So what does this thing do that XBox doesn't already do for gaming?
There, you are already interacting virtually with both allies and enemies. Facebook is already letting you interact virtually with other fans at NBA games (using their headset but it seems that could be done (more comfortably) with a TV as well).
So, what does it do that isn't already being done? (Serious question, not trying to trash this thing. But I admit my skepticism because it would have to offer an enormous amount for me to wear such a headset)
All that processing power must get pretty warm on your face.
It doubles as a tanning bed for your face so when users leave their Mom's basement for their jobs at the Dollar Store their coworkers will think they've either been exo-basement, i.e., out in the sun (OMG!) or on a vacation in sunnier climes. Well ...... that's only until they remove their mask and the starkly contrasting paleness of the bottom half of their face is revealed. Keep your sunglasses handy.
It's highly likely that Apple is delaying the release, mulling (or is it mulleting?), of this face wearable product until they can work out the partial face tanning issue or finish up their Apple Magic Tanning Bed that also serves as a wireless charging station for you and all of your wireless charging devices.
Or I could just be making all of this up, i.e., "Bloombergering" so to speak.
It’s great that Apple is getting into AR/VR but an unproven product in a new product category at an unaffordable price won’t do well regardless of how many fans it has.
As Apple (to my knowledge) has not announced a release date, there is no delay in delivery.
It is not unusual for development schedules to slip. Part of being a project manager is knowing when to slip the schedule. Slip too soon, people relax and works slow down. Wait too long, people feel like they’re on a death march and stop taking the schedule seriously. The trick is to keep just the right amount of pressure. It sounds like the project managers are debating that question right now.
So what does this thing do that XBox doesn't already do for gaming?
There, you are already interacting virtually with both allies and enemies. Facebook is already letting you interact virtually with other fans at NBA games (using their headset but it seems that could be done (more comfortably) with a TV as well).
So, what does it do that isn't already being done? (Serious question, not trying to trash this thing. But I admit my skepticism because it would have to offer an enormous amount for me to wear such a headset)
There currently isn't a general purpose AR wearable that can be used with a computer and VR products all have clunky controllers.
Some rumors suggest Apple will make both a bulky VR headset and lightweight AR glasses as separate products. When the iPhone launched, it was jokingly introduced as 3 products - it's an iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
I don't believe Apple will introduce two distinct products into the same category. I believe they are working on a single wearable product that will work for both use cases and will be lightweight for AR as its primary use case. They may not be as small as regular glasses but even larger glasses look fine for everyday use:
There would be very little compelling about an expensive VR headset over an Oculus Quest 2. It would likely be better designed but all the software worth using with a VR product is on consoles and PC because it's very costly to make. Sony has 17 internal game studios and they can get any of them to make exclusive VR content:
It's a very small portion of the gaming market just now. PSVR is at 6 million units after 6 years on the market. This is out of at least 100 million players on that platform. PC similarly has over 100 million players. There was a report that said the most popular VR headset on PC, Oculus Quest 2, sold 10 million units, this would put total VR units around 25 million units. That seems off because the Steam hardware survey says less than 2% of Steam user have a VR headset:
It might be that people are gifting VR headsets and they aren't being used or are being used a few times then put in a drawer. IDC's numbers aren't far from this shipped volume:
That would be a tough market for Apple. An AR wearable on the other hand has an instant use-case. How many people want a 100-200" OLED TV? An AR wearable can work as a 200" TV on your face. It can be used to replace any display on any computer. That's the biggest use case for a wearable device and it would be possible to use it for VR.
It’s great that Apple is getting into AR/VR but an unproven product in a new product category at an unaffordable price won’t do well regardless of how many fans it has.
True... Or it was -- until Steve and Apple came along. It sort of became their specialty.
So what does this thing do that XBox doesn't already do for gaming?
There, you are already interacting virtually with both allies and enemies. Facebook is already letting you interact virtually with other fans at NBA games (using their headset but it seems that could be done (more comfortably) with a TV as well).
So, what does it do that isn't already being done? (Serious question, not trying to trash this thing. But I admit my skepticism because it would have to offer an enormous amount for me to wear such a headset)
There currently isn't a general purpose AR wearable that can be used with a computer and VR products all have clunky controllers.
