You must log in or register to comment.

TheNaug t1_j5m9ksf wrote

Would be funny if Apple beat Facebook in getting AR to market, considering the amount of money Facebook doled into it.


MayIServeYouWell t1_j5nbsfz wrote

You can bet Apple has dropped a ton of money on AR/VR as well… just not publicly.


why_rob_y t1_j5o8jfu wrote

Yeah, as fun as it is to make fun of FB for stuff, it's not like they'd be getting beat by some underdog here. Apple has like 6x the market cap and 5x the net income of FB.


JohnBsGhost t1_j5ov95c wrote

Also more hardware dev than meta by a MILE


why_rob_y t1_j5ow0we wrote

And they've launched more than one successful product/service as opposed to having a history of only one massively successful launch and a bunch of acquisitions of other people's products and services.


NextWhiteDeath t1_j5oepxq wrote

They were closer before Meta ran head first into VR spending too much money at once.


InterscholasticPea t1_j5o9g1s wrote

And also Apple is a hardware and software integrated company. They have been making hardware devices longer and better than almost anyone else.

FB’s record of hardware isn’t exactly stellar.


FlamingTrollz t1_j5misuq wrote

If anyone can, it is Apple, for good or ill.


jrodan94 t1_j5n7dhc wrote

I agree, Apple is Apple so they’ll be obtuse in the worst ways but I think they are actually really good in the early stages of building a product category. Apple has the ability to legitimize a market segment, and they can afford to make no money for quite some time on any of it. They’ll always take their closed door pathway on it, but a rising tide lifts all boats. That will allow competitors to really show how their legitimate niche has value without being the figurehead for the entire industry to rail on. There’s enough space in VR/AR rn that Apple only helps everyone by entering the field


the_first_brovenger t1_j5o1pp5 wrote

Apple Home, though.

Apple doesn't really do cutting edge niche well, which VR is.


throwaway8726529 t1_j5odcas wrote

iPods? iPhones? Smart watches? And earlier, desktops and laptops? Apple’s entrance into all of these categories essentially created the category (for the pedants, yes I know the categories technically existed, but you know it’s not what I mean). By definition, the first mass-market product in a category is cutting-edge.

I’m old enough (sadly) to remember the pre-iPod days. The iPod wasn’t an iteration on the existing mp3 players. It was cutting-edge enough that it birthed a new type of product. Same is true for the iPhone, and the same may be true of this headset.


the_first_brovenger t1_j5og8vm wrote

>By definition, the first mass-market product in a category is cutting-edge

No, that's not what defines cutting edge.
By the time something is mass produced, it is no longer cutting edge.

The iPod was literally an iteration on existing players. It massively improved on storage, as other manufacturers were content just beating the ~14 tracks on CDs a few times over.


iPhone was not a niche product.
It was not cutting edge either, it was an iteration on existing phones removing the mechanical keyboard, which had already been done.

>Smart watches?

Not cutting edge.
Also not really a niche, a smart watch is an ultracompact smart phone with a wrist band. There's no new cutting edge tech in them, they're just incredibly small.

>And earlier, desktops and laptops?

Still not NICHE and still not cutting edge. All of it, iterations.

>I’m old enough (sadly) to remember the pre-iPod days.

Well I am.

>The iPod wasn’t an iteration on the existing mp3 players.

Yes it was.

>It was cutting-edge enough that it birthed a new type of product.

No it didn't.

>Same is true for the iPhone

No it isn't.

>and the same may be true of this headset.

It very clearly won't be.
They're making their own iteration of a niche technology with low chance of success.

Jesus christ you are such an obvious fanboy, and clueless to boot. Please stop hurting yourself.


Shopped_For_Pleasure t1_j5ox7t4 wrote

Well mp3s weren’t cutting edge because walkmans existed before it.

And walkmans weren’t such a big deal, because we already had things like vinyl players.

And don’t even get me started on vinyl players. helloooo, phonographic cylindersss.


flagcity t1_j5p57in wrote

this is such a silly take. know why the iPod cutting edge you mouth breathing cave man?

Because my grandmother can use it. And she’s dead.

Everything Apple does has existed before to some extent. The difference is they solve the problem, which is different than trying to sell you technology.

If you’re old enough to remember how PCs were advertised back in the day, everyone made their choice on chips and ram and cache. a classic race to the bottom where the consumer gets screwed.

Contrast that with Apple, where the only specs that matter are the finish. You know it will work for 90% of what you wanna do and you probably don’t need to reboot it within the first year. Nothing is even close in terms of customer experience from opening the box to getting service to incorporating your family members to other ecosystem components.

Your take might be the most ignorant and infuriating on Apple I’ve ever read, and I am an android guy!


newtybar t1_j5tvrnv wrote

I’d argue that’s more salesmanship than being cutting edge. I’m typing this on an iPhone.


the_first_brovenger t1_j5p6akq wrote

It's just incredible the level of toxicity Apple topics brings out in people.

