Disney, VR/AR, and Apple's WWDC 2023

[adam.adbe]

That said, I believe Apple has said the Vision Pro will just work™ with existing iPhone/ipad apps so if they’re just going to have the mobile app not optimized for “spacial computing” just there on a floating slab, I suppose Disney wouldn’t actually have to develop anything for it to have it there and maybe that’ll be why D+ ends up there first.

I imagine Disney had access to a lot of Apple Developer time, and as you say, the money may well have flowed in both directions.

As for how easy it is to develop for Apple Vision: I played with the fake desktop test framework mostly just to keep up with things, and the learning curve for anyone who has ever done iOS development is predictably shallow, and many trivial interfaces can be ported with little effort.

 

[adam.adbe]

I think that's always going to be a small minority. Wearing a headset requires completely isolating yourself from your surroundings.

That's the whole point of AR; you *aren't* isolated. Vision Pro is just a goofy-assed ski-mask version of Google Glass without the creep aspect. If you want to block the world out, you can; just like you can with noise cancelling headphones. If you want to let the world in a little, you can do that too; just like with some newer noise cancelling headphones.

It's too early to say whether any of this really has a market, but it's far too early to write the field off based on last decade's tech.

 

[JD80]

It still baffles me that there's a belief that any significant number of people are ever going to purchase/use VR headsets in large quantities for something as simple as watching TV/movies.

It's a less usable and more expensive version of existing technology. There are good uses for VR headsets, but that isn't one of them -- not to suggest there aren't people who will use it this way, but it's not going to be the reason to buy one for the vast majority.

I believe the market for TV/Movie headsets is massive assuming the pricepoint and the software are on par with a normal home theatre. You just need infrastructure for it.

Imagine being able to watch a sporting event from any POV in the stadium? Be part of the crowd, the excitement. Watching the superbowl or a heavy weight bout? NASCAR?

Filming techniques would have to change, and get much better, but being in the middle of a movie rather than an observer?

There are a lot of things that could propel VR tv/movie viewing to another level, but the infrastructure, cameras etc need to catch up to the idea, at least from a cost perspective.

 

[UNCgolf]

That's the whole point of AR; you *aren't* isolated. Vision Pro is just a goofy-assed ski-mask version of Google Glass without the creep aspect. If you want to block the world out, you can; just like you can with noise cancelling headphones. If you want to let the world in a little, you can do that too; just like with some newer noise cancelling headphones.

It's too early to say whether any of this really has a market, but it's far too early to write the field off based on last decade's tech.

I think you're agreeing with me -- I pointed out that I see a much bigger future for AR than for VR.

 

[UNCgolf]

I believe the market for TV/Movie headsets is massive assuming the pricepoint and the software are on par with a normal home theatre. You just need infrastructure for it.

Imagine being able to watch a sporting event from any POV in the stadium? Be part of the crowd, the excitement. Watching the superbowl or a heavy weight bout? NASCAR?

Filming techniques would have to change, and get much better, but being in the middle of a movie rather than an observer?

There are a lot of things that could propel VR tv/movie viewing to another level, but the infrastructure, cameras etc need to catch up to the idea, at least from a cost perspective.

The problem is that none of that solves the underlying issue of isolation. Just as one example (of many), lots of people like watching sports in groups with friends; watching in VR eliminates that (at least to an extent -- there are ways around it but they almost invariably seem lesser experiences). It's also much harder to do simple things like have snacks and drinks.

I don't disagree that they can do some very cool things in terms of media production designed specifically for VR; I just don't see a future where they become the standard, mainstream way of consuming media.

Many VR uses sound fantastic if you're thinking in terms of one individual person, but they start to have serious problems when considering families with kids, pets, etc. and even just regular every day life activities.

 

[MrPromey]

That's the whole point of AR; you *aren't* isolated. Vision Pro is just a goofy-assed ski-mask version of Google Glass without the creep aspect. If you want to block the world out, you can; just like you can with noise cancelling headphones. If you want to let the world in a little, you can do that too; just like with some newer noise cancelling headphones.

It's too early to say whether any of this really has a market, but it's far too early to write the field off based on last decade's tech.

And that is the Quest 3, too... With the kind of compromises you'd expect, being sold at 1/7th the price.

