Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

theo2112 t1_iyxujjc wrote

Enough about this already. I’m sure it’s coming, but until anyone else releases a compelling VR/AR product, apple is never going to. They are not going to be the ones to tip their hands on what the next generation of these devices can be.

31

SUPRVLLAN t1_iyxzv3h wrote

I’m not so sure this time, I think that Google, Samsung, etc have figured out by now that they shouldn’t be first to market. Wait until Apple releases theirs, and that’s the blueprint to iterate on.

21

lawst1102 t1_iyy9y6r wrote

Agreed. Others are playing or have played in the space. But there is a very good chance that whatever apple releases becomes the standard experience and then everyone shifts to copy as much as they legally can.

19

bdone2012 t1_iyyciw4 wrote

Samsung and google have already put out headsets. Samsung had gear vr which was pretty good for what it was. And google had one too. Neither were amazing in the long run.

9

SUPRVLLAN t1_iyycxp2 wrote

And they both know they sucked and ceased public iteration. VR/AR 2.0 is coming, they’re waiting for Apple to make the next move.

3

joshwagstaff13 t1_iz04ilt wrote

> Samsung had gear vr

Samsung also had a WMR headset, in the form of the Odyssey+.

2

V_es t1_iyz6w5e wrote

And they all suck. They are waiting for Apple to make a move and see what they can copy.

1

SatansCouncil t1_iyzo2ja wrote

Your statement is so contradictive. Others have produced product, but are waiting to copy apple?

Sounds like, once again, others do the pioneering, then apple will step in, release an overpriced underperformer.

Performance specs will be average at best, but apple will claim some new retna display bullshit, fans will eat it up.

Dont get me wrong, its a great business model, it works for apple.

1

V_es t1_iyzx0mq wrote

It’s not contradictive it’s how it’s been so far. Apple is late to the game but makes a product that actually works, and everybody tweaks theirs to copy what Apple does.

3

DarthBuzzard t1_iyyefhx wrote

> but until anyone else releases a compelling VR/AR product, apple is never going to. They are not going to be the ones to tip their hands on what the next generation of these devices can be.

This isn't the smartphone era. VR/AR has a long road to maturity. Apple can't afford to wait another 10 years before they release something in this space, or they risk losing a top spot.

8

theo2112 t1_iyyj08n wrote

Another 10 years? No. But another 2 years while Facebook flails around trying to stay relevant doing the dirty work of explaining to your 50 year old aunt what VR even is. Sure.

Then, once there’s even a single compelling reason for the average person (apple doesn’t target niche groups with hardware) to want a VR headset, apple will unveil theirs.

7

mrgnarchr t1_iyz00pq wrote

I just got some Nreal Air glasses, I like ‘em

1

NrealAssistant t1_iz8lemt wrote

Hi mrgnarchr. That is wonderful to hear. May I know what your primary use for the glasses is? Nreal Air is used by some people to experience augmented reality, while others use it primarily for gaming on a large screen, and some people use it for productivity on a portable device.

I appreciate you bringing up the Nreal Air. It's consumer AR glasses in the shape of a typical sunglass. You can instantly get large screens for an AR experience by connecting it to a device with a USB-C port that supports Display out.

1

buttorsomething t1_iz0fiur wrote

Only thing out there doing anything is the quest and for $400 it’s amazing but you really need a PC so after all that it’s like $1400 minimum. But even the quest 2 by itself is amazing. Truly hard to understand why it’s lower GFX are ok without trying it. VR is more about immersion than amazing GFX. Unless you have a PC.

1

NextFaithlessness7 t1_iyxxeib wrote

Apple will drop their product late with half the specs if the competition

−22

theo2112 t1_iyxxs9b wrote

And it will perform twice as well, sell twice as many, and define the category. See: mp3 player, smart phone, tablet, smart watch/wearable, and so on.

This is the playbook. See what the competition is doing. Find a way to improve the experience, not the spec sheet, release the product touting the use case. Profit.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

33

Madholm t1_iyyakz1 wrote

With the current state of Meta and the general ‘meh’ status of VR gaming, why should Apple even be in a hurry to push out a product?

3

PrivatePilot9 t1_iyyekyn wrote

Because Apple has been quietly watching from the sidelines, collecting data on the “meh” experience, and fixing what makes it “meh” to begin with.

See above comments. This is what they do, and they do it well.

7

Madholm t1_iyyg7ht wrote

No, there just isn’t a market for it. Even best use scenarios like gaming doesn’t have consumers biting on the tech and gamers will buy just about anything.

You think that just because it’s Apple that will change? Sorry man, this isn’t an MP3 player, phone, watch, headphones type situation where Apple can capitalize. It’s a severely floundering hardware segment and small things like cutting the cables to make it wireless and more user friendly isn’t going to solve the problems with the platform.

What I mean is that Apple is going to have to reinvent the wheel for this one to be a success, because there is nothing compelling to build from at the moment. Microsoft actually has a somewhat more viable market strategy for their headset, but it’s clearly not a consumer device.

−2

DarthBuzzard t1_iyyek39 wrote

> sell twice as many

Not this product though. It's rumored to be a very expensive device.

−1

theo2112 t1_iyyi1k3 wrote

The first iPhone was (I believe) $600 with no subsidy available when paying even $1 for a cell phone was unheard of.

The first iPod (the very first) was expensive relative to other mp3 players.

Again, by Apples playbook you don’t have to be cheap if your product is the best. And, again based on past products, having the first gen be somewhat unattainable for the average person only fuels the demand when gen 2 rolls around at a lower price.

5

LawsMan t1_iyyo8i5 wrote

The iPhone started at $499 (over $700 today) and required a two year service contract with AT&T. That was a lot of money then too. You’re right that it’s the iterations that bring costs down and expand markets.

People doubting Apple sound a lot like Balmer and the head of Palm:

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” —Palm CEO Ed Colligan, November 16, 2006

3

DarthBuzzard t1_iyyjmmp wrote

We're talking a possible $2000-3000 device here.

−1

Balducci30 t1_iyyaavz wrote

Weren’t the big ones all Steve Jobs tho conceptually?

−2