Stage manager is a god send. 👍🏼
and there is a HUGE difference between 1080 and 4k. Literally 1080 is a blur to my vision whereas things only get clear with 4k
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.
What to Expect From Apple in 2023: AR/VR Headset, iPhone 15 Pro, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem with that list is they are NOT things a typical home consumer does regularly to justify that sort of expense. Those things require new content creation. Are those industries really going to commit to the $$$$$ of creating that content without a mass market to consume it?
It just isn't going to have wide appeal until the price comes way way down (if the rumors of $2000+ are accurate) and is going to take a very long time to ramp up.
If VR headset will run Mac apps I’ll buy one so I can code on multiple simulated monitors while lying down on an acupuncture mat.
And possibly different colors of lights emitting to reflect music best. That would be cool to be all around the device.🙏
S. Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them"
Yeah, but he works in retail and can't tell much difference. So he comes here and dishes another tech that he clearly doesn't understand. People are funny 
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
- Step 1: Apple puts their logo on it.
- Step 2: Apple has an event and tells us it is a fantastic/magical device about which "I can't be more excited"
- Step 3: Fans take the hint from Step 2 guidance with "shut up and take my money" and then proceed to ridicule/shout down any "think different" counterpoint as to why anyone does NOT like the new creation.
- Step 4: The "friends of Apple" (not objective) reviews by the usual mix are released gushing with words like "complete game changer", "biggest innovation since iPhone", etc to throw gas on the fan fires.
- Step 5: You are excluded from the cool kids club if you do not have Apple-branded goggles.
I'm confident Apple could brand toilet paper, air, rocks or dirt and make fortunes... with some Step 3'ers smothering to death by running out of Apple Air and refusing to breathe the non-Apple kind.
All
A little more serious reply: conceptually, this device will be able to fully control what you see and what you hear. With that ability, anything that requires your eyes & ears can be simulated with goggles/glasses. Like to sit closeup at a big live show or sports event? Instead of paying upwards of several thousand for just ONE game, these could deliver a season pass service to the best seats in the house. Conceptually, thousands-to-millions of people in goggles/glasses could all feel like they are sitting in the best seats in the house.
Work on a computer all day? What if your monitor could be inside these? What if the computer could be inside these? Conceptually, a whole Mac or many of them and any number of screens at any size and aspect ratio could be available within these. Do your work anywhere. Use any computing technology, any mix of technology, any number of screens to get the work done as efficiently as possible.
Fly much? Instead of watching inflight entertainment on a small screen or something on a phone of iPad on an even smaller screen, why not summon up your entire working Mac in those cramped quarters? or an IMAX screen to watch the big movie while actually sitting in the cramped space of row 14, seat D? Think of this as the noise-cancelling headphones experience you prob use now when flying... except now you can have the eyes just as engaged in whatever you might want to consume or create while actually jammed into that tiny little space for all of those hours.
Tired of carrying phone + tablet + laptop to cover all potential need bases? What if ALL of those are available within this environment: virtual iPhone, virtual iPad, virtual MBpro, virtual Mac Pro? Fire them up and use them anywhere you happen to be through this ONE device you actually carry. As is now, iPhone seems to have the lock on the everything device that is probably most often with Apple people. However, it is a tiny screen not suitable to get much done with it. Put the iPhone inside this, put iPads inside this, MBpro, Mac Studio, iMac, etc. Now this one device has our entire Apple product lineup available inside it. Carry this one thing and it is ALL in there.
At the extreme, think Matrix or Star Trek holodeck. Apple probably can't simulate touch & smell with gen 1 but taking over what eyes see in all directions and what ears hear means that those parts of the holodeck become potential "software" for this kind of product.
- Lunch on a beach in Hawaii?
- Superman flyover of Mars?
- Go see the Beatles in Hamburg in 1962? Or any historical event that interests you?
- Interview your favorite all-time personality as if you are actually there with them?
- Make any staycation have an added dimension of feeling like you actually visited "there" (where there is wherever you might have wanted to go)?
- See all of the Cirque shows in the world, front row-center, without having to spend all that money to travel to all of them plus premium ticket prices for each?
- If I was the size of an ant, what would the world be like?
- If I could eat my Subway today on the surface of Titan with Jupiter filling the sky, would that beat sitting on some plastic booth chair?
- If I could shrink down and view the world from the surface of an atom, what would that look like?
