Some Apple Employees Seriously Concerned About Mixed-Reality Headset as Announcement Draws Closer

[DarthBuzzard]

You didn't read this story did you? I think you'll be rather surprised at what Apple releases.

The story mentions potential usecases that Apple imagined 5 years ago. Today, they will be more realistic about what the device is and why it wouldn't be used outside other than for a small number of people.

There's a reason why almost no one uses a Quest Pro outside, even if it was equally as good as the Apple headset. It's just not socially acceptable, and that's fine, because passthrough AR is really meant to be for indoor use and seethrough AR is where the AR medium will see outdoor use.

 

[aylk]

3DTVs don't sell as well as as normal TVs because it's early days and the market is immature

3DTVs do not exist anymore. All of the major TV manufacturers have stopped making 3D-capable televisions because people didn't wanted to wear glasses.

 

[Pezimak]

The story mentions potential usecases that Apple imagined 5 years ago. Today, they will be more realistic about what the device is and why it wouldn't be used outside other than for a small number of people.

There's a reason why almost no one uses a Quest Pro outside, even if it was equally as good as the Apple headset. It's just not socially acceptable, and that's fine, because passthrough AR is really meant to be for indoor use and seethrough AR is where the AR medium will see outdoor use.

Well unless you work for Apple, your opinion has less weight then the story does as they are quoting from those who apparently know.
It has been claimed it is a standalone device, at most needs an iPhone, and runs in batteries. The story states its original presentation states a device to be used outside. So all the evidence points towards a device meant to be used outside and that will be far different in use to any Quest Pro.

 

[bobcomer]

The Apple rumor space is pure insanity at this point. We might as well be arguing about an OLED 19" iPad running MacOS. lol.

I'd buy that if it folds.

 

[turbineseaplane]

3DTVs do not exist anymore. All of the major TV manufacturers have stopped making 3D-capable televisions because people didn't wanted to wear glasses.

3D Projectors do exist though

I still have my 3D enabled Plasma also

Fun thing to have.
Bummed it didn't catch on a bit more.

 

[Serqetry]

Well unless you work for Apple, your opinion has less weight then the story does as they are quoting from those who apparently know.
It has been claimed it is a standalone device, at most needs an iPhone, and runs in batteries. The story states its original presentation states a device to be used outside. So all the evidence points towards a device meant to be used outside and that will be far different in use to any Quest Pro.

How can an opinion have less weight than a story that sounds made up and names none of the supposed sources?

Outdoor ski goggles with a battery pack belt sounds about as ridiculous as you can get.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Well unless you work for Apple, your opinion has less weight then the story does as they are quoting from those who apparently know.
It has been claimed it is a standalone device, at most needs an iPhone, and runs in batteries. The story states its original presentation states a device to be used outside. So all the evidence points towards a device meant to be used outside and that will be far different in use to any Quest Pro.

If outdoor use is a major focus, I will eat a shoe. People are already concerned with VR/MR headsets not being socially acceptable in the home with current form factors. Apple of all people would be the strangest company to all of a sudden break the known rule in the industry that you aren't really supposed to take these devices outside. Especially given the supposed wire running down to the battery.

I think passthrough AR devices maybe, only maybe, could be acceptable outside eventually in a sunglasses form factor, but it seems more likely that optical AR would be used instead.

 

[JamesHolden]

That's an honest question: Is 3D industrial design a strong area for the Mac and is there good software for it?

Bigger question, is that (very small niche) market enough to sustain an expensive piece of hardware that requires a lot of R&D?

Apple is a consumer electronics company that sells products to the masses. They have one niche product, the Mac Pro, which builds off the work they are already doing for the rest of the Mac line. The idea that this headset is intended only for developers or certain commercial market segments is ludicrous.

Apple might be willing to lose money for a while to make AR/VR happen, but this product will 100% be aimed at consumers, not business, not vertical niche markets. And prices aren't suddenly going to drop either with the next version, as some people suggest. Apple isn't going to screw over version 1 customers by cutting the price in half next year.

 

[marinersaptcomplex]

3DTVs do not exist anymore. All of the major TV manufacturers have stopped making 3D-capable televisions because people didn't wanted to wear glasses.

