| > But they were widely used by business people, and I’m assuming that was an important aspect of permeating into the other demographics. Similarly to how VR headsets are used by gamers and tech enthusiasts today. Just like VR for gaming, not everyone was willing to pay exhorbitant prices to lug around a briefcase of a phone, and use it only for poor quality phone calls. > AR/VR devices are attempting this the other way around: their current use cases seem to be mostly recreational, and we are hoping they will eventually come up with some productivity use cases. Sure, but the actual current use case doesn't matter. Once the capabilities, price and user experience improve, it will become more appealing to a mass audience. Think of the iPhone: there were certainly devices that had the same functionality of "an iPod, a phone, and an internet mobile communicator" before it. But Apple saw the right opportunity when the tech got good and cheap enough to vastly improve the user experience and expand the capabilities beyond just a mobile phone. It's what they're good at. > Someone in this thread talked about how they are surprised that tablets have sort of flopped But tablets didn't flop. They got merged into 2-in-1s, foldables, "phablets", etc. They've certainly replaced laptops for many users. The only reason productivity is limited on devices like the iPad is because Apple wants to, for whatever reason (possibly to avoid cannibalizing sales of their other products?). But the iPad is still selling well, AFAIK, and many professionals use it. Google and Android never prioritized the tablet form factor, so it understandably lags behind. So productivity is restricted mostly because of software, and the touch interface makes it more suitable for consuming content. If you need to be productive and the software is not a problem, you add a mouse and keyboard, and there's your 2-in-1. |
I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I think you've missed their point here.
Market penetration of mobile phones was (initially) driven by the advantages they provided as a work tool. This growing market that was willing to pay helped drive the cost vs. utility down to the point where non-business use cases became viable.
Goggles with screens in them have had a very different history. There are exceedingly few people/careers who have gotten a good ROI from buying and using a headset, so most sales are driven by entertainment (and a small number of enthusiasts).
Apple (and Meta) can definitely continue to subsidize the development of this technology to bring the price down, but expanding from a niche market for entertainment devices to a market of professional tools is the opposite of what's worked for new technologies in the past.