This sounds sketchy AF. I don't see Apple selling an ultra-nice gaming headset. It just doesn't match how they operate....they do mass market devices. Yes the MacPro is niche, but it's a builder tool and the enormous price tag makes up for the loss in volume.
Who said anything about gaming? If Apple does VR, I expect it to be like HoloLens: a tool rather than a toy. Same as the Mac Pro.
That would be pretty low volume though, especially as there are approximately zero Mac VR apps, since Apple is about 5 years behind the VR market and macOS has essentially no current support for it. Apple doesn't do low-volume. Which is why there's no xMac. Though that said the HP, MP and Airpods Max are pretty low volume.
I would assume that Apple would deliver some VR apps for such a device, they wouldn't release it cold.
This sounds sketchy AF. I don't see Apple selling an ultra-nice gaming headset. It just doesn't match how they operate....they do mass market devices. Yes the MacPro is niche, but it's a builder tool and the enormous price tag makes up for the loss in volume.
Who said anything about gaming? If Apple does VR, I expect it to be like HoloLens: a tool rather than a toy. Same as the Mac Pro.
That’s even more ultra-niche than gaming. Not happening. The high price on the MP makes up for the low volume. But you can’t sell a VR headset for $6-25k.
If this is intended for gaming, at $1,000, this headset will not be a "rival" to Oculus. The most expensive Oculus Quest 2 is $400, and their catalog of games includes a raft of excellent and outstanding titles. If it weren't for the required facebook integration (about which, frankly, most people absolutely DO NOT CARE), I might already have one, in addition to my Valve Index. It might be a rival for the Index, which is also priced at $1,000, and depending on specs, the Reverb G2, but to truly be a rival, it's going to need to deliver the same level of gaming as the Quest 2 and Index. That means either a catalog of games on par with those available on the other platforms or integration/compatibility with Steam VR or the Oculus store.
Now, if there is some compelling use case besides gaming that factors in (which most assuredly could exist in spite of my inability to see it), then what I've outlined above might not be completely relevant, or might be irrelevant entirely.
I can see a use case if such a headset could be attached to a Mac or Mac Mini and used to create multiple virtual screens, providing the quality of such a virtual display could approach a real one. With good hand tracking (similar to what the Quest 2 offers at the moment), virtual keyboards, mice, trackpads, styli, and other input "devices" (a la Minority Report) that I can't imagine at the moment would be possible. Might not be a market disruption like many other Apple devices, but it would be highly useful to some people.
There's zero chance the quality of a virtual display on a $1k headset could approach the quality of even a $150 real display sitting in front of you. There are just too few pixels, and each one takes up too much arc.
The Valve Index has a 120º diagonal field of view, and ~2153 pixel diagonal dimension. Just under 18 pixels per degree, or 0.05574706097º per pixel. That's 3.34 arcminutes (also called minutes of arc) per pixel. Normal human visual acuity (20/20 or 6/6) is defined as the ability to resolve a visual pattern spaced at 1 arcminute. Assuming pixel-perfect orientation and placement, the Index provides about 20/80 (or 6/24) vision.
Perhaps. However, if this device lives up to it's claims, it at least comes very close to your 1 arc minute per pixel. Assuming their claims are real, and I did the math right, anyway.
Note that I make no claim as to the accuracy of the claims made by the makers of this device. I only present because if a kickstarter can achieve that kind of performance on their $160,000 project, I imagine Apple could as well.
On the other hand, if this little kickstarter can do it so cheaply, why hasn't anyone done it before this?
That would be pretty low volume though, especially as there are approximately zero Mac VR apps, since Apple is about 5 years behind the VR market and macOS has essentially no current support for it.
I feel like this misrepresents the situation. There are/were Mac VR apps. Apple's own Final Cut Pro, Motion had VR support, Adobe CC (After Effects/Premiere) and stereo-based plugins (Mettle Skybox et al) all have VR support in macOS. Unreal Editor and Unity 3D did at one point but may not anymore (not sure on those). The main problem is they were supported in macOS via HTC Vive in conjunction with the abandoned as of 2020 (but still available) SteamVR, which never left beta.
My understanding is Valve was the middleman between the hardware and macOS, and with them pulling out last year, killed a future path for all this to work together. At that point, Apple probably decided it'd need to build it's own HDM into macOS, and as with modern Apple, with that comes wanting to control the whole stack hence their own hardware versus just writing drivers to enable 3rd party hardware which we know is a moving target. Metal VR already exists for years now, so they have a foundation they're likely building from. And with the shift to Apple Silicon, the added questions regarding GPU requirements, eGPU support, so forth. Whether they support 3rd party VR hardware in the future is also a big question mark. Maybe they launch their own high end headset for content creators, and maybe work with 3rd party hardware to develop drivers for their hardware.
