You must log in or register to comment.

kylexy32 t1_j2t0swh wrote

Some of these I struggle to imagine apple rolling out on stage:

  • Waist mounted Battery?
  • Outward facing display?

Bageezax t1_j2taca6 wrote

Waist battery would be hell for adoption, but offloaded processing and power will def make it more comfortable to wear for those that want to use it.


LairdPopkin t1_j2vftyd wrote

Much lighter head unit improves wearability, which should help actual usage.


Bageezax t1_j2vix08 wrote

Holy crap though… just saw that the msrp is looking like $3000. That’s niche for sure unless they can get cost down, offer leases, or something.


ShadowDV t1_j2x0ciu wrote

I can see it being used in commercial entertainment spaces. Think like laser-tag. Commercial systems already cost minimum 3k per vest. There could be some real interesting use in this space


BILLCLINTONMASK t1_j2w9tka wrote

Businesses will buy it up, but that's about it for the time being.


gamer_bread t1_j2yfnfc wrote

That’s how a lot of things start. It all works it’s way over to the consumer side eventually.


BILLCLINTONMASK t1_j2zjaok wrote

Yeah seems like it will help them in the long run. They don’t need it. So just get it right in small doses then make a consumer grade version when it all works good and they can get the battery smaller


LairdPopkin t1_j2wfpol wrote

For a business / professional targeted AR/VR that’s typical pricing, about the same as units from Microsoft and Quest. I agree it‘s not the consumer market pricing, where the $399 Quest 2 dominates.


jseng27 t1_j2vvyvu wrote

It’s Apple, people will buy it


Veranova t1_j2wcyo0 wrote

Especially if it’s actually very good and can work with PCVR (unlikely on that count I guess)

VR is a bit of a minefield of weak offerings still, so enthusiasts will buy anything that’s an improvement


junkie-xl t1_j44amem wrote

At what point is this still a headset and not an AR suit..


perfectlynormaldude t1_j2tmh10 wrote

Why would the display be outward facing? That doesn’t make any sense


kylexy32 t1_j2tmn1w wrote

In the article they talk about a low refresh rate outward facing display that could show animated faces so that people in real world feel more natural conversing with someone wearing the headset


Fritzschmied t1_j2tx7m9 wrote

Sounds like a shitty gimmick. Who tf would wear a headset like this when talking with other people?


formerly_mousecop t1_j2tzq2i wrote

I mean, most people have a phone handy and often pay more attention to those devices than the person they are talking to. Source, I have 3 teenagers at home.


BILLCLINTONMASK t1_j2w9wx7 wrote

Yeah, this isn't a gadget to sit down alone on your couch and game. It's intended to be a wearable that you can walk around with and interact with others while getting mixed reality info. Like for having meetings and presentations where you can display graphics over your real world landscape.


bennynthejetsss t1_j2v0ohj wrote

Meanwhile, I can’t handle the sensory overload that is unmixed reality


NotATuring t1_j2w7td0 wrote

It might be good for sensory overload in that it could reduce stimulus.


Tom_Neverwinter t1_j2uzv52 wrote

Apple gadgets is like the Elon musk claims of old...

Apple gaming pc... Lol

Apple car lol

Apple vr headset lol


Huckdog720027 t1_j2vxgpb wrote

Claims of old? Just last week he was saying tesla might make a phone to compete with apple / android


roundearthervaxxer t1_j2wanke wrote

Zuck’s obscene investment in vr forced a lot of company’s hands to demonstrate that they are competitive in high tech. Headsets will never see mass market representation


plopseven t1_j2wlxs7 wrote

I can barely afford food and my tech company friends are texting me asking if I can front them $50 so they can make ends meet because their contracts aren’t being paid out on time.

Nobody has money for a VR headset, even if everyone wanted one.


