• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Report: Apple's VR headset may turn you into the controller

https://www.laptopmag.com/news/apple-vr-headset-may-turn-you-into-the-controller-heres-how
The long-rumored Apple VR headset is expected to launch later this year for the eye-watering sum of around $3,000, and while Apple continues to play coy about its existence, the leaks and rumors keep piling up. According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, it will arrive without the controllers other makers like HTC and Meta rely on for current VR headsets.


Although devices like the Meta Quest Pro and its sibling, the Meta Quest 2, offer some handset-free hand-tracking options and capabilities, the controllers remain the primary way that users interact with the virtual world.

What Apple plans to do differently​

Apple wants to rid its VR headset of the need for handheld controllers entirely. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, who has one of the strongest track records on Apple leaks, recently suggested that users of Apple's new VR gear can interact with the Apple VR user interface using their hands and eyes.

Gurman states that Apple headset users can look at the app they want to open and then reach out their hand and pinch their thumb and index finger together to open it. Which sounds amazing in theory, but wait, there's more. Apple is also working on a virtual keyboard so that users can type. However, at launch, it is expected that users will have to rely on Siri for speech-to-text to handle their typing needs.

Of course, please note these are simply rumors based on Gurman's mostly reliable insider information. Although he is reputable, his sources aren't infallible. We're all just excited that all this new info is coming out because it supports the idea that Apple's VR headset may actually arrive soon and we can stop talking about what it might be and find out exactly what it is.

Kinect was the solution for VR being mainstream the whole time :lollipop_grinning_eyes:.

But seriously, I'm surprised no other manufacturer (other than eye-tracking) has though about motion based VR yet for headsets at a mainstream level. The novelty of touchless VR as if you were in a sci-fi movie, even if it doesn't work very well, is a selling point on it's own.

Being able to reach out and open an app, or slide around screens or data around is basically something out of Fifth Element, Minority or Demolition Man.

Of course we'll have to wait and see if that ends up being cool in execution.
 
Last edited:

Gamerguy84

Member
The info I want from this, or any, device is price. If that isn't bad then I'll look into the rest.

Being it's Apple I probably don't like it.

They do have a fanclub that are very loyal though.
 

Fuz

Banned
Waiting for the accidents compilations.
popcorn.gif
 

Raonak

Banned
Wthout any sort of buttons/sticks, your interactions become extremely limited.

It's gonna be impossible to port anything but the most simple games to them.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Wthout any sort of buttons/sticks, your interactions become extremely limited.

It's gonna be impossible to port anything but the most simple games to them.

That's because this is not a gaming headset.

But yeah, sounds awful. Quest has pretty damn good hand tracking, but using a controller is 1000x better for pretty much everything.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
https://www.laptopmag.com/news/apple-vr-headset-may-turn-you-into-the-controller-heres-how



Kinect was the solution for VR being mainstream the whole time :lollipop_grinning_eyes:.

But seriously, I'm surprised no other manufacturer (other than eye-tracking) has though about motion based VR yet for headsets at a mainstream level. The novelty of touchless VR as if you were in a sci-fi movie, even if it doesn't work very well, is a selling point on it's own.

Being able to reach out and open an app, or slide around screens or data around is basically something out of Fifth Element, Minority or Demolition Man.

Of course we'll have to wait and see if that ends up being cool in execution.

I have the opposite view. I hope they make controllers. Especially if they plan to go in on VR gaming too.
 
That's because this is not a gaming headset.

But yeah, sounds awful. Quest has pretty damn good hand tracking, but using a controller is 1000x better for pretty much everything.

It is a gaming headset, it's also a movie headset, a music headset, and a productivity headset.

That's the thing, Apple is going all in with a multimedia VR device that's strong enough to do all of this, without compromising one area over the other like every VR headset so far. Which explains the rumored up to $3000 price that's going around.

Quite frankly if they pull it off it will be the new standard for companies to try and imitate, and if they can get carriers to subsidize it well. Facebook is going to have to waste a lot of money to keep their headsets competitive and HYC might get pushed out the market.

Kind of what happened with Smartphones 7-8 years ago.
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
It is a gaming headset, it's also a movie headset, a music headset, and a productivity headset.

