Apple is working on gaming and fitness apps for its AR headset before launch

AppleInsider

Apple is working to create apps for nearly everything it offers for iPhone for its rumored mixed-reality headset ahead of the rumored launch at WWDC 2023.

A render of the possible headset from AppleInsider

Rumors suggest the headset will be the main focus of Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in 2023. It's a device that may provide Apple customers with virtual and augmented reality experiences or a combination of the two.

The newest report from Bloomberg says that Apple is working on a host of apps that will run on the device, suggesting that it's in the final stages of preparation. Sources say they include services for watching sports, new iterations of Apple's current iPad capabilities, gaming, fitness, and collaboration tools.

As a product that will be unfamiliar to many people -- and likely expensive -- Apple needs to extend its ecosystem to deliver an experience that its users are already familiar with. As an entirely new device category, the company must also give reasons for people to buy the headset and how it fits into their lives.

Possible content for the headset

Sources say that Apple is working to adapt iPad apps for the headset that will offer millions of existing apps through a new 3D interface. Besides apps from third-party developers, Apple is working on optimized versions of Safari, Apple News, Apple Music, Stocks, Weather, Mail, and more.

A headset-compatible version of Apple Books will let customers read in virtual reality in addition to the company's core apps. Next, a camera app that can snap pictures via the headgear is also being tested.

And a wellness app will assist wearers in their meditation with a collection of peaceful pictures, noises, and voice-overs, likely similar to the Mindfulness app on Apple Watch.

Next, a version of the Fitness+ service will also be a highlight feature of the headset, along with the Freeform collaboration app. The Freeform app will let users work on virtual whiteboards together in mixed reality.

FaceTime may also be a primary feature that will generate 3D versions of users in virtual meeting rooms.

Finally, another significant selling point for the headset may be viewing sports. Apple already offers games from Major League Soccer and Major League Baseball on Apple TV+, and virtual reality might provide a more immersive experience for those services.

A dial that allows the user to choose between virtual and augmented reality will be a significant product component, similar to the digital crown on the Apple Watch. Users will be immersed in their apps when using VR.

They will also experience the real world around them similarly to ARKit experiences on iPhones and iPads if AR is enabled. It's also rumored to run multiple apps simultaneously, each floating inside the 3D interface.

Users will be able to control the headset with their hands and eyes. For example, they may squeeze their fingers to pick things and navigate menus after detecting where people are looking.

For increased efficiency, the headset will have an in-air virtual keyboard that can also be connected to a physical keyboard. And Siri's voice control will also be a primary way to control the headset.

Apple headset -- Launch and cost

The headset may appear during WWDC 2023 and is anticipated to cost around $3,000, at least for the first version. The launch date for WWDC is in doubt, however, as Apple may be scaling back production.

Ming-Chi Kuo claims that regardless of whether the headset is presented at WWDC in June, "due to the delay in mass production for assembly, the shipment forecast this year is only 200,000 to 300,000 units, lower than the market consensus of 500,000 units or more."

It's anticipated that the overall design and perhaps size of Apple's debut headset would be similar to ski goggles. Each eye reportedly has a 4K OLED display, while an outside panel displays the user's facial emotions for the headset.

Some Apple staff are worried about the new device and its chances of success. Some employees even allegedly defected from the project due to their doubs, and others may have been fired for failing to make sufficient progress on certain headset features, such using Siri.

It appears that Apple executives have also questioned the headset's potential for strong sales. It looks to be more difficult to sell to customers, with the exception of those who are the most loyal to the brand, given the battery's design difficulties and the estimated $3,000 price tag.

Read on AppleInsider

ramanpfaff

Am I going out for a run wearing these? Ummm...

Marvin

ramanpfaff said:

Am I going out for a run wearing these? Ummm...

Nobody has seen the form factor yet. If they are the size of large sunglasses like some existing AR glasses then you would be able to use them outdoors:



If they use passthrough AR, it's not likely you'd want to but they can be used in the gym or at home. Apple's Fitness+ service is device-based so you'd typically use it at home:

https://www.apple.com/apple-fitness-plus/

Instead of having to sit a tablet or phone nearby, with glasses the people in the videos would appear in the room right next to you.

Fidonet127

Sounds like a bunch of rumors to hedge their bets. Can control things using hands, like how?? Unless there is something more than the glasses, then no. Apple is working on Apps before it launches.... well duh, it isn't like they are going to release it without any apps. If they could have it capable of running millions of existing apps, that would be a game changer.... if done well. Besides price, for me it needs to deal with glasses. I have tried VR glasses and some didn't work well with glasses.

