I can also see how the device could have a flip-out arm (with a camera or a mirror) to take a video of your entire face, which could allow FaceTime calls to work (using software to skew your face into a normal view.)
So basically a selfie sticked attached to humongous goggles stuck to one's face. That'll send one to geek seventh heaven for sure.
I guess we’ll have to see but it doesn’t sound like anything I’d be interested in. Most people I know don’t want this sort of thing for every day use. Goggle type glasses will fly like a lead balloon.
Don’t believe it. Designed to lower expectations while the product blows people away. As initially a largely a developer tool, a sale at near cost is reasonable. The lower cost versions will make up for it.
You don't blow away people with an anti-social $3000 device requiring a battery belt.
And no one will by an expensive mobile phone without a keyboard.
This is an interesting (and commonly used) form of logic among Apple-o-philes (which I kind of am myself to be honest). It goes like this:
Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product with certain attributes (and pricing).
Some people raise legitimate questions, concerns, and even doubts about its potential long-term (or even short-term) success (or the scale of its success).
Someone then points to a previous product (e.g., iPhone, iPad) that had detractors (usually industry pundits) but succeeded anyway. Therefore...
Anytime Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product and people are questioning it, it must be the same situation.
Examples: TV+, Car, this rumored VR/AR/XR product, etc.
But this is flawed reasoning.
First, because products like iPad and iPhone are both reasonable extensions and evolutions of previous product category technologies that Apple executed (technologically and marketing-wise) much better than previous competitors.
Second, these products clearly play off of Apple's core-competency (the beautiful and seamless marriage of digital hardware and software). This isn't necessarily true with something like a car and certainly not with a media streaming service (e.g., TV+).
Third, just because Apple "outsmarted" or "outguessed" the pundits and critics before does not mean they can or will again. Using the same form of logic one could easily predict that every future product Apple launches will be an abject failure because they have launched products (often to much fanfare and excitement) that have later failed.
Granted, Apple has been and likely will continue to be a tough company to bet against. This doesn't mean their success is always a forgone conclusion. For example, I'm still bearish on TV+ long-term. I'm also skeptical about an Car due to the level of complexity (relative to something like iPhones, iPads and Watches) of designing, building, distributing, selling, and servicing cars. While a car might be closer to Apple's core-competency (e.g., the beautiful and seamless marriage of hardware and software), it carries and order of magnitude more complexity than they have experience with.
The better approach here is to try and apply logic and reasoning centered around the product (rumored or real) itself and what that looks like in the current real-world of technology, competitors, culture, and society (yes, products live in a societal and cultural context). So, for the rumored AR/VR/XR product one of the big questions I have had is what problem this is solving and for how many people. I've yet to hear a compelling case for a use cases that would likely serve millions or tens of millions of people. I can certainly see niche use cases. But I, personally, don't realistic envision tens of millions of people strapping a product like this to their face for hours every day. A watch? Sure. Kind of a no brainer. Phone? Yep. Table? Yes. NOTE: Even a car I can see, I just question Apple's play in that world.
Absolutely can be true of cars - See Tesla.
And why isn't XR an extension of Apple's core competencies. They have the chip team, they've had much of the software in iOS for years.
Fitness is a compelling use case. I've used VR for fitness for 5 years and the entire time I wished Apple would do it right. Heart rate monitor and pulse ox data in the Apple Watch should be synced up with the workout.
If resolution is as good as rumored, and passthrough is as good as rumored, home IMAX quality movie theater is another potentially compelling case.
And AI is potentially a huge part of it too. I keep hearing rumors Apple is sitting on breakthrough AI.
We find out in a couple of weeks.
Yes it can/might be true of cars. But there's a lot more to these than Apple has dealt with.
I wasn't claiming that XR isn't an extension of Apple's core-competencies. It certainly is. For this product the point is just because Apple has succeeded in the face of previous doubts doesn't mean they will in this case (which is the argument many make). This product has less clear use case than say a phone, watch, or tablet. Really my first and third reasons would apply here. The second would not. I was addressing the logic the other poster (and many others) frequently use which is basically "Apple got criticized before and won, therefore..."
