>It’s also not totally clear why we need an Apple headset right now.
It's worth noting that in 2008 it wasn't clear why we needed an Apple smartphone. Web-browsing smartphones were a niche market, and wireless bandwidth limitations made browsing painfully slow (and media streaming virtually impossible). For messaging, the Blackberry had an overwhelming market share. And the iPhone was crazy expensive. How could it possibly succeed?
The reason the iPhone went so big is it was an awesome product that replaced a substandard product THAT EVERYONE WAS STILL BUYING - for loads of money. Even a crappy Siemens phone was costing the network several hundred £/€/$.
I am personally very excited for an apple VR headset. But it is a tougher sell because it demands a whole new few thousand quid to be found that I was currently not spending. It doesn’t replace anything.
People keep saying this but it just isn't true. Well it was crazy expensive, but when the iPhone was released it was actually slightly cheaper than what passed for a smart phone back then.
I think it’s going to be hard for them to make an iPhone like splash. On the other hand it seems like they need to ship and start iterating.
It will be very interesting to see what they market it for. Seems like a hard sell for consumer, but I could see it as a pro-device.
There are all kinds of creative applications that could benefit from a high end headset.
If they can get some of the 3D modeling tools ported for launch, plus some music tools etc, and perhaps some data visualization apps, I could see it being interesting.
Apple brought Metal backend to Blender. Lately, Unity got a lot of UI polish and optimization for tile-based GPUs. I bet that both will have dedicated demo during keynote.
Apple has a huge SoC advantage over Facebook here, especially in tandem with their massive Pro/Ultra GPUs if they can be tethered to a Mac.
There were even rumors of a dedicated gpu die for VR... which I do not have a citation for.
They also have an ecosystem advantage. Going by Horizon World's development, Meta knows nothing about what makes virtual environments in video games fun, and not enough of an ecosystem to hit a 3rd party cricital mass. But Apple has a decent pile of good iOS devs.
I agree with your SoC assessment, and while I love my Apple gear, I am skeptical of Apple's VR/AR success for the consumer market. For the Pro market? I don't know.
I think of my Oculus (I have versions 1 and 2) as the 'perfect toy.' Both versions were cheap, and I have spent about $100 on a few programs, and it is something that I play with for about 10 minutes almost every day. So very much worth the money.
As a self proclaimed Apple-hater, I wouldn't count them out. I laugh at every new product line and then in 2 years I see it everywhere (watches, iPads).
iPad was something that I knew I wanted, but I was skeptical that anyone else would want it.
Apple Watch was something I couldn't imagine anyone wanting, and, frankly, still is. Why would I wear a watch when I have a phone with me 24/7?! Outside of niche applications like running, I'll always be completely befuddled by the success of smartwatches. Watches just don't have a place in my world model anymore.
VR falls into a similar category. I don't want it -- although I can envision limited applications for AR -- but it seems a lot of other people do. Sometimes we have to just admit that our perceptions and prejudices are out of line with the reality of the marketplace.
The problem isn't the timing. The issues, however, are myriad. Apple's product success relies on the success of competitors creating a market previously. Then Apple comes in with a better product and takes over the market. No one has been successful at VR in 30 years of valiant attempts, and the VR/AR market has remained negligible and solely within the realm of gaming and expensive military applications. Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will. I'm not predicting Apple will fail, my puny mind just can't comprehend how they can possibly be successful with VR/AR without any preexisting successes nor any extant VR/AR market to speak of.
I think Apple would have been more likely to be successful with the Apple Car. I think Apple should take over the kitchen appliance market. I want an Apple Faucet™ on my Apple Sink™ and to cook meals on my Apple Rangetop™ and store leftovers in my Apple Refridgerator/Freezer™. Apple should also just come in and eat Microsoft's lunch in commerce and business. I don't understand why Apple is not interested in these markets.
> Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will.
So you think you don’t need VR and now it’s up to Apple to show you that you are wrong.
The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive (which got demo at WWDC) is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases.
The troubling thing is that one of the core use case that VR seems most compelling for is games, and Apple has been uninterested in being games platform holder and dismal in its performance when it's accidentally become one.
Seems hard to believe that Apple would be better in this area than Sony.
And so we really have to hope and believe that Apple has come up with a very compelling reason to use VR outside of games!
It will be interesting to see how Apple prices and frames this device. $3k is an enormous price tag that would limit its adoption to enterprise (which isn't a big market today) and the richest Apple fans. So either the rumored price is significantly off ($1.5k = still expensive but more within reach of gamers and prosumers) or Apple thinks its headset is so revolutionary that it will win over many businesses that don't use mixed reality yet today.
I also expect Apple to frame this as an AR device that can also do VR (rather than the other way around). In other words, if it's an AR device that is 10x better than Hololens 2 and slightly cheaper, they can capture that existing (small) enterprise AR market today and grow that market much larger.
When video cassette recorders came out they cost hundreds of dollars which was very expensive 40 years ago. The first generation of devices were only bought by enthusiasts and those with significant disposable income. It took a few years and iterations of technology and manufacturing to get them down to a price where the market could really take off.
