Report: Apple Mixed-Reality Headset to Feature Iris Scanning for Authentication and Payments

[lazyrighteye]

Yeah, but what does everyone else do while someone is playing with it? Do other things?
I get that, but it's not really appealing from a family perspective.

And if the recent news about Meta's simulation and the collapse of NFTs, I am a betting man that AR will simply just be what Google Glass showed it was way back when.

I get the use case for Google Glass. It made perfect sense, but the price and a less social society was worried about privacy implications. We now live in a radically different world.

I do not see how VR anything moves beyond gaming. AR in a Google Glass way would make more sense, like SnapChat glasses, etc with a functional use case beyond gaming. But a Virtual World just makes no sense to anyone with commitments outside of that world. My boss would not be happy with me sitting around playing with my VR headset all day. Which leaves time at home, where I am more focused on dinner, relaxing, and watching content with everyone together. I just don't see VR going anywhere out of the gaming sphere.

I'm pretty sure that's what current VR-using families do now: take turns (save those families the equip every member with a headset). Heck, half the fun is watching others use the goggles. But maybe there's an opportunity there. Maybe it's one Apple will address. Maybe they will offer a way for others to watch what the goggle'd player is doing via Airplay to the new Apple TV. But I agree: the entire family playing at the same time, or at least engaged at the same time, would likely not hurt adoption rates for families. Again, more pondering on my part.

So I had only been chatting VR in this thread, since it was about the pending VR headset. But definitely excited, maybe more so, for what AR can yield. But to say that VR's only relevance is in gaming seems weirdly sort-sighted. But maybe my perspective is weirdly long-sighted. 🤪

At the end of the day, I'm curious to see what Apple has in store for the category. It may flop. It may not. I kinda don't care. I'm more interested in the journey. In pushing potentials and seeing what happens. If any company has proven capable of breathing life into a category many felt was dead or pointless, it's Apple. The fun part is, we're on the cusp of something new. Something different. Not a cyclical spec bump. To me, that's pretty exciting - if not the point. Cheers.

 

[robbietop]

I'm pretty sure that's what current VR-using families do now: take turns (save those families the equip every member with a headset). Heck, half the fun is watching others use the goggles. But maybe there's an opportunity there. Maybe it's one Apple will address. Maybe they will offer a way for others to watch what the goggle'd player is doing via Airplay to the new Apple TV. But I agree: the entire family playing at the same time, or at least engaged at the same time, would likely not hurt adoption rates for families. Again, more pondering on my part.

So I had only been chatting VR in this thread, since it was about the pending VR headset. But definitely excited, maybe more so, for what AR can yield. But to say that VR's only relevance is in gaming seems weirdly sort-sighted. But maybe my perspective is weirdly long-sighted. 🤪

At the end of the day, I'm curious to see what Apple has in store for the category. It may flop. It may not. I kinda don't care. I'm more interested in the journey. In pushing potentials and seeing what happens. If any company has proven capable of breathing life into a category many felt was dead or pointless, it's Apple. The fun part is, we're on the cusp of something new. Something different. Not a cyclical spec bump. To me, that's pretty exciting - if not the point. Cheers.

I don't see the long term viability of VR. You have to think in terms of routines and use cases, not in terms of capabilities or technology.

Tesla made that mistake and we had to wait 100 years for fossil fuels to become ecologically devastating before we figured out how much of a wrong turn we had made as a society by abandoning the electric motor. Sure, it has faster acceleration, instant torque, less mechanical points of failure, and a slightly better ecological track record (minus manufacturing, mining, shipping, charging, etc). Oil was sold as a foreign investment with little to no taxation on recovery of asset, only taxation on consumer purchase. Whereas electricity was nascent and no understanding of how land and real estate assets would fit into the economic model of an electric vehicle footprint. However, it's insanely easy to say "Buy cheap land, pump it for oil, make 100,000x the money you spend on land acquisition and oil recovery."

Same with VR. It has an extremely limited use case in relation to its financial footprint. If it could be made cheaper per sale, it would have a better market. But for what you want to do with it, mobile graphics chips are still catching up, even with Apple Silicon advances.