Some rumors suggest Apple will make both a bulky VR headset and lightweight AR glasses as separate products. When the iPhone launched, it was jokingly introduced as 3 products - it's an iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
I don't believe Apple will introduce two distinct products into the same category. I believe they are working on a single wearable product that will work for both use cases and will be lightweight for AR as its primary use case. They may not be as small as regular glasses but even larger glasses look fine for everyday use:
There would be very little compelling about an expensive VR headset over an Oculus Quest 2. It would likely be better designed but all the software worth using with a VR product is on consoles and PC because it's very costly to make. Sony has 17 internal game studios and they can get any of them to make exclusive VR content:
It's a very small portion of the gaming market just now. PSVR is at 6 million units after 6 years on the market. This is out of at least 100 million players on that platform. PC similarly has over 100 million players. There was a report that said the most popular VR headset on PC, Oculus Quest 2, sold 10 million units, this would put total VR units around 25 million units. That seems off because the Steam hardware survey says less than 2% of Steam user have a VR headset:
It might be that people are gifting VR headsets and they aren't being used or are being used a few times then put in a drawer. IDC's numbers aren't far from this shipped volume:
That would be a tough market for Apple. An AR wearable on the other hand has an instant use-case. How many people want a 100-200" OLED TV? An AR wearable can work as a 200" TV on your face. It can be used to replace any display on any computer. That's the biggest use case for a wearable device and it would be possible to use it for VR.
So, Microsoft does not have the ability to force every player to buy one. They are hoping Apple to show them how this can be done?
So what does this thing do that XBox doesn't already do for gaming?
There, you are already interacting virtually with both allies and enemies. Facebook is already letting you interact virtually with other fans at NBA games (using their headset but it seems that could be done (more comfortably) with a TV as well).
So, what does it do that isn't already being done? (Serious question, not trying to trash this thing. But I admit my skepticism because it would have to offer an enormous amount for me to wear such a headset)
There currently isn't a general purpose AR wearable that can be used with a computer and VR products all have clunky controllers.
Some rumors suggest Apple will make both a bulky VR headset and lightweight AR glasses as separate products. When the iPhone launched, it was jokingly introduced as 3 products - it's an iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
I don't believe Apple will introduce two distinct products into the same category. I believe they are working on a single wearable product that will work for both use cases and will be lightweight for AR as its primary use case. They may not be as small as regular glasses but even larger glasses look fine for everyday use:
There would be very little compelling about an expensive VR headset over an Oculus Quest 2. It would likely be better designed but all the software worth using with a VR product is on consoles and PC because it's very costly to make. Sony has 17 internal game studios and they can get any of them to make exclusive VR content:
It's a very small portion of the gaming market just now. PSVR is at 6 million units after 6 years on the market. This is out of at least 100 million players on that platform. PC similarly has over 100 million players. There was a report that said the most popular VR headset on PC, Oculus Quest 2, sold 10 million units, this would put total VR units around 25 million units. That seems off because the Steam hardware survey says less than 2% of Steam user have a VR headset:
It might be that people are gifting VR headsets and they aren't being used or are being used a few times then put in a drawer. IDC's numbers aren't far from this shipped volume:
That would be a tough market for Apple. An AR wearable on the other hand has an instant use-case. How many people want a 100-200" OLED TV? An AR wearable can work as a 200" TV on your face. It can be used to replace any display on any computer. That's the biggest use case for a wearable device and it would be possible to use it for VR.
Good points.
There is one more that I've heard mentioned: for work such as surgery (whether on a car or a human) where, particularly when combined with AI, it could guide the technician through a procedure -- either to clean out a throttle body or a carotid.
And, possibly warfare -- it sounds a lot like the helmet worn in the F35.
But, for pleasure, umm...
Perhaps the difference is between a really serious gamer and someone who simply uses it casually as a way to fill time. I could see a very serious gamer using one -- especially if it gave him an advantage over his opponent.
There is one more that I've heard mentioned: for work such as surgery (whether on a car or a human) where, particularly when combined with AI, it could guide the technician through a procedure -- either to clean out a throttle body or a carotid.
And, possibly warfare -- it sounds a lot like the helmet worn in the F35.
But, for pleasure, umm...
Perhaps the difference is between a really serious gamer and someone who simply uses it casually as a way to fill time. I could see a very serious gamer using one -- especially if it gave him an advantage over his opponent.
I don't see the main use for Apple's wearable being gaming, I think it will be movies, apps and secondary displays for Macs/iPhones.
AR gaming outside of Pokemon Go is pretty bad. There will probably be improvements to this so you can do things like virtual card games, Star Wars-like holo-chess but high volume interest at launch has to come from a well established content category.
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
Our education system is still mired down and slogging through the mud of paper, pencil and textbooks. COVID exposed their weakness in incorporating even basic, established technology into the actual core curriculum (yeh, most schools do have coding classes, but they're a sideline). While a VR headset could have a place there, I think it will be many years till our education systems are ready for such radical change.
