Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

N1NJAREB0RN t1_jbxfuz7 wrote

It’s worked out so well for Zucc.

🙄

36

joeshmoe9898 t1_jbxg8u3 wrote

I’m also skeptical but it’s very different for a social media company to try to develop success as a hardware design company. If you made a short list of companies that would successfully develop a headset that helps it go mainstream, Apple would have to be near the top of that list.

Again, I’m skeptical. This seems like a less obvious win than smartphones were and there’s already much more competition in the VR space than there was in smart phones in 2008. If they do something extraordinary, I suspect it will be from an interface innovation.

14

Eversnuffley t1_jbxj7nm wrote

Smartphone were far from obvious at the time. Everyone else was trying to shrink their phones. Now we all have roofing shingles in our pockets.

8

joeshmoe9898 t1_jbxkyz3 wrote

I would half disagree. Smartphones weren’t popular because the interface and capabilities were clunky and awkward. Steve summed it up in that first keynote, iPod + Phone + Internet communicator. They knew they had created a new class of product, I don’t think anyone could have known HOW BIG the market would be. To me, what set it apart was the interface and that the tech had evolved enough to create a smooth experience in a compact form factor (the first iPhone was pretty small!)

I do agree though that the competition now is a totally different situation. Apple was competing with Palm, Sony, & Blackberry. Not every major tech brand.

4

Eversnuffley t1_jbxl9fl wrote

Clunky and awkward - exactly like today's vr devices. If Apple nails it, it could be a similar revolution.

5

Eswyft t1_jbz1qao wrote

Whats clunky about them? I've used and owned a few.

They're fine. The interface is largely good now.

The reality it's a very different gaming experience and many people don't like it

The barrier for entry on any apple product is going to be high.

There is no UI problem. There is no hardware problem. There s a game problem. Beyond golf, beat saber, and flight sims, the games are not good on it

1

pseudocultist t1_jbyiwgv wrote

At the time Motorola had a fully touch screen phone, the Communicator, but it wasn't nearly as sophisticated as the iPhone. Still many of us held it up as an example of "what we wanted." It was pretty big, the size of today's iPhones but thicker.

1

hibi_chan t1_jbyii90 wrote

Facebook bought Oculus, wtf nonsense are you talking about? Oculus has years and years of this hardware designed and tested, as well as the most comprehensive set of patents in this arena.

Please do just a tiny google search before you say something.

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc357f1 wrote

I think you missed his whole point, he didn’t say develop hardware, he said develop success as a hardware company. Apple is known for selling hardware and knows everything that comes with it, Facebook does not.

2

hibi_chan t1_jc3apoy wrote

Do you not understand what acquisition means, or what Oculus does? Oculus makes hardware, specifically, headsets. They make the best ones in the world by a long shot. The industry was nowhere near the size expected, because vr is simply not popular. Apple brings nothing new to the table, doesn’t have 10 years of vr hardware expertise, the patents, nothing. Their headset has nothing groundbreaking get it? Why do you think copycatting a basically unpopular piece of hardware (at least compared to most mainstream electronics) would be any different here?

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc3avpe wrote

There have been plenty of times a parent company has ruined a company they acquired?

2

hibi_chan t1_jc3dlxm wrote

That’s a case by case basis, and a total straw man in this debate. Nothing indicates Facebook has done anything to ruin Oculus in any way, instead they have provided massive amounts of funding for R&D. It’s also not the point I was making not related to the original post. A non hardware company can acquire a hardware company, thus establishing itself in the hardware business without having to build up anything. A hardware company can also make a product that flops, there is no guarantee of success by simply being a hardware company. In this case it is apparent Apple brings nothing to the table. Apples own engineers didn’t even want to launch this product, it was demanded they do. You along with others are simply fanboys of Apple who think that Apple can simply wade into a space without any technological achievements and attain success, and that FB isn’t a hardware company so they don’t know what’s they are doing. And I replied they don’t have to - they paid billions to acquire a company that did and does, making your arguments dumb, insubstantial, and not rooted in fact.

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc3dwk0 wrote

What in the fuck are you talking about dude? I don’t give a shit about this headset, I was literally just saying what I think he meant by it. Whether it’s the case or not Apple obviously has more experience in the hardware industry and that’s all I was stating. In my opinion this headset will be a flop as far as the consumer market goes.

