6 ms·

Apple might be getting into VR at the worst possible time

22 points by carlycue 4y ago

brucethemoose2 4y ago
Apple has a huge SoC advantage over Facebook here, especially in tandem with their massive Pro/Ultra GPUs if they can be tethered to a Mac. There were even rumors of a dedicated gpu die for VR... which I do not have a citation for. They also have an ecosystem advantage. Going by Horizon World's development, Meta knows nothing about what makes virtual environments in video games fun, and not enough of an ecosystem to hit a 3rd party cricital mass. But Apple has a decent pile of good iOS devs.
- mark_l_watson 4y ago
  I agree with your SoC assessment, and while I love my Apple gear, I am skeptical of Apple's VR/AR success for the consumer market. For the Pro market? I don't know. I think of my Oculus (I have versions 1 and 2) as the 'perfect toy.' Both versions were cheap, and I have spent about $100 on a few programs, and it is something that I play with for about 10 minutes almost every day. So very much worth the money.
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    The issue is a $100 toy running free programs is not worth the development investment, even for a tech giant with cash to burn like Facebook. TBH I am not an Apple fan, as I dont like the closed ecosystem, but I think its pretty compelling for luxury and business VR.
augment001 4y ago
I think it’s going to be hard for them to make an iPhone like splash. On the other hand it seems like they need to ship and start iterating. It will be very interesting to see what they market it for. Seems like a hard sell for consumer, but I could see it as a pro-device. There are all kinds of creative applications that could benefit from a high end headset. If they can get some of the 3D modeling tools ported for launch, plus some music tools etc, and perhaps some data visualization apps, I could see it being interesting.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  The educational and daycare markets are ripe for disruption and monetization. The problem kids can be managed with minecraft.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mlajtos 4y ago
  Apple brought Metal backend to Blender. Lately, Unity got a lot of UI polish and optimization for tile-based GPUs. I bet that both will have dedicated demo during keynote.
- junofan 4y ago
  There’s definitely an untapped luxury headset market for video calls.
  - augment001 4y ago
    This always confuses me - how can you appear in a video call if you’re wearing a headset?
vannevar 4y ago
>It’s also not totally clear why we need an Apple headset right now. It's worth noting that in 2008 it wasn't clear why we needed an Apple smartphone. Web-browsing smartphones were a niche market, and wireless bandwidth limitations made browsing painfully slow (and media streaming virtually impossible). For messaging, the Blackberry had an overwhelming market share. And the iPhone was crazy expensive. How could it possibly succeed?
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 4y ago
  You’re misremembering? Everyone wanted a web-browsing smartphone that didn’t skimp on performance. There was insane demand and Apple delivered.
  - amluto 4y ago
    I don’t recall everyone wanting this, although a decent number certainly did. But Apple most certainly did skimp on performance. The cell modem in the original iPhone was vastly inferior to its competitors. (The latest Blackberry had many flaws, but its ability to connect to the network under less than ideal conditions was far, far beyond the iPhone.) The iPhone had an excellent web browser, a novel form factor, and fun first-party apps. And, notably, no one else had a web browser that was even decent.
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      Depends on the value of "everyone." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogu...
  - vannevar 4y ago
    I did misremember the popularity of Nokia smartphones, which were more popular than I recall (looked it up here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271539/worldwide-shipments-of-leading-smartphone-vendors-since-2007/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271539/worldwide-shipmen...). But they were, spec-wise, more powerful than the original iPhone (which also didn't support 3G). Also, the year was 2007 rather than 2008. 2008 was when the App Store launched. For all we know, there may also be insane demand for good VR once people see what good VR looks like.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cjbprime 4y ago
I suspect that rather than AI cannabilizing VR/AR interest, it will accelerate it, as VR/AR provide compelling personas to powerful chatbots.
- penjelly 4y ago
  it will most definitely accelerate it, both the 2d/3d assets generated for it and id guess the rendering pipeline somehow.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Put on your VR headset and consult with your AI assistant like Hiro Protagonist.
boronine 4y ago
I just want a headset for normal work. Imagine being able to travel with your 4K monitor.
- querulous 4y ago
  the current generation of vr headsets aren't useable for extended periods. too heavy, too hot and too clunky losing peripheral vision is a bigger annoyance than i expected also
- wanda 4y ago
  Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm hoping to see as well. Something useful, light enough to wear for extended periods of time and provides a sharp, clean picture comparable to, or better than, current monitors. Even if it's low resolution, as long as it's something I can look at and wear for extended periods of time without my eyes falling out or ears falling off, it'd be interesting. What I'm not interested in is a face-attached TV/games console/billboard/social media interface. Yet that's what I fear most firms are looking to create, because it benefits them.
- mlajtos 4y ago
  Try looking up NReal Air. Not 4K, but usable.
Tiktaalik 4y ago
The troubling thing is that one of the core use case that VR seems most compelling for is games, and Apple has been uninterested in being games platform holder and dismal in its performance when it's accidentally become one. Seems hard to believe that Apple would be better in this area than Sony. And so we really have to hope and believe that Apple has come up with a very compelling reason to use VR outside of games!
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > one of the core use case that VR seems most compelling for is games Not so sure about "one of". Games are the only use case I can think of that could support more than a small market.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
