▲ 120 ▼ New app releases for Apple Vision Pro have fallen dramatically since launch (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to c/apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Graphine@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's a pile of fucking shit. Who wants to spend over 3k on a headset you can't even game with? Let alone has hardly any app support on launch. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's far from a pile of shit. It's incredibly engineered. It's also useless because of the lack of content and apps. It's an awesome device that lives in a drawer in my closet because there's no use for it as is. It's disappointing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) This was predicted before launch. As soon as Apple announced that it was going to be used for "productivity" it was blindingly obvious they didn't know what to do with it. Still don't get that the games market is the biggest market there is. It's like they don't even want to make money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Meh, it seems like the same old playbook Apple has used before. V1 of a new product line is expensive AF, it’s not really intended to sell like gangbusters, it’s intended to be splashy and to learn from the product being in the wild. The real money to be made is on the lower cost iterations that are built after they learn what did and didn’t work from the pricy version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but the lower cost iterations already existed. It seems like they're experimenting in a market that's pretty well already established. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's far from a pile of shit. It's incredibly engineered. It's also useless because of the lack of content and apps. It's an awesome device that lives in a drawer in my closet because there's no use for it as is. It's disappointing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) This was predicted before launch. As soon as Apple announced that it was going to be used for "productivity" it was blindingly obvious they didn't know what to do with it. Still don't get that the games market is the biggest market there is. It's like they don't even want to make money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Meh, it seems like the same old playbook Apple has used before. V1 of a new product line is expensive AF, it’s not really intended to sell like gangbusters, it’s intended to be splashy and to learn from the product being in the wild. The real money to be made is on the lower cost iterations that are built after they learn what did and didn’t work from the pricy version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but the lower cost iterations already existed. It seems like they're experimenting in a market that's pretty well already established. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) This was predicted before launch. As soon as Apple announced that it was going to be used for "productivity" it was blindingly obvious they didn't know what to do with it. Still don't get that the games market is the biggest market there is. It's like they don't even want to make money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Meh, it seems like the same old playbook Apple has used before. V1 of a new product line is expensive AF, it’s not really intended to sell like gangbusters, it’s intended to be splashy and to learn from the product being in the wild. The real money to be made is on the lower cost iterations that are built after they learn what did and didn’t work from the pricy version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but the lower cost iterations already existed. It seems like they're experimenting in a market that's pretty well already established. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Meh, it seems like the same old playbook Apple has used before. V1 of a new product line is expensive AF, it’s not really intended to sell like gangbusters, it’s intended to be splashy and to learn from the product being in the wild. The real money to be made is on the lower cost iterations that are built after they learn what did and didn’t work from the pricy version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but the lower cost iterations already existed. It seems like they're experimenting in a market that's pretty well already established. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but the lower cost iterations already existed. It seems like they're experimenting in a market that's pretty well already established. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Yeah, but learning from your competitors products is never quite like learning from having your own in the wild. I say this as someone in product development. You have a direct feedback channel from lots of customers as opposed to small users tests and focus groups of people looking at your competitors offerings. You also get feedback on your specific silicon, operating system, interaction models, industrial design, manufacturing, and any unique features that are exclusive to your product. permalink fedilink source parent