My point is Apple is taking their typical approach which is more Tesla - start at the high price point option to define a space and then work your way down.

I don't think we're going to stumble into good immersive AR/VR by cobbling together OEM parts bin specials to hit a $400 price point day 1.

It seems obvious that the displays & optics need to be as good or better than top of the line phone/computer displays, not worse. So I don't see how a remotely immersive experience can happen even at the $1k price point.

> So I don't see how a remotely immersive experience can happen even at the $1k price point.

I strongly feel that you need to actually try modern VR for more than a few minutes. Is it perfect? Far from it. There are many problems, specifically that VR’s main form factors are too intimidating for most adults to even try. Is it immersive? Yes, a lot of apps and games are

I’m just glad Tim forced Apple to finally join the market. Otherwise, there would be VR winter for about a decade due to the mass public perception of VR and the fact that the most engaged VR users can’t even drive yet.

It's also likely to mirror Apple's approach with all-new product families, where a first generation product is released as soon as they have the core technology working but before they have it sorted, or truly know its raison d'être. Subsequent generations then reveal it to be the experimental beta/market test product it really was all along.

This was definitely the case with the iPhone, iPad and the Watch. It's arguably also true with the first generation MacBook Air.

(The M1 chip family definitely doesn't apply here, as it was really a fork of an extremely mature product, married to another extremely mature product.)