• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Apple’s headset wasn’t really innovative in any way that mattered. It was just a bad VR headset that meant it was only really suitable for AR.

    • ExLisperA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      As always, Apple waited until the tech matured and tried doing it the right way. It wasn’t innovative but it was the best thing you can make at a price consumes can still afford.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You think consumers can afford an Apple headset? I’d argue one of the reasons it failed is that it was completely unaffordable.

        • ExLisperA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          It was on the verge of affordability. Definitely not something average consumer would buy but achievable for the upper-middle class. I was also aimed at professionals and if a device can you help do your work faster it’s a great investment. The problem was it didn’t let people work faster because despite all the tech it still sucked.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I think it was way over the verge, in fact, a few verges over in another verge entirely.

            If a device can help you do your work faster it might be a great investment based on how much faster it can help you do your work. For a $3500 USD investment, the Apple AR headset would have had to make you massively more productive to justify that up-front cost, or it would have to be something you could expect to last for decades while you paid off that up-front cost with increased productivity.