Plus, then you get to the parents who won't even let their kids wear masks. Can you imagine their horror at headsets?
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
Our education system is still mired down and slogging through the mud of paper, pencil and textbooks. COVID exposed their weakness in incorporating even basic, established technology into the actual core curriculum (yeh, most schools do have coding classes, but they're a sideline). While a VR headset could have a place there, I think it will be many years till our education systems are ready for such radical change.
Plus, then you get to the parents who won't even let their kids wear masks. Can you imagine their horror at headsets?
More importantly, is the question of whether such technology is really necessary or valuable in most educational settings. Technologists have always dreamed and fantasized about how technology could and would revolutionize education. But is technology really the problem in education? I think not.
I think Wikipedia has greatly changed education. But it needs to incorporate audio and video into some articles.
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
Our education system is still mired down and slogging through the mud of paper, pencil and textbooks. COVID exposed their weakness in incorporating even basic, established technology into the actual core curriculum (yeh, most schools do have coding classes, but they're a sideline). While a VR headset could have a place there, I think it will be many years till our education systems are ready for such radical change.
Plus, then you get to the parents who won't even let their kids wear masks. Can you imagine their horror at headsets?
More importantly, is the question of whether such technology is really necessary or valuable in most educational settings. Technologists have always dreamed and fantasized about how technology could and would revolutionize education. But is technology really the problem in education? I think not.
Just one example might illustrate it:
When my grandson was in cyberschool he did his homework and took his tests online. And (except for essay questions) they were instantly graded automatically by the computer. And, all of his study & reading materials were provided online via web or PDF documents.
When he returned to online classes at the same school using the same teachers, he was given 20+ pounds of text books and his homework and tests were administered with paper and pencil and manually graded by the teacher -- which took days and sometimes weeks. I would much rather have his teachers teaching, coaching and assisting rather than wasting their time grading papers. And, aside from the waste of resources, text books can be kept up to date much better and easier if they are online. Actually, because his materials were provided online, they were actually richer because his social studies and science teachers could include articles and such in addition to the standard text book stuff. His math teacher even included some online math games for practice and a few times made use of Khan Academy.
As always: technology itself is neither good nor bad -- much depends on how it is designed, implemented and used.
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
Our education system is still mired down and slogging through the mud of paper, pencil and textbooks. COVID exposed their weakness in incorporating even basic, established technology into the actual core curriculum (yeh, most schools do have coding classes, but they're a sideline). While a VR headset could have a place there, I think it will be many years till our education systems are ready for such radical change.
Plus, then you get to the parents who won't even let their kids wear masks. Can you imagine their horror at headsets?
I think it’s important to differentiate between VR/AR as a technology and VR/AR as implemented in current VR/AR headsets. I view most current VR/AR headsets as very primitive devices, being in a similar state of refinement for the technology as a whole as was the iron lung when it was first introduced. Augmented reality should not be reality replacement.
I do agree with the notion that technology should never be seen as a substitute for traditional education. Technology can help or augment learning when there are no other viable alternatives, just like human handlers can provide some level of replacement “education” to give orphaned wild animals a better chance of returning to the wild. There is simply no substitute for real contact, interaction, and the natural learning processes that have evolved in complex organisms like humans.
I would imagine that remote learning and teleconferencing experiences could be drastically improved with AR technology, especially compared to interacting with a matrix of heads staring back at you from a flat screen.
Most classroom lessons, at least at the higher grade levels are approximately 45-50 minutes in length, so joining in for a relatively short period of time with enforced breaks in-between would probably be tolerable and still far more engaging than traditional FaceTime or Zoom experiences. If I’m a student I just want to watch the teacher and the presentation. I don’t want to see the other students faces unless I want to interact with them.
I haven’t thought about how the technology could create a virtual classroom that also allowed you to interact with other audience members, ideally with real images of the other members versus animations, but maybe it doesn’t matter. Simply getting away from the 2D matrix of heads and having a better sense of being present in a shared physical space would be good enough.
The closest I’ve come to experiencing everyone on a video teleconference being in the same physical space is Cisco’s presence technology, but it’s way outside of the realm of affordability for individual use.
In any case, it’s probably worth considering the educational and meet-up potentials of VR technology and devices.
Our education system is still mired down and slogging through the mud of paper, pencil and textbooks. COVID exposed their weakness in incorporating even basic, established technology into the actual core curriculum (yeh, most schools do have coding classes, but they're a sideline). While a VR headset could have a place there, I think it will be many years till our education systems are ready for such radical change.
Plus, then you get to the parents who won't even let their kids wear masks. Can you imagine their horror at headsets?
I think it’s important to differentiate between VR/AR as a technology and VR/AR as implemented in current VR/AR headsets. I view most current VR/AR headsets as very primitive devices, being in a similar state of refinement for the technology as a whole as was the iron lung when it was first introduced. Augmented reality should not be reality replacement.
I do agree with the notion that technology should never be seen as a substitute for traditional education. Technology can help or augment learning when there are no other viable alternatives, just like human handlers can provide some level of replacement “education” to give orphaned wild animals a better chance of returning to the wild. There is simply no substitute for real contact, interaction, and the natural learning processes that have evolved in complex organisms like humans.
While I don't disagree with what you said (about tech & education) let add that it doesn't have to be black and white, 'old way or new way'.
When I was in IT designing and implementing (mostly financial) systems, my systems never once displaced a worker. The company paid for the systems in order to improve the quality of what they were doing because the old, paper and pencil way had limitations. The technology I designed, built and implemented removed those limitations to quality -- it didn't remove workers. Things got done better with the technology helping.
.... I see the same in education.
.... For example, as I mentioned above: Isn't it better for a teacher to spend their time teaching, mentoring and coaching than spending hours grading reams of homework and test papers? Except for things like essay questions, a computer can administer and grade tests and homework better than a human. But it takes a human to decide what goes into the homework and test.
Another example: after retiring from IT I became a nurse and had to take the licensing test. It was entirely administered by computer. The computer would ask anywhere between 75 to 255 questions. If you got the answer to a question right it would ask a harder question (and vice-versa). Once the computer figured out whether you knew enough to be a safe and effective nurse, it stopped asking questions.
... I saw that as an absolutely brilliant use of technology. No human or paper & pencil test could have done that as well.
Comments
Facebook is already letting you interact virtually with other fans at NBA games (using their headset but it seems that could be done (more comfortably) with a TV as well).
(Serious question, not trying to trash this thing. But I admit my skepticism because it would have to offer an enormous amount for me to wear such a headset)
Some rumors suggest Apple will make both a bulky VR headset and lightweight AR glasses as separate products. When the iPhone launched, it was jokingly introduced as 3 products - it's an iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
I don't believe Apple will introduce two distinct products into the same category. I believe they are working on a single wearable product that will work for both use cases and will be lightweight for AR as its primary use case. They may not be as small as regular glasses but even larger glasses look fine for everyday use:
There would be very little compelling about an expensive VR headset over an Oculus Quest 2. It would likely be better designed but all the software worth using with a VR product is on consoles and PC because it's very costly to make. Sony has 17 internal game studios and they can get any of them to make exclusive VR content:
Microsoft isn't very interested in VR:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/02/12/xbox-head-phil-spencer-rules-out-vr-for-xbox-series-x/
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-11-28-phil-spencer-nobodys-asking-for-vr-on-xbox
It's a very small portion of the gaming market just now. PSVR is at 6 million units after 6 years on the market. This is out of at least 100 million players on that platform. PC similarly has over 100 million players. There was a report that said the most popular VR headset on PC, Oculus Quest 2, sold 10 million units, this would put total VR units around 25 million units. That seems off because the Steam hardware survey says less than 2% of Steam user have a VR headset:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
It might be that people are gifting VR headsets and they aren't being used or are being used a few times then put in a drawer. IDC's numbers aren't far from this shipped volume:
https://www.idc.com/promo/arvr
That would be a tough market for Apple. An AR wearable on the other hand has an instant use-case. How many people want a 100-200" OLED TV? An AR wearable can work as a 200" TV on your face. It can be used to replace any display on any computer. That's the biggest use case for a wearable device and it would be possible to use it for VR.
This is like what they did with tablets ($2799) before the iPad:
https://www.mobiletechreview.com/notebooks/gateway_xp_tablet.htm
They didn't wait for Apple to show them how it's done, they did their nerdy thing first then Apple showed them how it's done.
I don't see the main use for Apple's wearable being gaming, I think it will be movies, apps and secondary displays for Macs/iPhones.
AR gaming outside of Pokemon Go is pretty bad. There will probably be improvements to this so you can do things like virtual card games, Star Wars-like holo-chess but high volume interest at launch has to come from a well established content category.
I do agree with the notion that technology should never be seen as a substitute for traditional education. Technology can help or augment learning when there are no other viable alternatives, just like human handlers can provide some level of replacement “education” to give orphaned wild animals a better chance of returning to the wild. There is simply no substitute for real contact, interaction, and the natural learning processes that have evolved in complex organisms like humans.