Nobody wants to wear a pair of giant goggles which block out all your senses. The killer app for AR on the screen is Pokemon.
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.
Surprised by low interest in and discussion of AR
- Thread starter Tooldog
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think @Pro Apple Silicon is being sarcastic. But, unfortunately for the world journalism isn't so much about facts.
@dogslobber you might find that several somebody's are wearing them. HP and Oculus.com(owned by Facebook), https://www.aniwaa.com/buyers-guide/vr-ar/best-augmented-reality-smartglasses/, have sold thousands of units, a number I don't know (could be millions). Here is a Microsoft page about using their AR solution: https://dynamics.microsoft.com/en-us/mixed-reality/guides/ .
There are both VR and AR units on the market. None of them are Apple branded.
@dogslobber you might find that several somebody's are wearing them. HP and Oculus.com(owned by Facebook), https://www.aniwaa.com/buyers-guide/vr-ar/best-augmented-reality-smartglasses/, have sold thousands of units, a number I don't know (could be millions). Here is a Microsoft page about using their AR solution: https://dynamics.microsoft.com/en-us/mixed-reality/guides/ .
There are both VR and AR units on the market. None of them are Apple branded.
I see many people giving importance to a single/a few functions of the AR glasses, "killer functions/apps", as some of you describe it.
But what will make AR truly universal is User Interface, and an easy, effective input method.
Once Apple (or whoever) solved these two aspects - as well as the physical parts of the glasses - the usage will go widespread in a beat of an eye.
There is no replacement for a huge, interacting screen in front of us, as big as the field view.
We won't even need to bend our necks anymore.
I think, with no doubts, that as soon as the product has consumer, everyday use apps, it's gonna sell like crazy.
But what will make AR truly universal is User Interface, and an easy, effective input method.
Once Apple (or whoever) solved these two aspects - as well as the physical parts of the glasses - the usage will go widespread in a beat of an eye.
There is no replacement for a huge, interacting screen in front of us, as big as the field view.
We won't even need to bend our necks anymore.
I think, with no doubts, that as soon as the product has consumer, everyday use apps, it's gonna sell like crazy.
Go look up videos from Ultraleap / Leap Motion on their Northstar headset (as opposed to the Ponzi scheme Magic Leap), and you'll see good solid working examples of AR-specific UX, based around hand tracking.
@Le0M @mattspace
I hadn't fully considered the UX component. Tounge-in-cheek: is this a case for Nuralink?
There have been more reports that AppleGlass is coming Fall/Winter 2022. Another report or two mentioned glassOS. One in particular, https://www.investors.com/news/technology/apple-stock-apple-could-launch-ar-glasses-in-2022/ , has been widely circulated.
I hadn't fully considered the UX component. Tounge-in-cheek: is this a case for Nuralink?
There have been more reports that AppleGlass is coming Fall/Winter 2022. Another report or two mentioned glassOS. One in particular, https://www.investors.com/news/technology/apple-stock-apple-could-launch-ar-glasses-in-2022/ , has been widely circulated.
I could see these used in many different applications. I could not see myself setting with these on and playing a game, however, I can see how many game players would enjoy these. I'm already living in augmented reality...which one, I do not know.
1) Nobody really knows what is getting turned out--it's JUST a rumor.
2) Knowing Apple, it will be a clumsy and neutered version of what already exists. In 2 or 3 years it might be an industry leader, but no one really knows what they are releasing.
3) No one makes a convincing AR unit at this time. So speculation is useless.
And there's the obvious reason for lack of enthusiasm in the forums: no one knows what is coming, or what the practical application of this item might be.
2) Knowing Apple, it will be a clumsy and neutered version of what already exists. In 2 or 3 years it might be an industry leader, but no one really knows what they are releasing.
3) No one makes a convincing AR unit at this time. So speculation is useless.
And there's the obvious reason for lack of enthusiasm in the forums: no one knows what is coming, or what the practical application of this item might be.
@Lesser Evets,
After over 3,500 posts in the forums you haven't noticed the name of this site? This is MacRumors. A place for rumors and speculation. Numerous posts either hint at or directly state we are discussing rumors and speculation. If speculation is useless there wouldn't be a MacRumors forum to post in.
After over 3,500 posts in the forums you haven't noticed the name of this site? This is MacRumors. A place for rumors and speculation. Numerous posts either hint at or directly state we are discussing rumors and speculation. If speculation is useless there wouldn't be a MacRumors forum to post in.
I'm curious to understand what Apple sees in AR. They don't rely on advertising or information for revenue. Are there enough real world applications/games to warrant such an investment? The hardware alone will likely be $500+. I'm not sure there's a large enough audience for such a niche product.
The audience wasn't so large, but it's larger today. Apple wasn't in the phone market in any way prior to the iPhone launch. Apple was a smallish company on the verge of collapse for many years and it's probable the iPhone saved it. The iPod was interesting and had been arguably niche at its start. But the iPhone was definitely niche my friend. There were just a couple of smart phones in a sophomore mobile phone market. Apple's timing into that market with the iPhone was perfect -- but we couldn't have known that then.
Is AR/VR another watershed? You think not, I think maybe. Time will tell.
Is AR/VR another watershed? You think not, I think maybe. Time will tell.
It does appear that everybody "under the sun" seems to keep talking about AR/VR....Meta (metaverse), virtual reality, augmented reality, etc.
