10 ms·

Apple is betting on augmented reality

148 points by iKenshu 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
synaesthesisx 10y ago
Apple will likely ship an AR device this year using the tech they've acquired from metaio/primeSense. All signs are indicating an AR-enabled iPhone 8.
dandare 10y ago
Could this be just a decoy strategy from Apple while they work on something more tangible? AR is not a smaller disc or faster processor, AR does not exist - yet - and may very well never exist due to physical constraints (you can not paint black etc).
- gilgoomesh 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you're talking about. AR already exists: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us It isn't necessarily useful but it exists. As for whether this is a decoy strategy... Apple aren't even promoting this so it's not a strategy on their part; it's just information pieced together from hirings, anecdotes and guesses.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Makes sense for Apple to spend some resources investigating potential large & new technologies, even if they don't produce a product. The field will shift when AR and self-driving cars and [insert intriguing vaporware here] arrive, so Apple should take a good hard look at the impact, if not the product potential, before they're too far behind the curve.
jlebrech 10y ago
when Apple looks at a technology it means the tech is ripe for mass production. They can see profit here, i'm sure it will be a similar price to existing products, but the price has gone down enough for Apple's type of profit margin.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  also apple are not desperate to make a quick buck, they'll spend 10 years on R&D on something till they think Starbucksers will be prepared to part with their cash.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    And they're willing to let go of an idea - like the car, TV, etc that they have probably spent a nontrivial amount of money into. Or postpone it for a few years, like the ipad which was conceived well before the iphone.
shadowmint 10y ago
One of the features Apple is exploring is the ability to take a picture and then change the depth of the photograph or the depth of specific objects in the picture later; another would isolate an object in the image, such as a person's head, and allow it to be tilted 180 degrees. A different feature in development would use augmented reality to place virtual effects and objects on a person, much the way Snapchat works. Oh come on. I'm completely unimpressed to hear Apple working on AR if that's the best they can do. It's a fabulously hard problem that no one has come close to solving; and to be fair, if they poured R&D $$$ into it, maybe they could make something out of it... ...but you know, since I can't use a Vive or Occulus on a mac, because of the ancient ass version of opengl they support, and the ridiculous on going split between vulkan and metal, I'm kind of unimpressed by the weight of their technical prowess at this point. I don't believe it. General consumer AR won't come from Apple.
jamesrom 10y ago
As an Apple fan, this smells like the Apple car rumours. Moonshot projects to retain talent perhaps? Either way, AR is more suited to Apple than VR, even if more of a technical challenge.
nxc18 10y ago
I'm impressed by the ability of the press to take any new tech idea and spin that into Apple being the latent dark horse that will win the category. Off the top of my head I can think of streaming TV, a physical TV set, AI, and self-driving cars. Is there any evidence Apple has any advantage over the already quite competent, well-funded players who have already demonstrated significant progress in this area?
- jpalomaki 10y ago
  One advantage could be the sales channel. Through Apple store they can easily get the products into the hand of customers. This might be quite valuable with products which you need to experience in order to understand them. Apple's share of mobile phone market can be helpful if they want to bring in functionality that requires special features from the handset. Also if we think about some more down to earth stuff, Apple could become "number one AR vendor" by just putting the features to next iPhone models. If the stuff actually works and if Apple allows, this might bring in 3rd party developers.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Nope. Apple's biggest advantages were always a sensitivity to untapped consumer interest, and marketing genius to get consumers excited about products that integrated smoothly into their lives. The latter has certainly disappeared. See e.g. the stampede away from the Mac. For the former: it's debatable how much untapped consumer interest there is in AR. Glasses would work if they were slim and stylish. But if the motivation is to "beam content into the eyes of the user" and not to empower users to do non-gimmicky cool new things they couldn't before - that's not going to happen. It's the difference between a power tool approach and a menu approach. If you give people power tools and let them play with them, they'll do amazing things. If you give people a menu of options - tweak a photo, tweak a photo a different way, take a 180 degree panorama, passively watch a VR movie - that's extremely unexciting. Cook has always been more of the latter type than the former.
    - eastWestMath 10y ago
rcarmo 10y ago
I just don't see this happening, for a number of reasons related to the way Apple designs hardware - as unobtrusive, natural extensions of what we already do that you can hold but also toss aside as required. And also because most of the "evidence" listed in the article has many other, simpler, uses in Apple's "incremental improvement" juggernaut. They can keep adding minor popular (and less risky) features without building in-your-face solutions that have uncertain acceptance. Bloomberg might well be becoming the new Gizmodo as far as Apple coverage is concerned.
redsummer 10y ago
And how are people supposed to develop for this new technology if they haven't released a Mac pro for nearly 4 years, and graphic card support is well behind Windows?
- wklauss 10y ago
  Who says this has to come from the desktop/laptop hardware side of things? They make the fastest and more powerful mobile chipsets (including GPU) right now...
