This is my personal blog, which is about news in general. we have a collaboration, with Mashable. my blog It's called ''Find a way out of reality'' why?, I ask you that question. find a way to escape reality.
3500$ a pair of glasses 🤓 they are extremely expensive. Only an elite can afford that ... For 3500$ you can buy a package of Data and an iPad pro, honestly. Plus the vision pro doesn't last a day 🙄🙄🙄
Everyone keep talking about your diligence and honesty I say this that you are the Best thank you for transforming my life for the better financially Mark Hutchinson
Comparing to the Meta Quest is a fools errand. The Vision's (cheap or Pro) primary use-case will be to replace Macs. The OS and software catalogue is not up to the task yet, and pricing will only have to match Mac pricing.
Once the software is caught up, $1500 for the cheaper one is more than enough to justify.
I feel yes and no about that. Sure, there are windows and you can have as many of them as you want. But I find myself quickly overwhelmed in visionOS and end up closing windows just to clean up the space. The windows are huge and all the blurring and layering of them can be visually cluttered too.
I also don't really enjoy having to turn my head so far just to see a different app.
There's essentially no multitasking, while iPad has multiple multitasking tools at users's disposal.
Hopefully with the new look at palm gestures, VisionOS can build out ways to switch between apps more fluidly.
I honestly struggle to see how the Vision (Pro or not) could ever replace the Mac.
I'm a developer spending 10 hours a day in front of a multiple monitors setup. I even own some Viture glasses that are orders of magnitude lighter than the Vision. And yet I can't imagine for a second replacing my Mac + real life monitors with an XR headset.
The price, the weight, the power. It's a dead end. The experience is entertaining for sure. But for 10 hours/day of work? I can't see that happening.
At best it could be tethered to a Mac, but first he'll have to make himself forgotten.
So I can certainly understand why it wouldn't be appealing to you in your current situation. You have an existing set up that works for you.
However, there are plenty of people who don't currently have multiple monitors for various reasons, who would love to have such set ups. Each monitor has a cost in money as well as space. If you have neither, the Vision (Pro or not) could be a very viable replacement (imagine at $1500 for a computer + monitors, vs the total price for a computer, and each monitor you buy). You can also "carry" these monitors with you wherever you go, it is far superior in portability than your current monitor set up no?
The price, weight, power of the current Vision Pro is the worse it will ever be at. As most technology trends, the price will lower, the weight will lower, and power will increase. These are fairly easy, reasonable expectations to have. So, no, this current version of the Vision Pro isn't the Mac replacement we're talking about, but the one 2-5 years from now? Yes.
I really love the concept of the virtual Mac monitor. And agree with the point about cost and portability.
But really struggling to justify the current use of it while at home or traveling even. I've gotten pretty used to working from my 13" screen. And the virtual display just feels so uncomfortable (not even just the weight) compared to just looking at the actual screen.
In general with Apple Vision Pro, if it's something I can do on my Mac or phone, I'm going to prefer doing it on the Mac or phone.
I like it for the things my Mac and phone can't do. Like the 3D/immersive content and now Demeo is like the first good game for it. I'll spend hours wearing it with no noticeable fatigue when I'm doing something I enjoy using it for.
I also get this is the first vision and things will improve. Hopefully it does and the virtual display becomes more viable for me.
I am pretty sure XR / AR devices are the future, but the technology suitable for productivity isn't there yet and doesn't match Apples Vision of a device for the whole day and everywhere.
Metas vision isn't far away from Apples but Meta realized the technology isn't there yet to focus on productivity tasks so they use gaming to boost the technology until we have devices in the form factor of sunglasses or contact lenses.
eh, I'm with you. I'm not sold on the Mac virtual display. I was really excited for that as a travel set up since I only have a 13" monitor.
After multiple work days of trying to use it, I just went back to using my normal displays. Even when traveling and I don't have a 1920 x 1080 normal display, I just prefer to use my 13" Retina display.
A bit more extra space != enough value to justify the discomfort and lower quality.
My biggest annoyance is that I have to turn my head to see the whole screen clearly. Apple just can't get around the fact the lenses are curved and will blur.
The only thing I find surprising here is that Apple expected to sell more than they have. It shows how out of touch they've gotten with their pricing. I'm glad consumers drew a line somewhere. Maybe they can start drawing it for the iPhone Pro Max or SSD upgrade fees too, but that's probably wishful thinking.
PS: they'd sell more if it ran MacOS apps without a laptop, but thought they could sucker consumers for both.
Where do they get this from? They are just mimicking what they hear from the internet without any solid sources..no one outside of Apple knows how may AVP units have been sold or retuned or even what the projected sales were. It’s all speculation completely made up.
Curious how you know their expectations on sales? Every statement they have made it is doing quite well. They delayed international rollout. It seems to be doing fine.
I'm basing my comment on this article. Companies only change near-term plans when something major compels them to, and actively seeking to drop prices quickly is usually related to demand.
I will also note that there there was a flurry of reporting at the end of April that Apple was seeing a large drop-off in sales and had revised their sales expectations downward. The initial sales may have exceeded expectations, but continued sales may not be which could present a more troubled outlook for the future.
