Apple may be trying to jump-start lackluster Apple Vision Pro sales

AppleInsider

In an effort to get both more buyers and more developers on board with the Apple Vision Pro, Apple is launching a new visionOS workshop and appears to be preparing to allow third-parties to sell the headset.

Apple has quietly released a new app for determining Apple Vision Pro lens and headband sizes

One year

after the Apple Vision Pro was first released to the public, reports of its sales have varied from poor to more positive. Right from the start, though, even Tim Cook was saying that the headset would be too expensive to sell in large volumes -- and now Apple is trying to get people interested again.

It's certainly targeting developers with the specific aim of getting more to launch more content for visionOS. Other than its price, the most consistent criticism of the Apple Vision Pro is that it lacks content.

Who else has received an invite for Apple VisionOS event on February 27? Ping me in DM, let's meet in person!#AppleVisionPro pic.twitter.com/cVWIqYL46o

-- Vitalii Ampilogov (@ampilogov)

February 12, 2025

Developers on social media, however, have begun revealing that they've been invited to the Apple Developer Center in Cupertino. The invitation for February 27, 2025, is for a six-hour session called "Create interactive stories for visionOS."

At the same time, Apple has also released a new app on the iOS App Store called Apple Vision Pro Demo Fit. While it is currently still rolling out, the app is intended to be used worldwide and comes in different languages to fit all the territories that Apple Vision Pro is currently sold in.

As first spotted by MacRumors contributor "Aaron P," however, the implication is that Apple wants to add third-party resellers to spread Apple Vision Pro availability wider.

Apple has silently released a new app called "Apple Vision Pro Demo Fit"

Could Apple be gearing up to allow 3rd parties to start selling Apple Vision Pro? pic.twitter.com/mXcaVCTrhF

-- Aaron (@aaronp613)

February 12, 2025

The app is clearly intended for retailers, although it may yet be just that Apple wants to speed up Apple Vision Pro trials at Apple Stores. Nonetheless, the wording in the app initially refers, for instance, to how its user needs to "Select your purchaser's location."

Then it explains how the app will scan your face to measure you for the headset's Light Seal and Head Band. But "receive your personalized fit" concludes that you can "get your fit summary so you can send it to your purchaser."

So Apple expects a demonstrator or sales person to use the app. Except it does also say that the app's scan results will be sent "to you so you can complete your purchase."

Still, Apple has been expected to make an announcement about the Apple Vision Pro. Given that it is unlikely to release an update, and certainly not a new model, the announcement is now most likely to be about allowing third-party resellers to stock the Apple Vision Pro.



Read on AppleInsider

sigma902

I don’t think the Vision Pro Fit app is new. The developer history in the App Store has version 1.0 as 1 year ago. The latest version was two months ago. In my App Store history, I installed it July 22, 2024. 

pema

I adamantly disagree. I do not for a second recall Tim Cook stating upfront that the VP is a pro device and not for the everyday consumer. It was towards the end of 2024 that he admitted that sales were lacklustre and rumours began surfacing that production was either being slowed down or altogether halted. 
So, please, let's have some accuracy in your reporting. 
Thank you. 

blurpbleepbloop

I can’t imagine any retailer in today’s market interested in carrying Apple’s year old albatross. When they knock $3000 off the sticker price, then sure. But not as is.

charlesn

Pema said:

I adamantly disagree. I do not for a second recall Tim Cook stating upfront that the VP is a pro device and not for the everyday consumer. It was towards the end of 2024 that he admitted that sales were lacklustre and rumours began surfacing that production was either being slowed down or altogether halted. 
So, please, let's have some accuracy in your reporting. 
Thank you. 

While you're calling for accuracy in reporting, please link to the quote where Tim Cook "admits" that "Vision Pro sales are lackluster." I'll wait. And, by the way, it pretty much goes without saying that a $3500 headset is not for and never was intended to be for the "everyday consumer." To say or think otherwise is to be clueless about what the "everyday consumer" buys. 

edited February 12

danox

blurpbleepbloop said:

I can’t imagine any retailer in today’s market interested in carrying Apple’s year old albatross. When they knock $3000 off the sticker price, then sure. But not as is.

