Imagine if people had taken that position when the original Macintosh was released! It cost over $7,000 when corrected for inflation, and had a fraction of the capabilities of today's Macs: "Too expensive, display too small, black & white. Fail!" lol
The Mac did fail, Jobs got kicked out, and Apple continued to sell the previous model for an extra 9 (nine!) years to survive. The market share of Mac is stuck at 9% and is not even close to Apple II. AVP is no Mac. It is more like a Segway a product you don't need at a cost that only makes sense to a few people. Perhaps completely rebrand it as Beats Vision and sell it for $700 or bundle it with an Apple TV subscription.
Imagine if people had taken that position when the original Macintosh was released! It cost over $7,000 when corrected for inflation, and had a fraction of the capabilities of today's Macs: "Too expensive, display too small, black & white. Fail!" lol
The Mac did fail, Jobs got kicked out, and Apple continued to sell the previous model for an extra 9 (nine!) years to survive. The market share of Mac is stuck at 9% and is not even close to Apple II. AVP is no Mac. It is more like a Segway a product you don't need at a cost that only makes sense to a few people. Perhaps completely rebrand it as Beats Vision and sell it for $700 or bundle it with an Apple TV subscription.
Yawn. Stand in line, you're about 10 billionth person to say that "to be successful" Apple needs to mark down the price of BLANK product. This old chestnut has been hurled for decades at pretty much every Apple product ever released. Meanwhile, Apple has happily ignored this and gone on to become Wall Street's most highly valued company in the history of companies and the world's most admired company for 17 years in a row.
Agree with StrangeDays and Charlesn’s comments. The main issue isn’t the device as it will evolve and get better and lighter and leas expensive but Apple needs to make CONTENT. I would push to make immersive content for all AppleTV shows and sporting events.
If content is available, users will purchase the device at various cost points and wait until more productive uses become known and available.
Agree with StrangeDays and Charlesn’s comments. The main issue isn’t the device as it will evolve and get better and lighter and leas expensive but Apple needs to make CONTENT. I would push to make immersive content for all AppleTV shows and sporting events.
If content is available, users will purchase the device at various cost points and wait until more productive uses become known and available.
The content needed isn’t passive consumption or it fall into the same trap as the iPad which now can’t be much more than a content slab because “it would be to complex for content users” to fore fill its potential once that happens.
They need app developers and same one who are missing from iPad being as amazing as it could be.
Marvin said: There's an 8K (same as AVP, dual 4K) headset that was announced recently but may not ship priced at $1899 and uses a headband for comfort like the PSVR and HoloLens:
Per the "too expensive" and "not for the masses" comments, what exactly is that based on relative to Apple? I'll provide an example: Leica is now selling a 4K short-throw laser projector that provides surround sound from the same box. There's a model that produces an 100" image and a model that produces an 120" image. You also need to buy a special ALR screen to project onto. Total cost? Around $11,000 dollars for the cheapest model. That's considered to be a high-end price for very large screen entertainment.
AVP can easily provide 120" 4K entertainment + computer/OS + multiple screen capability + mobility for $3500. It's obvious that it isn't really a high-end price relative to the functionality provided.
One challenge with VR/AR headsets in general is that all current smartphones and the iPhone in particular are so damn good, appealing, desirable, and generally useful across such a broad spectrum of applications for such a massive number of users. Many applications that used to be relegated to larger and more complex computing devices are now done with a device that you hold in your hand and store in your pocket or purse. Smartphones have essentially turned all other forms of personal computing and entertainment devices into niche products. Televisions are one of the last holdouts for entertainment and media consumption devices that still have a unique place in people’s lives.
If you define “mass appeal” from a consumer perspective products like the Apple Vision Pro will never reach mass appeal until they can emulate the same qualities that draws consumers to smartphones. That’s perfectly fine, because there will always be applications in non-consumer or indirect-to-consumer domains that are perfectly served by the Apple Vision Pro as it continues to evolve and get even better. Not everyone needs a personal MRI machine, but a lot of people’s lives depend on MRI machines with unparalleled performance being available and in the market in the hands of people who know how to use them.
If Apple’s so-called financial success hinges on them putting a $2000 USD -ish product on the market they are nearly right there already with high-end iPhones and beyond there with high-end iPads. If there’s a foldable iPhone in Apple’s future it will likely top $2000 USD without blinking an eye. Yes, the iPhone and AVP are going after different users, but Apple is in no trouble of being put in a tight spot if the AVP never achieves mass appeal. Apple needs to keep focusing on building the best possible AR/VR/Spatial Computing product, not the least expensive one.