People always jumping to fanboy lmao, that’s the real straw man

1

hibi_chan t1_jc3fb6i wrote

So like, Apple has more experience making all hardware of every type than any other company, is that it? By being Apple, in your mind they immediately have more experience making say electronic keyboards than an electronic keyboard maker? Because that is basically what you are saying. Oculus has 11 years experience making headsets, Apple has lets see…0 years experience making headsets.

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc3fo9x wrote

It sounds like you’re just trying to argue at this point. It’s not even about the hardware making itself, it’s about having 40 years of experience with making and marketing hardware and knowing what people want.

2

Big-Industry4237 t1_jbz3hz5 wrote

Facebook had purchased an already successful hardware company, oculus. So your initial point is factually incorrect.

1

joeshmoe9898 t1_jbz47ie wrote

Oculus’ revenue was $25m when they were bought, far from a hardware giant. More importantly though, my point was Apple has significantly more experience than Meta in hardware design. How is that a controversial statement?

2

DarthBuzzard OP t1_jbxhrnd wrote

Zuck hasn't expected any market takeoff until the mid to late 2020s, so the jury is still out.

1

Dr_Icchan t1_jbxl5co wrote

worked so well for Microsoft and google people have already forgot about them.

1

MrFluffyhead80 t1_jbxpyiq wrote

I was going to get the Meta ones for a gift, but maybe I’ll just wait and have my wife get these ones

2

DeusFever t1_jc2x68g wrote

Fairly certain Tim Cook cemented his legacy when Apple became the most valued company in the world.

2

HKei t1_jbyux73 wrote

> Apple is only expecting to sell around a million units [..] > > The complex device [..] is expected to cost around $3,000

Who tf are they expecting to sell this to? I know apple is big and all, but who's going to buy 1M units of a product that so far shows no indication of bringing anything new to the table in the space for somewhere between 3-5 times the cost of competitor devices, depending on the exact specs on the final product?

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc35w13 wrote

1 million isn’t really that much though.. Nearly 8 billion people on the planet. I agree with you though but I doubt it’s insane as it sounds

2

Yaro482 t1_jbzbt0z wrote

I wonder thou. VR should certainly be fun. But it’s not kind of thing you would carry around like a phone or watch. However if Apple make it something like sunglasses with AR functionality. I will be very eager to try it out.

1

tangers69 t1_jc0xfnk wrote

I think VR hardware today is the equivalent of the suitcase type laptops from the seventies or the huge brick phones from the eighties. Until they can integrate the hardware into a lower cost wearable similar to sunglasses I can’t see much widespread adoption outside of some very specific use cases. However once the hardware is scaled down from a size and price point, you will see large adoption of it, ironically the price and size will then increase as consumers will want faster processing, larger displays, longer battery life etc.

1

leedr74 t1_jc1ackp wrote

Oh Tim, you’re riding on the Apple name and Steve’s legacy. You’ve done nothing but fragment the simplicity of Apple. Let’s see how this plays out.

1

seriousbangs t1_jbyy7se wrote

Well, so much for his legacy.

What is it with super rich corporate types trying to shove this down my throat. It gives me headaches and motion sickness, just like 3D TVs did. And I'm not alone. So it's not going to take off.

0

DarthBuzzard OP t1_jbz3e6v wrote

> What is it with super rich corporate types trying to shove this down my throat.

Well they also shoved PCs and cellphones down our throat. People don't ask for entirely new technologies - people are only capable of thinking of iterations on existing technology. You know, faster horses and all that.

> It gives me headaches and motion sickness, just like 3D TVs did. And I'm not alone. So it's not going to take off.

They're not twiddling their thumb and whistling in the other direction while people come to them with this feedback. They are actively fixing these issues so that eventually a product will release where you can use it without a problem.

If they reach that goal, then your presumption of it not taking off doesn't work anymore.

2

ledow t1_jbxp4sm wrote

Nobody wants it.

We had sci-fi desires of smartphones for decades, we just didn't call them that.

But nobody is sitting there wanting Tron to happen.

Ironically, instead all this pissing about you could make quite normal VR etc. far more mainstream - it's more viable this time round than ever before.

But nobody wants this mixed reality bollocks.

