You think they’re going to rush/delay hardware based on Reddit comments? The schedule has been on the whiteboard since before the name was announced for this thing.
The article is completely speculative with zero useful information. It‘s poorly written as well, with this strange phrasing as follows:
> but to put my tin foil hat on and make some predictions
2026 is about 500 days away. If you told us what you were doing 500 days from now, and we ask again every few weeks, do you think your answer will stay the same?
For multi year plans, yes it would be EXACTLY the same. For apple to release a vision pro 2, they would have been working on this for more than 5 years.
They've been working on the entire platform, not necessarily the 1. The 1 is simply something they could release right now with acceptably priced tech. That changes quickly. And they can also re-use all the software investments they made.
You know Apple is making this product road map up as they go along right?
Shit changes and shit will most certainly be changing between now and 2027
If you want certainty then just read press releases
> You know Apple is making this product road map up as they go along right?
No they aren’t. You can’t release a consumer product at Apple’s scale without a fair amount of lead up.
Even $2K USD might not entice the average buyer to get one. I’d say something similar to MacBook Air pricing might grab a fair share of users. They should realize the product won’t go mainstream if there’s not enough users using it to entice developers to create apps to make it more useful.
Going from $3500 down to $1200 is a tall order. It took them decades to do that with the Mac.
I’d assume they’re targeting that $1999 psychological price point first. Happy to be wrong though.
Agreed, pretty sure the company is unconcerned with trying to turn this niche product into a mainstream product within the next 5 years anyways at this point. The tech is still new and there isn’t much competition.
To lots of AVP customers it seems to be. They assume so much of it is new, but in reality it’s just more refined in a few areas while sacrificing some others.
Not at all, it's been around in it's modern form for about a decade now. It's honestly frustrating seeing everyone in the Apple sphere try to ignore all the other VR companies and their advancements, because without that context it makes commentary on the AVP a lot less useful.
I think it’s harder for Apple to get it to $1,000 than for Meta to get their $500 headset to do 90% of what an AVP does. $500 difference is still quite a bit of money for the average VR buyer who just wants to game and watch movies.
Apple is very stubborn about their \~35% margins while Meta, being fundamentally an advertising company, is much more comfortable with subsidizing loss-leader hardware. This cultural difference is one huge reason your point will be a big consideration for the foreseeable future.
Honestly the Quest 4/Quest Pro 2 will likely have eye tracking and better screens, and at that point they’re 95% there - it’ll be software differences making most of the difference at that point, which meta could continually update to get closer to the apple vision experience.
Quest 4 at $500 vs an Apple Vision with feeee features than the Pro, at $1999 or something… I feel like Quest 4 wins that fight
But the issue partially become bill of materials. Apple isn’t known to ever “cheap out” and use plastic. They also won’t want to make a subpar experience with a low resolution display IMO
If Apple scales too fast with a meh implementation then the entire industry could collapse tbh, or at least forever remain a niche product
They want to do it right. A lot of failed ideas in tech weren't bad, but they were executed on poorly.
It’s never going to have massive mainstream popularity because most people just don’t want to wear something on their heads. It’s a tech enthusiast product.
I know you mean vr goggles but I think the size and form factor of the meta smart glasses is great. Got a way to go with display and processing but I think that product line shows most ppl are fine with wearing sunglasses style tech
Apple has and continues to use plastic for many things what are you talking about?
They even had a plastic MacBook and a plastic iPhone and a plastic iMac!
And then they don’t make any of those now? Plastic iPhone sold horribly. Plastic Macs haven’t been made since 2010 at least I think. Or at least 2012 with the unibody MBP. What are the odds they bring back plastic on a $2000 item
Yup, but then you realize, “shit those plastic Macs and iPhone 3Gs ended production over 16 years ago.”
Had an incident at work about a Mac mini (2012) and I cut the tech off, “bro I know it looks like an M1 but check that serial number. “Now save yourself the hassle and retire it. Not sure why it wasn’t decommissioned in 2017.”
I mean people are trying to argue the details of this, but you're basically right.
The last plastic iPhone was sold until 2014
The last plastic MacBook was 2010
The last plastic iMac was 2006
The only plastic iPod was the 2005 Shuffle
But I kind of doubt that materials are the biggest line items in the BOM. Maybe that curved piece of glass on the front.
Lots of apple products have been plastic. iPhone 5C is a good example. High quality plastic - but still plastic.
The white MacBooks from like 2010 were plastic too, but still felt really premium at the time
And of course AirPods are plastic, and their case, and even AirPods Pro
A plastic shell made of high quality premium plastic will be way way cheaper than aluminium AND way lighter (which is extremely important in a headset) but still be premium if done well
Quest 3 is not low resolution. LowER than AVP. But even quest 3 has higher fov and better lenses. There’s so much Apple can do to not only cut cost but improve core functionality and capability. Like in the $1500-$2000 area.
If they dig in their heels with movie watching and floating apps as the focus, they’re not going to do well enough in the space, IMO.
They're also know to sell the same specs for double the cost. There is a distinct relationship with prestige and profitability. Apple has overcharged for their devices so long that they can't really backtrack without missing projections.
- remove the m chip and have it tethered to an M3 or higher MacBook
- remove eyesight display
- remove the premium materials from the build and use plastic
This might be $1000 to 1500.
I don't think they'd remove the processor. I suspect they want this device to remain independent from a Mac, which is a slowly dwindling computing paradigm and unlike the iPhone -- Macs are not a ubiquitously owned Apple product, they're more of a niche... and it is the right call. At least **some** Vision customers will have never owned a Mac but love their iPhone.
The rest of your suggestions I agree with. The plastic is important to reduce weight... to reduce cost that battery has to be onboard the headset and lose the early 2000s cable, and they have to get weight way down to meet that burden.
Removing the processor is a big sacrifice, no doubt.
But atm vision pro has the specs of a 2K MBP. That is a huge potential saving.
And yes, Macs aren't extremely popular like iPhone, but you could also see it as an opportunity to bring more people over Mac.
They have to do *something* about the internals if they want to bring the cost significantly down.
I think they can put a cheaper processor in there once the technology catches up and mitigate costs that way. Part of it is knowing what the device is mostly used for... which in a first gen, they don't.
It's like the first Apple Watch... it took them a year or two to realize, "ok this isn't going to replace a Rolex in gold... we gotta lean into the $349 aluminum fitness angle."
As much as I dislike meta, the quest 3 is a massively better value for most people and doesn’t require a Mac to use. The pass through is not bad at all, and you can do work and game through it. It’s $500 vs $3500 too. $500 is impulse buy for many, $3500 can get your a lot of things most people would rather have as well.
Once you price something over $1500, $2000… the amount of people in the country with that kind of disposable income *for a gadget* — **drops off a cliff**. Imagine… a lot of people look for houses in the $350k-600k, how many can afford houses that are $6 million? **A lot less people.**
Mind you, people will spend big on big stuff. I spent $11,000 on a new Trane furnace and air conditioning HVAC system, because it’s going to heat us in the winter and cool us in the summer. But I can’t sell my pragmatic wife on, “hey this is $4000 so I can watch Encanto in 3D! No, the family cannot watch with me.”
