[NewsPoster]

One of the advantages of choosing a PC is that you can have complete control over its build, and you can choose from a range of vendors. Although Apple offers a degree of customizability of the various Macs that it offers, it is still rather limited in the number and type of options you have to choose from. However, as Mac users will attest, Apple is very good at creating highly-desirable machines primarily aimed at getting things done. But does it need to make a "good Mac" in the sense of dramatically steeper graphics, as Oculus Rift creator Palmer Luckey suggests is needed for VR on a Mac?


Luckey made his remark about Macs when asked recently whether Oculus was planning on bringing support for its vaunted Oculus Rift VR headset. According to Luckey, Oculus is prepared to do this, but there is not a single Mac that Apple sells that has the specs necessary to run the Oculus Rift, and its compatible software.

As he explains, even if you drop $6,000 on high-end Mac Pro with dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs, it still won't have sufficient graphics horsepower to run the Oculus Rift at 90fps (notwithstanding the fact that one of the two GPUs is tasked to parallel processing functions on the Mac Pro), which is necessary to help minimize nausea and motion sickness when immersed in a VR headset. Apple, as we know, has never really pursued gamers or gaming, particularly on its Macs. That the iPhone and iOS (and lately the Apple TV) has become a casual gaming powerhouse, has almost been by accident, not design.

If and when Apple upgrades the now two-year old workstation GPUs in its Mac Pro line, it is still debatable whether an upgraded Mac Pro would still be suitable for playing VR games -- VR for graphic design and/or CAD might be possible, however. Similarly, developing movie content for VR headsets might also be possible. However, VR gaming on a Mac Pro (or indeed any Mac) could still be something of a tough ask. While the Mac Pro could potentially support the GPU horsepower required for VR headsets like the Oculus Rift, it would also be cost-prohibitive to say the least, making for an ultra-niche market that is hardly something that Oculus would bother supporting at any rate. A VR-capable Mac would have to cost no more than $3,000 if it were to get an audience of Mac users worth the time, effort and cost for Oculus to bring support for the Oculus Rift to the Mac.

Tim Cook has indicated that Apple is indeed interested in VR, and said that not only is it "not a niche," but that it has "many interesting applications." We believe from rumors that Apple has a team dedicated to working on VR, but we don't know exactly what Apple's plans are in this regard.

It is probably safe to say that hardcore VR gaming is not likely to be at the top of its list of research possibilities. We recently reviewed the ViewMaster VR headset, which recently became available from the Apple Store, but that is a lightweight VR implementation compatible with iPhones. That said, it does show that Apple wants to remain relevant in the use of iPhones for VR experiences.

If Apple was to make a Mac capable of supporting VR gaming, it is not likely to arrive in an AIO iMac-like form factor either. Apple's iMac design is so thin that its thermal dynamic profile (TDP) only has the space to support mobile GPUs. Even then, an iMac with an optional high-end mobile GPU can still cost north of $2,500, but still not deliver the necessary GPU horsepower to drive VR headsets. The mythical pro-sumer Mac Pro-like tower that some Mac fans have often dreamed of might be one possible solution, if Apple did indeed want to go down this path -- such a Mac could easily become the kind of "good Mac" that Palmer Luckey says Oculus would support. It could run high-end Intel Core i7 consumer chips (rather than the particularly expensive Intel Xeon workstation chips Apple uses in its Mac Pro), as well as be fitted with a single high-end, gamer-oriented GPU (instead of workstation GPUs).

An alternative pathway to VR gaming and other VR entertainment experiences on a Mac (in lieu of any official support from Apple) could end up coming from third-parties. The arrival of Thunderbolt 3 has the potential to open up a market for external plug-in graphics solutions that support desktop graphics cards. PC makers have finally warmed to Thunderbolt, especially now that the new Thunderbolt 3 standard uses the USB Type-C connector. The Razer Blade Stealth is one such PC notebook equipped with Thunderbolt 3, and managed to turn a lot of heads at CES this year with its Razer Core accessory, which turns this ultrabook into a gaming powerhouse. Apple's next-generation of Macs are highly likely to include similar support for Thunderbolt 3, and third-parties could well bring out similar accessories to the Razer Core, but with Mac compatibility.

