What to Expect From WWDC 2023: AR/VR Headset, 15-Inch MacBook Air, Mac Studio, iOS 17, xrOS, macOS 14 and More

[zach-coleman]

This holds true for any task where color accuracy isn't critical. If you're talking about professional uses like graphic design or film and video, color accuracy is very important. These virtual monitors can't be calibrated by third party hardware like physical monitors.

The virtual monitors would have the exact same color accuracy. A virtual object does not need to have simulated lighting applied to it. It would be a direct cast of the bitmap being displayed on the virtual "screen" to the device's screen.

Lol. So why wear it in the first place? What's the advantage?

Why do we use any computer or smartphone at all if they cause eye strain? Why use paper? They all require breaks where you look at something else to avoid eyestrain.

The iPad is also basically nothing more than a big screen iPhone. It's obvious why it carved out a niche. The headset is something completely different.

Based on rumors... You don't touch it. You wear it. It completely obscures your field of vision and either immerses you in a virtual world or has you experience "reality" through cameras and screens, which is completely different from wearing glasses. To interact, you use your eyes and/or gestures in the air.

The iPad worked like an iPhone and the use cases were obvious. That's not remotely true for the headset.

This was not my point. My point was a response to it lacking a "killer app" or obvious function. We already adjusted to having no tactile keyboard feedback on a phone screen. What difference would it be if it was a flat table? There are also people who would bitterly disagree with you to this very moment that the iPad has any use case, so clearly that isn't universal.

What is the killer app of the iPad, in your opinion? Or is the iPad also a commodity?

One could also ask what the killer app of the Mac is, or even the iPhone these days. Neither one of them have a consistent set of uses that every user experiences besides maybe web browsing and texting. (I know people who never, ever take phone calls...) They're platforms to get tasks done.

This headset will only be as good as the use cases presented, but I don't think it needs to have a big singular use case. For me, I think the ability to either have 3 monitors anywhere I'm willing to wear one of these things or be able to sift through windows taking up my entire FOV with no "monitor" concept at all would be extremely useful. Neither one of these even really require specific development on the side of app makers assuming apple has a similar keyboard passthrough method to what Facebook came up with for the Quest Pro. Could just run mac apps for that.

 

[zach-coleman]

As a print designer I can tell you that accurate screen color calibration is absolutely mission critical.

There is literally NOTHING stopping it from being color accurate. It is a screen, just like any other screen.

But you’re missing my point. Human eyes aren’t evolved to stare into a screen all the time.

Do you look at your iPhone all day long? Your Mac? You're not supposed to live in this thing. Take a break, just like from any other screen you own.

 

[iCyprus]

Less than a day left! Let’s go!!!

We won’t ever have to see this render again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1665428415350964225

I agree and I think this product will be discontinued in the near future.

 

[wellander1]

Any premature pages on apple.com yet?

 

[RAILhead]

I just need to know if new AirPods are coming out because mine just crapped-out on me and I need to replace them.

 

[duffman9000]

I wonder what I’ll see tomorrow that will seem extraordinary today but will be completely normal in 5 year’s time. Exciting to imagine.

In 5 years people will be complaining that Apple didn’t really invent VR and Apple just took it and made it better. Totally ignoring the current state of VR.

 

[duffman9000]

I hope WatchOS 10 gains more health tracking features. I will be disappointed if Apple only focuses on a UI design. Also, I expect the VR to be significantly cheaper than 3000$. This high price doesn’t make any sense at all.

Some of the features are state-of-the-art. That usually means expensive.

 

[DakotaGuy]

This thread reads hilariously close to the lead up and direct aftermath of the original iPhone keynote. I am preparing for the possibility of being wrong but I currently find it extremely unlikely this is a dud.

A large part of the problem with current AR/VR is a lack of vision and ecosystem integration (one of the reasons I never use my quest is that I can’t check texts without taking the damn thing off) and this is usually something apple succeeds at. In the long run, at least. I also think they are one of the only companies with any shot at making this “cool.” I’m honestly still unconvinced that it’s cool at the moment.

