Magic Leap’s cheapest headsets will cost as much as a high-end phone | Hacker News Reader

Magic Leap’s cheapest headsets will cost as much as a high-end phone

theverge.com

10 pointstegeek10 comments

So the comments here so far seem to be lamenting the price, which is kind of ironic given the crowd this place draws.

The (possible) price range given is somewhere between $1-2000. Yes that's high but not obscenely so. Infact I'd guess a majority of you spend that on a yearly/bi yearly basis on a certain laptop for its brand merit and half that yearly for the latest phone "upgrade".

Let's face it though, the price isn't going to be an issue for the early adopters and any techie, or "nerd" really worth his salt can see the potential of this tech. That's not to say that this specific device has that potential, after all Magic Leap has been less than forthcoming, they've made some claims and not really backed them up. At the moment, they don't need to. Sure it could be a scheme to suck money from investors and swindle early adopters, but it could just as well be excellent marketing. Either way they've certainly generated a buzz.

They also mentioned it could be a replacement for a phone and why not? Integrate a 4/5G sim and your golden, though I can't see even the most hardcore wearing these things for ~14 hours a day perhaps it could be some sort of external BT connected lightweight minimal device - after all what's a phone? A speaker, a microphone and a cellular connection. That would open up the possibility for the "average" user to get it much the same way they get their $1000 dollar iphone, subsidized at 20-30 a month.

Fact is, we won't know until it's out in the wild and the hands of hackers/developers for 6 months. Fact is that one day this kind of tech will be ubiquitous.

I'll believe it when they actually ship something. But seriously, the initial target audience for this is "first-wave application developers". The closest competition, Microsoft's Hololens, costs $3k. It shouldn't be priced like a consumer device, and it won't be.

"the high cost is justified because over time, a Magic Leap headset can replace “your phones, your televisions, your laptops, your tablets, which add up to thousands of dollars"

Does he even believe this? Even by marketing standards, this is a stretch

From what I’ve read, especially on Karl Guttag’s blog, Magic Leap is a sort of running joke. They’ve pivoted to make something a bit less useful than Hololens, with a patent history that reads like a fever dream. Bullshitting about the price after so many outright lies abou fiber scanning nonsense seems tame.

Ipad - $220

Macbook Air - $900

iPhone 8 - $700

While anyone buying this will likely have all 3 of these (or similar) I can't imagine buying an untested beta version hardware device instead of the three above items. Those 3 devices would actually come in less in all likelihood. The HTV Vive is already supported with a fairly robust ecosystem and this hasn't even made it to the "creator edition" yet. It would be awesome if this is as amazing as they say it is but frankly its probably another Clinkle type company.

So they want to charge $2000 to $3000 for their AR headset. I think they are getting high off their own dope.

If they are smarter, then they would aim for the $500 to $1000 range.

When the iPad was first announced, all the pundits mocked it. But the reason why it was so successful with consumers, was its $500 entry level price tag.

If they charge $2000 to $3000 for this device, then they are going to just shoot themselves in the head. This thing is dead-on-arrival.

This AR, as "magical" as it might be, will not become mass market at these insanely high prices.

And, there is a reason why people buy televisions. Often times, it is to just have a social experience at home, to share with the family. Everyone can watch the same show together. The Magic Leap AR is not a social device. Even the picture of Shaq modeling it, looks alien and unsocial.

Everyone needs a phone. And the iPhone has taken over the high end segment. And the Androids have taken over the low end segment. But, not everyone needs a Magic Leap AR headset.

Then, Apple will come out with their own AR device for $700, and wipe them out. I'll wait to see what Apple has up their sleeves.

This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again?

People balk at paying more than $1k for a phone, but most people would assume you're scamming them if you sold them a new car for $5k.

That said, I don't agree with the pricing of this: In an immature market where the difference between a high/low end product isn't discernable, trying to get someone to pay a large amount of money just to bet on it isn't a great idea.

> This begs the question, will we ever value certain pieces of technology in the same way we value a house, or a car, as a longer term investment that you pay quality for, so you don't have to go back and buy again?

It's only just recently you can buy a computer and not expect to replace it in 2-3 years. Not just by the fact things break, but that everything would have moved far passed you by then.

Obviously it doesn't make sense for people in general to value technology as a long-term investment, when the technology itself isn't even remotely long-term (at the consumer level). But obviously too, when technology stabilizes, and we stop seeing absurd improvements over short units of time, then it'll naturally progress to longer -term value. When you can't sell on dramatically better features, then you'll sell for reliability, consistency and durability.

Or you'll lock it down, strangle/monopolize the market, and add features on your own clock, hopefully postponing the plateau far into the horizon

we'll see

Ironically though, equipment that is supposed to last a long time and hasn't progressed that much over the years are lasting shorter. Examples are cars, microwaves, fridges, washing machines, etc. Recent cars for example on average malfunction quicker than ones 20 years ago.

So in that sense, technology that does not progress fast does not necessarily improve reliability

You're wrong about cars. They might need more specialized maintenance, but they are much better than they were 20 years ago.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com