[DetroitThrow]

>The only people I can see buying the device are rich people looking for another toy, not as a serious competitor to other entertainment tech.

I'm surprised at how consistently people think that a technology that is so expensive and serving such a niche will end up having adoption asides from a few wealthy enthusiasts. iPhone 2 suggested retail price was $300 (~$425 in todays dollars) and provided "smart" replacement for your cell phone matching its features 1-to-1 while also providing more than what was available.

If someone imagines themselves buying this to watch movies "on the go" or at hotels or something, they're part of an extremely exclusive club.

[ac29]

> iPhone 2 suggested retail price was $300 (~$425 in todays dollars)

This was back when most phones were still carrier subsidized and required long term service contracts. Per Apple's press release, the $299 pricing required "a new two year contract with AT&T". Unsubsidized price was about double.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/06/09Apple-Introduces-th...

[ok123456]

It's 10x the cost of an entry Oculus device. And no one wants that either.

[pwthornton]

Meta Quest's are basically video game devices. It's a much different market than AVP.

Meta is selling hundreds of thousands of units a month, so I don't know if I'd say no one wants it either. It seems to be selling pretty well overall, but Meta way overinvested in some of the stuff and is having a hard time making enough money.

[ok123456]

They're both primarily for media consumption.

Just because one device is from Apple doesn't make media consumption any more virtuous or productive.

[LordDragonfang]

The Quest 2 has sold 5-10x as many units as the first iphone did. Apples to oranges, but that's not no one.