Apple AR headset codenamed 'T288' said to run new 'rOS' operating system, launch as soon a...

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited November 2017
With the groundwork now being laid in ARKit for iOS 11, Apple is said to be hard at work on a full-fledged augmented reality headset for launch as soon as 2020, running a new operating system dubbed "rOS," a new report claims.


Google Glass, a precursor to modern AR technology.


Unlike other headsets that require a smartphone or other devices to power them, Bloomberg claims that Apple's device will have its own display and processor. Apple is said to be pursuing a "very aggressive" timeline with the project, seeking to develop the technology necessary by 2019 in order to hit the market by 2020.

Employees at Apple working on the AR headset are reportedly scattered across the company's campuses in Cupertino and Sunnyvale, with a project under the code-name of "T288."

It is said to run a new platform known internally as "rOS," for "reality operating system." Like watchOS and tvOS, Apple's new lightweight platform is said to be based on iOS, which powers the iPhone and iPad.




Notably, reporter Mark Gurman claims that a former software manager for games and graphics at Apple, Geoff Stahl, is said to be a key part of the "rOS" development team.

As the team works on software, and the hardware is yet to be developed, Apple is said to be relying on HTC Vive hardware to test. There is also an internal-only headset that uses an iPhone for the screen and processing, but the company does not plan to sell it, the report said.




Still up in the air is how users will interact with the device. Gurman reported that Apple is considering both a touch panel for navigation, as well as using Siri voice controls and head gestures.

With this fall's launch of ARKit, and comments from Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook extolling the potential of the technology, rumors of an Apple-built augmented reality headset have been heating up. In fact, even though Apple does not talk about future product plans, Cook made very similar comments about the future potential of wrist-worn devices before the Apple Watch launch.

In comments made just last week during his company's quarterly earnings conference call, Cook said that for now, Apple is focused on making the customer experience with augmented reality second to none. If they can do that, revenue and profits will follow -- but he sees big things from AR in the future.

"I view AR as profound," Cook said. "Not today, not the app you'll see on the App Store today, but what it will be, what it can be. I think it's profound, and I think Apple is in a really unique position to lead in this area."
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,656member
    1) Considering what they've done with the BT, WiFi, and now cellular in the Apple Watch I think it's plausible that Apple can come up with smart glasses that can do that industry what the Apple Watch is doing to the to the watch industry. I'd love to see this directly affect Luxottica, but in terms of wearability this is much more complex in terms of both fashion and sizes.

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    edited November 2017 gatorguywatto_cobraJWSCrepressthis
  • Reply 2 of 66
    Watch out for those wrist-worms! 😬

    Hint: article has a typo.
    SpamSandwichrepressthis
  • Reply 3 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,656member
    Watch out for those wrist-worms! 😬

    Hint: article has a typo.
    It even has the rainbow colors of the classic Apple logo. :smile: 
    cincytee
  • Reply 4 of 66
    People say this all of the time, but can “you guys” (Apple Insider)  please commission some new artwork.  These photos of ugly “Apple” cars and google-glass need to go. It really makes it look like Apple wants to release a glass competitor and we all know that is exactly what Apple will not do. 
    watto_cobracaliJWSCrepressthislolliverbrucemc
  • Reply 5 of 66
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,075member
    Soli said:
    1) Considering what they've done with the BT, WiFi, and now cellular in the Apple Watch I think it's plausible that Apple can come up with smart glasses that can do that industry what the Apple Watch is doing to the to the watch industry. I'd love to see this directly affect Luxottica, but in terms of wearability this is much more complex in terms of both fashion and sizes.

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Yeah I'm not sure how Apple is going to make glasses successful, but if anyone can, its Apple. Snap Chat just announced a massive loss on their stupid glasses with tons of unsold glasses. We'll see. Maybe by 2020 different technology will be here and consumers will be more willing to wear them.
    watto_cobrarepressthis
  • Reply 6 of 66
    neilmneilm Posts: 523member
    The words "as soon as" and "2020" do not go together.
    muthuk_vanalingamSpamSandwichh2prepressthiscwingrav
  • Reply 7 of 66
    Divination: one of its most prominent features besides authentication will depend on TrueDepth/Face ID...
    tenthousandthingsrepressthis
  • Reply 8 of 66
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    SolitjwolfJWSCfrantisekrepressthis
  • Reply 9 of 66
    After Tim Cook said 'the technology is not there yet' I am convinced that Apple's AR glasses are going to look like regular glasses with regular looking lenses. I would love to see Apple destroy the monopolistic glass-frame industry, or at least make Luxottica end up like Nokia.
    Soliracerhomiewatto_cobracalid_2boxcatcher
  • Reply 10 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,656member
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I'd still call an IR camera a camera, but I like where you're going with this. It wouldn't be able to take video like your iPhone can but it could use GPS and accelerometer data (for orientation) along with IR data to project images properly.
    ihatescreennameslongpathrepressthis
  • Reply 11 of 66
    macxpress said:
    Soli said:
    1) Considering what they've done with the BT, WiFi, and now cellular in the Apple Watch I think it's plausible that Apple can come up with smart glasses that can do that industry what the Apple Watch is doing to the to the watch industry. I'd love to see this directly affect Luxottica, but in terms of wearability this is much more complex in terms of both fashion and sizes.

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Snap Chat just announced a massive loss on their stupid glasses with tons of unsold glasses. We'll see. 
    When those glasses first came out a co-worker made a trip into NYC to purchase a set.  I happened to be present when he was giving a little demo and got to see a video he made while walking down the street in the city.  It was kinda neat but ultimately I didn’t see the point.  Apparently that’s the same conclusion many people came to...
    watto_cobrarepressthis
  • Reply 12 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,656member

    After Tim Cook said 'the technology is not there yet' I am convinced that Apple's AR glasses are going to look like regular glasses with regular looking lenses. I would love to see Apple destroy the monopolistic glass-frame industry, or at least make Luxottica end up like Nokia.
    Since you mention Luxocttica I'm sure you're aware, but since you mention Luxottica




    With what people pay for glasses frames and sunglasses Apple has a chance of breaking up a monopolistic market because it can charge a competitive price for a product that offers a lot more functionality that Luxottica can't easily reproduce and without being able to buy out the competition. They may be able to buy companies to compete more directly with Apple, but we've seen how that typically goes (even amongst companies with actual technology experience) or they may be able to market Apple out of the market, but I think the latter would only work for a short term as the technology improves.
    edited November 2017 bloggerblogradarthekatrepressthisStrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 66
    Soli said:
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I'd still call an IR camera a camera, but I like where you're going with this. It wouldn't be able to take video like your iPhone can but it could use GPS and accelerometer data (for orientation) along with IR data to project images properly.
    Exactly, a point/focus/tap button/have a picture in my gallery camera is not necessarily required.  Like you said, an IR camera could be involved but (hopefully) people wouldn’t be offended that there was one attached to frames on people’s faces, walking around in public.  Also, I believe an IR camera could be significantly smaller than a still camera, reducing the goofiness level of the way Glass looked.  Maybe there would even be a dot projector.
  • Reply 14 of 66
    The concept of cameras everywhere is ahead of its time a bit. More and more cars are coming with cameras (Tesla has 8) gathering visual data. Look around to how many phones are out when you walk down the street in say Chicago...phone cameras everywhere. I also think it is a major generational thing. Younger kids won't have much of an issue IMO with cameras imbedded in a device like this. I agree it is a major hurdle just thinking it will be less of an issue as time goes on. Also a major factor is how Apple markets the benefits of what it can do. Google for example did not do a very good job to tell the story of how the tech can positively fit into society...
  • Reply 15 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,656member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I'd still call an IR camera a camera, but I like where you're going with this. It wouldn't be able to take video like your iPhone can but it could use GPS and accelerometer data (for orientation) along with IR data to project images properly.
    Exactly, a point/focus/tap button/have a picture in my gallery camera is not necessarily required.  Like you said, an IR camera could be involved but (hopefully) people wouldn’t be offended that there was one attached to frames on people’s faces, walking around in public.  Also, I believe an IR camera could be significantly smaller than a still camera, reducing the goofiness level of the way Glass looked.  Maybe there would even be a dot projector.
    Eventually there could even be one or two back-facing dot projectors and IR cameras for both Retina ID for authentication and for eye-tracking to determine a major variety of actions without speaking. Both of these technologies already exist for those stated purposes, albeit not in a something small or consumer related, hence my starting this comment with "eventually."

    ihatescreennamesrepressthis
  • Reply 16 of 66
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,538member
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I won't argue in favour of your proposition necessarily, however, I use an app that works the way you describe. Flightradar24 displays information on an aircraft and its parameters when an iPhone is pointed towards the plane. My location combined with the magnetometer, gyroscope and possibly accelerometer data perform dead reckoning to pinpoint the aircraft of interest without involvement of the camera. Of course, as the aircraft isn't directly sighted by the iPhone, the dead reckoning derived direction can be a little off but the program has proven very accurate in my experience. An advantage is that the plane can be hidden by clouds or structures and still be identified.

    With the camera in play of course, a more sophisticated version of the program could display the flight parameters and a rendering of the aircraft on an image of the scene.
  • Reply 17 of 66
    Soli said:

    After Tim Cook said 'the technology is not there yet' I am convinced that Apple's AR glasses are going to look like regular glasses with regular looking lenses. I would love to see Apple destroy the monopolistic glass-frame industry, or at least make Luxottica end up like Nokia.
    Since you mention Luxocttica I'm sure you're aware, but since you mention Luxottica

    Those Bastards!! ...But yeah, I saw that one before

    edited November 2017
  • Reply 18 of 66
    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I won't argue in favour of your proposition necessarily, however, I use an app that works the way you describe. Flightradar24 displays information on an aircraft and its parameters when an iPhone is pointed towards the plane. My location combined with the magnetometer, gyroscope and possibly accelerometer data perform dead reckoning to pinpoint the aircraft of interest without involvement of the camera. Of course, as the aircraft isn't directly sighted by the iPhone, the dead reckoning derived direction can be a little off but the program has proven very accurate in my experience. An advantage is that the plane can be hidden by clouds or structures and still be identified.

    With the camera in play of course, a more sophisticated version of the program could display the flight parameters and a rendering of the aircraft on an image of the scene.
    Right! You could be in your house with no view of the sky and it would still work, yes?  It sounds similar to SkyView, I can be inside but point my iPhone toward the sky (or at my feet) and still see where constellations, the moon, the sun, etc are located.  The camera makes it more useful when outdoors but isn’t necessarily required.  And, again, for both your example and mine, if we had a lens on our face that we were already looking through we wouldn’t need a camera for the visual data.
  • Reply 19 of 66
    peteopeteo Posts: 302member
    Soli said:
    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Yes, when everyone has one.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 66
    peteopeteo Posts: 302member
    xdsadsatechprod1gy said:
     More and more cars are coming with cameras (Tesla has 8) gathering visual data. 
    Every new car sold in the US has been required to have a backup camera for the past 5 years
    techprod1gywatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.