Oculus will support Mac if Apple ever releases ‘a good computer’


VR may be happening soon,  and Apple might want to jump in.
Not coming soon to Mac.
Photo: Sergey Galyonkin/Wikipedia CC

Oculus Rift most likely won’t be coming to Mac any time soon, according to Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey, who says an Apple-compatible version of the virtual reality headset won’t arrive until Cupertino decides to “release a good computer.”

Luckey qualifies what sounds like a bit of a harsh statement by elaborating on his point: “It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn’t prioritize high-end GPUs. You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn’t match our recommended specs.”

If Apple prioritized high-end GPUs like it did “back in the day,” Luckey says he would be all too happy to bring Oculus to the Mac ecosystem. But right now, he says, “there’s just not a single machine out there that supports it.”

You can check out the rest of Luckey’s interview with ShackNews — in which he discusses the Oculus Rift launch and price point, as well as his Tesla Model S car — below:

The news that Macs are unlikely to run Oculus doesn’t come as a total surprise. Last year, Atman Binstock, chief architect at Oculus, wrote on the company’s blog that Rift will require Windows 7 SP1 or newer to run.

“Our development for OS X and Linux has been paused in order to focus on delivering a high-quality consumer-level VR experience at launch across hardware, software, and content on Windows,” he said. “We want to get back to development for OS X and Linux but we don’t have a timeline.”

Deals of the Day

110 responses to “Oculus will support Mac if Apple ever releases ‘a good computer’”

  1. Diego says:

    I don’t care.
    There isn’t VR content besides games.

  2. you know, i talk to people who don’t want a mac cause they’re like, “i want to play games.” In my head, i feel all smug like, “oh, your spending two grand to play games. i create audio, video, and graphics.” and my macs work just fine for that, with minimal upkeep. At the same time, why can’t apple have the some of the best gpu in a mac? would the price go too far up?

    • Donkey Hote Ayyy says:

      I’m a professional graphic designer. I spent $1400 on my PC and it can outperform literally any Mac that exists in both work and play. The fact is that Apple is all flash and no bang. I’m not sure what upkeep you’re talking about – virus protection, maybe? That’s the one real benefit to a Mac.

      • knute5 says:

        …and cue the platform wars. :)

        For many creatives the main benefit of the Mac is its transparency. You don’t think about it, you think about what you’re working on. As a dual-platform citizen I love PC hardware versatility, price and performance, but I don’t like Windows as much. Plus some of my favorite apps are Mac only. If I had to choose one I’d stick with my Mac and Parallels. But with VR, Apple had better get their GPU house in order.

        And I do miss the tower computers. They need to bring that form factor back.

      • Rose Krueger says:

        Congratulations – News flash – who cares, by your comment you sound rather jealous…other wise WHO CARES

    • cob says:

      I play games, create audio, video, and graphics, all on a system that is both cheaper and faster than yours.

  3. afox381 says:

    Since when did “good computer” == “high end GPU”? And if it needs the kind of “high-end” GPU being suggested, how many of these are ever actually going to sell? I hate to say it but VR could be getting ready for yet another failure…

    • Dan says:

      How many of these are going to sell? Answer: A metric sh1tload.

      When they say ‘high-end’ GPU they’re talking about something like a GTX970 or equivalent, which is a decent card but you hardly need a second mortgage to buy one. We’re not talking about a Titan Z or 980 Ti here.

      • Richard Ludwig says:

        Nope. Oculus will certainly sell a decent number, but with increased interest in HoloLens, combined with the requirements that are far too high, I doubt Oculus will hit mainstream with these. It will a niche product until they figure out how to get these connected to a smaller spec’ed computer.

      • Bundy says:

        Hololens is extremely expensive in its current form, and they have field of vision issues to fix before it’ll really catch on. But I am excited for the whole AR bit in general.

        I’m afraid though that you’ll be disappointed in waiting for a lower spec solution. Not gonna happen. But in a year these specs will look low spec. So there is that.

      • Richard Ludwig says:

        On HoloLens pricing: Developer kits are always expensive – they’ll come down for the Public release (otherwise you’re right – it will price itself out of the market).

        On lower-spec Oculus: If I waited for Oculus, then I might be disappointed, but look at what’s happening with things like Google Cardboard. I’m not saying that I think they’re the same, but Cardboard gives me hope that there are more realistically spec’ed VR solutions in the works.