Although VR hasn't quite yet proved itself as anything more than a flash in the pan, we wonder how long can the world's leading consumer technology company afford not to be in on the action. A "wait and see" approach could make sense in the short term -- after all, 3D television received similar hype, but failed to kick start the hoped-for fresh round of mass consumer upgrades to the latest sets. Similarly, Apple hasn't exactly fallen over itself to provide 4K content on the iTunes Store, even though its newest iMacs with 4K and 5K displays can support it.

However, given Apple's general lack of interest in serious gaming, it seems more likely that, if it does anything at all in the VR space, it will probably be based around the iPhone, rather than the Mac. A Samsung Gear VR-like approach, though far removed from devices like the Oculus, but with properly-curated content, might be more in keeping with its general emphasis which is focused on mobile, not the Mac.

What do you think? Are we ever going to a see a Mac with graphics support good enough for a full VR experience, or are we more likely to a VR-lite solution from Apple? Do you think Apple should offer a desktop Mac that sits between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro with the option to fit it with high-end desktop graphics suitable for VR? Or is VR just going to be a passing fad?

-- Sanjiv Sathiah

[panjandrum]

The short answer is quite simply "yes." This is "the next big thing". Some of us already knew that and have been doing stereoscopic gaming for years (without the goggles and head-tracking) as an interim step. Once you game stereoscopically there is almost no way to go back; it adds so much to the experience that it has to be experienced. It's a much greater effect than 3D movie, because you are moving around in the environment. It's going to be absolutely, unbelievably, huge and my guess is that it will be considered a standard feature in the near future. Apple can't continue to hide behind the "we don't care about gaming" stance for other reasons (can't ignore such a huge market), but this will go beyond gaming anyway. So "yes" Apple needs to start making good computers again. Computers with sufficient cooling so they can run full-tilt all the time. Computers with top-end GPUs as an available option at purchase time. Certain models than can be (*gasp*) upgraded, for the true enthusiast. Looks like we are also on the cusp of external GPUs on Thunderbolt 3 as well. We will see where that goes I guess, but Apple would be very, very wise to adopt that technology as quickly as possible and then work with AMD and nVidia to be sure that external GPUs are available on the Mac for a competitive price (and properly supported in Bootcamp of course).

[Charles Martin]

My own take on this is that Apple will focus its VR efforts in two areas: iPhone gaming, and pro-level VR work (medical research, for example, or VR creation tools), so my guess would be that while it might produce its own headset to keep gamers interested, it's not going to produce a "good enough Mac" except for a revised Mac Pro. I readily admit, however, that this is speculative: like most people, I'm only vaguely paying attention to VR while we wait for affordable, decent headsets and other gear to finally arrive.

[DiabloConQueso]

As long as VR requires a headset, I don't see it gaining the level of acceptance of smartphones, tablets, or even smart watches -- certainly not enough to be "the next big thing" (just look at 3D which only required glasses).

I think there's a different "next big thing" (maybe even more than one) in the pipes before VR becomes it. Maybe when VR becomes AR and grandma has a use for it, but I doubt it will change media consumption drastically.

Think about a VR-enabled Superbowl event -- sounds cool, being "in" the stadium and able to look around during the show, but what happens when your beer goes empty? You remove the headset and go get another beer, then put the headset back on. What happens when you want to take a sip of said beer? You take off the headset so you can see where you set the beer down, take a sip, then put the headset back on. What happens when you want to look at your friends after an amazing play? You take the headset off, look at your friends in astonishment, then put the headset back on.

As long as there's a headset involved, I don't think it will be "the next big thing."

[coffeetime]

VR device is just a passing fad. I tried the cheapo version Viewmaster with iPhone attaching to it. It was fun for one day and that's it. I am pretty sure the Oculus will "wow" me even more (probably again just for one day). I can't imagine putting that headset on just to view everything virtually in 3D. No, thank you. I would rather sit in front of flat screen TV and enjoy the old fashion way (turn on the remote and go). Apple doesn't need to follow it. Like netbook, it will go away. Netbook=cheap and useless. Hi-End VR=expensive and useless. It's not going to fly until I can see VR without wearing anything (virtual simulation room via omni home projector thingy).

