Hacker News Reader

Comment by getmeinrn | Hacker News Reader

Calling it now, the failure of this Apple product is going to be a big turning point for the company. Apple is supposed to be the company that sets trends, but instead they're following Meta down a path that has now shown to be a dead end, and no amount of aesthetics or marketing can prevent it.

View on HN

It’s possible, but I see a use case for this as a replacement monitor for my Mac, plus a lot more. If this were $2k I’d get one immediately, assuming an in-store demo is not disappointing.

I have never had any interest in Meta products (partly because of their affiliation with FB).

> as a replacement monitor for my Mac

Have you every worn literally anything for 2+ hours on your head. Even glasses get uncomfortable after a day

Lots of glass wearers aren't bother by glasses at all.

The key point is temperature and weight. No data on either, yet.

On the other hand , others shove their fingers into their eyes chasing around a loose contact behind their eyeball because the prospect of glasses is in their mind even worse of an experience.

I'm not 100% confident that I could wear these all day, but I wear my Airpods Pro all day long and they're heavy. I can wear my ski googles most of the day. Building a VR headset that can be worn for a few hours straight and are all-day comfortable seems possible.

> Have you every worn literally anything for 2+ hours on your head. Even glasses get uncomfortable after a day

Some of us don't have the luxury of removing glasses after 2 hours, so... Yeah, I've worn something on my face for 16+ hours a day, so I can see.

> Some of us don't have the luxury of removing glasses after 2 hours, so... Yeah

Exactly! You're making my point, people do not want that unless they're forced to

I wear glasses (big plastic ones even) nearly every waking hour and don't consider them uncomfortable at all. They're fine.

I think there is probably a non trivial gap in terms of how comfortable it is to wear a VR helmet vs a pair of glasses

s/they're forced to/they get value out of it/

People wear things on their face 16 hours a day because they provide value. A portable substitute for a monitor that also supports arbitrary multitasking and immersion is (potentially) valuable.

This. I'm imagining having my triple 27-inch 4K displays on the go with my MacBook while also being compact and fit into my computer bag.

$3500 for that? I'm game. I paid more than that for my home desk and just the ability of having a massive display at my disposal on the go makes that price tag look no brainer.

Honestly I'm shocked it's only $3500

Have you purchased a headset before? If so, what has been your experience, if not, why not?

Good point. I am wondering if they can make the environment immersive enough that you don't notice the weight as much. Sort of like how roller skates are heavy and cumbersome when you're walking around outside the rink, but when you're on the rink you don't notice that because they enable you to move so easily. And yes, I realize how badly I'm dating myself with this analogy.

VA in Canada considers wearing a load greater than 2 kg as a risk for developing neck conditions, and notes NVG wear as an example (1).

(1) https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/health-support/physical-healt...

Has it been a dead end because of no demand, or has there been no demand because of the poor UX?

How many times are we seriously going to say

> the failure of this Apple product is going to be a big turning point for the company

and then Apple go on to make a billion dollars on it?

Feels like you're just rewriting history. Apple product launches have had way more excitement in the past. A clip of Steve Balmer saying people won't buy iPhones isn't evidence of an overall sentiment.

Why would it be a turning point if the product fails? Couldn't they just amputate and operate the business as usual?

100% agreed. This is going to be the point in history that people will remember when Apple went too far and how it destroyed the company...or destroyed the Apple as we know it today.

I've understood every single Apple product so far (with some small exceptions) but this is just DOA. People are used to thinking that Apple doesn't go into a product space unless they can really nail it in terms of implementation and pricing.

There is no excuse for 3499. This product is dead. If they can't manufacture it any cheaper they should have never done it.

It may or may not be a dud but I’ve no idea how even a resounding failure could ‘destroy’ a company as profitable and with as successful a product as the iPhone.

Destroy the company how? They have tens or hundreds of billions in cash. Couldn't they just discontinue the product and move on if it flops?

What makes you think they can’t manufacture it cheaper?

I see this price as a way of earning a healthy profit off early adopters and allowing them time to get third party apps developed before they announce a Vision (non pro) for $1000-2000 that flys off the shelves

Reply on news.ycombinator.com