- What would it be like to ride a blood cell throughout an entire loop inside the body?
- Karaoke as if you are Elvis with adoring fans watching you?
- Invite the Swedish Bikini team over to hang out with you?
- Run with dinosaurs?
- The whole 2D Peloton workout experience can become much more like in-the-gym with a dedicated instructor working with you. People spend hundreds-to-thousands for that 2D experience alone.
- Olympian sport experiences as athlete or up close with best views as spectator.
- Etc.
Will these be all that? Probably not. But the potential comes with that level of sensory control. If the software "catches up" to the potential, then up to all of that- and more- does become possible.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing the application of an AR/VR unit in the Apple environment. If I want to VR demo a new mechanical or electrical component/environment I am definitely not doing it on an Apple device. For gaming, well Apple just doesn't have a dog in that fight. The research though likely generated some novel patents.
Which really creeps people out.
Which is really creepy having corporations in charge of that.
The best seats in the house are always in front of real athletes and real musicians. Peformers want to experience their fans in real life. Fans want to experience performers in real life. Or will that only be for the rich and all of us people who get ****ed by the rich can stay at home with a rubbish on the couch VR experience?
You cannot wear VR all day. You will either have to be uncomfortably tethered or recharge your headset 3 times a day.
You cannot work all day in these things. Your neck and upper spine will grow tired and worn out from excess head movement and by the time you are old you will be on painkillers permanently.
The healthy way to use a computer has already been scientifically identified:
1 Your focus should be ahead of you.
2 Your back should be straight.
3 Your work should be in front your eyes and you should be able to look away from it to drink coffee or talk to people without needing to do anything extra like removing a headset or enable different modes.
4 Our elbows should rest on the desk to take weight off you spine. If you are pointing at VR objects and gesturing in the air all day you will eventually have a very painful lower back later in life, or even sooner.
5 You should use a decent real keyboard and not a software keyboard.
Any other way to use a computer for long stretches or for a whole career is a science fiction fantasy. Younger people and non-technical people may believe in these fantasies. The rest of us live in the real world. We acknowledge things like ergonomics, user health, ease of use, etc.
Last edited:
You know what your shouldn't bother to expect? A foldable phone. Because they're a solution in search of a problem, and Apple ain't making one. Happy New Year!
Remote surgery via robotics and VR? Remote diagnostics, pilot training and all sorts of training. VR will herald a lot of new uses, but they can't happen until there is the headset in the first place?
Disagree. AR will be a new market in consumer space. The good news is there's loads of potential and it will just take a handful of creative people/developers with un-stunted fertile imaginations (it's so easy for people to reflexively say NO) to develop novel apps opening new markets.
If you feel differently, you should write Tim Cook a letter that Apple is blowing it spending millions of $, and collaborating with Stanford University's AR Laboratory for the last 7 years creating novel hardware and applications for this untapped market.
Last edited:
Personally I believe the M2 chip was not what was envisaged, and subsequently products that may have been updated with it, haven't been, but will with the M3.
M2 was hit with a fair bit of criticisms, with speed/efficiency improvements often not justifying buying.
Apple's focus will be AR, not VR. VR will come along for the ride as there is overlap.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can be as pessimistic as you about anything. Does it "really creep you out" that iPhone knows your location at all times, now even by Satt? That a corporation could know your location at all times, can know what you browse, what you email & text, with whom you bank, etc. Yes, that corporation may say that they do not track/do not watch/etc but they CAN do it... and they have recently decided to step up the advertising business which practically begs them to do more of that tracking "creepiness" to maximize the advertising revenue. Will they go there? I don't know... but where there is lucrative profit, modern Apple moves swiftly. Facebook and Google proved that there is billions in advertising revenue available with detailed tracking of iDevice users. How badly would Apple like those same, "easy" billions?
Consumers will control their own use of these goggles, just like they control their own use of iPhones or AirTags, etc. All technology can easily get the "creepy" tag attached to it. If consumers don't want that kind of creepy, they should dump all tech. This is not necessarily any more creepy-potential than the stuff we already carry/use... unless we want to cast it that way because we don't like the idea of this kind of product itself.
Yes, one cannot wear VR all day. I didn't say anyone should. This is a tool- a device. One should not be on their iPhone all day, iPad, Mac, watching television, etc. This is the same. Use it when you want. Stop using it when done or if you need a break. Don't use it at all if it doesn't help you accomplish whatever you want better than existing tools.