The price will never be 500 bucks, not with that camera system (R1 chip) and not with what is essentially a MacBook Pro under the hood, the next generation may get into the low 2000 dollar range with iteration, but that is about it,

B & H will be happy to carry it and so would some other high end retailers, but it ain’t gonna be Best Buy, Costco or Walmart.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/

edited February 12

suntanironman

charlesn said:

Pema said:

I adamantly disagree. I do not for a second recall Tim Cook stating upfront that the VP is a pro device and not for the everyday consumer. It was towards the end of 2024 that he admitted that sales were lacklustre and rumours began surfacing that production was either being slowed down or altogether halted. 
So, please, let's have some accuracy in your reporting. 
Thank you. 

While you're calling for accuracy in reporting, please link to the quote where Tim Cook "admits" that "Vision Pro sales are lackluster." I'll wait. And, by the way, it pretty much goes without saying that a $3500 headset is not for and never was intended to be for the "everyday consumer." To say or think otherwise is to be clueless about what the "everyday consumer" buys. 

(I’m not the one whom you are quoting, but): It was a The Wall Street Journal article that Pema is referencing. It’s behind a paywall (and I’m not a subscriber). I don’t know for sure if Tim Cook explicitly said the words “lackluster” (that seems unlikely — he would probably have put a most positive spin on the low sales). But Tim Cook did discuss sales of the Vision Pro in that interview.

charlesn

SuntanIronMan said:

charlesn said:

Pema said:

I adamantly disagree. I do not for a second recall Tim Cook stating upfront that the VP is a pro device and not for the everyday consumer. It was towards the end of 2024 that he admitted that sales were lacklustre and rumours began surfacing that production was either being slowed down or altogether halted. 
So, please, let's have some accuracy in your reporting. 
Thank you. 

While you're calling for accuracy in reporting, please link to the quote where Tim Cook "admits" that "Vision Pro sales are lackluster." I'll wait. And, by the way, it pretty much goes without saying that a $3500 headset is not for and never was intended to be for the "everyday consumer." To say or think otherwise is to be clueless about what the "everyday consumer" buys. 

(I’m not the one whom you are quoting, but): It was a The Wall Street Journal article that Pema is referencing. It’s behind a paywall (and I’m not a subscriber). I don’t know for sure if Tim Cook explicitly said the words “lackluster” (that seems unlikely — he would probably have put a most positive spin on the low sales). But Tim Cook did discuss sales of the Vision Pro in that interview.

I'm a WSJ subscriber and I read that interview. Tim said no such thing. Here's what he said: "At $3,500, it's not a mass market product. Right now, it's an early-adopter product. People who want to have tomorrow's technology today--that's who it's for. Fortunately, there's enough people who are in that camp that it's exciting." 

All of that, by the way, is simply common sense. $3,500 is not anywhere near mass-market pricing. And who is it that's going to invest $3500 in v1.0 of a product and v1.0 of an all new, visually controlled operating system that will absolutely become cheaper and better sooner than later, and lacks a robust catalog of innovative software to leverage those capabilities at launch? Who's going to do that? I'll tell you who: early adopters who like and can afford the thrill of owning bleeding edge tech, developers, and enterprise clients who can see how this set of capabilities could be tailored and useful to their specific needs. Relative to mass market, it's a very small pool of people. and anyone who is actually thinking about this from a realistic perspective would know that it's not some blunder or oversight, it's a given. 

