4 ms·

Their points aren't really even about the product at all. They start off with (paraphrased) "I can't imagine using this myself" and then launch into a hilarious

Their points aren't really even about the product at all. They start off with (paraphrased) "I can't imagine using this myself" and then launch into a hilariously negative caricature of a hypothetical experience using it. It's heavy on the negatively-associated words and light on actual critical analysis beyond the hype. Like, of course you can't imagine using it! You seem to be really really really convinced it sucks hard. Who would imagine themselves voluntarily having an experience like that? I mean, it doesn't matter. The product will come out either way and I have no stake in it. But this is the internet and we post things.

calo_star 3y ago
> a hilariously negative caricature of a hypothetical experience using it. That's what Apple has shown, no?
- IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
  It appears like that is not the case for many people. You aren't the target market.
svnt 3y ago
If you have spent much time with other VR headsets you can absolutely imagine yourself using this, and while this version is excessively negative, I came to essentially the same conclusion. There is a big hole where the experience should be. It’s like they tried to be the next Nike and build a better sneaker except no one actually has a need for face-shoes to begin with.
- aiisjustanif 3y ago
  Apple is a company is among others in having a history of attempting to create a market.
  - svnt 3y ago
    MP3 players were bad, but everyone listened to music. Smartphones were a convergence that everyone was working on and wanted, and everyone needed a phone, but the experience was lacking. The dominant cool-kid response was not “why?” but “finally” when the iPod and then iPhone dropped. They still have a year — perhaps there is more coming — but this does not have the feel of “finally” for VR/AR that still seems possible, and no one needs VR, yet.
    - scheeseman486 3y ago
      The original iPod didn't officially run on PCs, at the time easily the dominant platform and only became fully compatible with the third generation model. iPhone didn't ship with an app store and while it nailed a bunch of UI paradigms, it was limited compared to much of the competition for the first year or so. I think it'll take longer than that for Vision to bake, it seems rough, it's just that the idea that Apple products are released fully formed has never been particularly true.
      - svnt 3y ago
        Fair points — I guess my main point is at their core they served known, simple functions and people knew what they did. There had been music players and phones in mainstream use for decades. The correlate here I suppose is “watching things” or “using computers” but the function together with the price point so far feels to me more like PARC than Apple.
sanderjd 3y ago
Sure, "don't knock it till you try it". But that just makes more sense for an entirely new product category. But this isn't a new product category. We all know the many drawbacks of these headsets. So, from the marketing materials released for this new entrant in that category, does it look like it has overcome all those issues? It doesn't, to me.

calo_star 3y ago

> a hilariously negative caricature of a hypothetical experience using it. That's what Apple has shown, no?

IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
It appears like that is not the case for many people. You aren't the target market.

svnt 3y ago

If you have spent much time with other VR headsets you can absolutely imagine yourself using this, and while this version is excessively negative, I came to essentially the same conclusion. There is a big hole where the experience should be. It’s like they tried to be the next Nike and build a better sneaker except no one actually has a need for face-shoes to begin with.

aiisjustanif 3y ago
Apple is a company is among others in having a history of attempting to create a market.
- svnt 3y ago
  MP3 players were bad, but everyone listened to music. Smartphones were a convergence that everyone was working on and wanted, and everyone needed a phone, but the experience was lacking. The dominant cool-kid response was not “why?” but “finally” when the iPod and then iPhone dropped. They still have a year — perhaps there is more coming — but this does not have the feel of “finally” for VR/AR that still seems possible, and no one needs VR, yet.
  - scheeseman486 3y ago
    The original iPod didn't officially run on PCs, at the time easily the dominant platform and only became fully compatible with the third generation model. iPhone didn't ship with an app store and while it nailed a bunch of UI paradigms, it was limited compared to much of the competition for the first year or so. I think it'll take longer than that for Vision to bake, it seems rough, it's just that the idea that Apple products are released fully formed has never been particularly true.
    - svnt 3y ago
      Fair points — I guess my main point is at their core they served known, simple functions and people knew what they did. There had been music players and phones in mainstream use for decades. The correlate here I suppose is “watching things” or “using computers” but the function together with the price point so far feels to me more like PARC than Apple.

sanderjd 3y ago

Sure, "don't knock it till you try it". But that just makes more sense for an entirely new product category. But this isn't a new product category. We all know the many drawbacks of these headsets. So, from the marketing materials released for this new entrant in that category, does it look like it has overcome all those issues? It doesn't, to me.