Apple Vision Pro 2 with M5 chip likely to arrive before budget models
Apple is likely to launch a refreshed Apple Vision Pro headset before a cheaper version of the product arrives, according to a new report.
An updated Apple Vision Pro could sport an M5 chip and other improvements.
Apple is believed to be working on "several ideas" for its overall Apple Vision product line and its future intentions. Currently, it is expected that an updated Apple Vision Pro will be the first, ahead of a rumored cheaper "Apple Vision" headset.
The next Apple Vision Pro would likely sport an M5 processor and other internal changes, but would otherwise be very similar to the existing model. It's expected to arrive in late 2025, reports Bloomberg, or the spring of 2026.
For those hoping for a less-expensive version, supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo believes that such a device has been pushed back to at least 2027. Kuo reasoned that simply making a cheaper model wouldn't significantly change sales expectations.
Apple is also said to be investigating the "smart glasses" concept as seen from Meta, which has already been shown off in demonstrations.
Apple hopes to increase interest in the Apple Vision Pro by releasing a second-gen headset with the upgraded processor and other improvements right at the start of the M5 chip cycle. It is thought that this second-gen version would be an upgrade to the existing design, but an all-new version is forecast for some time beyond 2027.
Rumor Score: Possible
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
My own experience with AVP: I went in for the demo at my Apple Store, and there's no question its capabilities seem like magic and are extraordinarily impressive. In fact, if you haven't done a demo, you really should. But then the question: would I buy this, even if it were priced much lower? No, because I simply don't see a need for it amidst my current iMac/Macbook/iPad hardware. I don't have a compelling use case for it. It may well be that AVP finds much greater success as an enterprise device rather than with average consumers--we shall see. But I remain very excited that Apple brought AVP to market and has the patience and cash necessary to sustain it through these early years. As far as a mass market headset for media consumption, I'm happy to let Meta have that so-called "business" and continue to rack up $1.5 billion in losses every single month selling hardware at a loss with no end in sight.
Interestingly, after I posted the above 2 paragraphs, I received this week's Power On newsletter from Mark Gurman, which featured this headline: The Vision Pro's First Killer App Has Arrived. This is an unexpected declaration from Mark who has been more than a little critical of AVP. His article continued:
"Apple markets the Vision Pro as a standalone device (complete with powerful chips and a $3,500 price tag), but one of its best features is the ability to serve as a Mac external monitor. In June, Apple announced plans to make that feature even better, bringing a virtual curved monitor mode to the default size, as well as offering new wide and ultrawide monitor options.
The company released a beta version of these capabilities this past week, and they are a game changer. In my view, the features represent the first true killer app for the Vision Pro. They provide a high-resolution Mac external monitor with what feels like an infinite amount of screen real estate. Before these new modes arrived, I was only using my Vision Pro occasionally to watch movies. Now, I’m back to at least trying to use it every workday.
Apple should be marketing the new ultrawide display modes in a major way. It’s that good."
There are obviously less expensive VR HMD prototypes in Apple's labs. Maybe they don't have adequate performance, maybe the gross margins are too low, maybe Apple is waiting for the market to develop more interest, most likely it's a combination of 8-10 factors (including the ones I mentioned) before Apple will pull the trigger on a differentiated model.
Remember that Apple did not launch four different iPad models at the same time in 2010. They released them incrementally over years.
Goggles-style HMDs are a dead end. Too uncomfortable, too heavy, too restrictive. (Disclaimer #1: I own an Oculus Rift S.) A VR/AR HMD really needs to approach the weight of a pair of eyeglasses and have the same comfort level. (Disclaimer #2: I am a longtime wearer of eyeglasses.)
Even a lighter, mass market focused Apple Vision HMD would still be a stepping stone to a pair of eyeglasses.
If Apple wants this to be accepted by Joe Consumer, they will need to find a price point much closer to Meta Quest 3 ($400) or Quest 3S ($300). While the AVP certainly has better specs and better quality components than those two Meta devices, the latter have far more available content. As we know, Content Is King...
If everything else remains the same, this hypothetical AVP 2 (with M5 SoC which is expected to be on the TSMC's 2nm process node) would likely have better battery performance than the original model.
Note that the 100 Hz refresh rate of the AVP definitely can be improved. Of course faster refresh rates require more power so saving some on the SoC is going to help. A pleasant VR experience is really going to be around the 120-160Hz refresh rate. I own an Oculus Rift S (70Hz refresh) which is pretty much at the lowest threshold.