That's the thing, Apple is going all in with a multimedia VR device that's strong enough to do all of this, without compromising one area over the other like every VR headset so far. Which explains the rumored up to $3000 price that's going around.

Quite frankly if they pull it off it will be the new standard for companies to try and imitate, and if they can get carriers to subsidize it well. Facebook is going to have to waste a lot of money to keep their headsets competitive and HYC might get pushed out the market.

Kind of what happened with Smartphones 7-8 years ago.

That price automatically means it's not a gaming headset. At least not a mainstream one, and then why would anyone want to waste their time and money making any worthwhile games for it? And also the no controllers thing.

I view this as a productivity headset that probably will get a few games but won't be focused on that at all.
 

YukiOnna

Member
Wthout any sort of buttons/sticks, your interactions become extremely limited.

It's gonna be impossible to port anything but the most simple games to them.
It's not meant for gaming nor is it a VR only headset. It's a Mixed Reality device that ultimately is to lead to their AR device and meant for everyday use.
The consumer viable version is said to release the following year.
 

midnightAI

Member
It is a gaming headset, it's also a movie headset, a music headset, and a productivity headset.

That's the thing, Apple is going all in with a multimedia VR device that's strong enough to do all of this, without compromising one area over the other like every VR headset so far. Which explains the rumored up to $3000 price that's going around.

Quite frankly if they pull it off it will be the new standard for companies to try and imitate, and if they can get carriers to subsidize it well. Facebook is going to have to waste a lot of money to keep their headsets competitive and HYC might get pushed out the market.

Kind of what happened with Smartphones 7-8 years ago.
Still pushing this mixed reality professional focused (not consumer at that price) headset?

This reminds me of Hololens and we know how that has turned out, IF this headset is what the rumours say it is of course
 
Still pushing this mixed reality professional focused (not consumer at that price) headset?

This reminds me of Hololens and we know how that has turned out, IF this headset is what the rumours say it is of course

HoloLens 1 was like $15k when it was first announced, and it was never marketed as anything but a niche and was originally targeting the military until the revisions brought it to business level.

This is a "maybe" $3000 (possibly subsidized) multimedia VR headset. This is Iphone $1700 level of interesting to the average consumer that is tired of half-steps. If Apple does it right I can see people jumping on board for this, as well as companies for other purposes outside games and media.

Apple already brought a VR gaming company (or two?) and have been partnering with big companies in games and other areas in preparation for this headset. This isn't Zucker verse where it's some middling thing that didn't end up as promised and not very appealing to consumers. Apple is taking this seriously as they do with most of their highly priced products. I'm not an Apple guy, but if they can get something all in like this all-in at $3000 or less it's shaking some things.
 

midnightAI

Member
HoloLens 1 was like $15k when it was first announced, and it was never marketed as anything but a niche and was originally targeting the military until the revisions brought it to business level.

This is a "maybe" $3000 (possibly subsidized) multimedia VR headset. This is Iphone $1700 level of interesting to the average consumer that is tired of half-steps. If Apple does it right I can see people jumping on board for this, as well as companies for other purposes outside games and media.

Apple already brought a VR gaming company (or two?) and have been partnering with big companies in games and other areas in preparation for this headset. This isn't Zucker verse where it's some middling thing that didn't end up as promised and not very appealing to consumers. Apple is taking this seriously as they do with most of their highly priced products. I'm not an Apple guy, but if they can get something all in like this all-in at $3000 or less it's shaking some things.
But you have people complaining about a $500 headset being too expensive (ok, $900 ish if you really must include the price of a PS5), $3000 is ridiculous for a consumer device even if subsidised. If you pay it off over 12 months then it almost costs the price of a whole Quest 2 headset every month. I'm not having the 'because Apple' argument for something that most people don't need (a phone is something you use all the time, almost essential I'd say, all age groups have them). Unless they have suddenly cracked sunglasses size VR/AR then I don't see this thing selling, but then, like I said, I see this as an enterprise solution not a consumer one and so it doesn't need to sell big numbers.

We all have our opinions on this I guess, but I personally cannot in any way shape or form see this being a consumer device at $3000
 
That price automatically means it's not a gaming headset. At least not a mainstream one, and then why would anyone want to waste their time and money making any worthwhile games for it? And also the no controllers thing.

I view this as a productivity headset that probably will get a few games but won't be focused on that at all.