[iphonerulez]

Apple is a pretty weird company. It seems to operate in its own little world apart from the rest of the technical universe. When even the top-of-the-line Mac Pro with the highest GPU option offered can't support VR hardware, then Apple has truly lost contact. My point is how Apple has so much money and could afford to equip their computers with the best hardware money can buy, but strangely enough, has no interest in doing so. It's obvious Apple doesn't believe in bragging rights and only pursues high profit margins. Apple must be working from some Steve Jobs credo of taking only a conservative route when it comes to hardware.

I can see Apple offering some dedicated box for VR goggles, so you'd need to buy some more expensive hardware that's only good for one task. Although I like the idea of enhanced reality software and hardware, I think I'll pass on that fully immersive VR stuff. I'm sure it's nice but I know people seem to get annoyed even when I put on headphones while they're trying to communicate with me. They say I'm trying to block them out. Oh, how true.

There are too many people always yapping about this or that being the next big thing. What a load of BS. That's like 3D TV with 3D glasses. Man, what a flop of immense proportions. It's funny. I bought a 3D TV a couple of years ago and never once put on those glasses even though I've certainly had access to 3D content. I just don't care about 3D one way or another. I think I can live without VR, too.

I don't have a clue what the next big thing will be but I feel very certain it won't be VR with individuals strapping on those huge VR headsets. I'm sure the cost will be too high for most families to have multiple headsets to watch the same movie. That's just ridiculous.

[dprimary]

The real question is who needs VR that does not already have it? I work in VR projects fairly often and I still don't see this becoming the next big thing.

[Charles Martin]

iphonerulez: Sanjiv didn't mention it, but I will: the real problem with VR -- and its principle barrier to anything more than niche status -- is the insane graphics requirements. It's not like Macs can't do it and $300 PCs can -- $3,000 PCs can't do it either. To be fair this is the way most technology has started off, but VR on the level this article is talking about isn't really going to become a "thing" until a person can get a **total* setup for $500 or less.

I, for one, am quite happy that my Macs' GPUs don't sit mostly idle because I don't spend 12 hours a day gaming on them. If Apple had to choose between "gamer" graphics and "productivity" graphics, then IMHO they made the right choice.

[chimaera]

I'm of two minds on this. I like internal expansion, and am very critical of Apple on that subject. I also dislike Apple's lackadaisical Mac GPU upgrade options.

On the other hand, the dual D700s are decent. There are more powerful GPUs today, but not many are significantly more powerful. All those are cards above US$600. And you may need two, one for each eye.

So I guess I agree with Charles. VR needs tomorrow's GPUs, at tomorrow's prices. I'd still like to see Apple offer juicer options, for those willing to pay.

[myramoki]

Apple makes plenty of real computers. I'm currently working on a 2006 Mac Pro, running Parallels to do Quicken, while watching Hulu, doing occasional development work, managing photos, video projects, etc. My MacBook Air is used by the whole family just fine. My parents get by just dandy with an iMac. Apple has figured out that the vast majority of people get by just fine with what they offer. McDonalds knows most everyone likes cheese (I don't), so with the exception of the basic hamburger, all their burgers come with cheese, but that doesn't mean they don't make a real burger that most people want (ignoring whether they are any good or not . Apple's sales show that plenty of people find their computers quite real enough.

The problem is Apple doesn't see much market, and rightly so, for the niche enthusiast category. People that want to maybe have dual GPU cards, or multiple hard drives in their case instead of in some external enclosure, or might still like to have a CD/DVD/BD drive (or two). The cheese grater Mac Pros were fairly reasonable in offering all of that, but then Apple decided to pursue style way over substance for the new Mac Pro (which become very unstylish once you connect it to all the external devices you might want), and now we have no options, other than braving the Hackintosh route. And the MacPro is horribly expensive, far more than the cheese graters were. Mac Pro's haven't even been updated in some time because the obviously don't even see much market for that. So they create a self-reinforcing issue by producing an inadequate product, and then saying "See, nobody wants that, so why bother making something good?"