I think it's well understood that once see-through displays have matured to affordable and mobile-friendly levels, their goal with all of this is to shrink these things down to something that won't feel or look like a headset and then adoption will make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

We're like folks in the 1950s-1960s right now going "nobody is ever going to want one of those monsters in their living room" while looking at an industrial computer the size of a garage while today, people have that kind of power strapped to their wrists.

We're just a long ways from getting where they want it to go, still.

 

[MrPromey]

I think you're agreeing with me -- I pointed out that I see a much bigger future for AR than for VR.

In the future, I don't believe there will be a distinction for most people.

You'll have one device that does both equally well so you use it how you want it when you want to. That's how the Vision Pro will work with pass-through for MR and if you've used a Quest 3, you already choose if you want the default space to be VR or MR and a lot of the new experiences are already MR so you're not really out of your environment unless you want to be.

It's just the quality of the pass-through effect isn't "believable" even if it is still perfectly servicable and you look like you have something weird strapped to your head that makes it look as though you can't see the outside world when you actually can.

 

[UNCgolf]

In the future, I don't believe there will be a distinction for most people.

You'll have one device that does both equally well.

I'm not sure I agree.

Why have a full headset (which is really necessary for a true VR experience, unless someone develops a Star Trek holodeck -- it's not really VR if the outside world can intrude) when you can have something like glasses for AR?

Regardless, even if they in the same device (goggles could potentially work), I still think there will be an obvious distinction and AR will be used in daily life far more than VR.

 

[MrPromey]

I'm not sure I agree.

Why have a full headset (which is really necessary for a true VR experience, unless someone develops a Star Trek holodeck -- it's not really VR if the outside world can intrude) when you can have something like glasses for AR?

Regardless, even if they are in the same device, I still think there will be an obvious distinction and AR will be used in daily life far more than VR.

Because it won't always be a "full headset".

Look at your phone and consider how much space was required for a fraction of that computing power just a couple of decades ago.

But hold up a sec: If you're going to say it has to be a hollodeck to be a true scotsman VR experience, then by your own admission, we aren't even experiencing VR today.

What would you call the current experience then?

Have you used a modern VR headset? It's not like there isn't light leak or like you can't hear the sounds around you unless you make a distinct choice to set it up that way with added face padding and headphones. The quest pro, by default has totally exposed peripheral view that you attach magnetic blinders to if you want full immersion.

My question to you is two decades from now if you're in a store looking at new shades and you have a choice for just pass-through that is incapable of completing blocking out incoming light from the front or something that looks the same and can offer everything we think of in technology today (and not made up science fiction), why would you get the lesser pair unless price or some other major limiting factor like maybe battery life is an issue?

The only reason there even needs to be a distinction between VR, MR, and AR today is because of hardware limitations.

It'll be like going to a store and deciding if you want a color or black and white TV. When someone asks "but what if I still want to watch black and white shows and all I have is a color TV?" what do you tell them?

BTW, this is a game that comes pre-intalled on the Quest 3:

 

[UNCgolf]

Because it won't always be a "full headset".

Look at your phone and consider how much space was required for a fraction of that computing power just a couple of decades ago.

But hold up a sec: If you're going to say it has to be a hollodeck to be a true scotsman VR experience, then by your own admission, we aren't even experiencing VR today.

What would you call the current experience then?

Have you used a modern VR headset? It's not like there isn't light leak or like you can't hear the sounds around you unless you make a distinct choice to set it up that way with added face padding and headphones. The quest pro, by default has totally exposed peripheral view that you attach magnetic blinders to if you want full immersion.

My question to you is two decades from now if you're in a store looking at new shades and you have a choice for just pass-through that is incapable of completing blocking out incoming light from the front or something that looks the same and can offer everything we think of in technology today (and not made up science fiction), why would you get the lesser pair unless price or some other major limiting factor like maybe battery life is an issue?

The only reason there even needs to be a distinction between VR, MR, and AR today is because of hardware limitations.

It'll be like going to a store and deciding if you want a color or black and white TV. When someone asks "but what if I still want to watch black and white shows and all I have is a color TV?" what do you tell them?

BTW, this is a game that comes pre-intalled on the Quest 3:

AR and VR are completely separate things so I don't fully understand the point you're making with the bolded. Are you solely talking about what is required from a hardware perspective? Because yes, I agree a single device can be used for AR/VR/MR. If you mean there's no distinction from an experience standpoint, though, that's not correct. People that want a VR experience want something that is not remotely similar to an AR experience. The whole point with VR is to be completely immersed in a different environment separate from your current location in the real world.

