3500 is way too much when trying to introduce a new platform. I guess that's the cost of the display (two apple watches) and the chips (a Macbook and a half). But still.
Honestly perplexed why this has seen multiple downvotes. The device features 23 million pixels, or 3x 4K screens. That's 3X the Sony VR2. Over 2X the Vive Pro 2. And of course it's 120x the resolution of an Apple Watch Series 7. The angular resolution approaches the limits of the human eye.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." :)
* https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
The price is not low, but note the "Pro" in the name. I think that the first two versions will be high-end, and in the third generation they will release a Pro and non-Pro variant.
It took until the third-gen iPhone 3G for that product to really hit its stride. Took a few revs for the iWatch as well (IIRC).
I also don't see Apple taking the world by storm with this device, but it probably could fit into the same niche as the AirPod Max, a device that provides what a specific audience wants and won't care that much about what it costs. Which is arguably a sizeable amount of people when it comes to the Apple ecosystem, allowing niche products to survive.
Adjusted for inflation it's actually cheaper than most early computers (Apple II ~6500 to start at launch).
If I had to bet between Meta and Apple getting it right first, I'd probably bet on Meta now, with apple playing catchup as they usually do, and really well. But so far, if Metaverse was a mistake, this is an even larger mistake.