3 ms·

> Until the price range becomes below $1000 or so there’s virtually no market. It’s a toy. People don’t need a teleportation device. It’s fun to play with, like

> Until the price range becomes below $1000 or so there’s virtually no market. It’s a toy. People don’t need a teleportation device. It’s fun to play with, like a toy. It doesn’t really solve enough of a “real” problem to justify the current cost. This argument seems valid to anyone that hasn't browsed "The Sharper Image" catalog in the back of an airline seat, or even the "high end" showroom at a Best Buy. There's been a huge market for >70" TVs since mid 2010s, costing $3,500 - $10,000 US for much of that timeframe. Today you'd have to compare to 100" class: https://www.amazon.com/100-inch-tv/s?k=100+inch+tv&s=price-desc-rank https://www.amazon.com/100-inch-tv/s?k=100+inch+tv&s=price-d... All your objections would certainly apply. It's a toy. People don't need it. It's fun, but doesn't solve a "real" problem. It's too expensive to be given as a gift. AVP offers a >240" screen, and fully immersive 3D. It needs very little to make movie watching a shared experience in the same room, or with friends far away. Priced solely against a TV, people have proven happy to pay for entertainment toys. If the initial OOTB release had supported "seeing" someone watching the same content "with" you in Disney's theater or the VR spaces, this buying segment would have taken more interest.

LaGrange 2y ago
> AVP offers a >240" screen, and fully immersive 3D. It needs very little to make movie watching a shared experience in the same room, or with friends far away. It actively gets in the way of cuddling in person, and doesn't help when away. Meanwhile I've had great experiences watching things together on a phone screen. If away, bluntly, with good friends a laptop screen and a shared stream via Jellyfin works _amazing_. Like c'mon. The size of the screen is a fetish for people who think it's the screens fault that their hangout isn't emotionally impactful.
olyjohn 2y ago
Well you need something entertaining to do with it. Right now the use cases seem to be just looking at pictures and watching videos alone. Or extending your computer monitor. There isn't even that much 3D content. Nobody really seems to care about movies and shows being in 3D. It's basically a $3000 portable monitor. Not entertaining.
conductr 2y ago
I think tv usage is a hard comparison as it’s so well integrated into our lives and social fabric. These people are likely either just outfitting their house so it is more like furniture than a toy and they likely know exactly what value it adds for them (movie nights, sports gatherings, etc). Things people place great value on. And, I don’t think they’d see a vr experience as a substitute. Maybe in time they will. Once they get enough exposure to it, most likely by owning it, but that isn’t likely to happen if prices remain high. And there’s still something that’s missing, nobody is coming to your Super Bowl party just because you have an Apple Vision Pro. So it’s only useful if everyone that you’d invite also has a similar technology to have a shared virtual experience. So that further requires the prices to be lower. Beyond that is the question, does anyone actually want those types of experiences to be virtual? Would people just simply prefer that event to be IRL? I think the answer is going to be Yes for a very long time for a majority of folks. It will slowly penetrate the meatspace but will hit a fairly low ceiling at some point.

LaGrange 2y ago

> AVP offers a >240" screen, and fully immersive 3D. It needs very little to make movie watching a shared experience in the same room, or with friends far away. It actively gets in the way of cuddling in person, and doesn't help when away. Meanwhile I've had great experiences watching things together on a phone screen. If away, bluntly, with good friends a laptop screen and a shared stream via Jellyfin works _amazing_. Like c'mon. The size of the screen is a fetish for people who think it's the screens fault that their hangout isn't emotionally impactful.

olyjohn 2y ago

Well you need something entertaining to do with it. Right now the use cases seem to be just looking at pictures and watching videos alone. Or extending your computer monitor. There isn't even that much 3D content. Nobody really seems to care about movies and shows being in 3D. It's basically a $3000 portable monitor. Not entertaining.

conductr 2y ago

I think tv usage is a hard comparison as it’s so well integrated into our lives and social fabric. These people are likely either just outfitting their house so it is more like furniture than a toy and they likely know exactly what value it adds for them (movie nights, sports gatherings, etc). Things people place great value on. And, I don’t think they’d see a vr experience as a substitute. Maybe in time they will. Once they get enough exposure to it, most likely by owning it, but that isn’t likely to happen if prices remain high. And there’s still something that’s missing, nobody is coming to your Super Bowl party just because you have an Apple Vision Pro. So it’s only useful if everyone that you’d invite also has a similar technology to have a shared virtual experience. So that further requires the prices to be lower. Beyond that is the question, does anyone actually want those types of experiences to be virtual? Would people just simply prefer that event to be IRL? I think the answer is going to be Yes for a very long time for a majority of folks. It will slowly penetrate the meatspace but will hit a fairly low ceiling at some point.