People said this same thing about gaming on smartphones, Iphones specifically.

You're trying to hard to forget what company this is.
 
But you have people complaining about a $500 headset being too expensive (ok, $900 ish if you really must include the price of a PS5), $3000 is ridiculous for a consumer device even if subsidised.

So are $1800-$2000 for Iphones with all the top specs and bells and whistles.

The reason why people here are complain about $500 PSVR2 headset, and the general market are not the same reasons. The Apple VR will be an effort on all-fronts in every area it can at premium with no shirt-cuts or limited half-steps. It will not be wired, it will have the specs for the best games, it will be accessible to the casuals, it will have the productivity, etc etc etc, with premium build, battery, and durability etc etc, which will make the perception people have of it be completely different even with it being more than 5x the price, assuming that is going to be the price, but may be slightly lower.

Again, we are talking about an $1000 difference than a top of the line Iphone with all the extra goodies, that sells millions at that price globally, especially through subsidization.

And we all know there's going to be introductory deals.

If you pay it off over 12 months then it almost costs the price of a whole Quest 2 headset every month.

It's not going to cost that much monthly of course, but that's the issue I pointed out earlier You are viewing this in comparison to the gamer understanding of why Quest 2 is popular compared to something like PSVR which sold less than half of that in 3x the amount of time, and assuming that with the popularity of the Quest 2, a $2-3000 Apple VR headset will be compared the same way.

But in actuality, the average consumer is not going to see the Apple VR headset as a Quest 2 competitor, they are going to see it as a new thing in Apple, it will be seen as "VR actual starts now" and it's going to be competent in all areas Apple aims for at minimum, it's going to be a premium all-in multimedia VR device, with AR capabilities, that will most likely be subsidized, that's going to showcase new innovative ways to use both, along with novelty controls, it's going to be mass marketed, it's going to be demoed, and it's going to look to casual general audiences as something COMPLETELY different from the VR they have been seeing since 2016.

They will see the specs, the demos, the logo, and will go out and buy it in millions, and that will increase more and more as the price goes down.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
It is a gaming headset, it's also a movie headset, a music headset, and a productivity headset.

That's the thing, Apple is going all in with a multimedia VR device that's strong enough to do all of this, without compromising one area over the other like every VR headset so far. Which explains the rumored up to $3000 price that's going around.

Quite frankly if they pull it off it will be the new standard for companies to try and imitate, and if they can get carriers to subsidize it well. Facebook is going to have to waste a lot of money to keep their headsets competitive and HYC might get pushed out the market.

Kind of what happened with Smartphones 7-8 years ago.

Gaming will be very low end for this, so I don't think they'll do well in that market at all. When a $500 headset is better for gaming than a $3000 one.

I am still not sure how this will work out for them, I don't see people wanting to move those functions off their phone unless this VR headset is as easy as placing on glasses
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
So are $1800-$2000 for Iphones with all the top specs and bells and whistles.

The reason why people here are complain about $500 PSVR2 headset, and the general market are not the same reasons. The Apple VR will be an effort on all-fronts in every area it can at premium with no shirt-cuts or limited half-steps. It will not be wired, it will have the specs for the best games, it will be accessible to the casuals, it will have the productivity, etc etc etc, with premium build, battery, and durability etc etc, which will make the perception people have of it be completely different even with it being more than 5x the price, assuming that is going to be the price, but may be slightly lower.

Again, we are talking about an $1000 difference than a top of the line Iphone with all the extra goodies, that sells millions at that price globally, especially through subsidization.

And we all know there's going to be introductory deals.



It's not going to cost that much monthly of course, but that's the issue I pointed out earlier You are viewing this in comparison to the gamer understanding of why Quest 2 is popular compared to something like PSVR which sold less than half of that in 3x the amount of time, and assuming that with the popularity of the Quest 2, a $2-3000 Apple VR headset will be compared the same way.

But in actuality, the average consumer is not going to see the Apple VR headset as a Quest 2 competitor, they are going to see it as a new thing in Apple, it will be seen as "VR actual starts now" and it's going to be competent in all areas Apple aims for at minimum, it's going to be a premium all-in multimedia VR device, with AR capabilities, that will most likely be subsidized, that's going to showcase new innovative ways to use both, along with novelty controls, it's going to be mass marketed, it's going to be demoed, and it's going to look to casual general audiences as something COMPLETELY different from the VR they have been seeing since 2016.