Obviously Apple will probably never target this market. Its too small compared to devices (iPhone / iPad) and laptops. A Hackintosh is possible, but we shouldn't have to resort to that. And we all know that the likelihood that Apple will open up sales of Mac OS X to non-Apple computers is a pipe dream. I keep hoping for the return of a mid-tower enthusiast class machine, not a Xeon-powered art piece that caters to businesses with deep pockets. But I know its not going to happen.

Better to say, Apple needs to offer an enthusiast class system again. Or if they don't want to, then partner with someone like Shuttle Computer, Maingear, or Falcon Northwest to build Apple-approved niche devices.

I'm not holding my breath.

[panjandrum]

The estimates of how much a VR-capable PC costs mentioned in some of these comments are not accurate. You can easily find a box completely within the recommended specs of, for example, the Rift, for around $1300 PRE-BUILT from companies such as Alienware. So the comment that "even $3000 PCs can't do it" is incorrect. You can build you own a bit cheaper if that's the way you want to go. Also, this technology is already through the "growing phase" - that's been happening for many years among even casual enthusiasts like myself and it is entering the mainstream rollout phase. (My stereoscopic gaming rig runs great and cost less than $1500 2 years ago; all it needs to meet exceed the full Rift specs is an upgraded video-card; I'm by no means anything resembling an extreme gamer.) The primary stumbling-point up until now has been few games supporting stereoscopic gaming / VR, and thus the need for a "wrapper" such as Tri-Def which intercepts and renders non-stereoscopic games in stereoscopic mode. It can be a bit technical and a real pain in the rear to get these games working properly. Moving forward we will se a lot of games support it natively, rather than a handful (this process is already underway). This removes a huge barrier. I suspect that a lot of people who don't see VR as an upcoming "huge thing" have never had a great VR experience. I mentioned before; it's hard to describe, but once you do it you really don't ever want to go back. (Think of it as going all the way back to silent-films... Let's face it, nobody really wants that except for occasional artistic reasons.)

Regardless of VR, however, Gaming in general is an industry Apple ignores at extreme peril, because it is huge, and it is growing. It's the equivalent of Apple saying "We don't really care about the streaming media market, so why bother making computers good enough to stream movies?" It's just an absurd blind-spot that Apple has.

[panjandrum]

An apropos comment from the Woz at Silicon Valley Comic Con:

"[VR] is an experience very much like what we feel like when we delve into a comic book or a movie," he said. "You have to suspend your belief. That's going to be the next big thing coming." - WOZ

[Spheric Harlot]

I love this glimpse into an alternate universe where "pro use" means "stereoscopic gaming".

I'm trying to figure out why Apple should waste more effort than an occasional conversation-in-passing over coffee on the subject.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by panjandrum 

Regardless of VR, however, Gaming in general is an industry Apple ignores at extreme peril, because it is huge, and it is growing. It's the equivalent of Apple saying "We don't really care about the streaming media market, so why bother making computers good enough to stream movies?" It's just an absurd blind-spot that Apple has.

According to the first clear link I could find, PC gaming hardware is heading to somewhere around $22 billion in revenue worldwide in 2016:
• PC gaming hardware industry revenue worldwide 2014 | Statistic

Last I could find, Apple had about $25 billion in Mac revenue in FY2015.

Given that the "boom" in PC gaming (which is apparently being overtaken by consoles) is completely dwarfed by MOBILE gaming, which Apple is King of, I'm not sure it's worth their while to try to turn the Mac into a gaming machine.

[FreshFacedRecruit]

no1 has read this article yet???

AMD's graphics guru describes the march to full graphics immersion with 16K screens | GamesBeat | Games | by Dean Takahashi

quotes from article, so I think update iMac summer/fall most likely can do Oculus VR Rift no prob, mayb even a MBP...iP8 next yr, or earlier in an iP6+{edit} iP7+, brain fart , with higher res OLED screen?<how cool would that b???:

The target we set was to do console-class gaming on a thin and light notebook. What does that take for the GPU in terms of power and configuration? I’m proud to say we’ve accomplished that goal with this GPU.

VB: Is that with a generation coming in 2016?