        I get it – come out with a high-end system that’s a consumer prototype first – demonstrate the power. If you can’t connect one to a MacBook (or a Surface Pro 3/4), then you need to go back to the drawing board (assuming you want to climb out of the niche market and get into consumer markets).

      • Bundy says:

        I have Google cardboard and have tried an HTC vive. Believe me, they aren’t comparable.

        Currently the specs are high end. But next year they’ll be mainstream. The oculus is really just a display with motion sensors. There’s nothing they can do to make a AAA high end vr game run at 2160×1200 @90fps. The hardware needs to catch up. And the current stuff, for a Mac, isn’t up to snuff. The day is young though. Let’s give this time.

      • Steve__S says:

        “How many of these are going to sell? Answer: A metric sh1tload.”

        LOL! That may be the funniest thing I’ve read all day. No, VR in it’s current form with the goggles, etc. is a very niche market to begin with. Oculus’s high end requirements make them a niche within a niche. On top of that, there really is no compelling content at this point.
        Realistically, I expect there will be much more interesting things that will come from augmented reality with real valid applications such as overlaying maps / directions on the windshield of a car, etc.

      • Rose Krueger says:

        The fact that you even know the graphic cards that are high puts in a very small (and I mean small) minority of people who care. Seriously, I’m in IT have been for 30 years and of the younger kids coming through – they all play consoles – hardly anyone plays games on PCs

      • Dan says:

        Who said anything about kids? These things aren’t being marketed at kids, apart from a few very wealthy ones perhaps. And besides, PC gaming has undergone a huge renaissance in the last few years, to the extent that pc games now outsell console games. Don’t believe me? Google it. So if you think PC gamers are a small minority, you’re wrong.

      • cob says:

        Hardly anyone plays games on PCs? Shows how clueless you. League of Legends alone has more players than the entirety of Xbox Live. PC gaming has been growing steady for 10+ years and continues to do so. The number of concurrent players on Steam alone has doubled since 2012.

    • The Cappy says:

      Everything is relative to the task under discussion. But it’s well known that Apple is not pushing the envelop in gfx performance. There’s very worrisome rumors that the next MBPs won’t even have a discrete gfx chip. “Tiny” is the only envelope Ive seems to push these days, sadly. I’m a 3D hobbyist, and it’s very depressing.

    • cob says:

      “Since when did “good computer” == “high end GPU”?”

      In this context good computer = being capable of running high resolution 3D graphics at a high framerate, which requires a good GPU…

    • Octavio Guevara says:

      we already ordered 45 for our office, yes, we make 3d renderings with HIGH END PCs, not a single MAC because those shits dont work.

  4. isitjustme says:

    This guy is thinking too highly of his product.

  5. Jason says:

    If they’re happy with being a niche product, so be it.

    • Bundy says:

      They’re not excluding them because they don’t like Apple, they’re excluding them because the specs simply aren’t good enough. If Apple released a computer with a better GPU, then they would.

      • Jason says:

        Sure, I understand that. But even the PC specs guarantee that only a tiny percentage of people with current PCs will be able to use it. Combine that with ruling out Apple completely, and there’s no way they’ll ever be a mainstream success. Nothing wrong with making a great niche product, but that’s their ceiling at the moment.

      • Bundy says:

        They didn’t arbitrarily pick a gpu. That is the absolute minimum to drive the resolution and frame rate needed to make their vr kit work. It’s not their fault Apple isn’t providing a computer with the hardware necessary.

        Today it’s a small percentage, but by next winter when the Polaris and Pascal GPUs are released and the 970s are cheap itll be the standard GPU to ship with standard PC builds. No idea if Apple will jump aboard. That’s up to them.

      • Rose Krueger says:

        Nor does Apple care I think. In the millions and millions of users you are talking about a very small percentage. Very small.

  6. Carson says:

    This is still vapor ware right? You can’t buy it or it’s content….okay, carry on.

    • The Cappy says:

      It’s a real product with a real ship date, and real developers working on apps.

      • Carson says:

        Every piece of vaporware had a ship date and pre orders and people working on apps. This is also going to be the most expensive dedicated game system since NEO GEO!

      • Donkey Hote Ayyy says:

        It’s not a dedicated game system. It’s a high-end display. How does an Apple user not understand how expensive high-end displays can get?

      • The Cappy says:

        So… you somehow are criticizing Oculus because it’s simultaneously fictional and real but too expensive. Gotcha. Gamers throw more money around than non-gamers. It remains to be seen what will become of the Oculus. Microsoft’s AR rig looks like it’s going to be pretty pricy too. That’s likely the nature of the beast here. A ton of money has been sunk into R&D, and if you don’t get it right, it’s very nauseating.

        And your first statement is flat out wrong. The term vaporware was originally coined to refer to pie-in-the-sky projects that had no ship date, and were sometimes suspected not even to exist beyond a vague conceptual stage. Like Microsoft’s Cairo. When NeXT came out, everyone was agog about “objects”. Microsoft announced they too would soon have an amazing advanced OS built atop “objects”, and so there was obviously no need to pay attention to that shiny new thing in the corner, since they themselves would (oh so soon) have something even shinier. They never did, and they probably never intended to. They simply announced a fictional product to take the wind out of a competitor’s sales. There was absolutely no ship date and no pre-orders. MS was particularly notorious about that kind of behavior, and would often change the name of the projects simply to make it a little harder for people to realize how long they’d waited for a thing, and how much of the original grandiose PR had eventually been left by the roadside (Longhorn) And in the years that the public waited for Duke Nukem, how many preorders did they get? Was there ever a concrete ship date. They just kept saying “it’s coming, it’s coming”. Over time the term was extended to mean additional things. We can look at other projects (Pink from Taligent) and wonder whether it should count as vapor, since the project was shown to many people, and from their reports, it’s clear why the project was eventually abandoned… still, many people consider Pink to be a legitimate thing to call vapor.

        But something with a concrete shipping date that’s not next year and concrete specs? No.

    • Richard Ludwig says:

      Nope – you can buy one (pre-order – ships in July). Developer kits have been out for some time now (at least a year I think…).

      Now… Will it run on your PC? Unless you have a high-end gaming PC…. Probably not.

  7. Jurassic says:

    Apple will support Oculous if that company ever produces a well designed, useable product. ;-))

    • Texazzpete says:

      Good thing they’re selling a well designed, usable product from the 4th week of March.

      Sour grapes are sour.

    • The Cappy says:

      This isn’t right. And it’s not clever. It is, as Texazzpete says, just sour grapes. This is nothing more and nothing less than a case of Apple having steadily neglected gfx performance, as tradeoffs for other goals (size, battery, margins). And now a new technology has arrived that leaves us Mac users behind. Spin it how you will. It’s one thing to know that some of your machines are underpowered, and another thing entirely to know that they all are.

    • Rose Krueger says:

      Spoken like someone who doesn’t own or use one… but thank you for playing.

  8. AAPL.To.Break.$130.Soon>:-) says:

    Apple has never given top priority to high-end GPU’s. Not even offering that option shows how stingy Apple is while sitting on a couple of hundred billion dollars in cash. Why Apple feels it’s not worth the effort to be competitive is totally beyond my understanding.

    • Diego says:

      Yet you see professionals using macs for video editing, photo editing, and music production.

      • Bundy says:

        Content creation and entertainment consumption are different categories. There are also way more people consuming than creating. I think he was asking why can’t Apple try to achieve both.

      • Richard Ludwig says:

        Maybe… but consumption devices require lower specs than creation tools.

      • Bundy says:

        Depends on the content you’re consuming. YouTube videos just need a tablet. The Witcher 3 at 4k requires a lot more.

    • Diego says:

      You can’t exactly pack a gtx970 minimum on a iMac or MBP.
      Tho with thunderbolt 3 you could probably attach an external GPU.

      • Bundy says:

        A feature we don’t see nearly enough of these days. There’s only a few laptops that support that. Part of the trouble is that the GPU enclosure needs its own power source so its a couple hundred, before you even buy the GPU.

  9. Luiz Aguiar says:

    The kind of comment that could only come from a bratty child. Who talks to possible future costumers like that, specially knowing the Mac market share is growing and the PC’s is stagnanted? We will see in 5 to 10 years what his opinion about supporting Macs is going to be like, if the his company is still around…

    • Bundy says:

      Did you read the article? His complaint isn’t that he doesn’t like Apple. It’s that there is no Mac with a GPU fast enough for Oculus. If Apple released one then it’s a non issue.

