As gamers await Oculus Rift's March launch, Mac users shouldn't hold their breath for support

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware
Last year, Oculus suspended Mac development for its Rift virtual reality headset. Comments from the Oculus CEO suggest work on Mac support is unlikely to resume anytime soon, leaving the device's forthcoming launch a Windows-only affair for the foreseeable future.




At this week's Consumer Electronics Show, the Facebook-owned Oculus gave concrete details on its forthcoming Rift, including a $599 price point. No mention was made of support for Apple's OS X platform, because all current Macs aside from high-end Mac Pro models lack the hardware needed to power the virtual reality technology.

Oculus originally announced last May that it "paused" Mac development for the Rift. At the time, the company said it planned to return to Mac development, along with Linux, but that no timeline was available.

And again last month, Oculus CEO Palmer Luckey commented on Twitter about potential Rift support for the Mac. His response suggests that Apple hardware won't be on Oculus's radar anytime soon.

"Mac support is on the roadmap post-decent Apple hardware release, whenever that is," Luckey said.




In an effort to keep its Mac lineup sleek, stylish and light, Apple has eschewed dedicated graphics cards in most of its lineup, most notably all 13-inch MacBook Pro models. Instead, most of Apple's Macs rely on integrated Intel graphics, which are not as powerful or capable as a discrete graphics card.

One possible route Apple could take would be allowing external graphics cards to connect to Macs via the high-speed Thunderbolt port. Gaming hardware maker Razer demonstrated this capability at CES this week, with a new product called Razer Core, which will connect to a laptop and allow for supercharged graphics performance when docked.

Apple, however, has shown little support in expanding the role of gaming support on the Mac, leaving that market largely to PC users running Microsoft Windows. Microsoft has even partnered with Oculus for the forthcoming Rift launch, as all orders will ship with an Xbox One controller.




Because of the high system requirements for the Rift, the company is certifying "Oculus Ready" PCs and working with vendors to offer computer bundles that include the headset. These will be available to preorder in February starting at $1,499.

The Rift requires a PC with at least Windows 7, a Core i5-4590 processor, and an Nvidia GTX 970 or AMD R9 290 video card. Owners will also need HDMI 1.3 output, three USB 3.0 ports, and an extra USB 2.0 connection.

Those requirements mean that among Apple users, only Mac Pro owners running Windows via Boot Camp will be able to use the Oculus Rift.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.

    edited January 2016
  • Reply 2 of 26
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.


    So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

    Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.
    nolamacguycnocbui
  • Reply 3 of 26
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.

    People wear these in their homes, not outside. Why would anyone get upset?
    nolamacguycnocbui
  • Reply 4 of 26
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,695member
    tele1234 said:
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.


    So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

    Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.
    If you look the system requirements for Oculus, wouldn't a 27" iMac meet those, at least a high-end one? I would've thought so.
  • Reply 5 of 26
  • Reply 6 of 26
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    Oculus must have very low expectations of it's expected user-base then.  I wonder how big the market is of gamers that would be willing to buy this $600 add-on.  Most PC sales are low-end junk.

    Either way, I would think the market of people with high-end iMac's would certainly be interested.  However, in the end it's their decision.  No love lost really.

    I do wish that Apple would do more with their MacBooks Pros and get away from that Intel HD graphics crap.  I have a 2014 rMBP and it works great for what I predominantly use it for.  I gave up using it for the (very few) times I tried to play a modern FPS game.  The "Pro" models should have a graphics system worthy of that moniker, and this is where I feel Apple failed.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    tele1234 said:

    So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

    Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.
    If you look the system requirements for Oculus, wouldn't a 27" iMac meet those, at least a high-end one? I would've thought so.
    Mobile GPU's aren't the same as full desktop GPU's.
  • Reply 8 of 26
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,695member
    What does Apple want with a company that tries to predict emotions based on facial recognition?
  • Reply 9 of 26
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 429administrator
    tele1234 said:
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.


    So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

    Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.
    If you look the system requirements for Oculus, wouldn't a 27" iMac meet those, at least a high-end one? I would've thought so.
    Nope, not even close.

    sflocal said:
    Oculus must have very low expectations of it's expected user-base then.  I wonder how big the market is of gamers that would be willing to buy this $600 add-on.  Most PC sales are low-end junk.

    Either way, I would think the market of people with high-end iMac's would certainly be interested.  However, in the end it's their decision.  No love lost really.

    I do wish that Apple would do more with their MacBooks Pros and get away from that Intel HD graphics crap.  I have a 2014 rMBP and it works great for what I predominantly use it for.  I gave up using it for the (very few) times I tried to play a modern FPS game.  The "Pro" models should have a graphics system worthy of that moniker, and this is where I feel Apple failed.
    Top-of-the-line Mac Pro users are going to be left in the dust here as well. You can probably boot stuff up, but you won't be running it at 90hz, which is going to lead to a bunch of people ... getting sick. I think they probably expect to sell 2-3M units of CV1 over its lifespan. This thing isn't a mass consumer device yet, and won't be for another 3-5+ years. Right now they're addressing the 'core' base of about 20M 'hardcore' PC gamers, around 10% of which have the hardware required to run this stuff in the first place. PC gamers haven't had a compelling reason to do a serious upgrade in a very long time, so I'm sure there will be some upgrades caused by this stuff.

    The timing is just super unfortunate with Pascal and Polaris right around the corner (April-ish). That's the major GPU performance bump people have been waiting way too long for *shakes fist at TSMC*
    gatorguy
  • Reply 10 of 26
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Oculus announces support for Macs delayed, takes jab at Apple.

    Mac sales unaffected, continue to outpace the rest of the market, and continue to sit atop consumer satisfaction reports.

    How this Oculus story is *relevant* news in light of the way Apple positions and targets Macs is beyond me, but I still love ya, AI.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    People forget that the reasons computers became so popular were Porn and Video Games.  If you've ever experienced the Rift or systems like it you realize the potential for both.  Also 3D rendering and other potential applications.  This is the future, and Apple should be doing all they can to either create their own or work with a company that uses this technology, Apple will be extremely sorry in the next 10 years.   People are really underestimating this technology and how far it has come.  

    Why use a 90" Flat Screen when you can immerse yourself in a movie ?   You think you dont see your kids now, just wait until April.  
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 12 of 26
    dualiedualie Posts: 334member

    The Rift requires a PC with at least Windows 7, a Core i5-4590 processor, and an Nvidia GTX 970 or AMD R9 290 video card. Owners will also need HDMI 1.3 output, three USB 3.0 ports, and an extra USB 2.0 connection.

    Those requirements mean that among Apple users, only Mac Pro owners running Windows via Boot Camp will be able to use the Oculus Rift.


    You just described the high-end iMac 27". It has:

    • Core i5 or i7
    • AMD Radeon R9 M395X
    • 4 USB 3.0 ports
    • 2 Thunderbolt ports (for Thunderbolt to HDMI)


    What's missing? This thing absolutely SCREAMS in Windows 10.

  • Reply 13 of 26
    MLadMLad Posts: 1member
    I definitely think those who dismiss VR haven't tried it. It's not just superb for immersive gaming, but a profoundly significant advancement in educational tools. I also don't see what the highest end iMac would need to run this, but regardless, this isn't technology to be scoffed at. In the same way that the iPhone changed the world VR and will do the same 
  • Reply 14 of 26
    xbitxbit Posts: 390member
    Apple's hardware will catch up and the price of Oculus Rift will fall over time. Everyone will be able to join the party eventually.
    jSnivelynolamacguy
  • Reply 15 of 26
    noivadnoivad Posts: 186member
    Oculus announces support for Macs delayed, takes jab at Apple.

    Mac sales unaffected, continue to outpace the rest of the market, and continue to sit atop consumer satisfaction reports.

    How this Oculus story is *relevant* news in light of the way Apple positions and targets Macs is beyond me, but I still love ya, AI.
    This may seem like a little thing to most people, but it’s usually the things considered insignificant that end up hurting a company most. The little inattentions are slowly adding up & more and more people are noticing. It might take another 5 years to really catch up with Apple, but if things continue as they have been, Apple might look very different in 7–8 years. So, no worries to short-term investors, but long term, people might see their investment in Apple drop—assuming Apple continues on this mediocre path of high end and low end with no options in the center nor upgradability in their desktops & unrepairable laptops. It is relevant because Apple has lagged behind the rest of the industry in terms of graphics for as long as there have been Macs with few exceptions. While maybe 2M Oculus units might sell in the next year to current the installed base, Apple won’t even be in the running for those 2M or more the next upgrade cycle. This is just another reason to choose a PC instead of a Mac, & bang Apple loses that many more sales. While one weakness is not enough to bring down sales, add a few more & those sales losses start to add up. This happened a few decades ago, beyond most computer user’s memory: Apple lagged in terms of power and steadily lost market share to inexpensive PCs that outperformed it. Apple had a larger share then than it does now of Desktop & Laptop sales. The only saving grace for Apple is that most people are buying tablets where Apple is focusing its efforts. It is not so much a dig at Apple as it is the truth about Apple’s anemic graphics upgrades the last few years & instead focusing on midrange laptops while keeping prices at what is considered the high end. Sure the quality & design of the laptops has pleased the ultra-light & minimalistic crowd, but their highest end MBPs are no longer ahead of the pack, spec-wise. $600 will buy you a decent desktop machine that is upgradable. So, with a few hundred dollars more for a decent graphics card & you have a gaming rig that easily bests Apple’s iMacs & Mac Minis in terms of price:performance.
  • Reply 16 of 26
    dualie said:

    The Rift requires a PC with at least Windows 7, a Core i5-4590 processor, and an Nvidia GTX 970 or AMD R9 290 video card. Owners will also need HDMI 1.3 output, three USB 3.0 ports, and an extra USB 2.0 connection.

    Those requirements mean that among Apple users, only Mac Pro owners running Windows via Boot Camp will be able to use the Oculus Rift.


    You just described the high-end iMac 27". It has:

    • Core i5 or i7
    • AMD Radeon R9 M395X
    • 4 USB 3.0 ports
    • 2 Thunderbolt ports (for Thunderbolt to HDMI)


    What's missing? This thing absolutely SCREAMS in Windows 10.


    My crappy notebook runs W10 very well, but the R9 M395X is still a gimped laptop GPU and is about half that of a desktop GTX970. Also for the price of the iMac with that card - $2500 for the 4GB version - you can buy and build yourself a PC dedicated for gaming that by far passes the imac in specs - example.
  • Reply 17 of 26
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    tele1234 said:

    My crappy notebook runs W10 very well, but the R9 M395X is still a gimped laptop GPU and is about half that of a desktop GTX970. Also for the price of the iMac with that card - $2500 for the 4GB version - you can buy and build yourself a PC dedicated for gaming that by far passes the imac in specs - example.
    And what percentage of the computer market is actually building these custom PCs for gaming?  AFAICT, the vast majority of the gaming market is using dedicated consoles because they are cheaper and simpler to use/maintain.  For most people, gaming is casual entertainment and not a lifestyle.

    This is what the small group of people who work themselves into a frenzy posting on the internet fail to see.  Unless Oculus finds a more mass-market application for their hardware (or can continually find a source of investors to dupe), there's no way they're going to be able to fund development of it beyond a couple of years based purely on sales to this small group of people.

    Oculus is correct to skip the Mac gaming market since the vast majority of people buying Macs aren't buying them for gaming (Apple understands this too), but they should be expanding to the console gaming market instead of going after Linux gamers (which is an even smaller market) IMO.

