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

[Jensend]

"People didn't want to wear glasses."

Why would they want to wear a helmet?

Well, as I’ve said before, I don’t think 3D TV failed simply because of the requirement for glasses.

Billions of people wear glasses because the positives outweigh the negatives.

Can you clarify your prediction? VR may very well remain a niche, but I don’t think it will completely disappear like 3DTV hardware has. Do you disagree with me?

 

[Serqetry]

Billions of people wear glasses because the positives outweigh the negatives.

True, but no one else wants to when they don't have to... and the people that need to want to put another set of glasses/goggles over their prescription glasses even less.

 

[Jensend]

True, but no one else wants to when they don't have to... and the people that need to want to put another set of glasses/goggles over their prescription glasses even less.

Quite a few people poke holes in their faces for fashion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy wearing glasses. I wear contacts, simply because they give me better vision than glasses, and it's one less decision to make in my life (in regards to choosing frames). But I've never felt uncomfortable wearing sunglasses. I personally find earbuds to be less comfortable, and those are very commonly used by the general population.

I just don't buy this premise that people will tolerate glasses if it brings their vision to a certain baseline of optimal natural human vision, but won't wear them for enhancements beyond that.

But again, it comes down to trade-offs. The trade-offs that come with current VR technology mean I rarely use my VR headset these days, even though I very much enjoy using many VR applications. If it were as simple as putting on a pair of sunglasses, and there were a robust OS designed specifically around AR/VR, and the resolution and optics were significantly improved, I'd use VR a lot more.

 

[robbietop]

Well, as I’ve said before, I don’t think 3D TV failed simply because of the requirement for glasses.

Billions of people wear glasses because the positives outweigh the negatives.

Can you clarify your prediction? VR may very well remain a niche, but I don’t think it will completely disappear like 3DTV hardware has. Do you disagree with me?

Niche. It will not move beyond gaming, and as a matter of fact, will be a niche in the gaming market. If PSVR2 sales numbers compared with Oculus and PSVR1 sales numbers are any indication, VR/AR is dead on arrival for mass market purposes. I am a huge Apple fanboy and love video gaming, but I have ZERO interest in VR gaming. Out of my 5 person immediate family, I am the only one with any interest in a product like this, and I am the key demographic (35-44, Above Median Income) for their launch customer for spreading word of mouth.

My family has asked me about these rumors and I have just bluntly said ”Don’t waste any time thinking about it. You’ll get bored in a month and lose 3 grand.”

The reason I say this is because I am the Regional Manager of a small collection of franchised Retail and Rent to Own stores that have sold Oculus, PSVR, etc. Previous RM forbade any store from selling PSVR because sales were so low and returns so high we took a huge depreciation hit from Idle Inventory. Oculus sells OK, but returns are still ridiculously high due to limited library, insanely short games, and ridiculous pricing. Also, customers and their kids often complain of headaches, neck troubles, and low satisfaction with Oculus the longer they have one. PSVR was highly rated, but the pricing was already high enough before our mark up. And VR is just not a huge demand for a majority of gamers who prefer TV/Console gaming in a FPS world.

14-30 year olds may think chopping veggies in VR is fun for months on end, but in reality the child actually gets bored in a Month, which is the average moment for return. RE4 VR you would think is a huge draw, but……again……MOST PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY GAMES ON A TV

Nerds and geeks cannot understand this because they think any tech is super cool. But a 50 year old long term gamer has the same wants as the 13 year old just introduced; Call of Duty, Fortnite, and all the other vapid, low IQ FPS. VR is not even a top 30 desire.

 

[JamesHolden]

Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dungeons & Dragons? Seriously? There are exceptions to every rule, but D&D hasn't gotten a lick cooler, or more popular, since I was a kid (I'm late 40s now). Like I said in my previous post, if people wanted interactive stories instead of linear ones, every novel would be a Choose Your Own Adventure.

