-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney, VR/AR, and Apple's WWDC 2023
- Thread starter lentesta
- Start date
My wife and I like to watch movies together.
So I suppose you have to spend 7k to do that ?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
The problem with roping gaming companies in is, they like to make money.
I'm sure Apple will be able to get ports off other VR platforms and maybe their hardware will do a better job of porting stuff that currently requires tethered PC support but one of the big things holding back this industry so far has been support for a wide array of quality content.
Most companies are reluctant to invest heavy resources in a market that's currently so much smaller than the game consoles.
With Apple, unless they buy studios or are willing to heavily subsidize development costs for exclusives, I am having a hard time seeing how they'll get these third parties on board until after it's sold millions of units.
Developing and competing in the VR/AR market isn't the same as trying to launch your indy 99 cent game made by one or two people, in the app store a decade or more ago. This market has already matured beyond that point so it won't be as easy as the original iPhone/iPod touch app market which was an entirely new sort of thing when it launched.
I mean, there is the "this is Apple so this is going to be amazeballs - they'll be on the ground floor!" argument but that's irrational consumer sentiment - it's not usually the kind of thinking established businesses bet the farm on.
Unless there are a lot of potential customers, companies don't want to invest and no matter how well-heeled the customers of Apple's new device are, if there are only a couple million or less of them over the next couple years, that's not much of a market for projects that can cost tens of millions of dollars to develop over multiple years.
For this reason, I suspect Apple made a deal that involves money or other unrelated considerations with Disney to get their support.
Why else would we be seeing something like "Iger announced that the Disney+ streaming platform will be available on day one of Apple Vision Pro." when the Meta Quest launched in 2019, has sold over 20 million units, is perfectly capable of working as a streaming device and still doesn't have a Disney+ app?*
Unless Apple's giving them something, why would Disney prioritize a $3,500 device not targeted at mass consumers that, apparently by Apple's own expectations, will take years to sell single-digit millions for Disney's own mass consumer service over an existing mass consumer device with a much larger consumer base built in and with potential to sell many more headsets in the near future based on price, alone?**
*Many companies have cited Meta's small (20 million) user-base as a reason for not prioritizing their platform and other streaming services have actually dropped or reduced support after the initial hype because they don't see enough interest to justify it. This could all change in the future but the future isn't here yet and given Iger's focus on reducing costs, this seems like a move in the opposite direction with support for a device that doesn't offer them current potential for more sales of their service, either.
**Meta's expecting the Apple announcement to help them sell more of their headsets at 1/7 to nearly 1/12 the price Apple's charging. They aren't the same, of course, but that price gap, especially at a time when economists are still arguing over whether or not we are headed into a recession is... Well, it's somethin'.
Last edited:
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Can’t afford a Disney vacation anymore? Don’t worry…now you can visit it from your living room with something else you probably can’t afford.
Order now and receive one stale churro….BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE…we’ll throw in a 50th celebration merch item because we still have so much we haven’t sold!
(Note: VR Genie+ and ILL for sold separately and booking begins at 7am. Be sure to have a VR park reservation as well)
Order now and receive one stale churro….BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE…we’ll throw in a 50th celebration merch item because we still have so much we haven’t sold!
(Note: VR Genie+ and ILL for sold separately and booking begins at 7am. Be sure to have a VR park reservation as well)
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
It could be or it could just be Apple's way of justifying why it will cost 7x the price of the Quest 3 also coming out this year and promising something similar (but probably not as good and definetly not as Apple-like) in the way of their own pass-through features.
I mean, the glass front, the aluminum frame, custom quality components, and a high degree of engineering and UI consideration along with not being sold as a loss-leader - there are a number of obvious reasons to anyone familiar with this space that help explain why it's so much more expensive than much* of the competition but none of that is going to be obvious to first-time buyers who have likely never even worn a headset before.
The hardest selling point for this entire industry is, unless you've tried it, it's hard to grasp the appeal.** You can't show a video of someone with a headset on or rectangular image representing your view inside it as representations of the actual experience.
*There actually are a few that are more - like a lot more than this but they're marketed more for industrial use.
**This is where Apple's hype machine has the potential to raise all ships.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…it wasn’t my “first” thought…but it definitely got a medal
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
How much harder is to “demo” things in the retail space now than it was 4 years ago?
That seems like a significant challenge
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Absolutely!
Especially something like this.
We were at Universal yesterday and my son asked why all the people at the end of the rides who take the glasses all were wearing face masks (and a lot of them, gloves) when almost none of the others in the parks were.
I had to think about it for a minute but it made sense - they were collecting something fresh directly off thousands of strangers' faces.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yep…
And remember those people at universal are the poors…awaiting their new $5 billion dollar park.
They’re not “luxury” like the 1971 contemporary “club level”…with jack Jack decals in the hallways
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Meh... I'm betting that at the least, they've gotten a lot of resources and assistance from Apple in developing their day-one stuff for the platform.
It wouldn't shock me at all if Apple paid 100% of the development costs for that inaugural Disney+ app.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…If you want Jessica rabbit to jump in?…
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I’m not sure the fruit is the one needed to kiss the in this scenario?
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Shhh, Cap knows everything about anything and if you don't believe me just ask him.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Hard to say but it would seem pretty sleazy for Iger to be talking about the need to cut billions while simultaneously investing in a platform that isn't even projected to break a million users in its first year.
I mean, there's no reason Disney couldn't have joined the fold after it was a successful product when the customers were actually there to use it, right?
It feels like having Disney there was more valuable to Apple than the other way around... or at least it should have been but I guess it depends on how much ego played in all of that, eh?
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Long story short, because this is Apple and they don't do that.
Ask yourself, why they sell the most expensive phones but also need a 30% cut of 3rd party developer revenues from their locked-in app stores.
Microsoft and Sony famously sell their gaming hardware for less than it costs them to manufacture, ship and market it and while Nintendo refuses to do that, they still usually sell at break-even or razor thin margins for the same effect.
Apple expects to profit heavily both from the device sales as well as a lifetime of 3rd party software sales in their walled garden where you, the customer and access to you, are the product being sold to developers.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yeah…that doesn’t track at all
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Hey now! D+ has plenty of users - it's a profitable business model they don't currently have.Yeah…that doesn’t track at all
.. oh, you were talking about that other thing.
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many people here remember or even experienced the original iPhone.I bought AAPL 10 minutes after the iPhone was announced…
How’d I do?
Only a handful of 1st party apps, no third party apps*, slow network (despite other phones with less need, already supporting a faster one), a largely broken web where many sites still needed flash and none were optimized for mobile, crappy battery life, no carrier subsidies - I could go on.
... and none of that stuff were obvious problems from what you got in the famous keynote.
Compared to the 3g with the app store that launched along side it just a year later, that first phone was garbage... very expensive garbage.
It changed everything but it was still expensive garbage.
I wouldn't be shocked if history repeated itself, here.
I also wouldn't be shocked if it didn't.
*Steve Jobs didn't even start out wanting 3rd parties to be able to develop for it. I remember the notes app being one of the most amazing things on it, having come from a "smart phone" that already had a full keyboard and access to email. It got 3rd party access just like the 3G a year after release but that was only as a result of consumer/developer push-back.
Last edited: