So far, the early return rate on Apple Vision Pro is pretty low

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 48
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,396member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Xed said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
    Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything. 
    How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?

    What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?

    Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors. 

    I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.

    I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.

    I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move. 

    In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist. 
    Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.

    You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.

    Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
    Nothing at all profound in anything I said. 

    I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.

    If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route: 

    "I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."

    What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it. 

    Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.

    As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.

    We know neither at the moment. 


    More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?

    Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.

    That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!

    This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
    Without a BoM there is only speculation. 

    The rumours are already out there.

    The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole. 

    Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins. 

    The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too. 

    Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user. 

    As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.

    The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.

    Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve? 

    They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware. 






     


    So, you don't actually have a clue, but feel free to bloviate.
    I actually do have a clue but I'm not taking the decisions. 

    If it were down to me and an SE was deemed necessary I would opt to meet the goals of that device without impacting what happens inside the software experience. 

    You are claiming outright that such a device will never exist because it basically can't be done. 

    I'm saying 'never say never' and that the rumours are already out there, along with an analogous example with the iPhone/iPhone SE thinking. 

    I'm also saying I'm sure the question has already been on the table and maybe still is. 

    I'm open and not ruling anything out. 

    And I have no idea why you consider a feature like Eyesight (while being one of my favourite features) a defining feature on a hypothetical lower cost device. 

    It literally has nothing to do with the user experience and would probably be the easiest sacrifice to make in a cost cutting exercise. 

    I highly recommend you re-read what I actually said. 



    I wish that i could re-read for comprehension, but it is, in this case, you, the poster that needs to clarify.

    I'm pretty sure that no one here can tell if you are commenting about the current VP, or promoting an evolved, future, lower cost model, but it surely seems that you have muddied the waters with your poorly written posts.

    How about clarification.

    In the meantime, I gave you an opening to note what features of the VP could be reduced, removed for cost reduction, and the only thing that you noted was the "Eyesight". Otherwise, it appears that all you are arguing for is Apple to have delivered a $1000 divide for merely competitive reasons; that didn't happen.

    Hey! Hold your horses. 

    I actually don't need to clarify anything because it's so clear (there is actually more on that but I'll put it at the end of this post). 

    That is why when I countered the OP on the 'profound/loaded questions' thing, all that was needed was for me to copy/paste a piece from my original comment. 

    I had quite literally said exactly what the OP thought I hadn't taken into account.

    That's how clear it was!

    But I clarified it anyway out of courtesy. 

    You know, people misread things sometimes. It's no big deal. 

    You did exactly the same thing and continue to do so by referring to 'VP'. 

    The idea of a lower cost solution (and like I said, it's an existing, and actually widespread, rumour) specifically caters to the notion of a non-Pro solution).

    Forget the 'P'! 

    You continue to completely ignore that by referring to VP even though I pointed out to you that such a solution could easily fall into an SE type of product branding. 

    Then you just completely ignored that SE type reference when I challenged your notion of 'defining features'. How about you answer the question I posed?

    Or, my comment on Eyesight. 

    As I made abundantly clear from the get go, the idea of an SE version is a rumour. It's a completely logical rumour and, as I also made clear from the get go, I'm sure Apple not only considered it, but possibly still has that option as a 'live' option. 

    As they are rumours, the target prices vary wildly. There is a broad spectrum. I could have said $2,000, $1,500 or basically any other price. 

    I chose 'sub $1000' specifically because the hypothetical goal in my post was the idea of stimulating developer interest through higher sales of the device. 

    Phew! 

    You know? None of what I just said was actually necessary because it was clear enough from the outset. 

    So, getting back to what I said at the start of this post... 

    My reply was in support of the article's general position and Dewme's comment.

    That was the point. That was it. I agree with both. 

    I expanded on Dewme's comment on why, IMO, denigration is not a valid option for the VP. Again, supporting what the VP represents. 

    I then added this:

    "That begs the question of how long until a Vision SE without some bells and whistles? 