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    Mobile chipsets can barely support 1080p 2D 60FPS. You want to support >1080p 3D graphics projected onto the real world with VERY harsh latency limits (human sensory). Modern GPU's that eat more than 100watts and have terraflops of compute power are only starting to offer the compute speeds VR needs. With Moore's Law ending I don't see mobile ever being able to render VR settings to a sufficient degree.
    - wklauss 10y ago
      This is a 4/5 year development project. And that's being optimistic. On top of that, I'm not sure AR needs that kind of power. It's not VR. Just needs to display some objects and text on field of vision. Hololens, for example, it's far from being a powerful machine and seems to do it just fine. Obviously we are talking about taking the first steps in a field that is still in development. it's not going to be perfect at first.
    - Shivetya 10y ago
      I am more akin to believing the phone will automatically sync with whatever AR equipment you have and that will do the processing, like hooking up my laptop to the projector.
    - MikusR 10y ago
      Mobile chipsets support 1440p stereo 3d 60FPS (Gear VR, Daydream)
nothis 10y ago
I tend to be a skeptic with these types of technology but I must admit I've seen a video of supposed HoloLens footage (and even if it wasn't, it would do as a concept), that made me wonder. This is the video I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU Now it's super flimsy and everything, but I guess those technologies are best imagined as they would look like if all hardware quirks were solved. I can definitely see a future where, instead of a desktop/laptop/tablet, you put on glasses and see an unlimited amount of virtual, arbitrarily-sized, floating monitors in front of you. Forget the 3D-gimmmicks, even. That alone sounds cool and useful. It's 2030 tech more than 2020 tech, probably, but I can see a future where this works.
- freehunter 10y ago
  People love to dismiss an idea because of its current hardware limitations, acting like nothing has ever gotten better as time goes on. Sure Hololens has a small FOV, but so does my 13" laptop and I'm using it just fine. Even if AR hardware never makes it to 180 degree FOV, it's still going to be a game changer.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  There are two things to keep in mind when watching videos recorded through the HoloLens: 1. The frame rate and image stability are much better in person. The HoloLens has to cut the rendering frame rate in half to be able to record video through its front-facing camera because the camera and the display share a bus. So what you see is significantly degraded. 2. The constrained field of view is much more noticeable in person. With the video, you don't get to see anything out of the bounds of the frame, so there is no reminder that we can't "see" everything. Also, we are used to watching videos, so we don't think about the fact that we can't turn our eyes and look in different directions. What you see is significantly more generous to the HoloLens than reality. I think the combination of the two factors generally makes the video an "accurate" representation of the HoloLens, even if it's not terribly "precise". I don't consider the current iteration of the HoloLens to be a usable device. Comparably, the HTC Vive is a much better experience, one that is capable of providing to users an experience that is worth the drawbacks and the extra effort necessary to deal with them. The HoloLens is more effort than it is worth. But on the other hand, tethered, completely opaque systems that require external tracking hardware for head and limbs are clearly a dead-end technology, even if that dead end is 5+ years from now. The end goal with mixed-reality technology is clearly in the HoloLen's lineage, not Vive or Rift or even Meta 2.
vorticalbox 10y ago
Worked so well for Goggle and Microsoft so far.
- mason240 10y ago
  That's why they might do so well. They can study what Google and MS did, learn from that, and then if develop something that works they will be hailed as "pioneers."
- MikusR 10y ago
  Like with smartphones. Google and Microsoft do the hard work and then Apple swoops in and claims to have invented stuff.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    > Like with smartphones. Google and Microsoft do the hard work and then Apple swoops in with something that consumers actually want to buy. FTFY.
leecarraher 10y ago
i'm excited to see what comes next for AR/VR, but without any prototype or demonstration, it seems more like investor fodder than real tech.
dclowd9901 10y ago
I think Apple's play here should be around making iPhones amazing online clothes shopping devices. I would kill for a way to see how shoes or a shirt would fit before buying them online.
- PKop 10y ago
  https://www.mtailor.com https://www.mtailor.com I've used this for a few flannel and dress shirts. It works pretty well. I initially thought Amazon has to buy this. They would dominate retail if they can flip those last remaining shoppers for clothes who need to buy in person in order to try on clothes. This app has incrementally improved over time, and added products. Initially you could only buy shirts. Now they have pants, suits and just recently added jeans. There's a lot of potential there...
  - emehrkay 10y ago
    That tagline perfectly targets a man with certain feelings on masculinity: "Stop Wearing Another Man's Clothing." I get that it is another way to present the idea of having clothes tailored, but it makes me think of how I used to trick my son into eating his all of his dinner by asking if he was man enough to eat it all or not.
iamseiko 10y ago