Per the "too expensive" and "not for the masses" comments, what exactly is that based on relative to Apple? I'll provide an example: Leica is now selling a 4K short-throw laser projector that provides surround sound from the same box. There's a model that produces an 100" image and a model that produces an 120" image. You also need to buy a special ALR screen to project onto. Total cost? Around $11,000 dollars for the cheapest model. That's considered to be a high-end price for very large screen entertainment.
AVP can easily provide 120" 4K entertainment + computer/OS + multiple screen capability + mobility for $3500. It's obvious that it isn't really a high-end price relative to the functionality provided.
How many million projectors has Leica sold of that $11k model? Have you forgotten that Apple has to sell any new product in millions? Only then, it will move the needle on the revenue front and be considered as success.
Imagine if people had taken that position when the original Macintosh was released! It cost over $7,000 when corrected for inflation, and had a fraction of the capabilities of today's Macs: "Too expensive, display too small, black & white. Fail!" lol
The Mac did fail, Jobs got kicked out, and Apple continued to sell the previous model for an extra 9 (nine!) years to survive. The market share of Mac is stuck at 9% and is not even close to Apple II. AVP is no Mac. It is more like a Segway a product you don't need at a cost that only makes sense to a few people. Perhaps completely rebrand it as Beats Vision and sell it for $700 or bundle it with an Apple TV subscription.
The Mac did not fail, it was too new and people wanted the assurance that it was here to stay, also SJ did not get fired because the Mac failed. The disagreement was that SJ wanted Apple to invest their golden-egg in the Mac and drastically reduce investment in the Apple II series, which the board disagreed on because they saw the Apple II as their bread and butter. The falling out with Sculley was specifically on this point and he later admitted that SJ hired the wrong CEO.
With regards to Eyesight being potentially dropped, I think there is a missed opportunity... What really should be done instead, is to morph this technology into something completely different and open up a host of new applications. Specifically, enable developers to generate content on the externally facing display (instead of a person's eyeballs). It could flash text that would be meaningful to other people in the room, be it a leaderboard, options selected by the user waring the Vision Pro, or other relevant messages. Maybe it could display visual content.
This would be a win for Apple seeking to introduce new and innovative apps that competitors would be unable to match.
If Apple opens up an API for developers to generate content, it would give developers new ways to extend applications they would develop for the vision pro.
The whole point of Eyesight is to make interaction between the vision pro user and other people in the room natural/comfortable. Generating content of the kind I outlined opens the door to natural and welcomed interaction.
Comments
If content is available, users will purchase the device at various cost points and wait until more productive uses become known and available.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1784053-REG/leica_cine_1_100_3000_lumen.html
AVP can easily provide 120" 4K entertainment + computer/OS + multiple screen capability + mobility for $3500. It's obvious that it isn't really a high-end price relative to the functionality provided.
If you define “mass appeal” from a consumer perspective products like the Apple Vision Pro will never reach mass appeal until they can emulate the same qualities that draws consumers to smartphones. That’s perfectly fine, because there will always be applications in non-consumer or indirect-to-consumer domains that are perfectly served by the Apple Vision Pro as it continues to evolve and get even better. Not everyone needs a personal MRI machine, but a lot of people’s lives depend on MRI machines with unparalleled performance being available and in the market in the hands of people who know how to use them.
If Apple’s so-called financial success hinges on them putting a $2000 USD -ish product on the market they are nearly right there already with high-end iPhones and beyond there with high-end iPads. If there’s a foldable iPhone in Apple’s future it will likely top $2000 USD without blinking an eye. Yes, the iPhone and AVP are going after different users, but Apple is in no trouble of being put in a tight spot if the AVP never achieves mass appeal. Apple needs to keep focusing on building the best possible AR/VR/Spatial Computing product, not the least expensive one.
This would be a win for Apple seeking to introduce new and innovative apps that competitors would be unable to match.
If Apple opens up an API for developers to generate content, it would give developers new ways to extend applications they would develop for the vision pro.
The whole point of Eyesight is to make interaction between the vision pro user and other people in the room natural/comfortable. Generating content of the kind I outlined opens the door to natural and welcomed interaction.