Not saying that this headset is exactly like a first gen VCR but it could follow a similar price/acceptance curve.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm hoping to see as well. Something useful, light enough to wear for extended periods of time and provides a sharp, clean picture comparable to, or better than, current monitors.
Even if it's low resolution, as long as it's something I can look at and wear for extended periods of time without my eyes falling out or ears falling off, it'd be interesting.
What I'm not interested in is a face-attached TV/games console/billboard/social media interface. Yet that's what I fear most firms are looking to create, because it benefits them.
[+] [-] vannevar|3 years ago|reply
It's worth noting that in 2008 it wasn't clear why we needed an Apple smartphone. Web-browsing smartphones were a niche market, and wireless bandwidth limitations made browsing painfully slow (and media streaming virtually impossible). For messaging, the Blackberry had an overwhelming market share. And the iPhone was crazy expensive. How could it possibly succeed?
[+] [-] Q6T46nT668w6i3m|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonplackett|3 years ago|reply
I am personally very excited for an apple VR headset. But it is a tougher sell because it demands a whole new few thousand quid to be found that I was currently not spending. It doesn’t replace anything.
[+] [-] AndrewStephens|3 years ago|reply
People keep saying this but it just isn't true. Well it was crazy expensive, but when the iPhone was released it was actually slightly cheaper than what passed for a smart phone back then.
[+] [-] augment001|3 years ago|reply
It will be very interesting to see what they market it for. Seems like a hard sell for consumer, but I could see it as a pro-device. There are all kinds of creative applications that could benefit from a high end headset.
If they can get some of the 3D modeling tools ported for launch, plus some music tools etc, and perhaps some data visualization apps, I could see it being interesting.
[+] [-] mlajtos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hindsightbias|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peyton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brucethemoose2|3 years ago|reply
There were even rumors of a dedicated gpu die for VR... which I do not have a citation for.
They also have an ecosystem advantage. Going by Horizon World's development, Meta knows nothing about what makes virtual environments in video games fun, and not enough of an ecosystem to hit a 3rd party cricital mass. But Apple has a decent pile of good iOS devs.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|3 years ago|reply
I think of my Oculus (I have versions 1 and 2) as the 'perfect toy.' Both versions were cheap, and I have spent about $100 on a few programs, and it is something that I play with for about 10 minutes almost every day. So very much worth the money.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CamperBob2|3 years ago|reply
Apple Watch was something I couldn't imagine anyone wanting, and, frankly, still is. Why would I wear a watch when I have a phone with me 24/7?! Outside of niche applications like running, I'll always be completely befuddled by the success of smartwatches. Watches just don't have a place in my world model anymore.
VR falls into a similar category. I don't want it -- although I can envision limited applications for AR -- but it seems a lot of other people do. Sometimes we have to just admit that our perceptions and prejudices are out of line with the reality of the marketplace.
[+] [-] cjbprime|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] penjelly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kon-Peki|3 years ago|reply
If it does poorly, well, so is everyone else. If it does well, then it’s because Apple are geniuses.
(the other option, of course, is to not release at all - but then they aren’t, by definition, getting into VR)
[+] [-] hammyhavoc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maursault|3 years ago|reply
I think Apple would have been more likely to be successful with the Apple Car. I think Apple should take over the kitchen appliance market. I want an Apple Faucet™ on my Apple Sink™ and to cook meals on my Apple Rangetop™ and store leftovers in my Apple Refridgerator/Freezer™. Apple should also just come in and eat Microsoft's lunch in commerce and business. I don't understand why Apple is not interested in these markets.
[+] [-] mlajtos|3 years ago|reply
So you think you don’t need VR and now it’s up to Apple to show you that you are wrong.
The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive (which got demo at WWDC) is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases.
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|3 years ago|reply
Seems hard to believe that Apple would be better in this area than Sony.
And so we really have to hope and believe that Apple has come up with a very compelling reason to use VR outside of games!
[+] [-] JohnFen|3 years ago|reply
Not so sure about "one of". Games are the only use case I can think of that could support more than a small market.
[+] [-] binarynate|3 years ago|reply
I also expect Apple to frame this as an AR device that can also do VR (rather than the other way around). In other words, if it's an AR device that is 10x better than Hololens 2 and slightly cheaper, they can capture that existing (small) enterprise AR market today and grow that market much larger.
[+] [-] Tagbert|3 years ago|reply
Not saying that this headset is exactly like a first gen VCR but it could follow a similar price/acceptance curve.
[+] [-] boronine|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wanda|3 years ago|reply
Even if it's low resolution, as long as it's something I can look at and wear for extended periods of time without my eyes falling out or ears falling off, it'd be interesting.
What I'm not interested in is a face-attached TV/games console/billboard/social media interface. Yet that's what I fear most firms are looking to create, because it benefits them.
[+] [-] querulous|3 years ago|reply
losing peripheral vision is a bigger annoyance than i expected also
[+] [-] mlajtos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]