Apple vs VR

So it’s Apple’s turn for a try at VR.

Apple Might Kill VR

In case you haven’t been keeping track: Google has arguably done the most damage here so far by making everyone feel sick with the too-cheap Daydream:

The State of VR: “Me Too” Failures

Facebook’s hardware efforts on the other hand have landed pretty well—the Oculus does what people want at a good price point. Their “Metaverse” software is failing because it’s not what people want at all, but we’re getting on just fine by ignoring it completely.

With Google going “too cheap” and Facebook hitting “just right”, the idea of Apple entering the fray at a ridiculously high price point—$3500—is both fitting and hilarious.

However, I’m not quite so quick as moddedBear to predict failure.

I think there is room at the top end of VR. Here’s why.

VR is spectacularly good at scale. It can give you a bigger “screen” than anything else—an IMAX cinema screen has trouble competing with a mid-level VR headset.

But, those mid-level headsets don’t have the resolution to support doing close work. The Vive Pro, for example, sits towards the top end of the current consumer space with a mere 1400x1600 pixels per eye, at a cost of $1300 or so for the full kit with lighthouses and controllers. It’s a great headset, but you wouldn’t use it to write a Gemlog post.

So, what about high level headsets?

We can actually see what those look like, because the Varjo XR-3 is one, at a cool $6400. It offers 1920x1920 pixels per eye, and like the set Apple just announced it offers AR as well as VR. That means it can “pass through” real world video and overlay virtual objects on top of it.

This one is a little out of my budget for toys, but the reviews are fascinating.

The BEST VR Headset in the WORLD

Why fascinating? Because a consistent refrain across reviews is this: when using this AR headset, it is not possible to visually distinguish real and virtual objects.

At the Varjo XR-3 level of tech, we have hit “full VR”. There is still a lot to be done in terms of software, and comfort and usability of the hardware. But in terms of range of immersive visual experience this can stand in for—we have run out of “up”.

The headset just announced by Apple has 4K resolution per eye, significantly more than the Varjo headset. That doesn’t mean it will be better, but it would be a surprising “swing and a miss” from Apple if they do not achieve something similar in terms of visual fidelity.

It seems clear that it is intended that you can do serious, professional work with the Apple headset.

Unlimited Displays

So when thinking about the $3500 price it probably makes sense to see it as competing against unlimited and instantly configurable displays; it can be all the screens you could ever want. For some—admittedly, very specialist—users, it starts to look like great value.

For comparison, there is a recent consumer device called “nReal Air”. These glasses don’t do any of the VR or AR part, they do not track motion; they simply overlay on your vision a fixed “huge television”, a virtual 130 inch display:

nreal air

Glancing through some reviews, it seems like the visual effect is not just comfortable but highly enjoyable. They cost $500 or so; the price point seems right to compete with the televisions they can replace.

Conclusion

I’m looking forward to reading the first reviews of Apple’s new device when it comes out. As far as I can guess it’s exploring a relatively untapped area for VR—professional productivity—which Apple has historically been successful in, even if it has recently taken a back seat to their more consumer oriented offerings.

Feedback 📮

👍 Thanks!

👎 Not for me.

🤷 No opinion.

Comments.

So far today, 2024-05-12, feedback has been received 2 times. Of these, 0 were likely from bots, and 2 might have been from real people. Thank you, maybe-real people!