Apple must be on to something big if so many are crying Apple please make it cheaper, and the Apple Vision Pro hasn't even been released yet. I would recommend opening a brokerage account, if you haven't already done so and buy Apple shares before the release early next year of Apple Vision Pro after all Apple has given everyone a heads up six months ago most of general public is still oblivious.
Steve Jobs coming back, iMac, OSX, iPod, iPhone, iPad, A-Series chip, Apple Silicon, Apple Watch, Air Pods, with the imminent release of the Apple Vision Pro, with that sexy R1 chip there is another rumble in the force. And I don't mean the hairstyle of a certain Apple executive.
I think you have a point. I've never once looked at Meta Quest and thought "if only it were cheaper I'd consider buy-in it," butI have thought "that doesn't look very good' which I could argue is akin to me thinking "if only it was better quality I'd consider buying it."
eightzero said: This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter.
I guarantee Apple doesn’t have a playbook they follow for new products.
That would be exceedingly foolish to have no strategies for a new product (or anything else) in a multi-trillion dollar company.
Playbook I believe in this context is to say nothing they have done in the past tells us what they will probably do in the future.
This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter. I'm not convinced this is Apple's plan at all. Get the costs of parts down? Sure. They *always* do that, and the difference goes into their bank, not to lower priced stuff. Over time perhaps the devices get way more capable for about the same price, but that's not what is posited here.
The only thing I can think of is the original iPhone: people complained when they bought one at full price (over $500!) and then a few months later Apple dropped the price. Purchasers complained, and Apple (Steve) offered refunds.
I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.
I haven't done an exhaustive search but the iPod mini was launched less than 2.5 years after the launch of the original iPod. That seems like it would be inline with this current rumor for the Apple Vision.
Also, while it took 3.5 years, the Apple TV went from a $300/$400 device for the first generation to a $99 device for the 2nd generation. Not exactly the same as the functionality was overall better with the 2nd gem, but it was a major drop in price once they moved from being macOS to iOS based, something that won't happen with Apple Vision OS or HW.
This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter. I'm not convinced this is Apple's plan at all. Get the costs of parts down? Sure. They *always* do that, and the difference goes into their bank, not to lower priced stuff. Over time perhaps the devices get way more capable for about the same price, but that's not what is posited here.
The only thing I can think of is the original iPhone: people complained when they bought one at full price (over $500!) and then a few months later Apple dropped the price. Purchasers complained, and Apple (Steve) offered refunds.
I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.
iPhone SE would be an apt comparison.
The iPhone SE came out in 2016 with the original iPhone launching in 2007. The iPhone 5c launched in 2013 as first less expensive model with older tech that wasn't just last year's model with a price drop.
But I think these examples show Apple does have a playbook and that is, at some point in the future the tech will diverge into 2 of 3 streams of improvement. The primary stream is better in the same build budget which is what we see MacBook(Pro), iPhone, iPod, iPadAir.
The more common stream-nano, air and other examples were about efficiency. Same function smaller package, lower power usage, smaller boxes and low shipping so it was on retail shelves and open to the higher volume impulse buy market.
The longer-term product stream- iPhone Pro pushing into video production, iPadPro as the other example. Inflation-adjusted build budget and retail Price. Push the function where there is strong interest and see what sort of pricing the market will bear to make use of this function. Apple seems to like high RAM and Storage pricing as a way of really testing the market limits to spending.
Apple VisionPro following that main stream, other savings will lead to better screens, longer battery, less tethering for function and mostly stay an order and ship product. Next year still seems way too soon for the tech to advance enough for Vision (nonPro) to have a distinct market.
Unless Apple is planning to drop the price into the $500 range, there's not much meaning to drop the price while gutting key features. Sure, they want more people to use the thing, but the entire product centers on the unbelievable experience it currently offers, which is superior to other VR and AR products out there. Gut the features, and then you are competing with Meta and the like. Make zero sense to do that. With that said, it is desirable if the price can come down a bit, but without harming the user experience at all.
