beautiful for sure. That pad is an elegant way to charge your mouse and iphone
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Some Apple Employees Seriously Concerned About Mixed-Reality Headset as Announcement Draws Closer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Also Windows tablets failed, while the iPad was a success. The fact that someone failed doesn’t mean the concept is not valid.
Imma buy one and keep it sealed in its package then sell it for 70k in 20 years.
It often seems like Apple is playing a long game with product designs. The above is clearly the right solution, but they released the first versions of the mouse long before induction charging became normalized. Now, if they released the next iteration of it with that type of charging, people would flock to it, even upgrading mouse... mice that still hold a charge for a week or so at a time, eliminating yet another cable.
When the New York Times got to the Apple buzzword "copresence" to describe AR, I couldn't help thinking of the word coprolite.
I think the problem is pretty clear. Apple's been great at me-too products that take over the product category. I think they thought VR was going to be a viable category by the time their version was ready, and what happened instead is that the category died out from under them. So they're currently devising the spiffiest corpse in a dead realm, they know it, and that makes it hard to motivate folks.
I think the problem is pretty clear. Apple's been great at me-too products that take over the product category. I think they thought VR was going to be a viable category by the time their version was ready, and what happened instead is that the category died out from under them. So they're currently devising the spiffiest corpse in a dead realm, they know it, and that makes it hard to motivate folks.
Price point dooms it to failure. It's not accessible so why would anyone bother putting in the resources to develop apps for it? The fact that they pulled employees from other projects to focus on this makes this a very lacklustre year for Apple
I still see these sorts of headsets only having niche potential. Could be useful for some business applications (eg walking around 3D models of yet to be built buildings) Who wants to carry a headset around? How many people actually use the AR features of their phone with any regularity? And the metaverse is a joke.
It's going to be a very niche product for a very select few people who may be able to put it to good use. Other people with more money than sense will also buy it just to own it, but I am sure buyers remorse will kick in eventually. Hopefully with its introduction other devices that are more useful to a broader range of folks will be born.
There will be some employee shuffling from this release though.
There will be some employee shuffling from this release though.
That's funny, maybe a good idea, but I seem to recall someone running the numbers on that a little while ago, and buying Apple stock would have yielded a better return. Still a cool collector's item.
[blah blah blah, calculations over time, splits, etc]
328 shares * $150 per share ≈ $49,200
then add in dividends of $5,381.88.
In other words, if you would have bought AAPL shares instead of a phone back then, you'd have over $54,000 today. So, do both to hedge it.
Last edited:
I think the big issue here is that there isn't a real obvious next step for tech to take now. VR/AR is great in concept, but it doesn't bring the same level of increase in lifestyle that the iPhone did. We already have all the information at our finger tips wherever we go, this just overlays it with real world instead of looking at a screen we pull out of our pocket at any time. Phones were already an established market too, iPhone just took a huge leap in that established market.
I think the core of the issue here is that companies always need new ideas, but there are only so many uses for things, early advancements will be a much greater leap than later advancements because most of the benefit of new tech is had early on in it's development cycle. Computing as a whole is now to the point that for the vast majority of people, there is no need to advance anymore. I'm not saying there aren't avenues for further advancement, just that for the average person newer advancements don't bring as much new benefit to convince people to change with it. Personally, I don't want an AR headset at all. I'm getting to the point now where I want to disconnect more as the connected world has become too corporate with everything trying to shove ads in your face all the time to sell you ever more crap you don't need. This whole AR push feels more like the next step in that corporate progression more than something the average consumer would truly benefit from so my interest is pretty low due to that (in the AR market as a whole, not just Apple's potential offering).
Plenty of people inside Apple were skeptical about the Macintosh as well. It launched in 1984 with a 2023 adjusted price of $7224, a 9 inch grayscale display, with 128K of RAM. I believe Apple knows precisely what it’s doing, and in a few years these devices will be ubiquitous.
Last edited:
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
I’m thinking about buying it and keeping it sealed and untouched until 2050. So I can re-sell it for quadrupole the amount at an auction. Already have a $100,000 price set in place 😂
That’s exactly I want to do but mine will sell for $100,000.
The barriers to adoption are the following:
1) Cost - which determines the rapidness of adoption, piece-meal buying over a monthly plan does not work easily as people get wary of cost even after a year
2) Market at proscribed cost - determines the pool of potential buyers
3) Age of market - the adoption of new technology is inherent more in younger buyers (who may not have the money)
4) Physicality - humans are not going to easily engage in the physicalness of an obtrusive device - this will trigger people to ban it outright due to privacy concerns
5) Fragility - will turn at 20%, perhaps 50% away when their device breaks - devolving the adoption of technology
6) Usefulness - What is this good for? No one can quantify the need, only the desire to be something new
7) Social acceptance - like above, privacy, usefulness, and cost will impede adoption so people will not value its presence or accept it due to the stigma of a device; in many countries, owning any technology makes you a target to be robbed
8) Usability - if the solution is not indistinguishable from ease of use scenarios like a phone or a car, it will have a high probability of failure
These are high barriers to technological adoption and wealthy nations live in a bubble of ignorance. Average annual income world-wide is $10,000 USD (may be a bit out of whack with that figure), therefore, any ‘technology’ needs meet cost constraints of that value proposition or the technology will not be easy adopted. When your primary focus is a place to live, something to eat, and the clothes on your back, nothing else matters.
1) Cost - which determines the rapidness of adoption, piece-meal buying over a monthly plan does not work easily as people get wary of cost even after a year
2) Market at proscribed cost - determines the pool of potential buyers
3) Age of market - the adoption of new technology is inherent more in younger buyers (who may not have the money)
4) Physicality - humans are not going to easily engage in the physicalness of an obtrusive device - this will trigger people to ban it outright due to privacy concerns
5) Fragility - will turn at 20%, perhaps 50% away when their device breaks - devolving the adoption of technology
6) Usefulness - What is this good for? No one can quantify the need, only the desire to be something new
7) Social acceptance - like above, privacy, usefulness, and cost will impede adoption so people will not value its presence or accept it due to the stigma of a device; in many countries, owning any technology makes you a target to be robbed
8) Usability - if the solution is not indistinguishable from ease of use scenarios like a phone or a car, it will have a high probability of failure
These are high barriers to technological adoption and wealthy nations live in a bubble of ignorance. Average annual income world-wide is $10,000 USD (may be a bit out of whack with that figure), therefore, any ‘technology’ needs meet cost constraints of that value proposition or the technology will not be easy adopted. When your primary focus is a place to live, something to eat, and the clothes on your back, nothing else matters.
One of the ways that I'll know I have too much money is when I'm willing to buy the first generation of any Apple product. In the meantime, the rest of you can be beta testers for the 2nd and 3rd generation of this thing. My only wish is that there will be an app that lets you pretend you're actually in an AppleCar pretending to drive somewhere without actually having to go anywhere. And you get to choose whether or not you're stuck in traffic. I can't wait for the future! 😏
Lol… The reality distortion field is so strong you don’t even need goggles ❤️
This could really make or break Tim Cook and the current Apple leadership.
I have met every mention of this product with a massive yawn. I couldn’t care less even if it was affordable. Hell, I can easily afford an Apple Watch and I don’t give a damn about that either.
Again, the existence of the product is nothing but rumours - it may well not exist at all.
However, that said if it is real, and it will retail at 3,000 then its going to be a huge flop - unless its aimed at the "pro" market and there are highly specialised use cases that will appeal to engineers, surgeons, etc etc - but those are the markets that have 3,000 to spend on such devices.
Domestically, almost nobody will spend that money on a VR headset when something like the Quest 2 exists at its price point and soon perhaps to be replaced by the quest 3.
All that said - who cares really. Its not as if apple cant afford a failure or two - its not as if they are short of funds.....
But for sure this will rapidly go the way of so many other Apple products over the years - Apple aren't immune to 'failures' and are also not shy in killing a product that hasn't gained traction. Sometimes they stay in a Market for a while before quitting - such as Airport/Time Capsule .... and sometimes they drop something like a steaming hot potato - such as the iPod HiFi speaker (and OG HomePod more recently!)
If this does launch half-baked with a 3,000 price tag then I give it 1-2 years tops before its quietly dropped.
However, that said if it is real, and it will retail at 3,000 then its going to be a huge flop - unless its aimed at the "pro" market and there are highly specialised use cases that will appeal to engineers, surgeons, etc etc - but those are the markets that have 3,000 to spend on such devices.
Domestically, almost nobody will spend that money on a VR headset when something like the Quest 2 exists at its price point and soon perhaps to be replaced by the quest 3.
All that said - who cares really. Its not as if apple cant afford a failure or two - its not as if they are short of funds.....
But for sure this will rapidly go the way of so many other Apple products over the years - Apple aren't immune to 'failures' and are also not shy in killing a product that hasn't gained traction. Sometimes they stay in a Market for a while before quitting - such as Airport/Time Capsule .... and sometimes they drop something like a steaming hot potato - such as the iPod HiFi speaker (and OG HomePod more recently!)
If this does launch half-baked with a 3,000 price tag then I give it 1-2 years tops before its quietly dropped.
aapl should take a step back and consider if the headset is -
in steve jobs words "insanely great"
before releasing this thing
in steve jobs words "insanely great"
before releasing this thing
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
100% agreed. You reminded me of this quote from the late Steve Jobs. Took this photo at Apple Campus, Cupertino, California. It's still there today!
I guess its the new 'hobby'. As long as poor sales doesn't affect the stock. Maybe they need to take this leap of faith to really get it to where it needs to be. Probably in 10 years, it will be small and convenient enough to wear like a RayBan after many iterations.
Depends who these “Apple employees” are! May be because they have been working from home? And they know they have an inferior product in the making because of the whole telecommuting thing? Let me answer my own question - “They” are scared because they know that insanely great products can’t be built on zoom.
The original Mac was a piece of junk until it iterated several times eventually with the Laserwriter did a reason for Macs truly exist. Apple never made money from Macs until the early 90s when the Apple 2 died.