Here you are unable to help yourself. Frothing at the mouth like an animal needing to try to insult me. And you do it while unironically calling me a caveman! It's fantastic! 😅


skolioban t1_j5rd1mp wrote

Cutting edge product and market are not the same as cutting edge technology. You guys are talking about different things.


shortfriday t1_j61t73b wrote

I've got ten thousand bucks of apple stuff in my house and a thousand shares of aapl and literally everything you say is spot on. They're just a very good business. Silly subreddit.


Veltan t1_j5ocwe1 wrote

Honestly, nobody is doing smart home stuff that well.


KarmaPharmacy t1_j5ocz5b wrote

Have you ever heard of an iPhone, iPod, iPad, or AirPods? All cutting edge niche products in the beginning.


the_first_brovenger t1_j5oglkg wrote

Great products, yes.

Cutting edge, hell to the no.

The only somewhat cutting edge tech in the original iPhone was the screen.

AirPods were literally just an iteration on a product type that had existed for years already.

Apple fanboys are seriously the worst.


Shxhxxhcx t1_j5oi0nf wrote

You’re here commenting on every post that shows appreciation for Apple? Cringe.


the_first_brovenger t1_j5okbrw wrote

Literally prefaced with Apple products being great, dude 😂


Shxhxxhcx t1_j5opb08 wrote

That’s just sad. Get a life


the_first_brovenger t1_j5orabi wrote

Once again it's proven apple threads will consistently bring out the man-children in force to hurl feeble insults at people. Take your own advice, bruh.


KarmaPharmacy t1_j5olkcy wrote

I’m not even a boy. Let alone a fan. I am a nut for historical achievements in technology, regardless of who made it.

I do give credit when it’s due.

Smart phones with a touch screen didn’t exist before Apple. And I hardly even classify a BlackBerry or sidekick 3 as a “smart phone”.

Considering your big brain post history is limited to “deaf people don’t laugh at farts” I’m gonna go ahead and assume you weren’t alive when the iPhone came out.

Please, allow the adults to have constructive discussions. You have nothing to add here, I’m not even sure you’re 13 and allowed to be on this site.


boltman1234 t1_j5oe6td wrote

Nope they were just fanboi starvation, sort of like Tesla golf carts etc

Apple stuff is complete crap, its all driven by fanbois and Apple trying to scare you with privacy /security bullshit


FrankTankly t1_j5oewti wrote

Lol what? I’m no Apple fanboy but denying that Apple was first in these (niche, cutting edge) spaces (especially the iPhone and iPod) is just going out of your way to hate on Apple.


SharpClaw007 t1_j5oeqjr wrote

This comment reeks of cope. Apple, despite their shitty business practices, makes top tier hardware.


boltman1234 t1_j5omz8h wrote

Um no their hardware looks lame and don't game


littlebitsofspider t1_j5odqj9 wrote

I tracked a bug in HomeKit (one of many) when I worked for Apple that was stupendously, egregiously bad. I agree with this comment.


JackRusselTerrorist t1_j5obo5d wrote

Say what you will about Apple, but they haven’t been complicit in genocides and the proliferation of fascism globally.

Edit: gotta love the people who downvote this. Which is it- you hate apple so much that hearing they aren’t complicit in genocide makes you angry, or is it that you’re unaware of Facebook’s track record?


kippypapa t1_j5peiny wrote

What are you talking about? Haven’t you seen the Tim Cook bloody machete photo from Venezuela a few years back? He’s wearing an apple t shirt in it.


jampbells t1_j5qaa25 wrote

I mean their suppliers in China are supporting the uyghur genocide in China. So I wouldn't get on a high horse for them.


JackRusselTerrorist t1_j5r3wr4 wrote

That’s anyone who does business in China, though.


jampbells t1_j5wr2bx wrote

Sure but you said "they haven’t been complicit in genocides." Which they have, just like most people doing business in China. I'm not saying Apple is worse then other businesses just that I wouldn't defend them as morally superior.


JackRusselTerrorist t1_j5y5g3y wrote

Comparing Apple to Facebook? Apple is clearly morally superior. Facebook is the tool that supremacists of all colours use to spread propaganda that leads to genocides. They refuse to hire local moderators in any meaningful capacity to deal with this stuff.

When it’s pointed out that their algorithms are driving division and hate, they externally put out a memo along the lines of “we’re aware of a situation, and will do our best” and internally about “yay! Growth!”.


[deleted] t1_j5ncrpi wrote



vaskemaskine t1_j5nwn0k wrote

Facebook bought Oculus in 2014. They’ve been at it for at least 9 years now.


empire_to_ashes_ t1_j5o83e3 wrote

wow it’s crazy to hear that facebook owned oculus back when they were doing the development kit thing, i honestly thought they bought out oculus within the last 7 years.


Hawk13424 t1_j5oepgs wrote

Yes, but when a company buys another company then the achievements of the bought company transfer to the buyer. That includes how long they’ve been working on something, things invented, etc.


ASS_MOUTH_ASS_MOUTH t1_j5nu1cb wrote

IIRC there were rumours already in the Google Glass prototype days, and that was over a decade ago.


AmericanKamikaze t1_j5nbyfu wrote

IMO it’s a marketing and positioning problem more than a tech problem.