They will see the specs, the demos, the logo, and will go out and buy it in millions, and that will increase more and more as the price goes down.

I just don't see millions of regular people buying a $3000 toy (which is what this will be for most people). Yes, there are $2000 smartphones, but those are an integral part of most people's lives these days, we use them all the time. That won't be the case with VR for a long time yet.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Member
So are $1800-$2000 for Iphones with all the top specs and bells and whistles.

The reason why people here are complain about $500 PSVR2 headset, and the general market are not the same reasons. The Apple VR will be an effort on all-fronts in every area it can at premium with no shirt-cuts or limited half-steps. It will not be wired, it will have the specs for the best games, it will be accessible to the casuals, it will have the productivity, etc etc etc, with premium build, battery, and durability etc etc, which will make the perception people have of it be completely different even with it being more than 5x the price, assuming that is going to be the price, but may be slightly lower.

Again, we are talking about an $1000 difference than a top of the line Iphone with all the extra goodies, that sells millions at that price globally, especially through subsidization.

And we all know there's going to be introductory deals.



It's not going to cost that much monthly of course, but that's the issue I pointed out earlier You are viewing this in comparison to the gamer understanding of why Quest 2 is popular compared to something like PSVR which sold less than half of that in 3x the amount of time, and assuming that with the popularity of the Quest 2, a $2-3000 Apple VR headset will be compared the same way.

But in actuality, the average consumer is not going to see the Apple VR headset as a Quest 2 competitor, they are going to see it as a new thing in Apple, it will be seen as "VR actual starts now" and it's going to be competent in all areas Apple aims for at minimum, it's going to be a premium all-in multimedia VR device, with AR capabilities, that will most likely be subsidized, that's going to showcase new innovative ways to use both, along with novelty controls, it's going to be mass marketed, it's going to be demoed, and it's going to look to casual general audiences as something COMPLETELY different from the VR they have been seeing since 2016.

They will see the specs, the demos, the logo, and will go out and buy it in millions, and that will increase more and more as the price goes down.
As I said a phone is part of every day life (and yes, Apple was an important part of the mobile phone history). But a phone is small and pocketable, quick to use, simple, updated every year with improved specifications, families buy one each so they can communicate with each other, safely for the most part... They are not comparable. Also, the best selling phones Apple makes are the cheaper option, ones that are comparable to other phones on the market price wise, or, many people are buying the one year or older version of the phone so they can get it cheaper (there is a spike in sales when a new one is released of course)

We do not yet know what this VR/AR headset is yet so we cannot say it's different to anything we have seen, yes, it has hand tracking, so does the Quest 2/Pro and Pico 4 and they are much cheaper (Pro is even aimed at enterprise due to its cost but a headset twice the price won't be?), and it will have amazing specs, and they will lean heavily on AR rather than VR but this is not a gaming headset unless they also include standard hand controllers but I honestly don't think they care about gaming too much with this headset.

I do not think this (if $3000) is aimed at the mass market like you say, and if it is.... then good luck at that price point.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see, we havent seen the device yet, it may well be a true game changer, something we dont yet know about that will change VR/AR forever and the $3000 price point may be way off. And we'll only truly know after several months on the market whether its a success or not but I'm not one of those to accept it will be a success just because... Apple
 

TheSHEEEP

Gold Member
Become the controller, they said.
It's gonna be fun, they said.

Never had my joystick played with even once!
:messenger_loudly_crying:
 
As I said a phone is part of every day life

This excuse doesn't work for nearly $2000 devices that are functionally the same as <$1000 devices.

But a phone is small and pocketable, quick to use, simple, updated every year with improved specifications, families buy one each so they can communicate with each other, safely for the most part... They are not comparable.

You're omitting laptops and laptops which sell millions in high-price ranges because?

Also, the best selling phones Apple makes are the cheaper option.

No they aren't, no one is running to stores to buy SE's.

We do not yet know what this VR/AR headset is yet so we cannot say it's different to anything we have seen,

Every single report on features and targets that have come out about this headset has been vastly different from what we have seen.