+ they offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist. I don't think, in all of history, has anyone ever said "boy that film would've been much more realistic and immersive if certain elements holographed themself outside of the frame".

Immersive story-telling already handles suspension of disbelief. 3D is, imo, a niche gimmick...much like AR headsets.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

+ they offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist. I don't think, in all of history, has anyone ever said "boy that film would've been much more realistic and immersive if certain elements holographed themself outside of the frame".

Immersive story-telling already handles suspension of disbelief. 3D is, imo, a niche gimmick...much like AR headsets.

Suspension of disbelief isn't the same thing as perceptually experiencing story-telling as if you are in the story. When people suspend their disbelief, they generally become immersed from an engrossment standpoint rather than feeling like they are actually in the story.

AR/VR allows new types of stories to be told.

 

[JamesHolden]

Suspension of disbelief isn't the same thing as perceptually experiencing story-telling as if you are in the story. When people suspend their disbelief, they generally become immersed from an engrossment standpoint rather than feeling like they are actually in the story.

I don't think feeling like you're "in the story" is the same thing as being told a story. That's more like a video game. Watching certain types of scenes on a 2D screen can already be very emotional. Will viewers want to be in the room when a man beats his wife or a couple is having sex? That seems highly voyeuristic to me.

AR/VR allows new types of stories to be told.

No. The types of stories won't change. The way they are told and the way the user experiences them might, but in the end, humans only tell a few stories over and over and over with endless permutations.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

I don't think feeling like you're "in the story" is the same thing as being told a story. That's more like a video game. Watching certain types of scenes on a 2D screen can already be very emotional. Will viewers want to be in the room when a man beats his wife or a couple is having sex? That seems highly voyeuristic to me.


No. The types of stories won't change. The way they are told and the way the user experiences them might, but in the end, humans only tell a few stories over and over and over with endless permutations.

I agree with both of your comments.

VR experiences are interactive by their nature, and this will definitely include weird areas like you note that will start to feel uncomfortable or on the other end will be highly euphoric experiences such as being in the zone in Beat Saber, feeling like John Wick in Boneworks, or the awe of a Star Destroyer in Star Wars Squadrons.

 

[Jensend]

3DTVs do not exist anymore. All of the major TV manufacturers have stopped making 3D-capable televisions because people didn't wanted to wear glasses.

I'm not convinced that 3DTV would have been any more successful if it were glasses-free (though I personally don't like shutter glasses, and much prefer the passive polarized glasses).

I think a lot of it was down to availability of content. 3D was pretty much non-existent for broadcast, streaming, and cable/satellite. The only real option was buying a specialized hardware blu-ray player and 3D blu-rays. If 3D had been more recent, maybe launching around when Disney+ did, I think it may have been more successful. Disney+ would have had a ton of 3D content, perhaps at no additional cost. I predict Disney+ will have 3D movies for the Apple headset.

Also, making filmed 3D content well is a pain. You need twice as many cameras and lenses, which makes filming more expensive and cumbersome. Or you have to convert in post, which doesn't have the same quality as native content.

Two other newer TV technologies are 4K and HDR. I'd guess that the vast majority of 4K/HDR viewing is done through streaming services.

 

[Rookbird¥]

It reminds me of the iPad. People kept wondering when Apple was going to release a tablet but Steve Jobs kept pushing it off because it wasn’t ready. They released it when the technology developed to the point where the device really made sense. At this point with what i’ve read the headset is not ready. If you try and release something before it is ready then you run a high risk of it not only failing commercially but then you give a bad first impression with the product and even when you get it right people are going to be very hesitant to purchase it.

 

[Serqetry]

If the headset is even real, Apple should definitely put off releasing it until they get their act together and start taking gaming seriously. Apple silicon needs more powerful GPUs if anyone is going to care about this thing. Let's see game developers take Apple seriously and start making Mac versions of their games, before we try and burn our retinas with games 2" away from our eyeballs with some ski goggles. This whole thing is really ridiculous. What's Apple going to run on a VR headset? Logic and Final Cut?

 

[aibloop]

Apple has already beta tested animojis in iphones and ipads… They have released a 3d file format for AR, the Lidar depth cameras are in iphones and ipads so they ship ALOT of AR tech already…



Just the fact they are releasing a 3d OS Finder or whathave you, Reality OS.. Is actually cool stuff.



