I'm far more interested in the OS and Apps, that's the thing that's going to make this a success or a flop. Hardware (Apple will almost certainly get this right) is important, but the actual user experience and use cases that Apple present are what will be the deciding factor.
Outside of gaming and industry use AR/VR have felt a little like a solution in search of a problem. I do believe though that the people who work at Apple are capable of solving that problem, finding the use cases that an every day person wants it for.
My benchmark for this is my family, they are all different, with different level of interest in tech. If I can see the majority of them having a use for it, being inspired by the UX and marketing, then it will be successful.
Until now none of them have any sort of VR kit, but they all have iPhones and Macs.
As a slight aside though, new hardware products are very hard for Apple to keep completely under wraps, too many people in the supply chain, too many factories. Software on the other hand they can lock down incredibly well (pun intended). I am somewhat suspicious that they may supprise us at WWDC with their take on generative AI. Now that could be part of the headset, but it's more likely to be part of iOS/macOS and a feature that aims to help them sell more of their existing hardware ranges.
Disagreed, for VR/AR there are many issues that can make the experience uncomfortable or even sickening. The hardware and software are key to making a better device that is actually nice to use. Just putting on a Quest 2 headset is a tiring experience, if the battery is not drained again. Even small details like font rendering can cause headaches.
But I don't think I'm being a fanboy when I say that if I trust any company to fix physical comfort/usability issues, it's Apple (with a $3,000/device budget).
Right, it's Apple, the company that makes the most unergonomic mouse in its price range, and the only wireless mouse I know of that can't be charged while in use. Also the company that once pulled a "if you can't get reception, it's because you are holding your phone wrong" followed by "have you considered a case".
We can be certain that it will look great. That's one thing Apple nails every time. For usability and comfort they have their ups and downs like anyone else, and an above average share of "it might not be very usable, but look how sleek it looks".
I like the mouse. It scrolls well, it’s thinness means it fits well in bag compartments, and I’ve never been bothered by the charging because I only have to charge every few months and use it at a desktop, where I have a lightning cable handy. Maybe if I gamed or something I wouldn’t like it, or if I were working with spreadsheets or something where I’d have to click around a lot, but for reading and writing, it’s great.
Your comment can be turned on its head. It’s exactly because Apple ended up making a mouse that can’t be charged during use that their contribution to VR are vital: they think different.
Their mouse has a great battery life that requires charging it sparingly. Your Mac tells you when it needs charging.
They thought about the mouse charging problem. They arrived at different answers than the rest of the industry.
Sometimes when you "think different" you invent relativity, and sometimes you invent Time Cube.
Every mouse on the market has a battery life of months. Every mouse on the market will tell the user when the battery runs down. Apple is not special. The thing is just built wrong. And they haven't fixed it after all these years.
That is the smallest fatal flaw with that mouse. The bigger flaw is ergonomics. Selling something that likely to cause injury should be illegal.
My Logitech MX lasts a couple of months on a charge, and Gnome warns when it is down to 20%, and it's done that for as long as I can remember.
The difference here is that sometimes I ignore the warning and then it gets too low but I can plug it in as I use it for 20 mins, whereas a Mac user can't.
Exactly. I figure they put the mouse charging on the bottom on purpose so that people would not just leave it plugged in. I end up charging my mouse about once every few months so it’s not an issue.
I end up charging my mouse about once every few months
Wah, that is crazy. What is so special about this mouse that it needs so little power? Why isn't this reported more widely!? Other wireless mice that I have used need regular recharging or new disposable batteries. Always a sub-par experience.
Yeah that’s why the port’s on the bottom. To force a change in habit learned from subpar hardware. The thing charges enough to last a whole day in like a minute or two.
The usability issues here aren't in the realm of "does it have a polished case and nice straps", it's more "the state of the art VR tech isn't good enough for sustained work" unless your work doesn't involve reading or writing.
And, I mean... that's gotta be the bar for $3K, right? Even the most insanely passionate gamers would have a hard time justifying a $3K gaming accessory, IMO. And what else is there? The only usecase that I feel is ready is movies/TV, which... yeah is also a hard sell for $3K, especially since every family member would need one if you want to watch something together.
I think that VR business meetings would be quite valuable. But indeed, you cannot make your employees wear a VR glasses for prolonged periods if it gives them severe headaches and/or nauseousness.
I like the Quest 2 but you’re so spot on about the battery. I have to plan a day ahead — ‘maybe I want to use the Quest 2 tomorrow, better plug it into the charger and make sure everything is updated!”.
Although (tangent incoming!) I think omitting the OLED from the Quest 2 was a bit of a mistake. My theory is that the screen actually has more to do with why most games in the library have that same-y bright cartoonish look, rather than just the limitations of the XR2. It’s a relief the Apple headset is going OLED, if this leak is to be believed that is.