      • dorkus_maximus says:

        A guy who likes Apple would say, “We don’t support Apple because none of their available computers have the required GPU specs.” A guy who doesn’t like Apple would say, “We don’t support Apple because they don’t make a good computer.”

      • Richard Ludwig says:

        Exactly. This is not somebody who is lamenting higher-end GPUs on Macs, it’s someone who wants to get shots in.

      • The Cappy says:

        That’s what he said several times, and he’s answered various ways. He answered very diplomatically many times, and it’s obvious from your comment that you’ve never read one of those replies. Maybe you’re just part of that public that only tunes in when someone hectors a guy with annoying questions until he gets an annoyed answer. Then he posts that answer, alongside a very benign-seeming rendition of the question, so that people will get angry.

      • Richard Ludwig says:

        If you work for a company and have a responsibility for talking to the public, you should be able to answer the same question, diplomatically, 100 times without getting snippy. Others from Oculus have been FAR more diplomatic.

      • The Cappy says:

        I guess some of us are just more grown up about it than others. But maybe you just go around looking for reasons to be angry. The man is making a point. He wasn’t a total dick about it. He just gave a frank reply, and you’re upset he didn’t give you a back rub while he was at it.

      • Bundy says:

        Or one could say he’s giving them a good kick in the pants. If they want to be part of the game, they need to up their game in the GPU department.

      • Ashan McNealy says:

        This douche is very misleading. The dual AMD Fire Pro D700 cards provide for plenty of graphics horsepower, and thunderbolt 2/3 connections mean the graphics card can be provided outside the computer if necessary. The real reason this is stuck on windows is that they didn’t have the resources to develop equally for 2 or more different graphics APIs, so they made a business decision based on a number of factors like marketshare and in-house programer capability and just picked the Windows API known as DirectX. A mobile device like a new iPhone or top of the line android can power decent VR, and desktop Mac’s are many times faster…

      • Bundy says:

        Not for gaming it doesn’t. The D700 is a great card for professional applications, but gaming is different. Even on a mid range game like elite dangerous, which is a vr favorite, the D700 needs to run at lower settings.

        This isn’t necessarily because of the cards computational ability, but also because the drivers for it are optimized for professional applications. They’re not writing optimised gaming drivers for it. Same with nvidia’s counterpart the quadro cards.

      • The Cappy says:

        I’ve always been curious about this. I don’t understand quite how a card can be both powerful and underpowered. I know that Maya on Windows had long said not to use anything but quadros, even when the consumer cards seemed to run circles around them in sheer polys/sec. Everyone talks about drivers and optimization and this and that, but I’ve never seen a concrete discussion of the quadro will do X and the faster consumer card won’t.

      • Daris Fox says:

        A D700 has nowhere near the power required to run what Oculus is doing or maybe even the RAM available, and those iPhone/Android rigs are not even in the same ballpark. If you look at what the developers are using it’s Gemini or X-Fire/SLI cards predominantly, things like the long awaited Fury x2 Gemini card which has been developed specifically for the Oculus by AMD.

      • Ashan McNealy says:

        So… Oculus will be constrained to a niche market for a couple years until these cards become mainstream. Meanwhile, other players in the VR market will have sold tens of millions of units. Got it.

      • Bundy says:

        Oculus and Vive will be niche until the prices of the 970 levels cards come down, which will happen in the next GPU product cycle later this year. After Apple adds a comparable card to their product refresh we should see Oculus work on supporting their systems too.

        This stuff is all very brand new folks. VR was always going to push the bleeding edge at the start. The frame rate and resolution essentially required it. Keep in mind that smart phone vr solutions are running at 60 fps or slower, have more latency on the screen and in motion sensors and have no where even close to the graphical fidelity. They’re apples and oranges. I can’t wear my cardboard for more than 20 minutes without needing to take a wooziness break.

      • Texazzpete says:

        Oculus is owned and backed by Facebook. By next year, entry level desktop GPUs will be plenty powerful enough to run VR. The 970 is already a very popular card in its own right.

        Other players in the desktop VR market also require at least a 970.

        I suggest you take time out to educate yourself more on this topic.

      • Ashan McNealy says:

        Rather than saying popular, which is entirely subjective, show me sales numbers… and remember that represents the entire market of POTENTIAL customers which oculus will only penetrate a pretty small percentage of. If it’s not at least in the tens of millions, my point stands.

      • Bundy says:

        It doesn’t matter. The simple fact is that in order for games with decent visuals to even run at this resolution and this frame rate, a 970 or better is required. No matter how many or few people own one, that doesn’t change. Sure they could have made Oculus a low resolution blocky mess or nausea inducting low fps (i.e. cardboard) piece of junk, but then nobody would want one.

        People seem to think that Oculus picked a GPU at random and said, “You need this! Go away Apple!”

      • Ashan McNealy says:

        How many users does “the most popular on steam” equate to?

        Besides, I’m arguing the merits of the comment, “if they ever release a good computer.” It’s a really farcical statement, since they made a decision about platforms based more on drivers and software. It’s a safe assumption the iMac will have a GPU as capable as the 970 GTX by the next update. The existing model already offers a Radeon R9 M395X. What it doesn’t have, and will never have, is DirectX. Then again, you can always install Windows (in virtualization or dual boot) on a Mac, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see some people do that if they’re really interested in the Oculus. If and when that happens, my point about his statement being bullshit will be unequivocal.

      • Bundy says:

        The Steam survey’s represent a pretty strong spectrum of PC gamer’s and they’ll be the dominate group of probable VR owners. On Feb 25th of this year they released that there were 125 million steam users. It’s a pretty good poll. And since VR is targeting gamer’s, it make sense to rely on that data.

        I can’t imagine Apple will skimp on the GPU this year, especially with prices on the 970 and AMD equivalent set to decline over the next several months. It only makes sense.

        Isn’t the R9 M395X is a mobile GPU, and that is a problem. Oculus has said that laptops, both PC and Mac won’t work with Oculus, it wasn’t the GPU so much as a laptop’s HDMI output ability. There was too much latency and with VR, latency is a death kneel. That’s not to say a laptop can’t be manufactured to avoid this issue. It’s just never been a priority, since laptop HDMI out is mostly for presentations and what not. Not so much low latency gaming.

        DirectX of course is Windows only but that’s not really a problem here. Oculus doesn’t care what API VR games use. That’s really up to the developer, whether they want to use DirectX, Vulkan, OpenGL or Metal. It’s game dependant.

        I’m not sure what hooks their SDK has into DirectX, but I can’t imagine it’s insurmountable.

      • Ashan McNealy says:

        You make some good points. Not to this guy’s trollish comment, but to the technical hurdles associated with creating an awesome VR experience. Latency is not a big issue in most uses so it gets very little mindshare. Meanwhile, I can see why it’s such a critical component of convincing VR.

        I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think mobile GPUs vs. Desktop GPUs makes much difference when it comes to latency. One generally has much higher throughput than the other because it’s clocked much higher, but that is addressed with newer hardware (a 2015 mobile GPU should be just as capable in every was as similarly priced -at the time- 2013 desktop GPU, roughly). If the new desktop GPUs have some special low latency features built into their architecture, that stuff will inevitably trickle down to mobile over time.

        Do you know what connection the oculus will use? I was not aware that HDMI had latency issues compared to other video/data ports.

      • Bundy says:

        The GPU itself wasn’t the latency source, but the hardware involved in the HDMI output. But there’s no reason some engineers at Apple, and Asus and Dell can’t come up with a solution. It’s just nothing currently existing will work, at least, not very well. You don’t wanna throw up.

        I wasn’t aware of the HDMI issues until Oculus talked about them a few months ago. I just thought HDMI was HDMI. Apparently not so much.

        The ports that the Oculus requires (and Vive) are nuts. Because of the cameras, laser sensors, controllers and headset they need 1 HDMI and 4 USB ports. 3x USB 3.1 ports and 1x USB 2 port. It’s crazy.

        I took a look at some benchmarks for the M395X. It’s quite a bit slower than the 780, so it won’t be fast enough for this. The mobile based processors will struggle for a couple cycles yet.