The basic framework of storytelling, the relationship between the storyteller and the audience, has basically not changed throughout human history. Mediums evolve, but the dynamic remains largely the same. As soon as storytelling becomes interactive, it becomes something different. It becomes a game. There is most definitely a strong storytelling aspect to gaming, but the experience is totally different than passively being told a story, reading a book, or watching a film.

Gaming is a very valuable market because gamers spend a ton of money, not because a ton of people are gamers. Although interactive stories, gaming, D&D, etc. have existed for a very long time, the majority of people still prefer a linear/passive storytelling experience and the majority of people are not gamers beyond crossword or sudoku on their iPhones. All of those people who aren't interested in interactive stories/games aren't going to suddenly become interested because of VR.

 

[JamesHolden]

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.

I'll grant you, it's a gray area. When does a story become a game? In my mind, once you reach a certain level of interaction, you are playing a game and not being told a story. As soon as you are thinking about what to do next, where to look, etc., you become active. It's about you. Reading a book or watching a film is a different experience. You are passive, a voyeur. You have no say in what happens or how you experience the story, what you see and when, etc. This is a huge distinction in my mind.

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.

Again, gray area. To me "light interaction" is light gaming.

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.

Tens of millions is really not that much when you think about how many people around the world go see a blockbuster movie. You're obviously a gamer and I won't argue that the gaming market is huge and very popular. That said, the general public is not particularly interested in gaming and never has been. Interactive stories, what I would call games, are not going to be VR's killer app, certainly not in the next several decades. The people who are already interested in that type of entertainment and storytelling are understandably excited about the potential, but the general public has always preferred linear storytelling and I don't think VR changes that.

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).

That all sounds very cool and, frankly, nerdy. Again, the general public is not interested in sculpting VR worlds. Given how the metaverse concept is tanking, it's obvious they aren't interested in connecting with strangers in VR either. Do you know what connects strangers and friends? Going outside and talking to people, not strapping a headset to your face alone in your room.

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.

100% agree. They are unique mediums and quite different from each other. I believe that VR will remain relatively niche, no matter how good the hardware gets, because I think there are too many points of friction and it all feels a bit too "unnatural". Once we have a neural interface and the user no longer requires a headset and can experience physical sensations, touch, the cold air, etc., then VR will become hugely popular, but not until then.

 

[Jensend]

Dungeons & Dragons? Seriously? There are exceptions to every rule, but D&D hasn't gotten a lick cooler, or more popular, since I was a kid (I'm late 40s now). Like I said in my previous post, if people wanted interactive stories instead of linear ones, every novel would be a Choose Your Own Adventure.

The basic framework of storytelling, the relationship between the storyteller and the audience, has basically not changed throughout human history. Mediums evolve, but the dynamic remains largely the same. As soon as storytelling becomes interactive, it becomes something different. It becomes a game. There is most definitely a strong storytelling aspect to gaming, but the experience is totally different than passively being told a story, reading a book, or watching a film.

Gaming is a very valuable market because gamers spend a ton of money, not because a ton of people are gamers. Although interactive stories, gaming, D&D, etc. have existed for a very long time, the majority of people still prefer a linear/passive storytelling experience and the majority of people are not gamers beyond crossword or sudoku on their iPhones. All of those people who aren't interested in interactive stories/games aren't going to suddenly become interested because of VR.

My comment wasn’t about popularity. I was simply countering your claim that storytelling was strictly a linear non-interactive experience.

I’ve experienced interactive theater… that wasn’t a game. There was a murder mystery, and the actors would adjust the ending based on audience response. I suppose that’s a bit like a choose your own adventure as there are only a limited number of storylines.

Books are poorly suited to interactive story telling. That’s why people don’t want Choose Your Own Adventure books. That’s says nothing about the desire for interactive storytelling in other mediums that are better suited for it.

There are different kinds of storytelling, but just because some kinds of storytelling are also games, that doesn’t stop it from being storytelling.