You misunderstood my point about the "holodeck". I didn't say that was what was required for a true VR experience; I said something along those lines is the only way to have one that doesn't involve wearing something that blocks out the outside world. That's the headset issue with VR. The tech itself isn't the limiting factor; a set of glasses will never be able to provide VR without some additional attachments.

And yes, I have an Oculus Quest 2.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you're agreeing with me -- I pointed out that I see a much bigger future for AR than for VR.

The problem is that none of that solves the underlying issue of isolation. Just as one example (of many), lots of people like watching sports in groups with friends; watching in VR eliminates that (at least to an extent -- there are ways around it but they almost invariably seem lesser experiences). It's also much harder to do simple things like have snacks and drinks.

I don't disagree that they can do some very cool things in terms of media production designed specifically for VR; I just don't see a future where they become the standard, mainstream way of consuming media.

Many VR uses sound fantastic if you're thinking in terms of one individual person, but they start to have serious problems when considering families with kids, pets, etc. and even just regular every day life activities.

I’m confused why you keep talking about isolation and just focus on VR if you recognize that AR is something different? The VisionPro does both.

 

[UNCgolf]

I’m confused why you keep talking about isolation and just focus on VR if you recognize that AR is something different? The VisionPro does both.

Because this has become a general discussion about VR (and people who think VR itself is the future as opposed to AR) rather than specifically about the VisionPro.

As for the VisionPro itself, the price point is so high because of the VR capabilities. I agree with @MrPromey that eventually the tech will eventually reach a point where it doesn't cost significantly more to include VR, but right now I think it's a limiting factor for the adoption of AR due to cost considerations.

 

[Mireille]

I think that's always going to be a small minority. Wearing a headset requires completely isolating yourself from your surroundings.

That's simply not an option for huge numbers of people (essentially anyone that has kids or a pet with them, for one), but there are also many people who don't want to completely cut themselves off for a variety of reasons. I'd be fine watching something on my phone with headphones in public, but I'd never feel comfortable wearing a headset.

I agree. I wasn't an early VR adopter but I got an Oculus Rift S like 4 years ago, then got a Meta Quest 2 like 2 years ago. I really enjoyed them for a couple months and every once in a while when a really stunning game comes out, like Half-Life: Alyx. But watching TV on a headset, I'm sorry, it doesn't actually feel like actually watching a huge screen. Your eyes may see it but you aren't fooling your brain. My headsets have sat in a closet for at least a year, maybe 18 months by now. They aren't comfortable and they aren't convenient. And I don't see a way around a headset because you have to block out the real world from your peripheral vision for any of it to really work so a move to lighter glasses doesn't seem like it would work.

Thinking that the user base will expand much with lower costs, I mean... Meta Quest 2 was I think $250 during the holidays? How much cheaper does it have to get for people to buy in? If it hasn't happened yet, I just don't think it's going to break big. For gaming it's neat but most people when they game are looking for something they can do while they relax but VR requires physical interaction, usually standing and a lot of empty space to move around in, which makes it basically a no go for most apartments. There are some really neat experiences available on VR but at least for me, once I've experienced it, it's not something I tend to go back to do again. The first month I had VR I was sold. Then it sat in a box.

I mean, the fact that the adult entertainment industry, an early adopter and driver of most new entertainment technologies never went hard into VR or made much of a dent kinda makes me think it's pretty much hit its ceiling.

 

[MrPromey]

AR and VR are completely separate things so I don't fully understand the point you're making with the bolded. Are you solely talking about what is required from a hardware perspective? Because yes, I agree a single device can be used for AR/VR/MR. If you mean there's no distinction from an experience standpoint, though, that's not correct.

Yes I'm talking about hardware and AR and VR are not completely separate things.

You can say they're separate experiences but from a how perspective, they have a whole lot in common, especially with VR headsets becoming MR headsets - they're already on their way to converging.

Im sorry if you don't agree but to be clear, my issue is with how absolute your take is on it - the word "completely".

Dog food and cat food are separate things but if you see how both are made, they're not completely separate.

I think fewer and fewer people will see a distinct line between the two as the hardware improves and wider adoption begins to happen and instead, they'll look at individual apps, games, experiences and the level of immersion each provides or requires.

People that want a VR experience want something that is not remotely similar to an AR experience. The whole point with VR is to be completely immersed in a different environment separate from your current location in the real world.

There you go again with that absolute talk.

Am I not "people"?

Or by "people" do you mean some people?

I ask because there are a few whiny folks on Reddit mad that Meta is promoting MR so hard with the Quest 3 and they think their precious narrow little view of the tech and opportunities is being ignored.

I put them right next to the folks that are mad that the Quest in general is getting so much attention because they think their precious narrow little view of exclusively PC-only tethered options is being threatened by the Meta ecosystem in general... which has probably brought more people into tethered VR than anything else, I might add.

You misunderstood my point about the "holodeck". I didn't say that was what was required for a true VR experience; I said something along those lines is the only way to have one that doesn't involve wearing something that blocks out the outside world. That's the headset issue with VR. The tech itself isn't the limiting factor; a set of glasses will never be able to provide VR without some additional attachments.

So you've never seen these or these or these or these? They're obviously... fashion statements... but it isn't like glasses that can block out views or at least have the option to are some sort of undeveloped concept.

That's the headset issue with VR. The tech itself isn't the limiting factor; a set of glasses will never be able to provide VR without some additional attachments.

Never, huh?

That's a pretty bold and again absolute statement.

I agree we aren't close but I'd never bet money on "never".

I mean, they would have to come up with some way to make something on the sides and top go from clear to opaque unless people were going to walk around with permanent blinders, even though some people for whatever goofy reason already choose to do that with some of the options I mentioned above.

Of course, something that can go from completely clear to opaque will probably never happen, right?

And yes, I have an Oculus Quest 2.

Well, we both know what pass-through looks like on that, don't we?

I'm guessing from your take you've never tried the Quest Pro and how it handles the mixed envorment by default in terms of lack of total emersion. They still call that VR but maybe you wouldn't, I guess?

You should go to a Best Buy and try out a Quest 3 if you haven't already. Not as open-air as the Pro but better passthrough experience. Smaller and more comfortable and what do you think of the outside world from behind it?

As someone who owns two of both the 2 and 3, I have a very strong opinion about the difference between the two, myself.

Far from perfect, of course, and still in need of shrinking but give 'em a decade or two.

I think the idea that they will never get there with the convergence is focusing too much on what a "headset" is today which is already way more capable and less bulky than my first introduction (I used that very thing in innoventions, in fact after waiting two hours in line) and I strongly believe that as is already with MR thanks to color pass-through in now current gen hardware, the general public will stop thinking of VR and AR as two discrettly different things once the tech eventually gets there, not that they really know the difference and think much about it now, anyway...

Maybe two discreet settings on a device or one set of apps/games that come with a warning about using while opperating a motor vehicle or walking in public but not in the same line-in-the sand terms you're framing it as now.

Again, Apple and Meta are both already well on their way with MR. They just need to reduce the hardware and progress the refinement of passthrough displays unless you think that will never be possible? Like never ever?

Going back to Star Trek as you brought up. The Next Generation introduced the holodeck. They also introduced the idea of communicators so small they could fit on someone's shirt and slightly clunky but still futuristic tablet-like devices that large screens that were touch sensetive computers.

Airpods are already about the size of those bades and with noise canceling and stereo to boot and an ipad offers a thinner edge-to-edge mulit-touch experience which started in 2009... less than 30 years after those weaker ideas of future tech were presented as the norm centuries from now.

Yeah, the airpods need the phone but even if they're unable to shrink the hardware completely and need to offload some of the processing to an external device wirelessly that everyone is already used to having around with them, that doesn't seem like some crazy ask of consumers, does it?

You're still sticking with never?

 

[MrPromey]

Because this has become a general discussion about VR (and people who think VR itself is the future as opposed to AR) rather than specifically about the VisionPro.

Has it?

I feel like you're the only one who is really set on keeping the peanut butter and chocolate isolated, here.

I haven't seen anyone strongly saying one or the other besides you in this discussion but I may have missed it.

Because this has become a general discussion about VR (and people who think VR itself is the future as opposed to AR) rather than specifically about the VisionPro.

Well there you go saying we agree!

You telling me I lit this damn torch and sharpened my pitchfork for nothing?!

Now what do I do?!

 

[UNCgolf]

Yes I'm talking about hardware and AR and VR are not completely separate things.

You can say they're separate experiences but from a how perspective, they have a whole lot in common, especially with VR headsets becoming MR headsets - they're already on their way to converging.

Im sorry if you don't agree but to be clear, my issue is with how absolute your take is on it - the word "completely".