Back to the article. This article suggests Apple's short-term development plans have changed dramatically. If not VP sales trends, what do you think would cause Apple to stop/pause development of the VP to expedite a cheaper model? The Vision Pro not doing well enough against Apple's expectations is the most obvious inference, but I'll acknowledge it's not necessarily the only one.
Something else I'm kind of expecting is a core feature reset and price realignment like what the Homepod went through. Releasing an Apple Vision (instead of VP2) sets Apple free from the expectation that the next headset will have everything the orignal VP had (but better). They can release a pared down and cheaper Apple Vision, then after a period of time re-release the Vision Pro at a new price-point and new balance of features.
Apple only planned to manufacture a small number...and that number could have cost the same to them as an even smaller number when you start to take economy of scale into account. Their pricing on something like this was spot on, it costs $1500+ just to make. Generally, that's 50% of the price of any major electronics product to anticipate operational costs, returns, defects, and whatever else. Not to mention R&D. In the end, they may have even lost money on this thing. But I still consider it a devkit, nobody should be buying this unless you have a plan to bend it to do something it can't already do.
Even if they've - reportedly - mistaken, I'm PRETTY sure they invested energies and money into market researching. Something I believe neither you, nor I, nor probably anyone else did outside Apple itself.
This to say, these companies hardly go "by hunches", but by scientific research.
I like all my Apple products, but I've never been a fan of headset VR/AR units. Too encompassing for my tastes. It will likely be the one Apple product I may never own regardless of price.
The trillion dollar question is: How cheap? The Meta Quest headsets have demonstrated that the sweet spot for VR is between $200 and $300. The upper limit is $500 which is the price of the Quest 3. Sure Apple is a premium brand and with their brand appeal and features they could command a higher price but a VR headset is not an essential item like a phone. People don't really need one. Most people don't want one at all and think they are weird and those wearing them look like fools. The people who buy them tend to be gamers and Apple really has not done well in that market yet. Apple could create massive demand for VR headsets but to do that it will first need to find a reason for people to buy them. My suggestion would be to look into live sports and concerts where VR can create a better experience than attending in person.
You mention VR at least 4 times here - yet that is not at all what the Vision product is going for. Where the Quest is a VR product that can do rudimentary AR, poorly and with distortions and seams...Apple's product is AR focused with VR as a secondary screen, not even focused on gaming aspects. At least half the cost of the Vision Pro is in cameras and the ability to process those cameras as seamlessly as possible. At least 90% of the development into the Vision Pro is around AR, with the VR aspect being a big screen and a background...practically a footnote.
As you say, they're not going to sell this product to gamers, and they don't want to. As with so many products before it, they need to sell this to regular people who don't know why they would want one until they are shown why. This also includes those gamers, who criticize the product for not being a gaming device and don't understand why anyone would want anything else.
Regular people work out, play games, and don't spend $3499 on a headset. Honestly, the non-regular, hardcore gamers would be the easiest target for that price...
Adding optional VR controller support (with haptic feedback) for games and developing a Fitness App would do nothing to hurt Apple's push to drive spatial computing forward, it would only help. The VP isn't better for not having them.
It honestly astonishes me how Apple managed to ignore the revenue potential of getting more people signed up for Apple Fitness+ with this headset, as growing services revenue is all they seem to care about this days, and this is a proven winner in the headset space.
As for this not being a VR headset, the most compelling use case: a personal cinema, is 100% VR. The Vision Pro is also not an AR headset and Apple doesn't call it that. Apps don't have access to the camera feed (for privacy purposes, unless this has changed recently) so they can't actually augment reality other than identify and interact with surfaces. The Meta RayBans are more of an AR device than this (even without a screen) as they can read and translate signs, identify plants and buildings, etc. Spacial computing could be considered MR (mixed reality), but it's not true AR as it stands today.
The most compelling use case for the AVP is interacting with the real world in a hobbyist or professional setting. It just doesn't have the app support to do that yet. Yes, the Vision Pro is an AR headset and Oculus calls it that. Apple doesn't call it AR but they have in the past when the iPhone first got Lidar and they showed off the "AR features". MR would be something like the Disney Marvel game they released recently.
When you're projecting the image of a complex device into the real world and interacting with it and objects that actually exist around it, that is AR. The Meta RayBans are more of a HUD than actual AR, and you can translate 17 languages with the Vision Pro...and identify plants and buildings as well. This is built in as "visual search". The RayBans are definitely made for a more mobile experience, but to say that's AR is even a stretch.
Thanks for the note on visual search, I missed that, and will need to read up on it. The line between the “not AR” quest and “AR” Vision Pro isn’t that large in my eyes, but I’ll cede that you can call it AR.
Onto compelling use cases.
We clearly have different definitions of “compelling”. For me something that could exist, but doesn’t yet and can only be vaguely described is at best promising, not compelling. To me, the most compelling current use VP for is immersive video, whether 2d or spatial, then probably MacOS mirroring. Both of which the “VR” Quest can do as well, on an inferior display of course.
App developers absolutely will unlock new and innovative ways to use Apple Vision, provided there is a large enough market to sustain those developers.
No guarantee that more compelling uses happen before the next headset ships though. I think the future is promising, but the present isn’t compelling for the price of what Apples shipping. Thats 100% on Apple for not even bothering to update their own “pro and hobbyist” apps ahead of launch or even with Vision OS2 (thus far), as well not supporting Mac Apps and making this a true laptop replacement out of the box.