 

[Jensend]

Given how the metaverse concept is tanking, it's obvious they aren't interested in connecting with strangers in VR either.

Multiuser experiences are extremely popular in VR*. See VRChat, Rec Room, Gorilla tag, etc. What is failing is Facebook’s attempts at a “Metaverse”, or any of the crypto crap.

*a large subset of VR users, not the general population, of course.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Can't wait to see what Animoji look like on this thing!

 

[Jensend]

Niche.

Which isn’t the same thing as dead, which 3DTV is.

It will not move beyond gaming

The capabilities of current headsets make them unsuitable for most non-gaming purposes. But once visual quality and comfort are improved, I believe it will be more suitable for more general computing uses. I’m excited to see what conventions Apple comes up with for a VR OS… currently VR is more like an accessory or a gaming console rather than a general computing device.

and as a matter of fact, will be a niche in the gaming market.

I think it should be a subset of the gaming market. Not all games are well suited for VR, but I think VR is still fertile ground for new kinds of gaming experiences.

If PSVR2 sales numbers compared with Oculus and PSVR1 sales numbers are any indication

Is it not a bit early to make comparisons, with the limited availability of the PS5?

Out of my 5 person immediate family, I am the only one with any interest in a product like this

And my siblings and their immediate families were here this past Christmas, and when one person asked to play VR, their was inevitably a line of others waiting their turn.

Rent to Own

Gross

14-30 year olds may think chopping veggies in VR is fun for months on end, but in reality the child actually gets bored in a Month, which is the average moment for return.

My nephew called me last week, because his XBox One had broken, and he was wondering if he should replace it with a Quest 2. Despite my enthusiasm for VR, I did warn him that while he would have fun with it, there are fewer games available, so it may not be a good choice as his only gaming system.

I believe much of the reason is just a chicken and egg problem. Game developers, especially larger ones, aren’t as incentivized to make VR games, because the potential audience is small, and gamers aren’t as likely to buy a VR set if there aren’t many VR games available.

 

[trip1ex]

As someone who wears glasses… I disagree, lol. People already do strap something to their face on a regular basis. 😂

Obviously I understand what you mean and I’m just joking. Although I’m also somewhat serious. If not bulky and comfortable enough (like glasses, sunglasses, or googles now) people will want to wear them (and do so on a regular basis). That likely won’t happen with the first product generation. But future generations of products… sure. There is nothing about a device for your face that is all that unusual right now. Billions (with a B) of people wear glasses and it’s not a big deal to do so.

I wear glasses too. And heavy ones. And have since 2nd grade - probably before you were born.

I spent a lot of my life eschewing glasses for contacts so I didn’t have to have something on my face. Only switched back decades later because contacts started hurting my eyes after only an hour or two.

Thought about lasik surgery many times but my corneas are thin enough and vision bad enough that I would still need glasses.

Obviously the less intrusive the better. But this could be far far far off. Right now massive difference between VR goggles and a pair of sunglasses.

Also we put on glasses so we can SEE in the first place!!! Big difference in “motivation” and what we are willing to put up with.

And don’t forget, VR going to be worse for us who wear glasses. For example, Daring Fireball copied a report that said Apple’s mixed reality headset will require prescription lenses because it won’t fit a pair of glasses.

 

[Serqetry]

And don’t forget, VR going to be worse for us who wear glasses. For example, Daring Fireball copied a report that said Apple’s mixed reality headset will require prescription lenses because it won’t fit a pair of glasses.

Which is why nearly no one who wears glasses (including myself) will ever be using such a device. I can't even imagine getting a $3000 Apple headset and then getting prescription lenses for it. How does that even work? Also, my eyes keep getting worse and my prescription changes. This headset idea make no sense, unless Apple intends to exclude everyone who wears glasses.

I wore contacts for a good number of years when I was younger but I quit because they just weren't as good as glasses and had too many downsides. If I were to lose my mind and decide to buy a headset like the rumored Apple one, I think I'd have to get contacts again, and I'm just not interested in that right now.

 

[robbietop]

Which isn’t the same thing as dead, which 3DTV is.

The capabilities of current headsets make them unsuitable for most non-gaming purposes. But once visual quality and comfort are improved, I believe it will be more suitable for more general computing uses. I’m excited to see what conventions Apple comes up with for a VR OS… currently VR is more like an accessory or a gaming console rather than a general computing device.

I think it should be a subset of the gaming market. Not all games are well suited for VR, but I think VR is still fertile ground for new kinds of gaming experiences.

Is it not a bit early to make comparisons, with the limited availability of the PS5?

And my siblings and their immediate families were here this past Christmas, and when one person asked to play VR, their was inevitably a line of others waiting their turn.

Gross

My nephew called me last week, because his XBox One had broken, and he was wondering if he should replace it with a Quest 2. Despite my enthusiasm for VR, I did warn him that while he would have fun with it, there are fewer games available, so it may not be a good choice as his only gaming system.

I believe much of the reason is just a chicken and egg problem. Game developers, especially larger ones, aren’t as incentivized to make VR games, because the potential audience is small, and gamers aren’t as likely to buy a VR set if there aren’t many VR games available.

Thanks for the gross. I am sure trash collectors get the same response, but it's a necessary market because not everyone can afford a nice leather couch or Oculus or PS5 at full retail, but we give them the chance to have something nice other than cheap crap.

You assume that it will have a use outside of the home eventually. My phone continually annoys me, to the point where I only have four apps sending me notifications. Why would I want constant visual harassment on a pair of glasses?

And that's assuming governments don't ban their usage when you are the operator of a vehicle, or as what happened with Google Glass, anywhere in Public.

Not to mention the fact that all of the functions of these headsets and glasses are redundant, already functional on your smartphone.

Like Steve said of the iPad: It has to be better than a smartphone and a laptop at certain things.

I don't see that. Niche product for a small market, with limited functionality beyond being an accessory device like Apple Watch. But Apple Watch is small, and has uses outside of being an extension of the iPhone. And doesn't require strapping in a heavy helmet with a limited battery pack at over $2000.

My opinion? Abandon the project and use what has been learned for the Apple Car, which has an infinitely larger market and use case. The VR/AR experience is best suited for the HUD of a car, and interacting in a Maps interface for searching for gasoline, restaurants, local sights, etc

This entire VR headset thing smells of a product looking for a customer, not the other normal way around.

 

[diddl14]

I don’t understand why this “virtual workspace” use case keeps coming up. Unless Apple has made some revolutionary advance that delivers photons to your eyes without using pixels, any such “virtual” workspace will be a fuzzy, blurry mess compared to a real workspace with actual monitors. Could Apple have made such a breakthrough? Maybe. If so, I would love to see it in action. If not, this headset is nothing more than an “also ran” product.

Just curious, what do you think reading the reviews?

 

[MobiusStrip]

I think the "workspace" idea is not invalid, specially as a laptop enhancement. But as expected, Apple has gimped this headset by omitting a video input on it. This decision eliminates many applications that would have greatly expanded the product's usefulness and appeal, with the "virtual workspace" being one. How are you going to get the image from your computer into the goggles? With some shìtty, compressed wireless transmission? Lame.

Apple also consistently showed all the images surrounded by some cutesy "environment." I hope this can be eliminated in favor of making any image "full-screen." If these are to be useful for any kind of productive work, we need the full resolution available. Otherwise, you don't have 4K screens, and you will indeed be peering at puny blurry renderings.

The other elephant, which nobody seems to be even asking about, is how do you get media onto and off of these things? What's the storage capacity?

Someone claimed these don't do anything beyond what iOS devices do, but the 3-D aspect alone makes that false.

