> Meta, today, has roughly the right price and is working forward to the right device: Apple has started with the right device and will work back to the right p

> Meta, today, has roughly the right price and is working forward to the right device: Apple has started with the right device and will work back to the right price. I like this analysis, though I think it still misses some fundamentals. To me, if you go back to root cause analysis on "why has VR/AR not succeeded yet" you have to come to some basic conclusions: 1. The value proposition isn't there. It just isn't valuable enough to have a giant screen or bring a virtual object into your space that you will pay for it and wear a special device. Apple did not solve this. They presented the same things you can do for 10 years, claiming that better quality will make it worth it. But I call BS on that - quality on the Quest 2 is easily good enough that consumers would do it for the use cases Apple presented (photos, movies etc) if the value was there. 2. Form factor. People simply DO NOT LIKE having a giant thing on their face. Apple failed comprehensively at this. The Vision Pro is just as bulky as other headsets - eg: Quest Pro. They also HATE being attached or wired to things and Apple has put a giant wire coming out of your head. The fact that Apple hasn't addressed the fundamentals leads me to the conclusion this device will at best be a dev kit for whatever eventually makes it to mass market. Perhaps 2 years from now it will indeed be Apple with a glasses like form factor. I'm a strong believer in the future of this type of device but I really do think Apple has basically just created another VR type device here: it "blows people's minds" and I'm sure a legion of Apple enthusiasts will go buy it (probably me too). But after the novelty wears off, it will sit in the corner because it has the same fundamental problem: it just isn't better at what it does than not using it. At least, novwhere near enough to justify the price and inconvenience involved.