I dunno, have you tried an Apple Vision Pro? It's actually a pretty phenomenal product for V1. I think really all they need to do is: (1) hit retina-tier PPD (pixels-per-degree) and (2) manage the weight, (3) do everything they're already doing, and I'm sold as a replacement for TVs & Desktop monitors.
None of that will help, it has to be able to do something people want to do. Only us on tech forums care about the actual specs and how cool the tech is.
What can a person do in a Vision Pro that they're willing to spend $1000+ on that they can't do in a $300-$500 Quest?
It can't replace TVs and monitors because only one person can use it at a time
Maybe stop wearing makeup, it's bad for your skin and doesn't make you better at your job unless your job is BS anyway. Legacy product of a chauvinist era.
Furthermore, your argument means all VR headsets are inherently anti-female, which is the craziest take I've ever heard.
If your product needs people to stop wearing makeup and agreeing that it's chauvinistic, it's dead in the water.
Just admit there is nowhere near the needed public excitement or uptake about any AR/VR headset, esp. the Apple Vision Pro which has pretty much nothing to do on it but watch movies and TV and use the laptop / desktop you already own
Roughly $20-30B in investment by Apple to build the Apple Vision Pro over roughly the course of half a decade is disagreeing with you. That's an insane investment into a product category with "no public excitement or uptake about any AR/VR headset."
I didn't bring up makeup, btw. I just thought it was an absurd argument. It has nothing to do with whether the product succeeds or fails in the long run, which is precisely what I'm talking about.
Yes, the AVP store is pretty scant at the present moment. But regardless, I would absolutely explore the feasibility of replacing my TV, my desktop monitors with an AR/VR headset if it met the tech specs I listed above. I'd much rather have a 70' screen viewing experience for movies, or gaming.
Btw, why did Valve announce the Steam Frame this last week if the AR/VR market is dead? Why are companies like Virtuix, Disney developing omnidirectional treadmills for more physical VR exploration? Why are companies like Meta working to develop surface electromyography tech, electro-tactile solutions to simulate the sensation of touching physical objects in VR?
Maybe all this money being spent on a non-existent market segment is a product of a fucked economic hierarchy where the rich have so much money they can blow it all on projects that will never reach massive scale, which is an argument I'd actually listen to.
Billions and billions have been invested in failures. What kind of argument is this? Is Horizon Worlds by Meta a resounding success? It cost billions to make as well.
You can do anything you want. The average consumer is not going to flock in droves to the AVP which cannot do anything special its cheaper competition cannot do, and which cannot replace TVs (because those can be used by more than one person at a time as I said already and you didn't reply to).
Metas Display Ray Bans and Quest. Maybe even Steam Frame, those all have an audience: regular people or gamers. Who is the audience for AVP? Pretty much only tech spec nerds on these forums like you and I. That's a dead product, imo
I dunno, have you tried an Apple Vision Pro? It's actually a pretty phenomenal product for V1. I think really all they need to do is: (1) hit retina-tier PPD (pixels-per-degree) and (2) manage the weight, (3) do everything they're already doing, and I'm sold as a replacement for TVs & Desktop monitors.