Apple predicted to aggressively pursue virtual & augmented reality tech in 2016

AppleInsider

As hype continues to build around upcoming virtual reality and augmented reality products, one Wall Street analyst doesn't think Apple will sit on the sidelines, potentially acquiring companies and working behind the scenes on its own offerings throughout 2016.

Apple patent illustrating an augmented reality iPhone mapping app.

Daniel Ives of FBR & Co. told investors this week that he expects Apple will be "very aggressive" in pursuing augmented and virtual reality technology over the coming year. To him, Apple will likely investigate the fledgling market "through organic and acquisitive means in 2016."

Ives believes that virtual and augmented reality represent a "natural next progression in consumer technology." In particular, with Apple, he believes the technology is a natural fit within the iPhone ecosystem.

Apple has not publicly signaled it is working on any virtual reality products, nor have there been specific rumors of any devices coming down the pipeline. But the company has made a number of key VR-related acquisitions in recent years.

In November, Apple confirmed that it acquired motion capture firm Faceshift. The company's technology is capable of rendering human-like gestures onto the faces of virtual characters, and it was used in the new film "Star Wars: The Force Awakens."

Apple now owns Faceshift technology and patents.

Apple also purchased German augmented reality firm Metaio in May of this year. And in 2013, Apple also purchased PrimeSense, which collaborated with Microsoft for the first-generation Kinect hardware for Xbox 360.

Apple holds a variety of patents covering a wide gamut of augmented reality applications, including transparent displays, mobile mapping solutions and iPhone-powered virtual displays. One particularly interesting property details a smartphone that can identify physical objects in real time using computer vision.

In addition, it was also reported this March that Apple has a small team tasked with experimental work in the field of augmented reality. It's been speculated that AR is a long-term project for Apple in the consumer space.

Augmented reality is a layer of digital information overlaid onto the physical world, allowing information such as instantly accessible navigation directions in the user's field of view. The most well-known implementation of AR is Google Glass.

To Ives, the biggest wildcard in the virtual and augmented reality markets is Microsoft. He believes the Windows maker could emerge as a "clear leader" in the space with Hololens developer kits getting into the hands of early adopters in the first half of 2016.

iPhone users can get a very basic taste of virtual reality thanks to the Google Cardboard project, which turns a handset into a cheap and easy way to test out VR apps available on the App Store. AppleInsider's comprehensive roundup of the best virtual reality apps for iPhone can help you get started.

spamsandwich

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

macpro

All the patents in the world won't help unfortunately.  Whatever Apple does that is a success, Google and Samsung et al will rip-off and be prepared to fight in court for as long as it takes and even pay fines.  The money they'll make will make it worthwhile.  Until the day comes that this crazy equation is altered to make copying a guaranteed financial disaster the Googles and Samsungs of this world will continue to use Apple for their R&D.

edited December 2015

macky the macky

Whatever Apple is planning, it would be nice if it's ready to announce at the the 2016 developer conference along with developer software kits. I suspect Apple has a lot of ideas about to pop, and some further out beyond 2016. The iPad needs 3D touch and 3D virtual display (where the camera changes the display depending on where the user's eyes are located in reference to the display)/

msantti

I could see Apple getting into AR but more skeptical about VR though I am myself interested in it as a PS4 owner.

yes, I actually own something that does not have a Apple logo on it.

rogifan_old

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

I always have to laugh at these research notes. We have zero evidence Apple is planning to launch an AR/VR device in 2016 but Wall Street will trot it out there anyway and then when Apple doesn't announce anything everyone will say Apple is boring, no innovation etc. Yet if they did announce something people would worry that they've got too many irons in the fire and reminisce about when Jobs came back and slashed the product line to 4 quadrants. And we'd get more articles like from the Verge complaining that Apple releases unfinished products and everything is beta now.

red oak

Apple has enough on its plate it needs to improve and add depth: iOS App store, Apple Pay, Apple Music, tvOS App Store and next OS, watchOS app store and next OS, iWork, iOS 10,  OS X 10.12, Photos, Live Photos, 3D Touch.   Plus new product updates - iPhone 7/7+, iPhone 6c, iPad Air 3, Watch 2, iPad Pro 2, MacBook 2, Mac Pro 2 

2016 should be a year to significantly improve what it already has, not to add more items 

edited December 2015

macky the macky

digitalclips said:

All the patents in the world won't help unfortunately.  Whatever Apple does that is a success, Google and Samsung et al will rip-off and be prepared to fight in court for as long as it takes and even pay fines.  The money they'll make will make it worthwhile.  Until the day comes that this crazy equation is altered to make copying a guaranteed financial disaster the Googles and Samsungs of this world will continue to use Apple for their R&D.

