4 ms·

All things can be described as “some percent better” For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise

All things can be described as “some percent better” For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise; now I do; Oculus is why” No fitness > fitness is 0 to 1 In what way was the iPhone “fundamentally different,” by your definition? Its functionality all existed in a blackberry / mp3 player. It was just “some percent better” at everything - especially interaction - that unlocked all the apps we have today, no?

ethbr0 3y ago
There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better." The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON (and that is "fundamentally different"!) The iPhone as initially released isn't the iPhone brand success we see today, looking back: that's the iPhone + iTunes + App Store. Which explains why similarly featured hardware didn't experience iPhone success. That combination was fundamentally different, because it allowed you to easily do the 3 things most people wanted to on their phones (browse the web, listen to music, get a specific app). At the time, 2008, there was no competition for that. It would be until ~2010 that Android even launched rough (very rough) parity: HTC Nexus One/Samsung Galaxy S + Google Music + Android Marketplace Two. Years.
- curiousllama 3y ago
  I’m gonna be honest, I just sincerely have no idea what you mean by “fundamentally different.” Like, Peloton is an exercise bike. A cool one! A great brand and experience! But it’s an exercise bike. And it’s somehow more “fundamentally different” than this device that is trying to materialize sci fi? I guess I just don’t get it
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    I'd say Peloton is as fundamentally different... as you can get within the fitness category. Absolutely agreed: its an exercise bike with adjustable resistance and integrated, network-connected stats. In objective terms, not fundamentally different. But if even it's having trouble financially, fitness isn't a great category to win with technology. Branding and advertising, absolutely! (Nike?) But not tech.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Beat saber is not fundamentally different from DDR. I love both.
cloverich 3y ago
But that "some percent better" has a tipping point. MP3 players and Camera's in a mobile phone only matter to most when the capacity, quality, and battery life were good enough. Once they were, they were everywhere, and that was revolutionary. (The iPhone as such was just a better version) The Apple Vision Pro is an impressive improvement. But I'm skeptical its at that tipping point. Making the tech work in a pair of regularly sized glasses, that don't need plugged in or a heavy battery, yet has similar functionality, would push it much closer to reality. No regular person is strapping one of these on to interact with the world as is. IMHO its current stage is: a very impressive toy. Which is totally fine -- with what's at stake and Apple's market position and cash, it makes total sense to try and be the leader here, until it materializes into the next thing or fizzles out. Either position is likely acceptable to Apple.

ethbr0 3y ago

There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better." The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON (and that is "fundamentally different"!) The iPhone as initially released isn't the iPhone brand success we see today, looking back: that's the iPhone + iTunes + App Store. Which explains why similarly featured hardware didn't experience iPhone success. That combination was fundamentally different, because it allowed you to easily do the 3 things most people wanted to on their phones (browse the web, listen to music, get a specific app). At the time, 2008, there was no competition for that. It would be until ~2010 that Android even launched rough (very rough) parity: HTC Nexus One/Samsung Galaxy S + Google Music + Android Marketplace Two. Years.

curiousllama 3y ago
I’m gonna be honest, I just sincerely have no idea what you mean by “fundamentally different.” Like, Peloton is an exercise bike. A cool one! A great brand and experience! But it’s an exercise bike. And it’s somehow more “fundamentally different” than this device that is trying to materialize sci fi? I guess I just don’t get it
- ethbr0 3y ago
  I'd say Peloton is as fundamentally different... as you can get within the fitness category. Absolutely agreed: its an exercise bike with adjustable resistance and integrated, network-connected stats. In objective terms, not fundamentally different. But if even it's having trouble financially, fitness isn't a great category to win with technology. Branding and advertising, absolutely! (Nike?) But not tech.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Beat saber is not fundamentally different from DDR. I love both.

cloverich 3y ago

But that "some percent better" has a tipping point. MP3 players and Camera's in a mobile phone only matter to most when the capacity, quality, and battery life were good enough. Once they were, they were everywhere, and that was revolutionary. (The iPhone as such was just a better version) The Apple Vision Pro is an impressive improvement. But I'm skeptical its at that tipping point. Making the tech work in a pair of regularly sized glasses, that don't need plugged in or a heavy battery, yet has similar functionality, would push it much closer to reality. No regular person is strapping one of these on to interact with the world as is. IMHO its current stage is: a very impressive toy. Which is totally fine -- with what's at stake and Apple's market position and cash, it makes total sense to try and be the leader here, until it materializes into the next thing or fizzles out. Either position is likely acceptable to Apple.