Dog food and cat food are seperate things but if you see how both are made, they're not completely seperate.

There you go again with that absolute talk.

Am I not "people"?

Or by "people" do you mean some people?

I ask because there are a few whiny folks on Reddit mad that Meta is promoting MR so hard with the Quest 3 and they think their precious narrow little view of the tech and opportunities is being ignored.

I put them right next to the folks that are mad that the Quest in general is getting so much attention because they think their precious narrow little view of exclusively PC-only tethered options is being threatened by the Meta ecosystem in general... which has probably brought more people into tethered VR than anything else, I might add.

So you've never seen these or these or these or these? They're obviously... fashion statements but it isn't like glasses that can block out views or at least have the option to are some sort of undeveloped concept.


Never, huh?

That's a pretty bold statement.

I mean, they would have to come up with some way to make something on the sides and top go from clear to opaque unless people were going to walk around with permanent blinders, even though some people for whatever goofy reason already choose to do that with some of the options I mentioned above.

Of corse, something that can go from completely clear to opage will probably never happen, right?



Well, we both know what pass-through looks like on that, don't we?

I'm guessing from your take you've never tried the Quest Pro and how it handles the mixed envorment by default in terms of lack of total emersion. They still call that VR but maybe you wouldn't, I guess?

You should go to a Best Buy and try out a Quest 3 if you haven't already. Not as open-air as the Pro but better passthrough experience. Smaller and more comfortable and what do you think of the outside world from behind it?

As someone who owns two of both the 2 and 3, I have a very strong opinion about the difference between the two, myself.

Far from perfect, of course, and still in need of shrinking but give 'em a decade or two.

I think the idea that they will never get there with the convergence is focusing too much on what a "headset" is today which is already way more capable and less bulky than my first introduction (I used that very thing in innoventions, in fact after waiting two hours in line) and I strongly believe that as is already with MR thanks to color pass-through in now current gen hardware, the general public will stop thinking of VR and AR as two discrettly different things once the tech eventually gets there, not that they really know the difference and think much about it now, anyway...

Maybe two discreet settings on a device or one set of apps/games that come with a warning about using while opperating a motor vehicle or walking in public but not in the same line-in-the sand terms you're framing it as now.

Again, Apple and Meta are both already well on their way with MR. They just need to reduce the hardware and progress the refinement of passthrough displays unless you think that will never be possible? Like never ever?

Going back to Star Trek as you brought up. The Next Generation introduced the holodeck. They also introduced the idea of communicators so small they could fit on someone's shirt and slightly clunky but still futuristic tablet-like devices that large screens that were touch sensetive computers.

Airpods are already about the size of those bades and with noise canceling and stereo to boot and an ipad offers a thinner edge-to-edge mulit-touch experience which started in 2009... less than 30 years after those weaker ideas of future tech were presented as the norm centuries from now.

Yeah, the airpods need the phone but even if they're unable to shrink the hardware completely and need to offload some of the processing to an external device wirelessly that everyone is already used to having around with them, that doesn't seem like some crazy ask of consumers, does it?

You're still sticking with never?

I think the issue we're having is that you seem to be arguing that AR and VR are essentially the same thing, or at least more or less interchangeable, and I strongly disagree.

A VR experience means being inside a completely virtual world -- being cut off from the actual real world is almost a fundamental part of the experience and a selling point. On the other hand, the real world is a significant part of AR/MR.

People who want a VR experience aren't happy with an AR one. It's not what they're looking for. They don't want to see Skyrim characters overlaid in their house; they want to be inside the Skyrim world as though their house doesn't exist.

That's why I say glasses can never really provide a VR experience (at least without additional blinder attachments etc.) -- not because the underlying tech can't do the processing, but because of the very nature of VR and the requirement to block out the outside world. It's a physical limitation rather than a technological one. Goggles could do it, but they're definitely more noticeable than glasses.

That said, if it becomes widespread, then people wearing goggles would be normal so it wouldn't really matter.

 

[MrPromey]

I think the issue we're having is that you seem to be arguing that AR and VR are essentially the same thing, or at least more or less interchangeable, and I strongly disagree.

I'm not. I just don't think the general mainstream public are going to care much about the distinction when and if all this tech ever gets there.

I think it will become an app, game, experience specific thing and less of a hardware thing.

Sure, some people may have more high-end equipment back in some dedicated space in their house the same way a small percentage of the general computer-buying public has dedicated desktop PCs just for gaming today but most won't want to bother with that.

