[textadventure]

My point is that they are two very different products with substantially different target audiences.

Now, sure, you can say the Vision Pro was not as big a success as the iPad even if you account for that difference in markets, scale, price ranges, etc. But that doesn't mean it's a total failure either, or that there is no future for the product.

Most people who have a Vision Pro, seem to like it. It's unsurprising that it's not flying off the shelves because at the moment it's little else than an expensive toy, and once the novelty wears off it's not like there is that much to do with it at the moment, it's also seemingly uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time. But like I said, it's not hard to see how it could be getting better with future iterations.

So even if there is no perfect correlation between the shortcomings of the first iPad and the larger shortcomings of the first Vision Pro, there is a correlation.

[johnnyanmac]

putting aside my bitter cynicism of "Apple hype culture": I do think VR just needs to wait for the tech to evolve into the level of ease of "put on snow goggles" before we get wide adoption. But I also am in the camp where I don't see this being a market with desperate demand. The iPad is a great example because in many ways it's the same: some people read religiously on it, other people are artists and they catered to that market. Then others just use it as a "cheap" computer to put in front of a kid.

These are diverse markets, but far from the general market. I think VR/AR will end up the same.

[lapcat]

> These are diverse markets, but far from the general market.

What do you mean by the general market?

iPad has more unit sales than Mac. It's a massive market. The last time Apple reported unit sales, back in 2018, iPad was selling over 43 million units per year.

[lapcat]

> there is a correlation.

I don't see it.