This excuse doesn't work for nearly $2000 devices that are functionally the same as <$1000 devices.
Well, it does, people are willing to spend money on things that they use not just daily but much of the day. Also, with iPhones in particular, many people see them as fashion items, and there is this weird thing I have noticed around some people I know with iPhones that if you don't have the latest and greatest then everyone elses phone is seen as inferior (weird that), luckily thats just one or two individuals I know.
You're omitting laptops and laptops which sell millions in high-price ranges because?
You did only mention $1000-$2000 dollar phones that are subsidised, but if you want to move the goalpost then tablets are like large phones, they usually compliment a phone in that if you want to sit there for longer periods of time then a tablet is a more comfortable option, still, take it out, use it, no faffing with putting something on your head, no making sure you have enough area around you to use it safely, no only using it for 2 hours before the battery runs out (unless you have a really poor tablet). They are easy to use, familiar (same os as phones), they are just large screen phones really. Laptops is different,. they arent usually subsidised and, correct me if I am wrong, Apple arent usually the highest sellers and even then it wont be the really expensive ones.
No they aren't, no one is running to stores to buy SE's.
No, but the regular iPhone sells more than the Pro and Pro Max, like I said, the cheaper option (not the cheapest option) ...
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-top-10-smartphones-2021/
But again, this VR/AR headset isn't a phone and so can't be comparable, other than it 'may' be subsidised 'if' it's $3000 (I don't think it will be, I think its enterprise at first at this price point, you disagree). A VR headset will not get the amount of use as a phone, a tablet or a laptop, especially one with a 2 hour battery life.
Every single report on features and targets that have come out about this headset has been vastly different from what we have seen.
I get being skeptical if this, or rather VR in general, will ever really be much more mainstream for a unit than Quest 2, BUT you are making some very faulty comparisons here and aren't considering how the general public will look at this headset. They aren't going to shrink it down to such simplicity as you have comparing it to a PSVR (or PSVR2) and looking at price, Quest 2 sold only partially because of price, it mostly sold in addition to price, on novelty of the types of then exclusive (still some) software, not all games either, that it was shown with, the accessibility to try it out, which helped the wireless aspect become a bigger selling point, it had the games people already played but better, and there was a massive marketing campaign not just through TV and media, but retailers. Zucker was trying to jump in first to start up his lolverse to cement a position, but as we have seen, other than headset sales of the Quest 2 that hasn't really worked out and his vision hasn't really happened.
While Apple is not rushing in and wants to basically tackle each area in a way no one has done before, it's going to be, even if the execution is BAD, going to be viewed as a hot gadget must have, the "real deal" in VR, the multimedia "can do everything" interactive advice, it will be expected to have the best media and games accessible to casuals and the hardcore, it will likely (though not 100% guarantee) be subsidized, it's going to be demoed in stores and clearly be different, and people are going to view it as some new revolution instead of another VR headset with a high-price tag.
Now, will this end up being popular long-term? Well don't know, so far VR hasn't really been generating the hype people thought it would, and while a new slew of headsets are coming, the buzz has been somewhat muted outside a bit with HTC's Quest 2/3 competitor coming out. The biggest buzz is actually the reports on Apples headset, mostly because of how advanced, high-speced, and different it's being portrayed which is gaining more attention from general audiences.
Even if their headset died in a year, it'll probably still sell millions within that time before dying off. It's going to be seen as big artificially or no for some time even if the hype dissipates quickly and it doesn't work out.
I am considering the general public, its even the most important aspect of all this, I will repeat myself (ad infinitum) .... in my opinion $3000 is too expensive for mass adoption, regardless of specs unless it is some revolutionary headset that is the size of sunglasses and can last many hours (it wont be)
Will it be amazing, probably, I am not disputing that, but the price is the killer, especially in the times we live in, people are struggling to pay their bills and you expect them to pay a premium for something that will only be used occasionally and its a necessity? wasnt you one of the ones arguing that PSVR 2 is expensive and won't sell because of that very fact?
Actually, there is a very simple way of testing this, create a poll, have the options of something like:
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $3000 or more
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $2000-$3000
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $1500-$2000
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is $1000-$1500
I am prepared to pay for the Apple Headset if it is less than $1000
I will not buy the Apple Headset regardless of price
word it however you like, lets see if people on a gaming forum are willing to pay upwards of even $2000 for a AR/VR headset
Also, is the biggest buzz really the Apple headset? the main buzz I have seen is for PSVR 2. They havent announced the Apple headset yet and I'm sure it will get loads of buzz, but will it be positive buzz? dunno until they announce the thing properly with full specs and price and show what it can actually do, until then its all guess work and rumours
.