    There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform. 

    I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."

    You know, a general comment. 

    I'm betting you didn't even read that. Because if you had, you wouldn't have jumped in Gung Ho. 

    So, as you didn't even bother to answer my other questions, I'll ask you another. 

    Exactly, which part of the comment wasn't clear to you? 


    LOL.

    Nothing that you post is "clear" from your washing machine of words.
  • Reply 42 of 48
    ciacia Posts: 262member
    I returned mine.  I was bummed to do so.  In my opinion it is an incredible product.  I had high expectations and it managed to beat them.  My only real issue is the price. I can't justify spending over $4,000 (512GB model and tax) on the headset.  From a media consumption standpoint, maybe when more is available.  I watched almost everything I could watch in 3D on it, and the immersive video shows HUGE promise but there isn't much to view now.  That will change, but for the moment it's limited.  From a productivity standpoint it was nice having a massive monitor on my laptop, but it wasn't the best to do actual work yet.

    Like many people, I'm excited for version 2 or version 3.  That might be 2028, but I got a glimpse of the future for the last 2 weeks and I can't wait for it to arrive (at a lower cost).
    edited February 19 muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondongatorguy
  • Reply 43 of 48
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Xed said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
    Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything. 
    How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?

    What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?

    Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors. 

    I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.

    I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.

    I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move. 

    In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist. 
    Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.

    You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.

    Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
    Nothing at all profound in anything I said. 

    I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.

    If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route: 

    "I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."

    What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it. 

    Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.

    As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.

    We know neither at the moment. 


    More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?

    Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.

    That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!

    This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
    Without a BoM there is only speculation. 

    The rumours are already out there.

    The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole. 

    Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins. 

    The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too. 

    Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user. 

    As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.

    The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.

    Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve? 

    They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware. 

    You’re “just pointing out” what is stone simple obvious to everyone here — if Apple had a less expensive model it would sell more. Well, yeah, no duh. What is your point?

    As for the rest, about doing an SE model first - after all these years you still understand so very little about Apple. They don’t release shitty netbooks then make them better. They release industry-leading high-quality versions, then make them cheaper. 

    You’re thinking like the chinese knockoffs think. That ain’t Apple, bub. 
    ihatescreennamestmay
  • Reply 44 of 48
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,797member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Xed said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
    Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything. 
    How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?

    What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?

    Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors. 

    I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.

    I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.

    I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move. 

    In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist. 
    Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.

    You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.

    Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
    Nothing at all profound in anything I said. 

    I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.

    If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route: 

    "I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."

    What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it. 

    Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.

    As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.

    We know neither at the moment. 


    More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?

    Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.

    That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!

    This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
    Without a BoM there is only speculation. 

    The rumours are already out there.

    The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole. 

    Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins. 

    The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too. 

    Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user. 

    As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.

    The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.

    Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve? 

    They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware. 

    You’re “just pointing out” what is stone simple obvious to everyone here — if Apple had a less expensive model it would sell more. Well, yeah, no duh. What is your point?

    As for the rest, about doing an SE model first - after all these years you still understand so very little about Apple. They don’t release shitty netbooks then make them better. They release industry-leading high-quality versions, then make them cheaper. 

    You’re thinking like the chinese knockoffs think. That ain’t Apple, bub. 
    Of course it's obvious. Re-read my very first post! 

    Why do you think there are all those rumours out there? 

    Why do you think the question centered on 'when' and not 'if'? 

    What the blazes does a netbook have to do with a cheaper Vision type device? 

    I specifically used the SE branding line of branding because such a line already exists! 

    I'm thinking Apple 'bub'!

    And let's leave 'industry leading' for another day, unless you mean all the top players are industry leading! 

    Just another throwaway line like 'knock-off'. 

