[HN Gopher] Apple's Best Hope for New Headset: a Smartwatch-Like...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's Best Hope for New Headset: a Smartwatch-Like Trajectory
Author : carlycue
Score : 92 points
Date : 2023-03-26 14:24 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| rektide wrote:
| As someone who really does enjoy being terminally online, but who
| also enjoys being out in the world, I have to say I'm kind of
| excited about the possibility here.
|
| The whole wearable & ubiquitous computing dream greatly motivated
| me as a grade schooler. The idea was compelling then & still
| interesting/hopeful now. Given the specs (below) of the hallmark
| display, the p4 Private Eye (1989), I am excited to see what we
| can do. And Apple's general competency at hardware will be
| interesting to see at play as we go-forth-again:
|
| > _Mounted on a pair of glasses, with a 720 x 280 pixel red
| monochrome screen in a 8.89 x 3.81 x 3.18mm casing, the actual
| display measured 1.25-inches diagonally but appeared as though
| you were viewing a 15-inch monitor from 18-inches away._
|
| The possibility of me owning an Apple product is up from 0%.
| indymike wrote:
| One of the biggest problems with the metaverse is content. It's
| pretty clear that AI can do a great job generating the artwork
| needed for great 3d content. It is very expensive and time
| consuming to do so with human artists... which makes me sad.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| AI has done a great-ish job with 2D content. It's very
| impressive superficially, but flawed when you examine the
| details.
|
| 3D content - particularly live procedural 3D animated content
| based on large models - is maybe 15-20 years away. It needs a
| couple of orders of magnitude more processing power.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if that's Apple's planned destination.
| If so, it's going to take a while to get there.
|
| This version seems more like a toe in the water. It will appeal
| to early adopters and a few gamers, but it's not going to be a
| game changer.
| xiaolingxiao wrote:
| Has anyone heard of this launch will be associated with a launch
| of an SDK for app developers as well?
| xrguy wrote:
| Apple entering the AR VR XR space may be a good thing, more
| competition = better products?
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| I'm never going to spend PS3000 on a headset. For that I could
| get an absolute top of the line desktop. Hell I could get a car
| for that. Both would be far more useful.
|
| It's just ludicrous money for a shit product. Even the first full
| VR headsets came nowhere close to that price.
| etempleton wrote:
| If it is as described I think it is insane for Apple to launch
| this product.
|
| Comparing it to the state of the Apple Watch is pretty strange
| because if nothing else the Apple Watch was functional, self
| contained, worked, and was under $1,000. Even if it didn't work
| you could put it on and ignore it. A VR/AR headset is nothing
| like that and at $3,000 is a significant investment for most
| everyone.
|
| But who knows. I haven't seen it. Maybe it will be amazing and
| exactly what the VR space needs. I suspect it is a really fancy
| Meta Quest with significantly more processing power. Certainly
| Apple is in a unique position with their Apple Silicon. But will
| Apple open it up enough for gaming if that is what it is? Because
| that has been the problem in the past. Gamers aren't going to
| want to buy this thing unless you can plug it into a PC and have
| it function as a regular VR headset and the Meta Quest crowd
| isn't going to shell out 3 grand.
| Closi wrote:
| > Gamers aren't going to want to buy this thing unless you can
| plug it into a PC and have it function as a regular VR headset
| and the Meta Quest crowd isn't going to shell out 3 grand.
|
| Maybe Apple has just worked out that they can't build a _good_
| VR headset at a level of quality that they are proud of for a
| sales price of less than PS3k with today 's technology?
|
| Apple probably isn't going to compete with the Meta Quest, but
| if their initial goal is just focussed on building the _best_
| VR headset on the market (never mind the cost!) rather than to
| make something price-competitive with Meta, they might achieve
| that.
| etempleton wrote:
| I think they are in a position to do that. My bigger concern
| would be if that is what it is--a mostly VR headset with some
| AR capabilities, then its killer app will be games. But to
| appeal to that audience and developers they are going to need
| to be a bit more receptive to how that industry works. They
| will probably see some success regardless, as they did with
| games on iOS, but they would need to embrace a certain
| openness or at least culture of partnership they haven't in
| the past. Closed platforms in gaming only work because they
| have a significant number of exclusive games--see Nintendo,
| and to a lesser extent, Sony. If Apple's answer is that we
| have the best VR headset but it can't plug into a PC and also
| costs 3X everything else it won't work.
|
| If gaming isn't the primary use case what is? Nothing in
| VR/AR I have seen beyond gaming has enough appeal or function
| to be worth it for more than a few hundred thousand people in
| a few different industries.
| dwallin wrote:
| Off the top of my head, here's a short list of fields that
| could make some use of a professional 3d headset:
|
| - 3d modeling/sculpting
|
| - Architecture
|
| - Interior Design (great uses for passthrough AR here)
|
| - Product Design / CAD
| scarface74 wrote:
| > Apple Watch was functional, self contained, worked, and was
| under $1,000
|
| The Apple Watch was far from "self contained" when it was first
| introduced. It couldn't really run third party apps at all. The
| "apps" were just projections from the phone.
|
| Over many years, it did become more self contained
|
| - running apps independently
|
| - gaining its own GPS chip
|
| - gaining its own cell connection
|
| - gaining its own App Store
|
| Even today, you still need an iPhone for at least the first
| setup.
|
| Also don't forget that you couldn't buy music on the iPhone
| when it was first introduced and it wasn't until the iPod Touch
| was introduced later that year that you could buy music
| directly from the phone and then only over wifi.
|
| It wasn't until iOS 5 that you could update your phone without
| using iTunes on your computer.
| [deleted]
| peyton wrote:
| Bet your manager's manager's manager will get one. Then your
| manager's manager. Then your manager.
|
| If you sit on Zoom calls all day it sounds amazing.
| rsynnott wrote:
| That... doesn't sound particularly amazing. As someone who
| sits in a lot of Zoom calls, I'm not sure I've ever found
| myself thinking "I wish this was more intrusive".
| etempleton wrote:
| What part of having something strapped to your face all day
| while on Zoom calls sounds amazing?
|
| As someone who spends all day on zoom calls this is the last
| thing I want.
| p1esk wrote:
| Not having to _sit_ sounds pretty amazing. Assuming it can
| match my monitor quality. I think of a headset as
| headphones for your eyes.
| rocketbop wrote:
| > Not having to sit sounds pretty amazing.
|
| Well you're not going to be able to walk around unless
| it's some AR mix, but I can imagine it being very
| confusing, with trips over furniture galore.
| p1esk wrote:
| Sure, we need to try it before judging one way or
| another.
| kibwen wrote:
| I'm unclear what's being suggested here.
