Disney, VR/AR, and Apple's WWDC 2023

[Tha Realest]

What did they innovate? This isn't innovation, this is an Apple logo slapped on something that already exists.

sure it is. Look at all that peripheral visual real estate for interactive graphics and future ad placement!

 

[lazyboy97o]

In the case of the iPod, the market had already accepted the idea of MP3 players. It was something they wanted, so Apple making a newer, better version had a chance to be successful, even if it was more expensive.

In the case of the iPhone, the smartphone market didn't exist so it was untested. It was a bigger risk, but the upside was huge.

In the vase of VR, the market has already rejected it. Nobody wants this in significant enough numbers to be viable in the marketplace. Nobody wants to do VR work meetings, they don't even like turning their camera on in Zoom meetings. They're happy to try VR games at their techie friends' houses for 20 minutes but the vast majority of people aren't interested.

Doing something that works but making it better and more expensive?
Doing something new, even if it's expensive?
Doing something that people already hate, but making it more expensive?

Have you never heard of the Treo? Smartphones very much did exist when the iPhone was announced and they were a niche product that the larger market wasn’t interested in using…

 

[Mireille]

Star Wars: Tales from the Galaxy's Edge launched on the Oculus Quest three years ago.

Ever heard of it? Nope. Because it sucked so nobody bought it.

I played it. It was fun for a couple days. Then I forgot about it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How did I know?

Bob should check his parks…the high class clientele from Denver looking for $3000 headsets maybe outta cash

 

[CaptainAmerica]

sure it is. Look at all that peripheral visual real estate for interactive graphics and future ad placement!

That's my favorite part. The tech demo didn't even show fully integrated virtual environments, it showed people watching virtual TVs inside their rendered living room environments.

 

[Rteetz]

Describe your use case.

What would you do with this, even in fantasy land where you had 100% product control over the app library, that would justify a $3,500 price tag.

I need to see more yet. Actual non advertisement type usage. I won’t be a day one buyer. Tho I was a day one buyer of Apple Watch.

Right now I very much am intrigued by the show/film viewing capabilities. I also am intrigued by taking what I’m working on from my Mac directly to this.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I played it. It was fun for a couple days. Then I forgot about it.

Exactly.

 

[kevlightyear]

I'm told there's "in the parks" demo footage that didn't make it in here.

There was a piece of the presentation where they showed someone watching a movie in front of Mt. Hood. They said the space was volumetrically measured. I wonder if the same thing could be done for the parks?

 

[lazyboy97o]

What did they innovate? This isn't innovation, this is an Apple logo slapped on something that already exists.

Which devices are these that already exist?

 

[mightynine]

Let's be real, is this a mass market product at $3499? No, it will be for the people who are already ok spending thousands for Mac Pros and the like and those that are truly all-in on the Apple ecosystem.

The "Pro" nomenclature assumes there will be a cheaper, non-Pro version down the line - probably with fewer or lower-grade features (drop Eyesight, IMO), and that would be intriguing.

I do think Apple has, like other headset makers, yet to show just WHY a device like this is necessary. But I could see it as the next replacement for desktop computers for power users, rather than something you would wear continuously.

Apple doesn't have a great track record with this. Remember when Apple pioneered set top streaming with Apple TV, but quickly let that waste away because they either didn't take it seriously to devote resources into it, or they just saw it as a pet project.

The same could be said about HomePod.

By setting this price point, they invite lower quality competition to enter the market and before you know it you have a flood of knockoffs each with a competing ecosystem that dilutes any advantage that Apple may have had.

Iphone is successful everyone needs an smart phone, even at a price premium.
Likewise Mac is successful because it meets customer needs, even at price premium.
The Goggles don't do that.

I mean, isn't lower quality competition already in this market? Apple's just setting a possible new high-end of it.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I’m pretty sure the starcruiser was regarded as a “cool thing” despite price. It had extremely high ratings.

and barely lasted over a year .... this feels similar to that - there will be people that get it and absolutely love it, but will there be enough critical mass to keep it going?