        We’ll get there though. Luckey also said that the end game for VR is to be completely untethered. Mobile GPU’s are advancing rapidly with each cycle. In 10 years I expect completely standalone VR headsets, no PC required. The games won’t match the graphic prowess as a AAA PC game. But to be unplugged, and roaming around your house with sensors keeping you from tripping up. Totally worth it. And I don’t care how much of a nerdy jackass that makes me look like!

      • Bundy says:

        Ok my bad memory. It wasn’t latency. It was something else. Here’s the actual requirement for HDMI:

        “HDMI 1.3 video output supporting a 297MHz clock via a direct output architecture”

        And the quote from Oculus:

        “…many discrete GPU laptops have their external video output connected to the integrated GPU and drive the external output via hardware and software mechanisms that can’t support the Rift.”

        In other words. Technical problems, laptops don’t work. lol

    • JamesSB says:

      Macs market share isn’t growing. In usage, OS X has barely moved the needle in the past year.
      Feb 2015 OS X market share = 9.09%
      Feb 2016 OS X market share = 9.33%
      Feb 2016 Win10 market share = 14.86%

      • Steve__S says:

        From an actual unit sales perspective, the Mac marketshare has been growing while the overall PC market has been in decline. Aggregated web statistics are an interesting data point, but not necessarily telling the whole picture.

      • Rose Krueger says:

        You might want to check sales figures – basic business sense

    • Texazzpete says:

      Did you just insinuate Facebook won’t be around in 5 years?


  10. dorkus_maximus says:

    I hope Oculus is working to trim down the GPU requirements. Otherwise they’re missing out on a lot of potential revenue by not supporting the Mac-buying public.

    • Bundy says:

      If anything the specs will go up. The next generation of vr kits will have higher resolutions, without a doubt. But hardware becomes cheaper over time. The 970 GTX isn’t actually that expensive. By next winter when NV and AMD release their new vids, expect it to become cheaper yet.

      It takes a lot to drive a 2160×1200 resolution at 90fps.

      • Daris Fox says:

        If you look at what both AMD and nVidia have said in the last several months then you see that current generation cards need a dual GPU rig, AMD are releasing a dual GPU based off the Fury chips probably the Nano to keep thermal limits and this Gemini GPU has been built hand in glove with the VR developers.

        Also Windows has a better dual GPU framework at this point in time with DX 12 which is now GPU agnostic so you can throw in any GPU and it will work if the developers do the legwork plus it’s bare metal reducing overheads. OS X will have to wait until Vulkan reaches a similar maturity and availability with the relevant hardware.

        The next generation of HBM 2 cards will really be where VR starts to come into it’s own.

      • Bundy says:

        Completely agree. The next gen of video cards is looking very exciting.

        We still don’t know if Apple intends to support Vulkan or if they’re going all in with metal. I hope they do support it. It would be a shame if they don’t.

    • FultonKBD says:

      I agree… This type of new product needs people with a bit more disposable cash to take the risk up front.

  11. Kovács Péter says:

    Nowadays the mac is almost same as the general pc. (except brilliant OS) So Luckey says haver.

    • Bundy says:

      They use the same hardware. I expect Apple’s hardware refresh this year will upgrade the GPU. I hope so anyway. I’m hope they want to stay somewhat competitive in specs

  12. The Cappy says:

    Sadly it’s true. They pointed this out quite some time ago. You need a beefy graphics card to power the Oculus, and Apple keeps moving further and further away from that goal. And now we have the MacBook. Frightfully underpowered… but everyone gets used to it and says “Oooh, it’s so tiny.” And Apple starts looking to see what else they can toss out, chasing the holy grail of “tiniest”. I got excited for a half-second when intel announced a mobile Xeon. It won’t be coming to a MBP.

  13. shannon_f says:

    From just reading the main page article snippet, I was about to hop on here and say this guy is such a jackass, based on the “good computer” comment. However, I do agree with his point about the GPUs in Macs. I am an avid gamer and while I can play games on my late 2013 macbook pro with a discrete GPU, they have to be running on low graphics settings. I wish Apple would put better graphics cards in their computers for people like me who both love Apple and computer gaming

  14. Nathan M says:

    He has a point, high end GPUs are not well supported no doubt partly because apple were never into desktop games. There is a lot a windows PC can do that a mac cant and almost nothing a mac can do that a PC cant. Before anyone says “full color support for the publishing industry” you may want to check Wikipedia as that was tru about 15 years ago but is not true now.