|
| The "headphones for your eyes" analogy is incorrect,
| because if you're on a call, then you can listen via
| headphones while, for example, making food, or taking
| care of children, or doing chores. But you can't do any
| of those things if you can't see your surroundings.
| Taking over your vision is far more disruptive than
| taking over your hearing. You might as well be sitting.
| p1esk wrote:
| I don't always need to pay full visual attention to
| what's on screen, and I assume there will be a way to
| keep someone's boring slide presentation on a side while
| cooking or walking.
| etempleton wrote:
| What do you look like to other people on the Zoom call?
| What are they seeing? If it is your avatar that is going
| to be a no go for most executives. They want to see your
| real face.
| popcalc wrote:
| New use case for Memojis /s
| p1esk wrote:
| I look like the screen I'm sharing. If I'm not sharing,
| my voice is enough. The only exception could a job
| interview.
|
| However, I don't see why it would be a problem to render
| my face using AI given there's already head and eye
| tracking going on.
| alexwasserman wrote:
| Watches, phones, and music players also all existed for a long
| time, and weren't a huge leap.
|
| Sure, smart watches were called revolutionary, but the first
| Apple Watch told the time and was fun but mostly unusable for
| much else. The notifications popped up, but actual interaction
| was so slow. But that's fine. It was great to have a watch (a
| >100 year old device), that shows texts.
|
| Same for phones - it was just iterative, but done well.
|
| Music players - obviously, around for a long, long time, and
| people were well used to portable tape, CD, and minidisk
| players, and even basic MP3 players existed.
|
| This is a genuinely evolutionary change. People aren't used to
| information privately beamed to their eye-balls, walking around
| with glasses sure, but those don't provide information like a
| mechanical watch did, so not sure that's the analogy.
|
| It's a Mac all over again - something actually new,
| interesting, and needing a killer app.
| woobar wrote:
| > first Apple Watch told the time and was fun but mostly
| unusable for much else.
|
| I had 1st gen watch till 2019 and my usage pattern hardly
| changed with the newer versions:
|
| - clock and weather information
|
| - notifications
|
| - Apple Pay
|
| - exercise tracking
|
| What else are you using it now?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I use my (3rd gen) Apple Watch while I'm running. It can
| stream music directly, has its own cellular connection and
| GPS. You couldn't do that with the first gen.
| alexwasserman wrote:
| Not a huge amount more. I loved my first-gen too, but
| seldom even tried to hit the buttons to do anything. It was
| time + looking at notifications. Everything else was too
| slow.
|
| I use it for things like timers, eg. cooking, quite a lot.
| I have high blood pressure, so like the other health
| features, which have improved a lot.
|
| Pretty nice for directions, and it can store music now to
| use, which is handy.
|
| I think a lot of features, even the basic ones have
| improved a lot too, to the point it's hard to remember that
| the first was pretty basic. Maybe I'm mis-remembering and
| the rest of the world has also caught up to the wonders of
| tap to pay, and wallet/etickets. Somewhere in the last
| couple of years realistically not carrying a phone became
| more of a reality.
| ulfw wrote:
| But there was a significant and fast growing market for
| watches, smartphones and MP3 players. Where is that for VR
| headsets? It's neither a huge installed market (watches) nor
| is it fast growing (smartphones late 2000s).
| rgbrgb wrote:
| Agreement phrased as rebuttal?
| toast0 wrote:
| I'm no fan of Apple, but my impression is that Apple's
| involvement significantly grew the market of smartwatches,
| smartphones, and mp3 players.
|
| There's a reason people think Apple invented them.
|
| I'm a grump, and don't see how you could make VR headsets
| into a mass market product at this time, but Apple has been
| good at doing that in the past; MP3 players were probably
| going to boom otherwise, smartwatches were a bit of a
| fizzle (imho), but Apple inspired everyone to become
| smartphone zombies in a way that BlackBerry and Nokia
| couldn't.
|
| Which is not to say everything they touch is gold. AirPorts
| are dead. Xserve is dead. Not sure if I should mention 90s
| failures like Newton and Pippin. Apple TV doesn't seem to
| have the broad reach into non-Apple users that iPod had,
| etc.
| alexwasserman wrote:
| I think Airports died out when Apple realized they didn't
| need to drive that segment. They were the first decent
| Wifi APs, and pushed wifi hard as a standard, putting
| 802.11 into everything very quickly. When every ISP
| starting bundling APs with their modems it was pointless
| to compete.
|
| Airport Express isn't necessary any more either - they've
| been replace with HomePods and HomePod Minis.
|
| It would be nice to have a dedicated Apple Timemachine
| box, but plenty of other devices exist in that segment.
|
| I think if they wanted they could come up with a mesh
| solution, or build it into HomePods. But, it's not really
| necessary, and not an area they'll sell in quantities
| that make a difference to them.
|
| AppleTV is actually a pretty fantastic product, and I
| love mine, putting them onto TVs, especially the modern
| ad-filled smart TVs. Dumb TVs are hard to find, so I just
| don't both connecting the TV to a network, and purely use
| an AppleTV. The interface beats anything I've seen
| natively on a TV, and I trust it more than Samsung, LG,
| etc.
| j2bax wrote:
| I could see major potential in the fitness space, paired with
| Apple Watch + Fitness+... I could see potential use cases in
| education (think surgery simulator etc...). I could see some
| developers using it as an alternative to their monitors. I
| think there are plenty of places outside of gaming where a
| device like this, done right (comfortable) could carve out a
| segment. Plenty of people pay thousands of dollars for an
| exercise bike with a screen attached to it.
| heisenzombie wrote:
| I've heard people bring up fitness, but the physical
| experience of sweating with a headset strapped to my face
| sounds unpleasant. It also turns the product into "gym
| equipment". Is it waterproof? Can I give it a good wash in
| the sink and dry it? Or am I putting it on later with it
| soaked in cold sweat? How's it going to smell after a couple
| of weeks?
| j2bax wrote:
| All of their other wearables and phones are waterproof at
| this point, why wouldn't this one be? Rinse it off in the
| sink when you are done!
| etempleton wrote:
| Are you gonna want to get all sweaty in a 3 grand headset?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'd think they're hoping to do way better than smartwatches with
| this investment.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| I'm interested what this will look like in 5 years. Apple's
| ecosystem is currently hostile to the largest market for A/VR so
| far, gamers. However if there is one company I would bet to pull
| a completely brand new market segment out of their ass it would
| be Apple. Should be exciting to watch.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Apple makes more on games via iOS than all of the console
| makers
| [deleted]
| nottorp wrote:
| Maybe, or it would end up like the watch, i.e. the most
| expensive fitness band. Which is both pretty niche and not a
| brand new market segment. It was new when fitbit and the likes
| were doing it.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Mixed reality headset, not virtual reality headset.
