The technology needs time to develop though and prices have to come down a lot because each person would need a pair of goggles.
I am not confident that the technology will reach the level to be mainstream for the foreseeable future -- which might actually be a godsend in disguise.
The Oculus Rift recommends a graphics card of GeForce GTX 970 or above ($300USD) + then the rather large headset $$$.... now if you have two people you have to have two units - and if that is the minimum graphics card for one unit I doubt it will drive two that well so you have more cost. That might be OK for a dedicated gamer / hermit who will use it to play games, but the wider adoption outside of the niche will require more mainstream uses like education etc. (don't know many parents that would buy it just for games).
Then of course I would not be surprised if there are more medical issues with constant use. There were concerns with Google Glasses and damage to the eyes - but since most times you only use the glasses for short glances - probably not as much of a concern than having a monitor sit inches away from your eyes on a regular basis. Then you have the issue of the headset being rather heavy and impacting your neck area.... I personally would not be able to wear one at this point. Years of working on a laptop have left me with damage on 4 to 5 discs in my neck.... with the constant checking of ones phones, then putting on a set of googles (unbalanced) will have additional wear on peoples necks. Your head is the weight of a bowling ball and your neck although very strong will suffer if the head is not balanced to reduce strain.
There will probably be a day sooner rather than later where we will be able to tap into the optic nerves and avoid all this heavy technology, but the rate of advance in computing power etc. will probably mean it will take a fairly long time to get to the point the goggles are the weight of a pair of glasses rather than a massive piece of junk on ones head.
So there’s just not much money to be made in high-end machines. I get it. Why should Apple bother with such a small market? And while we’re at it why should Apple bother with the low-end smartphone market when there’s little profit to be made? The problem here with AI commenters claiming otherwise is their demographics in that they think their needs and wants represent the majority market when clearly the truth lies elsewhere.
I think that's missing the point. No one is second guessing what's best for Apple or that their smaller niche needs are important beyond the reality. First of all, it's not just "pro" users who want better hardware, it's people who have heavier than consumer work who have always been Apple centric. Today that might mean choosing between a year and a half old model and waiting months for the next release, which may not ship for another month and not be readily available until March, when what they want is an upgrade from their four year old model but need it much sooner than that. No big crime on Apple's part, but even users who don't think they're more important than they are have some legit needs. Second, the issue with "pro" users isn't entirely about hardware, with needing a machine with more current performance (especially graphics) or gaps in the limited upper product line. The support required for pro use machines, such as ironing out graphics card issues caused by a new OS update or bugs in a new file system with extremely large files, is something Apple has no desire to keep up with, for users who, if they can't get an answer Tuesday will expect it by Wednesday. Problems will continue to be dealt with on their own schedule, with updates arriving unannounced at a pace that works for consumer product users. Apple no longer wants recording studios or graphics or video houses to rely so much on their hardware. It's too complicated to satisfy and they don't need it to have a wildly profitable company short sighted as it seems to some.
Comments
I am not confident that the technology will reach the level to be mainstream for the foreseeable future -- which might actually be a godsend in disguise.
The Oculus Rift recommends a graphics card of GeForce GTX 970 or above ($300USD) + then the rather large headset $$$.... now if you have two people you have to have two units - and if that is the minimum graphics card for one unit I doubt it will drive two that well so you have more cost. That might be OK for a dedicated gamer / hermit who will use it to play games, but the wider adoption outside of the niche will require more mainstream uses like education etc. (don't know many parents that would buy it just for games).
Then of course I would not be surprised if there are more medical issues with constant use. There were concerns with Google Glasses and damage to the eyes - but since most times you only use the glasses for short glances - probably not as much of a concern than having a monitor sit inches away from your eyes on a regular basis. Then you have the issue of the headset being rather heavy and impacting your neck area.... I personally would not be able to wear one at this point. Years of working on a laptop have left me with damage on 4 to 5 discs in my neck.... with the constant checking of ones phones, then putting on a set of googles (unbalanced) will have additional wear on peoples necks. Your head is the weight of a bowling ball and your neck although very strong will suffer if the head is not balanced to reduce strain.
There will probably be a day sooner rather than later where we will be able to tap into the optic nerves and avoid all this heavy technology, but the rate of advance in computing power etc. will probably mean it will take a fairly long time to get to the point the goggles are the weight of a pair of glasses rather than a massive piece of junk on ones head.
I think that's missing the point. No one is second guessing what's best for Apple or that their smaller niche needs are important beyond the reality. First of all, it's not just "pro" users who want better hardware, it's people who have heavier than consumer work who have always been Apple centric. Today that might mean choosing between a year and a half old model and waiting months for the next release, which may not ship for another month and not be readily available until March, when what they want is an upgrade from their four year old model but need it much sooner than that. No big crime on Apple's part, but even users who don't think they're more important than they are have some legit needs. Second, the issue with "pro" users isn't entirely about hardware, with needing a machine with more current performance (especially graphics) or gaps in the limited upper product line. The support required for pro use machines, such as ironing out graphics card issues caused by a new OS update or bugs in a new file system with extremely large files, is something Apple has no desire to keep up with, for users who, if they can't get an answer Tuesday will expect it by Wednesday. Problems will continue to be dealt with on their own schedule, with updates arriving unannounced at a pace that works for consumer product users. Apple no longer wants recording studios or graphics or video houses to rely so much on their hardware. It's too complicated to satisfy and they don't need it to have a wildly profitable company short sighted as it seems to some.