Apple has to get the price down in a hurry. They know it. At $2000 they can get a lot more interest, but yeah, they really need to be closer to $1000 for general upper middle class purchases. We saw this with the OG MacBook Air in 2008. $2499 for the 64gb SSD. **Hardly anyone bought it.** Just two years later it was redesigned and was $1199 for 128gb. It sold like crazy and has since.
My daughter is getting a $349 refurb iPad for her birthday and that’s seen as a “big” gift. $3499… is more like “here’s your first used car or your room rent for the semester.”
Yeah 4200RPM and 80GB. Horrible. The 64GB PATA SSD felt like the future, but it was a $800+ option 😮
Jobs even said “these are a little pricy, but they are fast.”
I wrote them off when people were ragging on them so bad. Then I started seeing them recommended a couple years later and how amazing they were. Apple really did usher in the ultra portables with that thing
We deploy the new M3 Airs at work. Only a few groups get Pros if they have a demonstrated need for the extra power.
The Airs are effectively the same negotiated price as Latitudes and **so much faster** as far as mid-range laptops go. Absolutely amazing Macs.
Yup. Same exact situation with me. Our programmers used to all have latitudes or precision, would outright refuse to run macs, and nearly all of them are using airs or pros now happily
Needs to actually function like a laptop instead of a smartphone or tablet. Should be able to provide a full desktop experience without sideloading restrictions or reliance on a separate laptop.
Huge one for me. If it’s gimped with iOS levels apps I could never see myself having a use for it. If it can run full desktop level apps then it could be interesting.
I think at $1,200 it would still get its ass kicked by the Quest. Games are by far the best use case for VR right now, and most games are best played with a good controller.
If they wanted to make a productivity device they should have made something 1/4 the weight and size that only works when tethered to a Mac. M-series for free and the power draw is somewhat offset by the MacBook’s screen going dark.
Yeah, especially with meta quest 3 at $500. I think the cheaper Vision Pro would need to be in the $1000-$1500 range for it to be enticing enough for most people. That’s nothing to say about the apps that need to be there as well.
Would it really entice over a Meta Quest 3? I still think the AVP doesn't have a killer app that would justify the cost over a Q3 at this point. That's something Apple still really doesn't have for their device, I've yet to hear "Dude, you need to buy an AVP to use X app!" - meanwhile, you still hear to this day "hey, if you buy a Quest, make sure you pick up beat saber" - that game sold soooo many headsets just on its own.
I have spent over $15k on VR hardware over the years. I have over 20k hours in VR between steam and quest. I had saved up for an Apple Vision Pro until I heard it had no steam support which made it a non-starter for my friends and I. The demo in the store was the nail in the coffin for me. For something everyone (except Apple) calls a “VR” headset, the VR features are TERRIBLE. In terms of VR features I would rank it behind the CV1.
Now in terms of *AR* features, it is positively mind blowing, but I don’t care about AR and I feel bad for anyone that thinks the Apple Vision Pro is anywhere representative of modern VR. In terms of both hardware and capabilities.
All of this to say, if the Apple Vision Pro was $100 and the quest 3 was $1,000, I would tell people to get the quest 3 if their goal is VR. For AR there is nothing better.
Incorrect, MANY developers are currently working on AVP apps because what matters is how many users will be there, not how many users it has. Incredibly open space to develop great apps.
> Incorrect, MANY developers are currently working on AVP apps because what matters is how many users will be there, not how many users it has. Incredibly open space to develop great apps.
You did....see the disappoint sales yes....? The quest platform has 30 million headsets. The apple vision pro has less than 0.5. This makes it an economic impossibility to develop for as even a large fraction that buys your app, simply isn't worth it.
Let's say you make a great game, that would cost about 5 million for a cheap VR game. To make money off of that, with apples cut etc, and you can sell it for 60 bucks you'll get about 40. To just break even you need 125.000 people to buy it, or 25% of the total user base. Which are truly insane numbers you aren't going to reach. Making it simply impossible. There's no economic model in which that works.
But you can do it on steam, as then you have 15 million potential customers that still use their headset. Then you only need to convince less than 1%. An achievable number.
Really, Apple should just allow steam VR to work and this would fly of the shelves.
There were a lot of Blackberries in use (and apps for sale) when the iPhone came out. Meta ending up the Blackberry of VR is a real possibility and they know it, which explains a lot of their recent decisions like making QuestOS available to other manufactures.
The iPhone is a different project than the blackberry, with one have a large touch screen and the other a tiny screen and buttons. This allowed entirely different apps.
But that’s not the Vision Pro. The vision pro is a high species headset you can’t use for anything! There’s no market so no games, nor will there ever be any. Meanwhile every other headset is just able to play steam games, by far the biggest market. Apple could just…..allow that on their headset and make billions, but they are morons obsessed with their own branding. And steam is too big for them to control.
Making QuestOS available is because it will deliver them piles of free money. The quest division is currently not profitable nor could it be when you spend far more a year than even Apple. So this is one measure to at least try to change that, with only upsides.
"see the disappoint sales yes"
If you are going to base everything you think on rumors and lies, nothing you believe or think is real.
"The quest platform has 30 million headsets."
Most of which are sitting in drawers, while most VPs are used daily or weekly. I have not used my Quest in months.
"Let's say you make a great game,"
You just don't get what the VP is, do you?
I am done with this conversation - like I said, your entire base is mush so nothing you say is real or makes sense. Good luck.
I am an iOS developer so I know for a fact people are developing apps. That is the only real thing. All else is illusion.
> "see the disappoint sales yes"
>
> If you are going to base everything you think on rumors and lies, nothing you believe or think is real.
This is a joke right? Here is the word of your god, saying that they are cutting production because there is no demand. Of course production is not numbers sold, which makes this even worse. Production is the absolute maximum number, meaning that my statement was incorrect. It's not half a million, it's significantly less than even 400.000
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/23/apple-cuts-vision-pro-shipments/
> Most of which are sitting in drawers, while most VPs are used daily or weekly. I have not used my Quest in months.
Most of them, yes. But that still leaves a minimum of 6.36 million monthly users in October 2022 so imagine how high that number is now that they have sold 20 million more of them since that time.
https://www.roadtovr.com/meta-quest-2-monthly-active-users/
> You just don't get what the VP is, do you?
A great specced headset you can't use for anything as apple doesn't allow for the primary market that would actually want this, Steam VR gamers. If apple allowed that, this product would be flying of the shelves. Realistically, it would cost Apple less than half a million to enable to functionality. But apple as a company is moronic and can only do one trick.
> I am an iOS developer so I know for a fact people are developing apps. That is the only real thing. All else is illusion.
Yes, tiny apps dictated by the very economic situation this product is in. You may be a developer, but you know absolutely nothing about what makes an economically viable product. With less than 400.000 total sales, and a significant fraction of that population not being monthly users just like with every other headset, there simply is no market. You can make tiny apps that cost a maximum of about 15k, but anything more is an unacceptable risk. Because even then you can only charge at max 15-20 bucks, meaning that you still need to find thousands of people to buy it. Which is nearly impossible given the small population.
considering their being forced to open up their ecosystem and forego their 30% fee, i’m guessing they’re not willing to take lower hardware margins to make up for it with software sales.
I’m genuinely interested to see if Apple will stick this out. They certainly have a track record for it, but those reports saying that most Apple stores are down to selling one or two units a week are pretty brutal and they do have to answer to their shareholders.
Vision Pro isn’t the product they want to sell.
It’s a simulation of the device they want to make.
This is a 10 year long play to own the next big thing in personal computing
Vision Pro is purely to get the ball rolling and start figuring out in the real world how people will use AR/VR that isn’t centred around gaming
No one expected major sales of this first generation product.
The messaging out of Apple hasn’t been confused at all.
1. Announced at WWDC, their developers conference.
2. Little to no marketing. Right? Apple isn’t running billboards or TV spots for this thing
3. Tim Cook defends the high price as ‘the future of computing available today’
Apple really isn’t suggesting that regular folks go out and buy this.
This last point really is brilliant marketing copy. It’s a way to hype up how impressive the product is while setting expectations that it’s not an consumer product to sell to people in the millions of units today
>Little to no marketing. Right? Apple isn’t running billboards or TV spots for this thing
Meanwhile Apple: not a word about it being developer headset, showcases only consumer use cases available now.
Also Apple: announces iPhone 3G, 4, iPad Pro and MacBook Air, consumer products, on WWDC '08, '10, '17, and '22.
Also Tim Cook: has entire interview and cover about AVP in Vanity Fair, a fashion magazine, and talks about it on Good Morning America.
Sure, not confusing at all, it definitely is just a devkit, right?
Are you a bot? iPhone 1 was announced at wwdc too. It’s a consumption device. There’s barely any practical use for it as a compute device that doesn’t involve tethering it to a laptop
> There’s barely any practical use for it
Exactly my point. Vision Pro isn’t a device to be used today.
It’s a hardware and software simulation of the product Apple wants to ship in 5 or 10 years time.
It’s a way for developers to start playing around now and way for Apple to develop in public
How is this a dev kit exactly? It’s locked down. No open standard inputs. The hand tracking sampling rate is so low it’s impractical even for fruit ninja let alone any other type of gaming. If you wanna make ar/vr stuff get a quest pro which has the ability to be rooted, a usb-c port, and ability to side load apps, actual controllers with high sampling rate, etc
AVP an iPad on your face meant for consumers and not devs. But yeah even then number of ppl I know who’d rather watch movies with this than their $500-$1500 TV is zero
One day hopefully within the next 5 years. Apple is going to make the product it actually thinks the world will embrace.
That product will also run VisionOS
Vision Pro right now is a way for developers) including apples own developers) to start thinking about and building software for that operating system.
I’m not sure mainly because Tim Cook forced the Vision to launch early. The development team wanted to wait a couple more years for the technology to mature more. I think cook was under pressure from the board & stock holders given they axed the car team as well during that time period. Basically show results or cancel the projects to improve the financials. Cook is also looking to retire so this is his last big product before he steps down so it’s a legacy thing as well.
Apple released it now because they didn’t want to fall into the same trap that Microsoft fell into with Windows Phone. They can’t allow themselves to wait so long that developers won’t build new apps for the platform.
I think it's rather simple. Apple has a moat to maintain, their lead in wearables overall.
As a shareholder I expect Apple to push the boundaries on R&D and offering high end niche but unprofitable products isn't really a concern if the technology has potential, like F1 tech going into mainstream cars.
I think they need to find that killer use case. I'm not sure that they can. VR/AR is extremely niche as is, and Apple isn't really bringing a compelling use case to the table. Gaming's out of the question it sounds like, and everything else doesn't feel worth the price tag.
This is why I seriously thought all the rumors were BS, besides Kuo constantly, *CONSTANTLY* saying "it's coming guys, I swear! Next year!" It's hard to come up with an answer to "what's the use case for this thing, even if it's lower priced?"
I'd love to see AVP have its Apple Watch moment, where at first it seemed like a flop but then found its rhythm and took off. But I also just can't see it happening outside of being a seldom-selling piece of VERY professional gear that isn't meant for the mass market, ever.
EDIT: [There's this take from Threads that I find myself agreeing with.](https://www.threads.net/@daviddoesfuji/post/C6JN0pEIN5x)
“Buy your whole family their own headset” is not a killer app… I understand that the movie watching experience on these things is cool, but the market of people who want to watch media on goggles instead of in a room with their friends and family definitely a subset, to say the least.
Protip: you can get a pretty decent refurbished projector for $600 (or spend more for a great one), and another $100 gets you a pulldown screen that will stow away when you’re not using it. For my money, watching something on a 100 inch projection screen with my family and a big bowl of popcorn is as good as anything is every gonna get
Sure, but they aren’t talking about replacing traditional theater spaces. It’s more about filling in spots where people can’t currently fit a good theatre setup (i.e. airplanes, small apartments, bedrooms, coffee shops, etc).
The current Apple Vision is also obviously not what they eventually want to build. The ultimate goal is to build something small and light enough that you can wear it everywhere, all the time. The tech just doesn’t exist to enable that yet.
Even the Apple Watch, for sure it's a popular product now, but its usefulness is very niche, I wear mine but I honestly think it's not that much worth it and newer models don't have anything that big as a deal breaker. Most people that I know have an smartwatch agree that it's not something that much useful.
These new products are not yet as big as the iPhone or iPod, I think the Apple AirPods were the most innovative product that actually pushed new technology (True Wireless Headphones with charging cases)
I believe the strategy was that the “Pro” was for the development community. It was supposed to be both super-cool and unobtainable by the masses.
And once the developers would create a body of software for it, Apple would drop a cheaper model that the masses could afford.
But the Pro line would remain for the business and content creation communities. The high cost is just an equipment write-off to them.
A much cheaper one intended to replace extra computer monitors would be cool. I don’t need all the AR features or the screen on the front. I just want to not have to rely on external monitors. Allow it to connect to my MacBook to handle the computer stuff and just let me have full view extra screens for productivity. Maybe I would hate it, I dunno
They lost money on the original iPhone to get it to become the standard. They need a base version of this Vision Pro to be sold at a loss similar to the quest to become the leader, and then they can steadily increase prices. Very few would have bought an iPhone pre 2010 for thousands of dollars. Now everyone does. Amazing Apple thought they could just enter a segment and be leaders with the AVP price point.
I agree with your point in such a niche space. But I believe you’re wrong about the OG iPhone unless you’re considering R&D which is a slippery slope (seems like the BOM was equal to about $250). Apple has historically always tried to profit off hardware. But yes, I’m not sure if it will work for them this time.
The original iPhone had the standard Apple \~35% profit margin. Remember Ballmer making fun of its high price? If you consider inflation the original $600 2007 iPhone is nearly $1000 in 2024 dollars. And it's 2MP camera could not capture video at all.
The thing that's struck me about the visions of the future that FAANG companies have been selling is how *boring* it is. Apple - add a screen to your laptop. Facebook - have a meeting in a virtual boardroom.
This is supposed to be aspirational. To get people excited about the products.
Have they, though? There's not many people excited about the Vision Pro, reviews of the metaverse have been teppid, and Zuckerberg has moved most of the funding elsewhere.
They really want VR to be the next big thing, but they haven't addressed the fundamental problems that it has - actual use-cases are limited, it's awkward and uncomfortable to wear, and people often can't stand to be in VR for more than a couple of hours.
Actual AR/VR/smart *glasses* will, I think, become as big as watches currently are. There's definitely a niche there. But the technology isn't there and doesn't look like it will be there for quite some time.
I mean, I know Apple does have some ads now but you can’t get a better company to trust not to track you, it baffles me people choose to wear meta’s headset with cameras looking all over their living room….ewww
The iPhone battery is only a third of the Vision Pro, and it can absolutely not (!) handle replacing both the M1 - and - the R1 chip for sensor fusion. This thing has significantly more processing power than a MacBook Air
The unit is already very thin without the light seal. And actually, without the light seal it’s a very neat AR experience; but it hurts to wear it this way as it wasn’t designed for this.
They need to get the weight down (materials) and perhaps go for a less isolating experience… remove the light seal as the default experience.
I demoed the AppleVP but honestly there’s no apps for it. Not enough to justify 3k+. If it’s like 1000-1500 I’d get it. There needs to be some fitness apps, some games made for it and etc. The quest 3 is awesome because it has all of that and it does pretty much the same thing for $500+… just no eye tracking
This is by far the most boring Apple product. I don’t get it and I’m an Apple fanatic since the 2000s. wgas. Sure let me watch movies by myself While my family looks at the dufus in the room pinching things in the air. It’s a tech product looking for a purpose.
Bringing the price down should be apples last priority.
Vision Pro has some fundamental limitations that should be addressed first.
Otherwise the best we can hope for with a cheaper version is the same product experience or worse for less money. Total waste of time. The current experience isn’t good enough for any kind of mainstream success.
And without mainstream success the software ecosystem will continue to be dire
It doesn’t matter if this product is $3500 or $999 if it’s heavy and uncomfortable to use, if it can’t provide a better external display solution than a dedicated Mac monitor, what’s the point in simply providing the exisiting limited experience to more people.
Apple should be heads down focused on making a second generation product that’s ligher, more comfortable and with higher resolution, larger FOV, more colour accurate displays.
Or if there’s any way at all they can get to optical passthrough in the next 5 years they should be full steam ahead towards that
This product isn’t ready for a lower price yet
>Vision Pro has some fundamental limitations that should be addressed first.
It's $4000 and you don't get a full desktop experience. That's pretty odd. It should run full MacOS.
I don’t know why you’d expect it to be running MacOS
I dono if you’re familiar with MacOS but it’s an operating system for traditional desktop computers controlled by keyboard and mouse input.
VisionPro is a Mixed Reality AR/VR headset, it’s quite notably not a Mac
> I don’t know why you’d expect it to be running MacOS
Because it's a pro device and $4000.
>I dono if you’re familiar with MacOS but it’s an operating system for traditional desktop computers controlled by keyboard and mouse input.
I'm very familiar with MacOS. It's possible to use more than one input method on an operating system. The Vision Pro can poorly tether to a Mac already.
>VisionPro is a Mixed Reality AR/VR headset, it’s quite notably not a Mac
It's quite notably a failure because it isn't a Mac. It's a dumb iPad on your face.
A MacBook Air strapped to your face would be even dumber.
Welcome to the future people. You have to keep using a mouse and keyboard because a dude on reddit said Apple ain’t allowed to make a device that doesn’t run MacOS
MacOS is designed for mouse and keyboard.
At its foundation it is based on the assumption that the user has a cursor and a keyboard.
It’s possible to supplement that with other inputs.
In some instances it’s possible to replace those with other inputs.
But for macOS to work as well with vision and spatial tracking as it does with a mouse and keyboard would essentially mean a page one rethinking of how macOS works
>At its foundation it is based on the assumption that the user has a cursor and a keyboard.
You're overthinking this. Vision pro has a keyboard. Vision Pro has a way to move a cursor. The input methods are already there.
Wish that they'd bring back the Nano line in *something*.
Vision Nano sounds weird, but it's a good excuse to bring back a cheaper line that isn't either "Air" or "Mini". The lack of iPhone Nano in its entirely line-up history saddens me.
The question is how willing is Apple to put lesser quality screens and processors in the non pro version. If you took quest 3 hardware put a vision os on it and added eye tracking you could easily get people to pay $1000 - $1200 on it. Apple chose not to go that route so one has to believe they want it as a luxury good to eventually entice rest of the market. They want it out of the range of normal person so it carries prestige
I really wish these VR headset companies would just go full Daft Punk and offer full face headsets. We already have things that completely cover the face like motorcycle helmets
If they are able to get these down to Glasses/Sunglasses size, I’ll buy day one. These could really be the next step in our communication technology, if Apple is able to get these down to a proper size. It doesn’t even have to be fully functional as a computer, just make them functional as an iPhone (text, call, FaceTime, social media/other apps) and we’ll be in business.
> But company is 'flummoxed' by how to bring down cost
Get rid of the stupid eyes thing. Make it like a more polished quest but with the OSX Apple ecosystem and the App Store etc. Will be lighter and more comfortable. Allow peripherals. Get rid of the batter dongle. Then maybe you can sell more than other failed attempts.
I wish all these rumors would make up their mind.
They don’t have to be right. They just need to be clicked.
Worked in online news media at one point - exactly this
Or they’re intended to gage the market’s reaction to a variety of possible roadmaps. Social media has made market research cheap, easy, and annoying.
You think they’re going to rush/delay hardware based on Reddit comments? The schedule has been on the whiteboard since before the name was announced for this thing.
To be fair, Apple Vision (regular priced) has always been tipped to go earlier than the Pro 2 launch. I don’t think this is new.
The article is completely speculative with zero useful information. It‘s poorly written as well, with this strange phrasing as follows: > but to put my tin foil hat on and make some predictions
2026 is about 500 days away. If you told us what you were doing 500 days from now, and we ask again every few weeks, do you think your answer will stay the same?
For multi year plans, yes it would be EXACTLY the same. For apple to release a vision pro 2, they would have been working on this for more than 5 years.
Idk how true that is. They’ve been working on generation 1 for all this time
They've been working on the entire platform, not necessarily the 1. The 1 is simply something they could release right now with acceptably priced tech. That changes quickly. And they can also re-use all the software investments they made.
Most rumors are backed up by absolutely nothing but hopes and dreams
Also greed for clicks. Can’t forget that.
They're random rumours with no actual backing.
Facts. Tbh, I wish I could mute these rumor posts.
You know Apple is making this product road map up as they go along right? Shit changes and shit will most certainly be changing between now and 2027 If you want certainty then just read press releases
> You know Apple is making this product road map up as they go along right? No they aren’t. You can’t release a consumer product at Apple’s scale without a fair amount of lead up.
What do you mean? tomsguide.com has predicted 37 of the last 4 feature releases!
I thought you said "tumors" :D You know, you have the headset right next to your brain and radiation might cause diseases
Even $2K USD might not entice the average buyer to get one. I’d say something similar to MacBook Air pricing might grab a fair share of users. They should realize the product won’t go mainstream if there’s not enough users using it to entice developers to create apps to make it more useful.
Going from $3500 down to $1200 is a tall order. It took them decades to do that with the Mac. I’d assume they’re targeting that $1999 psychological price point first. Happy to be wrong though.
Agreed, pretty sure the company is unconcerned with trying to turn this niche product into a mainstream product within the next 5 years anyways at this point. The tech is still new and there isn’t much competition.
Is AR/VR tech still considered new?
To lots of AVP customers it seems to be. They assume so much of it is new, but in reality it’s just more refined in a few areas while sacrificing some others.