Fitness might be a compelling use case. I don't see it myself. I'm quite content going to my gym and lifting weights or running on the treadmill (or going out for a nice walk with my dog). I see little value in strapping something to my face to do any of that. But, yes, perhaps millions of others will. And, maybe, if I tried it I would too. This side of things I am quite skeptical.
Home theater? Maybe. Do my wife and I both get one to sit there and watch a movie together? Rather than just sit and watch a nice 60-70" screen? What if I have a couple of kids or grandkids?
Apple can already replicate the top end movie experience sound. If they can also replicate Full IMAX or Dolby Cinema movie theater experience from your couch at home, complete with being able to see and talk to the person you're watching it with, it's going to be better than watching a 70" tv.
And for fitness. There are multiple reasons to use VR. It's fun, its portable, including traveling. And you don't have to plan ahead or travel. Just go put headset on and start playing something. Anytime. Anywhere.
Don’t believe it. Designed to lower expectations while the product blows people away. As initially a largely a developer tool, a sale at near cost is reasonable. The lower cost versions will make up for it.
You don't blow away people with an anti-social $3000 device requiring a battery belt.
And no one will by an expensive mobile phone without a keyboard.
This is an interesting (and commonly used) form of logic among Apple-o-philes (which I kind of am myself to be honest). It goes like this:
Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product with certain attributes (and pricing).
Some people raise legitimate questions, concerns, and even doubts about its potential long-term (or even short-term) success (or the scale of its success).
Someone then points to a previous product (e.g., iPhone, iPad) that had detractors (usually industry pundits) but succeeded anyway. Therefore...
Anytime Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product and people are questioning it, it must be the same situation.
Examples: TV+, Car, this rumored VR/AR/XR product, etc.
But this is flawed reasoning.
First, because products like iPad and iPhone are both reasonable extensions and evolutions of previous product category technologies that Apple executed (technologically and marketing-wise) much better than previous competitors.
Second, these products clearly play off of Apple's core-competency (the beautiful and seamless marriage of digital hardware and software). This isn't necessarily true with something like a car and certainly not with a media streaming service (e.g., TV+).
Third, just because Apple "outsmarted" or "outguessed" the pundits and critics before does not mean they can or will again. Using the same form of logic one could easily predict that every future product Apple launches will be an abject failure because they have launched products (often to much fanfare and excitement) that have later failed.
Granted, Apple has been and likely will continue to be a tough company to bet against. This doesn't mean their success is always a forgone conclusion. For example, I'm still bearish on TV+ long-term. I'm also skeptical about an Car due to the level of complexity (relative to something like iPhones, iPads and Watches) of designing, building, distributing, selling, and servicing cars. While a car might be closer to Apple's core-competency (e.g., the beautiful and seamless marriage of hardware and software), it carries and order of magnitude more complexity than they have experience with.
The better approach here is to try and apply logic and reasoning centered around the product (rumored or real) itself and what that looks like in the current real-world of technology, competitors, culture, and society (yes, products live in a societal and cultural context). So, for the rumored AR/VR/XR product one of the big questions I have had is what problem this is solving and for how many people. I've yet to hear a compelling case for a use cases that would likely serve millions or tens of millions of people. I can certainly see niche use cases. But I, personally, don't realistic envision tens of millions of people strapping a product like this to their face for hours every day. A watch? Sure. Kind of a no brainer. Phone? Yep. Table? Yes. NOTE: Even a car I can see, I just question Apple's play in that world.
Absolutely can be true of cars - See Tesla.
And why isn't XR an extension of Apple's core competencies. They have the chip team, they've had much of the software in iOS for years.
Fitness is a compelling use case. I've used VR for fitness for 5 years and the entire time I wished Apple would do it right. Heart rate monitor and pulse ox data in the Apple Watch should be synced up with the workout.
If resolution is as good as rumored, and passthrough is as good as rumored, home IMAX quality movie theater is another potentially compelling case.
And AI is potentially a huge part of it too. I keep hearing rumors Apple is sitting on breakthrough AI.
We find out in a couple of weeks.
Yes it can/might be true of cars. But there's a lot more to these than Apple has dealt with.
I wasn't claiming that XR isn't an extension of Apple's core-competencies. It certainly is. For this product the point is just because Apple has succeeded in the face of previous doubts doesn't mean they will in this case (which is the argument many make). This product has less clear use case than say a phone, watch, or tablet. Really my first and third reasons would apply here. The second would not. I was addressing the logic the other poster (and many others) frequently use which is basically "Apple got criticized before and won, therefore..."
Fitness might be a compelling use case. I don't see it myself. I'm quite content going to my gym and lifting weights or running on the treadmill (or going out for a nice walk with my dog). I see little value in strapping something to my face to do any of that. But, yes, perhaps millions of others will. And, maybe, if I tried it I would too. This side of things I am quite skeptical.
Home theater? Maybe. Do my wife and I both get one to sit there and watch a movie together? Rather than just sit and watch a nice 60-70" screen? What if I have a couple of kids or grandkids?
Apple can already replicate the top end movie experience sound. If they can also replicate Full IMAX or Dolby Cinema movie theater experience from your couch at home, complete with being able to see and talk to the person you're watching it with, it's going to be better than watching a 70" tv.
And for fitness. There are multiple reasons to use VR. It's fun, its portable, including traveling. And you don't have to plan ahead or travel. Just go put headset on and start playing something. Anytime. Anywhere.
That’s great if you’re single in a safe neighborhood - or to wear over your face during travel. Not so great if you want to watch movies with the family or friends - or if you want to share the movie with the pretty girl next to you on the airplane.
Again, a headset is a nice nerd concept that is not without merit, but isn’t a mass market life enhancer. It’s a niche thing. It may be much more high quality than oculus and do more stuff, but it’s still a headset.
Much rather have a huge tv and great sound system.
And AI is potentially a huge part of it too. I keep hearing rumors Apple is sitting on breakthrough AI.
We find out in a couple of weeks.
Seriously? Ground-breaking AI technology? Where have you heard that. No surprise at all that they may have some me-too LLM development going on; who doesn't? But Apple coming along with something earth-shattering and game changing in the next few months?
Don’t believe it. Designed to lower expectations while the product blows people away. As initially a largely a developer tool, a sale at near cost is reasonable. The lower cost versions will make up for it.
You don't blow away people with an anti-social $3000 device requiring a battery belt.
And no one will by an expensive mobile phone without a keyboard.
This is an interesting (and commonly used) form of logic among Apple-o-philes (which I kind of am myself to be honest). It goes like this:
Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product with certain attributes (and pricing).
Some people raise legitimate questions, concerns, and even doubts about its potential long-term (or even short-term) success (or the scale of its success).
Someone then points to a previous product (e.g., iPhone, iPad) that had detractors (usually industry pundits) but succeeded anyway. Therefore...
Anytime Apple comes out with (or is rumored to be developing) a product and people are questioning it, it must be the same situation.
Examples: TV+, Car, this rumored VR/AR/XR product, etc.
But this is flawed reasoning.
First, because products like iPad and iPhone are both reasonable extensions and evolutions of previous product category technologies that Apple executed (technologically and marketing-wise) much better than previous competitors.
Second, these products clearly play off of Apple's core-competency (the beautiful and seamless marriage of digital hardware and software). This isn't necessarily true with something like a car and certainly not with a media streaming service (e.g., TV+).
Third, just because Apple "outsmarted" or "outguessed" the pundits and critics before does not mean they can or will again. Using the same form of logic one could easily predict that every future product Apple launches will be an abject failure because they have launched products (often to much fanfare and excitement) that have later failed.
Granted, Apple has been and likely will continue to be a tough company to bet against. This doesn't mean their success is always a forgone conclusion. For example, I'm still bearish on TV+ long-term. I'm also skeptical about an Car due to the level of complexity (relative to something like iPhones, iPads and Watches) of designing, building, distributing, selling, and servicing cars. While a car might be closer to Apple's core-competency (e.g., the beautiful and seamless marriage of hardware and software), it carries and order of magnitude more complexity than they have experience with.
The better approach here is to try and apply logic and reasoning centered around the product (rumored or real) itself and what that looks like in the current real-world of technology, competitors, culture, and society (yes, products live in a societal and cultural context). So, for the rumored AR/VR/XR product one of the big questions I have had is what problem this is solving and for how many people. I've yet to hear a compelling case for a use cases that would likely serve millions or tens of millions of people. I can certainly see niche use cases. But I, personally, don't realistic envision tens of millions of people strapping a product like this to their face for hours every day. A watch? Sure. Kind of a no brainer. Phone? Yep. Table? Yes. NOTE: Even a car I can see, I just question Apple's play in that world.