Equivalent_Arugula86 t1_j2v5ysp wrote

I used to be an apple fanboy. I can’t see this being popular. I’m going to reserve my judgement until I see the product though - people were extremely sceptical of the idea of an apple phone and it definitely caught on. However the rumoured price is laughable, don’t get me started on the waist battery pack. Whatever excitement I had for AR/VR is gone - I fear that everything bad in our digital world (the monopolies and iron fist rules of app stores , the violation of our privacy , the algorithmic content designed to keep you engaged and enraged etc ) will only become worse when the device is literally shoved on you. Old Zuckie boy sure showed us the way.


sillypicture t1_j2vpkac wrote

First iteration(s) may be crap but I'm in the camp that is for a waist mounted everything and a comfortable headset. I feel vr is more practical as an attachment to a desktop and engaged at home or similar safe environment.

To be outside, it should be less vr more hud. Read: "wtf was this wanker's name again??"

Mega anti apple though


raduhs t1_j2wux63 wrote

you clearly haven't played VR nor did you see all of zuckerberg's interviews on it. dude loses billions to make technological improvement - definitely not a saint since they eat your privacy for breakfast but for those of us that do enjoy VR, he's one of the main reasons it's progressing.


Equivalent_Arugula86 t1_j2yu1lb wrote

I’ve got a valve index. I would argue that instead he’s bought out so many studios and stifled competition instead. Hope you’re enjoying the pinnacle of progression that is the metaverse though!


raduhs t1_j2yunjf wrote

watch his joe rogan interview he touches on what goes into the development in great detail


LairdPopkin t1_j2vfr57 wrote

Generally makes sense to me. Waist battery pack isn’t elegant but cutting the head-unit’s weight in half is great for wearability. And it makes it easy to pick a huge extended life battery for some use cases, so people car wear AR all day. The only ‘bummer’ is the pricing, but $3k is typical for business-oriented AR/VR gear, so if just means it is targeted there, and at hardcore pro users, not home consumers. At least initially. Typical for Apple - focus on the high value, profitable market segments and let someone else try to run businesses with the money-losing lower value, lower priced segment. And over time Apple can drive down costs and expand down-market, or drive up perceived value, etc.

Running iOS apps in AR is brilliant - that gives them easy access to a huge App Library covering a wide range of use cases conveniently.


Grimmmm t1_j37sd1t wrote

While you have every right to be skeptical a few things to point out:

  1. This is a first public release, it can only get better with every generation (gen 1 iPhone did not have a flashlight, camera, etc)

  2. It’s understandable why a first generation release would focus on pro users vs consumer, even beyond cost of units- engineering and design teams can focus on core pain points and key workflows, while consumer-facing AR will require so much more refinement and access to casual content to keep people engaged, still a ways a way

  3. I hate wires in HMDs (and I wonder if Steve isn’t rolling in his grave), but a secondary hip unit is both a temporary solution, major comfort improvement and- if Apple nails their core experience and services and can truly demonstrate an “ah ha” application for their pro audience to buy into- it simply won’t matter. Most humans on the planet happily carry around small super computers in their pockets. The question is what magic powers does such a device grant you?


skatellites t1_j2v1y40 wrote

Sounds like only the Hololens is doing AR the right way


Grimmmm t1_j37q607 wrote

Until you try it and gag


skatellites t1_j397pat wrote

Lol i tried it. Whats the issue? Still the best AR software out there. Yes fov was small but not terrible and that was hololens 1


Lebannendl t1_j2vymok wrote

Did they just mock up some sky goggles?


Jamie00003 t1_j2ub1zi wrote

I still don’t really understand how this is going to take off. VR has been around for a while now, if it was going to take off it would have by now.

However, a pair of smart glasses I can totally get behind


CompleteAndUtterWat t1_j2udgv6 wrote

The problem with VR is it's still not ready for prime time. It needs natural full field of view so you don't feel claustrophobic, high refresh rates, high resolution per eye, be light enough to be comfortable, have a battery that lasts a good couple of hours, have pretty significant sensor packages for tracking eyes/body/hands/feet, and be self contained because wire leads are not great while moving around. No headset has solved all of these issues and if one did it would probably cost near $10,000 right now. But if a headset could be built like that for sub $500 then VR might be ready...


w0mbatina t1_j2vvamv wrote

I disagree. The vr tech we have now is completely servicable for the vast majority of people. The issue right now is the lack of good software for it. After Meta bought everyone out and focused on standalone, all the games basicly went to shit. I love vr, but I dont recommend it to my friends at all, because outside a few games that are a couple of years old, there is nothing worthwhile to play.


