twolf2919

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 wonder how Netflix will handle household members who are away from the physical home because they're in college?  We're in the US, but our daughter is in school in Vancouver, Canada at the moment.  Her permanent home address and voting is still with us - but she's not on "vacation" outside the home or living in a hotel obviously.

Surely you jest when writing a 0.1-0.2lb variation is problematic?!  That is friggin’ good accuracy!  Go ahead, tell me any consumer level scale that does better than 0.1lb in accuracy.

The author neglected to mention the rumor that Apple might sell the headset 'at cost' to gain adoption more quickly.  If they do and the cost to Apple is $1500, there might actually be some interest.  Emphasis on *might* since Apple has never produced a device at such high cost with such limited use time.  Yes, people pay up to $1500 for an iPhone - but you can use that all day, in all sorts of interactions.  Yes, people pay $3500 for a MacBook Pro - but, again, this can be useful all day.  And that is what Apple AR glasses would have been: a tool you can use all day in all sorts of ways.  I would have gladly forked out $1500 for a sleek set of glasses that enhanced experience and productivity all day.

Instead, we're getting this big honker of a "headset" that'll definitely be too ugly to wear all day and, most likely, too heavy too.  Oh, and as if the headset wasn't ugly enough, you may even get to wear/carry a separate batter - on your belt?

This headset, as rumored, will never see commercial success.  Apple will sell a few hundred thousand to developers and tell them "go pretend these are glasses and develop software for the AR glasses we'll be delivering in a few years".

9secondkox2 said:

...
The headset is nothing like that. No one has been anticipating this. No one had been asking for it. And it doesn’t solve anything. 

If the headset is an actual headset or even resembles one, it won’t be a big deal. 

If the user has to “wear” the power supply, it won’t be s big deal. 

If it costs a lot, it won’t be a big deal. 

It’s a niche. A “golly gee that’s neat” type of thing. Not a staple of modern life.  

The original concept was XR GLASSES. Let that sink in. Someone, somewhere at Apple has a great idea. Then it got pooped on by people with no vision and no courage to take up the challenge of making an impossible thing possible. Steve Jobs MADE people do this kind of thing. Is that no longer in Apple’s DNA? Has it been bred out? That would suck. Apple can make glasses, even if they have to INVENT components that never existed before or redefine what a battery is. 

...

So hopefully the actual product is glasses that you wear like a pair of sunglasses or such and has novel power built into the frame - if they are ready to launch it at all. 

Agree with everything you wrote.  The sad thing is that I can't think of the "technical hurdles" that supposedly is keeping Apple from bringing out AR glasses!  Sure, if the approach is to have these AR glasses be a totally independent product from the iPhone, you basically have to shrink down an iPhone into the size of light-weight glasses and that's pretty impossible.  But if the AR glasses are a companion product to iPhone, all those miniaturization and battery hurdles fall by the wayside - the glasses then simply need enough processing and battery power to drive the sensors/cameras that feed the iPhone (which is in your pocket anyway) what the user 'sees'.  The iPhone then does the heavy lifting cpu-/memory-wise to create the augmentation that is then sent back to the glasses for display.  Since the glasses just display stuff, collect sensor data, and transmit/receive wireless data from the iPhone, it should easily be possible to create lightweight glasses whose battery lasts all day.

A primitive version of this was developed over 10 years ago: Google Glass.  Aside from 10 years worth of additional miniaturization, Apple AR glasses wouldn't  have to repeat some of the mistakes Google Glass did - e.g. still trying to do too much on-board.

I currently own an Apple Watch Ultra - that's $800 for a companion product.  I'd gladly pay $800 for Apple AR glasses that put little name bubbles above people's heads (I'm terrible with names), showed me the latest notifications from the phone, and navigated my walks through unknown city streets without me having to look down on my phone or watch.  Everything else is gravy.   But they have to appear to be regular, stylish glasses that have to be wearable all waking hours without leaving a permanent imprint on the bridge of your nose.