EyeSight was a necessity for the first generation to give people something obvious to look for but it can absolutely be ditched in a low cost version and replaced by a green, yellow and red led to show presence. This is a huge win in component costs and manufacturing complexity and weight.
Move to a nice lightweight plastic and maybe even ditch the electronic eye alignment and possibly even the high end audio and ship it with your choice of AirPods/AirPods Pro.
The eyesight screen is $70 out of the $1542 material cost estimate I just looked up, but that's the least expansive part of eyesight. The 3D formed lenticular glass panel on the front of VP costs $799 to repair from Apple and I expect a lot of that is in materials, not labour. Apple specifically called out how hard it is to bend glass like that when they introduced the AP.
Going back to the estimate, the glass sadly wasn't broken out, but $466 (almost 1/3 of the material cost) was still unaccounted for with basically just the internal frame, straps, battery and front glass to left consider.
Eyesight adds a lot of cost (and weight) beyond just that of a relatively cheap screen. It also has knockdown effects as the added weight likely drove Apple to use the magnesium and carbon fibre inner frame to shave of some weight they wouldn't have felt the need to otherwise.
That $70 cost was in the original BOM but is not the most current. The panel isn't that expensive to replace because of the eyesight display, it's because it contains all of the cameras and lidar. I doubt that would change much from this device to the next even if they got rid of eyesight. Which I am guessing they will, but still replace it with something similar.
In the marketing material it looked good, but the "real life" implementation - not so much. The design implementation was flawed as it's hard to see from some angles and in certain conditions. I'd call it more of a cx gimmick, but that's just me.
I disagree. I feel more comfortable using it on planes knowing that the flight staff can see my eyes when they come by. I don't feel the pressure to take it off for every tiny micro interaction I have with people.
It could be implemented better but I think the basic need of outside people knowing that you can see them and are making eye contact vs just staring off in their direction looking at a virtual thing needs to be solved one way or another.
The other headsets don't have it because they never pictured people using this outside of their homes.
There might be cheaper ways to solve it like an icon or light on the front instead of eyes but then people need to know what the icon/light means. Nothing is as intuitive as just showing eyes.
If a first adopter is willing to spend $3500 on an incomplete product, they are going to have a different level of buy in to the announced features than the rest of us. Apple's already sold to you. Now they need to sell to people like me, and I'll take a cheaper headset over eyesight any day of the week.
Having used other headsets, any time you have passthrough video that's going to lessen the urge to remove the headset for a micro interaction. The wearer doesn't experience the outer screen and the viewer can still pick up on facical expressions around the mouth. With any prolonged interaction the headset is coming off. Eyes on the outside or not.
I believe it was incredibly important for the initial reveal because it instantly made the headset different and distinct from every other headset on the market. The press ate it up and allowed Apple to tell their story for spatial computing. The main problem is that the spatial computing story isn't that good right now.
A lower cost headset tells a better story to me than eyesight. It always has, and has always been the first feature I expect to be dropped when going from Apple Vision Pro to Vision. They'll probably keep a presence indicator of some sort though.
I could be wrong. Apple views social interactions differently from me, and I think a lot of their ideas are silly. I never wanted to send heartbeats from my watch and I'm not sold on the direction they are taking personas in VP; but I'd have to experience those for myself.
This is projecting. I’m sure flight staff and everyone else interacting with you couldn’t care less if they can see your eyes - if you’re in a ski mask in a public setting you’re getting ostracized. It looks dumb to everyone but those who purchased a Vision Pro, and only because they have to convince themselves that every little thing it does is revolutionary, and not a huge waste of money.
Yet. It's very early days, and its usefulness atm is hindered by the app catalogue. Every product has to start somewhere, even the Quest did.
It's simply illogical for people to compare a product that's been out for 10 years to one that hasn't even made it 6 months yet when it comes to software availability. But silly people will silly about I suppose.
When the iPhone launched, it was instantly better than every other smartphone in the market (even with some glaring shortcomings). Same thing for the iPad. The watch kind of took two generations, and the VP will take longer.
The thing you're saying is illogical is the very magic Apple used to have. Their bread and butter was to go into a an established, but stagnant market and redefine it. There's some of that here, but it's incomplete. This isn't the for every yes, there's 1000 no's era for Apple.
This is Apple's first headset, but they aren't starting from zero with the VP. They got to watch a decade of VR development. They saw what works and what doesn't, and they didn't leverage it as well as they should have.
You're right that with apps, you have to start somewhere. But that somewhere is first party apps, the apps that Apple builds themselves. Those are the biggest ones that are missing imo. I was hard on Microsoft when they first launched ARM PCs without ARM native Microsoft Office software and I'll be as equally hard on Apple here.
I agree, it was definitely a huge miss on Apple's part not to even have the simple Pages, Numbers, and iMovie apps on visionOS at launch. Their Photos app was also not full Photos.
Apple deserves very valid criticism for dropping the ball on those, and other areas of the software/OS on AVP.
