In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
Yes they did, and no, at launch in 2007 the iPhone was not subsidized in any way. It was a phone, a camera, an iPod and the first usable mobile internet browser, all with an unlimited data contact - a combination unheard of and unprecedented at the time. It was a true game changer and it altered the way people lived their lives.
Sorry, but a set of ski goggles with a hard wired external battery pack that runs the latest VR version of Notes, Messages, FaceTime and some games most assuredly is not.
It sure was subsidized. Additionally, that attached link has other quotes and links showing that many so-called "experts" expected the iPhone to fail. I bet back in 2007 you were one of those people.
In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
Yes they did, and no, at launch in 2007 the iPhone was not subsidized in any way. It was a phone, a camera, an iPod and the first usable mobile internet browser, all with an unlimited data contact - a combination unheard of and unprecedented at the time. It was a true game changer and it altered the way people lived their lives.
Sorry, but a set of ski goggles with a hard wired external battery pack that runs the latest VR version of Notes, Messages, FaceTime and some games most assuredly is not.
For each iPhone sale, Apple received a monthly cut of the services fee you paid the telco. That is subsidized.
The "Killer app" almost by definition is the less-than-expected use at shipping time. It is impossible to predict that at this point much like no one saying "this iPhone thing what is really going to drive sales is short video and square photos". Yet here we are.
Indeed people would have called you crazy to suggest it. I could predict a couple of things but all rely on factors outside Apples control so they seem crazy to suggest they'd go beyond the niche markets that would currently pay $3k price tag for a decent device.
In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
Yes they did, and no, at launch in 2007 the iPhone was not subsidized in any way. It was a phone, a camera, an iPod and the first usable mobile internet browser, all with an unlimited data contact - a combination unheard of and unprecedented at the time. It was a true game changer and it altered the way people lived their lives.
Sorry, but a set of ski goggles with a hard wired external battery pack that runs the latest VR version of Notes, Messages, FaceTime and some games most assuredly is not.
It sure was subsidized. Additionally, that attached link has other quotes and links showing that many so-called "experts" expected the iPhone to fail. I bet back in 2007 you were one of those people.
Why would you think that? Nope, it wasn't subsided. I paid $599 dollars out of my own pocket up front on launch day for the 8GB version and the only choice initially was an AT&T plan. I was second in line at the AT&T store. I could have gone across the street to the first Apple Store but I figured I had a better chance of scoring one at AT&T. Buyers received a $100 store credit a month later, inspired by the runaway success, they lowered the initial prices of both the 4GB and 8 GB phones by $100.
Dooofus is an apropos nom de plume if you think that a product can't be subsidized simply because you paid something for it up front. ߤ榺wj;♂️ See Mattinoz's post above, Dooofus.
In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
Yes they did, and no, at launch in 2007 the iPhone was not subsidized in any way. It was a phone, a camera, an iPod and the first usable mobile internet browser, all with an unlimited data contact - a combination unheard of and unprecedented at the time. It was a true game changer and it altered the way people lived their lives.
Sorry, but a set of ski goggles with a hard wired external battery pack that runs the latest VR version of Notes, Messages, FaceTime and some games most assuredly is not.
It sure was subsidized. Additionally, that attached link has other quotes and links showing that many so-called "experts" expected the iPhone to fail. I bet back in 2007 you were one of those people.
Why would you think that? Nope, it wasn't subsided. I paid $599 dollars out of my own pocket up front on launch day for the 8GB version and the only choice initially was an AT&T plan. I was second in line at the AT&T store. I could have gone across the street to the first Apple Store but I figured I had a better chance of scoring one at AT&T. Buyers received a $100 store credit a month later, inspired by the runaway success, they lowered the initial prices of both the 4GB and 8 GB phones by $100.
Dooofus is an apropos nom de plume if you think that a product can't be subsidized simply because you paid something for it up front. ߤ榺wj;♂️ See Mattinoz's post above, Dooofus.
Sorry, you need to re-check your facts. Even a Dooofus knows the iPhone was not subsidized by carriers until the iPhone 3G came out.
Holy fuck balls! You can't be that stupid!
It's already been pointed out to you several times in this forum but I'll go over it one last time in the hopes that you finally understand it.
What you're talking about is the common, front-end subsidization. You buy an iPhone 3G for AT&T's network which locks you into a 24 month contract with a locked device. This causes AT&T to pay Apple a lump sum following the end of the month, quarter, or whatever pay cycle they agreed.
What Apple and AT&T did for the original iPhone was a back-end subscription where AT&T doesn't pay Apple anything for an iPhone sale, but instead pays Apple a much smaller amount every month for every post-paid iPhone subscription.
