Operating a virtual computer screen by waving my fingers around seems awful and useless I sit at the computer when I need to use it I can imagine a device like that might be useful for visualizing a building or large machine made in a CAD system I can imagine a virtual tour of a city, real or simulated I can imagine playing a video game But operating a computer on a virtual screen? Nope
More than that, if you have created a product that someone has to "understand" for it to be useful, you've created a small-market niche product.
If you create a product that is inherently understood by the intended audience, then you have removed a barrier to a sale.
Expecting the entire world to figure out your product and chiding them for not understanding it just means you've made a singularly bad user experience that nobody wants to understand, or your marketing people are fucking morons.
Expecting the entire world to figure out your product and chiding them for not understanding it just means you've made a singularly bad user experience that nobody wants to understand, or your marketing people are fucking morons.
The person doing the chiding in this case was Ben Thompson, who is chiding Apple. (The Slashdot headline is misleading, as it makes it sound like Apple is telling its customers they don't understand the product, when it's actually Thompson telling Apple that Apple doesn't understand its own product)
You've completely missed the point of the article. Ben Thompson's problem isn't with wearing a helmet, it's with Apple trying to "direct" the immersive basketball experience for him as the viewer. He doesn't want multi-camera views changed without his input, graphics appearing in his field of vision, or even a play-by-play commentary from an announcer. He wants Apple to get out of the action and let him watch like he's actually sitting courtside, like he has before in real life. This would arguably be cheap
While I could see the appeal of watching a game on a VR / AR headset, it certainly doesn't justify a $3500 price tag. That's 7x more than an Oculus Quest 3, which has a lot more content and actual controllers to play games with.
TFA already answered this point.
There is a very very finite supply of seats that are courtside / within the first 5 rows. Because supply is very low and demand is very high, those seats are very expensive. The reason there is very high demand is because those seats have a visual sight line that is literally, tangibly exclusive. There has been no other way to access that visual experience other than competing with tens of thousands of people, thus driving price into the $hundreds/thousands per seat.
Operating a virtual computer screen by waving my fingers around seems awful and useless
I sit at the computer when I need to use it
I can imagine a device like that might be useful for visualizing a building or large machine made in a CAD system
I can imagine a virtual tour of a city, real or simulated
I can imagine playing a video game
But operating a computer on a virtual screen? Nope
More than that, if you have created a product that someone has to "understand" for it to be useful, you've created a small-market niche product.
If you create a product that is inherently understood by the intended audience, then you have removed a barrier to a sale.
Expecting the entire world to figure out your product and chiding them for not understanding it just means you've made a singularly bad user experience that nobody wants to understand, or your marketing people are fucking morons.
Expecting the entire world to figure out your product and chiding them for not understanding it just means you've made a singularly bad user experience that nobody wants to understand, or your marketing people are fucking morons.
The person doing the chiding in this case was Ben Thompson, who is chiding Apple. (The Slashdot headline is misleading, as it makes it sound like Apple is telling its customers they don't understand the product, when it's actually Thompson telling Apple that Apple doesn't understand its own product)
You've completely missed the point of the article. Ben Thompson's problem isn't with wearing a helmet, it's with Apple trying to "direct" the immersive basketball experience for him as the viewer. He doesn't want multi-camera views changed without his input, graphics appearing in his field of vision, or even a play-by-play commentary from an announcer. He wants Apple to get out of the action and let him watch like he's actually sitting courtside, like he has before in real life. This would arguably be cheap
While I could see the appeal of watching a game on a VR / AR headset, it certainly doesn't justify a $3500 price tag. That's 7x more than an Oculus Quest 3, which has a lot more content and actual controllers to play games with.
TFA already answered this point.
There is a very very finite supply of seats that are courtside / within the first 5 rows.
Because supply is very low and demand is very high, those seats are very expensive.
The reason there is very high demand is because those seats have a visual sight line that is literally, tangibly exclusive. There has been no other way to access that visual experience other than competing with tens of thousands of people, thus driving price into the $hundreds/thousands per seat.
TFA is poin