| paxys wrote:
| Apple has come a long way from the time when not even the
| engineering team working on a product would know what it really
| was until Steve Jobs unveiled it on stage. Now everything gets
| leaked like at every other company.
|
| Did Apple even have a hundred executives in 2008?
| illiarian wrote:
| > Now everything gets leaked like at every other company.
|
| Does it get leaked though?
|
| First, there are the "expected" predictions (a new phone is
| coming in the fall!) that keep failing to predict what actually
| will happen with hardware or software on the phone (iPhone 14
| was to be foldable and made out of titanium with new exciting
| ways of interacting with the OS ffs)
|
| Second, there are outrageous claims about new hardware that
| either fail to materialise completely (AR/VR was definitely
| coming two years ago and absolutely one hundred percent
| definitely coming last year, and will absolutely certainly no
| doubt about it come this year), or are not nearly in the
| ballpark of what is actually going to be released (rumors of a
| desktop-level CPU were around since probably the first A-series
| chips, but literally no one predicted either M-series or the
| transition process).
|
| The one actual leak I remember when an iPhone pre-production
| version was left at a bar almost a decade ago now.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| The "Top 100" thing has been going on for some time.
|
| The first I heard about it was certainly when Steve Jobs
| returned. In fact I remember it struck me how "Jobsian" it was:
| to create in-the-circle and out-of-the-circle groups.
| Unsurprisingly this is when you started seeing political
| jockeying, coattail riding and all the other rather gross human
| behaviors I had not experienced at Apple up until then.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > it was: to create in-the-circle and out-of-the-circle
| groups
|
| Decision-making doesn't scale, so there's a practical reason
| not to have thousands and thousands of people in that
| decision-making ring.
| belugacat wrote:
| _> when Steve returned [...] is when you started seeing
| political jockeying, coattail riding and all the other rather
| gross human behaviors I had not experienced at Apple up until
| then._
|
| What do you make of the fact that this is also when the
| company went from nearly bankrupt to wildly successful?
|
| Is making humans compete (within ethical boundaries that
| should be set by labor law etc of course) a great way to get
| the best out of them?
| randomifcpfan wrote:
| Heh, you may have been lucky. I worked at Apple during the
| middle part of the no-Jobs era, and I remember there was
| plenty of political intrigue between teams. Mac vs Apple vs
| Newton vs Draco, Blue vs Pink vs AUX vs Red. Many different
| hardware projects. Engineering vs HIG vs Research. The
| engineering culture was good about coming together to ship
| the next big thing, but in between big things there was tons
| of infighting.
| nr2x wrote:
| I don't think it's really accurate to call anything coming from
| Gurman/Bloomberg a "leak". I think leadership just use him to
| signal to Wall Street what their road map is. This is
| intentional.
| dagmx wrote:
| Here's a Quora question asking about it from 2012 so it's
| existed at least since then. Oddly all the answers seem to have
| been deleted.
|
| https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-it-like-to-attend-a...
| voisin wrote:
| Initial product will be weak, just like the original iPhone (no
| App Store, slow, poor battery life, etc) and Apple Watch (no
| development, no health tracking, small screen, poor battery
| life).
|
| The thing about Apple is not to judge based on v.1 but to watch
| the iteration. They are the most persistent company in the world.
| Compare to Google which seems to have ADHD. Apple will iterate
| and iterate and in 5 years we'll all be shocked that it is an
| "overnight success" and undisputed market leader with an
| unassailable ecosystem.
|
| If their stock tanks after the release I'll see it as a good
| buying opportunity!
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Initial product will be weak
|
| To build upon your argument...
|
| The art is in being strong out of the gate in the _correct_ one
| or two dimensions.
|
| To try and be perfect on all dimensions and depend on
| concomitant perfect synchrony is a big reason why products like
| Stadia fail.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah but $3K.
| nicoburns wrote:
| That would be not dissimilar to the launch strategy of the
| macbook air, which was ridiculously expensive at launch,
| presumably didn't sell in huge quanitities during the first
| few generations, but gave them something to build on which
| they eventually turned into a mainstream product.
| nr2x wrote:
| During a recession with mass layoffs of wealthy tech types
| who'd otherwise have the cash and curiosity to buy.
| p1esk wrote:
| It's still many months away from hitting the shelves. By
| x-mas the layoffs might be over.
|
| Unless a new round of layoffs starts because of gpt-4
| powered apps.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > The thing about Apple is not to judge based on v.1 but to
| watch the iteration. They are the most persistent company in
| the world.
|
| Yes, and the fact that they don't abandon a product once it
| ships. Other consumer electronic companies still see products
| as one and done, sort of like videogame consoles before Xbox.
| When the product went gold it became forever frozen in time,
| warts and all.
|
| Apple not only iterates the design every year but tries to
| bring forward the software in the previous years. The iPhone
| you bought gets arguably better every year.
|
| Other companies try to emulate this behavior by pushing new
| versions of operating systems but their hardware bares to
| lineage so it's often a Herculean effort that undertake half-
| assed.
| paxys wrote:
| Where was this persistent iteration and overnight success with
| Homepod, Airpower, butterfly keyboards, touchbar, force touch,
| MobileMe, Ping?
|
| Apple has had its share of failures like any other company, and
| kills products like any other company. There is plenty of
| precedence for their AR headset to just fizzle out.
| dmead wrote:
| It's likely that it will just fizzle out. It's a big ship and
| getting it to produce something new I'm sure is no easy task.
|
| Good for them that meta has shown this is a dead end. I'm
| sure they're ready to cut bait on this.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| I don't disagree with your examples. Yep, they've made plenty
| of mistakes. A key difference here is that Apple has been
| spent many years developing and promoting substantial AR
| frameworks. It has been a huge investment. It at least
| appears that this huge investment has all been leading up to
| some sort of vision based wearable. If it does turn out to be
| a failure, the magnitude of the failure will be much larger
| than the above examples.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Apple has been spent many years developing and promoting
| substantial AR frameworks
|
| ...dovetailed with their cut support for SteamVR and the
| OpenXR standard. In-house APIs are a nice investment, but
| arguably pointless when everyone's content is built on pre-
| existing and open frameworks. This whole project feels like
| a side-pot to me, and Apple themselves are clearly afraid
| to commit.
| rocketbop wrote:
| Maybe the Newton is a better example, although they did
| revisit the concept many years later.
| dagmx wrote:
| HomePod
|
| Getting more successful with the Mini. The OG Homepod was a
| very V1 product like the person you replied to was saying
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/06/homepod-mini-
| was-...
|
| AirPower: never released
|
| Butterfly keyboards/Touch Bar/force touch: all features. The
| person you're replying to is talking about product lines. You
| might as well list cd/devs drives and FireWire as well
| because things come and go.
