Individual implementations (Tesla/Leaf vs Vive/Rift) aren't the topic here. It's that both Tesla and Leaf were solving a problem nearly everyone agrees was there. What is VR solving?
Also your own linked article talks about how great Tesla is, how serious the need for something like it is, and then says "the only thing is it costs $94,000." So basically reiterating my point.
One can be successful company without solving a concrete problem (that existing products have), but simply producing something people want - in particular in entertainment sector.
And I admit: I would the much more immersive applications that VR offers. I also would love to experiment with building/"playing" completely new kind of applications/experiences that simply first become possible by VR. Unluckily I have much too little time and money. :-(
Wow, "no one wants" "everyone agrees"
You have a serious problem attributing YOUR PERSONAL OPINION to a larger group, this is a really nasty fallacy and it makes your argument look very weak.
You don't have to lie and inflate your opinion by saying "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME" multiple times.
Just give your opinion and the reasons for it. If everyone agrees, that'll be evident, not something you need to inform us of.
P.S. LITERALLY everyone does not agree with you. LITERALLY more than no one wants VR devices. LITERALLY everyone does not agree that the devices are humorously nerdy / "dystopic"
Edit: Actually no I won't... I can't edit anymore. But yeah, you're right, I'm being a bit rhetorical :)
Mass market adoption is just right around the corner, I'm sure of it. Sarcasm aside, I'm not certain that it will never happen. It just seems like it's getting way more attention than it deserves.
I also think that the big players' involvement (namely Google and especially Facebook) is not doing VR any favors at all. Even the non-techy consumer class doesn't trust Facebook and I think they're right not to be interested in giving them a monopoly over their FOV.
I think the niche applications of VR or AR will be incredible. Things like engineering or medicine or maybe even data science will be forever changed by a successful VR platform. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be anyone's goal.
Clearly you're talking about a VCR, no wait, DVD player, no wait Laptop.
VR is not wildly popular outside of the home, or anywhere else for that matter.
Unless you're implying that Rift solves a distribution problem? It doesn't, obviously.
And in fact, movies were already in the home and had been for a long time. [1] (Of course, by the time VCRs were mass market, there was cable too.) So the question was really only how to watch movies in the home on your own schedule.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Saturday_Night_at_the_Movi...
Oculus plus Vive should breach the half-million unit mark in the holiday season. Sony scaled up production reacting to launch demand, so I'd wager they should move another half million units. This new market should move a million devices in three quarters.
These are impressive numbers for any first generation. For reference, the first generation iPhone sold 5.5 million units. Not that it would ever be expectable for a non-personal device to ever reach iphone levels of adoption.
Long text to say that, if this is something that no one wants, it's a very special something that no one wants.
Contrast this with a device that pretty much no one wants, and everyone agrees is either humorously nerdy or frighteningly dystopic.