I think this is the make-or-break moment for consumer VR/AR. Valve's attempt flopped, Facebook's attempt is flopping, Sony's attempt is about to flop (see their recently cut projections for PSVR2). If even Apple can't do it, I think it's headed for the dustbin, at least for the next decade or three.
I'm not ready to make a guess either way at whether they'll be successful. Apple does have a history of pulling these kinds of things off after others' failures, but a $3k price tag and the article saying execs are rushing the product to market over internal objections points to another story. We'll see.
Meta Quest is definitely not flopping. It's now believed Quest headsets have outsold the Nintendo GameCube. Quest 2 outsold the latest Xbox. I really question the narrative that VR is this niche thing no one uses. The numbers support that it is going mainstream.
>I really question the narrative that VR is this niche thing no one uses.
For gaming or non-gaming? In my circle of acquaintances, I know 2 people that use it for gaming (one individual is an avid "Elite Dangerous" player, which is a perfect use-case for VR). I don't know anyone that uses VR (or AR) for non-gaming purposes. This is what Facebook/Meta was trying to push.
The problem for VR, specifically, is that there is a sizable population of people that experience nausea when using it even for relatively small amounts of time. I'm in that group. So even if I wanted to, I would not use, for example, VR productivity or collaboration apps, just because of the nausea.
I also feel the VR enthusiast community rarely has an honest conversation about the size and scale of the nausea problem. I'm not sure its just a case of throw ever increasing fidelity at the picture and audio etc - I think its the fundamental issue of walking motion being perceived by eyes, but inner ear balance indicate you are stationary. Even at 600fps and 20k of resolution per eye this disconnect between visually perceived motion and actual motion is still going to exist.
AR obviously doesn't have these issues and I think will one day be great, but VR could have this problem for decades.
I haven't used VR much but a few friends discuss the unsettling post-VR experience of depersonalization/unreality after you take the headset off. One guy isn't too "sensitive" to anything in general so it was surprising to hear him say he just can't enjoy VR because he knows he will feel weird after.
Thanks for the links. If something like that 2nd link actually works and can stimulate the inner ear to remove the problem entirely, that would be an incredible solution and easy to build into a headset band.
I want this research applied to seasick sailors. Imagine if you could simply put on a headset and it provided cues to your inner ear and brain that helped more quickly adapt life at sea
Anecdotally, raw performance helps a lot. I tried the old Oculus dev kit almost 10 years ago, and it left me unbalanced, nauseated, and generally feeling sick for the rest of that day. Now I regularly use my Quest 2 with zero ill effect. The nausea kicks in immediately without tracking in stationary mode, though.
I've owned dev kit and still have a Quest 2, and don't think the motion sickness has materially improved that much at all, despite all the other improvements. Same experience for me with the latest Valve Index.
> an avid "Elite Dangerous" player, which is a perfect use-case for VR
I wouldn't call it perfect. It's a brilliant first experience for things like docking which does feel mind blowing - true fantasty fulfillment type thing.
However, after that it's better as a non-VR game. It's very grindy with repetitive actions, lots of time spent in menus and then long waits either as travel time or for missions/trades to repopulate. It's also a game where you want to refer to external web tools for trade routes, navigation info, planning ship upgrades etc.
All of this means it's worst type of game for enduring long stints in a headset while nothing is happening. Most of the game is best suited to a small window on your desktop while you watch TV with a web browser and a drink.
I'm sorry to hear discomfort keeps you from using VR. I'm curious how you concluded this? In my experience it's unfortunately all too common for people to try low end products like Google Cardboard and write off spatial mediums like AR/VR altogether, when a high end headset like a Varjo XR3 is such a dramatically different (better) experience.
>I'm curious how you concluded this? In my experience it's unfortunately all too common for people to try low end products like Google Cardboard and write off spatial mediums like AR/VR altogether
Let's set aside AR because I do think there is potential there, and I never had any issues with AR. Granted, I also haven't experience an actually good AR app.
For VR, I've tried a bunch headsets, from the original Oculus, to the crappy Google Cardboard, to the Meta Quest 1/2 headsets, to the PS VR2, and some newish versions of VIVE. To be fair, none of them extensively, but here's what I found:
- if the VR app has you merely looking around, while standing still or allows 'natural' motion (where I physically walk around a space), after about an hour, I'll get a low-level nausea that will make me feel like crap for the next few hours. It's manageable to use VR every once in a while in this way, but I would never use it day-in/day-out because of the after-effects.
