Gurman’s weird theories on Apple’s VR product

[Cmaier]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

My favorite part:

The headset will also mark a strategy shift for Apple. When it entered previous categories — music players, phones, tablets and watches — there was already mainstream interest in the products. Apple’s goal was just to create something better and beat the competition.

AR/VR headsets, in contrast, are still a nascent field. Consumers will need some coaxing just to get them to consider such a product.

What?

Let’s take them in order.

Music players? Unless he’s talking about Sony’s Walkman or Discman, that category was pretty nascent. Does anyone even remember what was out prior to iPod? CmdrTaco’s famous comparison to the Nomad is telling. I owned one, but I venture hardly anyone else did. Arguing that digital music players were not a “nascent field” is a little silly.

Phones? Sure, phones existed. But the smartphone field was still reasonably “nascent.” Most people did not own smartphones. If you owned a cellphone it was probably a flip phone. Blackberry and Palm existed, as well as Nokia and some others. But consumers still needed a lot of coaxing - most people still didn’t see the need for a smartphone.

Tablets? Is he referring to those 1”-thick Windows tablets with built-in fans? Is that the same thing? Was there anything like iPad before iPad? Were consumers buying those things without ”coaxing?”

Watches? See, he cleverly doesn’t say “smart watches.“. Yes, Times and Rolex existed. But who owned a smartwatch? A few pebbles and a couple of other choices. I suppose Gurman thinks these were taking the world by storm, and nobody needed “coaxing just to … consider such a product.”

Not to mention categories he did NOT list. Personal computers? I suppose that wasn’t a nascent field? GUI-based computers? Ditto.

And, more alarmingly, I don’t believe Apple has identified a truly “killer app” for the device yet. The company is hoping that immersive video watching, tight integration with other Apple products and advanced VR-based FaceTime calls will reel in consumers, but I’m skeptical that the approach will be enough.

When was the last time Apple *did* introduce a new product with a killer app? Visicalc on Apple II? MacPaint on the Mac? What was the Apple Watch’s killer app? I recall them trying “communicator” before they settled on fitness. Does the iPad have a killer app yet? Apple does this all the time. They produce the platform and throw some spaghetti on the wall and see what use cases stick.

He claims the iPad *did* have a killer app;

With the first iPad, the world was clearly ready for tablets, and the devices could serve as either a laptop replacement or a casual entertainment machine.

The world was clearly ready for them? Laptop replacement? Did I hallucinate five year’s of complaints that iPad was just for media consumption and could not be used as a laptop replacement?

Seems to me like Gurman’s sources have dried up, and he’s just rooting for failure so he has something to write about.

 

[Citysnaps]

He clearly doesn't get the potential of AR. Like so many at the other place. He's thinking of the tech as an alternative to displays, phones, etc. Rather than as a tool or an assistive device to help solve problems, provide insight, assist with tasks, etc.

 

[dada_dave]

Apple’s AR/VR may fail it may not but yeah a lot of these points are bunk. If anything it’s the opposite: VR/AR has more established market than most of the other product categories Apple entered into and Apple will have to work harder to differentiate itself while maintaining a semi-reasonable price. So I have my reservations about it but simultaneously think it could be great. It just depends.

 

[Citysnaps]

Apple’s AR/VR may fail it may not but yeah a lot of these points are bunk. If anything it’s the opposite: VR/AR has more established market than most of the other product categories Apple entered into and Apple will have to work harder to differentiate itself while maintaining a semi-reasonable price. So I have my reservations about it but simultaneously think it could be great. It just depends.

I keep going back to the fact that Apple has been collaborating with Stanford University's AR/VR Laboratory for seven years now. I have no idea about specifics, but I suspect there's something interesting brewing - particularly the device, and potential applications.

Wouldn't be surprised if a suite of simple but interesting apps showcasing ARs potential to get people's imagination stirred up, and some kind of development tools (beyond ARkit) are released simultaneously with the device (I'm still betting on glasses, as unpopular as that is to many).

There's no way it would ever be, or even resemble, the googles seen at the other place.

 

[Colstan]

Thread title: "German’s weird theories on Apple’s VR product"

The Germans have a lot of weird theories, but I didn't know they had an opinion on Apple's VR endeavours.

 

[Cmaier]

Thread title: "German’s weird theories on Apple’s VR product"

The Germans have a lot of weird theories, but I didn't know they had an opinion on Apple's VR endeavours.

Fixed. The wonders of autocorrect.

 

[Colstan]

Fixed. The wonders of autocorrect.

I liked the old title better. It gave me a moment of enjoyable confusion.

 

[Cmaier]

I liked the old title better. It gave me a moment of enjoyable confusion.

Es tut mir leid. Ich will die Deutschen nicht verleumden.

 

[Colstan]

Es tut mir leid. Ich will die Deutschen nicht verleumden.

Sorry, I don't speak French.

 

[fischersd]

Me, I think goggles are a waste....we should be having nanites deciphering the signalling of the optic nerve. What resolution do we see at?

(insert blurb about people hacking)

 

[KingOfPain]

Thread title: "German’s weird theories on Apple’s VR product"

The Germans have a lot of weird theories, but I didn't know they had an opinion on Apple's VR endeavours.

If they had, there their theories probably wouldn‘t be worse than Gurman‘s.
(Since I‘m German, writing that almost feels like the Epimenides paradox.)