The latest Quest firmware has an “update before shut down” option that should help a bit, but it’s mostly a band-aid. The Quest Pro comes with a dock and just stays silently updated and charged, which seems the best way to go.
As far as the cartoony games: that’s actually the “fault”[1] of Unity/Unreal Engine which powers quite literally 99% of Quest titles (you can count the titles using other engines on one hand). VR studios are hyper-indie and don’t have the budget to build out games that look different, especially when that cartoon style lends itself to higher performance.
1. It’s not actually the fault of Unity/UE: Red Matter 2 is built on Unreal but looks spectacularly better than most other standalone titles.
>I'm far more interested in the OS and Apps, that's the thing that's going to make this a success or a flop. Hardware (Apple will almost certainly get this right) is important, but the actual user experience and use cases that Apple present are what will be the deciding factor.
Outside of gaming and industry use AR/VR have felt a little like a solution in search of a problem. I do believe though that the people who work at Apple are capable of solving that problem, finding the use cases that an every day person wants it for.
This is my feeling too - I just don't see an immediate usecase for such a device outside of a select few niches, none of which (even combined) move the sales needle for a company of Apple's size. What are people actually going to use this for? I just don't see it - although there could be something as the tech matures in a few years.
This is my feeling too - I just don't see an immediate usecase for such a device outside of a select few niches…
As usual, Apple is playing the long game. We should remember that when the iPhone was announced in 2007, Steve Jobs set the goal to get 1% of the cell phone market.
In 2007, there was no App Store and the only native apps were what came installed on the device.
Apple is laying the groundwork for the future. They’ll sell enough for it to meaningful while the rest of the ecosystem comes together.
Start with first principles in hardware. We are primarily visual creatures secondly we are linguistic. If the io for a hardware device were ideal would it not serve these two functions?
> But the cell phone market was a pretty well-established and sizable market. The AR/VR market is not.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
But compared to what was popular when the iPhone was released (Blackberry, Treo, Nokia), it was the iPhone that jumpstarted what became the modern smartphone market we see today.
Apple is uniquely positioned to usher in the modern AR/VR era, especially if it's true that iOS apps will run in on the headset. Nobody is better than Apple at capturing the imagination of developers.
The use case is replacing laptops - calling it now that we'll be reading Bloomberg articles about the "Headset Class" in our lifetimes :). Definitely don't think apple has a shot in hell of pulling that off in 2023, but I'd love to be surprised.
I’m pretty sure Apple wants to rule a new product category with better margins and no existing users.
With laptops and increasingly phones and tablets most potential customers already have a thing from that category so it’s becoming harder and harder to sell and the profit margins and volumes are becoming smaller.
So Apple is desperate to create a new category.
Honestly, if they can make a device you can comfortably wear for an extended period of time, with that spec sheet, there's a lot of lifestyle shifting things than can be done.
You could imagine locking virtual screens and interactive widgets in real space in exciting ways. You could redesign a living room if your main way to watch something is a virtual screen. Virtual cookbook apps you "leave" in the kitchen that you can interact with hand tracking even when you have raw chicken all over your hands.
The Hololens never got there but the use cases are there IF it actually hits the hardware mark. If its confined to 20 minute bursts before discomfort sets in like current hardware then its far more niche.
HOnest question; would you use a AR headset that wasn't actually see-through but is just streaming video from cameras on the outside? I assumed the answer would be universally no for everyone, but I might be in a bubble. I haaaaate the Oculus Passthrough, personally
Oh sure. I'm fine with passthrough but the Quest 2 barely scratches the surface and an Oculus Pro shows the potential but it's still very much under the bare minimum. I think it's a feasible path as long as the camera quality is pretty high.
Supplying content and adding the ability for long range AR (think up to the scale of a par 5 golf hole or a basketball arena) is what I work on at quintar.ai
Outside of gaming and industry use AR/VR have felt a little like a solution in search of a problem. I do believe though that the people who work at Apple are capable of solving that problem, finding the use cases that an every day person wants it for.
My benchmark for this is my family, they are all different, with different level of interest in tech. If I can see the majority of them having a use for it, being inspired by the UX and marketing, then it will be successful.
Until now none of them have any sort of VR kit, but they all have iPhones and Macs.
As a slight aside though, new hardware products are very hard for Apple to keep completely under wraps, too many people in the supply chain, too many factories. Software on the other hand they can lock down incredibly well (pun intended). I am somewhat suspicious that they may supprise us at WWDC with their take on generative AI. Now that could be part of the headset, but it's more likely to be part of iOS/macOS and a feature that aims to help them sell more of their existing hardware ranges.