But either way Apple releases their own VR headset, people are missing the fact that a major use for such hardware would be for 3d/stereo content development using the aforementioned tools and others. Maybe the eventual target is a mass-produced consumer-level headset if this initial hardware is very niche cost-wise. I think we're in a weird in-between period and the whole picture isn't clear yet.
Not suggesting it's a mac but would think technology-wise might fit better with the GPU power in the M-series for VR to drive two slightly offset model views at the same time at high res. Maybe even more than 2 if they want to have say a light-field that can dynamically refocus the view to suit eye-tracking.
Compared to the AR glasses that seem more like a wearable information display more in keeping with the Watch in terms of hardware and interface.
The 2 devices seem entirely unrelated other than you wear them on your face.
If this is intended for gaming, at $1,000, this headset will not be a "rival" to Oculus. The most expensive Oculus Quest 2 is $400, and their catalog of games includes a raft of excellent and outstanding titles. If it weren't for the required facebook integration (about which, frankly, most people absolutely DO NOT CARE), I might already have one, in addition to my Valve Index. It might be a rival for the Index, which is also priced at $1,000, and depending on specs, the Reverb G2, but to truly be a rival, it's going to need to deliver the same level of gaming as the Quest 2 and Index. That means either a catalog of games on par with those available on the other platforms or integration/compatibility with Steam VR or the Oculus store.
Now, if there is some compelling use case besides gaming that factors in (which most assuredly could exist in spite of my inability to see it), then what I've outlined above might not be completely relevant, or might be irrelevant entirely.
I can see a use case if such a headset could be attached to a Mac or Mac Mini and used to create multiple virtual screens, providing the quality of such a virtual display could approach a real one. With good hand tracking (similar to what the Quest 2 offers at the moment), virtual keyboards, mice, trackpads, styli, and other input "devices" (a la Minority Report) that I can't imagine at the moment would be possible. Might not be a market disruption like many other Apple devices, but it would be highly useful to some people.
There's zero chance the quality of a virtual display on a $1k headset could approach the quality of even a $150 real display sitting in front of you. There are just too few pixels, and each one takes up too much arc.
The Valve Index has a 120º diagonal field of view, and ~2153 pixel diagonal dimension. Just under 18 pixels per degree, or 0.05574706097º per pixel. That's 3.34 arcminutes (also called minutes of arc) per pixel. Normal human visual acuity (20/20 or 6/6) is defined as the ability to resolve a visual pattern spaced at 1 arcminute. Assuming pixel-perfect orientation and placement, the Index provides about 20/80 (or 6/24) vision.
Perhaps. However, if this device lives up to it's claims, it at least comes very close to your 1 arc minute per pixel. Assuming their claims are real, and I did the math right, anyway.
Note that I make no claim as to the accuracy of the claims made by the makers of this device. I only present because if a kickstarter can achieve that kind of performance on their $160,000 project, I imagine Apple could as well.
On the other hand, if this little kickstarter can do it so cheaply, why hasn't anyone done it before this?
From their listed specs, they are using one of the best micro-displays currently on the open market, the Sony ECX335S. It's 1920x1080, not 2160p. They have added the horizontal dimension of the two displays (since they are side-by-side), but they "forgot" to mention that each eye sees only half of those pixels.
This display was built for electronic viewfinders in cameras, which usually have about the 30º field of view they mentioned. 1080p is 2203 pixels diagonal ( √(1920^2 + 1080^2) ). Assuming their 53º FoV is diagonal, that's 41.6 pixels per degree (2203/53), or 1.44 arcminutes per pixel(53*60 / 2203). Close to 20/30 (6/9) vision, but a much narrower field of view than typically desired for VR or AR.
To compare to normal monitors, we need to bring in pi. Let's say we put the monitor two feet away. A circle two feet in radius (since your head is at the center) is 2*π*2 feet in circumference (12.57 feet). A 53º section of that circle is (2*π*2)*53/360 feet: 1.85 feet, or 22.2 inches. Again, using the 2203 diagonal pixel dimension, their HMD provides the equivalent of a 22.2", 99.23 DPI display for each eye. Not great. A 22" 1080p monitor from ViewSonic is $100 new.
There aren't any games to play anyway since Valve is the only major publisher of real (i.e. non-mobile-esque) games on the Mac
That is 100% wrong, where did you even get that idea?