I get being skeptical if this, or rather VR in general, will ever really be much more mainstream for a unit than Quest 2, BUT you are making some very faulty comparisons here and aren't considering how the general public will look at this headset. They aren't going to shrink it down to such simplicity as you have comparing it to a PSVR (or PSVR2) and looking at price, Quest 2 sold only partially because of price, it mostly sold in addition to price, on novelty of the types of then exclusive (still some) software, not all games either, that it was shown with, the accessibility to try it out, which helped the wireless aspect become a bigger selling point, it had the games people already played but better, and there was a massive marketing campaign not just through TV and media, but retailers. Zucker was trying to jump in first to start up his lolverse to cement a position, but as we have seen, other than headset sales of the Quest 2 that hasn't really worked out and his vision hasn't really happened.

While Apple is not rushing in and wants to basically tackle each area in a way no one has done before, it's going to be, even if the execution is BAD, going to be viewed as a hot gadget must have, the "real deal" in VR, the multimedia "can do everything" interactive advice, it will be expected to have the best media and games accessible to casuals and the hardcore, it will likely (though not 100% guarantee) be subsidized, it's going to be demoed in stores and clearly be different, and people are going to view it as some new revolution instead of another VR headset with a high-price tag.

Now, will this end up being popular long-term? Well don't know, so far VR hasn't really been generating the hype people thought it would, and while a new slew of headsets are coming, the buzz has been somewhat muted outside a bit with HTC's Quest 2/3 competitor coming out. The biggest buzz is actually the reports on Apples headset, mostly because of how advanced, high-speced, and different it's being portrayed which is gaining more attention from general audiences.

Even if their headset died in a year, it'll probably still sell millions within that time before dying off. It's going to be seen as big artificially or no for some time even if the hype dissipates quickly and it doesn't work out.
 

midnightAI

Member
This excuse doesn't work for nearly $2000 devices that are functionally the same as <$1000 devices.
Well, it does, people are willing to spend money on things that they use not just daily but much of the day. Also, with iPhones in particular, many people see them as fashion items, and there is this weird thing I have noticed around some people I know with iPhones that if you don't have the latest and greatest then everyone elses phone is seen as inferior (weird that), luckily thats just one or two individuals I know.

You're omitting laptops and laptops which sell millions in high-price ranges because?
You did only mention $1000-$2000 dollar phones that are subsidised, but if you want to move the goalpost then tablets are like large phones, they usually compliment a phone in that if you want to sit there for longer periods of time then a tablet is a more comfortable option, still, take it out, use it, no faffing with putting something on your head, no making sure you have enough area around you to use it safely, no only using it for 2 hours before the battery runs out (unless you have a really poor tablet). They are easy to use, familiar (same os as phones), they are just large screen phones really. Laptops is different,. they arent usually subsidised and, correct me if I am wrong, Apple arent usually the highest sellers and even then it wont be the really expensive ones.
No they aren't, no one is running to stores to buy SE's.
No, but the regular iPhone sells more than the Pro and Pro Max, like I said, the cheaper option (not the cheapest option) ... https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-top-10-smartphones-2021/

But again, this VR/AR headset isn't a phone and so can't be comparable, other than it 'may' be subsidised 'if' it's $3000 (I don't think it will be, I think its enterprise at first at this price point, you disagree). A VR headset will not get the amount of use as a phone, a tablet or a laptop, especially one with a 2 hour battery life.

Every single report on features and targets that have come out about this headset has been vastly different from what we have seen.

I get being skeptical if this, or rather VR in general, will ever really be much more mainstream for a unit than Quest 2, BUT you are making some very faulty comparisons here and aren't considering how the general public will look at this headset. They aren't going to shrink it down to such simplicity as you have comparing it to a PSVR (or PSVR2) and looking at price, Quest 2 sold only partially because of price, it mostly sold in addition to price, on novelty of the types of then exclusive (still some) software, not all games either, that it was shown with, the accessibility to try it out, which helped the wireless aspect become a bigger selling point, it had the games people already played but better, and there was a massive marketing campaign not just through TV and media, but retailers. Zucker was trying to jump in first to start up his lolverse to cement a position, but as we have seen, other than headset sales of the Quest 2 that hasn't really worked out and his vision hasn't really happened.