If these simulate the SAME work environment as most of our realities now, they put no more stress on the neck & spine than working as we do now... UNLESS they are shockingly heavy. As a Mac in your goggles, I don't expect the screen to be moving around all day to strain neck muscles. It will be as stationary in there as it is in actual reality. If reality computing work is replicated virtually, the same painkiller future you envision will be necessary BOTH ways... UNLESS goggles are very heavy and thus introduce an additional weight strain to the equation.
All of the "proper way to use a computer" applies and should not alter much if the screen is virtual. Focus can still be straight ahead, back doesn't have to contort, work can still be in front, AR can take over to let us reach for that coffee or we can lift the goggles up like putting away the phone or closing the laptop lid to take a break, elbows can sit in the very same spot, use a real keyboard if you want. I said nothing about waving arms & gesturing all day, nor software keyboard.
I'm skeptical about the mass market for these but I'm also not seeing them as only a complete fail. It is very powerful to be able to show eyes anything and have ears hearing anything. There is a WHOLE LOT of potential there. All of the pre-launch pessimism reminds me of the infamous iPod launch thread: too expensive, why would anyone pay so much for..., Apple is nuts to think there is anything here..., etc. And then we know how that "too expensive, useless, off-track, crazy" product played out.
Last edited:
All I want is a Mac studio m2 max. Or m3 max if that’s where the real jump in power is coming from.
Last edited:
It's not pessimism. It's realism. The stuff you posted was fantasy. Stuff you can play around with as a VR demo or a VR toy but inevitably drop in favour of healthy computing and physical ergonomics. We aren't fantasy beings made of digital ones and zeros. We are made of bone, sinew, nerves and skin. We grow old. We hurt and become injured when the tools we used aren't designed with ergonomics and physical reality in mind.
Don't let science fiction and digital fantasies distort your perception of physical reality.
Yes there is obviously a market for this stuff but don't go around saying people will live and work like this. These are one hour dose devices. A quick escapism at best. Anything beyond that and we become as delusional stupid and insanely irresponsible as Mark Zuckerberg.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, I can respect your very limiting imagination of the potential of these things. Because Apple has been working on these for far too long, I have zero expectations that these are going to basically be Oculus + with an Apple logo on them... able to play a few 3D games and not much else.
Due to the time investment, I suspect these are Apple's attempt at next big thing. If Oculus + is what rolls out after so much time and at multiples of established Oculus pricing, I'll be as pessimistic as you about any consumer-buyer potential beyond the fanboy maxes.
I simply assume with this much time & investment, it is much more than Oculus + and continue to believe it will deliver more towards some of the stuff I imagine than the very limited range you seem to expect. We'll both see sooner or later.
Again, you seem to also be locked in on this being UNhealthy computing and UNergnomic but I don't see that at all. I sit here staring at a screen in front of me typing on a keyboard I use every day to do my job. If I basically see the same screen in front of me in the goggles and use the same keyboard I'm using now, sitting in the same position, postured exactly as I am now, the ONLY variable that may support your concept is that the headset is too heavy on my head. If it is not, the physical experience of working at a computer seems like it could be identical... even if a tray table stands in for my desktop... or a library table... or a booth in a restaurant... or a picnic table outside... or in a Client's office, etc.
If googles can deliver the very same experience to my eyes and ears as sitting where I am right now, nothing alters my body, bones, nerves & skin... UNLESS goggles is like balancing a heavy rock on my head all day.
Again, we'll both see when they roll out whatever this is. If Oculus + with a few demos and 3D brick-splitting games, I'll be first in line to post negative opinion of "all this time for only the same gimmicky stuff FB offered years ago???" I simply don't believe it is that.
Due to the time investment, I suspect these are Apple's attempt at next big thing. If Oculus + is what rolls out after so much time and at multiples of established Oculus pricing, I'll be as pessimistic as you about any consumer-buyer potential beyond the fanboy maxes.
I simply assume with this much time & investment, it is much more than Oculus + and continue to believe it will deliver more towards some of the stuff I imagine than the very limited range you seem to expect. We'll both see sooner or later.