    • Steve__S says:

      That argument falls apart rather easily. For starters, a Mac can run Windows, but the reverse is not true – at least not in any reliable or supported manner.

      That said, the preferred platform has more to do with what you use your computer for. I have a PC for games, but for video and photo editing, I prefer a Mac as I prefer the tools that are exclusive to the Mac. YMMV The point being, your broad claim just doesn’t hold true.

    • Rose Krueger says:

      I own both, and from where I sit, the people slamming Apple are usually the ones that are jealous or come across that way. Otherwise who cares? I own one and I run OS X Linux and Windows on it – it’s great I have one machine with all three OSes. The Video and Photo Editing software I have works better on the Mac. I have a home built 8 core I7 machine, a touchscreen Dell laptop and my Macbook Pro. I have owned Dells’, HPs, Toshiba and Asus (my daughter) machines and Macbook is by far the best built piece of hardware I have ever owned.

  15. disqus_tu7SEHpgGp says:

    Oculus says they will not design VR for the Mac until Apple begins designing expensive toys. So they admit they are still experimental.

  16. Kenneth Hime says:

    The bottom of the line 27″ iMac already has enough CPU and graphics power to meet the required specs.
    3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5; Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz.
    Configurable to 4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7; Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz.
    AMD Radeon R9 M380 graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory.
    Configurable to AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory.
    So I don’t know what Palmer Luckey is smoking.

  17. Dominic Muscat says:

    My 2008 (yes that’s right 2008!) Mac Pro with a GTX680 ran the rift DK2 no probs. Had to run bootcamp to get the better games than the dev mac ones, but I had no issues.

  18. knute5 says:

    GPU performance has always been an issue for Apple. But most of their customers – even pro audio/video users – have leveraged the CPUs for the heavy lifting. To me, Palmer’s statement implies “Good (for what we make).” If/when VR takes off Apple will embrace it, and probably add some user-friendly plusses to it. The last thing Cupertino plans to do is remain irrelevant.

  19. Rose Krueger says:

    Considering the market targeted for Oculus I would say the majority of Mac and Macbook users are not Oculus’s market so the while the statement appears to be a jab it’s just something to try and generate sales into another market. Being Oculus capable so does not define in any way a “good computers”, comical but no really not relevant. That’s like saying a “good computer” only uses Nvidia components. I play Mechwarrior Online and I use a good computer. I code, video edit edit photography and even play a game but I could care less about Oculus. And I also use a Macbook pro with Radeon graphics chip and 1 Gig of VRAM (early 2011 Macbook Pro with Hi-Res screen).

  20. farsighted says:

    Didn’t I read that Apple was starting to develop some VR stuff on their own? I’ll wait for that. In the meantime, there is always Google cardboard. LOL!

  21. Andy Ciordia says:

    It’d be nice to see them develop external processing units so it could go anywhere. Don’t get trapped by a machines performance, have your own. Sony seems to be going down that line and we’ll have to see how it goes.

    I’ve built data centers, maintained a fleet of Windows machines for a decade, then moved them all to OSX machines for a decade–with much much less issues. Macs cost more per unit but the issues we saw in tickets were way way down and having a BSD core (basically) underneath it all meant we had a better and more versatile toolset to work with.

    My beef is Apple has gone towards more consumerism and lots its way with its higher end units and I do miss them having larger machines with more robust options.

  22. Emmanuel Lemor says:

    The reality is that that’s a really myopic and pretentious response from the CEO of Oculus… It is typical of these new generation programmers/product developers… I remember the days which aren’t so long along where programmers excelled or at least TRIED to excel at squeezing out performance out of even slow hardware/processors… nowadays, it’s like if you don’t have 16gb of RAM and the latest Core i7 [or equiv. AMD], and a R9 or GTX Titan series we can’t talk to you… well sorry but I disagree with this approach.

    Instead of being so elitist, it would behoove you Mr. all high and mighty to lower yourself to actually make a product that is optimized for a slightly current hardware… He makes it sound like we’re processing the Pentagon’s entire data library here – come on – sure, it’s complex I get it but a bit of work on your end might actually open up your product to a whole new clientele too!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *