3 ms·
Well, it's certainly a better deal than paying $3,000 for the same result? What I'm trying to say is that Apple introducing such an expensive unit will make pe
by pavlov 4y ago
Well, it's certainly a better deal than paying $3,000 for the same result?
What I'm trying to say is that Apple introducing such an expensive unit will make people take another look at the Quest as an option to see what the XR fuss is about. $400 is impulse buy territory for a lot of people who might be willing to try out the technology, while $3k isn't.
- bookofjoe 4y agoConcur
- chaostheory 4y agoSupposedly, the $3000 Apple mixed reality model is significantly cheaper than AR device that Apple just delayed.
- dragonwriter 4y agoAR/“Mixed reality” isn't VR. It’s VR plus low latency actual reality plus processing data from the actual reality to interact with VR. So, its not the same market as the $400 Quest, but the $3,500 Hololens.
- Someone 4y agoI doubt that Apple’s offer, if/when it comes, will give “the same result” as the $400 Quest.
- andybak 4y agoBut will it be 8x better?
- pavlov 4y agoIf the result is “sitting on a shelf unused”, yes, both $3000 and $400 devices are equally capable of that. (As my own history of excited gadget purchases bears testimony…) The point was, if you’re unsure whether you actually would keep using it, the Quest is a much cheaper way to scratch that VR/XR urge.