[PKop]

>such opinion would not be worth much

Not thinking a device is even worth trying, let alone buying itself plus 10 games is worth quite a lot in supporting the argument that these devices won't have mass appeal or success, how could it not be?

It's sort of comical that people "completely rejecting the device out of hand" is not "worth much" and somehow a point in your favor. The more that feel this way, the less the device will be successful obviously.

[dns_snek]

> how could it not be?

You're out of touch and confidently betting against Apple -- what's the last product they launched that didn't end up gaining mass market popularity?

Steve Ballmer laughed at the iPhone, too. Not so much these days :)

[PKop]

This is a non-sequitur.

My point was, the more people that don't even have a desire to try VR, the less likely that VR will succeed. Pre-release demand for iPhone was huge. Let's say 100% of people don't even try VR because they have no interest, while in this hypothetical the product is amazing and 100% of people would like if they tried it. The product would still fail.

The point here is "not wanting to try the product" is not a bad argument against it, rather it's more of a proxy for "this is a product solving a problem people don't have" i.e. it reflects low demand. All things being equal, low interest/demand to try it is worse than if there was high demand to try it.

>out of touch

Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.

[dns_snek]

> The point here is "not wanting to try the product" is not a bad argument against it, rather it's more of a proxy for "this is a product solving a problem people don't have" i.e. it reflects low demand.

Now that is a non-sequitur. I agree, but that has nothing to do with my point.

Your lack of interest is a useful data point, but you're just not qualified to comment about the product's mass market appeal. VR is already selling million of headsets annually while it's still in its infancy. That's within an order of magnitude of game consoles like Xbox and Playstation.

> Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.

VR is already moderately successful and with a giant like Apple entering the arena, they will most likely jump start the cycle of ever increasing investment.

If you were following the VR space at all, you'd know that one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play. On the other end, game studios can't afford to invest too much into development because the market isn't large enough to sustain the investment required.

Do you really not see how this could easily be resolved when you have a company like Apple entering the space?

They'll create high quality experiences which will lead to more headset sales, which will make outside investment more economical, which will attract new headset sales and so on.

Your outright dismissal of VR's existing success and lack of understanding of problems that are currently holding back the VR market is why I said that you're out of touch. Apple has more than enough resources to make all of this happen.

[PKop]

I don't think there's been much success at least in comparison to prior computing device forms.

This[0][1] is going to constrain the demand and popularity for sometime, and has so far, along with the price given the physical discomfort (paying a lot to be uncomfortable), with a worse productivity UX compared to keyboards, mice and hiDPI monitors.

>one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play

I could have written these exact words as argument against the entire product class. This self-serving way to frame it sound similar to stating that customers, by their actions, are saying: "There are not enough compelling reasons for me to buy this product". Whether from lack of games or any other feature.

But it hand-waves this fact (that the product does not have enough usable features/content/compelling use cases for produce demand) by assuming game companies or device makes could make these things but have just chosen not to. They should just do it then, since it would sell according to you. Perhaps they have more insight than you? i.e. they're doing what they can, which isn't much. And the market says no thanks.

It's quite obviously possible that the form factor itself is not conducive to producing high quality games that customers are satisfied with or demand in numbers close to other gaming form factors, for the exorbitant cost (both to the device makers and end user).

[0] https://www.the-sun.com/tech/10400743/apple-vision-pro-retur...

[1] https://www.jorgeherskovic.net/apple-vision-nope/

  "It’s uncomfortable for me
  
  In the end, this is what ended up killing it above everything else for me. I can’t wear this thing for extended periods of time.
  This renders every other consideration moot, because if I can’t put it on my face I can’t use it."