The Apple II was introduced in 1977 at a price of about $1300. Adjusted for inflation that's over $6k in 2023.
It was a very expensive niche product for uber nerds who just thought it would be cool to have a computer, not a mass market device at all. It could very fairly have been described as a device in search of a problem. It took a few years before a 'killer app' came along (VisiCalc). Over the *16 years* of its production it sold a *total* of about 6 million units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II).
Any yet it was the Apple II that launched Apple. It was considered a huge success.
So I see nothing wrong with selling an expensive niche device to nerds in the hope that the nerds will figure out how to do something cool with it and that in 20 years it might evolve into a mass market device.
BUT -- Apple has to be very careful about the marketing and setting expectations. They need to be super clear that this is not the next iPhone or even the next Macintosh. This is very much an "Apple II" kind of product (or so it would seem, based on all these rumors).
Some thoughts about how to communicate this --
1. Introduce it at WWDC alongside a new Mac Pro 2. Create a "pro" section of the Apple Store with a speakeasy vibe where Apple sells the Mac Pro, the Pro Display XDR, and whatever they call this MR thing. [maybe they need a more exclusive word than "pro" since they've kind of spread the word 'pro' around pretty liberally. Maybe something like "elite" or "wicked posh" -- or maybe no name at all, just really go with the speakeasy vibe] 3. Don't sell it through anything other than physical Apple Stores. 4. Strongly encourage people try it before they buy it 5. Do not advertise it, not even one tiny bit. The only information should be on the Apple website and in Apple stores (and of course through media reports). Again -- speakeasy vibe
There you go Apple -- I've done my part. Now it's up to you.
Too much is unknown but at the very least we'd have to define 'flop'.
If it's launched as a 'hobby' product line at competitive BOM prices (no matter how high that may be), all the pressure would be off.
From there on it would be a case of making the product useful, desirable, and getting prices down to make it accessible to the wider market.
At the very least, incorporating regular phone use into the experience without having to remove the headset would be nice.
I'll wait and see but I'd rather they release something (providing there is a compelling use-case) than shelve it.
I had plenty of reservations about the HomePod but it was good they brought it to market because some people were obviously happy with the product idea.
Apple isn't alone here of course and plenty of companies are laying the groundwork for their own solutions. Many are already on the market and getting better with each generation.
I think VR is mostly used for high end gaming, followed by productivity, and watching movies. As Apple is not a high end gaming platform, that leaves productivity and watching movies.
They can make the most amazing UI designed for walking around, and everyday life, but as long as it isn't a modestly designed true AR headset, I feel like that part will simply be just for show, and as future reference for when the true AR headset eventually matures.
I would say that if they team up with for instance Blender.org and other high end productivity app makers, they could probably market this as a very nice professional tool. Perhaps they'll launch it alongside a next generation Mac Pro, and it'll all be a pro initiative altogether. Creating 3D in VR is manyfold more intuitive and efficient than on a screen in my opinion.
I can even see them openly acknowledging that it is a stop gap product, kind of like they did with the developer unit of the first M1 prototypes. Acknowledging that this is the developer platform for what's to come. I think I'd be more prone to get one if I knew straight from Apple that it was a developer platform, and true AR is in the works. Then I'd feel safe that they wouldn't abandon the platform.
I think the worst thing they can do is to do the obvious: Make an amazing dreamy product presentation and ad where the users live in a tight apartment, puts on the headset and dreams away to far away places, through movies and interactive yoga trips with perfect instructors, and floating in space. Creating a perfect dream world will set the stage for the 1984 Macintosh ad all over again… just with reversed roles.
As a VR enthusiast and early-ish adopter (Oculus Rift CV1 about a month after first release), I can see quite a few applications for a high end xR headset, even at $3K. Are those mainstream? Not now. Will they have wide appeal? Probably not at first.
But I honestly believe Apple already has a target market in mind for this. I don't think it will be gamers, who are the largest population of VR users at the moment, but I have little doubt that the capabilities of Apple's device will trickle down into the rest of the market.