I do think they were able to make of that magic from watching the VR development by not making it a VR-first experience. The Quest is slowly tacking on the features that AVP brought to the game (high quality passthrough, monitors/screens, productivity focus, etc...), and that signifies to me that AVP got a lot of the core concepts right when the Quest had not over 10 years.
I'd argue that Meta being able to quickly tack them on to an existing device means they aren't "core" features, but nonetheless I agree. The existence on the Vision Pro is bringing the Quest 3 to a place that it may not have travelled to on its on its own. Apple did introduce a lot of innovation to the space, they just aren't doing much with it.
I mean if someone does and they live alone and never leave the house with it, I could see why they'd find it pretty useless. Eyesight doesn't even turn on unless it detects a face to show it to.
I guess the external display is universally useful to show boot and software update status even if you don't use it on the go. But maybe not worth having that complex of a display for those things.
My guess is that what it did will not be going way, just implemented another way. It wasn't idiotic, it reminds me of Mercedes putting teal lights on the outside of the car to show when self driving is active...that may not be the best way, but it's an attempt to indicate something to people that they can understand.
I think this is the best way to solve it though. There could be other ways but they will be significantly worse. People don't know what colored lights mean. Icons can also be ambiguous and confusing and take time of someone staring at them to understand. Eyes are the most clear, human, and expressive.
I would build a headset that is complementary to the iPhone and Mac and uses all the compute from those devices as the primary. It seems silly to have paid for high end chips in your Macbook, iPhone, and Vision Pro - all of which are massively underutilized.
A device that pairs with your Mac for an amazing display experience focused on productivity and mobile workers. "It is like having 3 x Apple Pro XDR Displays when you travel"
A device that also pairs with your iOS device for entertainment
Using the Macbook screen to do work from is terrible if you are used to having a full-sized display in front of you.
I love my Vision Pro and believe it is worth every penny. As I use it more and more, it has greatly increased my productivity and is the primary way I consume video content these days. I also love the way it works with my 14 inch MacBook Pro. I was planning to buy a large monitor, but now I have when wherever I go. It is unmatched when used on an airplane. I record all my home videos now in spatial video. I will upgrade as soon as the next "Pro" version is available, likely now in 2026. I do not want fewer features at a reduced price, I want more features at the same price (a little lighter wouldn't hurt, but I can live with what it is now).
The 2 main reasons Vision Pro hasn't taken off is #1 - External battery required (it could always be optional) and #2 - Price. If Apple can get the price down to $1,000 with an internal battery they could lose the external screen and sell the battery as an add-on. Even if the battery life is only 2h that would be enough for a lot of users, especially if we could plug it in to any adequate USB-C power source.
While Vision Pro technology is great, it's unfortunately not enough and won't be for some time. Their vision for spatial computing really only becomes interesting in glasses/ AR form factor.
Instead, I think Apple could try to compete with smart glasses such as Meta/Rayban. Basically all the AI smarts but just not the AR overlay. I think they could market it as something between apple watch and airpods.
You can knock it down to 1.5K but if there's still nothing to do with it and it's uncomfortable to wear for more than a half hour, it's not going to do any better.
Like the OG HomePod which sold for 3 years just to go away for 2 to give room for the low cost model, and return with a minor "refresh" with much fanfare? Not the worst path to follow.
The orignal HomePod still gets all OS updates and features. It can be paired with Apple TV for home theater mode. It's the best sounding HomePod of the 3 models Apple has offered to date.
Quite frankly Id like to see a set of smart glasses similar to Google Glass but more stylish and functional...sort of like the Ray Bans but with greater use and functionality...
.webp)
/whisper/ field of view /whisper/
ReplyDeleteIt'd be vision 2
ReplyDelete3500$ a pair of glasses 🤓 they are extremely expensive. Only an elite can afford that ... For 3500$ you can buy a package of Data and an iPad pro, honestly. Plus the vision pro doesn't last a day 🙄🙄🙄
ReplyDeleteTheir fans let Apple down🙄
ReplyDeleteAwesome product, maybe too high on price
ReplyDeleteEveryone keep talking about your diligence and honesty I say this that you are the Best thank you for transforming my life for the better financially Mark Hutchinson
ReplyDeleteThat what happen when you dont hire indian engineer in the team...the project close...all project need indian because they are brilliant...
ReplyDeletesaid no one ever
DeleteҮнэтэй болгон сайн бишээ гэж..
ReplyDeleteWhen u add on the Apple care, 1TB HDD & zeiss lens it’s almost $8k SGD, plus other accessories like extra battery & cases…
ReplyDeleteNobody will spend that money for an extra iPad on the face unless you are really rich…own money to banks…
Not wise yet
Comparing to the Meta Quest is a fools errand. The Vision's (cheap or Pro) primary use-case will be to replace Macs. The OS and software catalogue is not up to the task yet, and pricing will only have to match Mac pricing.
ReplyDeleteOnce the software is caught up, $1500 for the cheaper one is more than enough to justify.
Without a policy change, it will never be up to that task. It will be hampered by VisionOS in the same way the iPad Pro is hampered by iPadOS.
DeleteThat is a distinct possibility for sure. But the window management in visionOS vs iPadOS gives me some hope.
DeleteI feel yes and no about that. Sure, there are windows and you can have as many of them as you want. But I find myself quickly overwhelmed in visionOS and end up closing windows just to clean up the space. The windows are huge and all the blurring and layering of them can be visually cluttered too.
DeleteI also don't really enjoy having to turn my head so far just to see a different app.
There's essentially no multitasking, while iPad has multiple multitasking tools at users's disposal.
Hopefully with the new look at palm gestures, VisionOS can build out ways to switch between apps more fluidly.
I honestly struggle to see how the Vision (Pro or not) could ever replace the Mac.
DeleteI'm a developer spending 10 hours a day in front of a multiple monitors setup. I even own some Viture glasses that are orders of magnitude lighter than the Vision. And yet I can't imagine for a second replacing my Mac + real life monitors with an XR headset.
The price, the weight, the power. It's a dead end. The experience is entertaining for sure. But for 10 hours/day of work? I can't see that happening.
At best it could be tethered to a Mac, but first he'll have to make himself forgotten.
So I can certainly understand why it wouldn't be appealing to you in your current situation. You have an existing set up that works for you.
DeleteHowever, there are plenty of people who don't currently have multiple monitors for various reasons, who would love to have such set ups. Each monitor has a cost in money as well as space. If you have neither, the Vision (Pro or not) could be a very viable replacement (imagine at $1500 for a computer + monitors, vs the total price for a computer, and each monitor you buy). You can also "carry" these monitors with you wherever you go, it is far superior in portability than your current monitor set up no?
The price, weight, power of the current Vision Pro is the worse it will ever be at. As most technology trends, the price will lower, the weight will lower, and power will increase. These are fairly easy, reasonable expectations to have. So, no, this current version of the Vision Pro isn't the Mac replacement we're talking about, but the one 2-5 years from now? Yes.
I really love the concept of the virtual Mac monitor. And agree with the point about cost and portability.
DeleteBut really struggling to justify the current use of it while at home or traveling even. I've gotten pretty used to working from my 13" screen. And the virtual display just feels so uncomfortable (not even just the weight) compared to just looking at the actual screen.
In general with Apple Vision Pro, if it's something I can do on my Mac or phone, I'm going to prefer doing it on the Mac or phone.
I like it for the things my Mac and phone can't do. Like the 3D/immersive content and now Demeo is like the first good game for it. I'll spend hours wearing it with no noticeable fatigue when I'm doing something I enjoy using it for.
I also get this is the first vision and things will improve. Hopefully it does and the virtual display becomes more viable for me.
I am pretty sure XR / AR devices are the future, but the technology suitable for productivity isn't there yet and doesn't match Apples Vision of a device for the whole day and everywhere.
DeleteMetas vision isn't far away from Apples but Meta realized the technology isn't there yet to focus on productivity tasks so they use gaming to boost the technology until we have devices in the form factor of sunglasses or contact lenses.
eh, I'm with you. I'm not sold on the Mac virtual display. I was really excited for that as a travel set up since I only have a 13" monitor.
DeleteAfter multiple work days of trying to use it, I just went back to using my normal displays. Even when traveling and I don't have a 1920 x 1080 normal display, I just prefer to use my 13" Retina display.
A bit more extra space != enough value to justify the discomfort and lower quality.
My biggest annoyance is that I have to turn my head to see the whole screen clearly. Apple just can't get around the fact the lenses are curved and will blur.
Maybe some day they can improve that.
The only thing I find surprising here is that Apple expected to sell more than they have. It shows how out of touch they've gotten with their pricing. I'm glad consumers drew a line somewhere. Maybe they can start drawing it for the iPhone Pro Max or SSD upgrade fees too, but that's probably wishful thinking.
ReplyDeletePS: they'd sell more if it ran MacOS apps without a laptop, but thought they could sucker consumers for both.
How do you know Apple expected to sell more? Where do you get this from?
DeleteAlso, the iPhone Pro max is very much well priced.
Where do they get this from? They are just mimicking what they hear from the internet without any solid sources..no one outside of Apple knows how may AVP units have been sold or retuned or even what the projected sales were. It’s all speculation completely made up.
DeleteCurious how you know their expectations on sales? Every statement they have made it is doing quite well. They delayed international rollout. It seems to be doing fine.
DeleteI'm basing my comment on this article. Companies only change near-term plans when something major compels them to, and actively seeking to drop prices quickly is usually related to demand.
DeleteI will also note that there there was a flurry of reporting at the end of April that Apple was seeing a large drop-off in sales and had revised their sales expectations downward. The initial sales may have exceeded expectations, but continued sales may not be which could present a more troubled outlook for the future.
Back to the article. This article suggests Apple's short-term development plans have changed dramatically. If not VP sales trends, what do you think would cause Apple to stop/pause development of the VP to expedite a cheaper model? The Vision Pro not doing well enough against Apple's expectations is the most obvious inference, but I'll acknowledge it's not necessarily the only one.
Something else I'm kind of expecting is a core feature reset and price realignment like what the Homepod went through. Releasing an Apple Vision (instead of VP2) sets Apple free from the expectation that the next headset will have everything the orignal VP had (but better). They can release a pared down and cheaper Apple Vision, then after a period of time re-release the Vision Pro at a new price-point and new balance of features.
I was going to say, some of the reports I have read have even suggested better than expected sales and demand...