Fiveby21 t1_j5nihxl wrote

It's also a tech problem. Motion sickness is huge limiting factor.


AmericanKamikaze t1_j5nntx5 wrote

From what I’ve read only the military version had that problem. The most recent headsets have reduced it dramatically.


Hawk13424 t1_j5of12r wrote

Motion sickness is a problem for boats and planes also. There is no fix. People either need to get used to it or take drugs to combat it. Also, should be less of an issue for AR than VR.


IniNew t1_j5oz042 wrote

There's motion sickness on things you can avoid - like boats and plane. And then there's motion sickness with something many are touting as the future of work.

One of those things is not like the other.


RawrRawr83 t1_j5okh7t wrote

And also a demand problem. I don’t want to wear a fucking headset. What could have been an email is now going to become a meeting with head sets? No thanks. This can die a quick death


throwaway8726529 t1_j5odmdu wrote

It’s both. Marketing and positioning has a synchronous relationship with how the product is designed and therefore what technologies it requires. Viewing these aspects as isolated concepts isn’t correct.


rustyphish t1_j5oegra wrote

I think Facebook would actually be glad, they need anyone and everyone in the AR/VR space to make it more mainstream


kippypapa t1_j5per4o wrote

But the point of the device for FB is to avoid issues like apple and their cookie privacy thing. If they lose this battle to apple, they’re fucked.


zdakat t1_j5o504r wrote

If Apple comes out with one, it'll probably be like their smartwatches. Some people have it, but overall it's just a thing that exists. Unlike whatever Meta is doing.
Meta comes across as frantic and desperate. "No guys wait we are totally the only ones that are going to make this work!"


all_are_throw_away t1_j5o5d69 wrote

I know very few people who don’t have an Apple Watch


[deleted] t1_j5oe9si wrote



Sylvurphlame t1_j5omr9k wrote

iPhone versus any given android device is about 60-40 around me, favoring iPhone. Of those with iPhones, probably about 3 out of 4 seem to have Apple Watches. So that would make it roughly 40-50% of people I see have an Apple Watch, at least of those that have any smart watch at all. The other thing I notice is that those with an android device are less likely to have a smartwatch at all.


demondied1 t1_j5prjuc wrote

Man I don’t even have a normal watch… if I need the time I just check my phone?


RawrRawr83 t1_j5okl1z wrote

I’ve given away two because I don’t need another thing to charge and blowing me up with work emails


Draiko t1_j5oh43i wrote

That's what happened to Tesla and electric trucks.

Announced Cybertruck before it was ready only to be beaten to market by Ford.


Edwunclerthe3rd t1_j5ohn58 wrote

Facebook doesn't need to be the first to do it. They're positioning themselves to be one of the biggest names in the space in 2030


Praedyth-420 t1_j697cfu wrote

Facebook already did. The Quest Pro is primarily focused on AR for business purposes. It came out last year


jrodan94 t1_j5n8wag wrote

Want to present a balanced take , Apple is very very good at this kind of thing. Newest leaks say they’re expecting low sales and that this is just the first step for them. Apple is very good at taking all of these things that already exist and then having one moment where it comes together on stage in a way no one else has had the follow through in yet. If they can truly build a completely natural interface for VR that we haven’t seen before w this then they are already good. They know it won’t sell but they’re building a platform. I think it’s silly to write Apple off on this front. I also really look forward to what this announcement does for the competition. It’s going to definitely attract the mainstream eye to vr in a way only Apple can and that’s good for the entire space


Sylvurphlame t1_j5oowft wrote

> Apple is very good at taking all of these things that already exist and then having one moment where it comes together on stage in a way no one else has had the follow through in yet.

I think this is what gets into the core of the arguments where people call other people fanboys or haters. iPod, iPhone, iPad, iWatch Apple Watch… none of those were brand new unheard of product categories. Digital music players, smartphones, tablets and smartwatches existed before. But Apple managed to deliver more of an experience. Everything integrated, everything purposeful and (mostly) focused. You can’t in good faith argue that Apple hasn’t significantly changed the landscape of any product category it enters.

Edit: and that’s not to discount Android’s more experimental legacy, pushing features and concepts with each iteration. And often first.

Focus has gotten a little less as the ecosystem grows, but that was inevitable as a mature platform tries to be everything to everybody. Nonetheless, I trust Apple more than Facebook to actually launch a product that pushes mixed reality mainstream. I still don’t know one person IRL that has an Oculus/Meta Quest and Google Glass already tried and unfortunately failed. HoloLens may have been mortally wounded losing that military comtract. Sony is apparently doing well enough that they’re launching a PlayStation VR for their fifth generation consoles, but I don’t know if they could have any appreciable influence on making mixed reality commonplace.


ShaderzXC t1_j5p4m97 wrote

Yeah PlayStation VR will probably be good, but it will have no real impact on wider VR/AR/MR. It's more like a PS5 add on.


zabacanjenalog t1_j64pqqs wrote

They didn’t do anything with the iPhone. It was for a couple of generations an incredibly shit product.


haasvacado t1_j5o1sch wrote

It’s insane to me that Zuckerborg thought Facebook can just pivot into a core capacity for consumer hardware/software innovation. No, dawg. You broker adverts. Your competition is Apple and Google. Microsoft and Sony always in the mix, too, for that matter.