It's proving to be unprofitable to try and be a fast-follower of Apple. Google hasn't done well since Eric Schmidt got escorted out of the Apple board room. And while Samsung is the biggest fish in the Android pond, it's barely making any money. Apple is upping the ante in both hardware and software inclusions in the current stable of products. 3D touch hasn't been knocked off, the power of the SoC Ax is outstanding, and Apple's pursuit of Fashion Iconic status is not in the culture of copy cat companies. Apple has the sales numbers to make most hardware improvements cost effective over tens of millions of units, which just isn't the case with the primary suspects. In addition, Apple just keeps piling it on so the gap between Apple and the me-too companies just keeps getting wider with time. 

Being a fast follower was a good-enough strategy when everyone was using off-the-shelf components, but Apple's advancements in hardware just don't translate well to its competitors today. Also, Apple is moving faster and faster with its HW and SW development, leaving the competition always behind the power curve.

spamsandwich

rogifan_old said:

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

I always have to laugh at these research notes. We have zero evidence Apple is planning to launch an AR/VR device in 2016 but Wall Street will trot it out there anyway and then when Apple doesn't announce anything everyone will say Apple is boring, no innovation etc. Yet if they did announce something people would worry that they've got too many irons in the fire and reminisce about when Jobs came back and slashed the product line to 4 quadrants. And we'd get more articles like from the Verge complaining that Apple releases unfinished products and everything is beta now.

It's OK. My other 2016 prediction is that Nilay Patel will be fired from The Verge after going off in a drunken rage in a televised interview.

boltsfan17

I said this in another post, but if Apple does pursue virtual reality tech, they should buy GoPro. GoPro has the patents and technology needed for filming and creating virtual reality content. 

cnocbui

That patent is getting awfully close to Nokia's Here City Lens app. If Ive really believes that then I would expect Apple must be working on something like Google Glass.

edited December 2015

flaneur

boltsfan17 said:

I said this in another post, but if Apple does pursue virtual reality tech, they should buy GoPro. GoPro has the patents and technology needed for filming and creating virtual reality content. 

This would be a disaster. GoPro has a huge mindshare overhead, a major portion of which is rabidly anti-Apple. I'd wager that way more than half the user base is made up of hardcore PC and Android geeks.

They've done a good job, but there are other approaches that Apple could pursue, such as shrinking the box to fit completely behind the lens, making it lighter and smarter, offering true genlocking for multiple camera sync, and so on.

flaneur

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

VR will be a niche, I agree, a subset of the subculture of gaming, which is a dead-end culturally, like playing bridge and golf and joining convents and monasteries were for earlier generations. And TV watching. Humans who contribute very little but consume very much.

AR, on the other hand, is a continuation of amplifying human senses, which we've been doing for at least since the earliest ground lenses that appeared 3,000 years ago or so. The purpose is to understand the environment to a greater degree. I wouldn't go out on that limb over this one, 'cause there isn't any stopping human knowledge gathering.

By the way, AR won't succeed if it's monocular, like Glass was. It has to be in stereo (3D) or it won't pull your neurons into the picture.

macpro

macky the macky said:

digitalclips said:

All the patents in the world won't help unfortunately.  Whatever Apple does that is a success, Google and Samsung et al will rip-off and be prepared to fight in court for as long as it takes and even pay fines.  The money they'll make will make it worthwhile.  Until the day comes that this crazy equation is altered to make copying a guaranteed financial disaster the Googles and Samsungs of this world will continue to use Apple for their R&D.

It's proving to be unprofitable to try and be a fast-follower of Apple. Google hasn't done well since Eric Schmidt got escorted out of the Apple board room. And while Samsung is the biggest fish in the Android pond, it's barely making any money. Apple is upping the ante in both hardware and software inclusions in the current stable of products. 3D touch hasn't been knocked off, the power of the SoC Ax is outstanding, and Apple's pursuit of Fashion Iconic status is not in the culture of copy cat companies. Apple has the sales numbers to make most hardware improvements cost effective over tens of millions of units, which just isn't the case with the primary suspects. In addition, Apple just keeps piling it on so the gap between Apple and the me-too companies just keeps getting wider with time. 

Being a fast follower was a good-enough strategy when everyone was using off-the-shelf components, but Apple's advancements in hardware just don't translate well to its competitors today. Also, Apple is moving faster and faster with its HW and SW development, leaving the competition always behind the power curve.

All excellent points.  

macpro

flaneur said:

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

VR will be a niche, I agree, a subset of the subculture of gaming, which is a dead-end culturally, like playing bridge and golf and joining convents and monasteries were for earlier generations. And TV watching. Humans who contribute very little but consume very much.