 

[Rteetz]

I dunno... They've been pushing VR for nearly a decade now and even with $300 headsets, growth has still been pretty glacial. And Google Glass failed. Maybe Apple has the magic to make people finally consider it, but $3500?!?!?!? You can sit on your couch and use your Mac or iPad, but AR/VR usually requires moving around, physical exertion (it is deceptively taxing), and large spaces to interact in. As someone who's had a VR headset for 4 years, I haven't pulled it out in probably a year, and I *enjoy* VR when there's a worthwhile experience. But no matter what, a headset like that is not comfortable to wear for long periods and battery life is a huge factor. In any case, at that price point, I don't see it being widely adopted for quite a while. I could very well be wrong, but I just don't see it taking off until it's much smaller and much, much, much cheaper, so... maybe never.

I’m not saying it will be widely adopted early. Many products aren’t until a few versions later. I just don’t think it should be automatically counted out either. This is a step into the future of AR/VR. I think Apple is really trying to make it more augmented reality and mixed reality vs. virtual reality which some other companies are very focused on only.

 

[Tha Realest]

I’m curious about the “Pro” appendage. Apple aficionados, doesn’t that generally presuppose the higher line iteration of a product? Are we to assume a lower cost/tech “Apple Vision” (sans the “Pro” naming convention) to come later?

 

[monothingie]

mean, isn't lower quality competition already in this market? Apple's just setting a possible new high-end of it.

How much did Apple charge for the Studio Display Stand?

 

[CaptinEO]

What did they innovate? This isn't innovation, this is an Apple logo slapped on something that already exists.

They innovate in how they refine existing technology.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Right now I very much am intrigued by the show/film viewing capabilities.

If I have a TV, or I can put on a headset and watch a TV in a virtual space, how is that any different beyond the fact that the latter might give me acne from wearing something pressed up against my face for two hours?

I also am intrigued by taking what I’m working on from my Mac directly to this.

Input/output is a huge problem for work applications. There's a reason that the best-selling accessory for an iPad (besides a protective case) is a physical keyboard. Tactile input matters. Apple knows this, and it's why key presses on an iPhone have haptic feedback. Heck, it's why the "click wheel" on the iPod actual clicked.

 

[Rteetz]

and barely lasted over a year .... this feels similar to that - there will be people that get it and absolutely love it, but will there be enough critical mass to keep it going?

Apples to oranges pun intended. You cannot compare starcruiser to a headset that can be used daily.

There is still a lot yet to be seen too. Todays announcement was at WWDC which is a developers conference. It’s now for the developers to take this new tech and create new things. Apple has laid the frame work. Possibilities are endless.

 

[Brian]

I’m curious about the “Pro” appendage. Apple aficionados, doesn’t that generally presuppose the higher line iteration of a product? Are we to assume a lower cost/tech “Apple Vision” (sans the “Pro” naming convention) to come later?

It's interesting how the "Pro" moniker has evolved for Apple over the years. It's gone from connoting a sort of premium version of the product, to a distinct line of products geared towards professionals, and now with the introduction of Apple Vision Pro, it seems like they pendulum is swinging back. This is not a product which was designed for professional users like the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro are.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I’m not saying it will be widely adopted early. Many products aren’t until a few versions later. I just don’t think it should be automatically counted out either. This is a step into the future of AR/VR. I think Apple is really trying to make it more augmented reality and mixed reality vs. virtual reality which some other companies are very focused on only.

I'm a perfect example of this. I wanted the original iPhone, but waited for the 3g to come out to jump in. We wouldn't be a first day buyer for this, but certainly might down the road as the tech matures.

 

[Rteetz]

If I have a TV, or I can put on a headset and watch a TV in a virtual space, how is that any different beyond the fact that the latter might give me acne from wearing something pressed up against my face for two hours?


Input/output is a huge problem for work applications. There's a reason that the best-selling accessory for an iPad (besides a protective case) is a physical keyboard. Tactile input matters. Apple knows this, and it's why key presses on an iPhone have haptic feedback. Heck, it's why the "click wheel" on the iPod actual clicked.

You can use a tactile keyboard with this. They showed that. Everyone is also different in that respect. I don’t use a tactile keyboard with my iPad.

As for the TV, this takes that viewing experience to the next level. The sports aspect is one I’m most intrigued getting 3D visuals of plays/action? Now that’s something I want.