers why this was a failed product.

I have a Quest 2, and I barely use it...but that is because all the Quest is good for is games. The displays are too low resolution, too much screen door, too low refresh. Tried using it for productivity once...the idea was good, but since I deal with text all day the 20 pixels rendering each level got tiring really fast. Also, the experience is just not great - every time I pick it up I have to apply updates because it can't do that for whatever reason while sitting on the charger. Setup is pretty slick, but gets annoying when it "forgets" what your room looks like if you move a chair around.

I work from home, so the idea of wearing a headset while sitting at my desk isn't really a big negative. I think if Apple can nail the productivity side of this, then the entertainment side essentially already exists, and the fitness side is super straightforward (Make some fun exercise games and integrate apple fitness workouts to be "in the studio")

 

[paradox00]

I'm not the one who volunteered fitness as an example. I simply offered up the Peloton example to show that there are LOTS of people willing to pay a lot one time for the hardware and then an ongoing services fee for the "software" to use it for fitness... that its not impossible to motivate people to spend up towards $3K only for fitness hardware + software.

Whether this has a crack at any of those same people or not doesn't matter to me. I was just chipping into that branch of the conversation. If it does, great. Buyers who find their fitness itch scratched here will also get a bunch of non-fitness benefits for the same money. If not, that's fine too. This apparently does many other things.

And I'm right with you in terms of wishing that this product- and all Apple products- were much more affordable so that they could all better compete with similar offerings from various competitors. However, price competition is very clearly NOT Apple's game. So I'll wish for $1000 goggles with you but not be surprised if they are indeed $3K.

Whether they are worth $3K or $1K is fully TBD. We have almost no clues- only piles of speculation and imagination and someones first guess at a price (with no alt guesses whatsoever ever since).

Well I was the one that suggested Fitness was a valid use for the headset, just not at the rumoured price. I'm basing this on having used headsets for fitness before. You offered up the Peloton example, so I offered my take on that. I don't think it's a good price comparable for a successful Apple headset for the reasons I presented.

You're right that we don't know what the headset will actually cost. They could have an iPad moment where the price comes in much lower than expected, but that seems unlikely to me. I also don't expect them to nail fitness on the first attempt, because they don't have a good track record of doing so. From my experience and what I think Apple can bring to the market, I think the headset needs to fall into the iPhone price range to be successful (which probably won't be this first gen device). I'd love to be proven wrong on price expectations and capabilities.

 

[xnu]

That is what I am trying to say, so I agree.

 

[anselpela]

AR/VR is cool but only for 5 minutes. After that it gets old.

Apple better not blame the customers why this was a failed product.

Forgetting VR for a moment, which is largely dumb...

The reason AR is only cool for 5 minutes is:
- Right now you have to hold a view finder up to your face to experience it. This is lame, and amounts to nothing more than a neat tech demo. This changes when they get the view finder right for AR. The Glasses product that they are unable to build yet...that is the right form factor. The headset they're about to release is more of a demo of that future.
- AR is twitchy and imprecise. For a lot of serious applications that AR wants to take on, it has to actually be precise. Look at the Measure app that Apple ships on iPhone. Use this to measure the same thing 10 times and you'll get 10 different results. Use a tape measure in the real world instead, and you'll get the same result 10 times. Until this problem is solved, it remains....again...a cool tech demo, and not anything that can be seriously used.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

From my experience and what I think Apple can bring to the market, I think the headset needs to fall into the iPhone price range to be successful (which probably won't be this first gen device). I'd love to be proven wrong on price expectations and capabilities.

For what it's worth, I think the next loaded iPhone "ultra" will be about $1999 and not long after that, we'll see the >$2K iPhones. In other words, I don't foresee a long stretch before iPhones are approaching this same $3K level.

Put the rumored (up to) 12 cameras in this thing on an iPhone PRO MAX now and I suspect it would leap OVER the $3K price point too.

And again, I would very much like for EVERYTHING Apple makes to come down in price. Noting that about 40 cents of every dollar I pay for all of the bigger stuff from Apple goes only to profit is not a pleasant thought. I'd rather at least 20-25 cents of that to be buying more of the product instead of fattening the vault store. But Apple don't play that... and everything has a big fat premium on it so they can keep turning in those "another record revenue & profit quarters."