Historically bad business decision on the part of Facebonk.


kirkum2020 t1_j5ompje wrote

Don't judge them on a few bits of shitty software they developed as nothing more than sanitised spaces to show investors around instead of freaking them out with VR Chat.

It's the hardware that's the important point here, and nobody in the market gets even close to beating that price to performance ratio.


AkirIkasu t1_j5pqxyk wrote

To be fair, the thing differentiating Meta from every other player is that Meta doesn't seem to be concerned with actually profiting from their hardware; instead they intend to draw their profit from software, NFT-based items, virtual concerts and other digital software bullshit properties.


kirkum2020 t1_j5q3hbp wrote

Let's not forget who this is. They profit from data. You're the product, remember?

If VR takes off the way all these companies seem to think it will then the company with the cheapest decent headset is going to make bank watching your every move.


AkirIkasu t1_j5q5mxm wrote

Oh absolutely. And don’t forget that their inside out tracking is a bunch of cameras that look at everything in front of you.

While they are not currently sending that info back home to my knowledge, I don’t have enough faith to say they wouldn’t ever do it.


t0slink t1_j5r3twy wrote

You do realize Apple's top priority for 2023 is getting into the ads business?


Sylvurphlame t1_j5optke wrote

Their focus on the metaverse is an interesting one. I’m not sure what their long-term monetization strategy was. With Apple, Microsoft, Sony, they sell actual products. Facebook monetizes user habits to sell ads. Not sure if Zuckerberg saw the metaverse as some sort of brave new world for advertising and engagement metrics or if he just really personally got tired of waiting for mainstream VR and decided to throw his company behind forcing it to happen.


kippypapa t1_j5pf7ym wrote

It’s the engagement metrics because what’s more engaging than being immersed in a virtual world. Can you smell that sweet ad moolah? I sure can’t.


Sylvurphlame t1_j5pfqxl wrote

> Can you smell that sweet ad moolah? I sure can’t.

Which brings in the idea of just how immersive it will really be, until we can figure out a way to simulate taste and smell. Sight and sound, yep. Doable. Haptics, getting better. Taste and smell require direct chemical interaction, so you’d have to skip that and figure out the SAO style full dive.


kippypapa t1_j5wrg0w wrote

My attitude is that if people want to live their lives in a virtual world controlled by mark Zuckerberg, then fine, it’s their life. I won’t do it


IrritatedBowels t1_j5m400w wrote

Can’t wait until I’m only a sexy cartoon


JoeyDee86 t1_j5mmmew wrote

But at least you’ll be sexy for once!


VitaminPb t1_j5mz3yb wrote

What if they force us to look like we do in reality?


Ombearon t1_j5nkekc wrote

What like the creator of SAO did?


maxiimus1 t1_j5o5mmo wrote

Now that I think about it, something like SAO could theoretically be possible today. Just make a VR headset, make it really popular, make some kind of irresistible VR El live event that many people will show up to. Unveil in the event that the vr headset has a bomb hidden inside ot, and if you die in the game, the bomb goes off. If you remove the headset, the bomb goess off. If the headset loses power, the bomb goes off.


vibrance9460 t1_j5mppnv wrote

It’s not a big deal for Apple to animate a live conversation. Have you ever used Animoji‘s? They’re not the same but they’ve had that technology for many years


Sylvurphlame t1_j5oq7s0 wrote

Animojis and Memojis are pretty impressive in their own way. It’s a shame they don’t get more traction, but then using them is a very deliberate action on the part of the user and takes effort beyond just sending a message or having a FaceTime.

They would be great for mixed reality avatars, if Apple can livestream them in real time.


lippoper t1_j5q91b4 wrote

You can turn on Animojis like a filter during a FaceTime call.


Sylvurphlame t1_j5qhs2d wrote

Yes, I’m aware. But it requires a deliberate extra step on the sort of the user, as I said earlier. So that reduces the visibility and likely the usage.


Ben10Stan3 t1_j5mcc1p wrote

Avatars? Does that mean you can customize what your appearance is? Like, imagine you can make yourself the fucking Hulk while FaceTiming your good friend Garry. And your avatar would actually follow your move sets as well. Welp, now that I have that in my mind, I can now imagine people sexting in FaceTime while their avatars are different people. Like one person’s avatar is Spider-Man and the other’s is Batman. Would that be called Sextiming?


trapezoidalfractal t1_j5md2ng wrote

That’s already a thing, it’s called VR Chat with body trackers. Hell, half of VRChat is just people having cybersex. You walk into a room and knuckles the echidna is getting head from Hello Kitty while Goku and Shaggy from Scooby-Doo jack off in the corner.


Ben10Stan3 t1_j5mdi2t wrote

Well, that’s VR, tho. I’m talking FaceTiming someone. Pull up your phone, you call your mom, a hologram of Goku appears in front of her, you’re like “hi, mom”


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5meg1y wrote

You wouldn't really want to literally FaceTime in VR. They are just using the term FaceTime to mean a videocall, but the VR version - like VRChat.