DeleteApple only planned to manufacture a small number...and that number could have cost the same to them as an even smaller number when you start to take economy of scale into account. Their pricing on something like this was spot on, it costs $1500+ just to make. Generally, that's 50% of the price of any major electronics product to anticipate operational costs, returns, defects, and whatever else. Not to mention R&D. In the end, they may have even lost money on this thing. But I still consider it a devkit, nobody should be buying this unless you have a plan to bend it to do something it can't already do.
DeleteEven if they've - reportedly - mistaken, I'm PRETTY sure they invested energies and money into market researching. Something I believe neither you, nor I, nor probably anyone else did outside Apple itself.
DeleteThis to say, these companies hardly go "by hunches", but by scientific research.
I like all my Apple products, but I've never been a fan of headset VR/AR units. Too encompassing for my tastes. It will likely be the one Apple product I may never own regardless of price.
ReplyDeleteThe trillion dollar question is: How cheap? The Meta Quest headsets have demonstrated that the sweet spot for VR is between $200 and $300. The upper limit is $500 which is the price of the Quest 3. Sure Apple is a premium brand and with their brand appeal and features they could command a higher price but a VR headset is not an essential item like a phone. People don't really need one. Most people don't want one at all and think they are weird and those wearing them look like fools. The people who buy them tend to be gamers and Apple really has not done well in that market yet. Apple could create massive demand for VR headsets but to do that it will first need to find a reason for people to buy them. My suggestion would be to look into live sports and concerts where VR can create a better experience than attending in person.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking US$ 1,500 but it’s occurred to me that you’re right.
DeleteSo they should make it cost the same as an Apple Watch Ultra at the high end.
But Apple being Apple, US$ 1,500 will be more realistic.
You mention VR at least 4 times here - yet that is not at all what the Vision product is going for. Where the Quest is a VR product that can do rudimentary AR, poorly and with distortions and seams...Apple's product is AR focused with VR as a secondary screen, not even focused on gaming aspects. At least half the cost of the Vision Pro is in cameras and the ability to process those cameras as seamlessly as possible. At least 90% of the development into the Vision Pro is around AR, with the VR aspect being a big screen and a background...practically a footnote.
DeleteAs you say, they're not going to sell this product to gamers, and they don't want to. As with so many products before it, they need to sell this to regular people who don't know why they would want one until they are shown why. This also includes those gamers, who criticize the product for not being a gaming device and don't understand why anyone would want anything else.
"They need to sell this to regular people"
DeleteRegular people work out, play games, and don't spend $3499 on a headset. Honestly, the non-regular, hardcore gamers would be the easiest target for that price...
Adding optional VR controller support (with haptic feedback) for games and developing a Fitness App would do nothing to hurt Apple's push to drive spatial computing forward, it would only help. The VP isn't better for not having them.
It honestly astonishes me how Apple managed to ignore the revenue potential of getting more people signed up for Apple Fitness+ with this headset, as growing services revenue is all they seem to care about this days, and this is a proven winner in the headset space.
As for this not being a VR headset, the most compelling use case: a personal cinema, is 100% VR. The Vision Pro is also not an AR headset and Apple doesn't call it that. Apps don't have access to the camera feed (for privacy purposes, unless this has changed recently) so they can't actually augment reality other than identify and interact with surfaces. The Meta RayBans are more of an AR device than this (even without a screen) as they can read and translate signs, identify plants and buildings, etc. Spacial computing could be considered MR (mixed reality), but it's not true AR as it stands today.
The most compelling use case for the AVP is interacting with the real world in a hobbyist or professional setting. It just doesn't have the app support to do that yet. Yes, the Vision Pro is an AR headset and Oculus calls it that. Apple doesn't call it AR but they have in the past when the iPhone first got Lidar and they showed off the "AR features". MR would be something like the Disney Marvel game they released recently.
DeleteWhen you're projecting the image of a complex device into the real world and interacting with it and objects that actually exist around it, that is AR. The Meta RayBans are more of a HUD than actual AR, and you can translate 17 languages with the Vision Pro...and identify plants and buildings as well. This is built in as "visual search". The RayBans are definitely made for a more mobile experience, but to say that's AR is even a stretch.
Thanks for the note on visual search, I missed that, and will need to read up on it. The line between the “not AR” quest and “AR” Vision Pro isn’t that large in my eyes, but I’ll cede that you can call it AR.
DeleteOnto compelling use cases.
We clearly have different definitions of “compelling”. For me something that could exist, but doesn’t yet and can only be vaguely described is at best promising, not compelling. To me, the most compelling current use VP for is immersive video, whether 2d or spatial, then probably MacOS mirroring. Both of which the “VR” Quest can do as well, on an inferior display of course.
App developers absolutely will unlock new and innovative ways to use Apple Vision, provided there is a large enough market to sustain those developers.
No guarantee that more compelling uses happen before the next headset ships though. I think the future is promising, but the present isn’t compelling for the price of what Apples shipping. Thats 100% on Apple for not even bothering to update their own “pro and hobbyist” apps ahead of launch or even with Vision OS2 (thus far), as well not supporting Mac Apps and making this a true laptop replacement out of the box.
I’m betting the EyeSight display on the front is the first thing cut to make it cheaper.
