5 ms·

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

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
junofan 4y ago
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.
- etempleton 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Not having to sit sounds pretty amazing. Assuming it can match my monitor quality. I think of a headset as headphones for your eyes.
    - etempleton 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        New use case for Memojis /s
      - p1esk 4y ago
        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.
    - kibwen 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.
    - rocketbop 4y ago
      > 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.
      - 4y ago
- rsynnott 4y ago
  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”.
hnbear 4y ago
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.
- ulfw 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Agreement phrased as rebuttal?
  - toast0 4y ago
    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.
j2bax 4y ago
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.
- etempleton 4y ago
  Are you gonna want to get all sweaty in a 3 grand headset?
- heisenzombie 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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!
  - bredren 4y ago
    Have you worked out in Supernatural on oculus? Go back over old threads here where people describe it as life changing. I used supernatural for many months, and yes it does get sweaty—-you have to wear awkward vr sweatbands. But the experience is like no other exercise I’ve tried. The reporting about the meta acquisition of this company is all off. This is a major market, and it doesn’t really matter if it is $3k if it gets people to enjoy exercise. People spend vast amounts of money on fitness equipment. This would be just one use case for the product, but a perfect fit for apple’s ecosystem.
Closi 4y ago
> 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 £3k 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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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
    - Closi 4y ago
      Oh man, if I could do SketchUp in ‘real’ 3D that would be a dream. Half of the annoyances in working in 3D are doing some changes and then realising you got the perspective wrong. Quite happy to still work with a keyboard and mouse sitting down though and don’t really want to give that up for some waggly controllers.
scarface74 4y ago
> 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.
- Closi 4y ago
  You couldn’t even install an app on the first iPhone! (It’s a bit chicken and egg anyway - better get some hardware out so developers can build for real users)
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
>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 People who have a full sized tower PC in their house are a market too small for apple to ever care about. I say that as one of the few that does.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

junofan 4y ago

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.

etempleton 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Not having to sit sounds pretty amazing. Assuming it can match my monitor quality. I think of a headset as headphones for your eyes.
  - etempleton 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      New use case for Memojis /s
    - p1esk 4y ago
      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.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
  - rocketbop 4y ago
    > 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.
    - 4y ago
rsynnott 4y ago
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”.

hnbear 4y ago

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.

ulfw 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Agreement phrased as rebuttal?
- toast0 4y ago
  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.

j2bax 4y ago

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.

etempleton 4y ago
Are you gonna want to get all sweaty in a 3 grand headset?
heisenzombie 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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!
- bredren 4y ago
  Have you worked out in Supernatural on oculus? Go back over old threads here where people describe it as life changing. I used supernatural for many months, and yes it does get sweaty—-you have to wear awkward vr sweatbands. But the experience is like no other exercise I’ve tried. The reporting about the meta acquisition of this company is all off. This is a major market, and it doesn’t really matter if it is $3k if it gets people to enjoy exercise. People spend vast amounts of money on fitness equipment. This would be just one use case for the product, but a perfect fit for apple’s ecosystem.

Closi 4y ago

> 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 £3k 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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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
  - Closi 4y ago
    Oh man, if I could do SketchUp in ‘real’ 3D that would be a dream. Half of the annoyances in working in 3D are doing some changes and then realising you got the perspective wrong. Quite happy to still work with a keyboard and mouse sitting down though and don’t really want to give that up for some waggly controllers.

scarface74 4y ago

> 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.

Closi 4y ago
You couldn’t even install an app on the first iPhone! (It’s a bit chicken and egg anyway - better get some hardware out so developers can build for real users)

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

>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 People who have a full sized tower PC in their house are a market too small for apple to ever care about. I say that as one of the few that does.