Apple will sell out of these guaranteed. This is effectively developer preview hardware with or without that tag. This is not a true consumer product yet.
Last edited:
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.
Video: Would You Pay $2000+ for Apple's AR/VR Headset?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Average consumers did not have smart devices compared to iPhone. Lumping in a flip or candybar mobile phone to the likes of RIM, PalmV, WindowsCE is just ridiculous. The iPhone when initially released was nothing like a flip or candy bar form cell phone but more like a square/rectangle RIM/PalmV/WindowsCE phone which were expensive hence mainly used by corporate/business customers.
While I do remember using some form of touch based screen prior to the introduction of iPad, it by no means would or should be considered a consumer tablet. More along the line of POS terminal or info related interaction closed and unconnected devices.
Watches have been evolving for many decades and yet the classic still remains, Casio sold a calculator watch, Timex sold watches for activities whichever method it was done Apple did not dream up this segment.
VR is nothing new either, remember the Virtual Boy by Nintendo in 1995. Yeah that was a consumer driven VR headset for gaming and there have been many other VR/AR headset types prior and post the Virtual Boy of 1995. 3D Cinema/TV was a stripped down form of VR/AR/3D.
Listen none of this or what Apple does is new, what it does do is reimagine already present technologies and hopefully it got the ingredients right. It’s like a shirt, Apple did not invent it, other designers envisioned shirts with buttons, some buttons, no buttons, zips, Velcro, magnet buttons, loops, collars, crew neck, etc. At the end of the day it’s still a shirt, that is Apple it just their specific vision of how something CAN be not that it’s right or wrong just what THEIR believe it to be. Same applies to the iPhone, iPod, iPad, AW, etc.
Agree.
I'd be curious to learn the number of those that can't seem to understand how on Earth Apple would get into VR that have also actually tried VR. I suspect that number is very, very low. This past Friday night, I spent an hour with the neighbor’s Oculus. First time ever putting on anything VR and I happen to loathe Meta. And let me say, I was completely blown away. And while I found the ‘right now’ iteration petty remarkable, what I left thinking most about was the platform’s potential. Without question, VR (and mixed reality, in general) is the next thing. A paradigm shift. And those that are doubtful or pessimistic - just like removing the floppy or the CD-ROM drive, or the headphone hack, or the iPone, or the iPad, or whatever else people claimed wouldn't work - it doesn't matter. VR is coming, and Apple ill play a significant role, with or without you. And I'm going to guess that, in the end, it will be more with you than you might realize today. Just because you might lack the imagination about a potential is 100% irrelevant to that potential's viability, marketability, inevitability. And it's the same cycle every paradigm shift: no one can seem to wrap their little brains around a potential new thing, said new thing come out, and people line up to buy said new thing. Literally happens this way over and over. I'm pretty confident this time around will be no different.
AT $2,000, shipping will slip to 6-8 weeks within a few days, and they will be selling for $3-4k on eBay a week before the launch date. The Early adopter Apple market is numerous and has vast amounts of money, and those that don't are sacrificing one or two latte's a day to save for it.
VR absolutely has benefits for people without stereoscopic vision. Unlike with “3D” TV/cinema, with a VR headset the scene changes based on head movement and shows a natural perspective. Those are both benefits for some tasks. For people with stereoscopic vision, there will of course be a bigger difference, as they are moving from a monoscopic display to a stereo display, but that’s only part of the benefit.
Last edited:
The most popular headset, the Quest 2, has a focus distance of 1.3 meters. You don’t actually have to focus at 25mm. If you can comfortably focus at 1.3 meters without glasses, you won’t even need your glasses.
No. Why? As long as it follows the rumors, I won‘t like it. Does it cover the eyes and head like Mtb Goggles do? That is just nothing I want to wear for a long period of time. For an AR solution that works like a Monitor and wears like sunglasses, I would maybe invest something like $1000 or even $1200.
But will it be as good as my two 32 inch monitors? Does it cause eye strain? Will it last as long as my monitor hardware or will it be outdated the next year?
What about software? What will be the killer application? Hunting pokemons?
For $2000 there needs to an insane benefit. I mean, not like zero benefit from a $6000 entry level MacPro and 1000 times more benfit than the $900 MacPro wheels kit …
But go ahead Tim, show us what 10years invention after Jobs will bring us.
But will it be as good as my two 32 inch monitors? Does it cause eye strain? Will it last as long as my monitor hardware or will it be outdated the next year?
What about software? What will be the killer application? Hunting pokemons?