Koduri: Yes. We have two versions of these FinFET GPUs. Both are extremely power efficient. This is Polaris 10 and that’s Polaris 11

But this is just at 60Hz. We are getting beyond that. One of the things that we’re excited about in the work we’re doing with VR. [Yet even] this image is substantially lower quality than a simple hand mirror that you look at. A mirror has much better contrast, much better pixel resolution, infinite pixel resolution.

Our goal, the path we’re on, is to get to that mirror-like quality. What the eye can see in a display today is a small fraction of what it can see in the outside world. That’s the next set of technologies that we and our partners at the display manufacturers are bringing in. You look at it and think, “Oh my God. This is so much better.”

We’ll be working with game developers and engine developers and so on. If we keep on the current trajectory, we need a million [uncertain – 6:12] per year to get us to the immersive era. This includes the performance you need not just at 200 watts. We need this performance at five watts, so that the VR experience is completely mobile. You’ll need that sense of presence.

The Fury X is an eight teraflop machine. The PS4 is a two teraflop machine. It’s four times more compute in that single Fury. You can build a dual Fury PC. But PC doesn’t give you that much better an experience with cutting edge content, because they can extract more performance from a console. They’re also investing a lot of IP into that architecture. They’re doing some really clever things that are not possible on the PC yet.

somewhere on anandtech?, prototype is mentioned as using 86watts in comparison to a GTX650(mid-level Nvidia). All of this 'doesn't have enough GPU to equal a GTX970 desktop GPU' will become moot shortly, probably this year, if not next. Mayb even the iP7 will have enough GPU power to run VR, but as AMD is pointing out, it needs the software solutions, hardware alone can't do it. Polaris 11 for OcRift, in a thin & light laptop, mid-year. smartphones by nxt year? Sure Nvidia isn't going to let AMD dethrone them, so their nxt Pascal line is due out this year also.

"This indicates that the Polaris video card is only using roughly 50W, making it twice as power efficient as the Nvidia Maxwell based GTX 950 graphics card."

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris/#ixzz43aNGUCAR"

AMD Polaris GPUs Will Bring A Historic Leap In Performance And Efficiency - Exclusively Built On 14nm Technology

[panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Given that the "boom" in PC gaming (which is apparently being overtaken by consoles) is completely dwarfed by MOBILE gaming, which Apple is King of, I'm not sure it's worth their while to try to turn the Mac into a gaming machine.

I'm sure that eventually we will see a merging of many of these technologies, like the equipment you can already buy or make to get basic VR by wearing your phone in front of your eyes, and maybe if that happens fast enough, then Apple won't get a bite taken out of it if they fail to release products powerful enough to drive VR hardware. We will have to see. There are considerable problems that would have to be overcome first.

As for the PC vs. Console thing; it is, unfortunately, another argument overwhelmingly populated by fanboys; the PC guys won't believe there is anything good about console gaming and will insist that PC games are always superior to console games. The console gamers won't believe there is anything good about PC gaming and will insist that PC gaming is dead. There are, however, some of us who do both, and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to each method. In terms of pure sales, it does look as if PC gaming has overtaken console gaming and continues to gain ground:

PC games sales to eclipse value of console games sales in 2016 - Industry - News - HEXUS.net

• Global games market revenue by segment 2018 | Statistic

Playing games on the PC is making a comeback - CNET

Possibly the best thing that will come out of this all is better programming on the part of the game studios. In order for a game to utilize VR hardware properly it can't be a Bloated Sack of Protoplasm (tm). There are many games out there, both PC an Console, that are built on engines with extremely poor performance. Interspersed with these are the extremely rare stars which show you what can be done when programmers really do something well (like when they got the Unreal Engine running on the iPad 1. Now *that*, I expect, took some epic programming!) Hopefully we will see a trend where game publishers will have to compete on the performance of their products.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Apple does need a good Mac... but they don't really need an Oculus VR.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Given that the "boom" in PC gaming (which is apparently being overtaken by consoles) is completely dwarfed by MOBILE gaming, which Apple is King of, I'm not sure it's worth their while to try to turn the Mac into a gaming machine.

That's the thing... it's *such* a niche market, and a market Apple hasn't traditionally gone after. If they aren't going to even support their core of creative types anymore, why would they go chase some even smaller, other niche market?