ReplyDeleteEyeSight was a necessity for the first generation to give people something obvious to look for but it can absolutely be ditched in a low cost version and replaced by a green, yellow and red led to show presence. This is a huge win in component costs and manufacturing complexity and weight.
DeleteMove to a nice lightweight plastic and maybe even ditch the electronic eye alignment and possibly even the high end audio and ship it with your choice of AirPods/AirPods Pro.
I agree with this. I can also see it come back for the AVP 2, but it’s not absolutely necessary for an entry level Apple vision device.
DeleteThat is like $40 of the entire cost...it's useless, but you won't get a lot of mileage on price by cutting it.
DeleteThe eyesight screen is $70 out of the $1542 material cost estimate I just looked up, but that's the least expansive part of eyesight. The 3D formed lenticular glass panel on the front of VP costs $799 to repair from Apple and I expect a lot of that is in materials, not labour. Apple specifically called out how hard it is to bend glass like that when they introduced the AP.
DeleteGoing back to the estimate, the glass sadly wasn't broken out, but $466 (almost 1/3 of the material cost) was still unaccounted for with basically just the internal frame, straps, battery and front glass to left consider.
Eyesight adds a lot of cost (and weight) beyond just that of a relatively cheap screen. It also has knockdown effects as the added weight likely drove Apple to use the magnesium and carbon fibre inner frame to shave of some weight they wouldn't have felt the need to otherwise.
That $70 cost was in the original BOM but is not the most current. The panel isn't that expensive to replace because of the eyesight display, it's because it contains all of the cameras and lidar. I doubt that would change much from this device to the next even if they got rid of eyesight. Which I am guessing they will, but still replace it with something similar.
DeleteI wouldn't bet on that.
Deletethat eyesight was a flawed gimmick lol totally idiotic.
DeleteActually, I don’t think so. From a CX perspective, it humanized the piece = real differentiation.
DeleteIn the marketing material it looked good, but the "real life" implementation - not so much. The design implementation was flawed as it's hard to see from some angles and in certain conditions. I'd call it more of a cx gimmick, but that's just me.
DeleteIt differentiated it by appearing to humanize it for ads and press coverage. Less so in use.
DeleteI disagree. I feel more comfortable using it on planes knowing that the flight staff can see my eyes when they come by. I don't feel the pressure to take it off for every tiny micro interaction I have with people.
DeleteIt could be implemented better but I think the basic need of outside people knowing that you can see them and are making eye contact vs just staring off in their direction looking at a virtual thing needs to be solved one way or another.
The other headsets don't have it because they never pictured people using this outside of their homes.
There might be cheaper ways to solve it like an icon or light on the front instead of eyes but then people need to know what the icon/light means. Nothing is as intuitive as just showing eyes.
If a first adopter is willing to spend $3500 on an incomplete product, they are going to have a different level of buy in to the announced features than the rest of us. Apple's already sold to you. Now they need to sell to people like me, and I'll take a cheaper headset over eyesight any day of the week.
DeleteHaving used other headsets, any time you have passthrough video that's going to lessen the urge to remove the headset for a micro interaction. The wearer doesn't experience the outer screen and the viewer can still pick up on facical expressions around the mouth. With any prolonged interaction the headset is coming off. Eyes on the outside or not.
I believe it was incredibly important for the initial reveal because it instantly made the headset different and distinct from every other headset on the market. The press ate it up and allowed Apple to tell their story for spatial computing. The main problem is that the spatial computing story isn't that good right now.
A lower cost headset tells a better story to me than eyesight. It always has, and has always been the first feature I expect to be dropped when going from Apple Vision Pro to Vision. They'll probably keep a presence indicator of some sort though.
I could be wrong. Apple views social interactions differently from me, and I think a lot of their ideas are silly. I never wanted to send heartbeats from my watch and I'm not sold on the direction they are taking personas in VP; but I'd have to experience those for myself.
This is projecting. I’m sure flight staff and everyone else interacting with you couldn’t care less if they can see your eyes - if you’re in a ski mask in a public setting you’re getting ostracized. It looks dumb to everyone but those who purchased a Vision Pro, and only because they have to convince themselves that every little thing it does is revolutionary, and not a huge waste of money.
DeleteIt's highly unlikely anyone who feels EyeSight is not useful in the comments have ever owned and used a Vision Pro.
DeleteThat's kind of the problem with Vision Pro: no one uses it.
DeleteYet. It's very early days, and its usefulness atm is hindered by the app catalogue. Every product has to start somewhere, even the Quest did.
DeleteIt's simply illogical for people to compare a product that's been out for 10 years to one that hasn't even made it 6 months yet when it comes to software availability. But silly people will silly about I suppose.
When the iPhone launched, it was instantly better than every other smartphone in the market (even with some glaring shortcomings). Same thing for the iPad. The watch kind of took two generations, and the VP will take longer.
DeleteThe thing you're saying is illogical is the very magic Apple used to have. Their bread and butter was to go into a an established, but stagnant market and redefine it. There's some of that here, but it's incomplete. This isn't the for every yes, there's 1000 no's era for Apple.
This is Apple's first headset, but they aren't starting from zero with the VP. They got to watch a decade of VR development. They saw what works and what doesn't, and they didn't leverage it as well as they should have.
