4 ms·

So they want to charge $2000 to $3000 for their AR headset. I think they are getting high off their own dope. If they are smarter, then they would aim for the

So they want to charge $2000 to $3000 for their AR headset. I think they are getting high off their own dope. If they are smarter, then they would aim for the $500 to $1000 range. When the iPad was first announced, all the pundits mocked it. But the reason why it was so successful with consumers, was its $500 entry level price tag. If they charge $2000 to $3000 for this device, then they are going to just shoot themselves in the head. This thing is dead-on-arrival. This AR, as "magical" as it might be, will not become mass market at these insanely high prices. And, there is a reason why people buy televisions. Often times, it is to just have a social experience at home, to share with the family. Everyone can watch the same show together. The Magic Leap AR is not a social device. Even the picture of Shaq modeling it, looks alien and unsocial. Everyone needs a phone. And the iPhone has taken over the high end segment. And the Androids have taken over the low end segment. But, not everyone needs a Magic Leap AR headset. Then, Apple will come out with their own AR device for $700, and wipe them out. I'll wait to see what Apple has up their sleeves.

turndown 9y ago
This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again? People balk at paying more than $1k for a phone, but most people would assume you're scamming them if you sold them a new car for $5k. That said, I don't agree with the pricing of this: In an immature market where the difference between a high/low end product isn't discernable, trying to get someone to pay a large amount of money just to bet on it isn't a great idea.
- setr 9y ago
  > This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again? It's only just recently you can buy a computer and not expect to replace it in 2-3 years. Not just by the fact things break, but that everything would have moved far passed you by then. Obviously it doesn't make sense for people in general to value technology as a long-term investment, when the technology itself isn't even remotely long-term (at the consumer level). But obviously too, when technology stabilizes, and we stop seeing absurd improvements over short units of time, then it'll naturally progress to longer -term value. When you can't sell on dramatically better features, then you'll sell for reliability, consistency and durability. Or you'll lock it down, strangle/monopolize the market, and add features on your own clock, hopefully postponing the plateau far into the horizon we'll see
  - maruhan2 9y ago
    Ironically though, equipment that is supposed to last a long time and hasn't progressed that much over the years are lasting shorter. Examples are cars, microwaves, fridges, washing machines, etc. Recent cars for example on average malfunction quicker than ones 20 years ago. So in that sense, technology that does not progress fast does not necessarily improve reliability
    - FrozenTuna 9y ago
      You're wrong about cars. They might need more specialized maintenance, but they are much better than they were 20 years ago. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-will-yours/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-...

turndown 9y ago

This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again? People balk at paying more than $1k for a phone, but most people would assume you're scamming them if you sold them a new car for $5k. That said, I don't agree with the pricing of this: In an immature market where the difference between a high/low end product isn't discernable, trying to get someone to pay a large amount of money just to bet on it isn't a great idea.

setr 9y ago
> This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again? It's only just recently you can buy a computer and not expect to replace it in 2-3 years. Not just by the fact things break, but that everything would have moved far passed you by then. Obviously it doesn't make sense for people in general to value technology as a long-term investment, when the technology itself isn't even remotely long-term (at the consumer level). But obviously too, when technology stabilizes, and we stop seeing absurd improvements over short units of time, then it'll naturally progress to longer -term value. When you can't sell on dramatically better features, then you'll sell for reliability, consistency and durability. Or you'll lock it down, strangle/monopolize the market, and add features on your own clock, hopefully postponing the plateau far into the horizon we'll see
- maruhan2 9y ago
  Ironically though, equipment that is supposed to last a long time and hasn't progressed that much over the years are lasting shorter. Examples are cars, microwaves, fridges, washing machines, etc. Recent cars for example on average malfunction quicker than ones 20 years ago. So in that sense, technology that does not progress fast does not necessarily improve reliability
  - FrozenTuna 9y ago
    You're wrong about cars. They might need more specialized maintenance, but they are much better than they were 20 years ago. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-will-yours/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-...