That comparison makes absolutely no sense.
Are smartphones niche because they are higher end than a flip phone?
You just keep finding bizarre comparisons to try proving your point, even when there are comparisons that are more applicable.
No, I didn't say they aren't competing, but that the competition between is different.
The software market between the HTC and Oculus are different (from MS and Sony) because any software you buy for one is playable on the other. This is important because if Vive and Oculus sold 500k headsets each, that is not 2 separate markets of 500k. That's a single market of nearly 1 million.
What I think is likely is that PS5 will support PSVR as a low cost option. The PSVR itself could be $50-$100 in 6 years.
Where did I say there were swaths of people waiting to jump in?
I talk a lot to people about VR, people that aren't gamers to hardcore gamers. So I have a pretty good idea about what people think of VR.
Marketing is a lot more than just product existence awareness.
Another part of marketing for VR includes trying to get people to understand what VR does for the experience. Just because people know of VR, doesn't mean they know what the experience is. Another part of marketing for any system, is marketing uses/games.
Smartphones obviously aren't niche because they're higher end than a flip phone, but wireless VR is more niche because it's a high cost for an added benefit that many aren't willing to pay for - like Ferraris. Not many people are willing to pay for VR as it is, why would they be willing to pay for VR that's wireless. Wouldn't it be better to work on options that minimize the number of wires a VR headset requires, and come up with solutions to minimize the impact of a tethered solution than invest in an enhancement to VR that doesn't address many of VR's dominant issues?
So HTC Vive games are playable on Oculus Rift and vice versa? That sounds like news to me. That's probably because it is news. From May:
"There’s not as many headsets out there as we thought there might be a couple of years ago,” Conte noted. “It’s growing, and it’s actually growing at a pretty decent pace, but every decision that you make you should be thinking about: How does this get my title into the most users’ hands as possible?"
Oculus had to abandon its exclusivity deals because of poor sales. So HTC and Oculus are no longer competing with each other in the same was as Microsoft and Sony do, but this is a new thing. Let's not pretend that the Oculus Rit didn't spend the first 4 years of its life with exclusive titles, and paying to keep titles away from HTC and PSVR users.
I can't think of many instances where new playstation hardware was compatible with accessories from previous consoles. But even if it is, it doesn't mean that the PSVR is going to be even a $100 accessory in 10 years time, if they're still being sold. Much like the WIi U, I suspect the cost of manufacturing a PSVR isn't something that lends itself to significant decreases to its Bill of Materials.
I also think I have a pretty good idea of what people think of VR. Most of what I've heard is something along the lines of "Woah that's awesome! Where can I get one, and how much? A PSVR costs $300? It's cool, but not $300 cool."
Did you just try to argue that a console's game's library (or lack of one) is a marketing issue? Also, if you need people to use your device in order to understand it enough to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.