4 ms·

Can you expand on this comment? What have you seen in the AR market that leads you to believe the comment you are responding to is not accurate? From many obse

by qqtt 3y ago

Can you expand on this comment? What have you seen in the AR market that leads you to believe the comment you are responding to is not accurate? From many observers, we have seen many AR/VR devices fail over the years. Some spectacularly (like Snap Spectacles), and some seem to be just throwing money into a furnace (like Oculus, which hasn't failed, but even with millions of devices sold doesn't seem to be reaching product market fit for anything outside of niche gaming and fitness). Yes, the Vision Pro is a different device, but there are orthogonal attempts at this kind of screen sharing experience which also have very niche markets, like Sightful's Spacetop laptop. I get that the Vision Pro has some product differentiation, such as the App Store, the developer ecosystem (debatable at this point compared to other AR products), and so on - but what exactly are you seeing the market today that will drive this demand for Vision Pro? Where is the evidence that customers want this technology?

zmmmmm 3y ago
Objectively, I think it's reasonable to say the technology was bad compared to what is/will be available in the next 12 months. There are actual material technology breakthroughs that really do fundamentally alter the equation (primarily: micro-OLED displays, significantly faster mobile processors and distortion-free pancake optics). The original phrasing is ambiguous as to whether its acknowledging the tech was bad or not. But it doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that people don't want something until they can experience an implementation of it that isn't "bad".
wombat-man 3y ago
Snap spectacles weren't AR really. They were just a camera strapped to your glasses. Hololens or magic leap are sort of comparable to the Vision Pro, but they were much worse. The spacetop sounds kind of low quality based on the verge review. It's an emerging product category. I think the workmachine use case is compelling and I can imagine myself using something like it. The price is steep for a personal device, but I suspect that will be fixed in one or two iterations.

by qqtt 3y ago

zmmmmm 3y ago

Objectively, I think it's reasonable to say the technology was bad compared to what is/will be available in the next 12 months. There are actual material technology breakthroughs that really do fundamentally alter the equation (primarily: micro-OLED displays, significantly faster mobile processors and distortion-free pancake optics). The original phrasing is ambiguous as to whether its acknowledging the tech was bad or not. But it doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that people don't want something until they can experience an implementation of it that isn't "bad".

wombat-man 3y ago

Snap spectacles weren't AR really. They were just a camera strapped to your glasses. Hololens or magic leap are sort of comparable to the Vision Pro, but they were much worse. The spacetop sounds kind of low quality based on the verge review. It's an emerging product category. I think the workmachine use case is compelling and I can imagine myself using something like it. The price is steep for a personal device, but I suspect that will be fixed in one or two iterations.