Although I am skeptical that Apple will bring out a good, furnished AR product, I am afraid that they might actually be successful because developers have often showed a good inclination towards making apps for Apple devices, and it is one of the primary reasons why Apple has been really successful in what they do, they have apps. Microsoft's HoloLens uses apps from their Windows Store and those that they made themselves, which is a very big limitation for them, and when both devices are out in public and ready for use, Apple will probably get a much larger influx of apps for their device than other AR/VR products. Even failed Apple devices are good money-makers for Apple, and apps are one of the main reasons for it. The only reason I see Apple failing in the AR and VR field is their lack of data. Apple refuses to save data from their users, and although it is something I admire about them, it is what drives Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Google and Microsoft is successful in this area because of the data they collect (via their Search engines and other OS services), which Apple does not. It is one of the reasons why Siri is competitively weaker than it's counterparts on Android and Windows, because it does not have a good data-driven Machine Learning backend, and unless Apple starts changing their policy on the type of data they collect and use from their devices, their AR/VR devices will go the same way, that is they will be successful in the amount of sales they make, but will be the weakest in terms of functionality and services they can provide.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  > Microsoft's HoloLens uses apps from their Windows Store and those that they made themselves, which is a very big limitation for them, and when both devices are out in public and ready for use, Apple's devices will probably be more successful. What does the current state of the various app stores have to do with AR? By that, I mean, AR applications are so fundamentally and significantly different than 2D apps that back catalogs are meaningless. Any new player to the AR ecosystem is starting with an essentially empty app store, regardless of whether or on they deploy it on top of a pre-existing, successful app store. We can effectively say that Microsoft has the largest AR app store in the world. And, we can expect Windows Store to grow as they push Windows Holographic and their tethered, cheaper VR displays (the Hololens is still a $3000 "dev kit"). Apple is not just starting from behind, they haven't even started yet.
gigatexal 10y ago
My BMW had a rather rudimentary HUD (they've since gotten a lot better). I think something like that for personal use would be really cool: the ability to look via some glasses or something at an object and see wikipedia snippets or the like. Or turn by turn directions as I walk without looking at a phone, pretty cool.
marknutter 10y ago
People have such a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple's business model. They do not invent—they refine. You won't see Apple release a VR/AR product because they simply haven't been in the market long enough. Their strategy has never been about being the first or even an early mover in a new technology. It has always been about taking technologies which have been on the market for a substantial amount of time and iterating on a version that gets all the small details right until it reaches their very high internal standards for usability. Apple isn't interested in being the first to do something, they're interested in being the first to do something right.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
Wait. I thought that was wearables? No wait, the TV, or was it cars? Oh gosh I've lost track.
Fricken 10y ago
If you're counting on the iPhone of AR, expect to wait. The state of the art is more at the palm pilot stage. There's too many bleeding edge technologies, both software and hardware related, that have to come together before a sleek and affordable consumer grade device can really be a thing. I look at a company like Magic Leap, and it's disappointing to see how much money has been dumped on them. Now they have to build a consumer grade device to justify their valuation, and I don't think it's possible anytime soon. I think they should be working with a fraction of the capital they've received and be focusing on a killer enterprise app that some industry might be willing to pay $5000 per unit for a clunky and unfashionable device.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  The only thing iPhone needs to become the best AR device on the market is rock solid low-latency positional tracking, low latency camera, and custom silicon for overlaying simple 3d graphics over the camera feed while using low power. They don't need a headset. They don't need stereo. They don't need lightfield projection. They just need an iPhone that feels like a handheld portal into augmented reality. I see no reason why they couldn't do that this year. Heck, if they add positional tracking to the AirPods, it'll even feel immersive.
CPLX 10y ago
I love reading paragraphs like this: The global market for AR products will surge 80 percent to $165 billion by 2024, according to researcher Global Market Insights. But Apple really has no choice, says Gene Munster, a founding partner at Loup Ventures who covered the company for many years as an analyst. Over time, Munster says, AR devices will replace the iPhone. Oh, OK. Glad we've got all that sorted.
- colmvp 10y ago
  It's 2017, and e-books didn't replaces paper books, tablets didn't replace textbooks or laptops, gamers still use their PCs (it's not dead!), and consoles are still a thing despite the popularity of mobile games.
  - arcanus 10y ago
    Someone please explain to reporters that the universe isn't zero sum.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    It's 2017, e-books have hugely affected the paper book market, tablets have hugely affected the textbook and laptop markets. PCs are no longer a growing as a market and are actually shrinking a bit. Consoles aren't as lucrative as they used to be because of the popularity of mobile gaming. Anyone in this industry who doesn't try to look ahead will be caught with their pants down. The byline: > CEO Tim Cook is betting on augmented reality, a cousin of VR that he believes will keep his company on top and may even supplant the iPhone. This is a completely reasonable statement in that context, it isn't as strong as Munster's quote above, but it probably wasn't meant to be that strong anyways.
    - CPLX 10y ago
      Gene Munster, of course, is uniquely talented at predicting what Apple is going to do: https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/24/analysts-apple-prototyping-television-set-for-a-2012-launch-but-it-wont-come-cheap/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/24/analysts-apple-prototyping-te... https://9to5mac.com/2015/05/19/munster-apple-television-retraction/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/05/19/munster-apple-television-retr...
jordache 10y ago
lets have apple get their bread n' butter stuff right first. Like how unplugging a USBC -> Displayport cable causes my macbook to crash requiring a hard boot, several times a day.
1_2__3 10y ago