- if the VR app requires motion via controller - forget it. I'm not even sure I could handle 10 minutes of that.
Obviously, I haven't done an exhaustive study on headsets and VR apps, so maybe the new high-end headsets mitigate the nausea issues to the extent where it would not cause discomfort - but so far that hasn't been the case.
Steering wheel controllers have outsold the GameCube. The fact that there’s a dedicated niche of users for a product has no correlation to broader market interest.
Not to mention that consumer electronics sales in 2002 vs 2023 are just nowhere near in the same ballpark. A phone maker sells more phones in a year today than a top selling line of mp3 players might have sold over its entire lifetime in the 2000s.
The quest has seen decent sales, but from what I hear, it's got limited sticking power with users. Most headsets end up in the drawer gathering dust after the novelty wears off. Meta needs to see buyers continue using to consider the quest a success.
Gross sales of Meta Quest are inflated. "Grossly" inflated. HAHAHahaha. The Question is not volume but ROI.
Meta is pouring massive amounts of money into the project and has yet to establish organic demand. The headsets that have been sold are gathering dust. There is no product/market fit.
How many people bought a GameCube, played for a week, then never touched it again? A better comparison would be first year game sales, 2nd year game sales, etc..
I don't think so given that any Apple device will try to pull the user into the whole Apple world which has turned a sizeable portion of the potential market off from buying (nearly) anything Apple. The same is true for Facebook (by whatever name they think they can whitewash their reputation now), some - me among them - will not touch anything tied to their 'services' with a barge pole. Google's reputation as a data parasite also turns off a significant portion of the population, as does Microsoft's less than stellar reputation.
In the end there will be several competing VR/AR systems which each target their own section of the market while more or less being off-limits to others. Those who have bought in to the Church of Apple will naturally flock to anything Apple since not doing so means they are cut off from a sizeable part of their co-religionists. Those who swallowed the Facebook Kool-Aid will blithely walk the path directed by The Company. Those who follow the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" mantra will have no problems opening up their lives and those of their peers to the Google-alphabet. Those who think that Microsoft really means it this time when they claim to have changed their ways will fall into the same trap as all the others who believed Microsoft all those previous times they made this claim did.
Me? I'll just look from the side, on the lookout for hardware to hack so it does my bidding.
Humanity seems to overestimate the progress that can be made in years, while grossly underestimating—to the point of not even understanding—the progress that can be made in decades.
It’s because technological progress happens on an s-curve. Things take longer than you expect in the short-term and less time than you’d expect in the long-term.
I don't think anyone is going to crack VR in the short term. Watching this tour of Facebook's Reality Labs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc, it seems that they realize the challenges ahead. Looking at these challenges (resolution, brightness, eye tracking, form factor) is there an area where Apple is going to be a generation or more ahead? I think the world will be waiting another decade or so before VR gets anything like phone penetration in the market.
But we also do poorly at guessing the direction or shape of progress.
In aviation, there was Concorde and the 747. Back then who would have thought both those are in the dustbin and one of the most popular vehicles for longer-range flight is…the 737?
We put men on the moon decades ago, still haven’t been back.
In computing, we probably could have voice interfaces like the Star Trek computer, but mostly it seems folks don’t want to be bothered, though maybe the latest chat bot craze is a forerunner to chatty computers.
> we also do poorly at guessing the direction or shape of progress
I think this is especially true over longer time frames, because in our hubris, we extrapolate from what we know today, and cannot (by definition) extrapolate from things we haven't discovered yet.
In addition, we tend to filter what we know by what is important and what is not important, and we are not good at understanding that sometimes, a breakthrough doesn't just introduce something new, it changes the importance of something else.
I have the Meta/Rayban stories sunglasses and they're unquestionably my favorite sunglasses and it's unfortunate they haven't been as big of a hit as I expected.
They are very natural, the camera and video feature work great, they're excellent for taking calls and listening to music. If they could achieve the AR feature set that I have in my Nreal Air's, but untethered it would be "The great leap forward" for AR/VR consumer glasses.