The benefits to AT&T are that they aren't in the hole for a yet untested device from a company that has never had a cell phone on the market, and while the front-end model would put people into a 2 year contract, getting paid for said contract could be problematic and isn't guaranteed which leads to more overheard for dealing with the inherent financial risks. The drawbacks or AT&T is that there is no locked device or contract holding the user to AT&T, but let's remember that the original iPhone wasn't supported on any other US carrier at the time so the risk was very minimal.
It's unfortunate that that the original subsidization model didn't stick as this is better for users.
tl; dr: Those are both subsidization models, dooofus.
Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000? I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app". Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged? Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000? A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone. There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses. Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality. Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public! So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
I invited you to "think outside the box".
You're telling others to do so and yet you're unable and/or unwilling to do so yourself.
Yes, I've already admitted this in my original post - I am unable to think of a use case for a VR headset that would lead a lot of people (which is what Apple needs for its products to be 'successful') to spend $3000 on it. Isn't that what this forum is supposed to be about - getting informed? So far, the only responses were helpful replies such as "just because you can't think of it doesn't mean they don't exist". There was the comparison to the iPhone which was at least intelligent - but to which I responded that the analogy doesn't hold given the difference in known uses for the iPhone before its introduction as well as the giant price difference.
Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000? I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app". Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged? Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000? A headset has the same "chicken or egg" problem that AR applications face with the iPhone. There are tons of use cases for AR - but developers are not creating apps for them because the only way to utilize the apps is by using your iPhone as your AR glasses. Nobody will hold up their iPhone for any period of time just to see an augmented reality. Same thing with this headset: even if it has AR capability, nobody will wear a headset in public! So developers would be writing app for a market - customers with AR glasses - that won't exist for years.
In 2007 people parted with $600-700 for a smartphone (fully subsidized btw) which was unheard of at the time and quite expensive. You need to think outside the box and not just what people are using it for today just like Apple did with iPhone, Apple Watch, etc. Apple didn't become successful by being narrow-minded.
I invited you to "think outside the box".
You're telling others to do so and yet you're unable and/or unwilling to do so yourself.
Yes, I've already admitted this in my original post - I am unable to think of a use case for a VR headset that would lead a lot of people (which is what Apple needs for its products to be 'successful') to spend $3000 on it. Isn't that what this forum is supposed to be about - getting informed? So far, the only responses were helpful replies such as "just because you can't think of it doesn't mean they don't exist". There was the comparison to the iPhone which was at least intelligent - but to which I responded that the analogy doesn't hold given the difference in known uses for the iPhone before its introduction as well as the giant price difference.
Again, I'll suggest that you wait to see what is presented and how it may be of use to you and others before you stake the ground with your absolution of failure.
I have no imagination whatsoever. But, I've seen quite imaginative apps for AR on the iPhone and iPad.
Games: Erect a AR scene on a real table and show "people and jets" landing. Walk around the scene seeing these objects in 3D. Astronomy: Render the nearby galaxies viewable in the night sky adjusted for wavelength and exposure. I've seen renderings of a galaxy compared to the full moon -- equal in size. Hand lens: I have a high quality 10X Belomo loupe hand lens that allows me to see the details of living plants and insects. Based on university lectures.
It takes more expertise than imagination. There is plenty of expertise available,
Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000? I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app". Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged? Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
•Well I can think of a few dozen medical ones alone. Imagine doing invasive procedures with the ability to look at the person in front of you and having a live overlay of their blood vessels or nerves under ultrasound. •I have already seen vets with ultrasounds to check livestock pregnancies have probes that feed directly to VR headset •Electronic wiring projected while you are on the job as an instructional tool particularly in difficult to access locations and you can send varieties of manuals/plans •Architectural walkthroughs for clients of CAD designed buildings •Military Sims (flight/ground combat etc) •Links to ROVs in many industries
One of the issues is fidelity and precision of image as well as something that is ergonomic and if the headset starts looking like this with 8K video (at high enough refresh rate) then $3k is peanuts for the above industries.
4) My wife had surgery a couple of days ago. I'm sitting there watching the nurses shove around paperwork, typing stuff into the monitor that was in the room. It looked so primitive. One had to pull out a calculator to determine the rate for the saline drip. That is all going to go away within 10 years.
I wish I could share your optimism on that timeframe. I'm working on software for a mental health clinic, and the number of roadblocks to getting something new into the system is staggering. The end users in any hospital setting are dealing with stressful situations all day long so it's natural for them to revert to something that (a) they know works, and (b) they don't have to think about - overcoming that inertia is hard.