    The SE still ships with a home button! 
    edited February 20
  • Reply 45 of 48
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,364member
    I guess the next F'nU'Tube wave is the very same influencers buying return crates of VisionPros
  • Reply 46 of 48
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,466member
    avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
    Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything. 
    Totally agree. But even more so, Apple never competes based on price alone. They may have a “value” or “SE” version in the mix to pull in those buyers who really can’t afford their more premium versions with premium prices, but that’s never their leading go-to-market strategy. Marketing 101 teaches you that the last thing you ever want to do is to compete based on price alone. It’s a zero loyalty game and a war of attrition with few survivors.

    Think of gasoline sales when you think about competing on price. The only way gas stations can really develop any degree of loyalty is to offer up other services and conveniences that are basically to gas sales. The only gas station loyalty card I have is for a chain that always has clean bathrooms, fresh coffee and sandwiches, healthy snacks, an inside dining area, and well stocked beer cave. I don’t even look at the price of the gas when I pull in. Same deal with drug stores, most of which have turned into mini supermarkets. Even with those concessions they are getting shutdown in vast numbers. 

    The counter argument is Walmart. They only compete based on price. In fact, Walmart is the bane of all proponents of customer loyalty programs. The presence of a Walmart in a geographic area is a primary motivator for other retailers to offer loyalty programs and other gimmicks because they can’t compete with Walmart on price. Many don’t survive a Walmart invasion. How does Walmart do this? Supplier control, offshore sourcing, store branded products, low overhead, and a million low paid part time workers. Oh, and massive dependency on imports from China.

    Personally, I’d rather have Apple keep their focus on their core competencies and avoid having to corrupt their business focus to survive in a price war with their completion. I don’t want to see Apple selling candy and energy drinks in their stores to make up for lost profits on their technology products. Apple is tapping into the offshore sourcing and contract manufacturing game, but so far it hasn’t impacted their marketing strategy or product quality. 
    tmay
  • Reply 47 of 48
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 163member
    So this article is based on 24 stores on the east coast?  Doesn't seem like an accurate sample of all of Apple, including those that do not have a store near them for a return.  

    According to a survey here, the return rate is as high as 76%, with reasons given.

    https://www.cultofmac.com/846677/vision-pro-returns-poll/#:~:text=We%20were%20shocked%20when%2076,VR%20immersion%2C%20seems%20too%20isolating.

    This article confirms a higher than average return rate compared to other Apple products, including larger stores getting more returns.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-18/apple-vision-pro-returning-3-500-device-over-comfort-lack-of-apps-and-price-lsrk88mq?embedded-checkout=true

    Since Apple doesn't disclose actual return rates, any article would likely be subjective, including this one.  Bottom line is that the general public has no interest in AR, so Apple considers this a low volume product, especially with a starting price of $3,500, and goes up significantly with special lenses and higher storage.
    edited March 22
  • Reply 48 of 48
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,879administrator
    Rogue01 said:
    So this article is based on 24 stores on the east coast?  Doesn't seem like an accurate sample of all of Apple, including those that do not have a store near them for a return.  

    According to a survey here, the return rate is as high as 76%, with reasons given.

    https://www.cultofmac.com/846677/vision-pro-returns-poll/#:~:text=We%20were%20shocked%20when%2076,VR%20immersion%2C%20seems%20too%20isolating.

    This article confirms a higher than average return rate compared to other Apple products, including larger stores getting more returns.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-18/apple-vision-pro-returning-3-500-device-over-comfort-lack-of-apps-and-price-lsrk88mq?embedded-checkout=true

    Since Apple doesn't disclose actual return rates, any article would likely be subjective, including this one.  Bottom line is that the general public has no interest in AR, so Apple considers this a low volume product, especially with a starting price of $3,500, and goes up significantly with special lenses and higher storage.
    The return rate is nowhere near 76%. It remains about the same as the non-Pro iPhone -- which is, in fact, slightly higher than the average, as discussed in the Bloomberg piece.

    And totally agree that it is a low-volume product.
    edited March 22 tht
Sign In or Register to comment.