CompleteAndUtterWat t1_j2wthsm wrote

Serviceable is the right word though. You don't really convert the vast majority of people to a new fairly expensive unfamiliar tech with a serviceable experience. I've used quest 2 and vive. The quest 2 standalone tech is clearly the path forward but the FOV kills me as all as the refresh rate. Anyhow software is sort of a chicken and egg problem. It takes a lot of effort and money to make a great VR experience and unless there's overwhelming confidence in the tech OR a large enough owner base the software won't come. In general I think that clearly shows both users and developers don't believe the tech is ready.


Lyb0n t1_j2wv86j wrote

even quest 2 encounters so many random problems and workarounds that aren't intuitive. it's often times harder to understand than a smartphone, or at least more unfamiliar, and people are going to be fucking idiots with the things. sun damage will be rampant too


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2uite3 wrote

> VR has been around for a while now, if it was going to take off it would have by now.

VR products have had a shelf life of 6 1/2 years or 8 1/2 years if you want to count the couple of years that VR existed in the 1990s.

That's not long at all in the tech world. The average hardware shift takes 15 years of products being on shelves.


Cashavellli t1_j2ugctp wrote

Technology has been advancing to the point where something like this is viable.


Jamie00003 t1_j2ugi6a wrote

A pair of glasses? Sure sign me up, no thanks to the skiing goggles though


Cashavellli t1_j2ugm0b wrote

Thanks for sharing.


Jamie00003 t1_j2ugowr wrote

Lol why did you bother commenting? I’m not sure what you expected me to say?


Cashavellli t1_j2ugxxh wrote

Because you don’t seem to understand that technology had to catch up to the concept. Now it has, and so VR/AR is something that’s a viable concept for wearable tech.


Jamie00003 t1_j2uhd77 wrote

Then why not release both types of goggles, if the tech is there already?…


Cashavellli t1_j2uhqfg wrote

Because tech advancement is one half of the coin. Now they’re working on what works best for people to actually adopt as a useful wearable.


KyleMcMahon t1_j30uohc wrote

This is the first step by apple before smart glasses with AR.


ShenmeNamaeSollich t1_j2t5kif wrote

“VR/AR is soooo fetch!”

~ Every fucking idiot who keeps trying to make it a thing


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2t67iz wrote

These same arguments could be made for computers and phones.

If your attitude prevailed for PCs/phones, then r/gadgets wouldn't exist, nor would the Internet or 99% of the modern world.

Visionaries move on regardless and create things that people don't know they want. Yes, people didn't know they wanted a computer or phone - most people can only think of faster horses, not what comes after the horse.


sgtcarrot t1_j2t8zd8 wrote

Love the many articles you can still find that regarded the web as a fad, lol. Same thing. People will fight change, its in their nature.


skinlo t1_j32kawk wrote

That's survivorship bias though. What the about the things that were meant to catch on that never did?


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j32w36b wrote

> What the about the things that were meant to catch on that never did?

Those things don't have much in common with VR/AR.

If you want to define VR/AR, they are whole mediums and computing platforms.

When was the last completely new medium or computing platform that failed to catch on?

That definition is important - it means they are general purpose devices for both entertainment/media and for practical use.


Jamie00003 t1_j2ubeka wrote

So you see a world where everybody wears stupid goggles 24 7 do you? Get real haha


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2ubzil wrote

Who said they will stay goggles? This should eventually get into the stage of normal glasses for AR and curved sunglasses for VR.

I think a billion or so people will use VR in the next 20 years, and 4+ billion will use AR.


ezekial1082 t1_j2uf6ry wrote

This is the answer. From my understanding, the technology isn’t ready yet to have the power needed in glasses, while being small enough. I think the goal is to start with goggles and end up with a AR experience over time.


Jamie00003 t1_j2ucwr3 wrote

Then why bother releasing the goggles? Why not just release that? I don’t really see what advantage this has out of the myriad of other failing VR devices out there right now?