I'm extremely bearish on AR. It's failed to find a footing in any niche. I thought phone-based AR had a better chance of taking hold than headsets, but we haven't really seen much of anything since Pokemon Go. AR Core and ARKit have not attracted many developers since being released nearly 5 years ago.
I'll throw one counterpoint in which is the new Mario Kart ride at Universal Studios. It's dark ride featuring a spinning cart, big sets and projections and interactive gaming via an AR visor. It's absolutely incredible. They skirt a lot of issues by keeping the lights off so the overlayed image stays sharp and also the visor is tethered to the car, so most of the horsepower is not melting your head.
Would you expect any system with tethered cables to do anything more than flop as a wide release product? Sure, maybe a dev version might come tethered, but for general consumer product, tethering should be a non-starter
Speculating: this is why I expect the heavy computing will probably be offloaded to an iPhone via a new wireless protocol, possibly one that's specifically certified for it (an "iPhone AR^?") with beefier specs and a better battery, possibly larger in size to compensate.
Essentially allows the lenses to focus on only being a display at that point, which would let apple keep the footprint thin and partner with existing manufacturers e.g Luxottica, Marcolin, Safilo, etc.
^changed XR (extended reality) to AR per a reminder that the XR was an iPhone X variant not long ago
Is there a technology for wireless communication that exists that has a small enough delay to make this happen?
Certainly it’s a problem well under speed of light constraints, but VR apps need to be running at least 90 hz to avoid making users ill. That’a just over 11 ms so basically any time is going to be felt.
I don't think there is a make or break moment for VR/AR. If it's not now, it can be later. It could be the moment for Meta. There were many popular PDAs before the iPhone that wouldn't have gone away until it was displaced by something more successful. That said, Apple has never been a games company so I'll bet they miss the mark.
Sony seems to be doing fine releasing new stuff whenever it's ready. PSVR2 and Gran Turismo with foveated rendering is reported to be the killer app for PSVR2, and I'm thinking about buying all of it to play.
Meta and Apple are both working on creating an environment in which they can succeed in AR. The hardware for AR is a good ways off, but I think the current market is more about building the momentum of software, hardware, and ecosystem that Meta and Apple need to succeed with AR. They are both willing to take losses to get there. In that regard, I don't think this is a make or break moment, but I do think that Apple is hoping to put out a product that gives people a better glimpse of their vision for mixed reality and AR.
I wouldn’t say a company that has said “this isn’t it, this is an enthusiast device that’s a stepping stone to a consumer ready product” has made a flop. The index was exactly what it was supposed to be, a step in the right direction.
The only way any company can pull this off is if they create a truly wire-free, glasses form-factor device which is sufficiently high fidelity to display AR convincingly.
It all relies on how much the technology can be miniaturised and pushed, if there is anyone that can do it it's Apple.
"But Apple’s famed industrial design team had cautioned patience, wanting to delay until a more lightweight version of AR glasses became technically feasible. Most in the tech industry expect that to take several more years. "
"Just a few years ago, going against the wishes of Apple’s all-powerful design team would have been unthinkable. But since the departure of its longtime leader Jony Ive in 2019, Apple’s structure has been reshuffled, with design now reporting to Williams. "
"Ive’s former role as chief design officer was split in two, with Evans Hankey on hardware and Alan Dye on software. However, Hankey announced last October that she would be leaving within six months, contributing to significant staff turnover in the division over recent years."
"Apple’s 12-person executive team reflects how the company’s focus has shifted under Cook, himself a former operations chief."
Wow, sounds like the 80's storyline is repeating itself. The greedy business guys took over again, drove out the best creators, and are now driving off a cliff 200km/h.
Ehh, maybe. I bought an M1 MacBook because it supported other OSs, reverted back to a reasonable keyboard, had reasonable ports, and soft feel. The problem with successful artists like Ives is sometimes they become a cult of personality within an org, domineering and protective of their vision. I feel like Ives wanted you to cut yourself on the edge of your laptop and carry 20 dongles. I feel like they dialed back the ridiculousness.
The Apple Watch wasn’t quite ready for launch either. Apple didn’t know how to market it or what the hell to do with it. It took them a few generations to zone in on health and fitness and the rest is history.
The Apple VR headset has been in development for 7 years. They need to release it now and see how the world is using it and tweak it accordingly. It’s going to drastically improve the product.
> They need to release it now and see how the word is using it and tweak it accordingly.
