twolf2919

I watched the introduction and couldn't help but laugh when I saw this thing: like a mix of ski and scuba goggles - bonus: the "see through" eyes that seem slightly larger than real-life LOL.  Then I noticed the tether that every shot tried so desperately to hide - in hair, scarfs...anything.  By the time I saw the price I already knew this was DOA - the $3500 was just the flowers on the grave.

Don't get me wrong: from a technical perspective, Apple did an amazing job.  But this product is done in by its form factor - nobody wants to be even more isolated than they already are by wearing dorky goggles, tethered to some batteries in your pocket no less - and by the lack of a killer app.   You heard the word "replace" a lot during the presentation - it can "replace" a large screen TV (not mentioned, of course, is that it can only do so when you're alone)...it can replace multiple monitors so you can work with more of your apps (of course, interacting with those apps is a lot more clumsy than with a physical keyboard and mouse/touchpad)....I kept looking for the metaphor that best fits this product as presented - "jumped the shark" came to mind.  Apple just threw everything it had at the board and hoped that something will stick to make this product succeed.  But I really don't see a standout feature I'd pay $3500 for.  Heck - I don't see a standout feature I'd pay $1000 for.  Now - if this had been presented in a nice pair of stylish AR glasses without an insane tether to an external battery, I might have been convinced....wait another 3-5 years, I guess.

rob53 said:

Could be a great replacement for a large screen TV. No glare. Great for small apartments. 

Seeing the 3D scanning of your face makes me wonder when 3D scanning apps using the front cameras/LiDAR will come out allowing scanning of “things” imported into 3D CAD systems. High quality handheld scanners are expensive. 

Uh, would be interesting to see how you share that 'large screen tv' with others :-)

Interesting conclusion - apparently speed or breadth of available apps specifically made for tablets should be of no concern to those considering a new tablet?

Xed said:

twolf2919 said:

macxpress said:

twolf2919 said:

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.

macxpress said:

twolf2919 said:

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. 

The differences are obvious - you even point one of them out: $599 (the starting price for an iPhone in 2007) - even adjusted for inflation is only about $880 today.  That's less than 1/3 the rumored cost of this headset!  Second, the iPhone had obvious everyday use cases when it came out - people had already been using desktop browsers and desktop applications - there was a known demand for those - and Apple elegantly brought them to the mobile phone.  Even before the iPhone existed, people saw those as useful in mobile life - thus the many other prior attempts at them (see Nokia and other tablets).  But what practical use cases do you see for ski goggles plastered to your forehead?  More importantly, what practical uses cases do you see that you'd be willing to spend $3000 for?    I invited you to "think outside the box".