Xed

hammeroftruth said:

Xed said:

hammeroftruth said:

The bottom line is that Apple will need to have the apps to justify the need and the price for the Vision Pro. 

 Daniel is great at his “Roughly Drafted” articles that are great at gushing for Apple, but lack the reality check of some of the shortcomings that our beloved company needs to be shown. 

 The iPhone was a great innovation, but it wasn’t until it was heavily subsidized that it took off. The iPad was successful because it didn’t use a different OS like Apple’s competitors did by using android to a PC user or a scaled down shittier version of windows. The watch started out as a device without a purpose until Apple found out that the health and activity sensors were popular with customers. 

 For the Vision Pro to survive, it has to have a justifiable purpose. Apple has a lot of people working on the software for it, but the big question is will it and other secret 3rd party support be enough to survive a launch and a STARTING $3500 price tag. We will see by May.

1) The iPhone started off subsidized.

2) There were massive lines of people all around the world. It was a hit from launch.

3) I guess that means you are correct. 

According to my memory, and a Vox article correcting Steve Ballmer’s quote on the reason the iPhone was successful was it was subsidized, it actually wasn’t.   From the article:

“It was iPhone, actually, that first broke the mold of having pricey smartphones subsidized by the carrier in exchange for customers agreeing to a two-year contract. Apple decided that rather than make AT&T offset the cost of the phone, it would instead seek a cut of the monthly bill.

But, sensing that its $600-plus price tag was limiting the market, Apple decided to shake things up with its second-generation phone. With the iPhone 3G, Apple got AT&T to agree to a large subsidy by dropping the part of its deal that called for Apple to get a chunk of each month’s service fees.

To be fair, the subsidy for the iPhone was larger than that given to other phones, but BlackBerrys and other smartphones were already being subsidized by carriers when the iPhone debuted.

In short, it was the power of the iPhone, not its pricing, that made the phone a hit. If anything, you could say Apple blunted its initial appeal with a high price and then fixed that by going with the already popular subsidy model.“

The original iPhone was subsidized (supported financially) by AT&T. To get the exclusivity to the iPhone in the US they agreed to pay Apple a portion of their take from all iPhone subscribers to their network. This is stated in what you quote: "Apple decided that rather than make AT&T offset the cost of the phone, it would instead seek a cut of the monthly bill." What it wasn't was the typical subsidization which we usually saw as a 24 month prorated contract for the customer until the device is paid off, although this duration could vary from handsets and carriers.

subsidize | ˈsəbsəˌdīz | (British English also subsidise)
verb [with object]

hammeroftruth said:

The bottom line is that Apple will need to have the apps to justify the need and the price for the Vision Pro. 

 Daniel is great at his “Roughly Drafted” articles that are great at gushing for Apple, but lack the reality check of some of the shortcomings that our beloved company needs to be shown. 

 The iPhone was a great innovation, but it wasn’t until it was heavily subsidized that it took off. The iPad was successful because it didn’t use a different OS like Apple’s competitors did by using android to a PC user or a scaled down shittier version of windows. The watch started out as a device without a purpose until Apple found out that the health and activity sensors were popular with customers. 

 For the Vision Pro to survive, it has to have a justifiable purpose. Apple has a lot of people working on the software for it, but the big question is will it and other secret 3rd party support be enough to survive a launch and a STARTING $3500 price tag. We will see by May.

1) The iPhone started off subsidized.

2) There were massive lines of people all around the world. It was a hit from launch.

3) I guess that means you are correct. 

miiwtwo said:

do you really think that vision pro is different comparing its competitors and will go to re invent the computer, i think this kind of article only try to convince to buy it and justify the price 'cause isnt novelty, is good but too expensive, in few months google and friends gonna sell the same concept for "less",

Same concept doesn’t equal the same quality or experience. Meta Quest is also the same concept. Do you think that Meta Quest is just as good?

Of course, people like you made the same comments about the iPhone, iPad, AirPods, Mac, and iPod. Pretty much every big product by Apple already existed in concept in the market but Apple didn’t better with many not understanding how synergy between OS, HW, and UX make an iota of difference to the customer.

9secondkox2 said:

Xed said:

9secondkox2 said:

danox said:

9secondkox2 said:

To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing. 

It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.

Except it’s not. 

The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery. 

It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently. 

The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset. 

Dan is on point. The iPhone detractors also made claims that it wasn't good enough to compete with the Blackberry with a full qwerty keyboard and all the benefits it came with were pointless to users, like the (then considered) gigantic display with multi-touch input. AVP is following that same path as Meta doesn't have the same eye and hand tracking to make it nearly as functional or useful.

I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.

This isn’t that. With iPhone, everyone had their “aha!” Inan instant. 

With this, Apple’s management staff, the news media, and various folks who’ve demo’d the VP didn’t think too much of it other than it’s neat for a bit. Cook and the developers hoping to make money off the new platform are the ones pushing and hyping. 

Look. It’s a great headset. But it’s just a headset. Nothing particularly new or innovative. Just a higher spec’s headset with apples great ui/UX. It’s an iterative product that doesn’t stray far from the competition from companies such as meta. 

Where the iPhone redefined what a phone could be and do, the vp takes a familiar formula and adds nicer looking pixels and more horsepower. 

Let’s keep it real here. As much as it’s cool that apple entering the headset space, pretending it’s some great paradigm shift is just silly. It’s a cool headset of much higher quality than the other guys and has a nicer UI and convenient UX. 

But it’s… a headset… and I didn’t do much different than what meta does. 

By the time Apple bakes this into a pair of shades, we will be onto something special. It’s just not it yet. 

This is the Motorola ROKR before the iPhone. 

1) I guess you u really don't remember how the iPhone was perceived by a great number of people.

2) All the things you are describing that are great about the iPhone are exactly what AVP has already done for VR/AR/XR in its first debut. AVP has already shifted the paradigm of what VR/AR/XR should look, feel, and work, just as the original iPhone did. Again, it won't sell in the same numbers or have the same growth as the iPhone, but it's not meant to be.

3) How exactly do you envision AVP to be "a pair of shades" while also being VR? This isn't a simple AR setup. Not going to happen like that. Weight is already an issue.

4) It's weird that you keep saying how AVP is basically just a piece of shit like Meta, but then make a comment about it evolving into "a pair of shades" without any thought into how hat would be accomplished or how that remove the VR aspects. It's clear to me now that you're really not thinking about the technology at all.

9secondkox2 said:

danox said:

9secondkox2 said:

To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing. 

It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.

Except it’s not. 

The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery. 

It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently. 

The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset. 

Dan is on point. The iPhone detractors also made claims that it wasn't good enough to compete with the Blackberry with a full qwerty keyboard and all the benefits it came with were pointless to users, like the (then considered) gigantic display with multi-touch input. AVP is following that same path as Meta doesn't have the same eye and hand tracking to make it nearly as functional or useful.

I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.