Well, $3000 is in Microsoft's HoloLens price range. I'm sure MS is not selling millions of their devices but there is a market. I can't image Apple not building a device at least equal to MS.
People talk about games, but how many immersive 3D games FOR MAC are there, let alone for a new headset with it’s own OS? I’ll tell you how many: ZERO.
This product will appeal to iOS developers and there are a lot of fun games for iOS. Like the Fantasian game from the Final Fantasy creator that used diaramas, that can translate to AR:
All the other addictive apps can translate too like Candy Crush. Minecraft can be shown in AR. Microsoft showed this 8 years ago but HoloLens is $3k and very bulky:
The NYT article is from Tripp Mickle who never misses an opportunity to put a negative spin on anything Apple is doing.
While I agree that important info should tone down some of the reactions, the fact remains that I was unimpressed back in 2017 when Apple had an on stage game demo of an AR game using a table with nothing on it. Even if one argues that goggles would make all that better, do I want even a $100 heavy thing on my face for extended periods of time, especially when I am 52 years old and not a gamer at all? The answer to that question is an emphatic "no."
I wonder if the goggles would be popular even among younger people for purposes outside gaming or specialty 3D applications. And if this forthcoming device is only as popular as the Mac Pro, Apple will likely take a pounding in the press, and AAPL will suffer as a result.
It works for movies. Imagine you are resting in bed and feel like watching a movie or browsing the web. You can just put on the glasses and you get a 100" virtual OLED display at the end of your bed. You can have a browser on a virtual pad in front of you like an iPad while the TV is in the background. The virtual pad in front can be a Netflix browser showing what's available while a show is playing on the bigger screen.
There are many use cases for the product, the key to its success is the user experience and this has been true of many devices in the past. People had smartphones years before the iPhone, they had tablets years before the iPad, they had digital watches years before the Apple Watch. In all those products, Apple brought an experience that the others didn't and it made all the difference.
The NYT article is from Tripp Mickle who never misses an opportunity to put a negative spin on anything Apple is doing. He, like many bloggers/sensationalist authors, is not in a committed relationship with facts. Apple hasn't announced pricing or form factor.
The pundits said the same about the iPad, that it would be too expensive and not functional enough.
What things it can do that the flopped Google glasses can't do?
Better hardware design first of all. It will have higher resolution video and it will be able to do fully opaque visuals. Better image stability, UI, interaction, ecosystem, apps.
There's a video here showing some AR using an iPhone (39:00):
The examples at 41:53 and 42:23 are impressive. The car rolling out of the display onto the keyboard shows what capabilities it has:
This will be useful for 3D creators and it will add another dimension to movies and games. I don't expect the entry-level launch price to be higher than $1499, it could easily be $799 and have more memory/power on higher models e.g Reality at $799 (M3 or R3 if they have a special chip), Reality Pro at $1499 (M3/R3 Pro).
So it may be a TikTok replacement?
Apple is a hardware platform provider, existing content creators and hosts will be able to leverage that platform just as they do now.
Some content like the following dance videos could be converted into AR:
Instead of watching on a small, flat 2D screen, the video can be full height in 3D in the room and the viewer can dance next to them. Same with fitness classes.
It can be used in education to show scientific or historical demonstrations, fly through space, show ancient Egypt, evolution of transport, medical procedures.
The $3,000 price point is utterly unworkable. That alone should have caused Apple to simply not release this device. When Apple launched the iPad, the genius of that product, the one element that launched widespread interest in tablets was an excellent price. There were tablets before the iPad but none that delivered a decent, useful product at the right price point.
Simply put, $3,000 is not the right price point for any personal media consumption device. This thing is dead on arrival.
Screw media consumption this should be a media creation device. MacBook Pro killer even for anyone wanting touchscreen Mac.
Craft 3d items/scenes and beyond in 3D space. Virtual desktop for un-3d apps, USBc dock to charge connect to screen/keyboard/mouse for regular Mac-ing. That puts you well in the $3000 product range.
