Some Apple Employees Fear Its $3,000 Mixed-Reality Headset Could Flop - Slashdot
source link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/23/03/26/217205/some-apple-employees-fear-its-3000-mixed-reality-headset-could-flop
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Some Apple Employees Fear Its $3,000 Mixed-Reality Headset Could Flop
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area.
An anonymous reader shares this report from AppleInsider:
Apple has allegedly demonstrated its mixed reality headset to its top executives recently, in an attempt to generate excitement for the upcoming platform launch. While executives are keen on the product, others within Apple are not sure it's a home run hit. Eight anonymous current and former employees told the New York Times that they are skeptical about the headset, despite Apple's apparent glossy demonstration of the technology.
Manufacturing has already begun for a June release of the $3,000 headset, insiders say in the Times' article:
Some employees have defected from the project because of their doubts about its potential, three people with knowledge of the moves said. Others have been fired over the lack of progress with some aspects of the headset, including its use of Apple's Siri voice assistant, one person said.Even leaders at Apple have questioned the product's prospects. It has been developed at a time when morale has been strained by a wave of departures from the company's design team, including Mr. Ive, who left Apple in 2019 and stopped advising the company last year....
Because the headset won't fit over glasses, the company has plans to sell prescription lenses for the displays to people who don't wear contacts, a person familiar with the plan said. During the device's development, Apple has focused on making it excel for videoconferencing and spending time with others as avatars in a virtual world. The company has called the device's signature application "copresence," a word designed to capture the experience of sharing a real or virtual space with someone in another place. It is akin to what Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, calls the "metaverse...."
But the road to deliver augmented reality has been littered with failures, false starts and disappointments, from Google Glass to Magic Leap and from Microsoft's HoloLens to Meta's Quest Pro. Apple is considered a potential savior because of its success combining new hardware and software to create revolutionary devices.
Still, the challenges are daunting.
-
›
Honestly what Apple should do is release to developers only in June, with a targeted Q1 2024 general release date.
Because I don't think whatever Apple is planning, can hold a candle to what developers have planned - developers who have been working with Apple's ARKit and related libraries for years now.
I'm sure whatever Apple has planned will be nice (though I think co-presence will be about as widely adopted as meeting in the Metaverse, i.e. not at all). But Apple can lean heavily on developers really making the device compelling, if the hardware is good enough.
-
I'm sure whatever Apple has planned will be nice [...]
Nobody needs something nice, what we need for it is to solve a problem.
-
-
No dev is gonna invest $3k on a loose chase.
-
-
For it to be a blockbuster, it has to solve a problem we do not realize we are dealing with. The Mac did not solve a problem we realized we had. The iPod did not either. The iPhone did not also. This wont work as a strict VR headset. It needs to change the landscape of human machine interfaces the way the mouse, the click wheel, and multitouch did.
-
For it to be a blockbuster it has to support VR pr0n better than anything else that does VR pr0n. As an Apple exec, I believe it was Jean-Louis Gassée, famously said, the way to get a new technology accepted is to make pr0n available on it. No-one's going to pay $3K to VR-watch Bill from accounts present this month's sales figures, but they will pay $3K to watch Madison Ivy go down on them.
-
-
Virtually fill a room with various flooring options. Pick a paint color. See what that Sofa on eBay would look like. Shopping is an obvious direction for AR.
-
Problem: Reality has become a flaming shitshow, and I don't wan't to be in it.
I agree it needs to be awesome if it's going to hit. You can't see people watching you use it, so the whole fashion thing they have is not going to be of use. The experience needs to be enough to get people to plonk down 3k. Nobody seems to know what that experience should be though, so I doubt it's gonna fly.
-
Nobody needs something nice, what we need for it is to solve a problem.
People keep saying this trying to sound what, pragmatic? Insightful?
Here's the problem: your monitor is 2d, the world most humans directly perceive is 3D. Anything you look at on a monitor has been projected and looks weird. There's your problem, a VR headset solves that. It is a new display technology capable of providing 3-dimentional, animated images accurately. If you have used such a headset you instantly realize it's a big step f
-
-
It's dead, Jim!
There is, at best, minimal real world use for this.
I don't make a lot of future predictions, especially about tech, but this thing is a bomb right out the door. Ka-boom! Big loser.
I'd be better off putting 3 grand into something stupid like bitcoin. At least I could still sell my bitcoin to some crypto bro. For now.
-
Oh, good. That means it's going to be a giant hit!
-
With you saying otherwise it may not even launch now.
-
People tend to misremember that the tiny detail that the iPod only became a big success once Apple stopped selling it as a "halo accessory" intended to sell Macs and added Windows support. If hell hadn't froze over [sfgate.com], we'd probably be saying Slashdot's track record for Apple product popularity predictions is rather accurate.
-
-
-
StuporKendall has evolved from worshipping Apple's design prowess to worshipping his and his fellow masterbator's design prowess. Just throw any old garbage into the market, I and my fellow emacs heroes will prove out its genius!
-
The problem is that the hardware spec each time I hear about it gets reduced. A few years ago it was supposed to be 8K per eye. Now it's 4K per eye.
-
You really believe that, don't you? This isn't the first time you've gushed about whatever it is you imagine that Apple will produce. Though it's starting to looks like you're just setting up developers to take the blame for what is certainly going to be a spectacular failure.
The problem with AR, as I've explained to you before, is that what the technology can do, and what people want it to do, are not the same.
You mention co-presence, where your workmates appear as ghosts haunting whatever space you happen to be in. The things that need to happen for that effect to be even remotely convincing are things that we can't really do. At least, not in real time with convincing accuracy. Now, that's about as minimal a vision of co-presense as you'll find anywhere. The fantasy of co-presense, the thing people actually want when they talk about it, is sharing your environment -- bringing people into your space, or to being present in someone else's space. That simply isn't possible. (I can offer details as to the 'why' if it's not obvious to you.)
That's really the case for most AR applications. The things that actually are possible are less interesting. A large virtual display seems neat, but it's not going to be very good as a display. Translation is certainly cool, but it'll be clunkier and not necessarily as appealing (especially for tourists) as what can already do with a smartphone. The holographic chess game in Star Wars is doable, but anything that needs a model of the users environment is going to be a clunky mess.
That's the real sticking point, isn't it? Awareness of the users' environment is absolutely essential to AR, and that part is not even close to being solved. Doing home repairs or cooking with AR overlays guiding you along, chasing monsters in the local park, or living with a virtual pet. The technology simply isn't there and an expensive headset and few hobbyist programmers isn't going to change that.
-
What else is "compelling"? Apple hardware has never been any good for gaming.
-
Like, what do they have planned?
I've seen nothing but "AR is the future" for years now. I've yet to single a single compelling explanation of why. Not even sci-fi writers have thought of any reason to have AR, and most successful tech products are stuff sci-fi writers thought of decades beforehand. -
"Let loose"? Apple? Developers will get a tightly walled garden with exactly the things permitted Apple envisions, you can be as creative as you wish, as long as it's within Apple's vision of what they want for their product.
I you hope for Developers to break the mold and produce the killer app, forget it.
-
-
it will be just like 3D TV, Curved TVs, etc etc etc.
Zero interest here.-
Not sure about TV but curved monitors for gaming sell well, you can find many reviews. The existence of a market for curved monitors means there is going to be curved TVs available as well, even though it's less compelling for TVs.
Recent reviews
https://www.tomshardware.com/r... [tomshardware.com] (Mar 2023)
https://www.softwaretestinghel... [softwaretestinghelp.com] (Feb 2023)
https://www.rtings.com/monitor... [rtings.com] (Feb 2023)
https://www.digitaltrends.com/... [digitaltrends.com] (Jan 2023)
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/th... [pcmag.com] (Nov 2022)-
Curvature means there is a very narrow "ideal" place to view it from, not great for multiple people watching a single TV. Also people watch a TV also ten to sit further away so the curvature become flatter to the point where it is no longer worth while.
Hence comment about it being curved TVs
-
-
But I agree with you on the general argument that there is zero or near-zero interest in VR headsets.
-
-
-
Google glass mostly died due to bad PR. It had it's niche and was expanding, till it became politically incorrect.
If Apple simply launched light weight AR glasses with a small FoV HUD and a camera (ie. a modernized Glass). It would sell and their reality distortion field would allow them to succeed where Google failed. That's not what their AR headset appears to be though.
