Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’m intrigued by this. I’ve been a oculus user since the rift and have some amazing experiences in VR. I’m passing on the Quest Pro because it doesn’t seem to offer much over the Quest 2 for a casual user. And my Quest 2 sits for long periods between uses if there isn’t a new game to interest me.

I do like VR though. It’s not there yet, but I do think there’s a big future if the tech can be optimized for the masses. And yes, I will be in line for the first Apple offering in this space.
 
This sounds like planned leaking to give users pause before investing in a Meta Quest. For all we know, Apples interpretation might suck too.

At the very least the Meta Quest 2 and Pro can be used on PC, which developers need for making VR software easier. There's been no indication that Apple Reality Pro is gonna be PCVR compatible, which if it isn't...then oof that's gonna be a very difficult sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
At the very least the Meta Quest 2 and Pro can be used on PC, which developers need for making VR software easier. There's been no indication that Apple Reality Pro is gonna be PCVR compatible, which if it isn't...then oof that's gonna be a very difficult sell.
They said the same thing about iPhone and the Apple Watch too. The fact is, Apple is not in that situation where they need to support the PC right away. They likely will, but if you are talking about needing a PC to develop for their headset you clearly have not seen the past 15 years of growth.

Apple has 33 million registered developers and they all have use a Mac and Apple developer tools to write software for the iPhone, iPad, Mac and Watch. What makes this any different?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: freedomlinux
They said the same thing about iPhone and the Apple Watch too. The fact is, Apple is not in that situation where they need to support the PC right away. They likely will, but if you are talking about needing a PC to develop for their headset you clearly have not seen the past 15 years of growth.

Apple has 33 million registered developers and they all have use a Mac and Apple developer tools to write software for the iPhone, iPad, Mac and Watch. What makes this any different?

There's a big difference about the iPhone. The iPhone was the first to the party and set the standard of phone app stores as it is now, and is a mass adopted product around the world, in some countries with dominant market share. VR/Mixed Reality while still selling well with the Quest 2 selling over 20 million units in two years, is still niche in comparison for a lot of people. Which is why VR is a lot more open, even on Meta's platforms as the industry cannot afford exclusivity or closed ecosystems, which Meta as Oculus tried initially but quickly dropped as it wasn't working.

Plus here's the bigger thing: Making apps and games for a phone, is vastly different than making apps and games for a VR/Mixed Reality HMD. VR/Mixed Reality is a lot more graphically intense and has a much more complicated development process since it all involves 3D graphic work and making sure it all performs at 60 FPS or higher or else the user will get motion sick. You're rendering things twice in VR/Mixed Reality for each eye to create the stereoscopic 3D that makes it all look and feel real, just like the Nintendo 3DS did, which requires a lot of horsepower. It's why the Meta avatars look so bad and low quality as going at a higher polygon count would cause performance drops on the current standalone hardware. You're also designing everything with six degrees of freedom (6DOF) so you gotta account for people moving around in your app.

 
Last edited:
Apple went to all this trouble to leak new information about their upcoming headset, I guess to stave off Quest Pro buyers. Why not just announce the thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I think Meta/FB gave VR a really, really good shot. It's kinda becoming clear that most people don't find a use case for VR in their daily lives.

What problems is Apple trying to solve here? What's lacking in our daily lives? The whole concept just seems so forced and superflous, as opposed to Apple's other major products that actually made people's daily lives easier.

If a technology can basically take full control of what our eyes see and what our ears hear, the "problem" being solved is ANYTHING that uses our vision and hearing. In the very best case, this is basically a personal Star Trek holodeck or Matrix-like simulation where anything you want to experience with those 2 senses can be experienced in a realistic way.

I'll offer a few concepts...

Those of us who use Apple and Windows tech for work probably have desktop and laptop computers to cover both home/office and on-the-go computing needs. Inevitably, we face situations every day where we wish we had ready access to either... or perhaps when we have access to one, we wished we had access to the other, etc. Or we might wish we had more screen RE for some task. Or now we need the Windows machine. Etc.

If the resolution is good enough, you could have a dynamic Mac Studio Ultra-Ultra-Ultra with any number of screens always with you... and a Maximus PC too. Sitting in that cramped seat on the plane where you can't even unfold a laptop to get something done, VR could give you an apparent expansive mobile desktop in a row where you only have enough room for a virtual keyboard. Need 2 screens or 6 screens for something? No room in reality but endless room in virtual reality. Need 50 screens? Use 50 screens.

In other words, think about all of your productive tech from phone-to-tablet-to-laptop-to-desktop. What if it was all available to you at all times and anywhere because it's ALL IN there? Now you have ONE device that pretty much covers everything Apple offers... and could cover pretty much all AV experiences too.

Rather watch the big movie on a screen bigger than the iPhone or iPad you have with you? Your biggest/best TV could be IN there too. Prefer an IMAX-like theater screen? That can be IN there too. IMAX anywhere you are. Prefer to watch surrounded by an audience? A virtual audience could be around you. Want the audience to be a bunch of super models? There they are. And so on.

Eating lunch in a drab setting under overcast skies. Transport yourself to your ideal setting anywhere in the world for lunch.

Wishing you could be court-side for the big game but can't afford court-side tickets? VR could be a way to attend every kind of sporting event and show in the best seat in the house. And everyone else could sit "there" too. One set of seats that might cost $8K-$50K for a single show could now be sold for a much more affordable "attendee" that actually numbers in the many thousands.