I know Microsoft Teams does standard video conferencing with avatar options. Of course VTuber software all supports this too.


Bananazzs t1_j5obx1l wrote

> They are just using the term FaceTime to mean a videocall, but the VR version - like VRChat.

We don’t know that. I wouldn’t put it past apple to develop an AR FaceTime with avatars over real backgrounds


Sylvurphlame t1_j5oqwap wrote

> I wouldn’t put it past apple to develop an AR FaceTime with avatars over real backgrounds

I mean, it’s the next logical step from FaceTime with Memoji and Animoji heads.


Nephroidofdoom t1_j5ocj28 wrote

I think you can do that with FaceTime now. It’s a little cartoony. Mostly I see kids using it to goof off but I can see it getting better over time.


Sylvurphlame t1_j5oriff wrote

You can use the emoji and an emoji characters in FaceTime now, yes. But it can only track your head and it’s a little limited in the sense that you have to hold your iPhone, or iPad in front of your face.

Rethink that in the context of wearing VR goggles and having a companion motion tracking device in the room, so that your full body, animated avatar is live streamed to the person you’re having a conversation with. Or straight up, superimposed on the empty seat on the other end of the couch, if you’re using AR mode .

That’s going to be the interesting tipping point for the personal communications aspect of mixed reality


Zimmaging t1_j5nqzej wrote

That’s odd. Every time I log on it’s just a bunch of little kids rapidly switching between avatars and yelling and a bunch of weird anime characters by themselves staring at mirrors. I’ve never seen anyone having cybersex in public rooms except maybe as a brief joke. What weird rooms are you going into?


sesor33 t1_j5oj01v wrote

The cybersex thing is a meme, though it does happen sometimes in private worlds. In reality most of the "good" groups in vrchat that aren't children hang out in private worlds called "Friends+" which basically means friends of friends can join. If you click popular worlds you'll notice that half the population is in private instances like that, mainly to avoid children and toxic users.

Hell, furries have an entire network of friends and friends+ worlds that regularly reach 50+ users per instance on fridays, they also have entire private instanced conventions that have upwards of 1500 attendees whenever they happen.


yelahneb t1_j5nosc6 wrote

When I was a kid we had 5 television channels and a knock-off Pong game


just-some-person t1_j5mve7c wrote

They bought a Stanford student's startup for an insane amount of money about 8 years ago, which became FaceID and motion avatars. This will be the next step of that using the phones front facing sensors to map the movement in the room. $100 bet.


OldSongBird t1_j5mr230 wrote

But…you can do this. In FaceTime you can make yourself an “avatar” or a Memoji character you’ve designed.


Ben10Stan3 t1_j5mrhio wrote

Well, I didn’t actually know this. But it lacks a few things

  1. Being a hologram that would just appear in front of the person you’re calling

  2. Avatar follows your movements

  3. I don’t know if it’s full body or not, but if it isn’t, then this too


Snoop8ball t1_j5nt232 wrote

According to the Bloomberg report it is full-body, and will be “realistic” so I assume you would see the actual person’a face mapped onto a 3D avatar with realistic anatomy in the real world in AR mode.


Sylvurphlame t1_j5p3550 wrote

> with realistic anatomy

Apple might not do it, but somebody is going to put some anime titties on an avatar. It’s inevitable. Lol


JupiterRecruit t1_j5nth0j wrote

Hey Ben10Stan3, welcome to your annual review. Wait, why do you have three legs? Oh, that’s not a leg…


Insufferablelol t1_j5lzkpa wrote

Metaverse v2


pseudocultist t1_j5my7yu wrote

They really bury the important, good stuff.

>It was previously believed that other people on a call will be displayed as an icon or Memoji. That's still likely to be the case for group calls. For one-on-one chats in which both participants are wearing a Reality Pro, the report suggests that FaceTime will render realistic versions of their face and body. Processing limitations seemingly prevent this feature from being available for group calls. Other companies, such as Meta, typically render users in a more cartoonish fashion (and don't yet include legs).

So... it actually sounds like they're trying to move beyond this.


FoeWithBenefits t1_j5o4xsr wrote

Is this big tech's vision of the future? Why do they want this virtual world shit to happen so bad?


t0slink t1_j5r40iw wrote

It's a tech demo/precursor for AR, not the endgame.


djdeedame t1_j5ob2wt wrote

It’s just a new form of technology and social interactions. No one forcing you or anyone else to participate. If it’s not your thing…then why even comment?


ItsABiscuit t1_j5ofeaj wrote

Yeah, really can't see that anyone is actually so eager for this to be available.


Temjin810 t1_j5nxg34 wrote

3k for the headset?! I'm sort of blown away and not really surprised anymore. If it was 1500 I'd be more likely to pay for it. We'll just have to see what it offers


LaLaHaHaBlah t1_j5od13t wrote

Who is this for? I barely have time for reality. And that time I like to actually go outside.


tiboodchat t1_j5n4k9i wrote

At this point, does anyone really believe in VR anything?