 

[cpnotebook80]

The use of VR/AR marketed here by apple seems more targeted to users who look like they work in startups, cool business ventures, google, apple, type office environments or engineering research establishments. For 90% of the office space and users, we will never see this in the office. Will you see this in the government offices, universities campuses, hospitals areas? no. We have a long way to go and it begins with changing the way we perceive our work and how we use tools smartly. But for entertainment value, its a great peek into the future by apple.

However, give me a cheaper version of vision pro with the 3d cinema mode and i will happily sit on the couch and watch my movies without standing wearing a headgear trying to manipulate objects and type in the air.

Will wait and watch to see where this progresses as I see Samsung is also joining in on the fun.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Just curious, what do you think reading the reviews?

Regarding virtual workspace use case, what I said in the comment you quoted stands. They are still using pixels. They may be smaller pixels than the competition for all I know, but the math regarding how much of the virtual environment is represented by a pixel (even a small one) 3 inches from your eye still stands. Any illusions of having several high resolution (>=1440p) virtual monitors are out the window, as I stated in a number of comments.

I think this is the reason Apple is showing floating windows for individual apps (or app tabs, modes, etc.), not a full screen workspace as you would have in a monitor. In a traditional monitor (4K for example) you would have multiple such app windows on the workspace 18-24 inches from your face and everything is super sharp. Rendering such a workspace to appear 18-24 inches in front of you is not likely to be as sharp, even with Apple’s higher res displays.

I know the pitch is now “the entire room is your workspace, not just a monitor” but if you have effectively the same amount of functional real estate for applications because they are rendered rather large in the environment or you have to choose one “foreground” app to render sharply, I just don’t see this as a huge leap forward from just having a couple of physical monitors.

 

[Sweeney196788]

Thanks for the gross. I am sure trash collectors get the same response, but it's a necessary market because not everyone can afford a nice leather couch or Oculus or PS5 at full retail, but we give them the chance to have something nice other than cheap crap.

You assume that it will have a use outside of the home eventually. My phone continually annoys me, to the point where I only have four apps sending me notifications. Why would I want constant visual harassment on a pair of glasses?

And that's assuming governments don't ban their usage when you are the operator of a vehicle, or as what happened with Google Glass, anywhere in Public.

Not to mention the fact that all of the functions of these headsets and glasses are redundant, already functional on your smartphone.

Like Steve said of the iPad: It has to be better than a smartphone and a laptop at certain things.

I don't see that. Niche product for a small market, with limited functionality beyond being an accessory device like Apple Watch. But Apple Watch is small, and has uses outside of being an extension of the iPhone. And doesn't require strapping in a heavy helmet with a limited battery pack at over $2000.

My opinion? Abandon the project and use what has been learned for the Apple Car, which has an infinitely larger market and use case. The VR/AR experience is best suited for the HUD of a car, and interacting in a Maps interface for searching for gasoline, restaurants, local sights, etc

This entire VR headset thing smells of a product looking for a customer, not the other normal way around.

I’m not replying to all what you said , but the car bit .. let’s be honest nothing can be done on a car unless it flys, all you can do in a car is make it comfortable, give you more controls on a dash board or voice controls because cars are designed to get you from a to b , you still have to obay laws and rules with cars which is why driverless cars will never take off. You still have to have a manual back up.

 

[robbietop]

I’m not replying to all what you said , but the car bit .. let’s be honest nothing can be done on a car unless it flys, all you can do in a car is make it comfortable, give you more controls on a dash board or voice controls because cars are designed to get you from a to b , you still have to obay laws and rules with cars which is why driverless cars will never take off. You still have to have a manual back up.

The car makes more sense than ski goggles alone at the lake

 

[Sweeney196788]

The car makes more sense than ski goggles alone at the lake

I disagree , the VR/AR experience that apple showed can be used for businesses , help expand work flow and education , can be used to with jobs , you can get a lot more productivity done through the use of expanded screens and interactive experiences of viewing internet, objects etc

Car .. we upgrade the car to what ? More buttons on a dash board , that no one uses because we all still listen to radios, car steering wheels have been clustered with buttons , the touch screen dash boards have become clustered , and your still limited by laws , more and more laws come out with use of days boards and driver rules. The car has peaked it’s not a revolutionary thing anymore. Other than making the car more comfortable for drivers it’s impossible to change it when you have limitations by law.

