[rektide]

Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement (as opposed to some ar/vr/metaverse device), which is something they can deliver that will let users bring their existing apps to the new medium without adaption.

Ideally yes apps should update themselves, tailor the experience. But the main focus so far has been pretty conventional app like experiences, which happen to be hovering in space. Where-as most headsets have tried to create entirely new ecosystems from nothing, and that would have been a huge mountain to climb.

[LegitShady]

I don't think presenting it as a desktop replacement was "smart" so much "the only possible way to justify the asking price", but I don't think its going to work out that way personally. Having tried many VR headsets I can't think of any I want to wear all day.

They can sell 100k of them and crow about being sold out, but I don't think even apple has figured out who this is for - thats what I got from their presentation on it. The only answer they have so far is "people who will spend $3500 on a vr headset" which isn't a use case.

For the most part we got marketing level "watch people emote joy as they do things with this device" and all the use cases sucked.

[charcircuit]

>Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement

It means that now you are competing against desktops which have been iterated upon for decades and have a lot of value already. Instead of standing out by having apps that are only possible in VR people will way if they would rather use the app outside of VR.

[dagmx]

Imho this is the foible of many technical people in that they want to advertise unique use cases.

But the problem is:

1. The people who aren’t already engrossed in the field, don’t have a good view on how to bridge between their current world view and the new one.

2. The people who are already in the space don’t need to be sold on unique cases.

Very few post-jobs-return Apple products show dramatic new use cases even if the product then goes on to enable it, and even if Apple themselves have clearly thought of it.

Their marketing is: this is how you take what you’re already doing into this space. Unique VR experiences only matter to a fringe set of users. The every day mundane stuff is what matters to the rest.

Take the ability to run iPad apps on it natively. VR enthusiasts will scoff at it. The real trick though is that it means you aren’t having to switch devices to do a mundane task, which means more time on each device. That’s what appeals to the bigger market, and has been proven time and time again , because it’s not making them do contortions to use it.

Another issue is thinking that the demographic for sales has to be the demographic for ads. People will reply and say: well the price isn’t for the lay person. To which I’d say, who cares? They’re not the early adopter but they’re still the demographic for who the people buying this will be developing apps and content for.

[charcircuit]

>Unique VR experiences only matter to a fringe set of users

I disagree with this. Why would someone buy a headset instead of use an ipad or desktop? If there is nothing unique to VR why should people put a heavy thing on their head for about the same experience?

>Take the ability to run iPad apps on it natively. VR enthusiasts will scoff at it

No, where have you seen this? Everyone likes the ability to run these apps, but my point is that these apps are not a draw. Most people find it more convenient to use these apps on their phones or tablets.

>To which I’d say, who cares?

Developers care. Most big developers don't care about devices unless they have a large amount of users. Their time is better spent on devices / platforms which have hundreds of millions of users.

[dagmx]

> Why would someone buy a headset instead of use an ipad or desktop? If there is nothing unique to VR why should people put a heavy thing on their head for about the same experience?

Because the experience can still be enhanced by the form factor and be compelling. Watching a movie isn't unique, but watching it on a 100ft display while trapped in a plane is compelling. The entire pitch is progressive experiences, and has been for every product they've shown since the iPhone. Take what you're used to doing and make an experience that progressively scale to the form factors.

> No, where have you seen this?

Countless posts here on HN and in the virtual reality community (like /r/virtualreality) that bemoan the device as a glorified iPad, and hate the amount of 2D windows shown.

> Most big developers don't care about devices unless they have a large amount of users

Big developers will take the risk, and are already doing so. Apple showed off multiple developers like Unity, Disney and more making apps. ( more here https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/developer-tools-to-cr... )

Part of that is that the visionOS allows for progressive experiences, which is not something other HMDs allow for. Developers aren't building an app for visionOS. They're adding to their existing codebases for iOS. Their investment therefore isn't a niche new platform, but the entire ecosystem.

There's a huge first mover advantage in software on these platforms as has been shown by the iPhone where people were going ga-ga over fart apps, and beer drinking apps. Those people made bank because they delivered fun knick-knacks before the market got saturated.

Even looking at other HMDs, it's often the big players and the indie players that move first. The middle of the spectrum are the ones who move last when the ecosystem is there. The Oculus Quest launched with a Star Wars game available.

[rektide]

To me it comes down to which Apple can more reliably deliver, that will see regular use. I have a hard time knowing what unique VR experience would keep people coming back day after day. But we know for a fact people use screens for desktop-like concerns for many hours a day. And we have lots of experience developing those experiences.