 

[NEPOBABY]

These VR AR science project never had the signature Srouji and Federighi vibe to it.

These guys are realistic about what works for users and consumers.

This VR AR science project always looked and sounded like Tim Cook bowing to pressure from big shareholders like Blackrock who don't give a damn what works and what doesn't.

Those big institutions just want hype cycles after hype cycles.

 

[d686546s]

You forgot "solution in search of a problem", "people running into things", "99% don't want", and all variations of nobody will be wanting to wear these 24/7/365 (as if anyone actually would).

Now did anyone notice the confirming line about using these as a Mac monitor which, even if it is "not as advanced as desired," implies that these can be the monitor of any-size discussed in prior threads. How much would we pay for an Apple 32" monitor that can easily move around with us and be used even in cramped quarters like on long airplane flights? How much would we pay for even a 17" MB? 18"? 20"? 24?" How much would we pay for iMac 27"? 30"? 32"? Ultra-wide? How much would we like a MB or iMac that is 40"? 50"? But also laptop bag light and mobile?

Thinking of that one simple application can make $3K seem only $1K more than the ASD (with stand option), which very likely sits in a fixed location for the life of the device... and substantially less expensive than Apple's other monitor... though this one may be able to be much larger/wider than that one... and go-anywhere-with-us mobile. Or have 2 of those visible in Goggles. Or 4 of them. Etc.

Look at that specific reference to iPhone allegedly from Apple. While many Apple competitors are trying to figure out an optimal folding screen technology to deliver much more screen RE in a still small, mobile device, what if Apple decided to take a crack at an any-size phone screen in a small, mobile device? Any size iPad screen? No crease or hinge necessary. Let's face it: we all must sometimes be doing something on our iDevices where we wish we could dynamically have a bigger screen. That very real want is what is driving attempts at folds/rolls. What if goggles can offer up a virtual iPhone or iPad with up to IMAX-sized screen if you wanted it? No crease. No hinge.

This article reinforced my own imagination of "killer app" being as simple as "any size screen in a small, light mobile package." It makes me still envision the new kind of laptop, which is basically bottom half of the MB now + Goggles in the laptop bag... used just like we use laptops now (which is when we need them) EXCEPT now we can have ANY size screen on which to do our work instead of only up to 16 inches. A variation of this concept already exists because people are taking MBs with broken screens, disconnecting the top half and using the bottom half with existing screens...

View attachment 2203570​

Goggles may very well be the much wanted revival of MB 17" and an 18" model, 20", 24", 30", ultra-wide, etc, MINUS all of the weight and size that actually making much larger MBs would require. The keyboard half doesn't have to be larger than the one in a 13"-15". Here, it would not have to be. For me anyway, that ONE thing done well would be enough at $3K. Even 16" feels extremely cramped when I'm accustomed to doing most of my Mac work on a 40" ultra-wide. I'd love to have a virtual version of that desktop monitor available to me everywhere I might use a laptop.

That sounds fun and futuristic at first until wearing goggles all the time inevitably becomes annoying.

Maybe you're the exception to the rule, but until this shrinks down into the other AR glasses Tim wants to build this is a niche product for a niche use case. Why? Because one way or another you're still going to invest in good monitors anyway and, unless you're constantly working from different locations and actually need that large screen all of the time, many are going to ask themselves whether they can really justify investing $3k to have a 40" screen on a plane.

There's obviously a limit, but 'saving' the weight and size of a larger screen on a laptop and then adding goggles with a power supply you need to carry on your hip sounds very ... let's say counterproductive.

The idea of goggles instead of a foldable, for me, doesn't really work out at the moment. The great thing about a foldable is that I can put it in my pocket. Not my backpack or large shoulder bag, I can shove it in the back pocket of my jeans. The size of the interior screen of a Galaxy or Pixel fold is more than enough to read a book on the go, watch a movie or run two applications like a messenger and a website, calendar and email or whatever side by side.

If I can augment that with glasses that look, feel and weigh just like my optical glasses I'm all on board -- in addition to the device itself having a screen. But why would I want to carry around a whole second device just to avoid a crease? For the few times I want to watch an IMAX movie on my commute?