You do realise this is launching at $3000 right? What makes you think this is worth the money when it’s 3x the cost of everything else? VR is niche as it is


JustSayTomato t1_j2upgi4 wrote

This is true about every technology. CD players, VCRs, DVD players, cell phones, laptops, etc. EVERY technology is expensive and bulky and limited at first. And then it’s not. And suddenly everyone has it and the cycle starts anew. You sound like a fifth grader who has never seen a single product cycle in their life.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2udyqp wrote

Because they can't get user feedback, have a developer ecosystem, and see how their tech performs out in the wild (so they can refine it more accurately) if it's just kept in their labs.

They'd also have to wait 10-15 years. That's a lot of time to wait.


Jamie00003 t1_j2uefwa wrote

Still at that price, it’s a non starter imo. Even the Apple Watch shipped with cheaper models and didn’t get it right the first time, but that’s a big investment that very few people care about


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2uikcq wrote

It's just how VR/AR goes. The tech is much more cutting edge/expensive than smartwatches/smartphones were at their hardest.

Eventually, we'll see far better products at 10% of the price, but it has to start somewhere.


ShenmeNamaeSollich t1_j2taavl wrote

Except that one of those things has already failed repeatedly because nobody wants to use the devices (except a minority for porn & gaming).

It wasn’t customers who said PCs & smartphones & the internet would fail - it was the entrenched business interests that didn’t get it. That’s not the case here.

Customers have been saying “nah” to this concept since Lawnmower Man; since the Oculus roller coaster demo made them throw up; since Google Glass failed spectacularly; since Meta’s nonsense flushed billions down the toilet.

They aren’t “visionaries” - they’re dilettantes with huge egos and way too much money to burn.

Everyone told these same “visionaries” that “smart speakers” were stupid & creepy too, and what happened? After billions wasted on marketing hype all the research recently concluded that yup, the market was right & nobody wants them either! They’re useless baubles.

AR has some potential w/HUDs & interaction with the real world … VR Meta Ready Player One BS like what’s shown in this mockup will never happen until climate change or war renders life on earth’s surface impossible.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j2tcihq wrote

VR hasn't failed repeatedly. As someone with a good hook on the history of the tech, consumer VR has only ever failed once in the 1990s, and that wasn't even a serious attempt.

To put it into perspective, the entirety of 1990s consumer VR investment totals at best, one week of VR investment in the modern world. That's how little money and effort was put into VR back then, and it's because no large company actually released anything. It was only small companies like Forte. Nintendo/Sega/Atari released nothing in the end (Virtual Boy isn't VR so it doesn't count).

The market has responded differently this time. The investment is orders of magnitude higher, the sales are orders of magnitude higher, and the market has lasted thrice as long with more competitors jumping into the mix this year. On the technical side, some core problems with 1990s VR were fixed, and while a lot is left to fix, much of that is being worked on in R&D with solid results to show for so far.

> It wasn’t customers who said PCs & smartphones & the internet would fail - it was the entrenched business interests that didn’t get it. That’s not the case here.

It was both businesses falling behind the times and consumers:

> They aren’t “visionaries” - they’re dilettantes with huge egos and way too much money to burn.

This is the classic response that even the people you would consider visionaries have to deal with. Though you would consider them visionaries with the benefit of hindsight.

> Everyone told these same “visionaries” that “smart speakers” were stupid & creepy too, and what happened? After billions wasted on marketing hype all the research recently concluded that yup, the market was right & nobody wants them either! They’re useless baubles.

There are hits and misses in tech, but point to me to a digital medium and/or fundamentally new computing platform (these are accurate descriptions of VR/AR) that failed to eventually take off. There are no examples of the latter, and I'm having trouble recalling any of the former, but maybe there's a few rare examples.


MassageByDmitry t1_j2txr6r wrote

Don’t know why your getting downvoted, you literally are talking facts


Bageezax t1_j2ta3i9 wrote

I’m not a fanboy or a detractor. I like that VR is available; it can be fun and useful. If Apple makes something worthwhile, I’ll be interested to see it.


nosadtomato t1_j2tds3r wrote

I mean.. if you don't like VR, nobody is taping a headset to you and forcing you to play games.