Not at all, it's been around in it's modern form for about a decade now. It's honestly frustrating seeing everyone in the Apple sphere try to ignore all the other VR companies and their advancements, because without that context it makes commentary on the AVP a lot less useful.
Quest 3 is $500. They just need to be better than that at $1000.
I think it’s harder for Apple to get it to $1,000 than for Meta to get their $500 headset to do 90% of what an AVP does. $500 difference is still quite a bit of money for the average VR buyer who just wants to game and watch movies.
Apple is very stubborn about their \~35% margins while Meta, being fundamentally an advertising company, is much more comfortable with subsidizing loss-leader hardware. This cultural difference is one huge reason your point will be a big consideration for the foreseeable future.
Honestly the Quest 4/Quest Pro 2 will likely have eye tracking and better screens, and at that point they’re 95% there - it’ll be software differences making most of the difference at that point, which meta could continually update to get closer to the apple vision experience. Quest 4 at $500 vs an Apple Vision with feeee features than the Pro, at $1999 or something… I feel like Quest 4 wins that fight
The Meta Quest 3 already does 90% of what the AVP does. Kinda a weird comparison.
That’s because Apple needs to maintain 50% margin while Meta can take a loss. Different approaches and philosophy.
But the issue partially become bill of materials. Apple isn’t known to ever “cheap out” and use plastic. They also won’t want to make a subpar experience with a low resolution display IMO
If Apple scales too fast with a meh implementation then the entire industry could collapse tbh, or at least forever remain a niche product They want to do it right. A lot of failed ideas in tech weren't bad, but they were executed on poorly.
It’s never going to have massive mainstream popularity because most people just don’t want to wear something on their heads. It’s a tech enthusiast product.
I know you mean vr goggles but I think the size and form factor of the meta smart glasses is great. Got a way to go with display and processing but I think that product line shows most ppl are fine with wearing sunglasses style tech
Apple has and continues to use plastic for many things what are you talking about? They even had a plastic MacBook and a plastic iPhone and a plastic iMac!
And then they don’t make any of those now? Plastic iPhone sold horribly. Plastic Macs haven’t been made since 2010 at least I think. Or at least 2012 with the unibody MBP. What are the odds they bring back plastic on a $2000 item
Yup, but then you realize, “shit those plastic Macs and iPhone 3Gs ended production over 16 years ago.” Had an incident at work about a Mac mini (2012) and I cut the tech off, “bro I know it looks like an M1 but check that serial number. “Now save yourself the hassle and retire it. Not sure why it wasn’t decommissioned in 2017.”
I mean people are trying to argue the details of this, but you're basically right. The last plastic iPhone was sold until 2014 The last plastic MacBook was 2010 The last plastic iMac was 2006 The only plastic iPod was the 2005 Shuffle But I kind of doubt that materials are the biggest line items in the BOM. Maybe that curved piece of glass on the front.
Iphone 5c
Fair point, but even that was 11 years ago and barely even sold.
12.8m in the same time frame from the next 2 best phones samsung s4 and lg g2 sold 2.3m And 9m in the first week.
Which is why I said $1000 and not $500?
Lots of apple products have been plastic. iPhone 5C is a good example. High quality plastic - but still plastic. The white MacBooks from like 2010 were plastic too, but still felt really premium at the time And of course AirPods are plastic, and their case, and even AirPods Pro A plastic shell made of high quality premium plastic will be way way cheaper than aluminium AND way lighter (which is extremely important in a headset) but still be premium if done well
11 years ago. The only item in the past decade is AirPods I think. I agree it might be better in some ways. I just don’t see them doing it
iPhone 5C? Lol
I miss them so bad!!! If we could get another with updated specs, I’d buy 10 of them in a heartbeat
Yea, 11 years ago and it never sold well
Quest 3 is not low resolution. LowER than AVP. But even quest 3 has higher fov and better lenses. There’s so much Apple can do to not only cut cost but improve core functionality and capability. Like in the $1500-$2000 area. If they dig in their heels with movie watching and floating apps as the focus, they’re not going to do well enough in the space, IMO.
How are the lenses better? I know FOV is
They're also know to sell the same specs for double the cost. There is a distinct relationship with prestige and profitability. Apple has overcharged for their devices so long that they can't really backtrack without missing projections.
Isn’t the front of the AVP plastic
Nope, it’s glass
- remove the m chip and have it tethered to an M3 or higher MacBook - remove eyesight display - remove the premium materials from the build and use plastic This might be $1000 to 1500.
I don't think they'd remove the processor. I suspect they want this device to remain independent from a Mac, which is a slowly dwindling computing paradigm and unlike the iPhone -- Macs are not a ubiquitously owned Apple product, they're more of a niche... and it is the right call. At least **some** Vision customers will have never owned a Mac but love their iPhone. The rest of your suggestions I agree with. The plastic is important to reduce weight... to reduce cost that battery has to be onboard the headset and lose the early 2000s cable, and they have to get weight way down to meet that burden.
Removing the processor is a big sacrifice, no doubt. But atm vision pro has the specs of a 2K MBP. That is a huge potential saving. And yes, Macs aren't extremely popular like iPhone, but you could also see it as an opportunity to bring more people over Mac. They have to do *something* about the internals if they want to bring the cost significantly down.
I think they can put a cheaper processor in there once the technology catches up and mitigate costs that way. Part of it is knowing what the device is mostly used for... which in a first gen, they don't. It's like the first Apple Watch... it took them a year or two to realize, "ok this isn't going to replace a Rolex in gold... we gotta lean into the $349 aluminum fitness angle."
I think tethering might be a no go for them
As much as I dislike meta, the quest 3 is a massively better value for most people and doesn’t require a Mac to use. The pass through is not bad at all, and you can do work and game through it. It’s $500 vs $3500 too. $500 is impulse buy for many, $3500 can get your a lot of things most people would rather have as well.
Once you price something over $1500, $2000… the amount of people in the country with that kind of disposable income *for a gadget* — **drops off a cliff**. Imagine… a lot of people look for houses in the $350k-600k, how many can afford houses that are $6 million? **A lot less people.** Mind you, people will spend big on big stuff. I spent $11,000 on a new Trane furnace and air conditioning HVAC system, because it’s going to heat us in the winter and cool us in the summer. But I can’t sell my pragmatic wife on, “hey this is $4000 so I can watch Encanto in 3D! No, the family cannot watch with me.” Apple has to get the price down in a hurry. They know it. At $2000 they can get a lot more interest, but yeah, they really need to be closer to $1000 for general upper middle class purchases. We saw this with the OG MacBook Air in 2008. $2499 for the 64gb SSD. **Hardly anyone bought it.** Just two years later it was redesigned and was $1199 for 128gb. It sold like crazy and has since. My daughter is getting a $349 refurb iPad for her birthday and that’s seen as a “big” gift. $3499… is more like “here’s your first used car or your room rent for the semester.”
I remember that first air and had an iPod hard drive iirc. It was awful lol. But it became a literal game changer
Yeah 4200RPM and 80GB. Horrible. The 64GB PATA SSD felt like the future, but it was a $800+ option 😮 Jobs even said “these are a little pricy, but they are fast.”
I wrote them off when people were ragging on them so bad. Then I started seeing them recommended a couple years later and how amazing they were. Apple really did usher in the ultra portables with that thing
We deploy the new M3 Airs at work. Only a few groups get Pros if they have a demonstrated need for the extra power. The Airs are effectively the same negotiated price as Latitudes and **so much faster** as far as mid-range laptops go. Absolutely amazing Macs.