−3

DarthBuzzard OP t1_jbxs6n0 wrote

> We had sci-fi desires of smartphones for decades, we just didn't call them that

Yet most people didn't want a cellphone until the late 1990s. Turns out that humans universally reject all hardware shifts, with a chance of redemption when the tech has matured. People didn't like early brick cellphones, they didn't like CLI PCs, they didn't like early TVs with limited programming.

As Steve Jobs said (paraphrasing), the goal is to build products that people will want before people realize they want it. Apple started out as a PC company building out a market that the masses didn't care about until 15 years later, a market that was considered dead, a fad, in search of a use, many times throughout its emergence.

VR will either be accepted or rejected when the tech has matured. When 90% of the planet doesn't know what VR even stands for in 2023, you can't expect them to make a rational decision. When most people right now can't imagine how VR will evolve beyond higher resolution, their opinion carries little weight.

> Ironically, instead all this pissing about you could make quite normal VR etc. far more mainstream - it's more viable this time round than ever before.

> But nobody wants this mixed reality bollocks.

Good Mixed Reality is an objective upgrade to every VR user. It makes VR safer and easier to use even if you don't use any MR-specific applications.

4

ledow t1_jbxvxrf wrote

>Yet most people didn't want a cellphone until the late 1990s

When they became affordable rather than stupendously expensive status symbols.

Humans rarely reject technology so long as it's affordable. Smartphones are the perfect demonstration of this where the DRIVER for them was the ordinary person, not the corporate executive who's had them since the 70's/80's.

Also you mention the PC market and televisions - as far as I'm concerned the same happened there. The home computing market of the 80's was about AFFORDABLE computers in the home, and homes scrambled to have them once they were affordable. Whether that was Atari Pong, a ZX Spectrum or a NES, it wasn't ever a market that people "didn't care about".

Same with TVs, to be honest. I don't know what makes you think the "limited programming" had anything to do with it, it's actually almost impossible to find someone of that generation who DIDN'T have a TV.

And the same will happen with VR... now that there are £300 VR headsets, people are buying them in the millions.

It's about affordability and practicality. VR headsets never went away, they've always been around, but they've always been too expensive or clumsy (I speak as an owner of multiple Vive Pro's). People know exactly what they want and what they'll use them for, it's the "fitting on the head of a pin for the price of a Christmas present" factor that actually brings them to the point people will use them.

And with VR, we were discussing VR back in the 80's, VRML was invented before HTML 2, it was shown on TV programmes, used by architects, incorporated into military headsets, and featured in mainstream movies (e.g. Tron, Lawnmower Man).

MR is a bollocks term attributed as some kind of new extension to VR and AR as if it's something different to AR. It's not. In fact it's so woolly that there's no real definition of how it differs to those two, or what it adds to either.

People are using VR now. Nobody really wants / uses AR and the biggest use of it is in chaperone systems in VR. If you're going to enter another world, why would you want it on top of this one? And MR - as Meta are finding out - is the thing that nobody actually knows what it means, because there is no real fixed definition, it's whatever these companies try to sell it and universally looks like bad AR slapped over bad VR but then mixed with some primitive VRChat bollocks that was literally available in the 90's.

To say that this is going to "be" something is a nonsense. And it can't "be" anything without cheap, commodity VR and AR hardware first. Something which we're only JUST making the first happen. Fact is, people still don't want to dress up like a prat just to "feel" something that's in front of them anyway.

A VR-first console with cheap headsets would have created a new generation of games and games consoles, for instance. But Nintendo missed the boat and went for the Switch, and everyone else is just making PCs and now realising that they should really just sell those games on PC because they are *just* PC games.

MR isn't a thing anyone wants, or can even define, demonstrate or sell. That's why Meta keep failing on it, and nobody else wants to enter that space. VR is not only well-defined, it's available, it's commodity, and people know precisely what it is - from sci-fi. Hell, we're still making TV programmes about the concept - The Peripheral - for instance.

−3

[deleted] t1_jbxxldk wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_jbxxlks wrote

Your comment has been automatically removed.

Social media and social networking links are not allowed in /r/gadgets, as they almost always contain personal information and therefore break the rules of reddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

DarthBuzzard OP t1_jbxxoep wrote

> Whether that was Atari Pong, a ZX Spectrum or a NES, it wasn't ever a market that people "didn't care about".

I'm talking about PCs, so the ZX Spectrum as mentioned above, and others like the C64 and IBM clones in general - these had the additional barrier of seeming to have no real use in the home beyond just a narrow selection of usecases. This was the general consumer consensus - either that or indifference.