But, won't VR become mainstream? Sure, maybe it will someday... and by that time, most any Mac will be a 'good Mac' and be able to support it.

Here's the thing... 99% of PCs out there can't support it either (and maybe can't be upgraded to do so)... and even if they can, it's going to cost a boat-load of money.

So, this whole 'good Mac' thing is PR-grabbing baloney. Controversy sells.

[panjandrum]

You know, I was thinking how a lot of the anti-VR arguments here sound strangely familiar. I clearly remember another fairly recent new piece of technology that was widely panned by the industry; where there was a ton of scuttlebutt about the technology not being ready, or being too expensive, or being designed for a market segment that didn't exist... That product was of course the iPad, and it became "the next big thing" as soon as people got their hands on it and actually experienced it.

VR is very much like this. I suggest stopping with the FUD and worrying so much about the price; it is already at acceptable levels for many and will come down (you can easily spend as much on an iPhone or iPad as you can on a VR headset and associated controllers etc., so maybe that puts it into perspective) and simply go out and experience a good VR setup as soon as you can (obviously, if you already don't enjoy video-games you probably won't come out of it with a positive experience since that's the current primary focus of VR hardware).

I've avoided explaining the experience because it really does "have to be experienced", but maybe this will help; It's an experience immersive enough to elicit considerable synesthesia. For example; driving a good racing SIM using even basic stereoscopic gaming devices can cause you to feel colder in night-racing scenes and warmer during daytime. Same thing with games like Skyrim which include a large variety of environmental zones. Wander through a forest in Skyrim and guess what? You may well smell pine-trees. Come upon some steaming vents and smell sulfur... You really have to experience it to understand it because the feeling of "being there" increases so dramatically. (Imagine jumping directly from old gouraud-shaded games directly to a modern top-tier game; it's that kind of leap forward).

And again, there is a LOT of price & performance misinformation in this thread. "99% of PCs can't support it?". That's an interesting statement and I would like to see some support evidence. Can a dirt-cheap PC, even a dirt-cheap Gaming Rig, handle VR? Of course not. But you can build and / or buy systems at quite reasonable prices considering the experience they provide. Don't take my word for it; just go out an google it and you'll start finding prices which are much lower than you expect.

And if it is any sign of just how big this is about to get; The Playstation VR pre-orders are selling out almost instantly ( PlayStation VR Sells Out Almost Instantly on European Amazon Stores (UPDATED) | DualShockers ) ( Sony PlayStation VR bundle is a hit, sells out in just minutes on Amazon - Pocket-lint ). GT Sport saw a 581% sales jump upon the announcement of the Playstation VR release... ( https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turism...ion-vr-reveal/ ). (And, for all us racing-SIM players; let's hope PD goes back to making a better SIM again and gets away from the disappointing simcade physics of GT5/6.)

Of course, we don't actually know how many units Sony allocated to pre-sales, so that argument is effectively meaningless until we see those numbers...

[Steve Wilkinson]

@ panjandrum

It's probably somewhere in-between, I'll admit. Yes, I recognize the lure for a sub-set of gamers (while an increasing number of gamers are going the other way... consider the popularity of gaming on iPads/iPhones, etc as opposed to PC/console gaming!). It's not quite the same as stuff like 3D or curved TVs (IMO, pretty much pure gimmicks). I'd say it's more like the Apple Watch... interesting technology, useful to a particular market segment, but I'm doubtful about it being any kind of 'next big thing.'

And, I disagree about the iPad analogy. I totally wanted one of those, as soon as I could get my hands on one. I saw all the application for it, even before it was released, despite the negative press. Where we were surprised, I think, was in how much better it actually was than what we had anticipated.... the 'magic' aspect.

Yes, the 99% thing was a bit of an exaggeration, I suppose, just like the 'good Mac' comment was. But, I think if I'm understanding the requirements correctly, a lot (no idea on the percentage) of PCs out there aren't going to be able to just be upgraded. Now, if you're talking gaming PCs, then yea, many of those might be able to be upgraded if the requirement is mostly GPU related. Can you build a new PC that would support it, especially a lower price than a Mac Pro? Sure. That is and was never the aim of the Mac Pro, so that's apples to oranges (pardon the pun).

And, yes, for VR fans, the concern is legitimate, as Apple would have to produce a box specifically aimed at this market. And, in that regard, the Oculus guy is right... but it's not a matter of 'good' or 'bad' but a matter of 'aimed at VR application' which is it's own world (and currently, of little concern to most computer users).

[Spheric Harlot]

VR isn't the next iPad; it's Linux on the Desktop.

[panjandrum]

Just happened across this review of the Rift on cnet. Worth a read.

http://www.cnet.com/special-reports/oculus-rift-review/

They mention a lot of companies; Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, HTC, Sony, that are looking to "dominate the next big computing platform" (I don't know if I would call it a "platform", but it gets the point across I guess.) Notably missing is, of course, Apple... *sigh*

Best quote from the article which expresses it all in a single, simple, clear, way:

"You simply must try the Oculus Rift. It’s breathtaking."

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by panjandrum 

Just happened across this review of the Rift on cnet. Worth a read.

http://www.cnet.com/special-reports/oculus-rift-review/

They mention a lot of companies; Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, HTC, Sony, that are looking to "dominate the next big computing platform" (I don't know if I would call it a "platform", but it gets the point across I guess.) Notably missing is, of course, Apple... *sigh*

Best quote from the article which expresses it all in a single, simple, clear, way:

"You simply must try the Oculus Rift. It’s breathtaking."

Holy fright... aside from VR, I hope that web page doesn't represent the future!!! Someone there needs to learn some UX design. Sheesh! (Hopefully that doesn't reflect the VR experience.)

But anyway, I guess I'd say that there are a lot of breathtaking things in life, but they don't often indicate the next platform or big thing. I've ridden in a 250 MPH street-legal Porsche 928, but I drive a VW Jetta. I've spent a week at a nice resort in Hawaii, but I live in an ordinary house in an ordinary town.

I guess my question isn't if this will be kind of a neat thrill (I'm sure it would be), but if it's going to sell to the average person, or if it's something they'd regularly use even if they could afford it. Similar stuff was said about 3D TVs a few years ago, too. This is bigger, for sure, but I wonder if ultimately, won't meet a similar fate.

[FreshFacedRecruit]

strange with all the "rumors" macnn has been posting recently...2 days after WCCF, posted updated rumor about Apple getting the AMD codenamed Polaris GPU's, nothing here on macnn?
Apple will introduce a new GPU for Macs this Year with VR Performance that's Insane - Patently Apple

Do you remember in early March when Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey bluntly said that the Oculus Rift would come to the Mac if it ever released a good computer? Luckey added that "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs." Well, I don't know if that was an inside joke, but according to one of the top super geek sites in America, Apple will be adopting the insane new GPU's from AMD called Polaris over the next six months that provide VR stats that are simply off-the-chart crazy.

seems there r 2 versions of the <50w TDP gpu's R9 470 & R9 470X(this 1 is reported to have 20 computing units vs standard R9 470 which has 16, still more than the 'minimum' Nvidia GTX970 desktop, which has 13 CU...apples to oranges if u just use CU only as a metric of performance)...bet Apple will use the less *expensive*, slightly lower performing R9 470. Ah well, either WWDC or b4 fall school buying season...though we know from the past, Apple doesn't always follow that schedule either, missing important buying cycles, nothing new.

We also do not know if these r custom 4 Apple, could b underclocked to reduce heat, given the R490 that might go into the iMac is supposed to run ~100w TDP.

https://tech4gamers.com/amd-polaris-...-gddr5-memory/

According to Ryan Shrout, of PCPersective, Polaris 11 graphics card can run a demo of virtual reality to a 4K resolution when no fans are spinning, something impressive that indicates that the graphics card does not even heat up, obviously with no noise

can't find any benchmarks that say what arethmetric prowess is as far as gaming stats, but read somewhere 2.2Tflops on the R9 470, which would still put it below GTX970... be interesting to c Occulus stance when the new Mac's come out later this year...or in a few months

[Mike Wuerthele]

There's no confirmation of the statement, besides the enthusiast press echo chamber.

We're putting it in the next rumor roundup.