I personally don't think that it's really compelling. These types of things look cool in the movies (Minority Report). Real life is far more interesting than any poor approximation of it.
richmlow
I don't think that's a likely reading of the situation - it doesn't matter what Apple is working on, no one in gaming, or AR/VR writes apps or games for Apple platforms. Even developers hired by Apple to make exclusive titles for Apple Arcade don't write for Apple platforms, or use Apple toolchains to develop the software.
Everything is written for Unreal and Unity - those are the platforms that matter in any meaningful sense. Steam, Apple, Oculus whoever offer up the capabilities of their devices to Unreal and Unity, but the engine companies are still the gatekeepers.
Fortnight was a HUGE cash cow for Apple, and the iOS app store in general gets the vast majority of its revenue from a handful of whale games who have no technical need for Apple as a gatekeeper between themselves and their customers. Epic and Apple is about money, specifically about the Cook regime's services-centric financial story, which would unravel without the artificial constraint of making companies that require nothing from Apple, give Apple 30% of their revenues.
Giving apple 30% of the revenues came LONG before Tim Cook. BUT, I mean Tim Cook WAS at Apple at the time. While he didn’t particularly have any say over the App Store, he could have dropped from the ceiling, Mission Impossible style, and snuck 30% into the presentation. Thus, ensuring the start of his long services-centric financial story.
Apparently many companies have had access to developer hardware for About a year. What I'm talking about is a platform. Developers would have to have access to build their software. But, even if that isn't true, Apple's headset is coming. And a company like Epic, who's main product is literally what the term "Metaverse" refers to. They just feel that if they aren't allowed to develop and build software for Apple, they would lose an incredible amount of money
Epic makes money from their games on consoles and Windows, and large corporate development clients for Unreal Engine. Either way, Epic's business is the Unreal Engine. Unreal's next major growth area is cinema. Unless Facebook are planning on building their "metaverse" spyware panopticon on Unreal Engine, "the metaverse" is not particularly relevant (and frankly, the whole "metaverse" thing seems more about trying to divert attention from the fact that Facebook's share price is built on quicksand, and the company itself has garbagefire business fundamentals).
Apple makes ARKit, but no one makes software with ARKit, they make software with Unreal and Unity, and Unreal and Unity offer lowest common denominator support for ARKit/ARCore to target iOS & Android respectively to create the deployed apps.
Unreal is a platform, Apple-specific AR technologies are a dumb pipe between that platform, and sensors & screens.
If the Unreal dev tools aren't able to target Apple's headset, that's Apple's loss, not Epic's - developers aren't going to spin up a whole new toolchain just to target one new hardware platform. You're mistaking who has the power in the relationship. Just like Apple had to pay the Blender Foundation to support Metal, and had to reinstate Epic's Unreal ADC account almost immediately after trying to ban it, they'll be bending over backwards to ensure their headset is a deployment target for the Unreal dev tools. Apple's developer tools are a catastrophic shambles - if you spend time following developers, the toolchain is barely functional, whereas Epic has Unreal tech evangelists worldwide, who do monthly onsite visits to clients to do Q&A, and bring cupcakes with them.
Last edited:
I think this thread has run its course. We are close enough to the actual release of an AR and VR product from Apple that the discussion should be moved from a what-if to a what-about.
Thanks to every one of you that participated. It has given me a little insight into what the enthusiastic Apple consumer is thinking when it comes to AR/VR.
May you all have a Happy New Year!!!
Thanks to every one of you that participated. It has given me a little insight into what the enthusiastic Apple consumer is thinking when it comes to AR/VR.
May you all have a Happy New Year!!!
True. People like to snack and and multi task with real objects around them. You can't change human behaviour with science fiction concepts like 'We can live and work all day in VR', especially uncomfortable devices that mostly appeal to anti-social people.
The interfaces in Minority Report were rubbish. Dazzling and fun to see in a movie, but in reality a complete mess that makes data and file management inefficient and confusing.
I wouldn’t say that people LIKE to multitask with real objects around them, it just so happens that they do. I mean, 99.9999% of the population hasn’t had the option to even try both. It remains to be seen.
For me, when you consider that a large number of people snack and multitask looking at a screen, it seems to me that changing he size/format of that screen doesn’t change the potential for folks to be engaged with it.
Nobody gonna drink virtual coffee while working
The idea of all day VR is a failure idea by fraudsters who want to hype up company valuations and have teams of $1 a day paid trolls screaming on the internet.
We live in the most fraudulent and corrupt era of all time. So many companies are completely making up their sales figures and so many companies in this virtual, meta, token space are doing financial fraud, fake sales and wash trading to make their numbers look higher. Don't trust any people going around online making bold claims about metaverse and 'working all day in VR'. They know its not true they just want big valuations so they can run away with investors money.
Working all day in VR is no different to working all day in welding (or medical) or similar PPR gear - I've done both. 3-4 hours for a session is about it, before you need an hour or so off, and maybe you can do another session - though the real fatigue thing for VR is heat projected to your eyes from the screens.
The thing is, VR doesn't really provide anything to a desk-bound office worker, that they can't get from having more monitors, which makes a lot of the telepresence and collaboration stuff seem a bit empty. An exception perhaps is the category of "big picture" idea boards - as a overview and structure observation tool for planning stuff, there's some pretty major advantages of it (and savings over having a big room with a data projector).
But by and large, VR is a trade tool, not an office tool.