Lol yeah, that's a very weird and very wrong claim. Possibly they're (wrongly) equating Steam with publishing or something? Even then it's wrong as GOG, the Epic Store and Mac App Store all have many "real" games for the Mac, and none of them are published by Valve.
If this is intended for gaming, at $1,000, this headset will not be a "rival" to Oculus. The most expensive Oculus Quest 2 is $400, and their catalog of games includes a raft of excellent and outstanding titles. If it weren't for the required facebook integration (about which, frankly, most people absolutely DO NOT CARE), I might already have one, in addition to my Valve Index. It might be a rival for the Index, which is also priced at $1,000, and depending on specs, the Reverb G2, but to truly be a rival, it's going to need to deliver the same level of gaming as the Quest 2 and Index. That means either a catalog of games on par with those available on the other platforms or integration/compatibility with Steam VR or the Oculus store.
Now, if there is some compelling use case besides gaming that factors in (which most assuredly could exist in spite of my inability to see it), then what I've outlined above might not be completely relevant, or might be irrelevant entirely.
I can see a use case if such a headset could be attached to a Mac or Mac Mini and used to create multiple virtual screens, providing the quality of such a virtual display could approach a real one. With good hand tracking (similar to what the Quest 2 offers at the moment), virtual keyboards, mice, trackpads, styli, and other input "devices" (a la Minority Report) that I can't imagine at the moment would be possible. Might not be a market disruption like many other Apple devices, but it would be highly useful to some people.
There's zero chance the quality of a virtual display on a $1k headset could approach the quality of even a $150 real display sitting in front of you. There are just too few pixels, and each one takes up too much arc.
The Valve Index has a 120º diagonal field of view, and ~2153 pixel diagonal dimension. Just under 18 pixels per degree, or 0.05574706097º per pixel. That's 3.34 arcminutes (also called minutes of arc) per pixel. Normal human visual acuity (20/20 or 6/6) is defined as the ability to resolve a visual pattern spaced at 1 arcminute. Assuming pixel-perfect orientation and placement, the Index provides about 20/80 (or 6/24) vision.
Perhaps. However, if this device lives up to it's claims, it at least comes very close to your 1 arc minute per pixel. Assuming their claims are real, and I did the math right, anyway.
Note that I make no claim as to the accuracy of the claims made by the makers of this device. I only present because if a kickstarter can achieve that kind of performance on their $160,000 project, I imagine Apple could as well.
On the other hand, if this little kickstarter can do it so cheaply, why hasn't anyone done it before this?
From their listed specs, they are using one of the best micro-displays currently on the open market, the Sony ECX335S. It's 1920x1080, not 2160p. They have added the horizontal dimension of the two displays (since they are side-by-side), but they "forgot" to mention that each eye sees only half of those pixels.
This display was built for electronic viewfinders in cameras, which usually have about the 30º field of view they mentioned. 1080p is 2203 pixels diagonal ( √(1920^2 + 1080^2) ). Assuming their 53º FoV is diagonal, that's 41.6 pixels per degree (2203/53), or 1.44 arcminutes per pixel(53*60 / 2203). Close to 20/30 (6/9) vision, but a much narrower field of view than typically desired for VR or AR.
To compare to normal monitors, we need to bring in pi. Let's say we put the monitor two feet away. A circle two feet in radius (since your head is at the center) is 2*π*2 feet in circumference (12.57 feet). A 53º section of that circle is (2*π*2)*53/360 feet: 1.85 feet, or 22.2 inches. Again, using the 2203 diagonal pixel dimension, their HMD provides the equivalent of a 22.2", 99.23 DPI display for each eye. Not great. A 22" 1080p monitor from ViewSonic is $100 new.
Thanks for clarifying the math.
I will note that the fact that in a true VR environment one can turn one's head, which somewhat mitigate a narrower field of field. However, your point that this one still isn't "perfect" is well taken. I continue to think displays will improve though, and if anyone can do it, Apple can. I am somewhat skeptical that this alleged $1,000 device will be the vehicle for monitor replacement, but I'm also hopeful.
Not suggesting it's a mac but would think technology-wise might fit better with the GPU power in the M-series for VR to drive two slightly offset model views at the same time at high res. Maybe even more than 2 if they want to have say a light-field that can dynamically refocus the view to suit eye-tracking.
Compared to the AR glasses that seem more like a wearable information display more in keeping with the Watch in terms of hardware and interface.
The 2 devices seem entirely unrelated other than you wear them on your face.
