$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
