The same could be said for technological advancement. My point is, your data point is not relevant in a vacuum. You have to consider all the other variables to even start any kind of useful analysis.

If we are playing the what if game. What if more technological advancements are made?

The quest 2 was $300 for the longest time. $300-$600 is within the realm of a fancy christmas/birthday gift to keep the kids entertained. $3000 is not.

Did you not read what he said? You are just looking at whether it goes up or down. Being perfectly accurate is not necessary.

Its like if you had a weight scale. If it told you, tomorrow that you gained 15.3 lbs, and you repeated... and it said 13.9 lbs... 17.6 lbs, so on. It doesnt matter the exactness. The point is, your weight went up a lot in one day. That is good enough to make decisions on. Not for scientific studies.

Man, Ive tried switching to linux several times throughout the years. On the surface, it looks and works great. Especially, for basic things. Try to do anything remotely sophisticated and you are knee deep in terminal commands, outdated tutorials, and workaround hacks. Something that is either a non issue, or trivial to accomplish in Windows, becomes a day long project, and wasted time not getting the actual thing done.

Until Linux solves that, it isnt a realistic choice for many heavy workflows, or people who actually just need things to work, with time crunchs.

What does this mean?

That is all large companies. You throw money at something and see how it does. That is how they should function. Why keep a product that isnt making you money? Sure, they could continue iterating and maybe just maybe some day it makes money. Or they can jump to something more potentially lucrative in a shorter period of time. As companies in highly competitive markets. Markets change so fast. Any company that stagnates will get left behind. And apparently it is proven that scrapping something and using those resources elsewhere, is more profitable, than sticking with something long term, since so many large companies adopt that approach.

A smaller company may only have one product, hence they stick with it for as long as it is profitable.

What is your definition of shit?

You seem to only speak in generalities. How are you drawing your conclusions? What data? What metrics?

Do all product categories start off as a success, or does it take time to refine the hardware? When the first computer was released, how many were sold? What about the second year? 10th year? What about smart phones? What about TVs? How long did these products take? Are there more TVs sold or iphones per year? What about microwaves? Laptops? Milk? What is your definition of shit? Compared to what? And why?

Is the iPhone the only successful product?

What is your metric of successful?

Why is the iPhone relevant here?

How many VR headsets have been sold?

What is the definition of niche in this context?

3d modeling, CAD, architecture, gaming, art, medicine, so on.

Just read the article or watch a video on it. Every comment hating on this thing has been from ignorance. Go watch dave2d video on it. Stop arguing out of ignorance and stubbornness.

It is equivalent of people hating on VR and bringing up old Nintendo vr headset. It just showcases lazy, ignorant, and closemindedness..

You aren't the people who build the future. You are the people who quietly adopt when you realize how wrong you were. But no one will call you out then.

No. It is not the same. This is eye tracked. Think hologram, as you can look around the image a bit. Much brighter. Higher resolution.

Old 3d glasses tech was/is terrible. Inconsistent effect. Ghosting. Dark. Low resolution. Breaks if you are at the wrong angle or rotation, etc...

No.

No. They developed glasses free eye tracked 3d. Meaning. It maintains the 3d effect as you move around the image. Like a hologram. It is limited to one person basically at a time though. Makes for an awesome monitor. But not tv.

The problem is cost. If it was just a value add to a monitor. I'd rather have it, than not. I'd be willing to pay up to $200 premium.

No. VR Headsets use it.

And actually, bad 3d died. The type that uses glasses. Glasses free, eye tracked 3d hasn't been tried yet. But, for TVs this wouldn't work because of the eye tracking. Only one person at a time.

Better.

No they didnt.

No they didnt.

No glasses required. And the cameras track your eyes to maintain a proper 3d effect. You can look at objects from the side.

3D is how you see the world. Adding it is useful for many applications where getting a sense of human depth is useful.

And admitting your lack of an open mind, isn't exactly something to be proud of.

No they didnt.

You need to sit in one specific place for it todidn't.

Edit: I was completely wrong about this. But, only one person can see it at a time.

So? The rating on a power supply has nothing to do with the actual power usage of the device.