The difference is Apple was building a better phone to sell to the millions of people who were already using things like BlackBerries, LG Chocolate, Moto Q, etc. The iPhone was not targeting a small niche market. The difference between this goggle headset and products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, is you actually have to wear it on your face with a cord running down to a battery pack. That totally limits its appeal. There are a few things that will never be cool or comfortable and walking around in public with a contraption on like that on your face is one of them unless you’re on the ski slope. Sure it’ll be fine for use in private settings, but even then a lot of people just don’t like wearing something for hours over their eyes.

Now I might be wrong. They might sell millions and millions of these things and people will be walking around all day or even driving cars with them on (wouldn’t that be dangerous?), however I’d say the doubters this time around have more legitimate reasons to be doubtful than with products like the iPhone.

 

[zach-coleman]

The difference is Apple was building a better phone to sell to the millions of people who were already using things like BlackBerries, LG Chocolate, Moto Q, etc. The iPhone was not targeting a small niche market. The difference between this goggle headset and products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, is you actually have to wear it on your face with a cord running down to a battery pack. That totally limits its appeal. There are a few things that will never be cool or comfortable and walking around in public with a contraption on like that on your face is one of them unless you’re on the ski slope. Sure it’ll be fine for use in private settings, but even then a lot of people just don’t like wearing something for hours over their eyes.

Now I might be wrong. They might sell millions and millions of these things and people will be walking around all day or even driving cars with them on (wouldn’t that be dangerous?), however I’d say the doubters this time around have more legitimate reasons to be doubtful than with products like the iPhone.

The low hanging fruits are already gone. They will have to sell you something you truly didn’t think you needed at this point. It’s either that or coast on the iPhone for a few decades until they get Blackberried.

In 5 years people will be complaining that Apple didn’t really invent VR and Apple just took it and made it better. Totally ignoring the current state of VR.

😁

 

[Nugget]

There are a few things that will never be cool or comfortable and walking around in public with a contraption on like that on your face is one of them unless you’re on the ski slope.

I remember the pinnacle of uncool was those bluetooth headsets that people wore around all the time and now all of a sudden wearing white AirPods is in fashion. I'd never hang a prediction on the whims of public fancy.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I remember the pinnacle of uncool was those bluetooth headsets that people wore around all the time and now all of a sudden wearing white AirPods is in fashion. I'd never hang a prediction on the whims of public fancy.

Little white AirPods in your ears versus a big ski goggle thing? I don’t think that’s really going to be fashionable for the masses, but I guess you never know.

 

[JamesHolden]

The virtual monitors would have the exact same color accuracy. A virtual object does not need to have simulated lighting applied to it. It would be a direct cast of the bitmap being displayed on the virtual "screen" to the device's screen.

Perhaps you are unaware of such tools, but you cannot attach a physical color calibration device to tiny mini/micro/whatever screens.

This (for example) will not work with the headset, so how you do calibrate virtual monitors?

https://calibrite.com/

Why do we use any computer or smartphone at all if they cause eye strain? Why use paper? They all require breaks where you look at something else to avoid eyestrain.

I feel like you're just being obtuse. None of those things are strapped to one's face. And you didn't answer the question. If I need to take this thing off all the time to give my eyes a rest, what's the advantage of wearing it in the first place? How is wearing goggles a better solution than existing ones? What problem is being solved?

This was not my point. My point was a response to it lacking a "killer app" or obvious function. We already adjusted to having no tactile keyboard feedback on a phone screen. What difference would it be if it was a flat table? There are also people who would bitterly disagree with you to this very moment that the iPad has any use case, so clearly that isn't universal.

But how is any of this a better experience for the user? I feel like headset fans are just so in love with the tech potential that they aren't bothering to think about the why.

