The (possible) price range given is somewhere between $1-2000. Yes that's high but not obscenely so. Infact I'd guess a majority of you spend that on a yearly/bi yearly basis on a certain laptop for its brand merit and half that yearly for the latest phone "upgrade".
Let's face it though, the price isn't going to be an issue for the early adopters and any techie, or "nerd" really worth his salt can see the potential of this tech. That's not to say that this specific device has that potential, after all Magic Leap has been less than forthcoming, they've made some claims and not really backed them up. At the moment, they don't need to. Sure it could be a scheme to suck money from investors and swindle early adopters, but it could just as well be excellent marketing. Either way they've certainly generated a buzz.
They also mentioned it could be a replacement for a phone and why not? Integrate a 4/5G sim and your golden, though I can't see even the most hardcore wearing these things for ~14 hours a day perhaps it could be some sort of external BT connected lightweight minimal device - after all what's a phone? A speaker, a microphone and a cellular connection. That would open up the possibility for the "average" user to get it much the same way they get their $1000 dollar iphone, subsidized at 20-30 a month.
Fact is, we won't know until it's out in the wild and the hands of hackers/developers for 6 months. Fact is that one day this kind of tech will be ubiquitous.
Does he even believe this? Even by marketing standards, this is a stretch
Macbook Air - $900
iPhone 8 - $700
While anyone buying this will likely have all 3 of these (or similar) I can't imagine buying an untested beta version hardware device instead of the three above items. Those 3 devices would actually come in less in all likelihood. The HTV Vive is already supported with a fairly robust ecosystem and this hasn't even made it to the "creator edition" yet. It would be awesome if this is as amazing as they say it is but frankly its probably another Clinkle type company.
If they are smarter, then they would aim for the $500 to $1000 range.
When the iPad was first announced, all the pundits mocked it. But the reason why it was so successful with consumers, was its $500 entry level price tag.
If they charge $2000 to $3000 for this device, then they are going to just shoot themselves in the head. This thing is dead-on-arrival.
This AR, as "magical" as it might be, will not become mass market at these insanely high prices.
And, there is a reason why people buy televisions. Often times, it is to just have a social experience at home, to share with the family. Everyone can watch the same show together. The Magic Leap AR is not a social device. Even the picture of Shaq modeling it, looks alien and unsocial.
Everyone needs a phone. And the iPhone has taken over the high end segment. And the Androids have taken over the low end segment. But, not everyone needs a Magic Leap AR headset.
Then, Apple will come out with their own AR device for $700, and wipe them out. I'll wait to see what Apple has up their sleeves.
People balk at paying more than $1k for a phone, but most people would assume you're scamming them if you sold them a new car for $5k.
That said, I don't agree with the pricing of this: In an immature market where the difference between a high/low end product isn't discernable, trying to get someone to pay a large amount of money just to bet on it isn't a great idea.
It's only just recently you can buy a computer and not expect to replace it in 2-3 years. Not just by the fact things break, but that everything would have moved far passed you by then.
Obviously it doesn't make sense for people in general to value technology as a long-term investment, when the technology itself isn't even remotely long-term (at the consumer level). But obviously too, when technology stabilizes, and we stop seeing absurd improvements over short units of time, then it'll naturally progress to longer -term value. When you can't sell on dramatically better features, then you'll sell for reliability, consistency and durability.
Or you'll lock it down, strangle/monopolize the market, and add features on your own clock, hopefully postponing the plateau far into the horizon
So in that sense, technology that does not progress fast does not necessarily improve reliability