And to be clear, when I talk about computer-buying public, I'm talking about smart phones, tablets, laptops, etc. - the whole range of stuff that has for many people, replaced the need to even own a dedicated home computer much less a tower with a graphics card that has dedicated graphics memory.

A VR experience means being inside a completely virtual world -- being cut off from the actual real world is almost a fundamental part of the experience and a selling point. On the other hand, the real world is a significant part of AR/MR.

Again, it sounds like you haven't actually tried a Quest 3 yet.

You can still play Battle Talent just like you always have in total emersion... or you can be this guy - you don't have to choose to limit yourself to one or the other in terms of options although you're of course free to ignore the option you don't want (the graphics with this game on the quest aren't the greatest and baked in privacy settings in the os that prevent the game from seeing the environment directly to adjust character lighting make it look even worse but we're still talking very early days for this type of thing):



... except hopefully you don't shoot an arrow at your kid.

There's always going to be someone who wants the omnidirectional treadmill out there but I don't think that's a growing market.

Just the same, I think casual VR will still be an option people would want included on a single wearable device if they could have it.

That seems to be completely what Apple is promoting with the Vision Pro at this point and I think the whole ski mask with front facing screen setup is the limit of what they can produce today and so that's what they're releasing, probably because they're afraid of letting the market mature too much without them at the pace things are moving.

Reports have come from "insiders" that the development team was not wanting to release a current version but management forced it and my guess is that's why. I think Apple leadership feels they need to put their flag in the ground, today rather than when they get things to where they want them to be.

People who want a VR experience aren't happy with an AR one. It's not what they're looking for. They don't want to see Skyrim characters overlaid in their house; they want to be inside the Skyrim world as though their house doesn't exist.

I can appreciate that. I just don't think the majority of the public are going to be interested in buying a second hardware setup for that experience exclusively.

After the Quest 3 and Vision Pro, I think there will be far fewer people in the next six months that feel that way than do today.

There will be people who do, just like there are audiophiles and cinemaphiles who will drop big bucks on a total experience but I think most would welcome a pair of lightweight glasses that can give them something as good or better than today's typicall VR experience over a buliker higher end VR-only expeence in the future.

Just the same, I think the desire to have a taste of that will still be there which is where I see convergence coming in - probably not the hardware you may be dreaming of with built in smell-o-vision and haptic vests but what will probably see mass adoption, assuming again, the public eventaully gets completely on board with it.

 

[adam.adbe]

People who want a VR experience aren't happy with an AR one. It's not what they're looking for. They don't want to see Skyrim characters overlaid in their house; they want to be inside the Skyrim world as though their house doesn't exist.

yeah, the do-it-all device is currently not the ideal form-factor, and I don't have the wit to see how that is resolved. AR is a much easier nut to crack for day wear, which is why I think Apple were initially careful to talk mostly about AR, and now avoid both phrases.

That said, if it becomes widespread, then people wearing goggles would be normal so it wouldn't really matter.

I used to be weirded out by people walking around talking to themselves, but I don't even register it now. Also when wearing studio-can sized headphones as streetwear started to become a thing, that just looked goofy, especially amongst the over 30s crowd, but now it's common place. People stop noticing or being bothered by things pretty quickly.

 

[adam.adbe]

Reports have come from "insiders" that the development team was not wanting to release a current version but management forced it and my guess is that's why. I think Apple leadership feels they need to put their flag in the ground, today rather than when they get things to where they want them to be.

Tim Cook feels that spatial computing in general and Apple Vision in particular is his legacy.

However reading between the lines with features being added across all devices, I think moving Vision forwards is part of a much broader platform/ecosystem play. The iPhone is near spent, and they need ways to squeeze dollars out of customers on off years.

 

[Trauma]

Let’s remember what Apple is all about. It’s not about the device it’s about the “experience.”

If this device launches with an amazing experience then this could the start of an overall shift in our use of tech.

It would simply be a matter of the tech evolving to make the form factor more agreeable to long term use.

I honestly don’t think price matters.

If at some point in the future Apple can deliver a revolutionary experience and form factor, you will pay the price without flinching.

I think the price differential between Meta and Apple moving forward is irrelevant if the experienced is noticeably better on the Apple product.

We can all go to Six Flags for a lot less, but instead we pay a fortune for Disney.

I think Apple not trying to compete on price is the correct move, it gives them the greatest chance of taking the tech to the next level.