I don’t know. If you release something before it’s really ready you can shoot a whole category in the foot.
A 2005 iPhone would have been terrible. The 2007 iPhone was right on the edge of what was possible. A 2005 iPhone would have flopped because the tech would have held it back so bad.
Then there is the problem of why I’d want to use it.
There was a conversation on Dithering (I think) about this recently. The Apple Watch was still a watch and provided notifications. The iPhone was a phone and an iPod, plus the real internet. The iPad was a big iPhone. They all had predecessors so you sort of knew why you would want it. The value proposition was at least somewhat clear.
A VR/AR/MR headset is a totally new thing. For the vast number of people it doesn’t do what their X did but better. You have to convince/teach people why they need this and that’s a MUCH higher barrier than the iPhone/iPod/iPad/Apple Watch/Air Pods had.
The only thing that has shown some success is games. Apple is not good at games. They (as a company) just don’t ‘get it’. And if games was enough we’d see existing solutions be way more popular.
Plus the nausea issue is very real for a non-trivial portion of the population.
Maybe things have passed that magic threshold where, like the iPhone, little additions have added together enough to make Apple’s thing feel way more necessary that what existed before. But I’m skeptical.
They need Mario, VisiCalc, Word Perfect, Sonic, Page Maker, something to be their killer app.
At the time, Angela Ahrendts, formerly the Burberry CEO, had been hired as the SVP of Retail to replace the guy who left to go flop at JC Penny. What you noticed at the time is that Ahrendts tried to position things as luxury fashion items. This was the era when you had the ridiculous $10,000 Apple Watch Edition, Hermes straps and the like. This completely flopped.
They sort of scrambled after this inevitable failure and settled on it being a device for health and fitness. I think health monitoring in particular is a huge untapped market. A later version added an ECG. If they can figure out how to do blood sugar testing without a needle that will be absolutely huge for so many people.
Preventative care and passive monitoring I expect to become huge industries, particularly with aging populations. It won't be too many years before you see such devices giving you early warnings of a heart attack, for example.
From the outside it looked like Apple never had a clear goal for the Apple Watch on launch and just stumbled into it.
> The Apple Watch wasn’t quite ready for launch either. Apple didn’t know how to market it or what the hell to do with it. It took them a few generations to zone in on health and fitness and the rest is history.
The Apple Watch didn’t cost $3k. It’s much easier to iterate on a product that folks can (relatively) easily replace in 1-2 years.
Many fewer folks will be ready to replace a $3k device within 2-3 years.
Yeah, it had a custom gold alloy. Almost the entirety of the price was in the case, and only a limited number were made. I do wonder how much those are worth now, though.
It wouldn't be the first major product steered entirely by Cook, as the sub-heading states, that would be the watch.
Within a year or two of the launch of the iPhone the tech industry went into "what have you done for me lately?" mode, on the edge of their seats for the next major iPhone level change-the-world platform from Apple. That's died down over the years. The fact that the watch merely defined the segment and was so dominant it re-shaped the watch industry is still seen in some quarters as a failure because it didn't replace the phone.
If the AR headset does launch and it just does as well and it's leading competitors that's fine. Not everything has to change the world. Maybe just having it as a really solid option for those who want one is enough.
Physics is working against everyone here, it’s just too hard to get a bright, sharp screen in the form factor, weight & style that can literally appeal to everyone. The processing power to obtain world lock is not trivial either.
In contrast, a watch is just a scaled down phone with skin sensors. Most of the building blocks already exist.
Sociology is another blocker. Our species has evolved to read each other’s eyes to identify attention and emotion. As soon as you block the eyes with a pair of darkened screens, you lose that ability to directly connect human to human in person. Sure there are individual used cases like biking they could be compelling, but they are niche applications.
This is a good salad of truth, but I think it misses the point. VR is not going to happen for a long time, but this high status product is mostly about demonstrating the possibilities of AR, which is happening all around us with existing technologies. Apple has concluded that it will be worth it to demonstrate how information superiority and affordance will work in a $3k headset before the lightweight glasses become feasible. The applications for this product (sports, research, conferencing, gaming, etc) won't depend on real world interaction.
Yes, but the basics of computing (text input, pointing, selecting) haven't been worked out for the new paradigm. Like you point out, how information superiority and affordance work even in standalone applications hasn't really been solved. Without tactile touch components, it's very hard to interact with spatial data (one of the reasons CAD is so hard to learn).
I'd suggest that we'll need another 'mother of all demos' that solve some of these HCI problems, not just the fit and finish upgrade that Apple typically offers.
There's also a charitable way to read that. You won't change the world by resigning yourself to its current state; you have to reject its current state. Which isn't to say this is the next big thing, just that big ideas start by rejecting reality.
That's a pretty fair summarization of the past, but this is unlike any Apple product ever. IMO, there's nothing Apple can do that will make a significant number of people want to buy and strap on a $3k headset.
Imo, seems like a bad thing to bet your legacy on. Haven't most people gotten over the VR headset hype by now? Kind of like 3D TV's from a decade ago. It also feels like such an anti-social technology. + the fact that a certain % of the population just get motion sickness from it.
But who knows, if anyone can succeed with it, Apple probably can!
I think one killer feature would be monitor replacement. For many of us who value screen real-estate and work by ourselves, this would be pretty great. I keep trying to make this work with the Quest 2 but the resolution and lag are just too much to be anything more of an experiment at this point, though I appreciate the continued work on it.
I do really enjoy movies in VR, and sometimes movies with other's in BigScreen. But generally, I am watching TV with other people in the room and suddenly VR makes no sense. Metaverse is interesting in some ways, I like Venues which kind of goes back to movies, but otherwise I only spend a few minutes poking around there. There are some cool games though, but they remind me of phone games that you would just play for a few minutes at a time.
That said, there are a lot of great applications of AR, and surely more to come as people began to see it in use more broadly.
One idea that struck me as a great use case was something my son came up with while we were watching something on TV with subtitles on. The subtitles were being rendered in such a way that they blocked the faces of the actors in the scene, making them pretty annoying.
His idea: if we had AR glasses, not only could we render the subtitles off screen through the AR glasses, but those in the room who couldn't stand having subtitles on in the first place could just watch without AR glasses.
There are lots of tiny little ideas like this that start to make the idea of AR pretty interesting. Whether those ideas work well in reality, I don't know. What I do know is that once it starts becoming more widely used, the potential of the tech will likely become even more obvious as people develop novel ideas that hadn't yet been considered.
AR glasses that are the same as glasses we've all seen other people wear is one thing. Giant bulky ski goggle like-things which obstructs the user's face is another thing entirely. I'm sure society will find a use for the latter, but let's not let our imaginations get away from ourselves before there's hardware to run our dreams on.
That said, not just subtitles for movies, but translations when talking to. someone in a different language.
> Giant bulky ski goggle like-things which obstructs the user's face is another thing entirely.
I agree. I'm not even a fan of wearing glasses, despite needing corrective lenses to see (I wear contact lenses instead). I think for AR tech to succeed it needs to be as close to being "invisible" as possible. I need to be able to put in a contact lens, or be able to have plenty of potential styles/shapes of frames with the tech built in (without it causing those frames to be heavier/bulkier).
> let's not let our imaginations get away from ourselves before there's hardware to run our dreams on
I very much disagree. Letting our imaginations get away from ourselves can help encourage huge leaps forward. That's not to say that's the only way innovation happens, but not encouraging what's not currently possible is a bit like trying to win the lotto without buying a ticket.
The timing can work out nicely for Apple since Tim Cook is on his way out in a year or two anyway, so if it flops or the initial launch goes real bad, they can blame it him and communicate his exit as a "reset" for the product and company. It would have been risky to leave it for the new CEO to launch. Sort of like you never fire a football manager before a major clash even if it was clear to everybody that he will be sacked soon.
> On 19 April 2021, Mourinho was sacked by Tottenham Hotspur after 17 months in charge of the club, days before the EFL Cup Final against Manchester City.
Apple's VR offering is likely to face challenges, given the limited success of Apple's previous ventures outside its ecosystem. While it may attract a dedicated user base, its potential beyond this remains uncertain. In comparison, the Oculus Quest has seen some success due to its good library of standalone games, as well as its connectivity to PCs. Although the number of users who use the PC connectivity feature exclusively may be small, they remain an important group. It is unclear what Apple's plans for their VR device are, but if they intend to follow the same strategy as they did with the iPhone, they will need to offer something truly innovative and game-changing, particularly considering the high price point. The VR market presents unique challenges when it comes to vertical integration, which Apple will need to overcome to succeed.