It is a stationary product, as the power needs greatly outstrip anything a comfortable portable battery could maintain. Remember, batteries are permanently attached to the product. Sure, you can offload the battery and run a cable, but now you're complicating the MO, or actual everyday use of the product. Add into obvious legal implications for driving and ethical implications for use in the workplace, as well as social issues such as rules and regulations for public use, the MO and Use Case is limited to the home. No one is walking to work wearing one, no one is driving to work wearing one, no one is walking in public wearing one, and no one is wearing one at work.

So, what little time you have with your day you want to spend in a solipsistic expression? VR means a virtual world, where you are at the center, such as Second Life, Meta's Metaverse, etc. That, in and of itself, is still a game as there are no real world consequences for failure. What VR experiences I can imagine people wanting to engage in are either fantasies such as fighting dragons, being a basketball star, shooting a bow and arrow/gun, puzzles, or in more adult situations "living" out sexual fantasies, etc. These are all not reality, and are in fact farces prescribed to meet the needs of the user.

AR, however, is different. It is real world, just modified. You can have an online Doctor's visit, where AR can simulate their presence, but they are still a legitimate licensed physician diagnosing conditions, giving medical advice, etc.

I just do not see what VR can contribute outside of gaming, as the very fact of being virtual relegates the entire idea to a farce.

 

[lazyrighteye]

I don't see the long term viability of VR. You have to think in terms of routines and use cases, not in terms of capabilities or technology.

Tesla made that mistake and we had to wait 100 years for fossil fuels to become ecologically devastating before we figured out how much of a wrong turn we had made as a society by abandoning the electric motor. Sure, it has faster acceleration, instant torque, less mechanical points of failure, and a slightly better ecological track record (minus manufacturing, mining, shipping, charging, etc). Oil was sold as a foreign investment with little to no taxation on recovery of asset, only taxation on consumer purchase. Whereas electricity was nascent and no understanding of how land and real estate assets would fit into the economic model of an electric vehicle footprint. However, it's insanely easy to say "Buy cheap land, pump it for oil, make 100,000x the money you spend on land acquisition and oil recovery."

Same with VR. It has an extremely limited use case in relation to its financial footprint. If it could be made cheaper per sale, it would have a better market. But for what you want to do with it, mobile graphics chips are still catching up, even with Apple Silicon advances.

It is a stationary product, as the power needs greatly outstrip anything a comfortable portable battery could maintain. Remember, batteries are permanently attached to the product. Sure, you can offload the battery and run a cable, but now you're complicating the MO, or actual everyday use of the product. Add into obvious legal implications for driving and ethical implications for use in the workplace, as well as social issues such as rules and regulations for public use, the MO and Use Case is limited to the home. No one is walking to work wearing one, no one is driving to work wearing one, no one is walking in public wearing one, and no one is wearing one at work.

So, what little time you have with your day you want to spend in a solipsistic expression? VR means a virtual world, where you are at the center, such as Second Life, Meta's Metaverse, etc. That, in and of itself, is still a game as there are no real world consequences for failure. What VR experiences I can imagine people wanting to engage in are either fantasies such as fighting dragons, being a basketball star, shooting a bow and arrow/gun, puzzles, or in more adult situations "living" out sexual fantasies, etc. These are all not reality, and are in fact farces prescribed to meet the needs of the user.

AR, however, is different. It is real world, just modified. You can have an online Doctor's visit, where AR can simulate their presence, but they are still a legitimate licensed physician diagnosing conditions, giving medical advice, etc.

I just do not see what VR can contribute outside of gaming, as the very fact of being virtual relegates the entire idea to a farce.

All points fully noted. And I still feel there is virtually (heh) an untapped market that will prove bigger than just games. And mored embraced than what Meta has offered to date. Personally, I'm more interested in AR and believe it represents an even larger market. But since this original piece was more focused on VR, I stayed in that lane.

Regardless, I'm not trying to change your mind about VR. Have literally zero interest in anything of the sort. I just feel a bit differently about VR than you - which is great. Doesn't mean either of us is more right or wrong. matter of fact, right and wrong have nothing to do with it. Just different perspectives on a pretty broad topic. Carry on.