Absolutely can be true of cars - See Tesla.
And why isn't XR an extension of Apple's core competencies. They have the chip team, they've had much of the software in iOS for years.
Fitness is a compelling use case. I've used VR for fitness for 5 years and the entire time I wished Apple would do it right. Heart rate monitor and pulse ox data in the Apple Watch should be synced up with the workout.
If resolution is as good as rumored, and passthrough is as good as rumored, home IMAX quality movie theater is another potentially compelling case.
And AI is potentially a huge part of it too. I keep hearing rumors Apple is sitting on breakthrough AI.
We find out in a couple of weeks.
Yes it can/might be true of cars. But there's a lot more to these than Apple has dealt with.
I wasn't claiming that XR isn't an extension of Apple's core-competencies. It certainly is. For this product the point is just because Apple has succeeded in the face of previous doubts doesn't mean they will in this case (which is the argument many make). This product has less clear use case than say a phone, watch, or tablet. Really my first and third reasons would apply here. The second would not. I was addressing the logic the other poster (and many others) frequently use which is basically "Apple got criticized before and won, therefore..."
Fitness might be a compelling use case. I don't see it myself. I'm quite content going to my gym and lifting weights or running on the treadmill (or going out for a nice walk with my dog). I see little value in strapping something to my face to do any of that. But, yes, perhaps millions of others will. And, maybe, if I tried it I would too. This side of things I am quite skeptical.
Home theater? Maybe. Do my wife and I both get one to sit there and watch a movie together? Rather than just sit and watch a nice 60-70" screen? What if I have a couple of kids or grandkids?
Apple can already replicate the top end movie experience sound. If they can also replicate Full IMAX or Dolby Cinema movie theater experience from your couch at home, complete with being able to see and talk to the person you're watching it with, it's going to be better than watching a 70" tv.
And for fitness. There are multiple reasons to use VR. It's fun, its portable, including traveling. And you don't have to plan ahead or travel. Just go put headset on and start playing something. Anytime. Anywhere.
I think you're missing my points.
Movies: I have no doubt Apple (and others) can create a very good experience watching these through such a device. What I'm questioning is why the heck I would do that when I typically watch movies with friends and family? Do I no I buy a device for every single one of them so we can all watch together? Watching TV and movies is somewhat of a shared social experience. Strapping some gadget to our faces seems to move in the other direction here. So, no matter how great the visual experience might be, I'm highly skeptical that this use case will see widespread (tens of millions of people) adoption.
Fitness: Fun? Okay. Working out at the gym or talking walks are fun too. Portable? Okay. I guess. I don't travel a lot. Again, I'm not sure I see the appeal for myself or for tens of millions of people here.
If Apple gets it right, friends and family will have one too, just like the have smart phones today. And you'll be able to watch together on a giant virtual movie theater, either in the same room, or in different places all together. Be on a business trip and still watch your show with your spouse at night. See the person (or their avatar if they are remote) when you look in their direction, see the movie when you look towards the screen. Similar to using transparency on AirPods. You aren't hearing the original sound (there are earphones, or head phones in the case of the max, in the way), it's' being recorded and rebroadcast to your ears.
And AI is potentially a huge part of it too. I keep hearing rumors Apple is sitting on breakthrough AI.
We find out in a couple of weeks.
Seriously? Ground-breaking AI technology? Where have you heard that. No surprise at all that they may have some me-too LLM development going on; who doesn't? But Apple coming along with something earth-shattering and game changing in the next few months?
Apple has a massive amount of untapped AI hardware in their chips, they didn't put all of that AI power in there for no reason.
Comments
And for fitness. There are multiple reasons to use VR. It's fun, its portable, including traveling. And you don't have to plan ahead or travel. Just go put headset on and start playing something. Anytime. Anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNpQsCXcHcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPsUSEMzItI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7-z0yPUWdA
last one not really a workout, but it's fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt-oA6oQQhQ