 

[paradox00]

For what it's worth, I think the next loaded iPhone "ultra" will be about $1999 and not long after that, we'll see the >$2K iPhones. In other words, I don't foresee a long stretch before iPhones are approaching this same $3K level.

Put the rumored (up to) 12 cameras in this thing on an iPhone PRO MAX now and I suspect it would leap OVER the $3K price point too.

My position is it needs to fall in the iPhone price range. Aka, the top specced headset (with 1TB of storage or whatever they plan) might cost as much as the rumoured ultra, but lesser specced ones have to be in the iPhone (non-Pro) range.

They won't be able to achieve the same margins on a headset as a phone because it's not an essential device and won't be for quite some time imo.

 

[robbietop]

This is just hilarious. I am with Craig and co, this device is a science project in search of a customer.

 

[Sweeney196788]

Haha 😂 so we went from a game changing AR experience to nothing but a gimmick basically.. it begins , watch out next week the story emerges they ain’t shown it at the June conference last minute call off.

 

[spiderman0616]

That is some revisionist history right there.

Anyhow this thing really sounds dead on arrival to me. A glorified video game console and Apple is not really known for getting gaming.

I can understand the pressure to come up with new products and keep growing revenue but was there really nothing else they could have looked at?

Bring back the Airport Base Station. Better yet build it into a new generation HomePod and HomePod Mini.

This thing sound like a glorified demo. Even the Zuck has moved on from this AR/VR none sense.

Oh yeah? Revisionist history? People weren't flogging Steve Jobs in every single message board saying Apple is insane for releasing a music player? People weren't lambasting the price tag and lack of features and hardware keyboard on the iPhone? Nobody made fun of the iPad for just being a big iPhone, which they now all have after saying it would be a failure? The Apple Watch wasn't just a useless iPhone accessory for the first three years of its life? ALL of these attitudes are STILL here even on these message boards LONG after those products have become certified blockbuster hits. They're just part of the standard toolbox of negative talking points. What's more surprising to me is the amount of people here who take every rumor headline as factual.

All of the devices I listed above were derided in places like this for being useless and unneeded before the products even had a chance to prove themselves. This will be no different. Apple doesn't make a hit product every single time--that's to be decided later. But deeming something a useless failure before you even know what it can do, what it officially looks like, what its use cases are, what the dev kit is like, etc.? That's just what always happens around here. Same story, different day. I just don't get the point of harping on stuff we haven't seen ad nauseum every time some twerp from wherever says he heard something from the supply chain or whatever the nonsense of the day is.

 

[Aston441]

So, I think I've seen this movie before. You know, where a rumored Apple product is DOA before anyone's even seen it? I think the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch all "sucked" before they were launched too.

Today’s Apple can’t even get a charging pad out the door. Now they’re expected to produce super reality world beamed into your brain. OK.

Maybe Anker can put some effort into VR/MR when they have some time off from nextgen charging solution?

 

[Seanm87]

This is such a terrible rumour 😂 what CEO “distances” themselves from a product in their company? If they’re not confident in it they can it.

 

[woolypants]

Apple's stock price is about to crash. It might recover, though.

 

[slb]

So, I think I've seen this movie before. You know, where a rumored Apple product is DOA before anyone's even seen it? I think the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch all "sucked" before they were launched too.

I think it's fair to say that Apple executives were not hands-off with the development of those devices.

 

[BlairMALL]

So, I think I've seen this movie before. You know, where a rumored Apple product is DOA before anyone's even seen it? I think the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch all "sucked" before they were launched too.

While I wouldn't say I am on the nay-sayer bandwagon, I will say that one big difference between this and all of the previous examples mentioned is that the AR product is rumored to be more for developers or high-end professional use at first. I don't believe that was true for the iPod, iPhone, or the Apple Watch.

As alway, I could be way wrong... (bracing for big obvious examples)

 

[SFjohn]

OMG, a catastrophic rumor from finance co… that’s pretty much as usual at this point. If you’ve got a lever to pump Apple stock, you gotta pump it! $$$$$

 

[spiderman0616]

I think it's fair to say that Apple executives were not hands-off with the development of those devices.

Equally fair to say just because MacRumors said that because somebody else said it because somebody else said it doesn't make it true.