|
| MobileMe: The majority of MobileMe features still exist under
| iCloud so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
|
| Ping: this was always just a feature for iTunes and not much
| more. It wasn't a product in and of itself.
| tedivm wrote:
| I agree with you on all of that except MobileMe. Apple
| killed that, then had a delay, then had iCloud. They were
| actually ahead of the curve for a bit and then went way far
| back before catching up again.
| scarface74 wrote:
| MobileMe is now iCloud.
|
| HomePods still exists in both the mini form and the original
| form factor with newer chips.
|
| The modern version of Ping is what is built into Apple Music.
| Closi wrote:
| Butterfly keyboards, touch bar and force-touch were
| _features_ rather than products - most of these were actually
| iterated _out_ of the product, although the touchbar is still
| in the latest MacBook Pro 's. As a side point, 3D touch was
| brilliant IMO!
|
| These were all part of the persistent iteration of the iPhone
| and Macbook, hardly failed products.
|
| Also Homepod has just had a second version (released 2023),
| and a third version is in the works, and it's homepod mini
| has been very successful, so still under iteration.
| Considering the state of LLM's and everyone's assumption that
| this will turbocharge smart-speaker capability, they are
| probably quite glad that they at least have an established
| and mildly successful product in the space (they own c10% of
| the market for smart speakers).
| rsynnott wrote:
| The touch bar only makes an appearance in the 13" MBP, and
| the 13" MBP is very much the current generation's Mac That
| No-one Should Buy (as was the non-retina 13" MBP that
| hanged around for _years_ after the MBA essentially
| obsoleted it); unless you have very specific needs you
| probably want an Air.
|
| The current 'normal' MBPs don't have touchbars.
| [deleted]
| spike021 wrote:
| Interestingly enough to me, all the things you mentioned are
| "accessories". Not full-fledged products (arguably Ping was
| right around when social media like MySpace/Facebook really
| were going full-steam so I think Apple was just trying it
| out).
|
| The first-class products have all been launched like the
| parent comment said, along with iterations that build upon
| them.
|
| So to me it seems Apple is still putting some level of
| priority on its main products and just less so on
| accessories.
| carlycue wrote:
| https://archive.vn/yYBvR
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I've always found the Apple Watch to be more of a fashion
| accessory or a toy. People seem to really love them and showing
| them off.
| kibwen wrote:
| Apple is a luxury fashion company first, and a tech company
| second.
| Jam-O wrote:
| Maybe Apple could market this thing simply as a hi-res monitor
| and focus only on productivity side. If they have dual 5K
| displays and lenses, that seems like a safer bet and avoid the
| metaverse and gaming altogether. They charged more than 3000 for
| their pro monitors.
|
| Recently they have Wi-Fi 6E across new products and it could be
| for pushing compressed pixels to the headset which needs only to
| be a thin client like the studio display.
| speakingortho wrote:
| This device needs to have WebXR support on it, day one. This will
| enable VR browser games, and immersive web applications for
| retail. Also important to ensure we have cross-platform metaverse
| experiences.
| arnaudsm wrote:
| I may be anti-Apple, I am excited for this release. All the XR
| headsets I've owned had terrible UX and no product vision
| whatsoever. Just "make a bad videogame and users will find
| something to do with it". The Quest pro has hilariously bad
| software.
|
| Apple excels at opinionated product vision on new form factors
| and finding new killer features. And that's what the dying AR
| space needs the most.
| thih9 wrote:
| Headset is something that you wear, there's a personal connection
| and an aspect of fashion.
|
| Apple can be fashion too.
|
| As long as the product is closer to AirPods Max than Mac Pro,
| people will buy it.
| bwb wrote:
| When do we get updates on their internal stock buy/sells :)
| [deleted]
| status200 wrote:
| I'm an Apple user and love all things VR / AR, probably spend
| 10hr/wk using Quest 2.
|
| Tempted to get the Reality Pro/One on launch, but at $3k and the
| tech team saying that not only will there be nothing exciting
| software-wise at launch, but a cheaper version and a more
| advanced version are on the horizon (no pun intended), I can't
| justify getting it.
|
| If someone like me who is basically the perfect demographic
| crossover doesn't want it, not sure who will... but time will
| tell.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Ideas for product names:
|
| - Clear Vision
|
| - Reality Field
|
| - Apple Reality
|
| - Reality HD
|
| - eXtended Reality
| alden5 wrote:
| apple glass would be my guess
| tyfon wrote:
| I think they will use the really innovative iGlass :)
| popcalc wrote:
| Reality Distortion Field :)
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Until the technology exists that can make something that looks
| like cool glasses with a mixed reality hud that you can wear all
| of the time like airPods or the watch they should stay out of
| this business.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > With that in mind, executives are striking a realistic tone
| within the company. This isn't going to be a hit product right
| out of the gate. But it could follow a similar trajectory as the
| Apple Watch.
|
| Their confidence is blinding.
| lockhouse wrote:
| https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartwatch-shipm...
|
| If it follows the Apple Watch, then it will be the undisputed
| market leader in the product segment, which honestly I think it
| will. The competition is very weak. Meta's efforts have largely
| failed with the MetaVerse and their whole ecosystem seams very
| stagnant. Valve and HTC aren't doing much in this space. Sony's
| PSVR is promising, but it is completely locked into the
| PlayStation ecosystem, so I see it being limited just to first
| person games for the most part. Microsoft has completely
| abandoned the consumer market with HoloLens and prefer to sell
| very expensive headsets to industry and the military instead.
|
| This is a very ripe market for Apple to disrupt if they can
| execute well. Very reminiscent of the smart watch market before
| the Apple Watch.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > If it follows the Apple Watch
|
| At $3000 it is already nothing like the Apple Watch. That's
| the real deal breaker that I see.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'm not sure if I agree.
|
| What is there to disrupt?
|
| Really think about that statement for a minute. Maybe
| telepresence if you market it right, but the money is all in
| gaming and social use. And if you're gonna buy a headset,
| would you rather get the $300 one with Beat Saber and VR
| Chat, or cough up $3,000 for FaceTime in VR?
|
| I think Meta has done all they can here. It's frankly a shock
| they managed to sell over 10 million Quest units, it would be
| a miracle if Apple can ship over a million at the price
| they're considering. Even if they do get the coveted iPhone-
| level install-base (fat chance), Apple cut ties with industry
| standards like OpenXR and SteamVR years ago. Their entire
| ecosystem will have to get built up from scratch, and they'll
| also have to fend off competitors selling units at _literally
| 10%_ of the price.
|
| For Apple to become the undisputed market leader in this
| product segment, they'd need a lot more than just a headset
| that exists. This project is looking less Apple Watch and
| more Apple Newton.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Well said. There is no Apple-scale market to disrupt. If
| the largest market for the wearable remains as gaming,
| Apple is in a very poor position since they have always
| only begrudgingly embraced gaming.