Let's be clear: what Apple is doing as outlined in this article is NOT going to "jump start" sales. But it's a necessary precursor to doing so. if Vision Pro is going to be more of a sales success, it needs the developer community behind it, which I don't think is happening right now. And why should it? Why should developers, on their own dime, invest time developing products for a relatively tiny user base for a device and platform that may or may not ultimately succeed? I would hope that in this infancy stage of Vision Pro, Apple will use some of its mountain of cash to make it worthwhile for developers to develop for it. We shall see. 

edited February 13

apple4thewin

danox said:

blurpbleepbloop said:

I can’t imagine any retailer in today’s market interested in carrying Apple’s year old albatross. When they knock $3000 off the sticker price, then sure. But not as is.

The price will never be 500 bucks, not with that camera system (R1 chip) and not with what is essentially a MacBook Pro under the hood, the next generation may get into the low 2000 dollar range with iteration, but that is about it,

B & H will be happy to carry it and so would some other high end retailers, but it ain’t gonna be Best Buy, Costco or Walmart.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Best Buy most likely will since they are an Apple authorized store, Costco is unlikely for the vp v1 maybe version 2?

avon b7

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

One is going to sell more than the other simply because it's more affordable but both companies (and everybody else in the field) is quite literally working from the exact same book of ideas and need real-world data and feedback. 

That can only come from shipping hardware. There will never be a true substitute for that. No matter how good your lab setting. 

What Tim Cook has gone on record as saying makes good sense. 

Whether or not Apple decides to produce a lower cost version with less than best in class options will depend on executive strategy just as Meta producing moving to produce a best in class product will depend on their executive strategy. 

All that said, one year on, I think the software and third party development side of things could have shown more inertia than it has to date. 

charlesn

avon b7 said:

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

I will disagree and say that Meta's approach has done nothing but generate more than ten YEARS of massive losses. As of last quarter, Reality Labs is losing about $56 million per DAY, 24/7/365, or roughly $1.67 billion per month, $5 billion per quarter. And they've been at this for a decade, never making a penny. That "business" is only "perfectly fine" because Zuck makes so much money monetizing your data and consumer privacy to any willing buyer. The dude is like a festering scab on the skin of America. 

bulk001

Other than Apple fanatics, tech nerds and some very early niche adopters (say to explore the potential for use in say surgery etc) who is buying these? And really, why? The money and man hours spent on this have sidelined Apple from areas like AI, cloud or just putting out iPhones with more innovation than a faster chip and updated camera. Cook lacks Jobs ability to come up with what the masses really want (do we really need an AI emoji creator or Siri that still doesn’t work properly or iteration X to the n-th degree watch or this monstrosity strapped to our heads all day?). Nor does he have the charisma to pull it off. He has been brilliants for shareholders though really milking the iPhone of every last drop. But ask all the large companies across history how that has worked out for them over time! 

avon b7

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

I will disagree and say that Meta's approach has done nothing but generate more than ten YEARS of massive losses. As of last quarter, Reality Labs is losing about $56 million per DAY, 24/7/365, or roughly $1.67 billion per month, $5 billion per quarter. And they've been at this for a decade, never making a penny. That "business" is only "perfectly fine" because Zuck makes so much money monetizing your data and consumer privacy to any willing buyer. The dude is like a festering scab on the skin of America. 

The executive side of things in terms of the financials is seperate to the final consumer offering. 

In that sense, what arrives in the hands of consumers, and the price/quality balance are all that matter. 

No Quest user is concerned about the impact of product development costs. 

The Meta approach gave it a decade of user feedback and, in broad terms, first mover status as we have always known that the first steps were going to be very 'local' affairs.

The advent of 5.5G and 6G will open the door to more offline processing and a more immersive XR experience. 

Meta is very well positioned in that regard and Mark Zuckerberg has stated that losses were (and still are) always part of the approach. Obviously, at some point, that should swing into profit if their plan plays out. Especially with the incorporation of non-visor products. 

Apple is no doubt also losing money on the VP but in a more controlled fashion. Its plans have been very niche until now and are limited to a visor based product. 

tiredskills

Pema said:

I adamantly disagree. I do not for a second recall Tim Cook stating upfront that the VP is a pro device and not for the everyday consumer.

