Apple's headset will need killer apps & services to be successful

Posted:
in General Discussion
As Apple reportedly prepares to announce a mixed-reality headset at WWDC, analysts predict that the high cost and reliance on immersive apps and ecosystem integration will be key factors for its success.

An Apple headset may launch in 2023
An Apple headset may launch in 2023


With Apple's WWDC event drawing near, there is great excitement regarding the upcoming revelation of Apple's mixed-reality headset. Speculations suggest that the announcement will take place during the event, and the headset is projected to become available in the latter part of 2023.

In a note to investors seen by AppleInsider, analysts at TD Cowen believe introducing the mixed-reality headset is merely the initial step, as they predict that Apple will launch a virtual reality-focused headset in 2024. Their forecast also echoes other reports, saying that the cost of the MR headset could be between $2,000 to $3,000.

That high cost is due to the display and optical components, which could take up as much as 60% of the total hardware cost. That's followed by sensors at approximately 15% and semiconductors at around 8%.

Apple relies on high-quality micro OLED display panels, pancake lens optics, and 8-10 front-facing 4K camera sensors to differentiate features from competing headsets. Additionally, the research suggests that suppliers involved in the production of the headset include Sony for the display, TSMC for the display and SoC processor, LG Innotek for the ToF sensor, Pegatron for assembly, and Hon Hai for mechanical components.

But for the headset to be successful, it needs killer apps and integration into Apple's software and services ecosystem. TD Cowen suggests that the growth of the headset could be propelled by various app categories, such as health and fitness apps, as well as the lifestyle category encompassing kids and family, social networking, shopping, and tourism.

Apple holds a competitive edge in XR platform content creation due to the vast number of approximately 34 million iOS developers worldwide. As a result, discovering content through the App Store will be crucial for users adopting the headset.

Furthermore, Apple has an opportunity to address the existing gap in the XR/VR ecosystem by providing immersive XR content for subscription services like Music, TV+, and Fitness+. The company's digital payment platforms, including Apple Pay, Apple Card, Apple Cash, and Apple Pay Later, could also play a pivotal role in facilitating monetization across virtual worlds and platforms that are not limited to a specific operating system.

As part of the report, Cowen maintains its "Outperform" rating for AAPL stock and a price target of $195.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    twolf2919twolf2919 Posts: 137member
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    williamlondondesignrDooofus
  • Reply 2 of 32
    mikethemartianmikethemartian Posts: 1,475member
    VisiCalc Reality
    emoellerthethirdshoewilliamlondondesignrwatto_cobraentropysFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 3 of 32
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,919member
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded. 
    edited May 2023 StrangeDayswilliamlondondanoxwatto_cobraFileMakerFellerbyronl
  • Reply 4 of 32
    XedXed Posts: 2,823member
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    Luckily for the everyone, innovation isn't based around your singular ability to imagine.

    I would implore you to consider how you may see a given concept in a new light if you had been working on it for a decade along with teams of people numbering in the thousands. Additionally, I'd have you look at Apple's long history of being successful with products that people such as yourself said were foolish for them to consider.

    Personally, I have no current need for a VR or mixed reality goggles, but my concept of their use is currently still well within what has been available so far.  My inability to see how a new product may offer an experience that works for me is my shortcoming, not Apple's... but at least I see that limitation in myself, which is why I'm waiting for an announcement and demo before I determine how much (if anything) I'm willing to pay for a new product category from Apple.
    edited May 2023 muthuk_vanalingamStrangeDaysroundaboutnowthethirdshoewilliamlondondanoxwatto_cobrarmusikantowbyronl
  • Reply 5 of 32
    hmlongcohmlongco Posts: 563member
    "Apple's headset will need killer apps & services to be successful"

    An entry in the Captain Obvious category, if you ask me.
    StrangeDayscanukstormthethirdshoemattinozwatto_cobraentropysFileMakerFellerbyronl
  • Reply 6 of 32
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,060member
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    I suspect it isn't your trillion-dollar job to imagine such things. 

