Device looks promising, and I wonder if they plan to allow 2 devices to show the same content simultaneously to say watch 3D movies with someone else in the same room.
Some say $3499 is a high price, but being able to carry huge design studio with you is heck of a value to me.
I think this headset has potential, but we're definitely not there with the first generation.
The Quest 3 is $499. This headset looks GREAT but is it really 7X greater than the Quest 3?
> When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB hard drive cost US$5,498 (equivalent to $14,160 in 2022). With a 13-inch color monitor and 8-bit display card the price was around US$7,145 (equivalent to $18,400 in 2022).
Even the Commodore 64 was expensive [2]:
> Volume production started in early 1982, marketing in August for US$595 (equivalent to $1,800 in 2022).
If the experience is worth it and there's no cheaper competitor, people have the money for these things.
And honestly, as a big user of the Quest 2 -- the Quest 3 isn't anywhere close to the same ballpark as this. Apple Vision Pro looks absolutely more than 7x better, the only question is whether it's worth it for you.
I’ll buy it at $3,500, but not at $9,999
Just because there's tech in something doesn't make them a tech product. Your microwave oven probably has tech built in, doesn't make it a 'not appliance.'
As a golfer I can assure you plenty of people will happily spend that amount and more on their hobby.
This isn't remarkable or xReal.
That said, it'll still be higher than the current VR headsets and I expect many people will find it sufficient for their work.
First it has to not bomb.
Enter the story of the Nintendo Power Glove.