-
It was not politically incorrect, it was simply incorrect. A device that sends everything you see to its master is something that will get you kicked out of every place where people generally don't enjoy being under constant public surveillance. Which is pretty much anywhere.
-
-
-
I want to talk with the ones who think a $3k headset is *not* going to flop. Whatever they're smoking/popping/injecting must be primo
-
This isnt going to be marketed at normal techies, itll be aimed squarely at trendy rich hipster fanboys. Who thought anyone would pay $1000 for a digital watch that has to be charged every day back in 2015?
-
Rolex, Grand Seiko. Apple big risk is tarnishing an upscale brand with overpriced luxury device. If the glasses function well they do not need to sell so many at first. The segment will grow if they r good. Halo lens , yawn but they r cheaper and MS image different.
-
None of these things work at least not at scale because of substantial portion of the population's eyes aren't fooled by the illusion so they get headaches from the disconnect between what their eyes are trying to see and what they're actually seeing. It's the same reason why 3D TVs were just a fad.
Apple has so much money none of this matters they can afford to waste a lot of it and they won't even notice. But augmented reality and VR aren't ever going to be mainstream because somewhere between 25 to 30
-
-
They won't buy a big fucking thing to put on their heads, and they won't buy something with the limited feature set that can be fit into something that isn't a big fucking thing. QED, if Apple is really planning to charge three grand for a headset, Apple is fucking delusional.
-
-
They all know it's a flop. Those are the ones willing to kiss exec ass or at least keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs.
-
> Whatever they're smoking/popping/injecting must be primo
Cold hard cash is a potent hallucinogen. These are Richie-Rich rich people.
-
-
-
I happen to know that the HomePod is an audiophile product, the experts here told me so. It was quite an achievement considering it had zero audio inputs.
-
What a bunch of rubes -- no true digital audiophile would buy a zero-input device because such a product cannot support $600 USB cables [wireworldcable.com] with $5500 [audioquest.com] power cables.
-
-
-
Why not just a pair of glasses that have a virtual monitor or hud.
Assuming the image is of sufficient quality there should be lots of uses for something like that with no need for a huge amount of capability past that.
-
Apparently there is a model from Lenovo ($1500) to use as virtual monitor, and Vuzix ($921) marketed for technicians who need to watch videos to do their job. https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com] Then you have Microsoft and Apple who want to charge over $3000 for the same thing.
-
-
$3000 makes this an exotic specialty item with no market chance at all outside of serious industrial applications. Which do not exist at this time.
-
Strikes again.
Don't be fooled, folks. I'm sure this is just a way to get some more patents into their collection so that they may be able to 'tax' someone else's creation that *DOES* provide a worthy experience. -
Jfc, who has 3 grand to toss at some ar/vr junk with no real purpose that solves real real problems anyone actually has?
3 grand is definitely not a consumer device. Is there some huge industry need for this somewhere to justify its existence?
Teledoc has been solved with Zoom-like videos. Most of those could've been a phone call. What else?
-
Assuming it's a VR headset with camera pass through for a moment, maybe some laser tag venues?
Pushing FoV up and weight down on the existing state of the art of see through AR would sell well in a lot of industrial/medical niches, but those aren't really Apple's preferred markets.
-
The same people that buy a new top-of-the-line iPhone every time Apple releases a new one.
I don't understand why that's a thing, but it is.
-
Ok yes there are lots of stupid people with too much money but at least the iPhone -does something-.
-
I'm gonna defer to ChatGPT on this one:
So, you could've always had the latest, most expensive iPhone (excluding the 14 Pro Max because ChatGPT's data set is a little outdated and I'm lazy), or an economy sedan. TBH, I know lots of people who spend more time on their phone than in their car (and also on their phone while in their car, but let's not go there).
-
-
-
Literally nobody wants it. Even video gamers don't care, and they'll buy any overpriced crap that gives them an in game advantage.
Google Glass was the perfect mixed reality design and it cratered. Now is no different.
-
Quest 2 was a big success because the $299 launch price point for a stand-alone headset was seen as affordable and a great value. They followed the game console (or inkjet printer) model where they basically sold the thing at-cost and made their profit on the software sales.
