I lost you at "not 27". Ridiculing the VP by saying Apple has only sold (insert small number) is a cheap shot that lessens the impact of your other comments. It's not clever or insightful. Sadly, it's something I often see here on MacRumors.
“I remember when i saw a brick phone. I was like no way people wanna carry a cell phone with them when they leave the house. There’s a house phone for a reason! This new cell phone technology is never going to take off”
I wonder what the percentage of people think like this vs a more visionary approach. I am starting to realise it is a lot more than I thought, as this site is supposed to be a tech site really, and the amount of negativity is astounding.
I have felt the same way especially ever since the Vision Pro came out. I’ve seen the progression of technology over my 41 years of life and I’ve seen the same reactions over and over again and it’s got to the point where it’s exhausting.
I agree with everything you say, and think in an identical way (and a few years older, but basically have seen all the same tech growing up).
What I don't get are the people who seem to be on a crusade against certain Apple products (or against Apple in general). I understand fans and enthusiasts geeking out, and I understand people expressing a critical subjective opinion when the subject is brought up, and I even understand that people often don't understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, but what perplexes me is the devotion that some people display by spending their limited time on Earth seeking out and commenting on every thread regarding a specific product they dislike with the goal of convincing others they're wrong to like it. Unless they're getting paid to do this, what a waste of time/life.
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
I wouldn't clump AR and VR together into the same technology or market (although there is some overlap). Quest is almost entirely a VR device which is all about games. VR has also been around for a long time and has never gained much traction. AR is mostly about productivity and convenience, and it's a much newer technology and device category. In its current early state I don't think AR can be mainstream, but I think it's too early to determine it a closed door. I don't think VR will ever take off unless maybe it's attached to AR.
Is the essential question about marketing or is it about technology investment? It seems to me that many here want the AVP to meet some immediate marketing goal, said marketing goal as defined by folks who have never deeply studied marketing and tech. I disagree.
AR market is a lot smaller than VR market. At this point, it's just a matter of time before Apple ditch their own product.
The AR market is smaller than VR because it's an immature technology compared to VR and requires better tech and is therefore more expensive. Like I said, in its current form it will remain small. But being new and still developing, the question is will it (and specifically Apple's Vision line) develop enough over time to become mainstream. Who knows, you may turn out to be right that it won't, but it's too early to make an informed prediction in my opinion. This is in contrast to VR which has had a long time to develop and as far as I know is a mature product category.
Just because Apple is huge and makes huge profits selling huge amounts of tech devices into huge tech markets does not mean that Apple should only invest in making huge volume sales; quite the contrary. AVP is exactly the kind of tech that an Apple needs to invest R&D into and sell into, even if the markets involved are much smaller than devices like iPhones sell into.
It's immature cause they have no solutions without needs. No needs = No use. Besides, imagine who would wanna put a huge computer on their heads.
Apple made AVP without a plan. At the beginning, they advertised it for consumers while it's B2B's grade price which proves they have no idea what they were doing with it.
100K only proves it's a total failure. Meta sold more than 40 million in 2024 alone and yet, they admitted themselves as failure cause literally nobody keeps using it. That's why Meta ditched their plan with Meta Quest series as they lose more than 75 billion dollars after all. What's the point of selling a lot of them if they dont use them?
Please, reread my post that you reference. Meta and Quest and games and VR have almost nothing to do with Apple's AVP tech, and short term sales are very much not the point. The point is: Should financially successful $4t tech firms invest R&D and exploratory marketing into tech like AVP, in fact specifically into AVP? I say obviously yes.
Then I suggest you to search first cause games are the biggest market for VR. That's how small it is when other markets are not even considered for VR. Even then, Meta failed. And clearly, $3500 price range is for B2B or professional devices. Apple NEVER advertised AVP as B2B or Pro devices at all and now, you are calling it successful? Whatever you are claiming is like a fan boy's logic: Doesn't make sense at all.
Still it seems you either have not read my posts or fail to grasp my points. VR, games, Meta, etc. are not at all the point. The point is tech and whether or not AVP represents tech that Apple should invest R&D in. Not "cause games are the biggest market for VR." What happened in the 2020 VR market space is irrelevant. Sheesh.
Then their tech failed. They failed to find the right market which is already niche and yet price it too high as if you can buy B2B or Pro devices. It was Apple who sold it with B2B or Pro price tag to consumers for average uses. Do you still dont get the point?