Etc. Basically, imagine if you had access to the holodeck. What would you like to see/experience? Your answer to that question is conceptually doable with a technology that can fully feed your eyes and ears. See the Beatles play live in 1964? Do it. Walk with dinosaurs instead of your daily walk without them? Do it. Take to orbit or explore the solar system or visit any historical event as if you are there, etc. Pilot the Millennium Falcon? Do it. Do it. Do it.

Right now a whole lot of people pay a whole lot of money to ride a stationary bike while looking at a screen to barely imply they are actually riding it THERE (wherever "there" is on that 2-dimensional screen). VR could make it seem so much more like you really are there. For example, look left, right and behind you and there is something "there" to see in those directions too.

How I imagine this is like that. The power to show my eyes anything and play any sounds to my ears means I could basically be anywhere in the universe at any point in time and have anything I want to watch or hear there play. Would I like to type this post from an office on the moon with a view of the Earth? Conceptually, it could seem like I'm there, doing that. I may actually be jammed into a corner of dirty subway train riding to my stop. But this lets me escape that and have all my goodies with me whenever I want them.

Will Apple's cut of this be that? I don't know. For all of that to happen, my imagination has just written some big software development checks that may not be cashable for many years to come. But if the hardware is able to do it, then it's only software to make it do such things. If enough software experience developers get interested, any visual & audio event becomes potential to deliver.
 
Last edited:
This will be literally a blink of an eye to make payments and spend your money
yep, and when you wear them in your favorite grocery store and look at a piece of meat you want to buy - Apple AR will show you how it looks on the BBQ when its done ...
Apple is clearly hyping things up, Cook talking about it and more leaks that are planted by Apple ... nice HW, where are the ue cases for the average consumer who I willing to spend 2 grand or so on this thing
 
Last I heard this was marketed as a business device. Is that still the case?

Yes just like the Meta Quest Pro, they're marketing it towards professionals, enterprise, and developers, so it's gonna cost four figures. They're gonna start with the Apple Reality Pro before they release the consumer headset so they can get an app library out of the gate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattopotamus
LMK when they look like Dark Brandon Aviators - with that red laser look :cool:
 
Folks....consider the source of this comment. Earlier this week he started a thread titled "Am I Stupid..."
Your response is as useless as his post was. Both of which are almost as useless as my reply. You both need to take a step back. Go outside. Have some ice cream.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Expos of 1969
Happy to see Microsoft at Meta Connect working with Meta to provide all "Office" and 365 apps. Very excited to see Apple's product as well.

Passthrough looks fantastic on the Quest Pro. Best passthrough functionality wins in my opinion and Apple is uniquely positioned to dominate there with their imaging stack and knowhow.
Prices seem reasonable to me. Certainly would expect above a high end phone for a Meta type product and I expect Macbook Pro pricing for the Apple headset. For those who understand that this is a complete shift in computing, that will be very reasonable.

Very exciting times!
 
Last edited:
Dynamic Eyebrow™.

The one and only Mr Spock
1665760526130.gif
 
If Apple Reality can't be connected to PCVR...then it's gonna be a much harder sell for developers, enterprise, and professionals who are looking more towards the Quest Pro
Not a hard sell at all. Just looking at Apple’s past releases, Apple targets people not only with money, but willing to spend that money fairly freely (with their attached credit card information). Apple’s very likely to recreate the dynamic they have with iPhones where there are far fewer of the devices, but developers make FAR more money on iOS than they do on Android.

They can “look” towards the Quest Pro all they want, but you can bet that every company that has access to Apple developers will have them working on something as soon as the SDK is available to them. This is likely another facet to why two of the largest gaming company purchases recently has included companies that do a lot of mobile development.
 
"Apple's headset also apparently includes a feature for those who wear glasses, allowing them to magnetically clip on prescription lenses."
--------------------------------------------------------

So Apple will now try to sell you prescription lenses made to fit this headset. iLenses for only $700.
This I don’t understand...the need to wear glasses with any VR headset. Why can’t I simply input my prescription information and the headset adjust the screen resolution so that it appears crystal clear to my vision specs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I see no way this sells any better than the Oculus, which is abysmal. We have about a 50/50 return rate with the Oculus, or it sits in the plastic wrap on the shelf collecting dust for over half a year until an employee gets it dirt cheap in an idle inventory adjustment to flush it out the door. Also, Games are short and overpriced.

Also, how is this better than a smartphone, tablet, or even a TV?...
The use case I’m interested in is the elimination of the need for a screen on my phone. Augmented reality should be able to superimpose information that I would otherwise have to look at my phone to receive. Which then fades into why have a phone at all? Without need for a screen, the device that does the computing and network communication could be much smaller in the pocket, or be done by the Apple Watch--battery size being the unknown limitation to size shrinkage.
 
That Quest Pro at 722 grams. That's a LOT of weight on your head and neck and assuming it isn't well balanced then I assume most of it is at the front and over your eyes. That will be really uncomfortable to wear for long periods and for regular repeated use.

I'm a long term spectacles wearer and have switched between glass and plastic lenses over the years, and just that switch, a few tens of grams, can make a big different to long term wearability.

I'm also a long term headphone wearer and pretty much anything over 350 grams is borderline uncomfortable, and remember that headphone weight normally IS well balanced and supported by a good, padded headband.

Apple's kit really needs to be light - much lighter than 722 grams - if it's going to be something that can support long term and repeated use. And if long term and repeated use isn't sustainable, it will be relegated to gaming sessions and novelty use. And will fail. Particularly if it is expensive, which it looks like it will be.

There's been a lot of talk about what this AR/VR headset will do and I'm genuinely interested and hopefully optimistic. But that weight. Get it right, Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.