Hacker News Reader

Comment by emptysongglass | Hacker News Reader

But it doesn't matter. All of the reasons in the world for how expensive it is don't make a difference to the result: it's still too expensive.

Costs must go down before they'll see the kind of units moving they need to fund development.

View on HN

For reference, our breakeven sales target is 892 headsets (or $2.4M in sales). We recently made a blog post outlining our unit cost model in more detail.[1] At the time, we were still planning on using Kickstarter, so the model has changed somewhat. We ultimately decided to host our own campaign to save on Kickstarter fees (passing down a $100 discount on headset prices).

Also: for an additional headset discount, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30441697

[1] https://simulavr.com/blog/kickstarter-pricing/

Simula is working on a paradigm shift of computing. We're looking at the price and comparing it to buying a smartphone or gaming console. The Simula device doesn't aspire to be a secondary device. It wants to be a primary device, replacing your laptop.

The closest device in comparison to this one is not a Quest 2 or even a Valve Index. Those are both secondary devices that do not offer anything other than canned, theme-park-like experiences that sit completely aside the rest of your computer. The closest competing device is actually a HoloLens 2. HoloLens with Windows Holographic is the only device on the market that has support for a general purpose computing interface. And HoloLens 2s are still US$3500/ea.

Whether you agree a VR computer as a primary device is a good thing is a different issue.

Not really, their break even (and by that, I mean ideal bulk pricing of components) for units sold is under 1000 units. The Simula one is not trying to sell 100k units. If you think thats the case, your expectations are wrong.

Re (software) development: Yes it will need funding, but it's there right now https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula and is agnostic/works with any openXR headset.

It is definitely too expensive for broad adoption, but maybe it doesn't need broad adoption?

I might buy one if I could find a way to experience it first.

We'll be able to have reviewable prototype units in a few months. Depending on how many critical components (displays, primarily) we have we might be able to set up some way to test it for non-reviewers.

Nice!

Based on your wording, seems like you are involved with the project?

If so, I love the idea you all are chasing.

As a software developer, I've often thought about how great it would be to be able to take my setup with me without having to compromise on display. The current generation HMD is obviously not the end-game everyone is looking for, but you all obviously get the paradigm.

Yes, I'm the other co-founder (David)

I'd strongly suggest having a public demo day somewhere, with a note dropped on HN and maybe a couple of other target-rich environments. Even just camping outside of Coupa with a couple of headsets for a workday will get a couple hundred people to see the unit, and I suspect that you'll get better conversion for that effort than most other things you could attempt.

I'm super, super interested in this type of product, but it's about 4x outside of my casual toy budget. Based on experience with other VR and AR headsets I'm not comfortable putting down the money until I see the optics myself.

Same argument was made against Tesla. Now, nearly every auto maker has a more affordable electric car offering because of them.

But it doesn't matter. All of the reasons in the world for how expensive it is don't make a difference to the result: it's still too expensive. Costs must go down before they'll see the kind of units moving they need to fund development.

Seems to work for Apple. All they have to do is provide a superior product. That's the hard part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com