Apple's device immediately prices itself out of the consumer market (which is where the real sales volume is), and the Quest Pro's failure already demonstrated that there isn't a large enterprise market for this sort of device. If the ma
-
Apple rarely does affordable, and when they do it is a) not all that affordable actually and b) crap. Consider the Performa.
-
-
Every VR & MR headset flops. Because almost nobody wants one or gives a fuck. OK, I'm slightly interested so maybe I do give a fuck. But it's in the same way as someone watching several people I don't really like have a low speed car crash.
Who the fuck wants to wear a huge pair of spectacles? I have worn specs for over 40 years and I still don't like them. I have modern super light titanium rimless frames and excellent thin and light lenses. They solve a problem. That's OK. But out of choice? Go f
-
If you consider 20 million Quests sold (not even counting the PS4 sales) to be a flop, then yes. Otherwise, no. I don't know what the sales figures are for Mixed Reality headsets, but I expect they are far less than for VR. MR seems to have far less market appeal than VR.
-
-
Besides gaming, a killer app for VR is virtual partying, presence (real estate, learning etc), news, and tourism. But current cameras for capturing 360 video are appalling. First off the form factor is stupid. Handheld is dumb. It needs to be a jacket or a cap with cameras on it. That's the best way to capture 360 video for vlogging. If you have enough cameras capturing at a high frame rate of same 120fps, the image can be stabilized by extrapolating views. Second the pixels per degree is terrible (it needs to be 60ppd minimum, not 15 like today).
-
You're going to have to do a better job at describing this, because at face value it sounds like "drinking alone with extra steps".
-
Virtual presence based parties and companies was a fad all the way back in 2005 when every few months we'd get an article posted on Slashdot about a company making a virtual office or store, or some conference happening in SecondLife and other short lived alternatives. They all died.
We just had one of the perfect storms for creating a VR based internet:
* Several trillion dollars worth of companies were investing in VR.
* The technology was easily affordable to middle class consumers.
* Companies and individua
-
-
Apple is taking a risk with this, many buyers will also take that risk because they must. Others have abandoned similar projects because of lack of support. I think that gamers might be the first beneficiaries of this technology; therefore they should invest if they can. Scientists, military and others too. There's no guarantee that this will lead to some miracle product, but it's clearly possible only if there is sufficient interest today.
$3k sounds like a lot, but that's what we paid for some early comput
-
I thought the iPod would fail. Then I thought the iPhone would fail. I was also in that crowd that thought that the iPad was a stupid name, and that it would fail.
Keep in mind I've owned Apple computers since my first Mac SE in 1990 or so. Color Classic, PPC progression, transparent iMac, iMac on a stand, Intel iMacs. I'm an Apple booster. The only thing that seems to suck about Apple are the things that I'm sold on and sticking to, according to the market.
I don't feel positive about a VR headset for $3000, which is probably why it will be a massive hit.
-
So I'm guessing you were all in on the iPod Hi-Fi?
-
You're trying to say that you've always been wrong about these things, so you're open to this one.
You're going to be wrong again.
-
-
If I need to install iTunes for my PC to connect with it, then I don't want it.
-
I just plain don't want it.
-
-
And Prime Real Virtual Apple Reality (C) that shows other non-Apple products otherwise redacted.
-
Do you care more about "appearing" to be the thought leader in technological advancement, or are you actually going to do the work, which involves failing a step, in order to learn and progress from it?
-
Try $299 otherwise no way. You can get a full gaming rig for less.
Yes we will see characters in X-Men Super Apocalypse Extravaganza wearing it, as well as celebs Nikki Minaj wearing one in her videos, but that price will still keep most wallets closed.
As customers are now accustomed to being reamed with telemetry and such to 'make products cheaper', releasing something like this for 3 grand makes no sense in this day and age.
-
Ugh - Who needs a heavy-handed facepalm strapped to your face for hours, like a just-hatched Alien from the Alien movies?! And pay an order of magnitude more than other headsets.
Just put a pair of tiny wide-angle cameras on a pair of specs, OK? And maybe a MEMS gyroscope and magnetic sensors. Send the video to a phone. Where it can be annotated and layered to your hearts content.
The user can glance at his phone if he wants to augment his reality.
Make it $50.
-
For that amount of dough it'd better make you automatically taller and sexier, while giving you minty fresh breath. Otherwise, most of us will pass.
-
who will be able to afford that?
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK