FileMakerFeller

InspiredCode said:

Afarstar said:

I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.

In proper English it’s ’sort of’ not sorta. 

Won’t you Yankees ever learn?

Why not? All of Apples other products have separate consumer and pro lines. Apple may be able to get away with a less powerful chip since the general use case will be apps and media consumption. The iPhone processor is much more powerful then what the Meta Quest 3 has.

Powerful VR experiences closer to PC VR rigs may be limited to the pro.

For me it's a matter of timeframe. Apple is absolutely planning for multiple price tiers for the AVP, but they won't implement them until supply gets close to exceeding demand. Right now the bottleneck is the screens - supply is constrained and we don't know exactly when that will be rectified, but I doubt it will be in time for "version 2" of the device.

The one certainty is that Apple will not make any compromises on the quality of the experience. Any "low cost model" will be at least as capable as the first version of the AVP, and Apple will focus on how the "Apple Vision" is a wonderful experience and the Apple Vision Pro is even better.

AppleZulu said:

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

For the gun enthusiasts thinking about replying with some version of “It’s not the guns. If Chapman didn’t have a gun, he could’ve murdered Lennon with a knife or a car or a big stick,” just remember you’re also making a great argument for getting rid of guns altogether. If it really isn’t the guns, then everyone can fulfill their Second Amendment rights for hunting or self-defense or guarding against gubmint tyranny with a knife or a car or a big stick. There can be no infringement if it’s solely the user’s intent that defines any object equivalently as a weapon. 

Heck, we could also save billions from the Pentagon budget by getting rid of expensive guns and bullets and issuing a tactical spork to each service member. 

If you find that to be ridiculous, you’ll have to find some other reasoning that takes into account the fact that guns are among the most effective and efficient tools for killing people, and should thus be regulated with that fact always in mind. 

Or, as the great Jim Jeffries put it: "the only way to defeat a bad guy with a chainsaw is to have a good guy with a chainsaw"

So... hackers are evolving software tools that are known to work? Sounds like any other business.

Coming soon: a robotic necktie - guaranteed to never strangle the wearer by accident!

For comparison, Microsoft's HoloLens apparently sold 50k units in the first two years (https://hololens.reality.news/news/we-may-finally-know-many-hololens-devices-microsoft-sold-its-revealing-peek-future-ar-0184481/) and ~300k units from initial release (in 2016) to the end of Q4 2022 (https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/275228/microsoft-hololens-300000-units-sold). The release version was US$3000 and version 2 (released in 2019) was US$3500 - these are base model prices only; more expensive versions are available.

The US military ordered a bunch of v2 devices; it's unclear whether those are included in the sales numbers above. Reportedly several users suffer from nausea when using the devices, which has probably affected demand.

We won't know for sure until the AVP is widely available, but nausea does not appear to be a problem. I think Apple will sell as many of these things as it can make, regardless of the initial price being widely viewed as "too high" for widespread adoption.