    And stop the childish shots at Apple, it just makes them look ignorant.  Apple's not going to put niche-market GPUs in their mass-market machines (that's what the Mac Pro is for).  I mean, should they put pro audio hardware in Macs too?  How about pro RAID hardware standard too?  Might as well cover all of the niche markets.

  • Reply 18 of 26
    auxio said:
    tele1234 said:
    My crappy notebook runs W10 very well, but the R9 M395X is still a gimped laptop GPU and is about half that of a desktop GTX970. Also for the price of the iMac with that card - $2500 for the 4GB version - you can buy and build yourself a PC dedicated for gaming that by far passes the imac in specs - example.
    And what percentage of the computer market is actually building these custom PCs for gaming?  AFAICT, the vast majority of the gaming market is using dedicated consoles because they are cheaper and simpler to use/maintain.  For most people, gaming is casual entertainment and not a lifestyle.

    This is what the small group of people who work themselves into a frenzy posting on the internet fail to see.  Unless Oculus finds a more mass-market application for their hardware (or can continually find a source of investors to dupe), there's no way they're going to be able to fund development of it beyond a couple of years based purely on sales to this small group of people.

    Oculus is correct to skip the Mac gaming market since the vast majority of people buying Macs aren't buying them for gaming (Apple understands this too), but they should be expanding to the console gaming market instead of going after Linux gamers (which is an even smaller market) IMO.

    And stop the childish shots at Apple, it just makes them look ignorant.  Apple's not going to put niche-market GPUs in their mass-market machines (that's what the Mac Pro is for).  I mean, should they put pro audio hardware in Macs too?  How about pro RAID hardware standard too?  Might as well cover all of the niche markets.

    Desktop PC gaming has been "dead" now for a decade, just like Nintendoomed and Apple have been also. All you hear are how they're on their last legs, ready to fall at any second yet all have very thriving, active communities that are invested in what they do and like. Steam touts 75 million active accounts (defined as accounts that have been used to play or purchase a game in the last month), and that's not including the hoard of people that play Blizzard, LoL or EA's titles (though there's probably an overlap). The vast majority of non-first party video games are released on PC, also - the games that get less attention on PC are console-focused games like Call of Duty or recently, fallout, but if you're buying a gaming PC for that you're doing it wrong.

    That being said, $600 is a lot more money than I (or probably a lot of people) are willing to pay for the thing and I do have a $3000 computer sitting at home. I would have bought it at $300 or $350, maybe mulled for a few months at $400 but $600? Not a chance. I wholeheartedly agree with here, and think once the competition arrives (Most the HTC Vive) it'll be forced to drop its price drastically.

    Also, what shot at apple? If you're referring to my shot at AMD, don't mistake me criticizing parts for criticizing Apple. The M395X is literally a Tonga XT GPU that's been downclocked for heat/power reasons to fit in laptops. My criticism of Apple would have been why they chose to put it and not a desktop class GPU (Such as the 380X, which is the Tonga) which is far more suited for desktops and would make the thing actually quite a decently performing gaming machine. But again, different target market and discussion for a different thread.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 19 of 26
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.

    People wear these in their homes, not outside. Why would anyone get upset?

    people were 3D glass in their home too and it was failure, it the whole geek factor. This is the problem with the geek world they think everyone is like them which they do not care what other people think of them, BTW I think is good trait to have, but the mass majority of people are vain and worry how they look.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    tele1234 said:
    maestro64 said:

    What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

    We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

    Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

    I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.


    So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

    Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.

    You made my point, these kinds of things have side effects which most people will not deal with, or learn to over come the short comings. Keep in mind Google Glass and the whole headaches and other issue did not show up until a few thousand people tried using them all the time. The geeks in Google labs either did not notice the issue or they just ignore it all together.

    It does not mater if these do not work with Apple products, Apple is not going to loose any customer of a product like this.

Sign In or Register to comment.