I don't think it would, but it doesn't have to because they're not targeting the same market which is pretty obvious. And that wasn't your initial argument either, your argument was a generalization against the whole of VR.
My whole initial argument is both towards the late to market and obsolete first-gen ‘Simula One’ against the crowded competition and predicting the next consumer product that will likely supersede the iPhone and it clearly isn’t VR headsets as I have explained and you have already admitted.
> your argument was a generalization against the whole of VR.
My generalization of VR is towards its limited market and use cases to special VR games or VR training. Other than that, what other uses cases exist for it?
Also, where are the sources to that 12 million and 20% year over year figures that you just brought up?
I think we both know how limited and niche VR headsets are towards games and VR training.
I admitted that the Simula doesn't compete against the Quest, but they're not in competition with one another and they never were. So I'm not sure what you think you've gotten here, other than intentionally misinterpreting me in bad faith to fit a bad argument.
> Also, where are the sources to that 12 million and 20% year over year figures that you just brought up?
Each one of them actually deeply exceeds my quoted growth number, both for hardware and software. The only one to note is it was 10million units back in November of last year based on statements from QUALCOMM, which from how you've been going so far, I'm going to assume you're going to interpret in the worst light possible.
VR is used by a lot of people for chatting, watching movies, fitness, some people work in it pretty regularly for development it's pretty varied and you'd know that if you actually knew anything about the space which is why I really can't take your arguments seriously.
You're so confidently negative without actually having used any of it, not a great look, but that's your choice I guess.
> VR is used by a lot of people for chatting, watching movies, fitness, some people work in it pretty regularly for development...
So basically specialist VR apps and VR training. Who is going to run in the park with that contraption on their head or go to a restaurant with that? Even previously with the first-gen AR glasses, we had the Glassholes. Now we have a first-gen VR contraption that claims it can be used in public with AR. And it is even worse.
> I'm going to assume you're going to interpret in the worst light possible.
There is a reason why I said the Simula One is late to the market and is obsolete on price, form-factor and its target market against Meta Quest, HTC Vive, or even the expensive HoloLens 2. I don't see why anyone other than Linux VR developers / geeks spending thousands would want a first-gen contraption like that. A very very limited target niche market for the Simula One.
> It's pretty varied and you'd know that if you actually knew anything about the space which is why I really can't take your arguments seriously.
I can assure you that no one will take the adoption of VR beyond VR games or VR training seriously, or even as the next platform of computing like the PC and iPhone, unless it shrinks into the form of glasses. That will certainly come from either Meta, Apple or Google and certainly not from hobbyist gadgets like the Simula.
> You're so confidently negative without actually having used any of it, not a great look, but that's your choice I guess.
Given one of the sources you linked [0] and [1] [2] I am even more confident that AR glasses (or even XR only in the form of glasses) are the next mass adopted computing platform after the iPhone. Not the current VR headsets or even the Simula which is appeals to its limited market of Linux VR enthusiasts.