Sure several generations down the track can be a mere media consumption device. Even pick on up 4th 5th hand for that.
Given that a high-end M2 Max 14" Macbook Pro with 32GB RAM is $3k, that still seems too high a price point but they could have a hip-mounted compute device.
It may be that the wearable is a lower priced accessory that works with iPhone, iPad, Mac and there will be an optional compute module that works best for mobility and for people who don't have an iOS or Mac product.
Even then, there's no reason for it to cost that much when they sell AR-capable iPhones for $799.
Well, $3000 is in Microsoft's HoloLens price range. I'm sure MS is not selling millions of their devices but there is a market. I can't image Apple not building a device at least equal to MS.
Is the HoloLens a flop?
e.g.
Apple comes to market with similar of better vision and hand / body / tool tracking instead of controllers and they have an easy buy compared to HoloLen and expand on the market. Finger tracking would be Apple's killer app.
Look at flight sim rigs with all the buttons and screens you need for muscle memory training with hand tracking all you need is a 3D printed mask for tactile finger placement and keeping more physical controls. That opens massive cost saving and better experience even easy cockpit layout swtiching by moving various props.
The only use for this I can see is educational and/or scientific research. Perhaps biologists could use it to examine cell structure of certain illnesses such as cancer or sickle cell anemia and use it in 3D to see more. Surgeons could plan a delicate operation using these. Regular consumers? Can’t see a point.
Pretty clear you've never used VR before.
There's a serious lack of understanding and imagination around here.
The NYT article is from Tripp Mickle who never misses an opportunity to put a negative spin on anything Apple is doing. He, like many bloggers/sensationalist authors, is not in a committed relationship with facts. Apple hasn't announced pricing or form factor.
The pundits said the same about the iPad, that it would be too expensive and not functional enough.
What things it can do that the flopped Google glasses can't do?
Better hardware design first of all. It will have higher resolution video and it will be able to do fully opaque visuals. Better image stability, UI, interaction, ecosystem, apps.
There's a video here showing some AR using an iPhone (39:00):
The examples at 41:53 and 42:23 are impressive. The car rolling out of the display onto the keyboard shows what capabilities it has:
This will be useful for 3D creators and it will add another dimension to movies and games. I don't expect the entry-level launch price to be higher than $1499, it could easily be $799 and have more memory/power on higher models e.g Reality at $799 (M3 or R3 if they have a special chip), Reality Pro at $1499 (M3/R3 Pro).
"..Reality Pro..." Best name for an AR/VR system ever. I hope that it's true. The advertising copy for such a model name would be endless...
Comments
It was a very expensive niche product for uber nerds who just thought it would be cool to have a computer, not a mass market device at all. It could very fairly have been described as a device in search of a problem. It took a few years before a 'killer app' came along (VisiCalc). Over the *16 years* of its production it sold a *total* of about 6 million units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II).
Any yet it was the Apple II that launched Apple. It was considered a huge success.
So I see nothing wrong with selling an expensive niche device to nerds in the hope that the nerds will figure out how to do something cool with it and that in 20 years it might evolve into a mass market device.
BUT -- Apple has to be very careful about the marketing and setting expectations. They need to be super clear that this is not the next iPhone or even the next Macintosh. This is very much an "Apple II" kind of product (or so it would seem, based on all these rumors).
Some thoughts about how to communicate this --
1. Introduce it at WWDC alongside a new Mac Pro
2. Create a "pro" section of the Apple Store with a speakeasy vibe where Apple sells the Mac Pro, the Pro Display XDR, and whatever they call this MR thing. [maybe they need a more exclusive word than "pro" since they've kind of spread the word 'pro' around pretty liberally. Maybe something like "elite" or "wicked posh" -- or maybe no name at all, just really go with the speakeasy vibe]
3. Don't sell it through anything other than physical Apple Stores.
4. Strongly encourage people try it before they buy it
5. Do not advertise it, not even one tiny bit. The only information should be on the Apple website and in Apple stores (and of course through media reports). Again -- speakeasy vibe
There you go Apple -- I've done my part. Now it's up to you.
If it's launched as a 'hobby' product line at competitive BOM prices (no matter how high that may be), all the pressure would be off.
From there on it would be a case of making the product useful, desirable, and getting prices down to make it accessible to the wider market.
At the very least, incorporating regular phone use into the experience without having to remove the headset would be nice.
I'll wait and see but I'd rather they release something (providing there is a compelling use-case) than shelve it.
I had plenty of reservations about the HomePod but it was good they brought it to market because some people were obviously happy with the product idea.
Apple isn't alone here of course and plenty of companies are laying the groundwork for their own solutions. Many are already on the market and getting better with each generation.
As Apple is not a high end gaming platform, that leaves productivity and watching movies.
They can make the most amazing UI designed for walking around, and everyday life, but as long as it isn't a modestly designed true AR headset, I feel like that part will simply be just for show, and as future reference for when the true AR headset eventually matures.
I would say that if they team up with for instance Blender.org and other high end productivity app makers, they could probably market this as a very nice professional tool. Perhaps they'll launch it alongside a next generation Mac Pro, and it'll all be a pro initiative altogether. Creating 3D in VR is manyfold more intuitive and efficient than on a screen in my opinion.
I can even see them openly acknowledging that it is a stop gap product, kind of like they did with the developer unit of the first M1 prototypes. Acknowledging that this is the developer platform for what's to come. I think I'd be more prone to get one if I knew straight from Apple that it was a developer platform, and true AR is in the works. Then I'd feel safe that they wouldn't abandon the platform.
I think the worst thing they can do is to do the obvious: Make an amazing dreamy product presentation and ad where the users live in a tight apartment, puts on the headset and dreams away to far away places, through movies and interactive yoga trips with perfect instructors, and floating in space. Creating a perfect dream world will set the stage for the 1984 Macintosh ad all over again… just with reversed roles.
Is the HoloLens a flop?
e.g.
All the other addictive apps can translate too like Candy Crush. Minecraft can be shown in AR. Microsoft showed this 8 years ago but HoloLens is $3k and very bulky:
It works for movies. Imagine you are resting in bed and feel like watching a movie or browsing the web. You can just put on the glasses and you get a 100" virtual OLED display at the end of your bed. You can have a browser on a virtual pad in front of you like an iPad while the TV is in the background. The virtual pad in front can be a Netflix browser showing what's available while a show is playing on the bigger screen.
There are many use cases for the product, the key to its success is the user experience and this has been true of many devices in the past. People had smartphones years before the iPhone, they had tablets years before the iPad, they had digital watches years before the Apple Watch. In all those products, Apple brought an experience that the others didn't and it made all the difference.
Apple is a hardware platform provider, existing content creators and hosts will be able to leverage that platform just as they do now.
Some content like the following dance videos could be converted into AR:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kyyx5mSIGPw
Instead of watching on a small, flat 2D screen, the video can be full height in 3D in the room and the viewer can dance next to them. Same with fitness classes.
It can be used in education to show scientific or historical demonstrations, fly through space, show ancient Egypt, evolution of transport, medical procedures.
Given that a high-end M2 Max 14" Macbook Pro with 32GB RAM is $3k, that still seems too high a price point but they could have a hip-mounted compute device.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/02/22/possible-mac-pro-compute-module-discovered-in-ios-164-code
It may be that the wearable is a lower priced accessory that works with iPhone, iPad, Mac and there will be an optional compute module that works best for mobility and for people who don't have an iOS or Mac product.
Even then, there's no reason for it to cost that much when they sell AR-capable iPhones for $799.
Look at flight sim rigs with all the buttons and screens you need for muscle memory training with hand tracking all you need is a 3D printed mask for tactile finger placement and keeping more physical controls. That opens massive cost saving and better experience even easy cockpit layout swtiching by moving various props.
Pretty clear you've never used VR before.
There's a serious lack of understanding and imagination around here.