InspiredCode

Fidonet127 said:

Sounds like a bunch of rumors to hedge their bets. Can control things using hands, like how?? Unless there is something more than the glasses, then no. Apple is working on Apps before it launches.... well duh, it isn't like they are going to release it without any apps. If they could have it capable of running millions of existing apps, that would be a game changer.... if done well. Besides price, for me it needs to deal with glasses. I have tried VR glasses and some didn't work well with glasses.

Rumors are it will require magnetic snap in prescription lenses to keep it thin.

JamesCude

Anything just to stop seeing AI’s cheesy swim goggle renders any more.

leighr

I realise that Apple has spent a long time developing their AR, but I can’t help but wonder if their time has been misplaced. Both MS and Google tried, and failed, which is not unusual, and Samsung will no doubt copy as soon as it can, but until an AR headset is indistinguishable from a normal pair of glasses, and can offer better visual assistance than glasses, I can’t see them going mainstream. AI, on the other hand, is a market that Apple needs to get into and do well, and quickly. 

narwhal

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

leighr

narwhal said:

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

They have both also failed in getting a product mainstream. Think Apple Watch. There were a few attempts, at smart watches such as Pebble, but weren’t considered a mainstream “must have” until Apple Watch showed what could be done..

chutzpah

JP234 said:

narwhal said:

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

Perhaps the solution is to $hitcan the entire AR/VR initiative. Aren't we detached enough from each other's real lives? Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the real world in order to experience a virtual world created by a for-profit company? Seems like the answer is yes, given the popularity of social media and streaming services. But is taking it to the next level by shutting out all sensory input from our environment beneficial or detrimental to humanity at large?

AR doesn't shut out all sensory input from our environment.  The clue is in the name; it augments it.

Japhey

JP234 said:

No matter what form these headsets/glasses take, you're going to look like a comic-con doofus, both for wearing them, and for the astounding amount of money you spend to play games. Can't wait to see the high school kids on the next block coming out of school wearing them as they walk home, talking to virtual ghosts like psychotics, and walking into traffic or lawn sprinklers.

Do you just copy and paste the same thing every time a AR/VR story is published? I wonder who you’re really trying to convince, yourself or others? Also, watching children walk home from school could be considered creepy in some places. But, actually looking forward to it? 🫣

Woozle_Wuzzle

A compelling use case for AR is with people with disabilities. This may not be the biggest market but it is not insignificant. 
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-glass-changing-quadriplegics-life/story?id=19918986 ;

currentinterest

Reclining on a flight watching a movie on a large screen only one can see is itself worth $3000. Or, on the same flight have a large virtual display with multiple documents open would make it worth it. 

Ecky-Thump

“.. Siri's voice control will also be a primary way to control the headset.”

Gawd, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Japhey

JP234 said:

Japhey said:

JP234 said:

No matter what form these headsets/glasses take, you're going to look like a comic-con doofus, both for wearing them, and for the astounding amount of money you spend to play games. Can't wait to see the high school kids on the next block coming out of school wearing them as they walk home, talking to virtual ghosts like psychotics, and walking into traffic or lawn sprinklers.

Do you just copy and paste the same thing every time a AR/VR story is published? I wonder who you’re really trying to convince, yourself or others? Also, watching children walk home from school could be considered creepy in some places. But, actually looking forward to it? ߫㦬t;/div>

No, I personalize my comments for everyone. Even certain ill-mannered children whose only approach to different opinions is ad hominem attack. In case you're wondering, that means you.

Different opinions make the world go around. Endlessly repeating oneself is desperate and boring. Also, claiming the logical high ground while simultaneously using a red herring argument to do it is either clumsy or brave. 

eriamjh

Fitness isn’t going to sell a $3000 AR toy.  

dutchlord

JP234 said:

narwhal said:

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

Perhaps the solution is to $hitcan the entire AR/VR initiative. Aren't we detached enough from each other's real lives? Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the real world in order to experience a virtual world created by a for-profit company? Seems like the answer is yes, given the popularity of social media and streaming services. But is taking it to the next level by shutting out all sensory input from our environment beneficial or detrimental to humanity at large?

Totally agree we are detached already way too much. Let’s $hitcan meta verse, AR/VR and social media. 

radarthekat

A meaningful component of Apple's design philosophy is to help people engage with the world around them.  This represents maybe the biggest challenge to creating a product that covers our primary sensory input; our eyes.  I think this means that Apple will lean very strongly toward AR and toward a minimalist device.  It may not seem minimalist to us as we think in terms of a simple pair of sunglasses or prescription glasses, so many will instinctually blanch at anything much bulkier.  Therefore, it may take a few iterations of technology advances to satisfy expectations, but that may be okay.  