What’s the point of this, why would you want to see someone’s avatar over their real face and expressions? It feels like it was hot buzzword in tech and now big tech are just too afraid to divest and lose face so they just keep moving forward a feature people will try once or twice for novelty and entirely forget about 2 week post launch..


Rojaddit t1_j5nfspz wrote

Have you ever done technical work from home? Have you tried using a laptop on an airplane tray table? I would love a VR or AR headset with sufficient resolution to simulate three 4k displays + surrounding environment.


kibitzor t1_j5oadva wrote

I don't like the idea of enabling people to do more work on airplanes.

But, that's how technology progresses. There was a rare time in the 90s/early 2000s before commonplace laptops and cellphones with plane travel (and train travel for that matter) that meant you'd have leisure time on business trips. Sure, you could read the news and write things down, but you were impossible to contact. Now some people feel anxious and want to do work on planes and stay in touch to "get things done". Can't imagine the constant work VR will enable. Although, on the otherside of this coin is VR connecting families.


Rojaddit t1_j5qeygm wrote

I don't love the idea of "leisure time on business trips." I want my leisure time to be spent actively doing things I like with my friends and family - not 8 hours of vaguely uncomfortable idleness on an international flight.

From my perspective, every advance in workplace efficiency means less idle time at work - which in turn means less overall time at work, and more opportunity for success. If I am forced to be at work, let me at least be doing something!


kibitzor t1_j5qoq2k wrote

Assuming you get to go home sooner and work fewer hours if you work on the plane, I agree.


stargazer666 t1_j5o4i3y wrote

This, so much this, i could sit in the Starbucks and feel like I’m in the office


Rojaddit t1_j62qnq9 wrote

Heck, I can have a home-office on my couch, then shove the headset back in a drawer when I'm done working like it was never there! No mess of wires on the kitchen table, no spare room filled with a battle-station of monitors!


IniNew t1_j5o7zp4 wrote

Everyone keeps saying VR, but the headline says mixed reality. And I think that’s a big distinction. Most people want to augment their world, not replace it.


supatx t1_j5qxo5g wrote

I would love my own video game like HUD. Also I think AR will have a much wider consumer adoption rate while VR may stay more niche because AR has many more practical uses due to it adding layers to the world around you and not closing you out from it.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5nf0yg wrote

> What’s the point of this, why would you want to see someone’s avatar over their real face and expressions?

It's pretty normal for people to adopt a persona online. With 3 billion gamers worldwide, I expect many of them would routinely want a stylistic avatar. Lets them be anonymous and be whoever they want.

You can still have a real body scan for your avatar, but the tech is still cooking:

I have a feeling that avatar-based communication will as important of a milestone as the invention of phonecalls. It bridges a gap that's long been needed to be bridged: Digital interactions that feel like you are face to face with someone rather than screen to screen. That's a pretty fundamental part of the human social experience.


BEERD0UGH t1_j5ojgbv wrote

Hold up with all that nonsense, this is reddit, we've all collectively decided that VR isn't viable tech, tens years ago even, just like when we all caught the Boston bomber.


ItsABiscuit t1_j5ofk8y wrote

But why would you want a carton to interact with instead of the actual person's features?


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5ofrkf wrote

Because you would feel face to face with that cartoon, even if it's an abstraction.

Videocalls only ever feel like they are screen to screen interactions, never face to face. There's just no way to provide that feeling through a 2D screen.

And having custom avatars that aren't derived from your real features can be fun and expressive and allow people to play with identity. VRChat is the perfect example of this.


ItsABiscuit t1_j5oi3lz wrote

But it's just distracting and potentially problematic in a professional context and weird in a personal context with family or close friends.

So, maybe it's useful for the phone calls you make to people that are not for work and are not with family or close friends? Which would be a pretty small proportion of phone calls for most people.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5oiv9p wrote

It would probably be difficult to fit in with family, but I think many gamers with other gamer friends would probably find it fine.

Your comment just goes to show though that the video I linked is critically important for true mass adoption of VR/AR communication - having a photorealistic scan of yourself will be important in many contexts.


Vesuvias t1_j5ofqlg wrote

I genuinely do, but not with the annoying headset tech we currently have. It’ll have to be something as elegance as a set of AR glasses - not too unlike the NReal Air glasses.

The best technology is one that gets out of the way, or blends into your day to day workflow, and I foresee this to be the future.


bmcapers t1_j5p09ao wrote

Research indicates VR has a 28% CAGR by 2028, the fasting growing rate of all media. They can come out net positive if they leverage this trend judiciously.


EHnter t1_j5o09h5 wrote

I mean, Apple managed to get people to start wearing smart watches. And also forced their competitors to start making some. Same deal with wireless earbuds.

