Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

TECH Apple Vision Pro......Sounds like Skynet is here!

Bobjones said:
If the specs of this headset are in line with their 2 - 3000 dollar computers and laptops, they can't go shaving hundreds off the headset price or they'd undermine the value of their other tech offerings. Add a premium to the cost for it being relatively new technology.

Hardcore apple fans, businesses and wealthier ppl will buy this, the hype will build and they'll have effectively given an aura of premium quality to their tech so that when competitors enter the fray they can offer lower cost options and still retain their mystique of top of the line Apple quality.
Click to expand...

well this take aged horribly
 
I guess we've seen how it shook out.

I don't think it was a gimmick. It's a good piece of tech. It's just too expensive. AR/VR/MR is hard to market. It's one of those things that you can't really understand how good it is until you've bought into it. On top of that, it can't really reach its true potential until the masses and other corporations start to adopt it. When one of these things drops, 2 people are interested and 3 think it's just a silly gimmick. It's hard to push something in that situation. When you add a crazy price tag in a weak economic climate, it becomes almost impossible. Apple didn't learn anything from Microsoft's failure with the HoloLens.
 
Sony Montana said:
If they drop the price by 2k and then they got something
Click to expand...

The problem is, I think the price is fair given the tech in it. It's got a lot of high calibre cameras, two OLED screens, and a lot of processing power.

What they should have done, is the same thing the do with phones, released a cheaper version. They could have shaved a couple hundred off just by removing that front OLED that doesn't serve much of a purpose. Like I said, this failure is on Apple's arrogance. They really do believe their base is so loyal that they don't have to put any real thought into how they release their products.
 
What did they expect? The average person isn’t dropping $4000 on a VR headset when you can get a viable alternative, that has more features and apps, for a fraction of that.
 
this 3500$ wearable ipad has steve jobs rolling in his grave

to this day the only practical use for vr is for gaming - these tech companies dont want to accept that

glad to see consumers are ignoring it like they did with 3d tv
 
aka_og said:
this 3500$ wearable ipad has steve jobs rolling in his grave

to this day the only practical use for vr is for gaming - these tech companies dont want to accept that

glad to see consumers are ignoring it like they did with 3d tv
Click to expand...

That's not true.

I've seen VR and AR used in practical applications by multiple different companies. VR movies, chatrooms, event viewing, etc... is all dope too. The problem is that you have to get people to buy-in to the concepts first or the tech will never take out. Meta understood that at first. Their original plan was to slash prices on the Quest 2 to make it so pretty much anyone could pick it up. Then once they had a huge amount of people invested into their virtual platform, they were going to drop that Quest Pro with all the extra features and higher price tag. They flipped that strategy though. Instead, they kept the price for the Quest 2 high for as long as possible and used the profits from that to subsidize the Quest Pro, so that it only cost $1000. The problem is that you still didn't have enough people interested enough in taking the plunge to actually spend a G on a headset.

I'll say it again. Apple fumbled this shit. They were the ones that could have really brought VR/AR/MR to the forefront. All they had to do was make a reasonably priced version partner up with phone and other tech companies to package the headset with phones the same way they do with the Apple watch and iPad and they would have gotten a lot of people in the door. Then they could have stepped the game up a bit with the next generation.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
That's not true.

I've seen VR and AR used in practical applications by multiple different companies. VR movies, chatrooms, event viewing, etc... is all dope too. The problem is that you have to get people to buy-in to the concepts first or the tech will never take out. Meta understood that at first. Their original plan was to slash prices on the Quest 2 to make it so pretty much anyone could pick it up. Then once they had a huge amount of people invested into their virtual platform, they were going to drop that Quest Pro with all the extra features and higher price tag. They flipped that strategy though. Instead, they kept the price for the Quest 2 high for as long as possible and used the profits from that to subsidize the Quest Pro, so that it only cost $1000. The problem is that you still didn't have enough people interested enough in taking the plunge to actually spend a G on a headset.

I'll say it again. Apple fumbled this shit. They were the ones that could have really brought VR/AR/MR to the forefront. All they had to do was make a reasonably priced version partner up with phone and other tech companies to package the headset with phones the same way they do with the Apple watch and iPad and they would have gotten a lot of people in the door. Then they could have stepped the game up a bit with the next generation.
Click to expand...

the practical applications are gaming - you added in movies/chatrooms/etc - all entertainment. That was my point. Theres nothing wrong with it being an entertainment device - but when they start trying to push the idea of other use cases like replacing desktop/mobile usage at home or at work - it fails.

the average person only cares about entertainment and they already have devices that fulfill those needs as is.

AR has interesting use cases and thats where apple got some of it right but like you said - launched it in a lazy way
 
aka_og said:
the practical applications are gaming - you added in movies/chatrooms/etc - all entertainment. That was my point. Theres nothing wrong with it being an entertainment device - but when they start trying to push the idea of other use cases like replacing desktop/mobile usage at home or at work - it fails.

the average person only cares about entertainment and they already have devices that fulfill those needs as is.

AR has interesting use cases and thats where apple got some of it right but like you said - launched it in a lazy way
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I never understood the push that both Meta and Apple made for trying to use their headsets for menial tasks like word processing. I could definitely see artists using the headsets to create some cool shit if they can find a way to interface the headsets with 3D printers. From a commercial standpoint, you're right though.

From an industrial standpoint, the headsets are good tools for training, concept visualization. and even communication, but those uses are very niche.
 
aka_og said:
this 3500$ wearable ipad has steve jobs rolling in his grave

to this day the only practical use for vr is for gaming - these tech companies dont want to accept that

glad to see consumers are ignoring it like they did with 3d tv
Click to expand...

I own a Meta Quest 3 and yeah…I really only use it for gaming. It’s also nice to watch sports highlights in VR. I’m probably not the average end user and I can think of a lot of shit to use the headset for, but it always comes back to WHY? Sure I can remote into my desktop and work if I wanted to, but why would I want to other than to say I did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top