There's likely a large early adopter contingent within the cross section of an iPhone user base that runs more than one billion, hundreds of millions of gamers, millions of general technology early adopters and the simply well-heeled curious.  Early iterations will fund R&D funding, in-the-field beta/consumer testing and 3rd-party expert review and feedback, all of which Apple can use to shape the ultimate purpose and use cases of this technology, while funding manufacturers to shrink components, reduce power consumption and ramp connectivity speeds. 

It might be early for a fully fleshed-out consumer end product, but it also might be the right time to get something out into the wild in order to accelerate development toward that end.  

genovelle

leighr said:

I realise that Apple has spent a long time developing their AR, but I can’t help but wonder if their time has been misplaced. Both MS and Google tried, and failed, which is not unusual, and Samsung will no doubt copy as soon as it can, but until an AR headset is indistinguishable from a normal pair of glasses, and can offer better visual assistance than glasses, I can’t see them going mainstream. AI, on the other hand, is a market that Apple needs to get into and do well, and quickly. 

Apple is a nearly $3 Trillion business because they have consistently succeeded where everyone else has failed to have mass market success. Mac was the beginning, but they had to learn how to not allow the competition to copy and beat them using technology they developed. iPod was doubted because even Sony had fail with MP3 players, iPhone was written off because it did have buttons and the market was dominated by Nokia. Microsoft had failed for a decade to sell its tablet vision, then iPad took the world by storm. Smart watches fail to gain any real traction for years and Apple Watch arrived to right the ship. 

In each case there was a long, secret development process that also included bringing technology to market to plant the seed for what is to come. ARKit was released 5 years ago and deeply integrated into the OS. It introduced AR technology to 2 billion Apple devices. 

Apple’s Lisa was a $10,000 personal computer in the early 80. This was more than most cars Lisa introduced the world to the  graphical interface and interaction that would ch  as BRG everything. This headset is the latest Lisa. 

chutzpah

JP234 said:

chutzpah said:

JP234 said:

narwhal said:

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

Perhaps the solution is to $hitcan the entire AR/VR initiative. Aren't we detached enough from each other's real lives? Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the real world in order to experience a virtual world created by a for-profit company? Seems like the answer is yes, given the popularity of social media and streaming services. But is taking it to the next level by shutting out all sensory input from our environment beneficial or detrimental to humanity at large?

AR doesn't shut out all sensory input from our environment.  The clue is in the name; it augments it.

"Augmented" or "Virtual" are no suitable adjectives for reality. It's an absolute, like pregnant. It is or it isn't.

Pregnant is an adjective.  And you can certainly have a heavy pregnancy or a difficult pregnancy.  I daresay you could have an augmented pregnancy, though I'm not sure exactly what that would entail.

What a silly line of argument.  People can affect their perception of reality in many ways.  Wear sunglasses and you've changed your reality.

chutzpah

JP234 said:

chutzpah said:

JP234 said:

chutzpah said:

JP234 said:

narwhal said:

JP234 said:

Microsoft failed? So the $10 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave them to provide AI enhanced AR headsets to the military is a FAIL? What would you consider a success?

Yes, HoloLens failed. The military hates them, funding was cut, Microsoft laid off staff. There are no customers. It’s possible Apple will do better, or it might be these things won’t take off until they’re much closer to a normal pair of glasses.

Perhaps the solution is to $hitcan the entire AR/VR initiative. Aren't we detached enough from each other's real lives? Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the real world in order to experience a virtual world created by a for-profit company? Seems like the answer is yes, given the popularity of social media and streaming services. But is taking it to the next level by shutting out all sensory input from our environment beneficial or detrimental to humanity at large?

AR doesn't shut out all sensory input from our environment.  The clue is in the name; it augments it.

"Augmented" or "Virtual" are no suitable adjectives for reality. It's an absolute, like pregnant. It is or it isn't.

Pregnant is an adjective.  And you can certainly have a heavy pregnancy or a difficult pregnancy.  I daresay you could have an augmented pregnancy, though I'm not sure exactly what that would entail.

What a silly line of argument.  People can affect their perception of reality in many ways.  Wear sunglasses and you've changed your reality.

Altering your perception of reality is not altering reality. You are not God.

Every experience you have of reality is a perception.  Everyone understands this, everyone understands the concept of a headset that augments the reality you see and hear with an overlay.  Except you, apparently.

What a dumb argument.  Two in a row.