|
| This isn't about disruption, this is about creating a new
| market.
|
| If I think of myself as an example, I don't have interest
| in the gaming angle. If it is comfortable enough and the
| experience is great, I might buy it for telepresence, if
| for no other reason than richer visits with my children on
| the other side of the country. Maybe there is some other
| use I would buy into, but I'm sure not seeing it yet.
| illiarian wrote:
| > Apple is in a very poor position since they have always
| only begrudgingly embraced gaming.
|
| On the other hand they wholeheartedly embraced gaming on
| mobile (their AppStore page is nothing but gaming,
| realy), so who knows
| smoldesu wrote:
| We'll have to see. Personally, I'm hoping Apple uses it
| as an excuse to patch up industry relations. If
| Apple/Safari embraced OpenXR, we could see that 'next
| frontier' of web content that everyone has been preaching
| since 2007.
|
| Working _with_ the industry seems like it could stand to
| make a lot more money for Apple. As a Quest competitor it
| 's a hard pill to swallow, but as a high-quality dev kit
| for cross-platform VR/AR experiences, it could carve a
| lucrative new segment for itself.
| Dr_Birdbrain wrote:
| That's funny, because I wouldn't buy a Quest, but I was
| just thinking I would LOVE FaceTime in AR, so I could take
| calls and meetings while walking in the park. I already do
| that but I have to use a hand to hold my phone.
| gumby wrote:
| This was the framing of the iphone as well: "We hope to
| eventually reach 1% of the market".
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
|
| I have not found a use for a VR headset or the Apple Watch,
| beyond as a toy, or fashion accessory. Even then, it's been so
| long since I've worn a watch that wearing a watch is awkward.
| Yet apparently Apple sells a lot of them, and it is the smart
| watch with the highest number of global sales.
| nunodonato wrote:
| Apple watch has its use as... a watch, fitness bracelet,
| health monitor, etc. Lots of people wear one for the many
| features it provides. A VR headset is quite more challenging,
| especially because we all know Apple is not a big reference
| in gaming...
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| This! I have resisted the Apple platform due to personal
| tastes but if they get the blood sugar monitor working
| (which they say they're close to), I'll switch my entire
| platmorm ecosystem over to Apple for that one specific
| feature.
| lockhouse wrote:
| For Apple to find success here, I think they will need to
| provide a compelling mix of gaming and productivity killer
| apps and strong tie-ins with the rest of the Apple
| ecosystem.
| dehrmann wrote:
| You have a point. I have an Apple watch. The stats are mildly
| interesting and not all that actionable. I don't think I'd
| buy a new one.
| twalichiewicz wrote:
| Anecdotally I was in a similar mindset about the Apple Watch
| for a while after the novelty wore off. I found the
| notification functionality (my main use case when I first got
| it) incredibly distracting, and having to remember to charge
| it constantly annoying. So I stopped actively wearing it for
| a period of time.
|
| It was only once I started using it for its health tracking
| capabilities and turned off many of the annoying
| notifications that I started regularly wearing it.
|
| Is it as essentially as having my phone with me when I leave
| the house? Ultimately, no, and it does require more thought
| about how to squeeze the most utility out of it (when
| compared to a smartphone) but I think the reason it's so
| popular is the flexibility it affords:
|
| - Sport tracking watches are great at tracking everything
| down to a fine detail BUT you wouldn't want to be seen
| wearing them out to a dinner
|
| - Traditional (non-smart) watches look very nice as a fashion
| accessory BUT are useless for fitness and integrating other
| data into the faster-to-read watch form factor
| mpweiher wrote:
| I was super-skeptical about the Apple Watch.
|
| Particularly as it didn't show the time. (Initial versions
| didn't have enough power to keep the display on all the
| time).
|
| Apple finally got me by fixing that and by making their
| phones too large to carry around while running. Grrr. But
| glad they did.
|
| It's been eye-opening. The fitness and sleep tracking are
| fantastic, and if you are having issues in that area,
| potentially life-changing.
|
| I was also resisting contactless payment, being a typical
| German "cash is good" guy. And I still think cash _is_ good.
| But during the pandemic everything went contactless, and
| Apply Pay with the watch is just super convenient. Always
| there, no PIN to enter or signature to verify, ever.
|
| Life-saver when my wallet got stolen on holiday.
|
| And of course super-comfy listening to podcasts, books or
| music while exercising or on public transport.
|
| Since I got it with the cell radio, I nowadays often just
| leave my phone at home. Who needs to carry that around? And
| no phone, no social media :-)
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If it had a camera I think I would leave my phone at home.
| codq wrote:
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/03/23/future-apple-
| watc...
| costanzaDynasty wrote:
| The simple things I want from Apple, that seemly would be not to
| difficult from a company with so much money and talent are left
| to linger. But every half baked idea is rushed to the front of
| the line.
|
| If during the VR headset announcement Xbox was somehow involved,
| it would get my attention though.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| This will be as successful as Animojis.
|
| This headset will have a loyal customer base, will make a big
| splash, but will not transform computing, creative work, or
| anything for the everyday user.
|
| Apple Watch got so extremely lucky. I do not ever want to see
| Apple make product decisions like 'well this worked, so let's see
| if this will, too.' There is _zero_ taste in that, _zero_
| craftsmanship, it 's just AppleGPT Product Edition.
|
| [not done]: Have we really all forgotten how we all fell on our
| collective a** we were when we saw Mac, iPod, M1, iPhone? How
| hard is it to know - "guess what, this was kinda 'meh'" vs. "well
| that changes everything"?
| DantesKite wrote:
| How much would you be willing to bet on this?
| [deleted]
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Probably more than you're comfortable with. Seriously reach
| out to the email in profile.
| cjdoc29 wrote:
| I am doubtful their VR product will be great if released within
| this or next year.
|
| > Apple Watch got so extremely lucky
|
| But given that others have tried and arguably failed to have
| the same impact, this is not sizably attributed to luck at all.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| The digital watch market is like the meme where we see a guy
| spraying champagne all over himself, kissing his girlfriend,
| but when we zoom out it's at the bottom tier of tech
| experience.
|
| Apple won it not because their watch is 'great' - but because
| they have such brand cache that they could sell 100m of
| _anything_ once the market learns about them. Airport could
| absolutely come back and sell that amount, taken into
| consideration 6 watches == one household == ~1-3 airports -
| with the marketing budget they used on Watch.
|
| Long story short, they are in a precarious position. They
| must make something to stay relevant with financial markets,
| their manufacturing pipeline, keep operationally excellent
| with sourcing, etc... so it's not meant to be a full 'knock'
| on them. The 'knock' comes in taking that chance twice with a
| shrug from your top execs 'well the watch worked out, let's
| see if this does' - that's just not it.
| cjdoc29 wrote:
| > but because they have such brand cache that they could
| sell 100m of anything once the market learns about them
|
| I partially disagree with this argument. They sold some 10
| million units in 2016 - it might be that because of the
| success and ubiquity of iPods and iPhones in the decade
| leading up to this, that people thought that the first
| Apple Watch was a great product (it wasn't, really IMO).
| Brand cache, or whatever, sure.
|
| But you don't sell nearly 60 million units in 2021 off
| luck.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Let's put it in these terms:
|
| The number of Apple customers from iPod that transitioned
| to iPhone was x%,
|
| The number of iPhone to AirPods was y%
|
| The number of iPhone to Watch was z%
|
| z < y
|
| z < x
|
| in a cumulative measure from a time frame of 3 years from
| launch. Defining the proportion of current customers to
| converted sales is where one can play words with defining
| luck vs. skill vs. rent-seeking. If you have billions
| units and only convert 20% vs. other products that
| convert 75%, then maybe one is considered inferior to the
| other - and to which I confer the title of luck.
|
| Now the fun question would be if x < y or the other way
| around.
| [deleted]
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _This headset will have a loyal customer base, will make a
| big splash, but will not transform computing, creative work, or
| anything for the everyday user._
|
| Oooh, I love these "No wireless. Less space than a nomad.
| Lame."-type proclamations.
|
| > _Apple Watch got so extremely lucky._
|
| Breathtaking.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| hahaha, meta are going to have to actually compete. I suspect the
| MR experience will suck from apple, but the reality distortion
| field thats still lingering will tide them through.
|
| At least we know that the apple device, whilst limited in screens
| and slam, will have a decent software stack that will put
| consumer's ease of use first, rather than bullshit promotion
| driven dev from oculus.
| paxys wrote:
| This is in fact the best thing that can happen to Meta. At the
| moment no one really knows or cares about VR/AR. If Apple
| successfully takes it mainstream then they would have done what
| years of Meta's marketing campaigns couldn't, and suddenly
| they'll have a real market to compete in. Heck they don't even
| have to be better at it. Playing the Google/Android role is
| good enough.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > and suddenly they'll have a real market to compete in
|
| With ads.
|
| Good luck, Meta.
| smoldesu wrote:
| FWIW, this is exactly the sort of 400 IQ chess play Mark
| Zuckerberg has been playing for the past half-decade, and
| the one this website has kicked the piss out of him for
| time immemorial.
|
| So which is it? Is VR a dehumanizing medium with no
| redeeming qualities, or is it a horizon of content and
| potential yet to be unlocked? It feels like HN's opinion on
| it changes every 15 minutes.
|
| Personally, I think VR is a bust. That being said, there is
| not an ice cube's chance in hell of Apple out-maneuvering
| Meta here. Zuck will happily pour billions into this spite
| machine, he already has. On top of that, he has the
| leverage of a more "open" platform (will Apple give you
| Root?) and larger install-base. All Zuckerberg needs to
| 'win' is a cross-platform killer app. If Apple's hardest
| spin on this is "FaceTime with 3D characters", their
| product is toast. A cross-platform protocol/experience will
| become the dominant player, and everyone will gravitate
| towards the cheapest option.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Why do people do this?
|
| Why place an opinion on 'hacker news' as if it is an
| individual mind?
|
| Hacker News isn't _one person_ constantly changing their
| mind it's a hive of constantly shifting debate about a
| new technology and all that implies.
|
| It would be weird if the opinions _were_ uniform and
| unchanging.
| illiarian wrote:
| > All Zuckerberg needs to 'win' is a cross-platform
| killer app. If Apple's hardest spin on this is "FaceTime
| with 3D characters"
|
| As opposed to Zuckerberg literally pouring billions into
| exactly poorly executed Facetime with 3D characters that
| even his own employees are unwilling to use?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Touche. I don't have a lick of faith for their Metaverse
| future, but it's clear now that they were ahead of the
| game. If everyone is deciding to hop in this melee, my
| money's on the guy who got there first and built a small
| fort even when he was ridiculed for it.
| illiarian wrote:
| > but it's clear now that they were ahead of the game
|
| Its clear... how?
|
| They did have a moat, and they were ahead of the game
| with Oculus. And then they squandered that on whatever
| the seven hells Meta is.
|
| And John Carmack ended up quitting Meta. "we constantly
| self-sabotage and squander effort": https://www.facebook.
| com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0iPixEvPJ...
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I think VR is a bust as well.
|
| I assumed however that Zuck would need to see a return on
| his investment -- which hitherto has been in the form of
| advertising. If we entertain the idea that VR has legs
| and Apple's is ad-free then I already see a clear winner.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If we entertain the idea that VR has legs, Apple needs to
| be selling 300,000 units per quarter to compete with the
| Quest's slowest sales period. Advertising or reputation
| be damned, the Oculus Quest moved a _lot_ of hardware;
| probably more hardware than Apple 's headset will in it's
| entire product lifetime. _If_ we entertain the idea that
| VR has legs, Mark Zuckerberg is around the corner with
| his legs propped up on a mahogany desk with a fat Cuban
| stogie in his mouth. He really only loses here if Apple
| fumbles really bad.
|
| > which hitherto has been in the form of advertising.
|
| Where are you getting that from? Their main revenue
| outlet is the same as Apple's, payment processing for
| their store: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/10/oculus-
| sold-5-million-wort...
| dagorenouf wrote:
| The reason the Apple Watch took a few years to get traction is
| that:
|
| - Apple initially positioned it as a fashion accessory, which few
| people cared about
|
| - the public wanted it to be like a smartphone on your wrist, and
| were let down by the limited features
|
| Then Apple realized the value was in the health features. They
| started positioning it properly and people bought it more. All at
| the same time the tech improvements made the watch more capable
| and started becoming even more useful. But at the core, it's the
| health focus + typical Apple ease of use and quality that made it
| take off.
|
| I can see the same trajectory happen with VR:
|
| - Apple starts positioning it as a metaverse / HoloLens type
| headset, which few people care about
|
| - People assume it's an << iMac in VR >> type device and get
| disappointed that it isn't.
|
| But over time, Apple realizes that the number one value is in
| gaming, and gradually shifts focus and positioning. It attracts
| more and more people while at the same time the tech improves.
| Then eventually the tech allows for a headset that can fit in a
| smaller for factor and truly helps people beyond gaming. As an
| enhancement to day to day tasks with light enough glasses for
| example.
| abledon wrote:
| also battery life still sucks on this generation. Once it lasts
| a week or two, then I'll be interested.
| root_axis wrote:
| My prediction: it will suck. Why? All AR devices suck, the tech
| just isn't there.
| paxys wrote:
| More than that, I think the underlying problem is that people
| simply don't want VR/AR. Decades of science fiction writing has
| convinced us that it is the future, but like..why?
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| It would be cool if it was like the matrix. The problem is it
| isn't, it's just a screen on your face. That inherently makes
| it shit because having motion in front of your face without
| real motion makes you ill.
|
| It's an unfixable problem. Instead of fucking around, why
| don't they just make siri be like cortana in halo. Give me a
| cute hologram in the real world with a GPT model behind it.
|
| Every house in the world could have a siri pod. Your phone
| could connect to their siri pod and let your siri come out
| and talk to you while you're at their house. That would be
| some real science fiction. Imagine siri popping up in your
| car and directing you or warning you about pedestrians it can
| see that are about to step into the road.
| dmead wrote:
| One decade. Just the one. Maybe one and a half. Most science
| fiction doesn't care about VR.
| root_axis wrote:
| As a sibling comment pointed out, the vision of this tech in
| science fiction is far beyond what is currently possible or
| what may ever be possible. Nobody except enthusiasts will be
| willing to wear a janky UI sweat box on their face that needs
| to be charged every 6 hours, the product is DOA.
| staminade wrote:
| Because as depicted in scf-fi, VR would be amazing. The
| ability to plug-in, or walk onto a holodeck, and
| frictionlessly experience literally _any_ experience, in
| perfect, complete sensory detail. Believing people wouldn 't
| want that means disregarding human nature entirely.
|
| The problem with VR/AR is that they anything but frictionless
| or perfect. They are expensive, uncomfortable and limited.
| They are a million miles away from what's depicted in sci-fi
| and likely will be for decades, perhaps hundreds of years. If
| anything, the sci-fi dream works against them by illustrating
| just what a stark difference there is between fiction and
| (artificial) reality.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, but that's not a headset -- that's more like being
| jacked into the matrix (or "Brainscan" (1994) if you like).
| We may still have another 50 years before that is ready.
| Duralias wrote:
| As someone enthusiastic about it, VR is unlikely to go fully
| mainstream, however it will definitely still exist, but AR is
| a completely different beast.
|
| AR glasses could replace your phone, TV and computer
| monitors. Of course we are a bit away from that future but
| just replacing screens alone has the capability to shake up
| the world.
| nunodonato wrote:
| I wonder if we'll now see "VR was a bad bet", when everyone is
| turning into LLMs and hoping Apples comes up with something on
| their own.
| fullshark wrote:
| Maybe for FB, a web service, but Apple's competitive advantage
| is hardware/surfaces. Can't imagine they think betting on the
| headset is a bad move just from a risk management perspective
| in case it takes off.
| adfm wrote:
| What if LLMs are the killer app?
|
| https://lukashoel.github.io/text-to-room/
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Put this in an MR/VR headset and hook it up to voice
| recognition and you've got what's probably the closest thing
| to a Star Trek holodeck as is possible with current tech.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I'm unconvinced that actually making the content is the
| problem. We had SketchUp fifteen years ago and that made it
| stupid easy to make some really killer 3d content. I don't
| think being able to use natural language removes the barriers
| to it taking off.
|
| The real problem isn't the shapes (there's plenty of free
| meshes out there), it's making them interactive, which is a
| complicated problem that extends well beyond the capabilities
| of our current generation of LLMs. Just look at Roblox: it's
| successful because you can make the world _do stuff_. But we
| can be pretty sure that just making VR /AR Roblox doesn't
| make a killer app.
|
| The challenge that a killer app for VR/AR needs to overcome
| is being more than a glorified art gallery.
| adfm wrote:
| Oh, you want interactively?
|
| https://instruct-nerf2nerf.github.io/
| j2bax wrote:
| Seems like a very subtle lightweight glasses type product would
| pair nicely with LLM.
| scarface74 wrote:
| 1. It's not like the people working on VR headsets are the same
| people who would be working on LLMs.
|
| 2. I think Apple has enough money to fund both initiatives to
| be alright
|
| 3. The unit economics of LLM products are still not proven and
| even when it is, any hardware product will more than likely
| have higher margins. Do you think people are going to give up
| the iOS ecosystem for Android based on an improved voice
| assistant?
| Despegar wrote:
| Apple will likely make all the money from it in the end anyway.
| glass3 wrote:
| In which way will they make it different from the Meta headsets?
| The Apple branding won't be enough to turn an average headset
| into a successful product.
|
| My guess would be that their headset is just a set of goggles
| that requires an iPhone for computation. Then, they can sell them
| for $300 or even $150.
|
| The article suggests that VR is a tool for long-distance
| relationships. For $300, that could become possible.
| r0fl wrote:
| Apple sells WHEELS for a Mac Pro for $700!
|
| You think that same Apple will sell, what may be a totally new
| revolutionary product of less than half the cost of WHEELS?
|
| Try again.
| rocketbop wrote:
| > Apple sells WHEELS for a Mac Pro for $700
|
| Not many of them though.
|
| AirPods are 200-300 and an absolute cash cow, and probably
| system sellers for Mac and iPhone.
| Jcowell wrote:
| > The Apple branding won't be enough to turn an average headset
| into a successful product.
|
| For me the Apple Branding _is_ enough. One of the biggest
| barriers for me picking up the Oculus Quest is that it's
| attached to Facebook.
| jdlyga wrote:
| This sounds like Apple strong-arming their staff to try and rally
| around a mediocre product. The Apple Watch comparisons don't make
| sense. Even the Apple Watch Series 0 was totally worth it. You
| could get notifications on your wrist, fitness tracking (totally
| replacing RunKeeper and similar apps at the time), pause music,
| locate your phone, etc. I happily used the Series 0 for 3 years.
| iamleppert wrote:
| HoloLens is (soon to be was) a great AR device. Certainly useable
| and competent but it suffered from the same issue over and over:
| once the gee wiz demo was over, outside of a few very niche uses,
| people went back to using their laptops and smartphones. Because
| it's easier to just pull out your smartphone, get whatever you
| need done, then put it back in your pocket.
|
| This rapid and random access is why people love smartphones so
| much. With a headset, you either have to be wearing it all the
| time (something people aren't willing to do; it's like wearing
| sunglasses indoors no matter how good the waveguides are) or have
| to take the time to take a fragile headset out of its case, put
| it on your head, adjust to the complete take over of your field
| of view & environment, then figure out what you need to do using
| an input modality (be it voice, gestures, an input peripheral or
| some combination) that is far inferior to a touch interface for
| the 90% of tasks.
|
| People like to claim that AR is less intrusive than a smartphone
| but all the cases they present are carefully crafted demo's. If
| you watch actual people use AR devices trying to accomplish some
| task you immediately notice that isn't true at all.
|
| It will be interesting to see how Apple has addressed these
| problems but AR needs to be better at doing tasks average people
| can already do well with a smartphone, and like I mentioned you
| have an uphill battle due to the headset form factor alone.
| kmarc wrote:
| > Because it's easier to just pull out your smartphone, get
| whatever you need done, then put it back in your pocket.
|
| FWIW I see an alarmingly lot of people glued to their phone
| while walking, in a restaurant, on the train, while driving,
| etc.
|
| Once it's normalized that they don't actually have to "pull
| out, put it back", just use (wear) it all the time as it is
| with phones, there will be a market.
| kredd wrote:
| You still have some sort of spatial awareness while using a
| phone, which makes it more acceptable to use in public. Like,
| if I'm dining solo, and a waiter comes by, I will still
| acknowledge their existence and be able to respond to them,
| have an eye contact and be able to use your body language.
| That's kind of lost in AR/VR case.
| pitched wrote:
| The headsets that exist today are very, very isolating. The
| whole idea behind them is to bring you somewhere else! To
| get AR right though, we need to be talking about something
| more like a projection like Google Glass. To bring the
| interface to you instead of bringing you to the interface
| means that pass-through must work when it's powered off.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Apple addresses these issues by selling it to architects,
| engineers, designers, and other professionals who have an
| actual use case for the device.
|
| They sell million or less in year or two. This is simply too
| expensive to be a consumer device. There must be at least 5-6
| years of iteration until it finds use on the mass market.
| randomifcpfan wrote:
| As I understand it, Apple is expected to only introduce a VR
| headset this year, like the new Sony VR headset or the high end
| Oculus. Apple's AR headset is still many years away.
| p1esk wrote:
| The article is about "mixed reality" headset, whatever that
| is.
| randomifcpfan wrote:
| Mixed reality is a VR headset with cameras that pass
| through an approximation of outside reality. The hope is
| that gets you most of the vision benefits of AR. But you
| still get most of the physical drawbacks of VR.
|
| All the current high-end VR headsets have pass through
| cameras, of varying quality. It's not clear yet whether
| Apple is bringing anything significantly new to the table.
| Will somewhat higher quality components make a significant
| difference?
| sp332 wrote:
| Mixed reality can refer to both AR and VR, so it's actually
| less specific. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/mixed-reality/disc...
| kurthr wrote:
| Apples definition of MR (Merged Reality) is "AR"
| (Augmented Reality) through cameras in a VR (Virtual
| Reality) interface. That means that it fully covers the
| eyes and can minimize the issues with outdoor lighting
| levels and precise alignment of projection over reality
| (If you move your head quickly AR will always be behind
| reality while camera images can be overlaid with minimal
| constant delay).
| dalbasal wrote:
| True, until it isn't.
|
| That is, once a device is useful or otherwise desirable
| enough... Issues like awkwardness or microefficiencies fade.
|
| I think the issue is that there's not enough to do in vr/ar. If
| we had a vr game of thrones, then everyone would be in vr
| watching it. If ar made some job much better, everyone doing
| that job would use one.
|
| The modern platform paradigm means all the speculative,
| creative investment is on the platform itself. "Creators" make
| the content. Well... The prizes for creating "content" are
| mediocre.
|
| A breakthrough filmmaker will have to make the VR's first
| blockbuster for the art... and so will their financiers. You
| can raise some money to make ar software, but the unicorn
| potential is slim compared to a platform play... the big bucks
| aren't available for such.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| If a family wants to watch game of thrones today, every one
| can gather around one TV screen and watch it using one
| person's account.
|
| I think Apple first needs to solve how to license a piece of
| media to one account that can be then be shared to anyone
| else in the same room, or a lot of families are never going
| to try it.
|
| The Nintendo DS blew me away with its "buy one game and let
| others download the multiplayer part for free" approach.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Going to have to disagree with you. I tried Hololens 2
| extensively and found it pretty bad. Terrible UI/UX, crappy
| field of view, muted colors, not-great resolution, and just not
| all that more useful than a VR headset with decent pass-
| through.
| shostack wrote:
| Generally agree. Read Rainbow's End for an example of what
| reduced friction UI is like for AR. But it is enabled by input
| and display devices that are several generations ahead.
|
| Heck, even Cyberpunk 2077 is somewhat interesting in this
| regard. I started with a Corpo character and realized the
| persistent screen elements with a news ticker, some other data
| etc were interesting in a game world I knew nothing about. I
| imagine having extremely limited but immediately present text
| overlays would be exceptionally useful to replace my phone or
| watch if the device enabling it was of a sufficiently
| unassuming form factor that didn't take work to use.
|
| If Apple can give me the equivalent of what airpods did you
| headphones with cords but for smartphones, even if in an
| extremely limited capacity to just say, iMessage at first, that
| would be huge.
|
| Then give me a haptic ring I can fidget with that, when
| combined with a purpose built virtual keyboard, can do text
| entry, and that is a killer app IMHO.
| specialist wrote:
| Jobs referred to early Apple TV as a "hobby". For years. Time
| enough for a nascent market to mature, for the technology to
| catch up with the ambitions.
|
| That's how Apple/Cook should refer to Apple VR/AR.
|
| Under promise, over deliver.
|
| Projecting 1m unit sales the first year is nutty. Sure, they
| might sell that many. And then what?
|
| Also, the initial models should be over priced, specifically
| targeting sexy use cases. Ridiculously expensive, maximally
| awesome, hype building applications. Like telemedicine, protein
| folding, and walking tours of fictional settlements on Mars.
|
| Let people imagine and build boutique applications for a couple
| years, normalize the emerging market, _before_ introducing a
| consumer mass market model.
| illiarian wrote:
| > Under promise, over deliver.
|
| But Apple TV still hasn't delivered, and its first version was
| released _16 years ago_. It 's still unusable for anything but
| the most basic tasks, and is a mess as a product: it fails as
| amedia hub, it fails as a smart device hub, it fails as a
| compute hub...
| Jcowell wrote:
| Does it? As a device I want to hook up to a TV to watch
| streaming services without worrying that my TV is sending
| snapshots to its manufacturer it works pretty well.
| m348e912 wrote:
| Paul Krugman famously said in 1998 that "the growth of the growth
| of the Internet will slow drastically [...] the Internet's impact
| on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's"
|
| I am going to go out on a limb and say unless headsets change
| profoundly they will have limited impact on most people's daily
| lives. I'll have to remind myself to come back in a few years and
| check this post.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Did we go back to thinking we wanted to be less connected to the
| world around us, and we're looking for a $3k device to help us do
| that? I thought maybe society was admitting there are major,
| inadequately examined problems with device addiction, social
| alienation, mental health, and so on. I guess maybe we were just
| in a lull between product launches, and I mistook that silence
| for introspection. My bad.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-26 23:02 UTC)