It’s literally the same song and dance. Getting sick of people saying it’ll fail when their favorite brand or company copies them later.


eliaskyo t1_j5oyhh4 wrote

Take a lesson from Meta’s failing strategy and drop the avatar b.s. We don’t need another Second Life.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5qy92p wrote

Avatars are critically important to VR/AR if it's to ever gain mass adoption. Certain styles can very much suck, as Meta has displayed with their Horizon avatars, but getting it right is important.


jerkITwithRIGHTYnewb t1_j5m6aus wrote

And for only 3x the cost of competitors!


archthechef t1_j5mt7rt wrote

If you're only looking at the cost of the Quest.... Then yes... But VR headsets can get really expensive...


Temjin810 t1_j5ny9dr wrote

The question is how will it compare to the ones at that price. Most likely won't in terms of spec. They have to pull something out the bag in terms of eco system integration to make people wanna put 3k into an overpriced headset which not many people have or have experienced. I think people can justify the cost of 2k macbooks as they know what to expect from a laptop but a VR headset is new territory for most of us, so it's gonna be a hard sell at that price unless it's perfect.


Plutonic-Planet-42 t1_j5o8sfk wrote

Apples new product will conform to conventions in set in previous products?! Wow!

I personally expected it to conform to windows phone’s style.


SnackeyG1 t1_j5qpynd wrote

Super stumped on who is supposed to buy this thing. People lost their damn mind at the $550 PSVR2 price. This is over 5x that.


ValisCode t1_j5o4c0r wrote

Do they have legs?


Fabraz t1_j5obdyy wrote

Wow, crazy.


UltraMankilla t1_j5oc90y wrote

What's the difference between what they are talking about and regular filters that change your bodies appearance in most video chat applications across pc/android?


Ixneigh t1_j5ofk9x wrote

If I can’t be a fox avatar, fuck em.


futuregoat t1_j5ofo43 wrote


Microsoft pretty much gave up on this while apple still sees promise.


Iwanderandiamlost t1_j5ofpau wrote

Another company putting money into VR that will not succeed.


Draiko t1_j5oi6ym wrote

At $3000, this piece of kit will probably start out as the next Google Glass... owned and misused by assholes with more dollars than sense.

A big selling point for AR/MR/VR hardware is gaming and Apple doesn't have a very good gaming experience on any of their products right now. Apple Arcade simply exists and there's only so much one can do with phone-level graphics.

That being said, I'm not sure this headset will have the same end as Google glass. Apple will either quit right away or stand behind a product until it finally finds a fit.

Personally, I think releasing this in 2023 is a mistake. Apple should sit on it for another couple of years... preferably until the hardware can have a sub-$1000 pricetag.


ShaderzXC t1_j5p526d wrote

I think Apple needs the first generation to go out at it's expensive price in order to be able to produce 2nd and 3rd gen at pricing closer to the 1k mark. As with all Apple products, advice is to stay away from first gen unless you have no limit to your disposable income because second gen has significant improvements and is almost always cheaper. HomePod is another example of this, it cost way too much to produce and had a near zero profit margin with it's first gen. Second gen was re-engineered to be both better and much cheaper to produce, so now I see people actually buying it.


96suluman t1_j5oz381 wrote

Even if it’s bad, Apple will overtake meta.


ksaMarodeF t1_j5p8bzi wrote

Hate the way technology is going, this is just weird to me.

What is it like FaceTiming / messenger with avatars instead of real faces in VR?

Just don’t like the idea of it.


Simply_Epic t1_j5pd6xc wrote

I’m willing to bet No Man’s Sky for Mac/iPad will launch alongside this and that it’ll have VR support for Apple’s headset. No way they supported porting efforts for one of the best VR titles just so they can have another Mac/iPad game. They want a big title to launch the new headset with.


souttous t1_j5pmtz2 wrote

I can’t wait for Reddit to tell me how this won’t work in a million years just to see everyone have one in 5.


JayMoots t1_j5pr85g wrote

Legs are coming soon


Jorycle t1_j5q0y7c wrote

I'm not interested in any VR headset until we've fully surpassed the screen door effect. I don't care what else it does, I don't care if they've mostly fixed it. I don't want to hear about it until you're pointing me to a headset I can put on with a 0% chance I can see a pixel boundary. Then we can talk about all these other features I'll never use.


Flo_Evans t1_j5t4ohx wrote

I feel like VR is late to the lockdown party and people just aren’t interested. FaceTime is great because anyone with an iPhone can do it. I need to buy a $3k headset and my mom needs one too? Uh I’d rather just go visit in person.

I have an oculus, don’t use it (sometimes the kids do but they mostly play PlayStation or PC games). I really don’t see the killer app to make VR mainstream. I use AR on my phone once every few years to pick out furniture, but my phone seems to do a good enough job at this.

Gaming seems to be the only real use I would have for this, and I would probably go for the $599 or whatever PSVR if I wanted an upgraded oculus… which I don’t.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5td3qn wrote

> FaceTime is great because anyone with an iPhone can do it.

That might be the case, but no one thinks FaceTime is remotely close to being with someone in person. It feels like you are behind a screen talking to another person inside a small screen, all of it being 2D.

The point of VR communication is that it would feel like you are face to face with the person. I would never recommend anyone who isn't rich to buy a $3000 device, but I would recommend average people to buy the mature version of this for $500 in 10 years or so.