Then you've got to deal with the policies and procedures relating to information access and storage (e.g. "does this person have permission to view/edit the details of this patient?"), meaning a review has to be conducted by someone who has insufficient time available already... the institutional inertia is another factor.
Pretty sure this is going to be a flop. Sad. Sigh, Apple has lost its way. I’d like to see development more on screen tech sensor suites, get rid of the notch, bring edge to edge display, battery tech, and foremost better refining and maturing of software. Less update cycles and more stability and fixes would be welcome. Also it appears AGI is on the rise, meanwhile Siri remains lobotomized. Probably should see some work on that. Only things lately that I have enjoyed with Apple products is the Apple Watch health, and the Apple TV. M series Mac’s have been great too, but have a ways to go.
Come on, let's be real - what "killer app" can you imagine that would convince you to part with $3,000? I can't even think of many use cases outside of gaming for a dorky *headset* - much less a "killer app". Even if there was a killer VR game that was introduced alongside the headset - how long could one game possibly keep you engaged? Long enough to make worthwhile investing $3,000?
•Well I can think of a few dozen medical ones alone. Imagine doing invasive procedures with the ability to look at the person in front of you and having a live overlay of their blood vessels or nerves under ultrasound. •I have already seen vets with ultrasounds to check livestock pregnancies have probes that feed directly to VR headset •Electronic wiring projected while you are on the job as an instructional tool particularly in difficult to access locations and you can send varieties of manuals/plans •Architectural walkthroughs for clients of CAD designed buildings •Military Sims (flight/ground combat etc) •Links to ROVs in many industries
One of the issues is fidelity and precision of image as well as something that is ergonomic and if the headset starts looking like this with 8K video (at high enough refresh rate) then $3k is peanuts for the above industries.
Cheers Dr Hawk
It does seem like the new general purpose computing paradigm. Death of the MacBook much like the start of the MacBook relegated Desktops to a niche over the course of about 15years.
Time scale might actually be the same here.
It could solo tasks very well leaving iPadOS for collaboration. (assuming both are freed of iOS restrictions to really expand on their potential)
Comments
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/29/the-story-of-the-original-iphone-that-nobody-thought-was-possible
The "Killer app" almost by definition is the less-than-expected use at shipping time. It is impossible to predict that at this point much like no one saying "this iPhone thing what is really going to drive sales is short video and square photos". Yet here we are.
Indeed people would have called you crazy to suggest it. I could predict a couple of things but all rely on factors outside Apples control so they seem crazy to suggest they'd go beyond the niche markets that would currently pay $3k price tag for a decent device.
It's already been pointed out to you several times in this forum but I'll go over it one last time in the hopes that you finally understand it.
What you're talking about is the common, front-end subsidization. You buy an iPhone 3G for AT&T's network which locks you into a 24 month contract with a locked device. This causes AT&T to pay Apple a lump sum following the end of the month, quarter, or whatever pay cycle they agreed.
What Apple and AT&T did for the original iPhone was a back-end subscription where AT&T doesn't pay Apple anything for an iPhone sale, but instead pays Apple a much smaller amount every month for every post-paid iPhone subscription.
The benefits to AT&T are that they aren't in the hole for a yet untested device from a company that has never had a cell phone on the market, and while the front-end model would put people into a 2 year contract, getting paid for said contract could be problematic and isn't guaranteed which leads to more overheard for dealing with the inherent financial risks. The drawbacks or AT&T is that there is no locked device or contract holding the user to AT&T, but let's remember that the original iPhone wasn't supported on any other US carrier at the time so the risk was very minimal.
It's unfortunate that that the original subsidization model didn't stick as this is better for users.
tl; dr: Those are both subsidization models, dooofus.
Games: Erect a AR scene on a real table and show "people and jets" landing. Walk around the scene seeing these objects in 3D.
Astronomy: Render the nearby galaxies viewable in the night sky adjusted for wavelength and exposure. I've seen renderings of a galaxy compared to the full moon -- equal in size.
Hand lens: I have a high quality 10X Belomo loupe hand lens that allows me to see the details of living plants and insects. Based on university lectures.
It takes more expertise than imagination. There is plenty of expertise available,
Then you've got to deal with the policies and procedures relating to information access and storage (e.g. "does this person have permission to view/edit the details of this patient?"), meaning a review has to be conducted by someone who has insufficient time available already... the institutional inertia is another factor.
I hope your wife has a speedy recovery.
Filed for future reference.
Time scale might actually be the same here.
It could solo tasks very well leaving iPadOS for collaboration.
(assuming both are freed of iOS restrictions to really expand on their potential)