You can see that here:

Being seen as in search of a use: https://www.academia.edu/320362/1980s_Home_Coding_the_art_of_amateur_programming

Many PCs collected dust: https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150629134551/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf01313/patterns.htm

They were seen as having no compelling use in the home: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yS4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was often considered longer to do tasks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycVyGb5ID90&t=228s

Another report in the low usage rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07xxyfLySA&t=761s

Another report on the apparent lack of usecases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8REddtaRG3E&t=1101s

> Same with TVs, to be honest. I don't know what makes you think the "limited programming" had anything to do with it, it's actually almost impossible to find someone of that generation who DIDN'T have a TV.

What generation? I didn't specify a timeframe, but I meant from the mid to late 1920s and 1930s - there just wasn't much enthusiasm for TVs in the home.

> People know exactly what they want and what they'll use them fo

As evidenced above by how people had no idea what they wanted with PCs, this isn't how things usually are. VR is the same, in that people see it only as a gaming device, but the most actively used apps are social apps, which most people without a headset think have no use in VR or don't even know such things exist.

> MR is a bollocks term attributed as some kind of new extension to VR and AR as if it's something different to AR. It's not. In fact it's so woolly that there's no real definition of how it differs to those two, or what it adds to either.

MR has been defined since the 1990s as the spectrum from which VR/AR exists within. It constitutes a device that does both and is indeed different than AR as it is a superset and includes a third term - AV (augmented virtually, augmenting virtual worlds with real objects) which will likely be an important feature for a lot of future VR users in the future. Why? Safety, allowing people to still feel highly immersed while keeping an eye on their sibling, partner, dog, food/drinks, keyboard for typing.

As for pure AR, no one wants/uses AR (as a wearable) because there isn't a single worldwide consumer AR device out there. The market is at best, in the Apple I stages and is awaiting an Apple II consumer launch.

MR hasn't failed and AR hasn't failed. They are both very early on - optical AR especially.

1

Rudecles t1_jbxltfa wrote

Considering Apple hasn’t done anything innovative since Jobs, this is another conservative move by Cook to not get left behind in case Meta succeeds. It’ll be a product that costs 3 times as much as what’s on the market and only the fanboys will think it’s revolutionary. Also it’ll be as ergonomic as a brick.

−4

MrFluffyhead80 t1_jbxpsq4 wrote

Where did you get this nonsense?

1

Rudecles t1_jby8lvl wrote

I got it from remembering when Apple produced products that revolutionized industries because they were focused on solving problems with technology instead of marketing technology that no one asked for. Maybe I’m wrong, but the Apple Watch, Apple TV, and home pod haven’t really been the mind blowing advances that the iPod, iPhone and iPad were.

But hey, as long as you’re willing to let Apple sell you on decades old technology as if it was new, I guess it’s nonsense.

0

MrFluffyhead80 t1_jbyblch wrote

Apple Watch is kind of everywhere, but if you need the obvious answer go look at the headphones most people are wearing out there

7

schmaydog82 t1_jc35hmc wrote

Apple pretty much always took existing tech and just made it more accessible. Smartphones existed, MP3 players exited, Apple just made them slick and convenient for the average person to use.

1

Cabshank t1_jbxisdv wrote

It will go the way of google glass, don’t invest so much apple, fix the bugs in iOS instead

−5

MrFluffyhead80 t1_jbxpzq2 wrote

What bugs?

−3

LilMoWithTheGimpyLeg t1_jbxrisp wrote

Top hit on Google.

1

MrFluffyhead80 t1_jby15gj wrote

Just tell me

−4

Inside_Employer t1_jc0q5nw wrote

No one owes you an explanation. Do your own research and quit demanding that other people coddle you.

1

schmaydog82 t1_jc35qz3 wrote

Reddit is a site for discussion dummy, if people just wanted to google everything there would be no reason to get on this site at all

2

CryonautX t1_jbxpcg9 wrote

Stop pushing for VR. The tech isn't there yet.

−8

DarthBuzzard OP t1_jbxsesv wrote

The tech can't progress if they don't push for it. How else do you think technology develops to be acceptable for the masses?

Time solves very little. It's only really active investment and product iterations that are responsible for mass market viable technology advances.

5