They have a new commercial out. The dude falls back on his couch and makes the movie that’s sitting on his ceiling, bigger.
I was like ok that would be cool. Being able to watch something without having to face it, it faces you. But maybe in 10 years when it’s the size of eye glasses and lasts all day and we can have spatial cinema where you can move in between things. Then. Fuck yeah.
Honestly, this is why I’m hoping the Vsuon Pro doesn't flop. It really feels like it could open the door to a new era. Of course, that’s still years away, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Better now than never.
My gut feeling is that that is apples entire game plan with the Vision Pro- seed an expensive version of the tech, then refine it with what they learned into something leaner and significantly cheaper.
I could be wrong, but given the current price point that’s my guess.
Man that is one vapid piece of writing. VR is definitely a thing - there’s a whole market of devices, accessories and apps and experiences made for it. If your articles hinges on the idea of dismissing something that exists because you think it’s pointless then your article is reductive. Reductive posts on forums are thing but paragraphs of reductive reasoning is proof that some people need to touch grass now and then. I have no interest in Vision Pro but complaining that VR is pointless isn’t what I need to do to justify my lack of interest.
Only a billionaire would think people would pay $3500 to watch a VR representation of a TV. They seem to be promoting as a bulkier version of Google glass.
VR is an expensive product that causes nausea in a significant number of people. It's something that can damage the eyesight of young people, so it's not for children. Who knows if extended use can damage the eyesight in adults. Guess we'll wait and see.
Metaverse was a failure because people aren't going to pay to chat with people in a world of legless cartoon characters that looks like it was designed to run on a PS1. One of the big requirements for a social media platform is that it's accessible for most of the day. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg can throw on a headset when in his limo or when he's on his yacht, or even when he's in a meeting, because who's going to tell him he can't use that in the workplace? But for most people it means it's a social media platform that's only accessible at home and only if it doesn't make you nauseous. And one that looks like ass.
They're trying to pivot to it being a gaming platform, which it should have been from the beginning. But now were talking the video game business. How many AAA titles are going to be ported? Is a gaming platform that young people aren't going to be allowed to use going to be successful?
There isn't really a solid business case for these products. Sure maybe when the tech improves, costs come down, and they can get buy-in from video game studios for it, it might be a thing. But for now it is just another future-tech grift that impresses shareholders.
Sounds like you don't know much about the VR market in general. It is actually a popular segment of technology that has been growing and improving for decades.
It's not going away, and Apple may have the next level of the technology already on the market. IDK but I'm not buying one. I already have 2 other VR headsets that do all that I need. I play VR games on my Index system about 5 times per week. It has superseded my interest in almost all 2D games.
I also know several other people from young to middle aged who have VR systems and we all quite enjoy being able to make use of the tech.
The Virtual Boy was released in 1995. It wasn't wildly successful, but was roughly the start of home VR gaming. There were many VR arcade games and attractions after that in the intervening years until the Oculus DK1 and "modern" VR in 2010. That's ignoring the really early VR stuff in the 70s and 80s. Just because we have had major breakthroughs in the last 14 years with consumer cost doesn't mean time starts there.
Palmer Luckey didn't invent VR at 16 in his garage out of whole cloth without the decades of tangible growth and development done in the prior 2-3 decades. His breakthroughs in latency paved the way for the the current renaissance in consumer home VR, not minimizing his contributions, but VR didn't start with him, nor Valve, nor HTC.
Listen man, just a life lesson here for you to take. If your argument is going to be supported by citing to the Virtual Boy, it's probably not one you should be making.
I keep remembering the Apple Watch release in parallel to the vision pro’s release. The first Apple Watch was so awkward and had no real purpose other than an extra notification display. But over the years the Apple Watch found its footing through iteration and iteration and is now a great health tracker with a bunch of cool uses.
In 6 or so years the Apple vision headsets will be awesome… but so should competing VR/AR.
The difference is that the Apple Watch was not that awkward compared to actual watches.
It was the size of a mid to large sized normal watch, and it's battery lasted roughly a day and could be charged overnight next to your phone.
The Vision Pro is not the size of a pair of glasses, you can't wear it nearly as long, nor can you use it like them. It's not asking people to replace an existing device with a smart one, it's asking them to use a whole new thing.
first of all, the whole article reeks of bias and entitlement. “I don’t like VR so other people shouldn’t have it!!”
then, it all sounds like this guy never even tried any VR headset, or maybe he puked copiously after his first test.
and he’s constantly baiting and switching: “tim cook only interest is in squeezing money from us rather than releasing new products!!”, and right after “tim cook released a new product and it SUCKS!! even my mother said it!”
I bought a Rift CV1 in 2016, I’ve been waiting for some real VR since the first time I tested a rudimentary headset at a tech convention in 1996 playing Doom and some other VR game. it’s sick. I love it. I spent 10 hours a day in the headset during the first month, then I discovered simracing and it was an absolute blast. But the CV1 suffered the lack of direction outside of gaming. the screens were way too low resolution, it needed a powerful PC, it needed cameras, it needed joysticks, had no pass through so all of this stuff really didn’t make it for an optimal experience outside of gaming. I’ve ever since dreamed a way to use VR to work, and it seems like apple did it… or at least is in the process to.
Apple is not Google, so the Vision Pro is not going away. they’ll keep on refining it and bring it forward because that’s the future. you can’t judge it by now, we’re 5-10 years ahead of mass adoption of this tech, but we can already see what’s going to become.
unfortunately the tech suffered a big, big blowback caused by the boom of cryptocurrencies… we’ve all been waiting for more powerful graphic cards in order to cheaply manage VR, but nVidia was more concerned about making easy bucks selling to bitcoin farms rather than serving their loyal customers… and so VR took a hit around 2020 due to lack of cheap availability.
Facebook created the quest in order to detach their product from the whims of a terrible company like Nvidia, and that has somehow helped. but the Quest is and remains an entertainment product, not something that you can rely on for working.
I think the Vision Pro will be a revolution for those doing 3D modeling, or even programming. When the guy in the article says “you’ll get isolated in your tech!!” I think he knows he’s full of bullshit, because cubicles DO exist and people working at a PC screen is now more isolated than ever.
maybe his job is typing rants from the couch of a hotel on his iphone?
It’s crazy to me how many of you people don’t understand this - most people like the walled garden. It’s fine if it’s not for us techies. That’s not who it’s for.
Maybe it's because us people hate corporate loyalty and anti consumer practices. And corporations are like lemmings, they see one company doing it and they all wanna follow.
You're an insufferable asshole man, argumentative and aggressive, and aggressively defending one of the worst tech companies around.. But whatever, you do you..
Guess what? I don’t subscribe to either. I cancelled Netflix after that nonsense and I cancelled Disney 2 days ago. Live by your principles. You whining like a mule on Lemmy does nothing.
Walled gardens are inherantly designed to exclude communities and drive classism. Want to view this picture? Sorry you can't because you dsint pay the fee. Want to chat with this group? Sorry were going to make inconvienent to everyone involved that you didn't pay the fee.
The end goal is to split people up into have and have nots in order to drive desire for your product with little thougt given to the poorer communies it disenfranchises. Your attitude is the boomer "fuck you. Got mine" one.
That’s one opinion. The other is that I like that all my devices operate seamlessly with each other and save me time and aggravation. I like that I can give my parents Apple products and not worry about them downloading things that might compromise their data or mess up their devices. The fact that limits exist is exactly what I like about Apple products. When I pick them up, they work.
I say this as a current and previous owner of multiple PCs that I built myself and multiple Android devices. I used to love dicking around with all that stuff. Now I just need it to work and I need it to be secure and reliable. I get that with Apple products. I don’t get that with Linux, Windows, or Android anymore.
I don't think people like the walled garden. I think they don't know what it is even. They assume they can't buy a competitors headset/watch/tv because it won't work, and often they're probably right because apple refuses use open protocols. But I don't think they draw the line between the two. It's not because of apple refusing to implement something it doesn't work. It's because "the competitor is bad", or because they don't have the "deep integration" between the two or something. It never occurs to them that if you just make the API public it suddenly "just works" for everyone.
That and the price is the problem, in my opinion at least. What it can do looks quite impressive I think and has some nice ideas not really done commercially at the consumer level before.
But, I suspect it'll be another iPhone. It will rule the roost for a short time and then someone will come out with a comparable product, for noticeably less that will work with other hardware too and connect with other non-apple software.
But, I guess for those in the ecosystem (who already have big pockets already for this kind of thing) it looks really good.
I don't know. I saw some reviews, and in the consumer space at least I'm not aware of a device that is putting stuff in shared space fixed in a location and can make virtual screens with the rest of your vision maintained. It's these things I expect to be copied and homogenised pretty quickly.
Tried the Vision at the mall today, though, and it’s pretty awesome. I had an experience I’ve never had in VR yet - when shown heights, my body actually reacted as if it was real.
To lock customers in, to make others feel excluded, all leading to more profits... It's simple, everything they do is to try and make you buy their shit by making it inoperable with everything else..
This made me laugh out loud. Apple doesn’t give a shit if you or anyone else feels excluded. They are not sitting around thinking about how to exclude people rofl. Allowing a product to make me feel excluded is wild as fuck.
Yes they want you to buy their product so they make their other products work well with each other. OMG like OMG. What a business idea.
I wrote out a bunch of other stuff explaining how designing and engineering works well if it’s focused and can be good but damn it’s not worth it. Sorry you can’t see light through the bubble.
Yeah, I've said this plenty times before, there's no reasoning with the dick riders. They love to be abused and will die defending their megacorp God. It's pretty pointless.. It's like arguing with an Elon rider..
Edit: lol, I also love how you devolve to personal insults when all I said was that you were riding that Apple dick. To be expected though. Have fun riding out there brother.
Yeah that’s not correct. Facebook bought into the oculus project in a share swap/cash deal with Lucky Palmer. Carmack joined the project later because he believes in VR in a big way and he contributed very important parts of the rendering methods to greatly improve performance.
Carmack was interested in making his own VR headset prototype to show off at e3. He found Palmer Luckey on mtbs3d, showing interest in Palmer's headset prototypes. Carmack duct taped some hardware together with Luckey's headset and made a demo to show off at e3 2012. Carmack was absolutely responsible for kick-starting VR to where it is today, with the help of Palmer.
I think a lens worth looking at that suggests this is a misstep is:
Apple has only ever convinced people to bring a new device with them once, with the iPod.
They realized that a wallet sized device that could playback your entire music collection would be a huge hit, and convinced people to effectively carry around a second wallet (plus headphones). This was the first and only time they convinced people to carry around a new device on a daily basis, and it was relatively easy since jeans had two front pockets anyways.
Around the same time, cell phones started also filling the role of second wallet, for a period, some of us even carried around 3 wallet sized devices. Then the iPhone just combined two of them (eventually all 3 kinda).
Macbooks / laptops, are basically just the equivalent of textbooks in our bookbag, iPads are just a fancier version of that book that can also work with a pencil. Apple Watch just replaced our regular watches. No other Apple product (or anyone else's for that matter) have convinced us to carry a wholly new form factor of device around with us.
The Vision Pro replaces .... nothing ... like the iPod it's a wholly new device to carry with you, but unlike the iPod the form factor is not a natural extension or replacement of an existing form factor. The closest they come is glasses, and this is what I think Google Glass got right, they aimed at a form factor that could be worn like glasses all day without too much distinction, whereas the vision pro is more like a pair of heavy ski goggles. It's a hard and uncomfortable ask to get people to wear it in almost any scenario.
What is the purpose of the Vision Pro? Is it just a VR Headset? Then sure, it sits at home like your video game console. But paying $3500 for that is insane when you could buy a Quest and a gaming PC.
Or is it a work focused AR device like Apple is pitching, in which case, it should go everywhere your Macbook does, at home, at the office, on trips, etc. Hard to imagine people wanting to lug a bulky headset with them for those purposes.
I'm also getting at the idea that the true revolutionary moment for AR will be when we can use them and carry them with us everywhere, like watches / phones / wallets / glasses. Unlike the iPod / iPhone / Apple Wallet, Apple is releasing this well before that point.
If the AR floating windows/screens work as they advertise, then it replaces 1-2-3 screens, in whatever configuration you want them in. You connect it into a gaming PC and use the augmented floating windows as virtual monitors. Then use a mouse or whatever, it's more about the windows.
Later you want to see a movie. Minimise all your virtual monitors and deploy a big ass monitor to watch it in a big screen, without moving from you comfy gaming setup.
I'll wait until third party apps implement this feature and the price gets at least halved. I'm the only one I've seen that has mentioned this use case but I honestly feel like it has potential.
If the AR floating windows/screens work as they advertise, then it replaces 1-2-3 screens, in whatever configuration you want them in.
Right but how much does a screen cost these days? (I guess the apple ones are still absurdly expensive, are they still charging $1000 for a monitor stand?)
Also I doubt that these things work anywhere like that. The resolution is nowhere near good enough. Also I've worn the quest and your face gets sweaty pretty quickly. The weight on the front of your head is very noticeable, and they give you headaches after a while if you don't get sick first. They can be fun for the right types of gameplay but that's it.
Also, SV doesn't really care about VR gaming. What they really care about is AR, and they care about it because they want to put advertisements like everywhere. Every building: Ads all over it, Every wall in your house: Ads everywhere. Every interaction with your loved ones: Ads. This is the future they dream about, but it sucks and they have never come up with any real reason for us to put their face huggers on.
Yes, I understand this dream, I just also understand how far away we are from this. Wearing a VR headset like this is sweaty and uncomfortable, and you're not going to do it for nearly as long as you might look at a monitor and TV. The weight would need to be at least like 1/4 what it is to feasibly be comfortable to wear for 8+ hours a day.
A heads up display that could overlay useful information onto the world around you would be amazing.
Provide directions.
Point out businesses that are hard to find in a crowded city.
Give real-time measurements and placements for construction (this is already a thing).
Pokemon Go
The problem is that the apple vision is huge and bulky. They need to shrink it down to the size of big nerd eyeglasses. Microsoft did the same thing with their whatever it was called. I played with it a few times at different tech demos. It was garbage from the start because it was heavy, uncomfortable, and the refresh rate was intolerably slow. Apple's is a slight improvement in a few categories but it still completely misses the point of what AR should be.
That's not what Apple wants it to be or is advertising it as at all. They don't expect people to be wearing it all the time when they're out doing things.
It's meant to be a supplement to laptops/desktops, then eventually a replacement (I don't think headsets will ever fully replace traditional computers though).
It's first and foremost a VR headset with really good AR and video passthrough. They're not glasses. Apple just doesn't want you to think that it's VR because they've decided they always have to be "special."
Honestly I kind of agree with op's submission. Apple just didn't have a real plan for what they wanted it to be. It sits in an awkward niche between AR and VR and it sucks at both as a result.
I agree with almost everything you said except that the Hololens was pretty remarkable for the time and magical when I got to use it at work, tiny FOV and crappy refresh rate regardless. Walking around a normal cluttered open plan office, watching youtube in a web browser as it followed me, then pinning it to a wall, walking elsewhere and pinning some of our architectural models to tables and stuff, and then walking back around the building and them all still being exactly where I put them was a pretty wild experience. The Quest 3's AR stuff still doesn't feel quite as magical due to the distortion, lack of peripheral vision, and noticeable ski goggle feeling, nor does the world tracking seem quite as good (though I still think it's impressive for a $500 consumer device).
The Hololens is also entirely limited by it's choice of using transparent displays but that's also what makes it safe to use in industrial and now military settings.
They've only (in this century) produced a new product people take with them once, iPod. Except for the iPhone. MacBook Air. iPad. Apple Watch. AirPods.
You clearly didn't understand the same point that everyone else did. Maybe reflect on that rather than assume you're the only one able to do percentages.
It's not about the product, but the kind of device. Before the iPod, people didn't really carry around computer like devices with them in the pockets, did they?
Maybe you've heard of this device that plays music on tiny headphones, great for listening while walking. It was called a Walkman. Came out in 1979. By the time the iPod came out, there were plenty of digital music players; I carried a Rio Volt (CD-ROM full of MP3s), but the Nomad was the one CmdrTaco compared iPod to.
Many people carried Palm Pilots, Newtons, cell phones, pagers, portable games (GameBoy, Game Gear, Lynx), film & digital cameras. I used to carry so many gadgets. Sharp/Tandy PC-3 was a great little calculator/computer, so was HP-35s.
Apple's done an amazing job of making vastly better versions (eventually, in some cases; I waited for gen 3 iPod with USB), and folding multiple things into a device, and competing with themselves. So now most of those devices are gone, and we just carry an iPhone (or lame knockoff). I have a bunch of portable game devices, which live on my desk because why carry them? iPad rolled over the MacBook for portable computing. And now Vision Pro is going to roll over that (in a couple versions, probably).
The "one-hit wonder" assertion just requires someone to have lived a cave since 2006.
Yes. It's Apple's second most profitable platform. If I go out to a café (which admittedly was before pandemic), half the people have one, much more than laptops now. In business, it's a super common way to take around documents, presentations, etc. The kids really love them.
I've been in love with it since launch, it's a magic book.
Even the iPod was entering an already established market (consider the Sony Walkman).
Although that is interesting… I found some stats and 385 million walkmans were sold over 30 years. About 10. Million per year. Another report claims 51 million VR headsets in the last 5 years or about 10 million per year… (I started this comment planing to be negative, but now I wonder if Apple is not hitting the market at just the right time…)
Why in the world do you think this is supposed to be a mobile product? Just because it can run on a battery doesn't mean they intend for consumers to wear it around town.
My impression is that it's for use in the home and/or office. I wouldn't walk around town with anything worth thousands of dollars out on display and I think most people are similarly minded.
What purpose does a MacBook serve that an office from the 1980’s wasn’t equipped to handle?
AR devices in an office serve the same purpose as existing tools, but there are ways that they can improve efficiency, which is all the justification office tech needs. Shit, my monitor costs 2/3 the price of the Vision Pro, and an ideal piece of AR hardware would be immeasurably better. Meetings in virtual space would negate how much meetings suck remotely. Having unlimited screen real estate would make a huge difference in my line of work. Also, being able to use any area in my home or out of it with as much screen real estate as I want would be huge.
I’m not saying that the Vision Pro does all of those things, but it does some of them, and I’m 100% okay with it being the thing that introduces the benefit of AR to those without imagination.
Shit, my monitor costs 2/3 the price of the Vision Pro
Two professional 27" 4k dell monitors cost ~$800 combined. You overpaid like a mf if you spend $2000 on a monitor.
and an ideal piece of AR hardware would be immeasurably better
Let me know when someone announces one.
Meetings in virtual space would negate how much meetings suck remotely
Lol, citation needed.
Having unlimited screen real estate would make a huge difference in my line of work.
Agreed, as long as using those screens didn't require wearing a pair of ski goggles that will die after 2 hours.
Also, being able to use any area in my home or out of it with as much screen real estate as I want would be huge.
An understandable point... I would argue that it's a much better practice for your mental health to have a dedicated space that you work to create a clear mental separation between home and work but it may work if that space is virtual.
and I’m 100% okay with it being the thing that introduces the benefit of AR to those without imagination.
Those benefits don't take imagination they just take having seen a sci Fi movie in the past 20 years.
Two professional 27" 4k dell monitors cost ~$800 combined. You overpaid like a mf if you spend $2000 on a monitor.
Sorry, but you don’t understand the needs of the market that we’re talking about if you think that a pair of ~$400 dell monitors is equivalent to a high-end display. The difference between $800 and $2500 amounts to a few days’ worth of production for my workstation, which is very easily worth the huge difference in color accuracy, screen real estate, and not having a bezel run down the middle of your workspace over the 3-5 years that it’s used.
blah blah blah
I already said that I’m talking about the Vision Pro as a first step in the direction of a fully-realized AR workstation. As it currently stands, it’s got some really cool tech that’s going to be a lot of fun for the guinea pig early adopters that fund the development of the tech I’m personally interested in.
Dude the last thing I needed for my “talking to an idiot online” bingo card was “Dude the last thing I needed for my “talking to an idiot online” bingo card was “(ignores point) aPpLe fAnBoY””
Hell if I know, I don't even know what all it can do. There are probably dozens of things it can do that all kinds of laptops can't do though.
I don't use 3D modeling for my work but I can see how a 3D stereoscopic display could be highly useful for scientific research, as those have been part of the high end Nvidia Quadro GPU feature set intended for scientific research for many years already. Those would be coupled with a 3D monitor, and that kit of 3D monitor and Quadro GPU probably already cost more than the Apple Vision does.
Basically I assume it can do all the 3D VR and AR stuff that laptops can't do in general. Whoever needs that for their office work might buy it, but I don't need one.
I used to be a professional 3D modeller at an architecture firm, we bought the Oculus Rift, we bought HoloLens, we bought almost every single VR headset that came on the market, and you know what they got used for? Basically nothing. Some marketing stuff and occasionally we would use them to walk a client through a design, though 99% of the time this was just done on a normal monitor or TV.
It's not easier or faster to 3D model in 3D than it is in 2D, since the human brain can't enter 3 different dimensional constraints at the same time. The only real benefit of VR is that it's better conveying a sense of scale and presence. But that's at the cost of having to wear a sweaty bulky headset with limited battery life or a long cord, having to pay for an even more powerful computer than normal to be able to render everything, waiting for CAD companies to rewrite their software and come up with usable 3D interfaces, and not being able to share the experience with anyone and see the same stuff like you do on a monitor.
Even In a business like architecture that you would think would be ideally suited to this, there's still almost no real benefit compared to a traditional monitor setup. Quite frankly the biggest real world benefit is just that if you're in an open plan office you could shut out your coworkers, but again, at the expense of wearing ski goggles and headphones all day.
To me, this seems like a big misstep for Apple. Granted I'm no fanboy, but I've appreciated Apple's design and products over the last few decades. This to me just seems half baked. And that's not something I expected from Apple's hardware. I personally don't think I'll ever wear a computer on my face for more than 30 minutes at a time. Even if the weight goes down dramatically, it's just not a convenient experience. The last thing I need with my technology is more inconvenience.
I think something with this, too (and that you sorta hinted at), is that it doesn’t seem to provide any additional benefit to what we already get with the iPhone, iPad, Mac ecosystem. That’s an ecosystem with a huge and established user base. Obviously this could change as developers step in to do the heavy lifting, but… Will they want to? Is it a good investment to spend thousands of hours on an app that a fraction of users of an already niche product will use? I think it’s very telling that some of the biggest developers (like Spotify and Netflix) opted out of Vision Pro.
It’s going to take some very talented, very risk-tolerant developers to make a $3,500+ headset go anywhere. And as of now, Apple is providing very little incentive.
Apple products were never really ergonomic, so having over half a kilo dragging down your face seems to be a normal continuation of their design language. The battery on a cable however and the outside-facing screen seem like obvious bad design decisions that just contribute to the unpleasant weight distribution.
And it tries to sell a VR device as an AR device without any real killer use case other than integrating it nicely into their other products. Alone from the tech it's impressive. Their new R1 and M2 chips do great work and the price reflects how much effort was put into it. But that alone doesn't sell the device.
Even the positive reviews were mixed and pointed out grave flaws.
In my opinion, for this to take off it actually needs to provide significant advantages for people to accept wearing a comfortable sensor suite plus computer on their head in front of their eyes. We haven't seen any of this yet... from any product in the space.
Well less than 30 minutes at a time is good because the Vision Pro battery only lasts around two hours and you can't swap batteries without turning it off.
You can do a lot of things with the Vision Pro that you can't do with other headsets, but I don't understand why anybody would want to manage their calendar events in VR, and it seems like there are a lot more things that you would want to do with the Vision Pro that you can't. If it were really an AR device like a modern Google Glass it would make sense, but with that form factor and a battery life of two hours it can't really become part of you like that.
I think it really comes down to what developers do with it in the next couple of years. If they don’t devise some really interesting and meaningful experiences unique to the headset hardware I think it’s a dead end product no matter how much Apple pours into it.
The Newton famously failed, the Lisa failed, the original Homepod, Apple Maps was a pretty big flop and has only found success through anti-competitive bundling.
Also the Apple Pippin. And third-party Macintosh clones. And the Twentieth Century Macintosh. And the Apple III.
Especially before Steve Jobs took over Apple again they had what feels like more flops than successes.
Are you aware that you can plug the battery into a power source and use the headset for as long as you want while the battery charges at the same time?
You can, but few people will. It's not the image Apple wants the device to have. In their promotional videos, the people are constantly wearing the headset and never plugged in.
I would have assumed that they had waited until they had transparent displays that were better than everyone's, or had some unique way of combining passthrough and normal cameras that were better than others, but they really just announced basically a Quest Pro with some 3DS displays slapped to the outside. I'm pretty sure everyone at Meta's reality Labs division sighed a pretty big sigh of relief, I suspect they were all worried that it was going to be an iPhone launch where everyone at Blackberry realized they were working on completely the wrong tech, and instead they just witnessed them launch a fancy and expensive version of what they're already making for the mass market.