Why wouldn’t you want VR/AR on the Mac? Even IF its just a niche product, would you want any eventual AR/VR entertainment/productivity/3d/effects development to be absent on the Mac?

Even if this turns into a “great Apple AR/VR goggles" for Mac… Its a win… Saying its a dud before its even out is weird to me!


I want an Apple AR/VR solution because it WILL be available the world over by "normal" people and businesses, and I want to use it for remote work… Screen calls are a snorefest and I think this is a way to get more engaging and productive remote communication. TSMC engineers say their use of AR remote work was a huge productivity increase… I think this will prove to be real..


Travelling for meetings is nuts… Sure for special occasions but on the regular… Nah, beam me up scotty… The world needs to reduce travel a tooooon… AR will help.


No need to fuss, just Apple AR/VR glasses… every frikken tech company and their cousins have em…

 

[Jensend]

+ they offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist. I don't think, in all of history, has anyone ever said "boy that film would've been much more realistic and immersive if certain elements holographed themself outside of the frame".

Immersive story-telling already handles suspension of disbelief. 3D is, imo, a niche gimmick...much like AR headsets.

I mean, you could say the same thing about super high resolutions and HDR and such. Or color, or surround sound, or stereo sound. (I actually don't really find all that much value for surround sound outside of VR)

VR gives you a different set of tools for narrative experiences, just like a book and movie offer different tools. Some stories are better told in one medium than another.

If your mindset is that VR is just about "more realism", I think you're missing a lot of what it offers.

 

[JamesHolden]

I agree with both of your comments.

VR experiences are interactive by their nature, and this will definitely include weird areas like you note that will start to feel uncomfortable or on the other end will be highly euphoric experiences such as being in the zone in Beat Saber, feeling like John Wick in Boneworks, or the awe of a Star Destroyer in Star Wars Squadrons.

And that's the rub. VR is an interactive medium and interactive stories are, essentially, games.

Watching a story unfold on screen is a passive experience. The viewer sits back and lets the storyteller transport him or her to another world. The viewer doesn't need to think about what to do or what actions to take. This is a very different dynamic than VR/gaming and I'm not sure most people want interactive stories. After all, every novel would be a "choose your own adventure" if that were the case. You're not really being told a story if you have to interact and make decisions. That's not a story. That's a game.

 

[d686546s]

And that's the rub. VR is an interactive medium and interactive stories are, essentially, games.

Watching a story unfold on screen is a passive experience. The viewer sits back and lets the storyteller transport him or her to another world. The viewer doesn't need to think about what to do or what actions to take. This is a very different dynamic than VR/gaming and I'm not sure most people want interactive stories. After all, every novel would be a "choose your own adventure" if that were the case. You're not really being told a story if you have to interact and make decisions. That's not a story. That's a game.

Hmm, when you look at things like Life is Strange or Detroit: Become Human I do think there is a market for interactive stories that straddle the line between a fairly linear narrative and interactive elements that have an impact on the story.

But I agree that these are unlikely to replace classic 2D movies.

 

[Jay Tee]

Tremendous potential in training and education.

The visuals would provide feedback to the wearer's instructor, who could be on the other side of the planet. This has massive potential.

It'll take a few iterations, to get right.

 

[JamesHolden]

Hmm, when you look at things like Life is Strange or Detroit: Become Human I do think there is a market for interactive stories that straddle the line between a fairly linear narrative and interactive elements that have an impact on the story.

But I agree that these are unlikely to replace classic 2D movies.

I agree that a market exists, but that type of storytelling will never become more popular than, much less replace, the traditional (passive) storytelling experience. A big problem with interactive stories is that the experience breaks down when there's more than one person in the audience. Consuming a story together is a big part of the storytelling experience, whether we're in a movie theater with strangers or at home with friends or family. We all share the same journey, the same emotional highs and lows, etc. and when it's over, we can connect with each other over that shared experience. There's no way to have that kind of group experience with an interactive story.

Ultimately, in my mind, interactive storytelling just isn't storytelling. It's gaming. Storytelling requires an active/passive dynamic between the storyteller and the audience. The audience doesn't get to tell the storyteller what a character should do. Nothing is required of the audience other than to passively consume the story being told. I personally don't think VR is going to improve upon that kind of traditional storytelling. It will no doubt make for more realistic and immersive gaming experiencing, but it won't replace sitting in front of the TV together.