 

[Sweeney196788]

Ma

I disagree , the VR/AR experience that apple showed can be used for businesses , help expand work flow and education , can be used to with jobs , you can get a lot more productivity done through the use of expanded screens and interactive experiences of viewing internet, objects etc

Car .. we upgrade the car to what ? More buttons on a dash board , that no one uses because we all still listen to radios, car steering wheels have been clustered with buttons , the touch screen dash boards have become clustered , and your still limited by laws , more and more laws come out with use of days boards and driver rules. The car has peaked it’s not a revolutionary thing anymore. Other than making the car more comfortable for drivers it’s impossible to change it when you have limitations by law.

Many manufacturers are actually leaving apple car play now because they are realising it’s not popular. General public aren’t interested in the cars the same way as computers they go for cheaper cars and insurance as possible. Even electric cars hardly anyone across is upgrading to them because they don’t see the point as it’s just a car that gets you to a to b

 

[theluggage]

you still have to obay laws and rules with cars which is why driverless cars will never take off. You still have to have a manual back up.

Driverless cars will work when it's safe and legal to operate one while participating in a virtual meeting on your Apple Vision AR Goggles

Apple Vision AR will work when the goggles are comfortable and unobtrusive enough to wear 8 hours a day (and think how reluctant people are to wear regular spectacles or eye protection...)

 

[Sweeney196788]

Driverless cars will work when it's safe and legal to operate one while participating in a virtual meeting on your Apple Vision AR Goggles

Apple Vision AR will work when the goggles are comfortable and unobtrusive enough to wear 8 hours a day (and think how reluctant people are to wear regular spectacles or eye protection...)

Driverless cars are not going to be reviewed and honestly won’t take off as what people think. It’s never going to be safe because you still need to have a manual back up, you still have to be able to drive , you will be restricted to how you use it hands free, roads are not designed for those types of cars, the tech is going to need to be so advanced that it will be able to identify people running across roads , pot holes , car doors opening etc. road laws will need to change too which will cause a headache for governments which is why they won’t do it or put restrictions on it. Cars that are driverless will cost way too much , and insurance will be crazy , and if anything goes wrong with it the cost of repairs will be crazy high.

Cars have peaked there is nothing you can do other than work on emmisons , which country’s are still struggling with. There is tax zones in countries and you have to pay tax if your car omits a certain amount of emotions. Speed limits , cut offs , road works etc .. driving with no hands on wheel , and a computer doing it for you will need to adapt to all that plus constant law changes.

And the worst part is trying to convince a teenager who is just finshed school and needs a car to get to a job or university to buy a driverless car that will cost thousands and cost hundreds a year to charge and maintain or buy a second hand car cheaper with cheap insurance

 

[Sweeney196788]

Driverless cars will work when it's safe and legal to operate one while participating in a virtual meeting on your Apple Vision AR Goggles

Apple Vision AR will work when the goggles are comfortable and unobtrusive enough to wear 8 hours a day (and think how reluctant people are to wear regular spectacles or eye protection...)

 

[Sweeney196788]

Yeah apple VR headset is limited with battery, are you going to be using it longer than that possibly, it depends on what. University students could use the AR glasses to help with projects and work flow, jobs such as teaching , jobs that require more than one screen like game development, movie and video editing will make use of it. As it cal also be paired with existing computer with the glasses being used as an extended display

People are reluctant to wear glasses, that’s becoming less common now as more people are wearing glasses for reading , writting, watching tv than ever before , gaming in VR yet to fully take off but kids are wearing the headsets , even kids are using multiple screens to play games and stream.