While Apple is not rushing in and wants to basically tackle each area in a way no one has done before, it's going to be, even if the execution is BAD, going to be viewed as a hot gadget must have, the "real deal" in VR, the multimedia "can do everything" interactive advice, it will be expected to have the best media and games accessible to casuals and the hardcore, it will likely (though not 100% guarantee) be subsidized, it's going to be demoed in stores and clearly be different, and people are going to view it as some new revolution instead of another VR headset with a high-price tag.

Now, will this end up being popular long-term? Well don't know, so far VR hasn't really been generating the hype people thought it would, and while a new slew of headsets are coming, the buzz has been somewhat muted outside a bit with HTC's Quest 2/3 competitor coming out. The biggest buzz is actually the reports on Apples headset, mostly because of how advanced, high-speced, and different it's being portrayed which is gaining more attention from general audiences.

Even if their headset died in a year, it'll probably still sell millions within that time before dying off. It's going to be seen as big artificially or no for some time even if the hype dissipates quickly and it doesn't work out.
I am considering the general public, its even the most important aspect of all this, I will repeat myself (ad infinitum) .... in my opinion $3000 is too expensive for mass adoption, regardless of specs unless it is some revolutionary headset that is the size of sunglasses and can last many hours (it wont be)
Will it be amazing, probably, I am not disputing that, but the price is the killer, especially in the times we live in, people are struggling to pay their bills and you expect them to pay a premium for something that will only be used occasionally and its a necessity? wasnt you one of the ones arguing that PSVR 2 is expensive and won't sell because of that very fact?

Actually, there is a very simple way of testing this, create a poll, have the options of something like:
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $3000 or more
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $2000-$3000
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $1500-$2000
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $1000-$1500
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is less than $1000
I will not buy the Apple Headset regardless of price

word it however you like, lets see if people on a gaming forum are willing to pay upwards of even $2000 for a AR/VR headset

Also, is the biggest buzz really the Apple headset? the main buzz I have seen is for PSVR 2. They havent announced the Apple headset yet and I'm sure it will get loads of buzz, but will it be positive buzz? dunno until they announce the thing properly with full specs and price and show what it can actually do, until then its all guess work and rumours
 
but if you want to move the goalpost then tablets are like large phones,

I didn't move any goal posts, it just crushes your narrative. All those expensive products like laptops and PC's are expensive and NOT phones, but still sell millions, not tens of millions, we aren't seeing 30 millions sales in one, or even two years, but millions.

That is pretty important for the growing VR market.

As for Iphones being seen as fashion items, that goes for most Apple products, even as status symbols, not sure why you think their headset will be different.

You are basically sabotaging your own argument defending Apple products other than the headset, with their high prices, and then removing those excuses when talking specifically about the VR headset and it's high price, which is still going to be an Apple product, with it's logo, with mass celebrity and premium marketing and build, and will still be seen as some revolutionary status symbol/fashion item. You haven't given much of a reason why this wouldn't still apply to the headset.

If you have a $2000 phone with bells and whistles selling "hypothetically" 20 million phones, then how can you not see 10 million (hypothetically) for a $3000 new, novel, heavily marketed multimedia headset that's going to be seen, and covered by the media, as different, and has been each leak or new reported information?

And you end your post about a poll on a gaming forum, which is the exact opposite of your claim of thinking of the general audience, the general audience that's going to be awed by this product, outside some exceptions, is NOT going to be on a gaming forum. That's not going to be where the millions of sales come from outside the hardcore that want it for the specs.

No, but the regular iPhone sells more than the Pro and Pro Max, like I said, the cheaper option (not the cheapest option) ... https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-top-10-smartphones-2021/

Ok, that's not what you said. You said the "best selling Apple phones are the cheaper option" which would have been SE's, and they are not, or the XR before and were not. (Not to mention the supply issues for the Pro and especially the Max's but that's another issue)
 

midnightAI

Member
I didn't move any goal posts, it just crushes your narrative. All those expensive products like laptops and PC's are expensive and NOT phones, but still sell millions, not tens of millions, we aren't seeing 30 millions sales in one, or even two years, but millions.

That is pretty important for the growing VR market.

As for Iphones being seen as fashion items, that goes for most Apple products, even as status symbols, not sure why you think their headset will be different.