You're right that with apps, you have to start somewhere. But that somewhere is first party apps, the apps that Apple builds themselves. Those are the biggest ones that are missing imo. I was hard on Microsoft when they first launched ARM PCs without ARM native Microsoft Office software and I'll be as equally hard on Apple here.
I agree, it was definitely a huge miss on Apple's part not to even have the simple Pages, Numbers, and iMovie apps on visionOS at launch. Their Photos app was also not full Photos.
DeleteApple deserves very valid criticism for dropping the ball on those, and other areas of the software/OS on AVP.
I do think they were able to make of that magic from watching the VR development by not making it a VR-first experience. The Quest is slowly tacking on the features that AVP brought to the game (high quality passthrough, monitors/screens, productivity focus, etc...), and that signifies to me that AVP got a lot of the core concepts right when the Quest had not over 10 years.
I'd argue that Meta being able to quickly tack them on to an existing device means they aren't "core" features, but nonetheless I agree. The existence on the Vision Pro is bringing the Quest 3 to a place that it may not have travelled to on its on its own. Apple did introduce a lot of innovation to the space, they just aren't doing much with it.
Deleteyea, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DeleteI mean if someone does and they live alone and never leave the house with it, I could see why they'd find it pretty useless. Eyesight doesn't even turn on unless it detects a face to show it to.
I guess the external display is universally useful to show boot and software update status even if you don't use it on the go. But maybe not worth having that complex of a display for those things.
Eyesight is what prevented me from buying. I hate it that much. Others may love it, but it was a blocking feature for me.
DeleteMy guess is that what it did will not be going way, just implemented another way. It wasn't idiotic, it reminds me of Mercedes putting teal lights on the outside of the car to show when self driving is active...that may not be the best way, but it's an attempt to indicate something to people that they can understand.
DeleteI think this is the best way to solve it though. There could be other ways but they will be significantly worse. People don't know what colored lights mean. Icons can also be ambiguous and confusing and take time of someone staring at them to understand. Eyes are the most clear, human, and expressive.
DeleteI would build a headset that is complementary to the iPhone and Mac and uses all the compute from those devices as the primary. It seems silly to have paid for high end chips in your Macbook, iPhone, and Vision Pro - all of which are massively underutilized.
ReplyDeleteA device that pairs with your Mac for an amazing display experience focused on productivity and mobile workers. "It is like having 3 x Apple Pro XDR Displays when you travel"
A device that also pairs with your iOS device for entertainment
Using the Macbook screen to do work from is terrible if you are used to having a full-sized display in front of you.
$999
It has to be under a grand to have any chance of competing with the Meta Quest. Otherwise, they shouldn't even bother.
ReplyDeleteI love my Vision Pro and believe it is worth every penny. As I use it more and more, it has greatly increased my productivity and is the primary way I consume video content these days. I also love the way it works with my 14 inch MacBook Pro. I was planning to buy a large monitor, but now I have when wherever I go. It is unmatched when used on an airplane. I record all my home videos now in spatial video. I will upgrade as soon as the next "Pro" version is available, likely now in 2026. I do not want fewer features at a reduced price, I want more features at the same price (a little lighter wouldn't hurt, but I can live with what it is now).
ReplyDeleteI think I read this exact same comment somewhere else. Did you just copy-paste the comment?
DeleteI wrote a similar, but not the same comment. Not everyone reads all sites.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe 2 main reasons Vision Pro hasn't taken off is #1 - External battery required (it could always be optional) and #2 - Price. If Apple can get the price down to $1,000 with an internal battery they could lose the external screen and sell the battery as an add-on. Even if the battery life is only 2h that would be enough for a lot of users, especially if we could plug it in to any adequate USB-C power source.
ReplyDeleteWhile Vision Pro technology is great, it's unfortunately not enough and won't be for some time. Their vision for spatial computing really only becomes interesting in glasses/ AR form factor.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I think Apple could try to compete with smart glasses such as Meta/Rayban. Basically all the AI smarts but just not the AR overlay. I think they could market it as something between apple watch and airpods.
You can knock it down to 1.5K but if there's still nothing to do with it and it's uncomfortable to wear for more than a half hour, it's not going to do any better.
ReplyDeleteWith all my love, but Apple needs a new direction and fresh air. It’s time for someone to replace Tim as CEO.
ReplyDeleteif we all went by what this pathetic youtubers yap about we would all assume the vision pro is a colossal hit. They love anything apples does.
ReplyDeleteAlso this is a big ouch to the few that purchased this at 4k lol this will go the way of the homepod - remember how abandoned that original model was?
unless it hits at less than 1k (which apple can totally do) i dont see the mass population spending a lot for goggles.
Like the OG HomePod which sold for 3 years just to go away for 2 to give room for the low cost model, and return with a minor "refresh" with much fanfare? Not the worst path to follow.
DeleteThe orignal HomePod still gets all OS updates and features. It can be paired with Apple TV for home theater mode. It's the best sounding HomePod of the 3 models Apple has offered to date.
DeleteQuite frankly Id like to see a set of smart glasses similar to Google Glass but more stylish and functional...sort of like the Ray Bans but with greater use and functionality...
ReplyDeleteI feel like I’m watching The Titanic… we all know how it’s gonna end!
ReplyDelete