What do you think the P stands for?

danox

avon b7 said:

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

I will disagree and say that Meta's approach has done nothing but generate more than ten YEARS of massive losses. As of last quarter, Reality Labs is losing about $56 million per DAY, 24/7/365, or roughly $1.67 billion per month, $5 billion per quarter. And they've been at this for a decade, never making a penny. That "business" is only "perfectly fine" because Zuck makes so much money monetizing your data and consumer privacy to any willing buyer. The dude is like a festering scab on the skin of America. 

The executive side of things in terms of the financials is seperate to the final consumer offering. 

In that sense, what arrives in the hands of consumers, and the price/quality balance are all that matter. 

No Quest user is concerned about the impact of product development costs. 

The Meta approach gave it a decade of user feedback and, in broad terms, first mover status as we have always known that the first steps were going to be very 'local' affairs.

The advent of 5.5G and 6G will open the door to more offline processing and a more immersive XR experience. 

Meta is very well positioned in that regard and Mark Zuckerberg has stated that losses were (and still are) always part of the approach. Obviously, at some point, that should swing into profit if their plan plays out. Especially with the incorporation of non-visor products. 

Apple is no doubt also losing money on the VP but in a more controlled fashion. Its plans have been very niche until now and are limited to a visor based product. 

Many seem to have a wish that Apple is losing money on the Apple Vision Pro, but they are indifferent to the fact that Apples largest acquisition to date only cost them 3 billion dollars. Apple has shown repeatedly over the years that they don’t waste billions like their competitors. 

In AI some even think/hope that Apple is behind in AI and is losing money at it. But Apple is not giving OpenAI any money in their partnership, OpenAI is but a blip a small feature within Apple Intelligence. Ask Microsoft about their relationship with OpenAI they have wasted billions as usual with their sponsorship of OpenAI, the other companies that Apple is in competition with Meta and Google have also wasted sizable sums of money in the billions sponsoring Nvidia’s overpriced/hardware, and now because of open source DeepSeek the moat that each company thought they were building around AI has been crushed.

What’s interesting? Is that Apple because of Apple Silicon, Apple OS with Apple Intelligence being the overall framework for any third party AI solution, including possibly their own in the future, all of these so-called AI solutions will just be little replaceable features within Apple OS, Apple isn’t behind in AI or in financing, they can stop on a dime and go into any direction it chooses in comparison to their competition, however their competition has already squandered billions on the idea that they were going to have a exclusive moat at the top of the AI pyramid that dream is shattered.

As usual many of the tech analysts and financial gurus have been trying to spin the release of open source DeepSeek into a negative thrown Apples way on the Seeking Alpha financial website and at the same time they are also avoiding the subject of Apples masterstroke of, not giving OpenAI one penny for their now moat less AI solution.

edited February 13

dewme

When 55” - 60” 4K TVs intended to attract we’ll-off but not rich buyers hit the market in the 2014 timeframe they were around $3000-$5000 USD and today you can get a 55” 4K TV for around $230 USD. The first generation “early adopter” TVs were in the $20,000 USD range. 

Most technology products go through a similar route from exclusive early adoption to somewhat pricey and eventually mass market. The thing is, when the $20,000 USD TVs hit the market for early adoption they still had to serve their intended purpose, which at the time resulted in a higher price. 

It would be extremely difficult to hit the market with a fully functional (as envisioned) first generation leading edge product that came out of the gate with cost consciousness as a top priority. Such a product would unlikely capture the attention of buyers who know they are getting in on something that is of sufficient fidelity to see that it represents the future. 

You only get one chance to make a first impression. If your first impression is not true to form it will leave a bad taste in buyer’s mouths that will be difficult to recover from. If the worst attribute of a new leading edge product is price it will obviously keep a number of people from buying it now, but if it’s good enough it will maintain its desirability. When the prices drop, watch out. 

blurpbleepbloop

charlesn said:

As of last quarter, Reality Labs is losing about $56 million per DAY, 24/7/365, or roughly $1.67 billion per month, $5 billion per quarter.

I have heard these numbers for a while now and have a real hard time believing them. If meta is reporting these kind of losses (or Reality Labs) I sooner suspect creative accounting rather than actual losses.  What would be burning through so much cash on an ongoing basis? Servers and engineers can only account for a fraction of that kind of number.  Seriously, I just don’t believe it.

danvm

danox said:

avon b7 said:

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

I will disagree and say that Meta's approach has done nothing but generate more than ten YEARS of massive losses. As of last quarter, Reality Labs is losing about $56 million per DAY, 24/7/365, or roughly $1.67 billion per month, $5 billion per quarter. And they've been at this for a decade, never making a penny. That "business" is only "perfectly fine" because Zuck makes so much money monetizing your data and consumer privacy to any willing buyer. The dude is like a festering scab on the skin of America. 

The executive side of things in terms of the financials is seperate to the final consumer offering. 

In that sense, what arrives in the hands of consumers, and the price/quality balance are all that matter. 

No Quest user is concerned about the impact of product development costs. 

The Meta approach gave it a decade of user feedback and, in broad terms, first mover status as we have always known that the first steps were going to be very 'local' affairs.

The advent of 5.5G and 6G will open the door to more offline processing and a more immersive XR experience. 

Meta is very well positioned in that regard and Mark Zuckerberg has stated that losses were (and still are) always part of the approach. Obviously, at some point, that should swing into profit if their plan plays out. Especially with the incorporation of non-visor products. 

Apple is no doubt also losing money on the VP but in a more controlled fashion. Its plans have been very niche until now and are limited to a visor based product. 

Many seem to have a wish that Apple is losing money on the Apple Vision Pro, but they are indifferent to the fact that Apples largest acquisition to date only cost them 3 billion dollars. Apple has shown repeatedly over the years that they don’t waste billions like their competitors. 

In AI some even think/hope that Apple is behind in AI and is losing money at it. But Apple is not giving OpenAI any money in their partnership, OpenAI is but a blip a small feature within Apple Intelligence. Ask Microsoft about their relationship with OpenAI they have wasted billions as usual with their sponsorship of OpenAI, the other companies that Apple is in competition with Meta and Google have also wasted sizable sums of money in the billions sponsoring Nvidia’s overpriced/hardware, and now because of open source DeepSeek the moat that each company thought they were building around AI has been crushed.

What’s interesting? Is that Apple because of Apple Silicon, Apple OS with Apple Intelligence being the overall framework for any third party AI solution, including possibly their own in the future, all of these so-called AI solutions will just be little replaceable features within Apple OS, Apple isn’t behind in AI or in financing, they can stop on a dime and go into any direction it chooses in comparison to their competition, however their competition has already squandered billions on the idea that they were going to have a exclusive moat at the top of the AI pyramid that dream is shattered.

As usual many of the tech analysts and financial gurus have been trying to spin the release of open source DeepSeek into a negative thrown Apples way on the Seeking Alpha financial website and at the same time they are also avoiding the subject of Apples masterstroke of, not giving OpenAI one penny for their now moat less AI solution.

First of all, Apple is behind the competition in AI. That's not hard to see.

Second, the way Apple and Microsoft work with OpenAI is quite different. Apple has ChatGPT as a feature on their devices, but Microsoft has really integrated OpenAI into a lot of their products like MS Office, Dynamics, and Visual Studio. Plus, they have Copilot Chat for both personal and business use.

Microsoft also uses OpenAI through Azure with their Azure OpenAI Services. TikTok is one of their biggest customers, paying around $20 million a month for these services. A lot of businesses and enterprises are using this service too.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/31/24210667/microsoft-tiktok-ai-openai-customer

Microsoft has invested a lot in OpenAI, which has led to big improvements in their products and services. On the other hand, Apple's investment was zero, resulting in a feature that might not be as impactful for their customers.

It looks like Microsoft's investment has brought more benefits to their customers compared to Apple's approach, don't you think?