[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.

[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.