Flo_Evans t1_j5u4dgs wrote

VR doesn’t feel like your talking face to face either though, it feels like you are in a video game lobby.


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5u5lnm wrote

VR always feels like you are face to face. That's the entire effect it provides.

It's just that you are face to face with abstractions - low-resolution, low-fidelity avatars that are kind of janky.

At least with today's tech.

If it felt like you were in a videogame lobby, what would the point of VR be? I could get that feeling just by playing Call of Duty on console.


hamuraijack t1_j5tkicc wrote

They’re gonna have legs, right? That’s a dealbreaker if not.


gatsby712 t1_j63m1qi wrote

I remember seeing a report about a patent Apple had for lenses that are one size fit all and can be adjusted in store by an employee. If they are able to make stylish glasses that can fit any prescription, at a decent price, that are not clunky, and are functional from a technology standpoint, then AR will be their next huge money maker. The advantages, speed, and potential convenience of AR glasses can be the biggest market disruptor since the smartphone if done right. They could not just create a new market for themselves, but they could also take over the prescription glasses market. Old glasses stores would be like a Rolex store. Fine for a status symbol or some style, but not nearly as functional as the new thing.


jncastillo87 t1_j662yrl wrote

This will also flop. People do not want this


cosmothekleekai t1_j5nnwch wrote

All I want is movie watching in bed with airplay to hifi. Right now I do that on an iPad but I suspect the experience on this would be much better.


Tomofpittsburgh t1_j5o2e66 wrote

Those renders look to me like it’s going to be way too perfect for Fitness+ in VR. Sporty AF.


tearsandpain84 t1_j5o933y wrote

Everything body who works in tech knows Steve Jobs faked his death to work on a mixed reality headset. He will be announcing his alive status and introducing the headset very soon.


zestyH20 t1_j5mul8p wrote

I don’t think VR is the way to go for Apple. Their next product needs to be revolutionary. A new first for everyone. I just don’t see it with VR…


IniNew t1_j5oayci wrote

You realize the, apple pc, iPhone, and the Apple Watch, all were iterations if an already existing product.


zestyH20 t1_j5otbtv wrote

Yes but they did it different and better than other products


IniNew t1_j5oxt46 wrote

Exactly my point. Why can't they do the same thing with MR/VR/AR?


zestyH20 t1_j5oy7t3 wrote

I just don’t see mile long lines of people waiting to get their hands on VR. It’s a cool idea though. Of course I could be wrong. I think apple should take a step back and focus on something that mostly nobody else is doing or putting that much effort into.


IniNew t1_j5pddux wrote

Why? There's effort going into this because there's at least some market validation on it.


zestyH20 t1_j5pmt6l wrote

What value would consumers get out of VR? It’s more of a hobby rather than lifestyle. How do you think VR would change your lifestyle? I can think of one possible benefit. One challenge of VR is to get the mass to wear it on their face.


IniNew t1_j5pv22k wrote

They’re not making VR. They’re making a mixed reality headset. That’s where the value is.


zestyH20 t1_j5qmlto wrote

What do you hope to use it for? How would it benefit you?


nicobico1 t1_j5o5s4k wrote

I don’t see this being a priority anymore since ChatGPT is forcing companies to hyper focus on AI and all AR/VR teams are being let go.


mart1373 t1_j5mr3oh wrote

Something tells me nobody is going to want this unless they somehow managed to make AR/VR contact lenses, in which case that would be cool as hell.


istergeen t1_j5n5umj wrote

Didn't they just fire that whole team?


JamesButlin t1_j5mbxi3 wrote

Lost me at Apple, had me again at full body avatars, lost me again at iOS-like


nirad t1_j5mm7nx wrote

I feel the exact opposite way. Apple makes excellent products that rarely rely on stupid gimmicks like “full body avatars.”


JamesButlin t1_j5oka50 wrote

Apple make nice looking but technically mediocre products that lock their customers into a massively restrictive and closed ecosystem (their earbuds not working as bluetooth headphones for any other device, for example - ridiculous). They are absolutely gimmick-driven, and they're usually just stolen ideas that they rebrand with stupid names like 'Magic Keyboard'.

Not to mention their deliberately oblique and expensive repair process, and charging through the teeth for simple accessories like a monitor stand or wheels.

I will applaud them on their aesthetic, and their ability to manipulate people into thinking their products are better than the competitors when they usually objectively aren't.


cosmothekleekai t1_j5rd0t5 wrote

It's not always that people think the individual product is technologically better, sometimes they just prefer the overall experience of using the products. Just because you don't find the experience more appealing than other products doesn't mean that everyone else was 'manipulated', people can just have different opinions with different reasoning.

I buy my mother any new apple gear she wants because it requires less tech support from me, the apple support has been extremely helpful for her, they are patient and used to dealing with less technical people that need less technical explanations.

Also the I use two different generations of airpod bluetooth earbuds on my windows gaming desktop almost daily so wtf are you talking about?


DarthBuzzard OP t1_j5n4j9i wrote

Full body avatars aren't a gimmick any more than phonecalls are.