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.
false analogy. 3D failed not because of looming dumb, but because it doesn't offer much added value. I don't buy 3D tickets in the theatre because they don't make for better movies, and in some ways make for worse movies.
but VR does add value. Immersion exerpeience, especially for gaming, is very different than a movie gimmick.
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.
The oculus rift had about 175,000 dev kits sold, it's not "a few thousand", it was largely wide open for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them and has been floating around for almost 4 years. The testing has been done and it's all out there; the problems are very and far between - but unfortunately, if you do get mosick with it, it manifests within about half an hour of play and pretty much you can't use it and there's very little cure. The notable crossover was the kind of people that get motion sickness in planes, boats and whatnot.
And no, there's virtually zero crossover between Apple consumers and people who want an Oculus. I still don't see what it has to do with Apple.
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.
If VR is the next big thing, Apple is probably already on it, or on to whatever will *actually* light the way forward.
For now, I'll trust the optimistic "probablies" about Apple far more than the anecdotes of the minority of consumers.
Gamers (who are the ones that will be using the Oculus Rift) have *already* chosen PCs. Like, AGES AGO. I have no idea why you think they're a force significant enough to make a dent in Mac sales NOW. You're projecting your own tastes and tech dreams on to Apple.
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.
You're absolutely correct. I forgot about the porn industry revolutionized technology in order to get their stuff to everyone. I bet that the porn industry has already looked into this as their next step to making everything even more personal.
It is kind of sad thought.. smartphones made everyone antisocial and zombies, if Oculus really takes off, it means even more ways to make people escape into their own bubble.
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.
Sorry, I was referring to the Twitter post from Palmer when I was talking about the shot at Apple, not your post. Though you did use the term 'gimped' to describe the GPUs Apple uses, when I'd simply refer to them as 'designed for a different purpose'. It's somewhat arrogant and immature of the high-end 3D gaming crowd to post insults/mockery all over the internet when they simply have different computer hardware requirements than others. Requirements which will never be fully addressed by mass-market PCs & Macs because they're in a niche market. However, the people who buy a consumer Mac also need to understand that it'll never be a high-end 3D gaming rig.
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.
I never said that desktop PC gaming was dead. I said that the market for games which require a PC which has a high-end GPU (typically sold as a custom configuration option or requiring a custom-built PC) is niche. We're talking a subset (custom PC buyers/builders) of a subset (PC gamers) of the overall computer market.
Not all of the games on Steam require a high-end GPU to play (in fact, it's only a small number of them). So it's false logic to draw the conclusion that because there are 75 million accounts on Steam, there are 75 million people with PCs compatible with Oculus Rift. Even if it's a significant percentage of those people who have custom PCs, it's again only a portion of those people who would be willing to buy Oculus Rift. Creating and selling games (software) is far cheaper than creating and selling custom hardware. I'm just not convinced that there's enough of a market to fund such an effort (long-term) unless they can figure out how to bring down the requirements or find other applications.
Comments
but VR does add value. Immersion exerpeience, especially for gaming, is very different than a movie gimmick.
The oculus rift had about 175,000 dev kits sold, it's not "a few thousand", it was largely wide open for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them and has been floating around for almost 4 years. The testing has been done and it's all out there; the problems are very and far between - but unfortunately, if you do get mosick with it, it manifests within about half an hour of play and pretty much you can't use it and there's very little cure. The notable crossover was the kind of people that get motion sickness in planes, boats and whatnot.
And no, there's virtually zero crossover between Apple consumers and people who want an Oculus. I still don't see what it has to do with Apple.
If VR is the next big thing, Apple is probably already on it, or on to whatever will *actually* light the way forward.
For now, I'll trust the optimistic "probablies" about Apple far more than the anecdotes of the minority of consumers.
Gamers (who are the ones that will be using the Oculus Rift) have *already* chosen PCs. Like, AGES AGO. I have no idea why you think they're a force significant enough to make a dent in Mac sales NOW. You're projecting your own tastes and tech dreams on to Apple.
It is kind of sad thought.. smartphones made everyone antisocial and zombies, if Oculus really takes off, it means even more ways to make people escape into their own bubble.
I never said that desktop PC gaming was dead. I said that the market for games which require a PC which has a high-end GPU (typically sold as a custom configuration option or requiring a custom-built PC) is niche. We're talking a subset (custom PC buyers/builders) of a subset (PC gamers) of the overall computer market.
Not all of the games on Steam require a high-end GPU to play (in fact, it's only a small number of them). So it's false logic to draw the conclusion that because there are 75 million accounts on Steam, there are 75 million people with PCs compatible with Oculus Rift. Even if it's a significant percentage of those people who have custom PCs, it's again only a portion of those people who would be willing to buy Oculus Rift. Creating and selling games (software) is far cheaper than creating and selling custom hardware. I'm just not convinced that there's enough of a market to fund such an effort (long-term) unless they can figure out how to bring down the requirements or find other applications.