This just isn't a very good analogy, but I understand the temptation to use it. Everyone knew what a smartphone was for in 2007. Sure, many underestimated what was possible with capacitive touch and a full-fledged browser, and others doubted whether Apple could compete with the big phone players, but we understood the problems it was solving. I had a Motorola Q and a few guys at work had HTC Moguls and similar, and we all had Palm Pilots/Handsprings and MP3 players before that. The iPhone did not require a behavioral change. It simply and smoothly consolidated the devices we already used.
I see nothing of the sort for the VP. We aren't running around trying to do what it does, but in more awkward ways. The predecessor devices aren't in wide use. In fact, it sounds from comments here like most are collecting dust and judgement on their usefulness has already been passed. No one can articulate a use for them other than for gaming and using large screens; and speaking for myself, I will not be coding large projects with heavy, sweaty, tethered goggles on my head. Same for video editing. I've also seen the medical/surgical debate in other threads; and, no, without FDA approval these won't be used for that. So, that leaves us with games, an area where Apple doesn't really seem serious.
As a stockholder, I will gladly eat crow if I am wrong, but this doesn't feel like the iPhone introduction at all. It feels more like the HomePod - no actual improvement in personal assistant technology, home use only, cheaper more versatile options abound. They will sell them like they sell HomePods, but as smartphones become more and more indistinguishable commodities, it will not be their bridge to the next mass market device.
