Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s new headset meets reality

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#31

Post by ghaff »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #13

I don't think there is a consumer market for head mounted AR anymore - if there ever really was. That makes me sad having been in AR since 2010 - and knowing what we could do with it if done right. I just don't think society currently has an appetite for a $3000 product that gives the wearer visual superpowers (that is the promise after all) and is an impossible to ignore distinction between classes. I honestly think…

I agree that getting to a genuinely useful/comfortable/fashionable AR device is a pretty heavy lift. (And that it's arguably unrelated to VR except maybe to some degree at the tech level.)

But, if you get there, I'm pretty convinced that you will have a population of adopters whether it creates a class divide or not. Certainly cell phone adoption wasn't held back by this factor.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#32

Post by bluescrn »

nickthegreek wrote: post #11

Hope the rumor in this article that Apple will sell the device at cost is true. Oculus understood that they needed to sell cheaply at first. I don't expect Apple to come in at $299, but the rumored $3k is a pretty heavy lift.

At £3K, they're not going after gamers or even enthusiasts.

They're more likely going after creative professionals who're already all-in on the Apple ecosystem. Maybe product designers or architects, who want to show clients their designs in VR, and a slick Apple device will probably make a better impression than a PC VR setup with a bulky headset, cables everywhere, fans whirring, etc.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#33

Post by vehemenz »

woah wrote: post #16
samwillis wrote: post #7

I'm utterly unconvinced that AR/VR is a large market or is going to be game changing in every day life. I can see why Apple feel that they need to have a product in the market, but I wouldn't be surprised if its presented as “Just a Hobby” the same way that Steve Jobs presented Apple TV back when it launched (and for a good few years later). I really do think that Apple are much more likely to present some interestin…

Seems pretty simple. If you could have UI overlayed on the world around you, it would be huge, and would change how people use computers, like the smartphone did. The current stumbling block is that the tech sucks and the headsets are enormous. If someone got it into a lightweight pair of glasses or contact lenses, the use case is obvious, and it would be a big of a shift as the smartphone. Denying this is like being…

> If you could have UI overlayed on the world around you, it would be huge, and would change how people use computers, like the smartphone did.

Is this really a game-changer? Technology adoption is all about tradeoffs. We already have location-based services and applications that are granular enough for most purposes. AR applications add sensory awareness and localized interaction at the cost of distraction and intrusiveness.

History is littered with inventions that were supposed to be the next telephone, computer, smartphone, etc., but most of them never materialize because they don't meet people's practical needs. And if AR/VR isn't the quintessential solution in search of a problem, I don't know what is.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#34

Post by Closi »

ydnaclementine wrote: post #23

Other than games, I'm not convinced. I do think there's an interesting use case for sports and music. Imagine being able to walk around on the field during the superbowl or on stage at a concert. But then it becomes a how do you capture it so you can walk around a real, live event problem.

I do think there is a use case in work - I can imagine sitting down and doing CAD in a 'real 3D' environment once the resolution and responsiveness are high enough (probably still with a keyboard and mouse).

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#35

Post by dangus »

surprisetalk wrote: post #18

I recently wrote a long piece about why I think Apple will win the AR/VR wars. They might have a rocky start, but they still have a lot of advantages. 1. AR will devour smartphones. 2. Apple is the only company that can quickly overcome consumer AR/VR design challenges. 3. Apple has positioned itself to distribute the best AR/VR content. 4. Apple will cement its early lead with a new blue-bubble effect. --- [1] https…

1. What problem with smartphones will AR device solve? So far it seems more bulky and requires you wear shit on your head. It automatically excludes everyone who already wears glasses or doesn't want to wear glasses. Anyone can put a smartphone in their bag or pocket.

2. Not Meta? They're the #1 VR company with 75% marketshare and a years-long head start in the industry. The Reality headset from Apple has no rumored/leaked feature that goes beyond what the Quest Pro already has on the market today.

3. Is distribution difficult? Meta distributes content. Valve distributes content. What's so hard about distributing content?