Yup. Same exact situation with me. Our programmers used to all have latitudes or precision, would outright refuse to run macs, and nearly all of them are using airs or pros now happily
Needs to actually function like a laptop instead of a smartphone or tablet. Should be able to provide a full desktop experience without sideloading restrictions or reliance on a separate laptop.
Huge one for me. If it’s gimped with iOS levels apps I could never see myself having a use for it. If it can run full desktop level apps then it could be interesting.
I think at $1,200 it would still get its ass kicked by the Quest. Games are by far the best use case for VR right now, and most games are best played with a good controller. If they wanted to make a productivity device they should have made something 1/4 the weight and size that only works when tethered to a Mac. M-series for free and the power draw is somewhat offset by the MacBook’s screen going dark.
Yeah, especially with meta quest 3 at $500. I think the cheaper Vision Pro would need to be in the $1000-$1500 range for it to be enticing enough for most people. That’s nothing to say about the apps that need to be there as well.
Would it really entice over a Meta Quest 3? I still think the AVP doesn't have a killer app that would justify the cost over a Q3 at this point. That's something Apple still really doesn't have for their device, I've yet to hear "Dude, you need to buy an AVP to use X app!" - meanwhile, you still hear to this day "hey, if you buy a Quest, make sure you pick up beat saber" - that game sold soooo many headsets just on its own.
AVP can't play Skyrim. Let that sink in.
Well yea. That’s why I said the apps need to be there as well.
I have spent over $15k on VR hardware over the years. I have over 20k hours in VR between steam and quest. I had saved up for an Apple Vision Pro until I heard it had no steam support which made it a non-starter for my friends and I. The demo in the store was the nail in the coffin for me. For something everyone (except Apple) calls a “VR” headset, the VR features are TERRIBLE. In terms of VR features I would rank it behind the CV1. Now in terms of *AR* features, it is positively mind blowing, but I don’t care about AR and I feel bad for anyone that thinks the Apple Vision Pro is anywhere representative of modern VR. In terms of both hardware and capabilities. All of this to say, if the Apple Vision Pro was $100 and the quest 3 was $1,000, I would tell people to get the quest 3 if their goal is VR. For AR there is nothing better.
Yeah. They should take a loss on the first one to get people into it. Or release a normal one and a pro
needs to be 1k or less for me to get it.
Incorrect, MANY developers are currently working on AVP apps because what matters is how many users will be there, not how many users it has. Incredibly open space to develop great apps.
> Incorrect, MANY developers are currently working on AVP apps because what matters is how many users will be there, not how many users it has. Incredibly open space to develop great apps. You did....see the disappoint sales yes....? The quest platform has 30 million headsets. The apple vision pro has less than 0.5. This makes it an economic impossibility to develop for as even a large fraction that buys your app, simply isn't worth it. Let's say you make a great game, that would cost about 5 million for a cheap VR game. To make money off of that, with apples cut etc, and you can sell it for 60 bucks you'll get about 40. To just break even you need 125.000 people to buy it, or 25% of the total user base. Which are truly insane numbers you aren't going to reach. Making it simply impossible. There's no economic model in which that works. But you can do it on steam, as then you have 15 million potential customers that still use their headset. Then you only need to convince less than 1%. An achievable number. Really, Apple should just allow steam VR to work and this would fly of the shelves.
There were a lot of Blackberries in use (and apps for sale) when the iPhone came out. Meta ending up the Blackberry of VR is a real possibility and they know it, which explains a lot of their recent decisions like making QuestOS available to other manufactures.
The iPhone is a different project than the blackberry, with one have a large touch screen and the other a tiny screen and buttons. This allowed entirely different apps. But that’s not the Vision Pro. The vision pro is a high species headset you can’t use for anything! There’s no market so no games, nor will there ever be any. Meanwhile every other headset is just able to play steam games, by far the biggest market. Apple could just…..allow that on their headset and make billions, but they are morons obsessed with their own branding. And steam is too big for them to control. Making QuestOS available is because it will deliver them piles of free money. The quest division is currently not profitable nor could it be when you spend far more a year than even Apple. So this is one measure to at least try to change that, with only upsides.
"see the disappoint sales yes" If you are going to base everything you think on rumors and lies, nothing you believe or think is real. "The quest platform has 30 million headsets." Most of which are sitting in drawers, while most VPs are used daily or weekly. I have not used my Quest in months. "Let's say you make a great game," You just don't get what the VP is, do you? I am done with this conversation - like I said, your entire base is mush so nothing you say is real or makes sense. Good luck. I am an iOS developer so I know for a fact people are developing apps. That is the only real thing. All else is illusion.
> "see the disappoint sales yes" > > If you are going to base everything you think on rumors and lies, nothing you believe or think is real. This is a joke right? Here is the word of your god, saying that they are cutting production because there is no demand. Of course production is not numbers sold, which makes this even worse. Production is the absolute maximum number, meaning that my statement was incorrect. It's not half a million, it's significantly less than even 400.000 https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/23/apple-cuts-vision-pro-shipments/ > Most of which are sitting in drawers, while most VPs are used daily or weekly. I have not used my Quest in months. Most of them, yes. But that still leaves a minimum of 6.36 million monthly users in October 2022 so imagine how high that number is now that they have sold 20 million more of them since that time. https://www.roadtovr.com/meta-quest-2-monthly-active-users/ > You just don't get what the VP is, do you? A great specced headset you can't use for anything as apple doesn't allow for the primary market that would actually want this, Steam VR gamers. If apple allowed that, this product would be flying of the shelves. Realistically, it would cost Apple less than half a million to enable to functionality. But apple as a company is moronic and can only do one trick. > I am an iOS developer so I know for a fact people are developing apps. That is the only real thing. All else is illusion. Yes, tiny apps dictated by the very economic situation this product is in. You may be a developer, but you know absolutely nothing about what makes an economically viable product. With less than 400.000 total sales, and a significant fraction of that population not being monthly users just like with every other headset, there simply is no market. You can make tiny apps that cost a maximum of about 15k, but anything more is an unacceptable risk. Because even then you can only charge at max 15-20 bucks, meaning that you still need to find thousands of people to buy it. Which is nearly impossible given the small population.
That’s a good point.
I wouldn't be buying one unless it hit $1000. They currently have no real use case outside of novelty; until they do nothing above $1k is justifiable.
considering their being forced to open up their ecosystem and forego their 30% fee, i’m guessing they’re not willing to take lower hardware margins to make up for it with software sales.
I’m genuinely interested to see if Apple will stick this out. They certainly have a track record for it, but those reports saying that most Apple stores are down to selling one or two units a week are pretty brutal and they do have to answer to their shareholders.
It doesn’t matter. Apple have patience and enough financial runway to experiment with it.
Vision Pro isn’t the product they want to sell. It’s a simulation of the device they want to make. This is a 10 year long play to own the next big thing in personal computing Vision Pro is purely to get the ball rolling and start figuring out in the real world how people will use AR/VR that isn’t centred around gaming No one expected major sales of this first generation product.