One could also ask what the killer app of the Mac is, or even the iPhone these days. Neither one of them have a consistent set of uses that every user experiences besides maybe web browsing and texting. (I know people who never, ever take phone calls...) They're platforms to get tasks done.

Very true. And how/why are goggles a better platform given all of the obvious tradeoffs? Why would anyone wear goggles to do any of the tasks that the Mac and/or iOS accomplish easily? I don't see how wearing goggles improves one's ability to accomplish any of these common tasks like web browsing and texting. So we need new use cases.

This headset will only be as good as the use cases presented, but I don't think it needs to have a big singular use case. For me, I think the ability to either have 3 monitors anywhere I'm willing to wear one of these things or be able to sift through windows taking up my entire FOV with no "monitor" concept at all would be extremely useful.

I appreciate that, but I don't think that use case applies to 99% of potential customers. It's just another special use case, not one with any sort of mass appeal.

Neither one of these even really require specific development on the side of app makers assuming apple has a similar keyboard passthrough method to what Facebook came up with for the Quest Pro. Could just run mac apps for that.

Again, I don't see why most people would spend $3K in order to run Mac apps on goggles. You're basically talking about a portable pro display, in other words very very niche and not something that will attract developer interest.

 

[Motorola68000]

Some rather strange comments about VR headset re: Killer apps? You have to build a device in order to use any apps for it, so to suggest there's no 'killer apps' in advance of the product even being announced is rather foolish.

I seem to recall the first Mac's came to market without 'killer software', just comprising of MacWrite and MacPaint! Software comes when developers know the specs, and create software accordingly and where new possibilities inevitably get actioned into software that utilises every aspect of a device.

How many software applications came with the first iPhone?

Likewise there seems to be the idea that in order for a device to be successful it has to have mass appeal. No it doesn't! Steve Jobs proved that with his NeXT computer, but which when bought by Apple to get Steve back heralded the greatest change Apple had made, secured them from possible bankruptcy, and became the foundation for all Mac devices!

Do you not think the military will be more than interested in VR and any organising that wishes to train personnel on expensive equipment. Have you any idea how much it costs to train personnel in real world training, either in specialist areas, or other skills that are necessary? Using simulators is time constrained and ultra expensive, so VR may be just what they require, and X000$ a pop is chicken feed. They pay multiples of that for 4 eyed night vision goggles and the training put in, and VR may be used there.

I doubt there is any element of industry that could not utilise VR either in its training or in tasks.

A bit like the film Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come" but don't expect massive software availability before the item even exists.

Retinal damage can occur from over exposure to the blue light emitted from SCREENS, but as yet we have no specs on the VR, so its hard to make any suggestions as to whether it will be safer than computer screens or more dangerous, but I doubt Apple have gone this far without thinking about that.

 

[JamesHolden]

There is literally NOTHING stopping it from being color accurate. It is a screen, just like any other screen.

You obviously know nothing about color calibration devices, not of which will work with the headset screens. It's not just like any other screen.

Do you look at your iPhone all day long? Your Mac? You're not supposed to live in this thing. Take a break, just like from any other screen you own.

You also don't strap your iPhone to your head and connect an external battery pack. How is taking something like that on and off a better experience for the user...than just looking at a display on one's desk and being able to glance away at a moment's notice? So they can have a big virtual monitor? Most people are perfectly happy on their iPhone and laptop screens. It's absurd to believe that large numbers of people are going to strap goggles - that likely cost twice as much as a top of the line iPhone - to their faces in order to surf the web, send texts or edit a Word document.

 

[Surf Monkey]

There is literally NOTHING stopping it from being color accurate. It is a screen, just like any other screen.

Here’s someone with no experience in prepress and knows nothing about the rendering of accurate colors in print. It’s fine. Most people don’t.

Do you look at your iPhone all day long? Your Mac? You're not supposed to live in this thing. Take a break, just like from any other screen you own.