 

[laptech]

As much as it may disgust people, the one market that could drive the success of Apple's VR headset, much to Apple's disgust probably would be the adult entertainment industry because if Apple's claims about the headsets visual capabilities are true then I think it could spur the interests of that industry. The industry has messed with VR before but has never seriously invested in it due to the poor quality of the output of the screens. Even with todays Oculus and Hive, the quality of the visuals in games is still not of a high quality but with Apple's claims of it's quality visuals in it's headset, it might get the industry seriously interested.

Look at Metaverse or was it Metaquest, that online VR portal that Meta developed. What was the one thing that it was being used for? yep, adult related stuff because that is what human brains are conditioned to. There are news articles from female journalists who tried Meta's online portal and it was the biggest thing they noticed whilst in there, the users need for adult related interactions even though that was not what the online portal was designed for.

Oculus and Hive have been out for many years and yet the adult industry has not taken to it. Why? because in my opinion they view the tech specs of the screens not to be of a high enough standard for people but Apples headset could change that due to it's higher quality screens. a headset that could display 1080p quality would be a dream come true to the adult entertainment industry because for years they have been screaming out for a device that would allow for high quality VR interaction.

It would probably be to Apple's disgust but if the adult entertainment industry take of hold of the headset and it delivers the screen quality they have been so desperately after then in my opinion it will be a huge huge sell.

 

[Jensend]

And that's the rub. VR is an interactive medium and interactive stories are, essentially, games.

Watching a story unfold on screen is a passive experience. The viewer sits back and lets the storyteller transport him or her to another world. The viewer doesn't need to think about what to do or what actions to take. This is a very different dynamic than VR/gaming and I'm not sure most people want interactive stories. After all, every novel would be a "choose your own adventure" if that were the case. You're not really being told a story if you have to interact and make decisions. That's not a story. That's a game.

Nah, you can make a story interactive without giving story-altering power to the person interacting. More akin to choosing a character's name in a book than choosing which actions they take. There have been a few short VR animated shorts. Usually they have some element of interaction, if only to make sure the viewer is looking in the "correct" place when the next bit of animation plays, but are otherwise comparable to other forms of animation.

One relatively recent "game" I've enjoyed is "What Remains Of Edith Finch". The creators of the game are very much telling the story, even though I experience the story with some light interaction. Just like reading a book, I can choose my own pace.

I agree that a market exists, but that type of storytelling will never become more popular than, much less replace, the traditional (passive) storytelling experience. A big problem with interactive stories is that the experience breaks down when there's more than one person in the audience. Consuming a story together is a big part of the storytelling experience, whether we're in a movie theater with strangers or at home with friends or family. We all share the same journey, the same emotional highs and lows, etc. and when it's over, we can connect with each other over that shared experience. There's no way to have that kind of group experience with an interactive story.

Video games are already super popular compared with other mediums. There are also quite a few people who enjoy watching other people play games. Tens of millions. I've watched Twitch streams of people playing some of my favorite games, and I've had a "group experience" with them. I've also had that experience in person, but don't get the chance as often.

On the other side of the equation, one of my hopes for VR is that in can help connect strangers and friends and family in creating stories. I've already collaborated with others in sculpting worlds in a VR sculpting app. The intuitiveness of the controls and the sense of being in the same space with others is unmatched (even by real life, in some ways... I can be a giant while 2 inch tall people hang glide around me).

I don't want VR or games to replace movies, and I don't want movies to replace books. They all have their unique strengths.

There's no way to have that kind of group experience with an interactive story.

I completely disagree, because I've had that kind of group experience with an interactive story.

 

[Jensend]

Storytelling requires an active/passive dynamic between the storyteller and the audience. The audience doesn't get to tell the storyteller what a character should do.

Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pezimak]

How can an opinion have less weight than a story that sounds made up and names none of the supposed sources?

Outdoor ski goggles with a battery pack belt sounds about as ridiculous as you can get.

Let me know when you get something printed in the New York Times… I think I’ll trust them more to confirm their sources then random people on an internet forum.