Reading the marketing spiel my impression is that they've upgraded the hardware and the SDK but still haven't figured out what it will be useful for. So they sell it as a platform and tell industries to figure it out themselves. When I worked in digital agency we used to get sent a lot of experimental devices like these and asked to partner with brands to make cool demos. Gadgets that did really impressive stuff (haptics, holograms, AR, gaze tracking, wearables). We came up with cool novelties but I don't think any of them ever had mainstream success.
They don’t have enough mindshare, which is why they had to pivot to enterprise. Imo it’s a death knell. Their product is just too expensive for the little that it does. It will continue to do little compared to competing products because there’s no developers because no one paying $3300 for a device to experiment on. It’s easy to justify spending that much for Apple Reality, but not for a low visual fidelity device that does less than a Quest 2 at a much higher price point. Even if it was closer to Quest 2’s price point, it’s still hard to justify
No one buying this is giving a SWE an afternoon. The pitch is consulting companies will probably buy a handful of dev units, pitch projects to industry partners, then sell them 7-figure custom software projects and the client also buys a few dozen headsets. The addressable market is very small, but they'd expect small number of lucrative deals from customers that have R&D budgets. Engineering isn't even the bottleneck to any of this, it's design.
Surely you're correct, but I never understood this. This kind of marketing-speak comes across as low quality, tacky, and weasely. Why would such qualities appeal to enterprise purchasers? Can't they see through it just like everyone else?
Enterprise sales often involve a lot of communication where there’s ample opportunity for the sales team to send less polished but more practically useful demo videos and such.
