5 ms·

Absolutely. I suspect that someone has had 'develop Rosetta 2' on their job description since c2011 at the latest.

hedgehog 4y ago
Very possible. I think of their approach as "experiment and remix," that is they test a lot of the technical and supply chain ingredients for new products years in advance, then combine at the last moment to create a widget for the public to buy. I've been watching the pieces of their VR/AR effort come together and my guess is they will do surprisingly large volume for how expensive the headsets will be. Collaboration, but done well.
- klelatti 4y ago
  That's really interesting. Anything interesting on the processor / SoC side on their VR/AR work?
  - hedgehog 4y ago
    Not that I've seen, though I expect it'll be like phones where they err on the side of more compute not less. If you look around on the software side there are pieces of a headset collaboration experience all over though, even beyond the obvious stuff in ARKit. Memojis, FaceTime spatial audio, AR Spaces in the Clips app, Freeform, App Clips, Metal variable rate shading, etc. It'll be interesting to see what actually ships.
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      You can even see Apple developing their XR marketing in public: https://www.apple.com/augmented-reality/ https://www.apple.com/augmented-reality/
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > my guess is they will do surprisingly large volume for how expensive the headsets will be. Bloomberg estimates that Apple intends to ship less than a half-million headsets it's debut year. By comparison, the Meta Quest 2 sold 10 million units in it's first year at sale.
  - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
    Bloomberg also estimates that Apple's headset is going to cost $2000 or more, as opposed to the Quest 2 which debuted at $299. Your definition may vary, but I'd consider moving a half-million headsets at that price to be surprisingly large volume. (Also, surely anything at that price point is going to be positioned against the Quest Pro, right?)
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      It might turn a good hardware profit (Apple is known for sizable margins in that respect) but Apple really cares about having a wide audience. The only thing more profitable than hardware is taxing the transactions on that hardware. If Apple doesn't have a large installbase, it will be hard to justify keeping the platform alive. > Also, surely anything at that price point is going to be positioned against the Quest Pro, right? At what, $2,000? At that point, you're competing against everything. You're competing against the price of a new-in-box Valve Index with a VR-capable computer to-boot. You're competing against the price of buying everyone in your family a $300-400 headset. You're competing against the price of a Playstation 5 with PSVR2. This product is a suicide mission for Apple. It will come out, and it might even be great, but it's value proposition is non-existent in a market that already lived through Beat Saber, VR Chat and Half Life Alyx.
      - LordDragonfang 4y ago
        I mean, the consensus I hear among the tech talking heads is that this is basically a product for (a) developers, so they can start seriously building V/A/XR apps and (b) Apple congregants who have both the disposable income and desire to buy literally any product Apple brings to market, no matter how pricey. (a) for apps and (b) for hype, while Apple works on bringing an actually viable consumer headset to market in 2024. This is a pretty bold departure from Apple's normal strategy of "wait until several others have rushed to market and them blow them out of the water with a 'premium' product you claim is better than all the competition, at a higher price point than all the competition." In part it's because companies like Pimax are already sort of doing that, and because Meta got Apple scared that Zuckerberg was going to beat them to monopolizing the VR market if they waited too long. (We'll have to wait and see the reception to the Quest 3 to see how concerned they really should have been, because the reception for the Quest Pro has been... not great. Turns out, making a quality headset is just expensive)

Very possible. I think of their approach as "experiment and remix," that is they test a lot of the technical and supply chain ingredients for new products years in advance, then combine at the last moment to create a widget for the public to buy. I've been watching the pieces of their VR/AR effort come together and my guess is they will do surprisingly large volume for how expensive the headsets will be. Collaboration, but done well.

klelatti 4y ago
That's really interesting. Anything interesting on the processor / SoC side on their VR/AR work?
- hedgehog 4y ago
  Not that I've seen, though I expect it'll be like phones where they err on the side of more compute not less. If you look around on the software side there are pieces of a headset collaboration experience all over though, even beyond the obvious stuff in ARKit. Memojis, FaceTime spatial audio, AR Spaces in the Clips app, Freeform, App Clips, Metal variable rate shading, etc. It'll be interesting to see what actually ships.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    You can even see Apple developing their XR marketing in public: https://www.apple.com/augmented-reality/ https://www.apple.com/augmented-reality/
smoldesu 4y ago
> my guess is they will do surprisingly large volume for how expensive the headsets will be. Bloomberg estimates that Apple intends to ship less than a half-million headsets it's debut year. By comparison, the Meta Quest 2 sold 10 million units in it's first year at sale.
- chipotle_coyote 4y ago
  Bloomberg also estimates that Apple's headset is going to cost $2000 or more, as opposed to the Quest 2 which debuted at $299. Your definition may vary, but I'd consider moving a half-million headsets at that price to be surprisingly large volume. (Also, surely anything at that price point is going to be positioned against the Quest Pro, right?)
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    It might turn a good hardware profit (Apple is known for sizable margins in that respect) but Apple really cares about having a wide audience. The only thing more profitable than hardware is taxing the transactions on that hardware. If Apple doesn't have a large installbase, it will be hard to justify keeping the platform alive. > Also, surely anything at that price point is going to be positioned against the Quest Pro, right? At what, $2,000? At that point, you're competing against everything. You're competing against the price of a new-in-box Valve Index with a VR-capable computer to-boot. You're competing against the price of buying everyone in your family a $300-400 headset. You're competing against the price of a Playstation 5 with PSVR2. This product is a suicide mission for Apple. It will come out, and it might even be great, but it's value proposition is non-existent in a market that already lived through Beat Saber, VR Chat and Half Life Alyx.
    - LordDragonfang 4y ago
      I mean, the consensus I hear among the tech talking heads is that this is basically a product for (a) developers, so they can start seriously building V/A/XR apps and (b) Apple congregants who have both the disposable income and desire to buy literally any product Apple brings to market, no matter how pricey. (a) for apps and (b) for hype, while Apple works on bringing an actually viable consumer headset to market in 2024. This is a pretty bold departure from Apple's normal strategy of "wait until several others have rushed to market and them blow them out of the water with a 'premium' product you claim is better than all the competition, at a higher price point than all the competition." In part it's because companies like Pimax are already sort of doing that, and because Meta got Apple scared that Zuckerberg was going to beat them to monopolizing the VR market if they waited too long. (We'll have to wait and see the reception to the Quest 3 to see how concerned they really should have been, because the reception for the Quest Pro has been... not great. Turns out, making a quality headset is just expensive)