Trying to flip it on me is a fail. It’s a well known fact that people generally spend a lot of time on their phones, in many cases more than they want to spend. So again, my point stands. In general people are trying to get away from their screens, not jam them so close to their eyes that they literally can’t see anything else.

 

[veena3]

Same here. There's absolutely nothing I can think of that would make me buy these goggles. I hope to be surprised and hope that someone out there will show me a really cool use case, but if the ideas tossed around on these forums are any indication, that's not going to happen.

Thank you James for provoking this debate. It made me think about the possibilities of any use cases for AR/VR headset from Apple. This is how I think and those are my guesses:

What is the main benefit of AR/VR headset? Total immersion in visual 3D space (perceiving depth) and maybe also spatial audio (with airpods?) That's awesome for consuming great video and audio experiences - so, mainly entertaining and boredom killing device for consuming content like you could already do on laptop, computer, tablet or TV but now with headset so it means especially when you're alone in a safe space.

Maybe the use case is already there and Apple would like to "catch the train" with the future where you would not think "Hm, why I should put headset on my face?" but instead "I have a free time, I am putting headset on my face and see what I can consume." When parent in a family buys this the children of the generation Alpha and the following one will be naturally growing even more immersed with the virtual world than previous generations which were growing with tik tok, instagram, youtube, facebook, internet etc in tablets, phones and computers.

So, what you can do when you will be at home sitting on your sofa having a time and you put headset on your face? You can fully immerse into playing games, visiting your friends in metaverses, watching movies, reading internet, having a video call etc. Perhaps there will be some new use cases but I think those are already enough useful.

Of course $3k is not a good price for a device killing boredom, but it probably goes down in a time as technology evolve.

For the AR applications I can imagine something like sport goggles you can use in winter sports, when biking, on a motorcycle, when diving, parachute jumping etc. and getting heading information or other information and alerts about environment around you when cameras covering 360 degree will be present.

In 5-10 years I can imagine it could miniaturize into glasses and in 10-15 years into contact lenses.

So, I just think Apple probably feels it's time to ride the wave of 3D immersed consuming content devices. Actually, I think big competition for it is not Meta or Sony or Microsoft or Samsung but Neuralink and the companies who will utilize that technology for consuming content. But that's just for another decade...

 

[Surf Monkey]

Thank you James for provoking this debate. It made me think about the possibilities of any use cases for AR/VR headset from Apple. This is how I think and those are my guesses:

What is the main benefit of AR/VR headset? Total immersion in visual 3D space (perceiving depth) and maybe also spatial audio (with airpods?) That's awesome for consuming great video and audio experiences - so, mainly entertaining and boredom killing device for consuming content like you could already do on laptop, computer, tablet or TV but now with headset so it means especially when you're alone in a safe space.

Maybe the use case is already there and Apple would like to "catch the train" with the future where you would not think "Hm, why I should put headset on my face?" but instead "I have a free time, I am putting headset on my face and see what I can consume." When parent in a family buys this the children of the generation Alpha and the following one will be naturally growing even more immersed with the virtual world than previous generations which were growing with tik tok, instagram, youtube, facebook, internet etc in tablets, phones and computers.

So, what you can do when you will be at home sitting on your sofa having a time and you put headset on your face? You can fully immerse into playing games, visiting your friends in metaverses, watching movies, reading internet, having a video call etc. Perhaps there will be some new use cases but I think those are already enough useful.

Of course $3k is not a good price for a device killing boredom, but it probably goes down in a time as technology evolve.

For the AR applications I can imagine something like sport goggles you can use in winter sports, when biking, on a motorcycle, when diving, parachute jumping etc. and getting heading information or other information and alerts about environment around you when cameras covering 360 degree will be present.

In 5-10 years I can imagine it could miniaturize into glasses and in 10-15 years into contact lenses.

