I frequently hear comparisons made between the initial launch of the AVP and the iPhone or the AVP and the first Mac. I think there are at least two differences.
In the case of the iPhone, it filled a niche, a gaping hole in the cellphone market. As Jobs famously said, most people hated their phones: they were difficult to use, did very few things well, etc. The iPhone was a revelation: a device which did three things infinitely better than the existing devices: a better phone, an iPod and an internet communication device. All in one device. This niche simply doesn’t exist for VR devices: nobody is yearning for a better way to view an iPad or a Mac. The screens and UI of these devices work just fine as is, thank you.
The other difference is the use of the headset for productivity. A number of reviewers claim that when using the Mac screen provided by the device, you can be as productive as you would be using a Mac in the usual way. Note that I said “as productive” and not more productive. The original Mac was a breakthrough in making computers easier to use and eventually with more programs would make the user much more productive than using the former command line UI.
Why should someone attach an expensive heavy device with a short battery life to their face to just be as productive as they already are? The expense of the device would be added to that of their existing Mac. Furthermore, the screen provided by the AVP for the virtual Mac is not as sharp as the retina screens on all existing Macs as well as the Studio Display.
In a way, Apple is attempting to create a new market sector defined by a new paradigm for using a computer or iPad. Whether this works in the long run is questionable. But, the comparison to the first Mac or iPhone doesn’t work in my opinion.