I think this is going to age about as well as everyone who predicted that nobody would wear AirPods because they were ugly.
Even if you are correct, Apple makes products that are not designed to be taken out of the house (iMac/Mini/Studio, HomePod). It is entirely possible that this first generation device is not intended to be "outside of the house" mobile.
Most people at the time were complaining that they could fall out of their ears, which turned out to be pretty correct. (I own airpods and no longer use them.)
I was confused about this line at first: 'When Tim Cook unveils Apple’s new “mixed-reality” headset later this year'
If I'm understanding correctly: there's AR glasses that were expected, which are not happening this year, and then separately, there's a mixed-reality headset (ie VR with some exterior cameras) that apparently is happening for sure this year
I'm curious if Beat Saber is ever going to come to the device.. Like did Meta acquire it just for the potential to force some concessions from Apple? The Quest can show notifications from your phone, but the integration is overall terrible and I think Apple knows that having that tight integration is a Big Deal
(which conversely might mean they'll never accept any terms whatsoever to get Beat Saber on apple mixed reality)
"The early bird catches the worm - but the second mouse gets the cheese. " comes to mind re Meta/Apple... but honestly I am very bearish on AR/VR in general. Meta learned their lesson the hard way, I hope Apple doesn't do the same.
Maybe it's unrelated, but I'm finishing college and in a couple of years we've gone from almost nobody using tablets to take notes to almost everyone having a pen-enabled device to take notes with. This is because we finally got cheap enough devices that were mildly pleasureable to write with and had mildly functional note taking suites.
I think the same is going to happen starting next year. Sure, AR is a bit behind VR in the public conscience, but the moment $200 AR goggles will prove to be marginally useful people will adopt them in an instant.
> Apple’s famed industrial design team had cautioned patience, wanting to delay until a more lightweight version of AR glasses became technically feasible.
This is the actual problem.
A well executed AR "headset" has the potential to replace all consumer devices except high end desktop. I wonder if that scares manufacturers.
Could you share why you think this is true? I'm not disputing it, but I'm also not as certain as you are.
I have a hunch that manufacturers don't care one way or another. Manufacturers are going to manufacturer things as long as consumers are buying things.
Perhaps by manufacturers you meant "competitors" or "other hardware companies" - if so, I suspect they're less worried about AR in general disrupting traditional "computing hardware" models, and more concerned that it's Apple doing it.
Apple has flops, and Apple has wins, and Apple's competitors have frequently underestimated as much as they've overestimated Apple's ability to pull something off.
Personally: I don't have high expectations, as much as I'd love to see the idea itself succeed. $3K is just too much money for your typical consumer, even if the tech is some "whole new level" sort of experience for end users.
Perhaps if there are obvious "non-mainstream" uses (imagine industrial applications where an information rich, contextual OSD helps speed up processes or improve quality/yield, or medical uses that can overlay valuable info, etc), then maybe $3k makes sense.
The high price is only one issue. There's all the other stuff (well described in other comments) as well.
For small businesses and hobbyists it probably makes more sense to compute locally on a real workstation that can run the latest and greatest software without compromises.
For your typical consumer, or even remote worker, they can replace their phone and laptop with an AR device. Wearable computing that merges seamlessly with everyday "real world" experiences just seems to be so obviously the next step.
It would be a dream if all I had to ever carry around was a folding keyboard for "serious" work (in the pocket where the phone used to be), but otherwise hardly ever need to do so and interact with a lightweight pair of unfussy glasses using eye tracking, touch surfaces, motion sensors, etc. For many people this means no more screens of any kind anywhere cluttering up their life except for the ones continuously and unobtrusively projecting onto their eyeballs.
> But Apple’s famed industrial design team had cautioned patience, wanting to delay until a more lightweight version of AR glasses became technically feasible. Most in the tech industry expect that to take several more years.
They are absolutely right on this. I guess we won't get this and it will be a rushed bulky device instead. This would be a massive mistake.
I'm not ready to make a guess either way at whether they'll be successful. Apple does have a history of pulling these kinds of things off after others' failures, but a $3k price tag and the article saying execs are rushing the product to market over internal objections points to another story. We'll see.