← Back to context

Comment by qbasic_forever

3 years ago

If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing and using the device. The fact they didn't is a major tell...

This thing has sunk cost fallacy written all over it and I'll be shocked if it even makes it to a version 2 of the device. They likely had so much time and talent engaged in the creation of it over the last few years that they feared it would be more of a demoralizing and attrition inducing event to kill it before launch vs. quietly abandon it afterwards.

I'm just starring slackjawed at their press photos of people using it and thinking if that's the absolute best they can make this thing look it is completely DOA with normal people. Nevermind all the usability issues that are sure to exist with strapping goggles to your face and head for hours at a time.

17 comments

qbasic_forever

Reply
it_citizen  3 years ago

They announced a product that is a year away and dedicated almost an hour to it, stretching the entire conference to two hours.

They are definitely not burying it.

  • Demmme  3 years ago

    Google did a sky dive live.

    Talked about glasses the same way.

    Do you see Google glasses?

    • lnrd  3 years ago

      It's kinda different. Google is a company that is famous to launch new products just to see if they stick and then kill them quickly if they don't. Apple is a company that is famous to launch new products only when they know they can sustain them for years and integrate them fully in their own ecosystem.

      1 reply →

tpmoney  3 years ago

>If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing and using the device.

To what purpose? At best, we'd all get to see how the virtual eyes thing worked, and that's about it. You wouldn't see them do any interactions with it, even if they were replacing their teleprompters it would all be automated scrolling. So what would be the purpose of putting it on the presenter's faces?

  • qbasic_forever  3 years ago

    They're on that stage to sell us the vision of AR improving all of our lives. If they can't even be f'ed to do it in front of the most captive and interested audience for the device... it is a major tell and the device is doomed.

    Think about it, if even the presenters on stage have no use for it or don't want to be seen using it then why would you?

    • tpmoney  3 years ago

      But how does them using it while presenting help sell it to me? What use case are they demonstrating by doing so that is more compelling in that case? I don't expect them to have airpods in their ears when announcing the next airpod (or even the first). I don't expect presenters to be sitting in a car when they announce a new model. If Nike introduces new running shoes, I don't expect to see the presenters in those shoes on stage at a business convention. When telling me about a new food, I don't expect the presenters to be stuffing their faces all presentation long. Likewise it would be distracting as hell for presenters to be working out while announcing a new fitness routine or machine.

      So again, what is the expected value you think there would be in the presenter wearing the device that wasn't provided otherwise in the rest of the presentation?

the_mar  3 years ago

No? That would make a very shitty demo since you are looking at it on a 2D screen.

  • qbasic_forever  3 years ago

    No I mean every apple leader on stage would have been wearing this device as they presented their part of the program (even parts unrelated to the headset).

    • m3kw9  3 years ago

      This is not the reason people will or will not buy this. Contrary to it, they’d be called idiots for wearing it for nothing, as they are the ones seeing it inside

rcarr  3 years ago

Waiting til the end for "One More Thing" has always been used for the big new product reveal.