I suppose this is as good a thread as any to again make the claim that I don't think AI will be anything but a toy before AR is mainstream. For whatever reason right now the fashionable thing in tech is to pretend we don't have incredibly sophisticated and powerful meat brains in our heads and the best, most economical, and most feasible way forward is to completely eliminate it from every equation and replace it with silicon. When in truth the melding of silicon (binary) computers is easier and results in something much more powerful (and much sooner) than just silicon. I'm fully aware computers will eventually outpace us. But the economic and human potential of human/computer augmentation is enormous and will likely last decades or even centuries in the "near" term. At some point we'll shed our obsessive fascination with denigrating humans as "old'n'busted" and remember just how incredible people can be.
vlunkr 10y ago
I'd honestly be more interested in them focusing on existing products. I'm still skeptical of VR/AR really becoming mainstream. The best AR app so far is what? Pokemon Go?
bitwize 10y ago
"Baidu goes all in on AI." "Apple is betting on augmented reality." What's next? "Facebook doubles down on human cybernetic enhancement"?
- sosborn 10y ago
  > What's next? Uber folds.
excalibur 10y ago
> Run by a former Dolby Laboratories executive, the group includes engineers who worked on the Oculus and HoloLens virtual reality headsets sold by Facebook and Microsoft as well as digital-effects wizards from Hollywood. The entire focus of the article is AR, yet the author classifies HoloLens as a "virtual reality headset". This is sure to be embarrassing when he realizes the size of the gaffe.
Shank 10y ago
There are a lot of skeptical comments in this thread, but remember: Apple has revolutionized past industries like phones and tablets where other competitors failed miserably. A compelling AR product can and will exist eventually, and all this article is saying is that Apple will be competing in the AR field. An aside, but I can imagine AR done right being extremely useful. I love the idea of being able to instantly have access to information on my phone, but it always requires typing or voice input. I could totally see just looking at something and tapping a button triggering a card that says "that thing you're looking at is this." While that's just my dream, I'd much rather see people experimenting with new technologies rather than forgoing it with "Apple can't do X right, how can they do Y?" If anything, it could be because Apple is working on Y that X is taking a backseat for a while.
- sebleon 10y ago
  Before, Apple used to be led by a product visionary. Now it's led by a supply chain expert. I seriously doubt Apple will develop another revolutionary product with the new leadership. My prediction is that paradigm shifting AR products will come from a product-driven organization, though Apple may buy them out and scale it...
  - johansch 10y ago
    I also have some very serious doubts about Tim Cook's abilities as a CEO. However, it's quite obvious that AR is the next UX frontier: Historic UX frontiers: #1: text/console/terminal #2: Graphical UI with a mouse (Apple sorta owned this at first) #3: Mobile graphical UI with a capacitive touch screen (Apple owned this, at first) #3.5 VR (but putting on a helmet is quite a bit too hardcore for mass adoption) #4: AR This progression is because of the 3.5 VR step quite obvious even to Tim Cook. So, I don't really doubt the claims that he's been doubling down on AR @ Apple. It all makes sense. And once he has given the command, I have no doubt that the Apple company has enough talented people in each of the required competency areas to pull it off. Perhaps the most important thing here is that a) Apple has lots of money, b) Apple/Cook has lots and lots of pressure to come up with the new thing. I think we currently are in that particular place that doesn't require lots and lots of executive vision and taste.
intrasight 10y ago
> While the smartphone will do the heavy lifting, beaming 3D content to the glasses will consume a lot of power, so prolonging battery life will be crucial. The compute required for the AR or VR experience that would satisfy Apple isn't going to happen on battery power. Perhaps the headset can be battery powered and tetherless. I think the base unit would have to be a new Mac Pro. > Content is key too. Stating the obvious. But less obvious is to define exactly what one means by "Content" in this new realm. Simple things like "games" and "movies" aren't going to attract new customers to the new realm. What I expect from Apple here is a paradigm shift like was the iPhone.
Geee 10y ago
I'd rather want a new Mac Pro VR with a $20,000+ price tag. They should make something cool, and not this crippled stuff. Completely new virtual OS with built-in virtual programming language. Etc. Go crazy. Make it so that this is the workspace of the future for every professional. It's been too long that we have had to glimpse through these tiny windows. Break us free.
- j2bax 10y ago
  Yeah, seriously! Skip the car research. Bring us a virtual alternative that enables us to vastly reduce our need to travel! This is probably the closest we can ever get to teleportation. Why should I have to travel to various cities on either coast every few weeks to meet with clients? We should all be able to meet in a virtual space that allows us to connect nearly as intimately as an in person visit. The fact that we can do it far more often, would probably make for an even better relationship than we currently have with yearly live visits and lots of conference calls in between.
  - azinman2 10y ago
    Probably for the same reason you're having to travel despite the telephone, FaceTime, secondlife, and email being invented. Telepresence isn't the same as physical presence, and the act of costing you is an important social signal itself. VR won't change that.
Someone 10y ago
"The global market for AR products will surge 80 percent to $165 billion by 2024" So, current market is $32 billion a year? Where is that market? Mostly military and for professionals, I would guess?
forgotmyacc 10y ago
I have friends in VR and apple has tried recruiter them last year. It wasn't for their development experience. Only their VR work.
nickhalfasleep 10y ago
I think Apple could leverage it's supply chain in this market very well. The product is small, intimate, and needs to work well with a minimalist interface. With the right sort of eye tracking, it could optimize CPU/GPU time only where the user is actually looking.

148 points by iKenshu 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Apple will likely ship an AR device this year using the tech they've acquired from metaio/primeSense. All signs are indicating an AR-enabled iPhone 8.

dandare 10y ago

Could this be just a decoy strategy from Apple while they work on something more tangible? AR is not a smaller disc or faster processor, AR does not exist - yet - and may very well never exist due to physical constraints (you can not paint black etc).

gilgoomesh 10y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. AR already exists: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us It isn't necessarily useful but it exists. As for whether this is a decoy strategy... Apple aren't even promoting this so it's not a strategy on their part; it's just information pieced together from hirings, anecdotes and guesses.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Makes sense for Apple to spend some resources investigating potential large & new technologies, even if they don't produce a product. The field will shift when AR and self-driving cars and [insert intriguing vaporware here] arrive, so Apple should take a good hard look at the impact, if not the product potential, before they're too far behind the curve.

jlebrech 10y ago

when Apple looks at a technology it means the tech is ripe for mass production. They can see profit here, i'm sure it will be a similar price to existing products, but the price has gone down enough for Apple's type of profit margin.

jlebrech 10y ago
also apple are not desperate to make a quick buck, they'll spend 10 years on R&D on something till they think Starbucksers will be prepared to part with their cash.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  And they're willing to let go of an idea - like the car, TV, etc that they have probably spent a nontrivial amount of money into. Or postpone it for a few years, like the ipad which was conceived well before the iphone.

shadowmint 10y ago

One of the features Apple is exploring is the ability to take a picture and then change the depth of the photograph or the depth of specific objects in the picture later; another would isolate an object in the image, such as a person's head, and allow it to be tilted 180 degrees. A different feature in development would use augmented reality to place virtual effects and objects on a person, much the way Snapchat works. Oh come on. I'm completely unimpressed to hear Apple working on AR if that's the best they can do. It's a fabulously hard problem that no one has come close to solving; and to be fair, if they poured R&D $$$ into it, maybe they could make something out of it... ...but you know, since I can't use a Vive or Occulus on a mac, because of the ancient ass version of opengl they support, and the ridiculous on going split between vulkan and metal, I'm kind of unimpressed by the weight of their technical prowess at this point. I don't believe it. General consumer AR won't come from Apple.

jamesrom 10y ago

As an Apple fan, this smells like the Apple car rumours. Moonshot projects to retain talent perhaps? Either way, AR is more suited to Apple than VR, even if more of a technical challenge.

nxc18 10y ago

I'm impressed by the ability of the press to take any new tech idea and spin that into Apple being the latent dark horse that will win the category. Off the top of my head I can think of streaming TV, a physical TV set, AI, and self-driving cars. Is there any evidence Apple has any advantage over the already quite competent, well-funded players who have already demonstrated significant progress in this area?

jpalomaki 10y ago
One advantage could be the sales channel. Through Apple store they can easily get the products into the hand of customers. This might be quite valuable with products which you need to experience in order to understand them. Apple's share of mobile phone market can be helpful if they want to bring in functionality that requires special features from the handset. Also if we think about some more down to earth stuff, Apple could become "number one AR vendor" by just putting the features to next iPhone models. If the stuff actually works and if Apple allows, this might bring in 3rd party developers.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Nope. Apple's biggest advantages were always a sensitivity to untapped consumer interest, and marketing genius to get consumers excited about products that integrated smoothly into their lives. The latter has certainly disappeared. See e.g. the stampede away from the Mac. For the former: it's debatable how much untapped consumer interest there is in AR. Glasses would work if they were slim and stylish. But if the motivation is to "beam content into the eyes of the user" and not to empower users to do non-gimmicky cool new things they couldn't before - that's not going to happen. It's the difference between a power tool approach and a menu approach. If you give people power tools and let them play with them, they'll do amazing things. If you give people a menu of options - tweak a photo, tweak a photo a different way, take a 180 degree panorama, passively watch a VR movie - that's extremely unexciting. Cook has always been more of the latter type than the former.
  - eastWestMath 10y ago

rcarmo 10y ago

I just don't see this happening, for a number of reasons related to the way Apple designs hardware - as unobtrusive, natural extensions of what we already do that you can hold but also toss aside as required. And also because most of the "evidence" listed in the article has many other, simpler, uses in Apple's "incremental improvement" juggernaut. They can keep adding minor popular (and less risky) features without building in-your-face solutions that have uncertain acceptance. Bloomberg might well be becoming the new Gizmodo as far as Apple coverage is concerned.

redsummer 10y ago

And how are people supposed to develop for this new technology if they haven't released a Mac pro for nearly 4 years, and graphic card support is well behind Windows?

wklauss 10y ago
Who says this has to come from the desktop/laptop hardware side of things? They make the fastest and more powerful mobile chipsets (including GPU) right now...
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Mobile chipsets can barely support 1080p 2D 60FPS. You want to support >1080p 3D graphics projected onto the real world with VERY harsh latency limits (human sensory). Modern GPU's that eat more than 100watts and have terraflops of compute power are only starting to offer the compute speeds VR needs. With Moore's Law ending I don't see mobile ever being able to render VR settings to a sufficient degree.
  - wklauss 10y ago
    This is a 4/5 year development project. And that's being optimistic. On top of that, I'm not sure AR needs that kind of power. It's not VR. Just needs to display some objects and text on field of vision. Hololens, for example, it's far from being a powerful machine and seems to do it just fine. Obviously we are talking about taking the first steps in a field that is still in development. it's not going to be perfect at first.
  - Shivetya 10y ago
    I am more akin to believing the phone will automatically sync with whatever AR equipment you have and that will do the processing, like hooking up my laptop to the projector.
  - MikusR 10y ago
    Mobile chipsets support 1440p stereo 3d 60FPS (Gear VR, Daydream)

nothis 10y ago

I tend to be a skeptic with these types of technology but I must admit I've seen a video of supposed HoloLens footage (and even if it wasn't, it would do as a concept), that made me wonder. This is the video I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU Now it's super flimsy and everything, but I guess those technologies are best imagined as they would look like if all hardware quirks were solved. I can definitely see a future where, instead of a desktop/laptop/tablet, you put on glasses and see an unlimited amount of virtual, arbitrarily-sized, floating monitors in front of you. Forget the 3D-gimmmicks, even. That alone sounds cool and useful. It's 2030 tech more than 2020 tech, probably, but I can see a future where this works.

freehunter 10y ago
People love to dismiss an idea because of its current hardware limitations, acting like nothing has ever gotten better as time goes on. Sure Hololens has a small FOV, but so does my 13" laptop and I'm using it just fine. Even if AR hardware never makes it to 180 degree FOV, it's still going to be a game changer.
moron4hire 10y ago
There are two things to keep in mind when watching videos recorded through the HoloLens: 1. The frame rate and image stability are much better in person. The HoloLens has to cut the rendering frame rate in half to be able to record video through its front-facing camera because the camera and the display share a bus. So what you see is significantly degraded. 2. The constrained field of view is much more noticeable in person. With the video, you don't get to see anything out of the bounds of the frame, so there is no reminder that we can't "see" everything. Also, we are used to watching videos, so we don't think about the fact that we can't turn our eyes and look in different directions. What you see is significantly more generous to the HoloLens than reality. I think the combination of the two factors generally makes the video an "accurate" representation of the HoloLens, even if it's not terribly "precise". I don't consider the current iteration of the HoloLens to be a usable device. Comparably, the HTC Vive is a much better experience, one that is capable of providing to users an experience that is worth the drawbacks and the extra effort necessary to deal with them. The HoloLens is more effort than it is worth. But on the other hand, tethered, completely opaque systems that require external tracking hardware for head and limbs are clearly a dead-end technology, even if that dead end is 5+ years from now. The end goal with mixed-reality technology is clearly in the HoloLen's lineage, not Vive or Rift or even Meta 2.

vorticalbox 10y ago

Worked so well for Goggle and Microsoft so far.

mason240 10y ago
That's why they might do so well. They can study what Google and MS did, learn from that, and then if develop something that works they will be hailed as "pioneers."
MikusR 10y ago
Like with smartphones. Google and Microsoft do the hard work and then Apple swoops in and claims to have invented stuff.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  > Like with smartphones. Google and Microsoft do the hard work and then Apple swoops in with something that consumers actually want to buy. FTFY.

leecarraher 10y ago

i'm excited to see what comes next for AR/VR, but without any prototype or demonstration, it seems more like investor fodder than real tech.

dclowd9901 10y ago

I think Apple's play here should be around making iPhones amazing online clothes shopping devices. I would kill for a way to see how shoes or a shirt would fit before buying them online.

PKop 10y ago
https://www.mtailor.com https://www.mtailor.com I've used this for a few flannel and dress shirts. It works pretty well. I initially thought Amazon has to buy this. They would dominate retail if they can flip those last remaining shoppers for clothes who need to buy in person in order to try on clothes. This app has incrementally improved over time, and added products. Initially you could only buy shirts. Now they have pants, suits and just recently added jeans. There's a lot of potential there...
- emehrkay 10y ago
  That tagline perfectly targets a man with certain feelings on masculinity: "Stop Wearing Another Man's Clothing." I get that it is another way to present the idea of having clothes tailored, but it makes me think of how I used to trick my son into eating his all of his dinner by asking if he was man enough to eat it all or not.

iamseiko 10y ago

Although I am skeptical that Apple will bring out a good, furnished AR product, I am afraid that they might actually be successful because developers have often showed a good inclination towards making apps for Apple devices, and it is one of the primary reasons why Apple has been really successful in what they do, they have apps. Microsoft's HoloLens uses apps from their Windows Store and those that they made themselves, which is a very big limitation for them, and when both devices are out in public and ready for use, Apple will probably get a much larger influx of apps for their device than other AR/VR products. Even failed Apple devices are good money-makers for Apple, and apps are one of the main reasons for it. The only reason I see Apple failing in the AR and VR field is their lack of data. Apple refuses to save data from their users, and although it is something I admire about them, it is what drives Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Google and Microsoft is successful in this area because of the data they collect (via their Search engines and other OS services), which Apple does not. It is one of the reasons why Siri is competitively weaker than it's counterparts on Android and Windows, because it does not have a good data-driven Machine Learning backend, and unless Apple starts changing their policy on the type of data they collect and use from their devices, their AR/VR devices will go the same way, that is they will be successful in the amount of sales they make, but will be the weakest in terms of functionality and services they can provide.

moron4hire 10y ago
> Microsoft's HoloLens uses apps from their Windows Store and those that they made themselves, which is a very big limitation for them, and when both devices are out in public and ready for use, Apple's devices will probably be more successful. What does the current state of the various app stores have to do with AR? By that, I mean, AR applications are so fundamentally and significantly different than 2D apps that back catalogs are meaningless. Any new player to the AR ecosystem is starting with an essentially empty app store, regardless of whether or on they deploy it on top of a pre-existing, successful app store. We can effectively say that Microsoft has the largest AR app store in the world. And, we can expect Windows Store to grow as they push Windows Holographic and their tethered, cheaper VR displays (the Hololens is still a $3000 "dev kit"). Apple is not just starting from behind, they haven't even started yet.

gigatexal 10y ago

My BMW had a rather rudimentary HUD (they've since gotten a lot better). I think something like that for personal use would be really cool: the ability to look via some glasses or something at an object and see wikipedia snippets or the like. Or turn by turn directions as I walk without looking at a phone, pretty cool.

marknutter 10y ago

People have such a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple's business model. They do not invent—they refine. You won't see Apple release a VR/AR product because they simply haven't been in the market long enough. Their strategy has never been about being the first or even an early mover in a new technology. It has always been about taking technologies which have been on the market for a substantial amount of time and iterating on a version that gets all the small details right until it reaches their very high internal standards for usability. Apple isn't interested in being the first to do something, they're interested in being the first to do something right.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

Wait. I thought that was wearables? No wait, the TV, or was it cars? Oh gosh I've lost track.

Fricken 10y ago

If you're counting on the iPhone of AR, expect to wait. The state of the art is more at the palm pilot stage. There's too many bleeding edge technologies, both software and hardware related, that have to come together before a sleek and affordable consumer grade device can really be a thing. I look at a company like Magic Leap, and it's disappointing to see how much money has been dumped on them. Now they have to build a consumer grade device to justify their valuation, and I don't think it's possible anytime soon. I think they should be working with a fraction of the capital they've received and be focusing on a killer enterprise app that some industry might be willing to pay $5000 per unit for a clunky and unfashionable device.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
The only thing iPhone needs to become the best AR device on the market is rock solid low-latency positional tracking, low latency camera, and custom silicon for overlaying simple 3d graphics over the camera feed while using low power. They don't need a headset. They don't need stereo. They don't need lightfield projection. They just need an iPhone that feels like a handheld portal into augmented reality. I see no reason why they couldn't do that this year. Heck, if they add positional tracking to the AirPods, it'll even feel immersive.

CPLX 10y ago

I love reading paragraphs like this: The global market for AR products will surge 80 percent to $165 billion by 2024, according to researcher Global Market Insights. But Apple really has no choice, says Gene Munster, a founding partner at Loup Ventures who covered the company for many years as an analyst. Over time, Munster says, AR devices will replace the iPhone. Oh, OK. Glad we've got all that sorted.

colmvp 10y ago
It's 2017, and e-books didn't replaces paper books, tablets didn't replace textbooks or laptops, gamers still use their PCs (it's not dead!), and consoles are still a thing despite the popularity of mobile games.
- arcanus 10y ago
  Someone please explain to reporters that the universe isn't zero sum.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  It's 2017, e-books have hugely affected the paper book market, tablets have hugely affected the textbook and laptop markets. PCs are no longer a growing as a market and are actually shrinking a bit. Consoles aren't as lucrative as they used to be because of the popularity of mobile gaming. Anyone in this industry who doesn't try to look ahead will be caught with their pants down. The byline: > CEO Tim Cook is betting on augmented reality, a cousin of VR that he believes will keep his company on top and may even supplant the iPhone. This is a completely reasonable statement in that context, it isn't as strong as Munster's quote above, but it probably wasn't meant to be that strong anyways.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Gene Munster, of course, is uniquely talented at predicting what Apple is going to do: https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/24/analysts-apple-prototyping-television-set-for-a-2012-launch-but-it-wont-come-cheap/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/24/analysts-apple-prototyping-te... https://9to5mac.com/2015/05/19/munster-apple-television-retraction/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/05/19/munster-apple-television-retr...

jordache 10y ago

lets have apple get their bread n' butter stuff right first. Like how unplugging a USBC -> Displayport cable causes my macbook to crash requiring a hard boot, several times a day.

1_2__3 10y ago

I suppose this is as good a thread as any to again make the claim that I don't think AI will be anything but a toy before AR is mainstream. For whatever reason right now the fashionable thing in tech is to pretend we don't have incredibly sophisticated and powerful meat brains in our heads and the best, most economical, and most feasible way forward is to completely eliminate it from every equation and replace it with silicon. When in truth the melding of silicon (binary) computers is easier and results in something much more powerful (and much sooner) than just silicon. I'm fully aware computers will eventually outpace us. But the economic and human potential of human/computer augmentation is enormous and will likely last decades or even centuries in the "near" term. At some point we'll shed our obsessive fascination with denigrating humans as "old'n'busted" and remember just how incredible people can be.

vlunkr 10y ago

I'd honestly be more interested in them focusing on existing products. I'm still skeptical of VR/AR really becoming mainstream. The best AR app so far is what? Pokemon Go?

bitwize 10y ago

"Baidu goes all in on AI." "Apple is betting on augmented reality." What's next? "Facebook doubles down on human cybernetic enhancement"?

sosborn 10y ago
> What's next? Uber folds.

excalibur 10y ago

> Run by a former Dolby Laboratories executive, the group includes engineers who worked on the Oculus and HoloLens virtual reality headsets sold by Facebook and Microsoft as well as digital-effects wizards from Hollywood. The entire focus of the article is AR, yet the author classifies HoloLens as a "virtual reality headset". This is sure to be embarrassing when he realizes the size of the gaffe.

Shank 10y ago

There are a lot of skeptical comments in this thread, but remember: Apple has revolutionized past industries like phones and tablets where other competitors failed miserably. A compelling AR product can and will exist eventually, and all this article is saying is that Apple will be competing in the AR field. An aside, but I can imagine AR done right being extremely useful. I love the idea of being able to instantly have access to information on my phone, but it always requires typing or voice input. I could totally see just looking at something and tapping a button triggering a card that says "that thing you're looking at is this." While that's just my dream, I'd much rather see people experimenting with new technologies rather than forgoing it with "Apple can't do X right, how can they do Y?" If anything, it could be because Apple is working on Y that X is taking a backseat for a while.

sebleon 10y ago
Before, Apple used to be led by a product visionary. Now it's led by a supply chain expert. I seriously doubt Apple will develop another revolutionary product with the new leadership. My prediction is that paradigm shifting AR products will come from a product-driven organization, though Apple may buy them out and scale it...
- johansch 10y ago
  I also have some very serious doubts about Tim Cook's abilities as a CEO. However, it's quite obvious that AR is the next UX frontier: Historic UX frontiers: #1: text/console/terminal #2: Graphical UI with a mouse (Apple sorta owned this at first) #3: Mobile graphical UI with a capacitive touch screen (Apple owned this, at first) #3.5 VR (but putting on a helmet is quite a bit too hardcore for mass adoption) #4: AR This progression is because of the 3.5 VR step quite obvious even to Tim Cook. So, I don't really doubt the claims that he's been doubling down on AR @ Apple. It all makes sense. And once he has given the command, I have no doubt that the Apple company has enough talented people in each of the required competency areas to pull it off. Perhaps the most important thing here is that a) Apple has lots of money, b) Apple/Cook has lots and lots of pressure to come up with the new thing. I think we currently are in that particular place that doesn't require lots and lots of executive vision and taste.

intrasight 10y ago

> While the smartphone will do the heavy lifting, beaming 3D content to the glasses will consume a lot of power, so prolonging battery life will be crucial. The compute required for the AR or VR experience that would satisfy Apple isn't going to happen on battery power. Perhaps the headset can be battery powered and tetherless. I think the base unit would have to be a new Mac Pro. > Content is key too. Stating the obvious. But less obvious is to define exactly what one means by "Content" in this new realm. Simple things like "games" and "movies" aren't going to attract new customers to the new realm. What I expect from Apple here is a paradigm shift like was the iPhone.

Geee 10y ago

I'd rather want a new Mac Pro VR with a $20,000+ price tag. They should make something cool, and not this crippled stuff. Completely new virtual OS with built-in virtual programming language. Etc. Go crazy. Make it so that this is the workspace of the future for every professional. It's been too long that we have had to glimpse through these tiny windows. Break us free.

j2bax 10y ago
Yeah, seriously! Skip the car research. Bring us a virtual alternative that enables us to vastly reduce our need to travel! This is probably the closest we can ever get to teleportation. Why should I have to travel to various cities on either coast every few weeks to meet with clients? We should all be able to meet in a virtual space that allows us to connect nearly as intimately as an in person visit. The fact that we can do it far more often, would probably make for an even better relationship than we currently have with yearly live visits and lots of conference calls in between.
- azinman2 10y ago
  Probably for the same reason you're having to travel despite the telephone, FaceTime, secondlife, and email being invented. Telepresence isn't the same as physical presence, and the act of costing you is an important social signal itself. VR won't change that.

Someone 10y ago

"The global market for AR products will surge 80 percent to $165 billion by 2024" So, current market is $32 billion a year? Where is that market? Mostly military and for professionals, I would guess?

forgotmyacc 10y ago

I have friends in VR and apple has tried recruiter them last year. It wasn't for their development experience. Only their VR work.

nickhalfasleep 10y ago

I think Apple could leverage it's supply chain in this market very well. The product is small, intimate, and needs to work well with a minimalist interface. With the right sort of eye tracking, it could optimize CPU/GPU time only where the user is actually looking.