AR, on the other hand, is a continuation of amplifying human senses, which we've been doing for at least since the earliest ground lenses that appeared 3,000 years ago or so. The purpose is to understand the environment to a greater degree. I wouldn't go out on that limb over this one, 'cause there isn't any stopping human knowledge gathering.

By the way, AR won't succeed if it's monocular, like Glass was. It has to be in stereo (3D) or it won't pull your neurons into the picture.

My neurons winced when I read that!  

badmonk

Apple's first AR product will be the windshield of the Apple Car.

presentationmagic

flaneur said:

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

VR will be a niche, I agree, a subset of the subculture of gaming, which is a dead-end culturally, like playing bridge and golf and joining convents and monasteries were for earlier generations. And TV watching. Humans who contribute very little but consume very much.

AR, on the other hand, is a continuation of amplifying human senses, which we've been doing for at least since the earliest ground lenses that appeared 3,000 years ago or so. The purpose is to understand the environment to a greater degree. I wouldn't go out on that limb over this one, 'cause there isn't any stopping human knowledge gathering.

By the way, AR won't succeed if it's monocular, like Glass was. It has to be in stereo (3D) or it won't pull your neurons into the picture.

I've been using VR clinically since 2001 - that's not a typo for 2011, but 2001, with what was a gaming headset called the vfx3d. I still have it and it still works clinically. But it's augmented (!) with an android based cellphone in a homido headset and my MacBook Air with a net connection so I can go out in the field with patients, eg on board stationary aircraft to practice flying in situ, in rehearsal become the thing. I'm also using green screen tech for augmented reality work placing patients in their feared situation eg in the middle of a pack of dogs.

Earlier this year, I was invited onto a panel to discuss VR and AR futures, sponsored by Samsung. There, I predicted the VR world would split in two: the high end gamer and training enterprise with the likes of Oculus running on windows based gaming rigs. And the second would be the mobile VR and AR world using cellphones, where exceptional latency and realism was not required, such as my clinical domain. My prediction was that Samsung would initially lead the way with its links to Oculus, but that  will enter the space when the trough of disappointment is reached for Samsung. It's known  is in this space as the article suggests, and history shows is  is incredibly patient.

my other prediction on the panel was that AR would be the bigger of the two for the general public given its a much more social experience plus the commercial aspects it will give access to. I didn't say it, given Samsung was the sponsor,  but I believe Samsung will not be in this space in five years. 

Les Posen FAPS
Clinical psychologist 
Melbourne, Australia 
 

edited December 2015

fastasleep

presentationmagic said:

 I'm also using green screen tech for augmented reality work placing patients in their feared situation eg in the middle of a pack of dogs.

As someone interested in future AR/VR use cases, I hadn't yet thought of using it to sic a pack of dogs on someone.

spamsandwich

flaneur said:

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

VR will be a niche, I agree, a subset of the subculture of gaming, which is a dead-end culturally, like playing bridge and golf and joining convents and monasteries were for earlier generations. And TV watching. Humans who contribute very little but consume very much.

AR, on the other hand, is a continuation of amplifying human senses, which we've been doing for at least since the earliest ground lenses that appeared 3,000 years ago or so. The purpose is to understand the environment to a greater degree. I wouldn't go out on that limb over this one, 'cause there isn't any stopping human knowledge gathering.

By the way, AR won't succeed if it's monocular, like Glass was. It has to be in stereo (3D) or it won't pull your neurons into the picture.

I'd agree that AR could be more appealing, however, one would have to assume that people engaged in AR interactions would be chauffeured by self-driving vehicles or riding on self-guided scooters of some kind...what a nightmare scenario.

peteo

flaneur said:

SpamSandwich said:

I'll go out on a limb and say it early. VR and AR are still just a fad and in their current form will only remain niche gimmick items. 

VR will be a niche, I agree, a subset of the subculture of gaming, which is a dead-end culturally, like playing bridge and golf and joining convents and monasteries were for earlier generations. And TV watching. Humans who contribute very little but consume very much.

AR, on the other hand, is a continuation of amplifying human senses, which we've been doing for at least since the earliest ground lenses that appeared 3,000 years ago or so. The purpose is to understand the environment to a greater degree. I wouldn't go out on that limb over this one, 'cause there isn't any stopping human knowledge gathering.

By the way, AR won't succeed if it's monocular, like Glass was. It has to be in stereo (3D) or it won't pull your neurons into the picture.

VR is any thing but a fad, and will not be a nitch. Sure when the 3 HMD's launch next year it will be pricey to get into, but the costs will come down very fast. VR/AR will be the next computing platform, just a matter of time. The tech is just to compelling and useful ignore. I've seen many skeptics change their mind once they used one of the new HMDs. It's really that good.

bestkeptsecret

msantti said:

yes, I actually own something that does not have a Apple logo on it.

So, just like everyone else in the world then. Thanks for letting us know.