You are basically sabotaging your own argument defending Apple products other than the headset, with their high prices, and then removing those excuses when talking specifically about the VR headset and it's high price, which is still going to be an Apple product, with it's logo, with mass celebrity and premium marketing and build, and will still be seen as some revolutionary status symbol/fashion item. You haven't given much of a reason why this wouldn't still apply to the headset.

If you have a $2000 phone with bells and whistles selling "hypothetically" 20 million phones, then how can you not see 10 million (hypothetically) for a $3000 new, novel, heavily marketed multimedia headset that's going to be seen, and covered by the media, as different, and has been each leak or new reported information?

And you end your post about a poll on a gaming forum, which is the exact opposite of your claim of thinking of the general audience, the general audience that's going to be awed by this product, outside some exceptions, is NOT going to be on a gaming forum. That's not going to be where the millions of sales come from outside the hardcore that want it for the specs.



Ok, that's not what you said. You said the "best selling Apple phones are the cheaper option" which would have been SE's, and they are not, or the XR before and were not. (Not to mention the supply issues for the Pro and especially the Max's but that's another issue)
I had just written a long rant about the above, but you know what, lets just agree to disagree, 'I' think the price is WAY too expensive for mass market consumption at $3000, you think otherwise, lets revisit this when the thing is announced, on sale, in peoples hands and see how well it does.
 
https://www.laptopmag.com/news/apple-vr-headset-may-turn-you-into-the-controller-heres-how



Kinect was the solution for VR being mainstream the whole time :lollipop_grinning_eyes:.

But seriously, I'm surprised no other manufacturer (other than eye-tracking) has though about motion based VR yet for headsets at a mainstream level. The novelty of touchless VR as if you were in a sci-fi movie, even if it doesn't work very well, is a selling point on it's own.

Being able to reach out and open an app, or slide around screens or data around is basically something out of Fifth Element, Minority or Demolition Man.

Of course we'll have to wait and see if that ends up being cool in execution.
Press X for doubt. VR is sensitive to latency, and as we saw with Kinect, the time it takes to read the gesture, decipher it and give you an input command, takes too long. A button press is instantaneous and will always be the best way to play.
 
'I' think the price is WAY too expensive for mass market consumption at $3000, you think otherwise,

Being disingenuous isn't agreeing to disagree, you know exactly what I was actually arguing and it wasn't just that the price was too expensive or not, unless you're intentionally not actually reading my posts, you can't shrink the conversation down to that, which would be misleading.

But yes we will see how it does, which was always the case, which is why I originally brought up how it's executed. Whether or not they partner with carriers is also something many are watching to see.

Press X for doubt. VR is sensitive to latency, and as we saw with Kinect, the time it takes to read the gesture, decipher it and give you an input command, takes too long. A button press is instantaneous and will always be the best way to play.

Yes, however there's a temporary "wow" factor involved wit touch controls, and with VR as seen in sci-fi movies, has the "we are finally here" feeling.

Until they try it lol.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
But seriously, I'm surprised no other manufacturer (other than eye-tracking) has though about motion based VR yet for headsets at a mainstream level. The novelty of touchless VR as if you were in a sci-fi movie, even if it doesn't work very well, is a selling point on it's own.

Being able to reach out and open an app, or slide around screens or data around is basically something out of Fifth Element, Minority or Demolition Man.

So you have all these ideas of how revolutionary and successful this headset will be, but you're seemingly unaware that you can already do EXACTLY what you're describing with the cheap, mainstream Quest 2. Yes, EXACTLY that stuff, full Minority Report style. And it works pretty damn well too. It just isn't a good input method for most types of games, mostly because of the complete lack of tactile feedback. A controller with buttons and triggers is much better for almost everything.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Member
Being disingenuous isn't agreeing to disagree, you know exactly what I was actually arguing and it wasn't just that the price was too expensive or not, unless you're intentionally not actually reading my posts, you can't shrink the conversation down to that, which would be misleading.
Ugh, no, 'I' think the main issue, and perhaps single issue, the roadblock, is the price for general consumption, I argue it can be shrunk down to that single fact that $3000 is too expensive, regardless of brand, specs and functionality (even though to be fair we don't even know what it can do but currently all we can go off is what is currently available at higher specs, like I said there could be something truly revolutionary in there that we don't know about)

Anyway, like I said originally and I'll reiterate that I think this headset isn't even aimed at consumers, I think it will be a pro headset aimed at enterprise so the price then becomes less relevant but it then wont sell that many either (like Quest Pro and Hololens before it)
 
So you have all these ideas of how revolutionary and successful this headset will be, but you're seemingly unaware that you can already do EXACTLY what you're describing with the cheap, mainstream Quest 2.

