this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
244 points (90.9% liked)
Technology
59594 readers
3034 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I turned the video off immediately when he said it's 34 99 spaced out rather than three thousand four hundred ninty nine dollars so it sounds as fucking terrible as it actually is price wise. Fuck apple and fuck this reviewer
What a weird thing to get hung up on.
What you don’t like people talking to you like you’re a retard ? But 3499,99 is not the same as 3500,00. It would be bad information, the verge « journalist » sure can’t allow it.
I would quote it as $3500 or thirty-five hundred dollars. It's a common practice for radio since $3499.99 is read as thirty-four ninety-nine ninety-nine which is heard as $349,999
This value is too much for any VR/AR goggles in my budget. I'd read this as a thing for very specialized industrial purposes (say CAD/CAM) or a toy for rich people.
And if it's just a toy for rich people, it's not going to be well supported. If it's a CAD/CAM tool or a tool for disabled accessibility then all the software will be proprietary and overpriced as well.
Roch people pay for apps, so perhaps even if it is just for the rich, it can be successful. The thing about technology, though, is selling those same apps for less to mass market later is still profitable as it costs no more to produce them.