Again, you seem to also be locked in on this being UNhealthy computing and UNergnomic but I don't see that at all. I sit here staring at a screen in front of me typing on a keyboard I use every day to do my job. If I basically see the same screen in front of me in the goggles and use the same keyboard I'm using now, sitting in the same position, postured exactly as I am now, the ONLY variable that may support your concept is that the headset is too heavy on my head. If it is not, the physical experience of working at a computer seems like it could be identical... even if a tray table stands in for my desktop... or a library table... or a booth in a restaurant... or a picnic table outside... or in a Client's office, etc.
If googles can deliver the very same experience to my eyes and ears as sitting where I am right now, nothing alters my body, bones, nerves & skin... UNLESS goggles is like balancing a heavy rock on my head all day.
Again, we'll both see when they roll out whatever this is. If Oculus + with a few demos and 3D brick-splitting games, I'll be first in line to post negative opinion of "all this time for only the same gimmicky stuff FB offered years ago???" I simply don't believe it is that.
Last edited:
As sure as death and taxes. It's too bad most people don't understand the source of inflation.
Accusing someone of having no imagination won't work with me.
There is a difference between having an open mind and letting the brain fall out of the head.
All the ideas you are getting are the product of Zuckerberg and Meta's billions of dollars marketing budget.
People are not going to be spending their lives or doing all their working days in VR, for the same reason we are not going to be colonizing Mars.
These things have been debunked by experts in their respective fields, but Musk and Zuckerberg are lying conmen and will keep pushing these ideas irrespective of how impractical and awful they are.
And I will tell you why.
Centuries ago when the kings and land barons stole all the land and assets from the people they needed to give the population a distraction, otherwise the people would realize they were being robbed.
So they told the population to forget about the real world, just think about the "other side". Think about the "after life" and think about "Heaven".
We see the same thing happen today, except now the "other side" is virtual reality and "heaven" is Mars colonies.
The same myths recycled with a new language.
Just to distract your from the wealthy parasite class who are grabbing nearly all land and assets they can, charging obscene rents, trying to privatize every piece of public land and grab government services too.
So they need you distracted with fantasies about "virtual reality" and "metaverse" and "living on Mars".
If you don't get that nothing I can do to help you. Your kids will understand.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't accuse you of having no imagination- just a limiting one with respect to this one product. Obviously my imagination- delusional or overly sci-fi influenced or not- is broader than yours with respect to this one product. I'm imagining many uses that seem at least plausible if these can fully deliver for eyes and ears.
For example, I like going to live events- sports and theater- and I like prime seating down close. That last NBA game I attended was row 8 and it cost us $1500 for 3 of us... for a single game. Down at row 1, center court tickets can go for upwards of $8K+ per game. I'd love to sit there but $8K is too much. However, virtualize that experience of sitting there by "selling" those tickets to cameras to feed this kind of product and sell a front row-center subscription to the season for less than one game and I'm likely a buyer. Why would the teams be interested? Because there is only a seat or two to sell in that spot. Do they want $16K for 2 physical bodies to occupy them or would they like to sell maybe $500-$1000 subscriptions to many thousands to perhaps millions? See NFL Sunday ticket for the $500 piece and the "millions" who buy potential. Why would this be less desirable when feeling like one is even more there? I'd be an immediate buyer of that service... and that does not seem to be a big leap to deliver as an early service with this kind of product.
Broadway seasons can be pricey for front row, center. But again, exact same technology could sell front row, center to thousands-to-millions who like broadway shows but can't attend in person or can't afford the whole season in those seats in person. Rock concerts? Etc.
There's not even much cutting-edge software development required for this- it's mostly just a consumption service like watching the new Avatar movie in 3D. Work the deals with the show/sports producers, put the camera & streaming technology in the right place(s), use a subscription model to manage the money, sell tons of front row, center seats instead of only 1 seat to a physical body.
Does that mean I imagine this replacing reality- that everyone jumps on this and theater and sports stadiums are suddenly empty? Of course not. There are many other variables in actual reality that virtual can't touch. But if I want to attend the NYC broadway season and I live in Florida, rather than all of those flights/hotels/etc. maybe I would opt to attend this way instead. If my team is playing in Portland or LA and I'm working with a client in Pennsylvania or London at the time, I could still "attend" the game from anywhere vs. watching it only a 2D screen.
I don't even follow Zuckerberg or Meta. I don't even have a Facebook account. What I see of him/them is occasionally press stories and TV commercials, none of which have ever implied any of the stuff I shared as potentials and instead seemed to revolve around slicing bricks in half as they fly at us.
I've seen some news story where people were trying to buy virtual RE next to Snoop Dogs virtual RE so they could be VR neighbors. To me, that stuff is just fleecing the public but not to be held against these goggles/glasses any more than a scam that rip off people who take some bait on the Mac, iPhone or iPad doesn't make it the Apple tech's fault.
As to the rest, OK. Not as many years ago, someone proclaimed, if God wanted people to fly, they would have wings... Ford suggested that we could have any color of car as long as it was black... AT&T basically gave away their initial cell phone business because it had no potential in their opinion... Gates proclaimed 640K was all anyone would ever need in a computer... Jobs asked why would anyone want a color screen on an iPod?... Apple ridiculed phones with screens bigger than the perfection of 3.5" and then 4" and "we" did the same with spin about pants with bigger pockets, one handed use, man purses, developer fragmentation, blah, blah, blah. And on and on.
All very new ideas- particularly technological hops- start with extreme doubt. Just about everyone here ridiculed iPod as that rumor grew and even right after Apple announced it. There's a thread on this site filled with the certainty of failure of that insane, "far too expensive" product.
Again, we'll see what happens.
For example, I like going to live events- sports and theater- and I like prime seating down close. That last NBA game I attended was row 8 and it cost us $1500 for 3 of us... for a single game. Down at row 1, center court tickets can go for upwards of $8K+ per game. I'd love to sit there but $8K is too much. However, virtualize that experience of sitting there by "selling" those tickets to cameras to feed this kind of product and sell a front row-center subscription to the season for less than one game and I'm likely a buyer. Why would the teams be interested? Because there is only a seat or two to sell in that spot. Do they want $16K for 2 physical bodies to occupy them or would they like to sell maybe $500-$1000 subscriptions to many thousands to perhaps millions? See NFL Sunday ticket for the $500 piece and the "millions" who buy potential. Why would this be less desirable when feeling like one is even more there? I'd be an immediate buyer of that service... and that does not seem to be a big leap to deliver as an early service with this kind of product.
Broadway seasons can be pricey for front row, center. But again, exact same technology could sell front row, center to thousands-to-millions who like broadway shows but can't attend in person or can't afford the whole season in those seats in person. Rock concerts? Etc.
There's not even much cutting-edge software development required for this- it's mostly just a consumption service like watching the new Avatar movie in 3D. Work the deals with the show/sports producers, put the camera & streaming technology in the right place(s), use a subscription model to manage the money, sell tons of front row, center seats instead of only 1 seat to a physical body.
Does that mean I imagine this replacing reality- that everyone jumps on this and theater and sports stadiums are suddenly empty? Of course not. There are many other variables in actual reality that virtual can't touch. But if I want to attend the NYC broadway season and I live in Florida, rather than all of those flights/hotels/etc. maybe I would opt to attend this way instead. If my team is playing in Portland or LA and I'm working with a client in Pennsylvania or London at the time, I could still "attend" the game from anywhere vs. watching it only a 2D screen.
I don't even follow Zuckerberg or Meta. I don't even have a Facebook account. What I see of him/them is occasionally press stories and TV commercials, none of which have ever implied any of the stuff I shared as potentials and instead seemed to revolve around slicing bricks in half as they fly at us.
I've seen some news story where people were trying to buy virtual RE next to Snoop Dogs virtual RE so they could be VR neighbors. To me, that stuff is just fleecing the public but not to be held against these goggles/glasses any more than a scam that rip off people who take some bait on the Mac, iPhone or iPad doesn't make it the Apple tech's fault.
As to the rest, OK. Not as many years ago, someone proclaimed, if God wanted people to fly, they would have wings... Ford suggested that we could have any color of car as long as it was black... AT&T basically gave away their initial cell phone business because it had no potential in their opinion... Gates proclaimed 640K was all anyone would ever need in a computer... Jobs asked why would anyone want a color screen on an iPod?... Apple ridiculed phones with screens bigger than the perfection of 3.5" and then 4" and "we" did the same with spin about pants with bigger pockets, one handed use, man purses, developer fragmentation, blah, blah, blah. And on and on.
All very new ideas- particularly technological hops- start with extreme doubt. Just about everyone here ridiculed iPod as that rumor grew and even right after Apple announced it. There's a thread on this site filled with the certainty of failure of that insane, "far too expensive" product.
Again, we'll see what happens.
Last edited: