Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple's headset faced numerous snags early, Jony Ive still involved with project

Apple headset render

Last updated

A new report details more of the hurdles that Apple has faced in developing its mixed-reality headset, including one stemming from a decision by former Apple design chief Jony Ive.

According to The Information, Apple made a decision in 2019 to continue work on a standalone headset with its own processing power instead of one paired with a base station. That's despite the fact that the base station unit had superior graphics and photorealistic avatars.

Mike Rockwell, the executive in charge of Apple's VR team, believed the base station model would win out among Apple brass because he thought they wouldn't accept the cartoony graphics of the standalone model. However, he was wrong.

Ive pushed for the standalone version since the earliest days of development, and Apple's top executives sided with him. That choice has reportedly had lasting repercussions.

In the years since that decision was made in 2019, Apple's team working on the project would struggle to overcome technical hurdles related to chips, cameras, and avatars. Those hurdles have had real effects. A repot from January indicated that Apple cancelled plans to debut the device at WWDC 2022.

Watch the Latest from AppleInsider TV

People familiar with the matter say that Rockwell has failed to deliver the premium MR experience he promised Apple executives. Apple executives are expecting an AR experience beyond rivals like Meta, with virtually no latency and advanced graphics and body tracking.

Some executives blame Ive, who The Information says fundamentally changed the product's main goal. Originally, it was meant to be a device creatives and professionals would use at a desk. Ive envisioned it to be a portable product.

Advocates for the desk bound version said that Apple should have released a device that creatives could use to create mixed-reality experiences before moving onto something for consumers, such as "Apple Glass."

Other details in the report include the fact that Apple tapped Kim Vorrath to help discipline the team, which had previously acted more like a "freewheeling" startup within Apple. The report also claims that Apple's team took MR units disguised as surveying equipment into the field to test digital map creation.

One app that Rockwell and his team wanted to wow executives with was a FaceTime-like system with photorealistic avatars that could make participants feel like they were in the same location. Apparently, one attempt at the app backfired, since the photorealistic avatars had crossed into "uncanny valley" territory.

Ive's influence still lingers over the project. Although the Apple design chief left the company in 2019, he still reportedly consults with the iPhone maker on the headset. He reportedly continues to tweak the design of the device.

Apple is continuing to work toward reducing component costs for the device, and is also working with other companies like Unity Technologies to allow third-party developers to create software for the headset.

30 Comments

mike1 11 Years · 3465 comments

Is anyone really surprised that...
1. Apple decided to push for the best user experience and make a device that wasn't tethered to another? There is absolutely no need to or argument for tethering to a phone. Whatever 'A" processor is deemed necessary from the phone can be incorporated into a standalone device.

2. That Apple decided to pursue a product for customers beyond "creatives". That would be like limiting Apple Watch customers to time keepers at a football or hockey game.

3. That they wouldn't try to leapfrog the competition from that user experience point of view.

4. It wasn't easy or quick or cheap to do that.

5 Likes · 0 Dislikes
tjwolf 13 Years · 423 comments

mike1 said:
Is anyone really surprised that...

1. Apple decided to push for the best user experience and make a device that wasn't tethered to another? There is absolutely no need to or argument for tethering to a phone. Whatever 'A" processor is deemed necessary from the phone can be incorporated into a standalone device.

2. That Apple decided to pursue a product for customers beyond "creatives". That would be like limiting Apple Watch customers to time keepers at a football or hockey game.

3. That they wouldn't try to leapfrog the competition from that user experience point of view.

4. It wasn't easy or quick or cheap to do that.

For (1), I don't know if anyone was talking about a physical tether.  The argument for a wireless tethering to a phone is obvious:  the weight you're willing to put up with on your face is substantially less than what you're willing to put up with in a phone that's in your hand or in your pocket most of the time.

For (2), I agree that it shouldn't be a surprise that Apple needs to address a larger audience than that of creatives at their desks.  But even an audience as large as "serious gamers" would really be too small for Apple.  But those are the only ones who'd put up with a heavy VR headset.  For Apple to sell millions of devices, they need something as light as glasses which people are willing to wear for extended periods - i.e. a whole day - which means the vaunted AR glasses.

Totally agree with (3) - but with the product they SHOULD be aiming for, there is currently no competition anyway.  Nobody's come out with a lightweight, useful AR/MR headset/glasses that people are actually buying in any volume.


Yes, designing headwater that hundreds of millions of people would be willing to buy is definitely hard.  I always thought (and still think should) Apple should focus on a stylish pair of AR glasses that use the iPhone for all the heavy computational lifting as that's really the only way to get a whole day of wear out of something that has so little room for batteries.

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes
thrang 18 Years · 1051 comments

I own everything Apple, but I have a tough time with the use case for this. I'm not a gamer, but I would think from Apple's perspective, a gamer focus "mostly" would be a long-term failure.

I've thought AR for vertical business uses would be a great start - one example is the financial industry, where most everyone is looking at 2-4 large monitors. Imagine the space and cost savings (though would need to be 8k resolution minimum to start effectively replacing the real estate of multiple monitors I suppose). Medical, technical documentation, legal, security, etc. Many verticals, but will depend on strong developer support...

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes
mike1 11 Years · 3465 comments

thrang said:
I own everything Apple, but I have a tough time with the use case for this. I'm not a gamer, but I would think from Apple's perspective, a gamer focus "mostly" would be a long-term failure.

I've thought AR for vertical business uses would be a great start - one example is the financial industry, where most everyone is looking at 2-4 large monitors. Imagine the space and cost savings (though would need to be 8k resolution minimum to start effectively replacing the real estate of multiple monitors I suppose). Medical, technical documentation, legal, security, etc. Many verticals, but will depend on strong developer support...

Apple has a knack for creating the use case that we haven't thought of yet. Targeting serious gaming will probably not result in any significant sales. However, maybe it becomes the decade's GameBoy for casual gamers. Maybe they will show a compelling app/capability/use case that nobody considered before. The Apple Watch didn't come to be because people needed a new way to tell time. Sales really started to take off when they targeted and created hardware and apps to support fitness. That plus the existing communication/connectivity features was compelling to people who didn't typically wear watches or might have settled for some type of Fitbit device.

8 Likes · 0 Dislikes
AniMill 5 Years · 193 comments

I’m of the mindset that anything tech that places an undue burden upon the user is always doomed to fail mass-market. Current AR/VR is too niche, and annoying to wear. And there is one factor that is always overlooked: our eyes expect to do both the parallax and focus adjustments concurrently, but because VR screens are locked to the set distance-even with optical correction-our minds want the refocus as we change parallax. This is one cause of headaches (I experience this also with 3D movies, which also failed because of the requirement for users to wear 3D glasses).

I’m sure Apple’s entry will be extraordinary and cool, but it’ll be prohibitively expensive, yet still have the same focus/parallax limitations of every AR/VR headset.

2 Likes · 0 Dislikes