Can you expand on this comment? What have you seen in the AR market that leads you to believe the comment you are responding to is not accurate?
From many observers, we have seen many AR/VR devices fail over the years. Some spectacularly (like Snap Spectacles), and some seem to be just throwing money into a furnace (like Oculus, which hasn't failed, but even with millions of devices sold doesn't seem to be reaching product market fit for anything outside of niche gaming and fitness).
Yes, the Vision Pro is a different device, but there are orthogonal attempts at this kind of screen sharing experience which also have very niche markets, like Sightful's Spacetop laptop.
I get that the Vision Pro has some product differentiation, such as the App Store, the developer ecosystem (debatable at this point compared to other AR products), and so on - but what exactly are you seeing the market today that will drive this demand for Vision Pro? Where is the evidence that customers want this technology?
Objectively, I think it's reasonable to say the technology was bad compared to what is/will be available in the next 12 months. There are actual material technology breakthroughs that really do fundamentally alter the equation (primarily: micro-OLED displays, significantly faster mobile processors and distortion-free pancake optics).
The original phrasing is ambiguous as to whether its acknowledging the tech was bad or not. But it doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that people don't want something until they can experience an implementation of it that isn't "bad".
Snap spectacles weren't AR really. They were just a camera strapped to your glasses. Hololens or magic leap are sort of comparable to the Vision Pro, but they were much worse. The spacetop sounds kind of low quality based on the verge review.
It's an emerging product category. I think the workmachine use case is compelling and I can imagine myself using something like it. The price is steep for a personal device, but I suspect that will be fixed in one or two iterations.
People want it, but not in this form factor. Like I've been saying regarding Oculus' products for years: VR/AR isn't a bad idea, but nobody wants to strap a set of heavy, sweaty ski goggles to their face for eight hours a day. Just because the newest models are lighter/more comfortable than the old models doesn't mean they're anywhere near acceptable. I'll be passing on these until they're the size and weight of ordinary glasses.
I have been saying it for years, but it remains true of Oculus' modern products, and it remains true of the VP. In ten years it may be different, but today is not ten years from now.
I'll go much further than that: nobody wants to wear ANY pair of glasses.
Some people do because the benefit is literally regaining one of your senses, but even if AR / VR glasses one day become like normal glasses, it will be a niche product.
Nobody's wearing glasses just to get notifications and gimmicks like this. Ever.
The only moment where AR / VR can maybe become mainstream is when we can send signal straight to the brain to generate images (disregarding that there's no way people will be ok with other people controlling their brain).
I (and very many others) very much like wearing our vision-aid glasses, thanks.
There is also an entire industry of eyewear crafted and worn just to look cool (sunglasses have not primarily been a protective aid in a very long time, they're fashion accessories now).
Of course all that's orthogonal to AR/VR, but the idea that "nobody wants to wear glasses" is a bit laughable.
HN users are generally pretty good at predicting the exact opposite of the future. Every obviously good product like Dropbox is claimed to be useless while every obviously crap product like Mastodon or the Librem phone is hyped up as the future.
It’s hard to see how anyone who has been following the technology could make this claim.