    Myself, I can imagine the first-gen product is going to be for enthusiasts as the platform builds up steam, much like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Watch -- none of which sprang out of the clam shell fully-formed and rooted as a success. They built momentum. The first-gen headset will surely be the worst one Apple ever makes, but since I'm an enthusiast I can imagine giving it a whirl. Over time it will be democratized, just as those other platforms were. 
    edited May 2023 canukstormwilliamlondonthethirdshoemattinozwatto_cobrarmusikantowFileMakerFellerbyronl
  • Reply 7 of 32
    thttht Posts: 5,619member
    I'm still confused on whether this device is going to be a VR only device or an MR device. The rumors so far are that it will be both: a mixed reality device where the user can see the outside world, and be able to be enclosed in an entirely simulated world. All are rumors so far, so who knows.

    The plethora of VR products on the market seem to indicate there isn't a killer app to drive mass market adoption. Even with games where you'd think they'd be really good at, there are a user interface issues that make playing FPS games difficult, and any computer game or application that makes the user sweat is not good either. There are games that VR is good at, they just aren't the type of games that make enough money to drive investment in the market. Immersive video experiences are probably still waiting on content that is truly optimized for it, but seems stuck in a chicken or the egg situation.

    If it is a true-blue mixed reality device, than users can wear it while working, while driving, while walking, while cooking, what have you. Augmented humans. This market is big. Just not sure how Apple is going to accomplish it. It looks like they are going to have cameras that feed video into the OLED displays inside, so you can walk around with them on. If they have this working where it is indistinguishable from looking through goggles, well, it will really make the vision of an "augmented" human possible, and there is a big market for this. It's going to be clunky with the first few models, but it's a big market, something like sunglasses, eventually.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 32
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 584member
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    Everyone told me the very same thing in 1978 when I parted with a month's salary (pre-tax) to purchase an Apple computer (s/n 6387).   It changed my life both personally and professionally.  As to my use case for a mixed reality headset - I can see this as essentially a super high resolution TV first - think having a portable AppleTV/internet streaming with 4k Atmos for travel.  Essentially a replacement for a large high end 4K/8K TV (even at $3k the price is right for this now).  The second use case would be as a portable computer monitor for spreadsheets, games, word processing, video editing, photography, music, etc.  This is going to take some time to get be optimized, but it will be the future of computing.  Finally, the ultimate use case is shared communications (audio/video in 3-d VR) with shared access to computer screens, data, visualizations, mapping, apps and programming etc. etc..  
    williamlondonrmusikantowwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 32
    hmlongcohmlongco Posts: 563member
    Most of the "virtual" desktop systems I've seen suffer from resolution issues where the virtual controls and text on the "screens" looks fuzzy. If this has enough resolution to solve that issue I'm all over it. Might be nice to have a virtual desktop with 2-3 Pro XDR displays on it....

    Of course, a "display" is such a limiting concept. Why not simply have windows and documents all floating in their own space, arranged as needed?
    williamlondonwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 10 of 32
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,226member
    Myself, I can imagine the first-gen product is going to be for enthusiasts...
    Including enthusiastic, opportunistic 3rd party developers who will be all over the new platform and set the stage for Joe Schmoe to buy the 2nd generation, less expensive model.
    watto_cobraFileMakerFellerh2p
  • Reply 11 of 32
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,294member
    hmlongco said:
    "Apple's headset will need killer apps & services to be successful"

    An entry in the Captain Obvious category, if you ask me.
    It has to be said, over and over because the general public, tech Analysts, and Wall Street keep getting confused about the way Apple works/develops products. My response however, will lead to staying long and buying more Apple shares. :smile: 
    edited May 2023 watto_cobraFileMakerFellerbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 12 of 32
    twolf2919twolf2919 Posts: 137member
    macxpress said:
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded. 
    The differences are obvious - you even point one of them out: $599 (the starting price for an iPhone in 2007) - even adjusted for inflation is only about $880 today.  That's less than 1/3 the rumored cost of this headset!  Second, the iPhone had obvious everyday use cases when it came out - people had already been using desktop browsers and desktop applications - there was a known demand for those - and Apple elegantly brought them to the mobile phone.  Even before the iPhone existed, people saw those as useful in mobile life - thus the many other prior attempts at them (see Nokia and other tablets).  But what practical use cases do you see for ski goggles plastered to your forehead?  More importantly, what practical uses cases do you see that you'd be willing to spend $3000 for?    I invited you to "think outside the box".