For $2000 there needs to an insane benefit. I mean, not like zero benefit from a $6000 entry level MacPro and 1000 times more benfit than the $900 MacPro wheels kit …
But go ahead Tim, show us what 10years invention after Jobs will bring us.
I think this would almost have to be an entirely new product category for that price. I need to understand why the rumors keep referencing AR. AR is only really useful if you can quickly use it in public without looking like a dork, and if the headset looks like that, there's no way anyone is wearing it in public. Maybe there's a separate detachable pair of AR glasses? Unless they're just going for super high quality cameras on it so you can have your friends' avatars show up in your living room... which ok? I guess? Not worth the price hike for a use case like that.
Say what you will about Meta/Facebook, but the Quest 2 is an insane value at $299. Very easy to setup and use, great social features, big library, can be used as a PC headset, etc. Nobody should pay $2,000+ for a new, unproven, VR walled garden.
Say what you will about Meta/Facebook, but the Quest 2 is an insane value at $299. Very easy to setup and use, great social features, big library, can be used as a PC headset, etc. Nobody should pay $2,000+ for a new, unproven, VR walled garden.
Regardless, what does that matter? If this is a $2000 price tag, I’d say the demographic that embraces a product like this will be very minimal. For a couple reasons, #1.) This product probably isn’t really geared towards every consumer, Apple knows that consumers aren’t dropping ~$2000 for an AR/VR headset. 2.) I assume Apple will market this product not just towards the ‘average’ consumer, but also the ‘professional’ on how that can benefit them in various industries, so take that for what it’s worth. 3.) No one here fully understands the potential of what this headset can do, and it’s typical for others to say ‘Why would I need this’, when they may not be the target demographic for this product and how it may benefit them.
There is a BIG difference between understanding the potential of what VR will eventually do and paying $2000+ for Apple's first stab at it.
I don’t think gorilla arms will become the new normal. I envision new interactive objects that can be used at rest like today’s physical interactive objects. There may be some things that require hands in front of you, but a wrist mounted device that can detect the orientation of your fingers without being in the line of sight of some optical receiver wouldn’t require gorilla arms.
Nah, Apple doesn’t do “loss leaders”. Even their lower cost products are sold at a profit.
Apple continually refocuses their efforts depending on how things will be. That’s why we don’t see things like the Apple II continuing to be sold today JUST because it did well in the past. That ends up making folks that were deep into the Apple II concerned about Apple losing their way. And the folks deep into OS 9 concerned about Apple using their way. And the folks deep into iPods concerned about Apple losing their way. And the folks deep into Intel Macs concerned about Apple losing their way. Heck, in the future it will be the folks deep into iPads concerned about Apple losing their way.
At any one time there will always be quite a large number of people that don’t like Apple’s direction because the demographic Apple’s aiming for, well, they’ve largely aged out of it.
I see that like placing a cast iron skillet in the oven. In the old days, the pilot light would help to cure the skillet. Today, there’s no pilot light but there are still those that do it because “It’s what you do.” If she’s the kind of person that HAS to have ALL tabs and applications closed when she’s done, then it could very well be that a Mac would be better. Some folks just won’t “get” the iPad.
They were recently swapping in “most valuable” between them and Apple. And currently, still one of the most valuable companies in the world. Soooo, is that bad?
Not the same relation at all.
The 18k Gold Apple Watch was a marketing ploy only to gain traction for the Watch. I don’t suspect Apple ever had intentions of keeping the ‘Edition’ in its line.
The headset (Or ‘toy’ as you referred to) has potential that hasn’t been demoed. Similar to the people who called said the Watch would never amount to anything, well, they were……wrong.
It’s appropriate to give this product a chance to flourish.
I've had AMAZING experiences in AR/VR over the past twenty-five years, but most of the downsides have always been cables, weight, low-res, hot CPUs etc etc. I'm sure this will be the dominant way we use computers in the future *ASSUMING* our tech evolves more to make it light and easy enough to have it there all the time.
This tech is likely to replace your MacBook/iPad for a lot of stuff. Given that I/we were happy to pay what we needed to on M1 MacBook pros, $2000 doesn't sound ridiculous. I'm actually happy to hear it because it means the chips, optics etc could be SERIOUSLY good and small.
So I'm in.
This tech is likely to replace your MacBook/iPad for a lot of stuff. Given that I/we were happy to pay what we needed to on M1 MacBook pros, $2000 doesn't sound ridiculous. I'm actually happy to hear it because it means the chips, optics etc could be SERIOUSLY good and small.
So I'm in.
