This seems like sometuing that wouldnt work so well anyway.
It looks great and if it was more affordable i think alot of people would be interested but its going to be hard to get a large number of early adopters with the 3.5k price tag.
This will be a rich boy toy for a long time before it sells on a large scale a few versions down the line.
1 million isnt that many people but i dunno if its features are enough to justify the cost to 1 million people.
$3500 in today’s money is not far off from what early computers cost. It’s actually less.
The Mac SE retailed for $2900 in 1987. This is equivalent to over $7000 in today’s money.
“A rich boys toy that will never amount to anything” would have been a grossly bad prediction back in 1987.
Just sayin.
I see your point but i dont know if i equate this new apple device to a computer. Its certainly got alot of amazing features but compared to a computer it doesnt hold up functionally.
You could argue that eventually it will surpass a computer in functionality and become more mainstream but thats kind of my point. Right now its not there, but after they have developed it for 10-15 years you might see mass adoption of this type of device over PCs.
I also didnt say it would never amount to anything. Using your statement i would point out that computers were not found in everyones home until the end of the 90s and beyond. So i stand by my suggestion that it will be something rich people have for many yeara beforw becoming mainstream.
I mean, isn’t it the equivalent of a Mac Mini strapped to your head, computing-horsepower-wise?
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan
Just because a large expensive rich toy turned into a staple does not imply that all rich toys turn into the same thing.
Oh I totally agree. I’m not arguing that because the Mac SE was a rich boys toy that all rich boy toys will succeed. I’m arguing that it’s an invalid dismissal that something is a rich boy’s toy, because sometimes those go on to popular success. The person I was responding to seemed to think that rich boy toy was some terminal destination of irrelevance. It clearly isn’t always. Good quote though, thank you for sharing that.
The difference is this doesn’t solve any problems. It is just a new way to do the same things. It isn’t even any faster. At least the computers in the 80s were a faster way to do what we could do on paper or with older computers.
I think there is pretty interesting potential for 3D design to be much superior in a stereoscopic interface than the flattened version of it you get on a 2D screen. Consuming anything 3 dimensional has the same potential benefits. Basically, you’re dismissing the third dimension with a wave of your hand. I’d keep that question open until we see more what application there are. People did say that the Mac was NOT an easier way of doing paper things and that they already had good ways of doing all office tasks. Look at how far the Mac has come from its genesis though. And it’s only true feature, at the bottom of it all, was using a mouse visually instead of keyboard commands. An interface style that was more intuitive and made things discoverable. Virtual computing can easily be as big a jump as that.
It doesn’t solve any problems that you have thought of yet. There may be some cool stuff that none of us thought of that we’ll find has become a part of our daily life in the future.
I’m not buying one but I’m glad they are working on stuff like this. It’s a fully portable, wearable 3D computer system. We didn’t use to have cool stuff like that and now we do.
Yeah but that was 36 years ago and that’s not a trivial amount of time to wait for something to be x
I feel like something like this truly won’t go mainstream until two things happen:
- they need to be smaller and have a battery life closer to that of current smart phones
- they need to look waaaay less wonky. I mean most people would be embarrassed to wear this goofy ass looking thing in public. Don’t even get me started on the goofy digital eyeballs on the front. There’s a good reason this is the first apple product ever that the presenter didn’t use on stage, cause he would look like an idiot and they knew it.
Once that happens I think they’ll explode in popularity. If they can make them look closer to just reading glasses or something with a 5 hr battery life at a bare minimum, everyone will want them. Obviously it would help a lot if they weren’t $3,500 too lmao
The glasses thing will not happen for a long time, the are just too many limitations with the form factor.
On the other hand, Bigscreen’s HMD looks and feels way better than the toasters we’re accustomed to strapping to our faces. For that alone, I considered switching from the Index.
What we can hope is that Apple will somewhat normalize VR gear usage and push it further mainstream. They’re really good at this and the VR industry could use some more competition. Now, only if they wouldn’t patent every screw in that thing…
It might be a chicken and egg type of problem, but for me it is more about content.
Right now it is mostly just games, but i actually don’t think that is enough to go mainstream. At least on the consumer side i think it needs more diverse content, like maybe live events like concerts and sport events, tours of special places and maybe even regular house viewings.
Actuallly thinking about it, the main issue might be that the content for VR needs to be specifically made. Smartphones for example could take advantage of already existing use cases (websites, mail, text/voice messages and so on). And additionally had more intersections with existing technology.
From discussion I’ve heard by my gen z friends I’m pretty sure apple could sell almost anything and people will buy it and claim it’s the best thing ever. Airpods are treated as jewelery at this point. I will say their phones are decent products but they’re way too locked down for me to ever own one. Great for my parents etc who want something simple
Thinking of Apple kit as Jewelry makes so much sense.
I have a pair of £40 Bluetooth earbuds and recently asked a group of co-workers why they owned Airpods.
They all admitted the sound quality was worse but it has a nifty find my airpod function. Which put me off buying Airpods.
Thinking of them as £200 earrings explains alot. The reason you buy them isn’t for a practical purpose but to be seen in them or look pretty (which is entirely subjective).
Can’t say anything about the regular airpods since I haven’t tried them, but the Pros are unparalleled. Impossible to offer anything near that kind of transparency mode without custom silicon, the competition is stuck with what they can get off the shelf.