    edited May 2023 designrFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 13 of 32
    emoeller said:
    Everyone told me the very same thing in 1978 when I parted with a month's salary (pre-tax) to purchase an Apple computer (s/n 6387).   It changed my life both personally and professionally.  As to my use case for a mixed reality headset - I can see this as essentially a super high resolution TV first - think having a portable AppleTV/internet streaming with 4k Atmos for travel.  Essentially a replacement for a large high end 4K/8K TV (even at $3k the price is right for this now).  The second use case would be as a portable computer monitor for spreadsheets, games, word processing, video editing, photography, music, etc.  This is going to take some time to get be optimized, but it will be the future of computing.  Finally, the ultimate use case is shared communications (audio/video in 3-d VR) with shared access to computer screens, data, visualizations, mapping, apps and programming etc. etc..  
    I bought an Apple IIe in 1983 or so for college. $2500 loan ($7614.53 today) included main unit with: DuoDisk, Apple Monitor II, Apple Modem and Extended 80-Column Text Card. The Apple Modem (2800 baud) alone was $500. I knew some folks that were using an acoustic modem (you set the handset on it after dialing).

    1) $3000 is "of course I will buy it".  
    The simple use case of using it for virtual monitors is a wash.  If it seems like a couple of Apple studio displays, you're coming out ahead.
    If it seems like a Pro Display, XDR, maybe not so likely, you're way ahead.  I will probably get the new Mac Mini M2 Pro to pair it with. (unless they announce a better computer at WWDC)

    2) "analysts at TD Cowen believe introducing the mixed-reality headset is merely the initial step, as they predict that Apple will launch a virtual reality-focused headset in 2024"
    These guys are just wrong. The number one thing will be mixed reality. They are stuck on "they have a hammer so everything is a nail."

    3) Another article I read, asking a person about the Apple headset with a person at a VR firm. Every other sentence was VR this and VR that.  VR, VR, VR.
    They are going to get stomped. All capitals.

    4) My wife had surgery a couple of days ago. I'm sitting there watching the nurses shove around paperwork, typing stuff into the monitor that was in the room. It looked so primitive. One had to pull out a calculator to determine the rate for the saline drip. That is all going to go away within 10 years.

    watto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 14 of 32
    XedXed Posts: 2,823member
    twolf2919 said:
    macxpress said:
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded. 
     I invited you to "think outside the box".
    You're telling others to do so and yet you're unable and/or unwilling to do so yourself.
    edited May 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 32
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,772member
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    Just yesterday I wrote about the two types of detractors around here, the clueless people and the narcissistic people. And holy shit if you didn’t just prove my point with just your first sentence alone. 
    thethirdshoewatto_cobrabeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 16 of 32
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,446moderator
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    These sites list some of the most popular VR games:

    https://gamerant.com/top-selling-vr-games-according-steam/
    https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/top-10-vr-games-by-revenue
    https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-current-best-selling-vr-games-of-all-time-thread-updated.1653465/

    The top ones include Beat Saber:

    https://www.pcgamer.com/beat-saber-slashes-vr-sales-records-after-shipping-4-million-copies/



    That's a game that can be used for fitness and could easily get long-term use. However, the charts show VR usage to be quite low and is something that Meta/Facebook mentioned in recent years. Millions of headsets have been sold but they aren't getting used much.

    https://mixed-news.com/en/one-in-four-u-s-teens-owns-a-vr-headset-but-barely-uses-it/

    https://steamcharts.com/app/620980#All (Beat Saber VR)
    https://steamcharts.com/app/546560#All (Half-Life Alyx VR)

    They are about 1/20th the usage of popular non-VR games:

    https://steamcharts.com/app/1245620 (Elden Ring)
    https://steamcharts.com/app/1091500#All (Cyberpunk 2077)
    https://steamcharts.com/app/990080#All (Hogwarts Legacy)

    The only VR software that comes close to that usage is VRChat, this seems like a mix of Roblox, Second Life and social video apps:

    https://store.steampowered.com/app/438100/VRChat/
    https://steamcharts.com/app/438100#All
    https://store.steampowered.com/charts/mostplayed (46th)

    From what Apple has said in the past, they want to focus more on AR than VR. An AR game would look like this:



    Movies are a popular use for AR glasses because you get a wall-sized display. It's similar to having a 100"+ projector screen but OLED and 3D and one you can take anywhere:



    Does movies + fitness + gaming + virtual displays + in-person chat justify a $3k price? No, but that price is made up. Does it justify a $1500 price tag? Maybe. $700? definitely.
    edited May 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 32
    digitoldigitol Posts: 276member
    Pretty sure this is going to be a flop. Sad. Sigh, Apple has lost its way.  I’d like to see development more on screen tech sensor suites, get rid of the notch, bring edge to edge display, battery  tech,  and foremost better refining and maturing of software. Less update cycles and more stability and fixes would be welcome. Also it appears AGI is on the rise, meanwhile Siri remains lobotomized. Probably should see some work on that. Only things lately that I have enjoyed with Apple products is the Apple Watch health, and the Apple TV.  M series Mac’s have been great too, but have a ways to go. 
  • Reply 18 of 32
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,919member
    twolf2919 said:
    macxpress said:
    twolf2919 said:
    Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000?   I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app".   Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged?  Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
    A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone.  There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses.  Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality.  Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public!  So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
    In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded. 
    The differences are obvious - you even point one of them out: $599 (the starting price for an iPhone in 2007) - even adjusted for inflation is only about $880 today.  That's less than 1/3 the rumored cost of this headset!  Second, the iPhone had obvious everyday use cases when it came out - people had already been using desktop browsers and desktop applications - there was a known demand for those - and Apple elegantly brought them to the mobile phone.  Even before the iPhone existed, people saw those as useful in mobile life - thus the many other prior attempts at them (see Nokia and other tablets).  But what practical use cases do you see for ski goggles plastered to your forehead?  More importantly, what practical uses cases do you see that you'd be willing to spend $3000 for?    I invited you to "think outside the box".

    You sound like the next Steve Ballmer.....This is exactly how he always responded to new Apple product spaces. Do you remember how that ended up?
    danoxwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 19 of 32
    twlevetwleve Posts: 3member
    SpaceTime - where you can be with your beloveds far away. 
    Fitness+, together with the coach - perhaps they already filmed their exercises in VR?
    Travel the world for the movement impaired.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 32
    twleve said:
    SpaceTime - where you can be with your beloveds far away. 
    Fitness+, together with the coach - perhaps they already filmed their exercises in VR?
    Travel the world for the movement impaired.
    Nice start!
    • Facial Recognition (AR app) to give you the name of the person you're talking to
    • Driving Assist (AR app) to use proximity sensors in your car to alert you of traffic
    • Instructions for Assembly (AR app) to show people how to put things together.  I think IKEA might be a forward thinker on this.
    • Visicalc (VR app) for using huge spreadsheets where turning your head helps you get all of the numbers seen
    • Any type of simulator (AR/VR app)  Some types of simulators make people nauseous when fully immersed, but an AR app would help by letting people see the real world for "grounding"
    • Baseball Hitting (AR/VR app) - get timing of virtual ball hitting bat, to make players better

    I think the killer app, to get this thing going had better be good.  Solitaire in Windows 3 just kept people looking at Windows, and is easy to learn, fun to play, and the bouncing cards was the "win".  These glasses need something like that, just to keep people playing it "one more time".

    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.