I'm not unaware of anything, you are not considering VR news cycle and what's being reported, the buzz in the press, and among the casuals.

We have had many technologies do things that another didn't do first, and the perception as the other product still was the first to do things, or the first to me known widely creating that perception.

In fact, that's basically Apples playbook through most of the companies existence.

Doesn't matter if Quest 2 can do all these things, if the Apple device makes it mainstream, does it better, and presents it in a way that's different and gets people attentions and hogs the news cycle.

Apple VR is the biggest VR news for a reason, if it was the way you say than the biggest news in VR would be reports and anticipation for HTC's Quest 2/3 killer, but it's not because it's the type of VR people expect, and some just aren't interested anymore outside the Quest 2 (if that) for that type of VR experience.

Quest 2 has been on decline and is about to be replaced. I'm not even sure Quest 3 is going to attract a similar audience.

It just isn't a good input method for most types of games, mostly because of the complete lack of tactile feedback. A controller with buttons and triggers is much better for almost everything.

I think the thing here is you think I'm saying that touch screen is better than controllers which I never said or implied.

I said that to the general audience touch controls have a wow factor controllers do not. Apple may have game controllers too anyway, if they allow, probably third-party as well. But controllers aren't going to sell headsets on novelty alone.

I guarantee you when this motion stuff is demonstrated the usual outlets will have jaw dropping commentary and average people will think Apple brought their sci-fi movies to reality.
 
Ugh, no, 'I' think the main issue, and perhaps single issue, the roadblock, is the price for general consumption, I argue it can be shrunk down to that single fact that $3000 is too expensive, regardless of brand, specs and functionality (even though to be fair we don't even know what it can do but currently all we can go off is what is currently available at higher specs, like I said there could be something truly revolutionary in there that we don't know about)

Anyway, like I said originally and I'll reiterate that I think this headset isn't even aimed at consumers, I think it will be a pro headset aimed at enterprise so the price then becomes less relevant but it then wont sell that many either (like Quest Pro and Hololens before it)

Keep in mind $3000 is a rumor. So trying to use it as the single point of contention so hard may make it too easy to get egg on face if it ends up less than that (or more)
 

midnightAI

Member
Keep in mind $3000 is a rumor. So trying to use it as the single point of contention so hard may make it too easy to get egg on face if it ends up less than that (or more)
I have stated many times 'if' its $3000, I didnt in that last post but I am basing it on 'if'
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
I'm not unaware of anything, you are not considering VR news cycle and what's being reported, the buzz in the press, and among the casuals.

We have had many technologies do things that another didn't do first, and the perception as the other product still was the first to do things, or the first to me known widely creating that perception.

In fact, that's basically Apples playbook through most of the companies existence.

Doesn't matter if Quest 2 can do all these things, if the Apple device makes it mainstream, does it better, and presents it in a way that's different and gets people attentions and hogs the news cycle.

Apple VR is the biggest VR news for a reason, if it was the way you say than the biggest news in VR would be reports and anticipation for HTC's Quest 2/3 killer, but it's not because it's the type of VR people expect, and some just aren't interested anymore outside the Quest 2 (if that) for that type of VR experience.

Quest 2 has been on decline and is about to be replaced. I'm not even sure Quest 3 is going to attract a similar audience.



I think the thing here is you think I'm saying that touch screen is better than controllers which I never said or implied.

I said that to the general audience touch controls have a wow factor controllers do not. Apple may have game controllers too anyway, if they allow, probably third-party as well. But controllers aren't going to sell headsets on novelty alone.

I guarantee you when this motion stuff is demonstrated the usual outlets will have jaw dropping commentary and average people will think Apple brought their sci-fi movies to reality.

Ok, but you literally said:

I'm surprised no other manufacturer (other than eye-tracking) has though about motion based VR yet for headsets at a mainstream level. The novelty of touchless VR as if you were in a sci-fi movie, even if it doesn't work very well, is a selling point on it's own.

Which isn't true. Others have thought about it, and implemented it. It's available right now.
 
Top Bottom