anyone paying 2k for an apple vr will be just an idiot... and idiot with a lot of money, but an idiot none the less... you can get actual profesional grade VR equipment for that price, and lets be honest... this version of apple vr, will be FAAAAR from a pro experience... user friendly and that? perhaps, thats what they do better, but robustness in platform and longevity/adaptability NOOOO i dont think so... there are things i will buy from apple all the way, and there are things that i will never buy such airpods in general... because witht hat price i can get better value in the market
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
High end car manufacturers are doing this with their repair services. No more paper or even electronic manuals. Pop on the glasses and the AR guides through how to do basic services on the cars. Even guides you to the correct tool in your tool box since they all have to be laid out the same to fall into efficiency standards set by the companies.
All the people saying no today on the day Apple announces preorders after having a hype machine keynote:
No way. But if it proves to be 7 times more capable than oculus it might have a chance. VR is definitely the next “big thing” in social media and the internet in general, but there’s a whole lot of groundwork that needs to be in place ahead of expensive headsets. Once we can interact, face to face with a real person, and actually experience the realistic feeling and the soft warmth of “holding hands” I might be ready for a $2000 headset, as long as it has at least 3 usb inputs.
My apologies, didn't see it.
In short, I expect VR/AR to subsume a huge range of "real world" activities, from dating to dining out to tourism to education. I think it will be much more revolutionary than smartphones and arguably more than the internet.
At the highest level, anything that requires moving people from one place to another (visiting Machu Picchu) or where there are physical constraints on access (lecture hall size, anything with a line) are possible targets. Supplement this with experiences that go "beyond" real life (first person shooter game at Machu Picchu, the fantasy lands of movies, sex with an alien, etc.).
Now, I don't know if the tech is good enough yet, but I expect one day it will be, but mostly I am basing this on the fact that almost anyone under 40 I know is deeply, deeply into video games and NOT into real world interaction. Rather than dinner and a movie, they have already replaced this with delivery and networked gaming. The gen-z aren't even really into travel, partly because it is so easy and has lost it's class cachet, and partly because the world is radically integrating into relatively homogenous circumstances.
I don't necessarily think all these changes will be positive, or that they appeal to me, but I think if one goes deep into the world of a random 20 year old now, this looks like the rough outlines of the future.
I wonder if they can get streaming to work - it's very unlikely that we will be able to put the computing power necessary for high fidelity VR into those tiny headsets - wireless VR already works decently for the Quest 2, now the next step is to make them stream from the cloud like Stadia.
Yeah, but I’d rather play Minecraft than use a console in a VR environment to play Minecraft in a VR world with my friends. There’s a huge difference between VR Minecraft+XBox Live (you and your friends are “in” Minecraft) and playing Minecraft in a VR space (you and your friends are in a virtual room playing Minecraft on a console), and the way this metaverse idea keeps on being described sounds more like the latter than the former.
For instance, this idea of holding office meetings remotely in VR doesn’t seem to add anything (or, at least, much) to remote meetings that Zoom doesn’t. In fact, notionally, there’s a bit more distance between you and everyone else, since you have these goggles on your face or a fake face plastered over your real face to cover the goggles. In Zoom, you can see everyone’s real faces, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in these metaverse proposals. I swear, this metaverse idea seems to be peddled by super awkward introverts who may not have the easiest time in the world reading body language and facial cues and would prefer to live 100% virtually. But, with it coming from Zuckerberg, I suppose we shouldn’t really be surprised by that…
The metaverse also seems to be super skewmorphic, and over devotion to skewmorphism can prevent us from finding better, more digital fluent ways to express and control the same tools and activities.
It could really be either. And, seeing as how Microsoft has Minecraft on iOS already, it would be a short trip for them to get it running in AR (they’ve even had practice with the popular, but now discontinued Minecraft Earth). Additionally, Apple has stated they’re not aligned with the view of the Metaverse as provided by Meta. Their vision is more that you use the interface to enjoy an experience, then you’re done, not standing around in a virtual lobby.
Meta’s vision is theirs (plus everyone else that wants to jump onto that gravy train).
It’s not Apple’s. We don’t know a LOT about what Apple plans to do, but that much has leaked out.That’s fair, but most of the people pushing VR in this thread seem to want the metaverse model. I’m not big into gaming myself (it’s okay, and I sometimes use it to pass the time, but not every game needs to be in VR any more than every game needed to be in 3D back in the N64/PS1 era), and I don’t see much use for VR in non-gaming applications. I think AR is a better idea than VR for most consumer applications, but most of the sorts of AR experiences I’d want are things like “workout stats on a HUD” or “AR navigation a la Apple Maps, but without holding a phone in front of you”. Actually, very similar to the quick interactions of an Apple Watch, I don’t want to live in a VR or AR world, only visit briefly when it makes sense.It could really be either. And, seeing as how Microsoft has Minecraft on iOS already, it would be a short trip for them to get it running in AR (they’ve even had practice with the popular, but now discontinued Minecraft Earth). Additionally, Apple has stated they’re not aligned with the view of the Metaverse as provided by Meta. Their vision is more that you use the interface to enjoy an experience, then you’re done, not standing around in a virtual lobby.
Meta’s vision is theirs (plus everyone else that wants to jump onto that gravy train).
There are already official and non-official/modded versions of Minecraft that put you in a VR Minecraft world.
There are also apps that let you watch a traditional movie inside a VR movie theater, sitting next to your friends. That could also work for playing traditional couch co-op games in a VR environment.
The latter is easier to do, because users can run the media and apps they already have. If a VR headset is good enough that doing the latter in VR is a good, comfortable experience, there will be less friction in moving between the two scenarios, or even creating hybrid apps that are a mixture between the two.
Do you think there are any advantages of an in-person meeting instead of a Zoom meeting?
Yes, I know there are unofficial and official Minecraft VR versions. I was using Minecraft as an example because someone up thread used it. I’d rather use Minecraft VR than play it on a 2D screen in VR, is what I’m saying there.
I can see some utility for the whole watch a screen in VR thing if the people you’re watching with are in far flung locations, similar to the sharing features we’re seeing in FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, or in Netflix. But my immediate family is pretty far flung, and we haven’t used any of those features, so I don’t know how much appeal there is in it. Keep in mind that I’m also not much of a TV watcher, and the idea of watching a TV show in VR does not appeal to me at all (with the headset on and hands full with the controller, I wouldn’t be able to do the things I’d prefer to do while watching/listening to TV). Also, I’d much rather be face to face with friends if circumstances permitted it, instead of in a VR room.
As for in person vs Zoom meetings, I think there’s some value in the immediacy and directness that come from in person meetings. If everyone is on mute other than the presenter, people have a tendency to let their minds wander. And, more importantly, it’s harder to get a feel for the room if everyone is on mute and/or you can’t get a good read on their body language. Zoom does have its advantages, though. There are some meetings that should probably be held in person, but some meetings can definitely be handled via webinar or Zoom. With VR staff meetings, I feel like you’d get the worst of both worlds and some of its own issues. But I guess my bigger issue with VR is that smartphones already have a tendency to disconnect us from the people immediately around us (even though, yes, they can be used to connect to people remotely). VR is likely to aggravate that issue, especially if people start spending all their waking hours in it.
I haven't used screen sharing for media. I have watched videos with others in VR. I don't think I'd find tiny videos of people overlaid on top of what I'm watching to be as compelling as having 3D avatars next to me, with spatialized audio.
Ok. I've watched videos in VR with people from other states and countries. But I more often play VR games or creative apps.
The only reason I asked is because I was talking to someone else, and it turned out they saw no value of real life meetings over video meetings, so it was kind of a moot point to talk about VR meetings.
If you are in a group of people in a physical space, you can turn your head to face and indicate the person you're addressing. You can break into smaller groups by lowering your voice and talking to the people near you. You can overhear another conversation and join in. VR can work similarly.
I actually find that because people in VR generally aren't multitasking—they are more focused on the shared VR experience. (though that may change, it's possible to open up 2D app windows in VR and attach them to your hands or float them in 3D space, and they are only visible to yourself.)
It’s not a Dumb question. Remember? There are no Dumb…. Actually I find it smart. I’m not an optometrist or VR glass builder— but it may well be that people with vision focus issues may require some kind of supplemental insert to use it. Or in future builds you submit your eye sight profile prescription as you do for a pair of glasses. The holy grail will be when the device automatically looks at your eyes/pupils and calibrates the focus based on an AI algorighthm— no matter who wears the device.
You sound jealous. 2k is just a typical weekend in Vegas for me. It’s usually 5k on a rager.
I mean, if you’ve got that kind of money, sure, buy a pair of $2k or $3k VR glasses. Clearly, it’s an impulse buy for you, good for you. But $2k or $3k likely isn’t an impulse buy for most people, but something they have to budget for and really need to find value in to justify.
But bragging anonymously about how much money you earn is a lot like bragging anonymously about how much sex you get. There’s no way to validate your claims, and a lot of people are perfectly willing to lie about those things to make themselves look good. And they really don’t matter anyway. Sure, you may have enough money to blow $5k on a weekend bender, but that doesn’t have any impact on me or whether I feel that a $2k or $3k VR headset has sufficient value for money. And, assuming it’s true, the money you earn more than me doesn’t make you any better (or worse) a person than I am, so it’s a weird flex.
I leave 2 grand tips for every waitress when I go out, but I am the real deal after all.
The person who I responded to said people who would buy this are idiots. That person sounds jealous.
Some of us do have disposable income. I’ve told some people here in PM a little bit about my background and what I do for a living. Do you want me to post a pic of my 3090 RTX on top of my VIVE Pro that is current collecting dust?
You get Lasik, like everyone. In a decade, wearing glasses for shortsightedness will bee like driving a diesel, manual car.
It’s fine, I’m not really challenging the fact that you have the income you claim to have. (While it is true that income is hard to verify online, that might have been a cheap potshot on my part, for which I do apologize. I found it hard to resist the self reported income and self reported sex life comparison.) Like I said, if you’ve got the disposable income and want a high end VR headset, by all means buy Apple’s when it comes out.
Maybe the dude was jealous, it was poorly written so I had a hard time parsing it. I think his main claim, though, was that this headset wouldn’t be a pro headset (I’m not sure his logic about it) and thus wouldn’t be worth the cost (and I took that as meaning relative to other $2k professional VR headsets, like the kind you might use in welding). He could be right about that, he could be wrong.
For what it’s worth, I just saw the Horizon Worlds commercial last night. I’m sorry, but I can’t get over the cartoony avatar business. If I’m in VR hanging with friends (most of my friends are people I know personally, even if I don’t live in the same part of the country as them anymore) or family, I don’t want to be a cartoony avatar of myself, I’d rather be my own avatar (and video chat excels at that, while still allowing photo filters or MeMoji type avatars if I want those things). Not to mention that cartoony 3D avatars seem fairly unprofessional for a work environment (at least at any place more formal than the most informal of Silicon Valley startups). (Of course, in reality, it’s an attempt at averting the uncanny valley, as 3D [least of all on a device as cheap as the Oculus Quest] isn’t good enough to generate a 3D CGI version of you*. You could possibly do something with deep fake technologies to graft your face and body shape onto existing 3D footage of a real human, but that would almost certainly be too taxing for the Quest computationally once you’ve got more than one or two people you’re trying to generate.)
* It might be good enough to create a 3D GCI image of Mark Zuckerberg, but not you or I!
And there is some value in doing math by hand. Or growing your own vegetables or baking your own bread or working on your car yourself. It doesn't eclipse the value of accessing a worldwide talent pool or allowing people to work when they are most productive, etc. Nothing is black and white these days. You throw away your relationship to horses for the Benz, and that's ok.
It’s not that easy. Lasik is getting more and more affordable, but it’s likely never going to be as cheap as a pair of prescription glasses from one of those online stores that focus on generic prescription lenses. But sometimes vision quality degrades long term post-Lasik and you need LASIK again, and not all vision issues are a great fit for it.