4. What early lead? Meta has the early lead.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#36

Post by haunter »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #13

I don't think there is a consumer market for head mounted AR anymore - if there ever really was. That makes me sad having been in AR since 2010 - and knowing what we could do with it if done right. I just don't think society currently has an appetite for a $3000 product that gives the wearer visual superpowers (that is the promise after all) and is an impossible to ignore distinction between classes. I honestly think…

>I just don't think society currently has an appetite for a $3000 product that ... is an impossible to ignore distinction between classes

What do you mean by that?

Just curious because I feel the same about EVs, when I see one I think that's a richer than average person.

So I don't see how an AR headset would be a problem. It really depends how does it look like though.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#37

Post by nerdjon »

I continue to believe that IF (and that is a big if) anyone can make AR/VR a mainstream market it would be Apple.

Just for the simple fact that Apple has in multiple occasions done 2 things:

1. Come out with something that shapes the rest of the industry. I mean how many times has Apple done something and within a year or 2 basically the entire industry follows.

2. Not captured a large (or majority) percent but continued to invest in a platform. I don't think anything they are in (except maybe the smart watch) do they actually have a majority marketshare but they continue to work on those platforms.

So there is a part of me that hopes that Apple realizes that this platform will be the same way. It will be a very niche product that will take years of iterating on (like the Apple Watch) with it in consumers hands to turn it into a mainstream product.

We have had too many failed attempts (Google Glasses and Microsoft HoloLens) just fail since they were not major successes right out the gate.

They also have the developer buy in on their other platforms that they may be able to transition that to this if they handle that properly.

That isn't saying that this is anywhere near a guarantee and obviously the hardware has to be there, the societal acceptance, etc. But I just don't currently see another company that is in the position to possibly pull this off.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#38

Post by vehemenz »

dangus wrote: post #29
samwillis wrote: post #7

I'm utterly unconvinced that AR/VR is a large market or is going to be game changing in every day life. I can see why Apple feel that they need to have a product in the market, but I wouldn't be surprised if its presented as “Just a Hobby” the same way that Steve Jobs presented Apple TV back when it launched (and for a good few years later). I really do think that Apple are much more likely to present some interestin…

VR and AR are a solution looking for a problem. It's admittedly a cool tech demo. I enjoyed my time playing Half Life: Alyx and The Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners on my Valve Index before I decided to sell it out of disuse. The article says that Apple has a glasses product and a VR/AR product that sounds similar to a Quest Pro. So if we look at the glasses product it immediately runs into a lot of issues. Do I want…

Agreed. The technologies will have their uses, like entertainment, training, education, and therapy, but it will never meet mass adoption for practical reasons like price, safety, and power consumption. I'd be curious to know why so many people think otherwise.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#39

Post by skywhopper »

jjoonathan wrote: post #30
woah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty simple. If you could have UI overlayed on the world around you, it would be huge, and would change how people use computers, like the smartphone did. The current stumbling block is that the tech sucks and the headsets are enormous. If someone got it into a lightweight pair of glasses or contact lenses, the use case is obvious, and it would be a big of a shift as the smartphone. Denying this is like being…

Don't forget the fingerprints! But yeah, so many things are obnoxious and clunky about smartphones. Glancing down is never a good look, let alone glancing down and then walking into a wall. The moment that minimum viable AR tech happens, people will suddenly remember how many compromises we have to make for smartphones.

I’m not sure that focusing on something no one else can see when you appear to be looking elsewhere is a good look either. At least other people can tell you are distracted when you’re looking down at your phone.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#40

Post by mutatio »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #13

I don't think there is a consumer market for head mounted AR anymore - if there ever really was. That makes me sad having been in AR since 2010 - and knowing what we could do with it if done right. I just don't think society currently has an appetite for a $3000 product that gives the wearer visual superpowers (that is the promise after all) and is an impossible to ignore distinction between classes. I honestly think…

> and knowing what we could do with it if done right

The implication here is that you know a compelling case for "what we could do with it" and how to "do it right", so what are the answers (because I'm stumped)?

Post reply on HN