And on the other end of that, I have a GTX 970 but my phone is from Sony and I don't own a console. If I want to get into VR, the Rift is my cheapest option.
Different target markets - the Gear is aimed at the general public with Samsung phones, the Rift is aimed at PC gamers with gaming PCs. Sure, some people will buy a slightly better rig or upgrade sooner than they would have otherwise, but fundamentally it's targeting people who are going to own a gaming computer anyway.
I'd guess that the people buying a Rift + PC bundle as their first PC gaming setup will be doing it after trying one on in person to evaluate it. It'll happen, but it'll be a slower push driven by word of mouth.
And the article is aimed at the general public, not gamers. That's why there is nothing wrong with Fowler's analysis.
I'm not arguing that the Gear is going to give the best experience of all solutions, I was defending Fowler's point.
I think we agree, but it feels like he's writing an article proclaiming "Tesla Roadster Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream" just because Elon Musk said that electric cars are going to be a transformational technology.
If the big takeaway of the article is "Bleeding edge product that isn't intended for the general public isn't ready for the general public" then I'm right on board with him.
On the other hand, for those that have a recent gaming PC an Oculus Rift is both cheaper and technologically better. So what?
All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$. Not the 'I have hundreds of dollars and a good computer' case (we all know the Vive and Rift and even PS VR will do better than the Gear).
Perhaps even then is not a good idea after all. Consider the option that some Joe Average will try out Gear VR on his Samsung mobile phone and is dissatisfied with the quality (say, because it causes nausea on him). So he will avoid trying out VR again in the expected future. If from beginning on he had tried a product of satisfactory quality he would perhaps have liked VR.
TLDR: Trying out a cheaper, but inferior product can be worse than trying no product.
I bought a Google Cardboard for my iPhone and the experience basically sucks. I can't use it with my glasses, and I get eyestrain (and everything is blurry) without them.
But it's still kind of neat and has me interested. I've got a PS VR on preorder. I'm hoping this one of those cases where if someone is shown that the apps are good enough that they'll see it as "Well this is only $100, I'm sure those $500+ versions do much better" in the same way a $800 smartphone is usually much better than a $100 feature phone.
You're right though. We still run the risk (with ALL of this, even bad games on the Rift/Vive) that consumers will quickly learn to avoid it due to a few very bad experiences. Oculus/Sony/Valve have been pushing hard to make sure developers don't screw it up. The Gear is a bit more wild-west.
Why even compare with Gear VR if you're trying to illustrate how cheap this solution is? Why not simply talk about Cardboard -- which you can get literally for $1/free if you know the tricks, or the rest of the cheapo plastic VR sets you can buy for around $10-$20?
I'm assuming you're not buying the phone but that you already have one. People still get them with subsidies too.
The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper. If you have a PS4 (or even if you don't) then the PS VR is cheaper too.
For people who aren't already committed to VR, I think Fowler is right that the Rift is way too much at this point.
Give it time.