Apple's Tim Cook calls VR 'cool' and not a niche

Asked about the technology during a call on the company's Q1 results, Apple CEO Tim Cook called virtual reality "cool" and something with interesting applications, though he didn't tease any plans Apple might have.

"I don't think it's a niche," Cook told Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster. Munster didn't inquire into any specific Apple efforts, as the company normally refuses to comment on future products or even whether it's exploring a concept.

Though it had a false start in the 1990s, owing mostly to poor graphics technology, virtual reality is finally poised to become big in the next few years. Sony, HTC, Samsung, and Facebook's Oculus are among the companies with headsets already out or set to launch later this year, while firms like Google and Microsoft have been exploring VR and the related concept of AR, or augmented reality.

Various developments have hinted at Apple's exploration of the field, such as the recent hire of a VR expert. In May 2015 Apple bought AR firm Metaio, and back in 2013 it picked up PrimeSense, responsible for Microsoft's original Kinect motion sensor for the Xbox 360.

The greatest challenge for Apple may be graphics performance. While many mid- to high-end PCs can handle full-fidelity VR, the only Mac powerful enough to support it is the Mac Pro, which starts at $2,999. AR and more modest forms of VR — like Samsung's phone-based Gear VR — may be an easier route.

24 Comments

gatorguy 24608 comments · 13 Years

About 8 years ago

Well that settles it. If Apple now says it's "cool" they have a product on the way for that slot.

ireland 17435 comments · 18 Years

gatorguy said:

Well that settles it. If Apple now says it's "cool" they have a product on the way for that slot.

Misdirection?

SpamSandwich 32917 comments · 19 Years

gatorguy said:

Well that settles it. If Apple now says it's "cool" they have a product on the way for that slot.

No, if they say it's "cool" that means they don't have a product. If they said "we don't announce future products or engage in speculation" THEN they'd have something in the hopper.

cnocbui 3612 comments · 17 Years

gatorguy said:

Well that settles it. If Apple now says it's "cool" they have a product on the way for that slot.

Maybe. My son and I think VR needs a killer app to trigger ignition. If Valve had come up with a VR Half Life 3, that might have done it and kicked things off but they haven't so we are wondering what these soon to be released VR headsets are going to be used for. They require an expensive graphics card to run and an all-round high performance machine and the headsets and and associated peripherals aren't cheap. Why would people people invest in this when theres pretty much nothing to do with them once acquired?

Do you recall criticisms of the Samsung S6 because it had such a high resolution screen and therefore would waste power driving it? Those pixels were necessary when an S6 is used for VR with the Gear headset because each eye only sees half the screen so each half has to have a lot of pixels. Doesn't seem so silly now considering Samsung are the only Player to have a working and shipped VR product.

Given the iPhone is Apple's mainstay and they seem to be putting a lot of grunt into the A processors and GPUs, and taking account of the OLED screen rumours, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple pursued the same route Samsung have with the iP7 having a very high pixel count/density OLED screen and serious GPU power in the A10 to drive it for VR purposes when used in a Gear-like accessory.

dysamoria 3430 comments · 12 Years

Meh. 3D television and movies had a resurgence that has also died down again. Neither of these things are wanted by the average person as of now. The niche that wants it and will pay for it are smaller by far than the percentage of consumers that just don't care (or actively reject it).

Mostly people just want the fantastical fictional versions of these technologies seen in techno-fantasy tv and film: they want free-standing "holographs" (not physically possible, despite people repeatedly being told they are by fiction) and the ability to "jack in" to "cyberspace" with a direct link between the brain and a computer generated environment (currently also technically impossible but maybe not ultimately physically impossible if people figure out how to send and receive sensory data directly to and from the brain while locking out the actual data coming from the body to the brain- we're talking way more than "20 years away" here, since the best integration between electronics and human nervous system is blunt and stupid reaction to simple nerve impulses to drive very simple actions; NOT "thought control" so much as it's peripheral nerve control over devices connected with electrodes to sense nerve impulses).