4 ms·
For all the people saying that this is dead on arrival or will never gain traction because it's too expensive, too bulky, too whatever: this is going succeed.
by cdumler 3y ago
For all the people saying that this is dead on arrival or will never gain traction because it's too expensive, too bulky, too whatever: this is going succeed. The first watch serious sucked, but now it has all kinds of sensors and an always on display. A lot of those unique components (like the stereoscopic display) will get mass produced, which will bring down cost. Refinement will improve abilities.
This particular headset? It is too expensive, too bulky, etc. But, I can tell you that in time any serious developer will have this. The only thing that will make me give up my ultra-wide monitor is this: an ultra-wide screen monitor that I can take anywhere.
- 11101010001100 3y agothe watch is a poor comparison. Is this the next iphone or not? That is the question.
- turnsout 3y agoIt doesn't need to be the next iPhone to be a great business. Famously, AirPods alone would be a Fortune 200 company (probably higher now).
- rchaud 3y agoThis assumes that an independent accessory vendor could somehow worm its way into Apple's multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns. Airpods sell primarily due to the value of being a 1st-party Apple accessory.
- turnsout 3y agoFirst of all, I disagree with the premise—plenty of Android users buy AirPods. But putting that aside, why does the success of AirPods invalidate the point that Vision Pro could be successful without being as big as the iPhone?
- rchaud 3y agoAirpods are an existing product category (headphones) that everybody with a phone already uses. Couple that with Apple products being a status symbol, advertised everywhere, and it's not hard to see how Airpods could succeed even at a $200-ish price point. As for AVP, it is a brand new category where the use cases are yet to be identified. It costs 2 months' rent, it has no killer apps that people are going to line up for, and you'll look weird wearing it. It's a completely different proposition.
- turnsout 3y agoThe history of Apple is a history of "no one in their right mind would pay a premium for THAT." A $500 unsubsidized phone? A $350 watch to get notifications? Stupid-looking $200 earbuds that will fall out of your ears? AirPods got so much hate in 2016, it can be hard to remember. They were far from a sure thing.
- rchaud 3y agoApple Watch can only be said to be a moderate success at best, considering Apple themselves have never disclosed how many they've sold. As for unsubsidized phones, the US is the only country that sold them on contract, and the iPhone didn't take off until Apple had AT&Tcut the price to $199 to match other flagships. The Nokia N95 for example retailed at $730 and sold millions in 2007.
- turnsout 3y agoAccording to industry analysts, Apple sells over 40 million watches per year and is by far the top smartwatch seller, taking over half the revenue of the entire market. Given how Apple protects its margins, that adds up. I'd sure love to have that kind of "moderate success." Regarding the iPhone, I'm not sure what your point is, but my point is: people mocked the iPhone for having a ridiculously high price at launch despite having fewer features than other high-end phones. It's a direct analog to the Vision Pro reception, because this happens literally every time Apple launches in a new category.
- scarface_74 3y agoNeither the iPad nor the Watch were the best iPhone. No one seriously thinks Apple will sell 80 million+ headsets a year
- sinemetu11 3y agoConsider the alternative -- most people don't care about this device...how many non-video-game playing people bought a VR headset until now?
- esafak 3y agoThis is not VR.