Another angle is this is a not only a pro content development tool, but also a dev platform for Apple's take on Google Cardboard — an iPhone-driven consumer level VR headset which they keep adding patents to:
My 2 cents... If this is true then at that price it won't be a sensible comparison to look at $100-$300 devices currently on the market as competitors. Apple will have something very different to offer. Only time will tell but my guess is they would be completely self-powered with Apple Silicon M tech and capable of uses yet unimagined by us mere mortals.
Once released it will be 'obvious' technology and the copycats will pile in, Google at the forefront with a redesign, after having released products based on leaks to try to get ahead of Apple only to fail.
My 2 cents... If this is true then at that price it won't be a sensible comparison to look at $100-$300 devices currently on the market as competitors. Apple will have something very different to offer. Only time will tell but my guess is they would be completely self-powered with Apple Silicon M tech and capable of uses yet unimagined by us mere mortals.
Once released it will be 'obvious' technology and the copycats will pile in, Google at the forefront with a redesign, after having released products based on leaks to try to get ahead of Apple only to fail.
Congrats on being first in with a Google reference, but I don't recall them doing that before. There's a first time I suppose. I'm guessing you confused Google with Samsung perhaps?
Not sure why the issue over the prescription lenses. I’ve taken frames I already had and lenses were made and installed in them.
What? The lenses in an AR headset are not anything like those in corrective eyeglasses.
Many VR and AR headsets have room for inserts that fit between the lens and the eye. There are companies that specifically make inserts that fit in that space, and also prescription lenses that fit in those inserts.
Comments
That said, I still doubt it.
What are the sales numbers for HoloLens?
That is 100% wrong, where did you even get that idea?
I feel like this misrepresents the situation. There are/were Mac VR apps. Apple's own Final Cut Pro, Motion had VR support, Adobe CC (After Effects/Premiere) and stereo-based plugins (Mettle Skybox et al) all have VR support in macOS. Unreal Editor and Unity 3D did at one point but may not anymore (not sure on those). The main problem is they were supported in macOS via HTC Vive in conjunction with the abandoned as of 2020 (but still available) SteamVR, which never left beta.
My understanding is Valve was the middleman between the hardware and macOS, and with them pulling out last year, killed a future path for all this to work together. At that point, Apple probably decided it'd need to build it's own HDM into macOS, and as with modern Apple, with that comes wanting to control the whole stack hence their own hardware versus just writing drivers to enable 3rd party hardware which we know is a moving target. Metal VR already exists for years now, so they have a foundation they're likely building from. And with the shift to Apple Silicon, the added questions regarding GPU requirements, eGPU support, so forth. Whether they support 3rd party VR hardware in the future is also a big question mark. Maybe they launch their own high end headset for content creators, and maybe work with 3rd party hardware to develop drivers for their hardware.
But either way Apple releases their own VR headset, people are missing the fact that a major use for such hardware would be for 3d/stereo content development using the aforementioned tools and others. Maybe the eventual target is a mass-produced consumer-level headset if this initial hardware is very niche cost-wise. I think we're in a weird in-between period and the whole picture isn't clear yet.
This display was built for electronic viewfinders in cameras, which usually have about the 30º field of view they mentioned. 1080p is 2203 pixels diagonal ( √(1920^2 + 1080^2) ). Assuming their 53º FoV is diagonal, that's 41.6 pixels per degree (2203/53), or 1.44 arcminutes per pixel(53*60 / 2203). Close to 20/30 (6/9) vision, but a much narrower field of view than typically desired for VR or AR.
To compare to normal monitors, we need to bring in pi. Let's say we put the monitor two feet away. A circle two feet in radius (since your head is at the center) is 2*π*2 feet in circumference (12.57 feet). A 53º section of that circle is (2*π*2)*53/360 feet: 1.85 feet, or 22.2 inches. Again, using the 2203 diagonal pixel dimension, their HMD provides the equivalent of a 22.2", 99.23 DPI display for each eye. Not great. A 22" 1080p monitor from ViewSonic is $100 new.
I will note that the fact that in a true VR environment one can turn one's head, which somewhat mitigate a narrower field of field. However, your point that this one still isn't "perfect" is well taken. I continue to think displays will improve though, and if anyone can do it, Apple can. I am somewhat skeptical that this alleged $1,000 device will be the vehicle for monitor replacement, but I'm also hopeful.
https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2021/01/apple-won-31-patents-today-covering-eye-tracking-a-glasses-device-multiplayer-gaming-and-more.html
Once released it will be 'obvious' technology and the copycats will pile in, Google at the forefront with a redesign, after having released products based on leaks to try to get ahead of Apple only to fail.