Part of AVP's lack of sales has to do with the discrepancy between Apple's specs and Apple's price vis-a-vis the competition. It simply isn't worth $3500. It's not ten times better than a Meta Quest 3 ($400) or Quest 3S ($300). Plus the fact that there's a lot more software and content available for the Quest HMDs. Anyone who has tried a consumer-grade product from the competition knows this.
Hell, anyone who shoved their smartphone in a Mattel View Master VR device (about $18 in 2015) also knows this. These were Google Cardboard-compatible devices from nine years ago.
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/mattel-view-master-virtual-reality-viewer-starter-pack
Sure the user experience sucked (you had to hand hold the viewer) but it was less than an Andrew Jackson.
Everyone needs to be mindful that Meta loses about $1000 for every $400 headset they sell. Could be a $1500 loss per headset. Even the game console vendors don't do that. Game consoles like the PS5 or the Xbox are sold at a small profit or they are attempting to break even as it really reduces risk for the business. Meta is waiting on that magic Facebook moment when they have captured enough viewers to so that ads can make up selling at a loss, but they aren't saying when that can't happen, how many users and how many eye-ball hours it requires. And what people will be doing while wearing it so ads can be shown. Their one attempt was Horizon Worlds.
For Apple, do as they always do: iterate, slow and steady. The media industry cannot afford to sound reasonable as no one would read it or watch it, but they know it too, even the ones who proclaim this or that product is a failure, like Hartley Charlton from the MacRumors podcast. He knows better, but the nature of the media business is to be as dramatic as possible.
I would rather have Apple update the VP to an M4 24GB/1TB system for $3500, including a more efficient R2 and use 12 MP main cameras for the pass-through, for 1Q25, then do an M5 update for 1Q26 or so. They can keep the M2 model around and hopefully sell it for $2500. Waiting 3 years between iterations is tough.
There is still a ways to go. The display and lens need to provide 50% more viewing angle. They may involve using 4 microOLEDs. The wings need to fold so the unit is more transportable. Obviously, the whole thing has to go down in weight by 30%, at least. 400 grams? Wearability has to be improved: lighter on the neck, less compression on the face, easier to put on and remove, less heat, flexible bridge. So, I don't think the price point can go down, and there's lots of room to go up in price. They can sell a model for $5000, and probably will if this market grows.
Anyhow, VR/AR goggles are a dead end. Too many comfort issues that will never be resolved for a certain percentage of the population. I hate goggles (swimming, skiing, scuba masks). I hate headphones. They all make my head hurt. Even eyeglasses I tend to remove every hour or so for a few minutes for relief. And I most certainly am not alone.
There are also tons of comfort issues staring at a display panel at a fixed distance from your retinas. There are also peripheral vision limitations. There's a lot of motion sickness because the images displayed don't corresponding to what your inner ear is telling you. There are latency issues. Heat, poor audio, humidity.
None of this is new. These have all been issues since VR emerged in the Nineties (people were routinely throwing up on the Aladdin Magic Carpet ride at EPCOT Center in the mid-Nineties).
A lot of these comfort issues will subside with VR/AR eyeglasses but the immersion will be sacrificed. Remember that eyeglasses don't provide peripheral imagery either. And you still need a separate audio device for decent sound (earbuds, whatever). How many people have earbuds they can comfortably wear for hours upon hours?
Don't get me wrong, I believe there are some phenomenal usage cases for AR/VR technology, particularly in the commercial/enterprise/research environments. It's the consumer stuff that is still miles away from attracting general appeal. It's also not going to happen with a $3500 price tag.
AVP will not fit into this niche at least when the iPhone fills this need. AVP needs to offer people something that is beyond the iPhone fix and this may take time to create.
I suspect that AVP may need to come in a rugged mod as industry, engineering, construction, medicine and other fields seem to have more of a business case at this stage.
Also AVP + Optimus may be an interesting telepresence idea for hazardous environments when Optimus comes to market and help train Optimus for specific use cases. Anyone dropping 30k on a robot will drop Xk on AVP and training infra.
Good move.
At least Apple didn't drag out this agony like the Apple Car for ten years.
Now Apple can get back to resurrecting the Apple Car as the Apple Car Management Software and sell it to every EV car manufacturer out there other than the Chinese.
This software will catapult Apple into a 6 Trillion company.
Apple isn't going to become a software vendor for car manufacturers, that just isn't going to happen. It is completely counter to the "build the whole widget" philosophy.
That so? Stabitha_Christie said: That's so. So who writes, supports and distributes Apple Car Play which runs on a gazillion cars? Apple Car Play is a pretty lame piece of software that doesn't do much but deliver some minor functionality. Why not elevate that group of engineers to write Apple Car Management Software to actually do something useful: manage the BEV?