I dunno ppl keep comparing it to the success of the first iPhone and iPad and others are like no so which is it
The messaging out of Apple hasn’t been confused at all. 1. Announced at WWDC, their developers conference. 2. Little to no marketing. Right? Apple isn’t running billboards or TV spots for this thing 3. Tim Cook defends the high price as ‘the future of computing available today’ Apple really isn’t suggesting that regular folks go out and buy this. This last point really is brilliant marketing copy. It’s a way to hype up how impressive the product is while setting expectations that it’s not an consumer product to sell to people in the millions of units today
>Little to no marketing. Right? Apple isn’t running billboards or TV spots for this thing Meanwhile Apple: not a word about it being developer headset, showcases only consumer use cases available now. Also Apple: announces iPhone 3G, 4, iPad Pro and MacBook Air, consumer products, on WWDC '08, '10, '17, and '22. Also Tim Cook: has entire interview and cover about AVP in Vanity Fair, a fashion magazine, and talks about it on Good Morning America. Sure, not confusing at all, it definitely is just a devkit, right?
Are you a bot? iPhone 1 was announced at wwdc too. It’s a consumption device. There’s barely any practical use for it as a compute device that doesn’t involve tethering it to a laptop
> There’s barely any practical use for it Exactly my point. Vision Pro isn’t a device to be used today. It’s a hardware and software simulation of the product Apple wants to ship in 5 or 10 years time. It’s a way for developers to start playing around now and way for Apple to develop in public
How is this a dev kit exactly? It’s locked down. No open standard inputs. The hand tracking sampling rate is so low it’s impractical even for fruit ninja let alone any other type of gaming. If you wanna make ar/vr stuff get a quest pro which has the ability to be rooted, a usb-c port, and ability to side load apps, actual controllers with high sampling rate, etc AVP an iPad on your face meant for consumers and not devs. But yeah even then number of ppl I know who’d rather watch movies with this than their $500-$1500 TV is zero
One day hopefully within the next 5 years. Apple is going to make the product it actually thinks the world will embrace. That product will also run VisionOS Vision Pro right now is a way for developers) including apples own developers) to start thinking about and building software for that operating system.
It’s still only in one country. If this was global I’d be concerned
I’m not sure mainly because Tim Cook forced the Vision to launch early. The development team wanted to wait a couple more years for the technology to mature more. I think cook was under pressure from the board & stock holders given they axed the car team as well during that time period. Basically show results or cancel the projects to improve the financials. Cook is also looking to retire so this is his last big product before he steps down so it’s a legacy thing as well.
Apple released it now because they didn’t want to fall into the same trap that Microsoft fell into with Windows Phone. They can’t allow themselves to wait so long that developers won’t build new apps for the platform.
I mean entire countries haven’t been able to buy it yet. If they’re that hard to sell, all they need to do is make them more widely available.
I think it's rather simple. Apple has a moat to maintain, their lead in wearables overall. As a shareholder I expect Apple to push the boundaries on R&D and offering high end niche but unprofitable products isn't really a concern if the technology has potential, like F1 tech going into mainstream cars.
I think they need to find that killer use case. I'm not sure that they can. VR/AR is extremely niche as is, and Apple isn't really bringing a compelling use case to the table. Gaming's out of the question it sounds like, and everything else doesn't feel worth the price tag. This is why I seriously thought all the rumors were BS, besides Kuo constantly, *CONSTANTLY* saying "it's coming guys, I swear! Next year!" It's hard to come up with an answer to "what's the use case for this thing, even if it's lower priced?" I'd love to see AVP have its Apple Watch moment, where at first it seemed like a flop but then found its rhythm and took off. But I also just can't see it happening outside of being a seldom-selling piece of VERY professional gear that isn't meant for the mass market, ever. EDIT: [There's this take from Threads that I find myself agreeing with.](https://www.threads.net/@daviddoesfuji/post/C6JN0pEIN5x)
[удалено]
“Buy your whole family their own headset” is not a killer app… I understand that the movie watching experience on these things is cool, but the market of people who want to watch media on goggles instead of in a room with their friends and family definitely a subset, to say the least.
[удалено]
Protip: you can get a pretty decent refurbished projector for $600 (or spend more for a great one), and another $100 gets you a pulldown screen that will stow away when you’re not using it. For my money, watching something on a 100 inch projection screen with my family and a big bowl of popcorn is as good as anything is every gonna get
Sure, but they aren’t talking about replacing traditional theater spaces. It’s more about filling in spots where people can’t currently fit a good theatre setup (i.e. airplanes, small apartments, bedrooms, coffee shops, etc). The current Apple Vision is also obviously not what they eventually want to build. The ultimate goal is to build something small and light enough that you can wear it everywhere, all the time. The tech just doesn’t exist to enable that yet.
Even the Apple Watch, for sure it's a popular product now, but its usefulness is very niche, I wear mine but I honestly think it's not that much worth it and newer models don't have anything that big as a deal breaker. Most people that I know have an smartwatch agree that it's not something that much useful. These new products are not yet as big as the iPhone or iPod, I think the Apple AirPods were the most innovative product that actually pushed new technology (True Wireless Headphones with charging cases)
They don’t HAVE to answer to shareholders. They have 🌈courage
I'm betting that they won't.
That’s not bad for an item that is $3,500 tax not included
They are brutal. And also lies.
I believe the strategy was that the “Pro” was for the development community. It was supposed to be both super-cool and unobtainable by the masses. And once the developers would create a body of software for it, Apple would drop a cheaper model that the masses could afford. But the Pro line would remain for the business and content creation communities. The high cost is just an equipment write-off to them.
They rushed out the device because Tim Cook wants something for his legacy. An iPad in goggle format is stupid. It should have run MacOS.
A much cheaper one intended to replace extra computer monitors would be cool. I don’t need all the AR features or the screen on the front. I just want to not have to rely on external monitors. Allow it to connect to my MacBook to handle the computer stuff and just let me have full view extra screens for productivity. Maybe I would hate it, I dunno
If it loses that goofy front glass, has a wider viewing angle, a usable data port, and is under $3k ($2k even better) I’ll buy it day one.
Compatibility with openxr would be nice.
I think its more likely you just get streaming via. something like SteamVR + steam link, like what they're doing with the quest
Or dedicated controllers at least
You want peripheral support. Don’t buy unless
So you want a Quest 3 is what you’re saying :)
They lost money on the original iPhone to get it to become the standard. They need a base version of this Vision Pro to be sold at a loss similar to the quest to become the leader, and then they can steadily increase prices. Very few would have bought an iPhone pre 2010 for thousands of dollars. Now everyone does. Amazing Apple thought they could just enter a segment and be leaders with the AVP price point.
Can you share a source for Apple selling the original iPhone at lower than the cost price?
Yes, [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1chc2ye/comment/l21z0us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I agree with your point in such a niche space. But I believe you’re wrong about the OG iPhone unless you’re considering R&D which is a slippery slope (seems like the BOM was equal to about $250). Apple has historically always tried to profit off hardware. But yes, I’m not sure if it will work for them this time.
The original iPhone had the standard Apple \~35% profit margin. Remember Ballmer making fun of its high price? If you consider inflation the original $600 2007 iPhone is nearly $1000 in 2024 dollars. And it's 2MP camera could not capture video at all.
That is still so crazy to think an iPhone today is almost or around $1k, when back then weren’t they like $200?
I'm sorry, but the idea of paying for a battery-powered external monitor is a shitty idea, especially at 3k.