So, I just think Apple probably feels it's time to ride the wave of 3D immersed consuming content devices. Actually, I think big competition for it is not Meta or Sony or Microsoft or Samsung but Neuralink and the companies who will utilize that technology for consuming content. But that's just for another decade...

Inviting people to completely escape from reality into a drastically isolating device is about the least “Apple” thing I can think of. I also seriously doubt that parents are going to be cool with sending their children into an isolation helmet that serves them ads and who knows what other content. Because let’s not fool ourselves. This will be a platform for ads.

Removing yourself from the world is a hard sell. That’s why Apple insists on framing this as augmented reality. And honestly, if media consumption is all this device is for? It’s dead before the green flag drops.

 

[fbr$]

Inviting people to completely escape from reality into a drastically isolating device...

... while eating a free McChicken! 😂

 

[jamisonbaines]

The difference is Apple was building a better phone to sell to the millions of people who were already using things like BlackBerries, LG Chocolate, Moto Q, etc. The iPhone was not targeting a small niche market. The difference between this goggle headset and products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, is you actually have to wear it on your face with a cord running down to a battery pack. That totally limits its appeal. There are a few things that will never be cool or comfortable and walking around in public with a contraption on like that on your face is one of them unless you’re on the ski slope. Sure it’ll be fine for use in private settings, but even then a lot of people just don’t like wearing something for hours over their eyes.

Now I might be wrong. They might sell millions and millions of these things and people will be walking around all day or even driving cars with them on (wouldn’t that be dangerous?), however I’d say the doubters this time around have more legitimate reasons to be doubtful than with products like the iPhone.

if the headset spurs the development and proliferation of AR you won't have to wear it in your car, you'll have a HUD projected on the windshield with the AR experience overlayed and you'll have Apple in part to thank for pushing that

if you can look further forward you'll see that the current headsets and renders are the AR/VR equivalent of the roomsize computers that i'm not old enough to remember

 

[Gasu E.]

You are going to be seeing future Mockups for the next 5 to 10 years at least!

Sure, but not THIS mockup.

 

[Macalway]

Gadget heaven. Tomorrow. Few hours.

 

[God of Biscuits]

I hope they call macOS Oroville. Or Mead or Powell or Shasta. Or even Snowpack. Something to do with the unexpected extra water returned to California this past winter. I know they won't, but it *was* hard-earned for the state and it's be nice.

 

[antnythr]

Tim Cook making sure everyone understands his vision for the new Apple headset

 

[zach-coleman]

Here’s someone with no experience in prepress and knows nothing about the rendering of accurate colors in print. It’s fine. Most people don’t.

It’s incredibly unimaginative to think that none of the thousands of engineers who work at apple, some of which surely have knowledge of video editing and graphic design, have never once considered this problem. I genuinely do not get how you find it impossible for there to be any solution. Especially considering desktop publishing and video editing are some of the only markets Apple actually has any kind of hold over. I’m sure they plan to totally drop those markets on their device in search of niches over a mid tier problem.

Trying to flip it on me is a fail. It’s a well known fact that people generally spend a lot of time on their phones, in many cases more than they want to spend. So again, my point stands. In general people are trying to get away from their screens, not jam them so close to their eyes that they literally can’t see anything else.

So eyestrain only counts when it’s on a new product category and it’s fine and actually doesn’t matter at all if it’s on an iPhone or Mac? Got it. That one sure holds water.

 

[Jensend]

Perhaps you are unaware of such tools, but you cannot attach a physical color calibration device to tiny mini/micro/whatever screens.

You obviously know nothing about color calibration devices, not of which will work with the headset screens. It's not just like any other screen.

Calibration may not work exactly the same but, at most, it will only require small tweaks to the process and/or devices. If it's an issue, it's an easily solvable issue.

You wouldn't attach a device directly to the displays, you'd put it where the human eye would be, because the lenses will effect color and brightness.

What a bizarre thing to claim as a deficiency of a VR device.

I expect Apple to care much more about color accuracy than most other headset makers.