As a self proclaimed Apple-hater, I wouldn't count them out. I laugh at every new product line and then in 2 years I see it everywhere (watches, iPads).
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  iPad was something that I knew I wanted, but I was skeptical that anyone else would want it. Apple Watch was something I couldn't imagine anyone wanting, and, frankly, still is. Why would I wear a watch when I have a phone with me 24/7?! Outside of niche applications like running, I'll always be completely befuddled by the success of smartwatches. Watches just don't have a place in my world model anymore. VR falls into a similar category. I don't want it -- although I can envision limited applications for AR -- but it seems a lot of other people do. Sometimes we have to just admit that our perceptions and prejudices are out of line with the reality of the marketplace.
  - steve1977 4y ago
    I see the smart watch primarily as a fitness and health device. Which wouldn’t necessarily have to be from Apple of course.
  - jonplackett 4y ago
    I also didn’t get it for a long time. til I got one - and started going running a lot. Now I love it.
    - fomine3 4y ago
      I was surprised that so many people care about health and they want to do real exercise.
  - mlajtos 4y ago
    VR is one of those things that sounds stupid and useless until you try it out. Being “inside” the software, and not looking at it, can’t be adequately described. Unfortunately I haven’t had this feeling with AR yet. AR that makes distinction between reality and virtuality imperceptible. Passthrough mode on Quests and PSVR2 just isn’t there yet. (Varjo might be..?) I hope Apple will deliver this experience for the masses.
Maursault 4y ago
The problem isn't the timing. The issues, however, are myriad. Apple's product success relies on the success of competitors creating a market previously. Then Apple comes in with a better product and takes over the market. No one has been successful at VR in 30 years of valiant attempts, and the VR/AR market has remained negligible and solely within the realm of gaming and expensive military applications. Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will. I'm not predicting Apple will fail, my puny mind just can't comprehend how they can possibly be successful with VR/AR without any preexisting successes nor any extant VR/AR market to speak of. I think Apple would have been more likely to be successful with the Apple Car. I think Apple should take over the kitchen appliance market. I want an Apple Faucet™ on my Apple Sink™ and to cook meals on my Apple Rangetop™ and store leftovers in my Apple Refridgerator/Freezer™. Apple should also just come in and eat Microsoft's lunch in commerce and business. I don't understand why Apple is not interested in these markets.
- mlajtos 4y ago
  > Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will. So you think you don’t need VR and now it’s up to Apple to show you that you are wrong. The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive (which got demo at WWDC) is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive The modern VR? So you're drawing a clear line with HTC VIVE as modern and everything before was... what? VR is VR. HTC merely reproduced what came before with slightly better resolution. There's no such thing as "modern" here when the difference between the first HMD in 1968[1] and whatever Apple's releasing is merely miniaturization of components. > is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases. Quest 2 was released two and a half years ago, so they've sold 8M a year. Apple sells about 200M iPhones and 40M Apple Watches every year. If Apple double's Quest 2 sales performance with their VR/AR headset, it would not be considered a success and would be cancelled, and it would probably force Cook into retirement. It really doesn't matter how "good" it is when the market is puny. Apple needs to sell this thing to half of all Americans in five years or less somehow, and keep selling it to them. That would be success. [1] https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr
binarynate 4y ago
It will be interesting to see how Apple prices and frames this device. $3k is an enormous price tag that would limit its adoption to enterprise (which isn't a big market today) and the richest Apple fans. So either the rumored price is significantly off ($1.5k = still expensive but more within reach of gamers and prosumers) or Apple thinks its headset is so revolutionary that it will win over many businesses that don't use mixed reality yet today. I also expect Apple to frame this as an AR device that can also do VR (rather than the other way around). In other words, if it's an AR device that is 10x better than Hololens 2 and slightly cheaper, they can capture that existing (small) enterprise AR market today and grow that market much larger.
- Tagbert 4y ago
  When video cassette recorders came out they cost hundreds of dollars which was very expensive 40 years ago. The first generation of devices were only bought by enthusiasts and those with significant disposable income. It took a few years and iterations of technology and manufacturing to get them down to a price where the market could really take off. Not saying that this headset is exactly like a first gen VCR but it could follow a similar price/acceptance curve.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
Completely disagree. This is the best possible time to release it. If it does poorly, well, so is everyone else. If it does well, then it’s because Apple are geniuses. (the other option, of course, is to not release at all - but then they aren’t, by definition, getting into VR)
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  If they're "geniuses", why did they halt production of the M2 chip in January and February due to low-demand? It's a corporation like any other.
  - augment001 4y ago
    Are you sure they did? There is a recent claim that they did from a random South Korean outlet with no track record of being correct on such claims. If you Google, you’ll see that “Apple cuts production on low demand” claims are made once or twice a year on average.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Are you sure that they didn't? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-10/apple-s-40-plunge-leads-pc-shipments-down-as-tech-demand-sags https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-10/apple-s-4...
  - snom380 4y ago
    Maybe them halting production is because they _are_ good at supply chain management and predicting macroeconomic trends?

22 points by carlycue 4y ago

Apple has a huge SoC advantage over Facebook here, especially in tandem with their massive Pro/Ultra GPUs if they can be tethered to a Mac. There were even rumors of a dedicated gpu die for VR... which I do not have a citation for. They also have an ecosystem advantage. Going by Horizon World's development, Meta knows nothing about what makes virtual environments in video games fun, and not enough of an ecosystem to hit a 3rd party cricital mass. But Apple has a decent pile of good iOS devs.

mark_l_watson 4y ago
I agree with your SoC assessment, and while I love my Apple gear, I am skeptical of Apple's VR/AR success for the consumer market. For the Pro market? I don't know. I think of my Oculus (I have versions 1 and 2) as the 'perfect toy.' Both versions were cheap, and I have spent about $100 on a few programs, and it is something that I play with for about 10 minutes almost every day. So very much worth the money.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  The issue is a $100 toy running free programs is not worth the development investment, even for a tech giant with cash to burn like Facebook. TBH I am not an Apple fan, as I dont like the closed ecosystem, but I think its pretty compelling for luxury and business VR.

augment001 4y ago

I think it’s going to be hard for them to make an iPhone like splash. On the other hand it seems like they need to ship and start iterating. It will be very interesting to see what they market it for. Seems like a hard sell for consumer, but I could see it as a pro-device. There are all kinds of creative applications that could benefit from a high end headset. If they can get some of the 3D modeling tools ported for launch, plus some music tools etc, and perhaps some data visualization apps, I could see it being interesting.

hindsightbias 4y ago
The educational and daycare markets are ripe for disruption and monetization. The problem kids can be managed with minecraft.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mlajtos 4y ago
Apple brought Metal backend to Blender. Lately, Unity got a lot of UI polish and optimization for tile-based GPUs. I bet that both will have dedicated demo during keynote.
junofan 4y ago
There’s definitely an untapped luxury headset market for video calls.
- augment001 4y ago
  This always confuses me - how can you appear in a video call if you’re wearing a headset?

vannevar 4y ago

>It’s also not totally clear why we need an Apple headset right now. It's worth noting that in 2008 it wasn't clear why we needed an Apple smartphone. Web-browsing smartphones were a niche market, and wireless bandwidth limitations made browsing painfully slow (and media streaming virtually impossible). For messaging, the Blackberry had an overwhelming market share. And the iPhone was crazy expensive. How could it possibly succeed?

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 4y ago
You’re misremembering? Everyone wanted a web-browsing smartphone that didn’t skimp on performance. There was insane demand and Apple delivered.
- amluto 4y ago
  I don’t recall everyone wanting this, although a decent number certainly did. But Apple most certainly did skimp on performance. The cell modem in the original iPhone was vastly inferior to its competitors. (The latest Blackberry had many flaws, but its ability to connect to the network under less than ideal conditions was far, far beyond the iPhone.) The iPhone had an excellent web browser, a novel form factor, and fun first-party apps. And, notably, no one else had a web browser that was even decent.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    Depends on the value of "everyone." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pogu...
- vannevar 4y ago
  I did misremember the popularity of Nokia smartphones, which were more popular than I recall (looked it up here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271539/worldwide-shipments-of-leading-smartphone-vendors-since-2007/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271539/worldwide-shipmen...). But they were, spec-wise, more powerful than the original iPhone (which also didn't support 3G). Also, the year was 2007 rather than 2008. 2008 was when the App Store launched. For all we know, there may also be insane demand for good VR once people see what good VR looks like.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cjbprime 4y ago

I suspect that rather than AI cannabilizing VR/AR interest, it will accelerate it, as VR/AR provide compelling personas to powerful chatbots.

penjelly 4y ago
it will most definitely accelerate it, both the 2d/3d assets generated for it and id guess the rendering pipeline somehow.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Put on your VR headset and consult with your AI assistant like Hiro Protagonist.

boronine 4y ago

I just want a headset for normal work. Imagine being able to travel with your 4K monitor.

querulous 4y ago
the current generation of vr headsets aren't useable for extended periods. too heavy, too hot and too clunky losing peripheral vision is a bigger annoyance than i expected also
wanda 4y ago
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm hoping to see as well. Something useful, light enough to wear for extended periods of time and provides a sharp, clean picture comparable to, or better than, current monitors. Even if it's low resolution, as long as it's something I can look at and wear for extended periods of time without my eyes falling out or ears falling off, it'd be interesting. What I'm not interested in is a face-attached TV/games console/billboard/social media interface. Yet that's what I fear most firms are looking to create, because it benefits them.
mlajtos 4y ago
Try looking up NReal Air. Not 4K, but usable.

Tiktaalik 4y ago

The troubling thing is that one of the core use case that VR seems most compelling for is games, and Apple has been uninterested in being games platform holder and dismal in its performance when it's accidentally become one. Seems hard to believe that Apple would be better in this area than Sony. And so we really have to hope and believe that Apple has come up with a very compelling reason to use VR outside of games!

JohnFen 4y ago
> one of the core use case that VR seems most compelling for is games Not so sure about "one of". Games are the only use case I can think of that could support more than a small market.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

As a self proclaimed Apple-hater, I wouldn't count them out. I laugh at every new product line and then in 2 years I see it everywhere (watches, iPads).

CamperBob2 4y ago
iPad was something that I knew I wanted, but I was skeptical that anyone else would want it. Apple Watch was something I couldn't imagine anyone wanting, and, frankly, still is. Why would I wear a watch when I have a phone with me 24/7?! Outside of niche applications like running, I'll always be completely befuddled by the success of smartwatches. Watches just don't have a place in my world model anymore. VR falls into a similar category. I don't want it -- although I can envision limited applications for AR -- but it seems a lot of other people do. Sometimes we have to just admit that our perceptions and prejudices are out of line with the reality of the marketplace.
- steve1977 4y ago
  I see the smart watch primarily as a fitness and health device. Which wouldn’t necessarily have to be from Apple of course.
- jonplackett 4y ago
  I also didn’t get it for a long time. til I got one - and started going running a lot. Now I love it.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    I was surprised that so many people care about health and they want to do real exercise.
- mlajtos 4y ago
  VR is one of those things that sounds stupid and useless until you try it out. Being “inside” the software, and not looking at it, can’t be adequately described. Unfortunately I haven’t had this feeling with AR yet. AR that makes distinction between reality and virtuality imperceptible. Passthrough mode on Quests and PSVR2 just isn’t there yet. (Varjo might be..?) I hope Apple will deliver this experience for the masses.

Maursault 4y ago

The problem isn't the timing. The issues, however, are myriad. Apple's product success relies on the success of competitors creating a market previously. Then Apple comes in with a better product and takes over the market. No one has been successful at VR in 30 years of valiant attempts, and the VR/AR market has remained negligible and solely within the realm of gaming and expensive military applications. Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will. I'm not predicting Apple will fail, my puny mind just can't comprehend how they can possibly be successful with VR/AR without any preexisting successes nor any extant VR/AR market to speak of. I think Apple would have been more likely to be successful with the Apple Car. I think Apple should take over the kitchen appliance market. I want an Apple Faucet™ on my Apple Sink™ and to cook meals on my Apple Rangetop™ and store leftovers in my Apple Refridgerator/Freezer™. Apple should also just come in and eat Microsoft's lunch in commerce and business. I don't understand why Apple is not interested in these markets.

mlajtos 4y ago
> Apple is good at making consumers want something they didn't know they needed. No one needs VR, and no one ever will. So you think you don’t need VR and now it’s up to Apple to show you that you are wrong. The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive (which got demo at WWDC) is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > The modern VR that was jump started by HTC Vive The modern VR? So you're drawing a clear line with HTC VIVE as modern and everything before was... what? VR is VR. HTC merely reproduced what came before with slightly better resolution. There's no such thing as "modern" here when the difference between the first HMD in 1968[1] and whatever Apple's releasing is merely miniaturization of components. > is really impressive. Quest 2 is a success — 20 million units sold. Even with terrible UX and limited use cases. Quest 2 was released two and a half years ago, so they've sold 8M a year. Apple sells about 200M iPhones and 40M Apple Watches every year. If Apple double's Quest 2 sales performance with their VR/AR headset, it would not be considered a success and would be cancelled, and it would probably force Cook into retirement. It really doesn't matter how "good" it is when the market is puny. Apple needs to sell this thing to half of all Americans in five years or less somehow, and keep selling it to them. That would be success. [1] https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr

binarynate 4y ago

It will be interesting to see how Apple prices and frames this device. $3k is an enormous price tag that would limit its adoption to enterprise (which isn't a big market today) and the richest Apple fans. So either the rumored price is significantly off ($1.5k = still expensive but more within reach of gamers and prosumers) or Apple thinks its headset is so revolutionary that it will win over many businesses that don't use mixed reality yet today. I also expect Apple to frame this as an AR device that can also do VR (rather than the other way around). In other words, if it's an AR device that is 10x better than Hololens 2 and slightly cheaper, they can capture that existing (small) enterprise AR market today and grow that market much larger.

Tagbert 4y ago
When video cassette recorders came out they cost hundreds of dollars which was very expensive 40 years ago. The first generation of devices were only bought by enthusiasts and those with significant disposable income. It took a few years and iterations of technology and manufacturing to get them down to a price where the market could really take off. Not saying that this headset is exactly like a first gen VCR but it could follow a similar price/acceptance curve.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

Completely disagree. This is the best possible time to release it. If it does poorly, well, so is everyone else. If it does well, then it’s because Apple are geniuses. (the other option, of course, is to not release at all - but then they aren’t, by definition, getting into VR)

hammyhavoc 4y ago
If they're "geniuses", why did they halt production of the M2 chip in January and February due to low-demand? It's a corporation like any other.
- augment001 4y ago
  Are you sure they did? There is a recent claim that they did from a random South Korean outlet with no track record of being correct on such claims. If you Google, you’ll see that “Apple cuts production on low demand” claims are made once or twice a year on average.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Are you sure that they didn't? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-10/apple-s-40-plunge-leads-pc-shipments-down-as-tech-demand-sags https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-10/apple-s-4...
- snom380 4y ago
  Maybe them halting production is because they _are_ good at supply chain management and predicting macroeconomic trends?