If this new Bloomberg story is right, Apple will not be a mass market player in the VR industry for at least the next five years, and that's by Apple's own design:
Apple’s typical playbook involves taking emerging consumer technology, such as music players, smartphones, tablets and smartwatches, and making it reliable and easy to use for everyone. This time, though, Apple isn’t looking to create an iPhone-like hit for its first headset. Instead, the company is building a high-end, niche product that will prepare outside developers and consumers for its eventual, more mainstream AR glasses.
The plans suggest that Apple’s first headset will be far more expensive than those from rivals, which cost about $300 to $900. Some Apple insiders believe the company may sell only one headset per day per retail store...
The headset, codenamed N301, is in a late prototype stage, but is not yet finalized so the company’s plans could change or be scrapped entirely before launch. The AR glasses, codenamed N421, are in an early stage known as “architecture,” meaning Apple is still working on underlying technologies. This product is several years away, according to the people, though Apple has previously targeted as early as 2023 to unveil it.
Emphasis mine, because wow. One headset per day per retail store roughly translates to 500 headsets a day, i.e., less than 200,000 a year, i.e. less than 1 million in 5 years. And even that seems like a generous forecast.
I often hear people in the VR industry talk about Apple like the coming messiah that will catapult virtual reality into the mainstream. That may eventually be the case, but every indication I've seen suggests Apple remains seriously hesitant about entering the space at all, and has built numerous exit ramps, just in case. If overall VR headset sales remain slow, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's plans never even see the light of day.
Virtual World Concerts Aren't Ideal for Acts With Great Real Life Stage Shows
Protip: It's not a great idea to announce "X in virtual worlds is the future of Y" before checking to see if there are instances of Y successfully happening without X.
For instance: "Live performances in virtual worlds are the future of music concerts." It's part of that future, we can safely say, but as reader "Mint" reminds us, it's definitely not the only one:
Yes: Top bands are making quite a lot of money just from selling tickets to oldschool video streams of live shows, without the added addition (and time, and money) of creating a whole Travis Scott-in-Fortnite-type virtual world experience on top of that. As Minty notes, fans of artists like BTS will probably prefer watching the live real world stage act that's core to the BTS experience. Where virtual worlds will probably shine most is by elevating shows put on by performers who don't have a lot of dancing and other choreography in their stage acts. (Off the top of my head: my neighbor* Billie Eilish has a great stage presence, but a virtual world performance which turns her dark and moody songs into interactive 3D animation would be amazing.)
Which isn't to say there's no place for amazing stage acts like BTS in virtual worlds -- as a matter of fact, they mocapped some of their dance moves for avatars to buy and use in Fortnite:
Continue reading "Virtual World Concerts Aren't Ideal for Acts With Great Real Life Stage Shows" »
Posted on Monday, January 25, 2021 at 03:14 PM in Comment of the Week, Making the Metaverse | Permalink | Comments (1)
| |