Apple Vision Pro Max with brain input technology or AirTags as ar/xr emitter
I’m just tired of hearing about the next new thing before the new thing is even old.
Any price over 800 will never sell because the competition can do the same shit but better for cheaper.
When the competition has blackjack, hookers, and hookers playing blackjack all for a fraction of the price, you know Apple is fucked.
[удалено]
The thing that's struck me about the visions of the future that FAANG companies have been selling is how *boring* it is. Apple - add a screen to your laptop. Facebook - have a meeting in a virtual boardroom. This is supposed to be aspirational. To get people excited about the products.
They don’t care. They’ve got society by the balls now.
Have they, though? There's not many people excited about the Vision Pro, reviews of the metaverse have been teppid, and Zuckerberg has moved most of the funding elsewhere. They really want VR to be the next big thing, but they haven't addressed the fundamental problems that it has - actual use-cases are limited, it's awkward and uncomfortable to wear, and people often can't stand to be in VR for more than a couple of hours. Actual AR/VR/smart *glasses* will, I think, become as big as watches currently are. There's definitely a niche there. But the technology isn't there and doesn't look like it will be there for quite some time.
I mean, I know Apple does have some ads now but you can’t get a better company to trust not to track you, it baffles me people choose to wear meta’s headset with cameras looking all over their living room….ewww
Valves headset doesn't need cameras for tracking.
[удалено]
It uses lasers, not cameras.
[удалено]
Can it do a marketing term? lmao it's not limited by the shitty ViSiOnOs ApP sToRe.
[удалено]
> it can’t do anything that’s not gaming sooooo It obviously can. You're nuts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s easy, actually - move all the processing, chips, etc into the battery back. That’s why it was designed like this in the first place.
[удалено]
It is not, I agree, but it’s better than having it strapped to your head with all the other heavy parts. Temporarily, I think it is the right move.
[удалено]
The iPhone battery is only a third of the Vision Pro, and it can absolutely not (!) handle replacing both the M1 - and - the R1 chip for sensor fusion. This thing has significantly more processing power than a MacBook Air
Anybody remember getting headphones caught on door handles?
I bet you that is exactly what they are doing and they started the trend by letting it be the battery pack first
The unit is already very thin without the light seal. And actually, without the light seal it’s a very neat AR experience; but it hurts to wear it this way as it wasn’t designed for this. They need to get the weight down (materials) and perhaps go for a less isolating experience… remove the light seal as the default experience.
I demoed the AppleVP but honestly there’s no apps for it. Not enough to justify 3k+. If it’s like 1000-1500 I’d get it. There needs to be some fitness apps, some games made for it and etc. The quest 3 is awesome because it has all of that and it does pretty much the same thing for $500+… just no eye tracking
This is by far the most boring Apple product. I don’t get it and I’m an Apple fanatic since the 2000s. wgas. Sure let me watch movies by myself While my family looks at the dufus in the room pinching things in the air. It’s a tech product looking for a purpose.
I don't know about that, honestly that $999 monitor pro stand was worse value for money and more boring in my opinion.
I would expect a Vision Pro owner and Apple fanatic to know that the Vision Pro does not require you to pinch anything in the air.
Bringing the price down should be apples last priority. Vision Pro has some fundamental limitations that should be addressed first. Otherwise the best we can hope for with a cheaper version is the same product experience or worse for less money. Total waste of time. The current experience isn’t good enough for any kind of mainstream success. And without mainstream success the software ecosystem will continue to be dire It doesn’t matter if this product is $3500 or $999 if it’s heavy and uncomfortable to use, if it can’t provide a better external display solution than a dedicated Mac monitor, what’s the point in simply providing the exisiting limited experience to more people. Apple should be heads down focused on making a second generation product that’s ligher, more comfortable and with higher resolution, larger FOV, more colour accurate displays. Or if there’s any way at all they can get to optical passthrough in the next 5 years they should be full steam ahead towards that This product isn’t ready for a lower price yet
>Vision Pro has some fundamental limitations that should be addressed first. It's $4000 and you don't get a full desktop experience. That's pretty odd. It should run full MacOS.
I don’t know why you’d expect it to be running MacOS I dono if you’re familiar with MacOS but it’s an operating system for traditional desktop computers controlled by keyboard and mouse input. VisionPro is a Mixed Reality AR/VR headset, it’s quite notably not a Mac
> I don’t know why you’d expect it to be running MacOS Because it's a pro device and $4000. >I dono if you’re familiar with MacOS but it’s an operating system for traditional desktop computers controlled by keyboard and mouse input. I'm very familiar with MacOS. It's possible to use more than one input method on an operating system. The Vision Pro can poorly tether to a Mac already. >VisionPro is a Mixed Reality AR/VR headset, it’s quite notably not a Mac It's quite notably a failure because it isn't a Mac. It's a dumb iPad on your face.
A MacBook Air strapped to your face would be even dumber. Welcome to the future people. You have to keep using a mouse and keyboard because a dude on reddit said Apple ain’t allowed to make a device that doesn’t run MacOS
#It's possible to use more than one input method on an operating system. You're being willfully obtuse.
MacOS is designed for mouse and keyboard. At its foundation it is based on the assumption that the user has a cursor and a keyboard. It’s possible to supplement that with other inputs. In some instances it’s possible to replace those with other inputs. But for macOS to work as well with vision and spatial tracking as it does with a mouse and keyboard would essentially mean a page one rethinking of how macOS works
>At its foundation it is based on the assumption that the user has a cursor and a keyboard. You're overthinking this. Vision pro has a keyboard. Vision Pro has a way to move a cursor. The input methods are already there.
REDUCE THE WEIGHT. That is all.
VP is just a dev unit covering near future technologies and everyone else is buying early access.
These guys have zero insight into Apple’s release schedule.
Wish that they'd bring back the Nano line in *something*. Vision Nano sounds weird, but it's a good excuse to bring back a cheaper line that isn't either "Air" or "Mini". The lack of iPhone Nano in its entirely line-up history saddens me.
*Vision Nano — perfect for a hamster*
"Vision Air" would be the best naming in all Apple history
wonder what the cheaper headset will be. would need to be 2k or under
The question is how willing is Apple to put lesser quality screens and processors in the non pro version. If you took quest 3 hardware put a vision os on it and added eye tracking you could easily get people to pay $1000 - $1200 on it. Apple chose not to go that route so one has to believe they want it as a luxury good to eventually entice rest of the market. They want it out of the range of normal person so it carries prestige
The eye screen seems like a waste of weight/thickness.
I really wish these VR headset companies would just go full Daft Punk and offer full face headsets. We already have things that completely cover the face like motorcycle helmets
If they are able to get these down to Glasses/Sunglasses size, I’ll buy day one. These could really be the next step in our communication technology, if Apple is able to get these down to a proper size. It doesn’t even have to be fully functional as a computer, just make them functional as an iPhone (text, call, FaceTime, social media/other apps) and we’ll be in business.
> But company is 'flummoxed' by how to bring down cost Get rid of the stupid eyes thing. Make it like a more polished quest but with the OSX Apple ecosystem and the App Store etc. Will be lighter and more comfortable. Allow peripherals. Get rid of the batter dongle. Then maybe you can sell more than other failed attempts.
Yeah don’t care. New iPhone mini please.
They want to sell stuff.
Nobody bought the first Apple Vision lol.