Now if they only eliminated the front screen (which shows simulated eyes), maybe some people would go for that, at a lower cost, assuming all other features were retained. But Apple made a big deal about that, and such differentiates VISION PRO from competitor's products, so dropping that feature would seem odd. But it wouldn't ruin the user's experience at all though.
This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter. I'm not convinced this is Apple's plan at all. Get the costs of parts down? Sure. They *always* do that, and the difference goes into their bank, not to lower priced stuff. Over time perhaps the devices get way more capable for about the same price, but that's not what is posited here. The only thing I can think of is the original iPhone: people complained when they bought one at full price (over $500!) and then a few months later Apple dropped the price. Purchasers complained, and Apple (Steve) offered refunds. I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.
It's ‘standard operating procedure’ for a company to launch a premium-priced variant and then follow with a budget model, because of the immense investment in R&D entailed in a completely new product. I guess that Apple will spend nearly as much as a car company does on developing a new model: years of development, developing of new hardware, new factory production line, new OS, software, de-bugging, plus the rest of the eco-system: packaging, advertising, manuals, servicing, language localisation, website etc. The goal is to recover that investment as quickly as possible by launching a premium-priced product. As the money comes in from the initial sales and they recover their costs Apple can then: a. drop the price of the original product marginally; and/or b. expand the product offering such as by launching a budget-priced variant to take advantage of the new production line and eco-system that is now in place.
"Uncompromised insanely great" culture against "good enough" culture . Who wins ?
Good enough has the history of success. Look at the failure of Amiga and success of Windows.
Hasn't worked so great for the hardware makes.
It's with HW that good enough absolutely works out. Just look at Chinese knockoffs on Amazon, Amazon Basics, dollar stores, and most cars people buy. Even Apple selling last year's model iPhone for several years running with a $100 price drop shows that there is even a large number of iPhone buyers that will buy a good enough option over the best model being sold.
This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter. I'm not convinced this is Apple's plan at all. Get the costs of parts down? Sure. They *always* do that, and the difference goes into their bank, not to lower priced stuff. Over time perhaps the devices get way more capable for about the same price, but that's not what is posited here.
The only thing I can think of is the original iPhone: people complained when they bought one at full price (over $500!) and then a few months later Apple dropped the price. Purchasers complained, and Apple (Steve) offered refunds.
I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.
The iPod. Went 3 years at $300 to $500. iPod mini came out, then the shuffle and the nano in fairly quick succession in the 2005 time span.
Sometimes, Apple doesn't produce the product that the market wants, at the prices that they set. Lots of examples of this. Apple TV came out at $300-$400. That was driven down to $100 to $200. The Watch Edition models were a misread on what the market wants, and it wasn't a Watch with a gold case for 10k, though I really wish they'd sell ceramic Edition/Ultra models for $1000. Apple needs failures like this to reset their product marketers from devolving too far away from reality.
To achieve mass market popularity, Apple will need to have a Vision model at the $1000 price point. That is not achievable with the microOLEDs for the next 3 years at least. So, any lower end model in the next 3 years will likely be using LCDs, miniLEDs, or regular OLEDs at less pixel-per-degree resolutions. Frankly, that $1000 price point simply will not be possible in the next 10 years. $2000 is probably the minimum for an Apple Vision product that has two 20 ppd displays (about 12m pixels total), two pancake lenses, two M-class SoCs, 8 cameras and sensors, and a whole lot of aluminum, glass and fabric. Note I didn't include EyeSight and 4 cameras+sensors or so.
Remember, Meta's Reality Labs division (produces the Quest headsets and associate software) basically loses about $2500 for every Quest headset they sell at $500. From 2020 to 2023, that division has about 7b in revenue (?) but has about 40b in losses. IOW, they spent $40b to make $7b or so. Last time I checked, that shouldn't be how a business works. The damning thing is that the rate of loss hasn't stopped. The Quest is on its 3rd generation, and it doesn't earn enough revenue to slow down the rate of loss, and these seem to be losing more for every unit sale. Maybe in 2024 if they sell a lot of Quest 3 units.
So, Meta has basically skewed what the actual cost of these headsets are by taking these losses. They need to be selling Quest headsets for about $2000, with the same number of unit sales, to have the division even come close to breakeven, and I don't think they would even at that price.
"Uncompromised insanely great" culture against "good enough" culture . Who wins ?
Good enough has the history of success. Look at the failure of Amiga and success of Windows.
Or conversely look at Goldman Sachs and the Apple Pay fiasco, Goldman Sachs tried a variation of the just good enough how's that working for them, Apple should price the Apple Vision Pro to make a profit up front making it back on the back end is the Microsoft game plan and it's not working beyond Windows. (the current AI hype will die a nebulous death because it is built on top of sand)
"Uncompromised insanely great" culture against "good enough" culture . Who wins ?
Good enough has the history of success. Look at the failure of Amiga and success of Windows.
Hasn't worked so great for the hardware makes.
It's with HW that good enough absolutely works out. Just look at Chinese knockoffs on Amazon, Amazon Basics, dollar stores, and most cars people buy. Even Apple selling last year's model iPhone for several years running with a $100 price drop shows that there is even a large number of iPhone buyers that will buy a good enough option over the best model being sold.
Selling just good enough at no profit the first day of a new enterprise gets you bankrupt and out of business. There are no make ups on the back-end.
"Uncompromised insanely great" culture against "good enough" culture . Who wins ?
Good enough has the history of success. Look at the failure of Amiga and success of Windows.
Hasn't worked so great for the hardware makes.
It's with HW that good enough absolutely works out. Just look at Chinese knockoffs on Amazon, Amazon Basics, dollar stores, and most cars people buy. Even Apple selling last year's model iPhone for several years running with a $100 price drop shows that there is even a large number of iPhone buyers that will buy a good enough option over the best model being sold.
Selling just good enough at no profit the first day of a new enterprise gets you bankrupt and out of business. There are no make ups on the back-end.
Good enough doesn't imply a profit isn't being made. That's a completely different discussion, just as selling a high-end product without profit isn't part of this discussion. The original comment asked who would win against "Uncompromised insanely great" against "good enough", to which stated and shows that "good enough" not only exist but flourishes with customers. This is because of costs, which is why I don't yet an OLED TV, much less the largest and most capable model.. which I'll still never get since I only need 2 HDMI ports. I'd even argue that AVP, while insanely great compared to all other options available, is still a compromise in countless respects. It's simply how you have to approach product development.
A cheaper version might have a smaller (or no) battery being mains only, less effective (or no) speakers and rely on you using existing AirPods for audio, have a quality but maybe not premium quality headband. Perhaps not provide the “eyes/face” feature for anyone else near you in the room.
An approach like the above would not diminish the visual experience of AppleVision ??? In any way for the user but would sacrifice other areas that would save money. A bit like having an Apple Watch with a neoprene strap instead of a top end stainless steel links/webbing strap or whatever - the watch functionality is identical but the overall experience is not so “premium”.
Unless Apple is planning to drop the price into the $500 range, there's not much meaning to drop the price while gutting key features. Sure, they want more people to use the thing, but the entire product centers on the unbelievable experience it currently offers, which is superior to other VR and AR products out there. Gut the features, and then you are competing with Meta and the like. Make zero sense to do that. With that said, it is desirable if the price can come down a bit, but without harming the user experience at all.
Now if they only eliminated the front screen (which shows simulated eyes), maybe some people would go for that, at a lower cost, assuming all other features were retained. But Apple made a big deal about that, and such differentiates VISION PRO from competitor's products, so dropping that feature would seem odd. But it wouldn't ruin the user's experience at all though.
The Apple Vision Pro will partially cannibalize some of the Apple products because it will be able to run most of the software from some the other Apple devices very well, and it will also be able to cannibalize large screen tv's, and it will in time make a dent into area's where people don't have a ton of space that day is coming very soon.
A cheaper version might have a smaller (or no) battery being mains only, less effective (or no) speakers and rely on you using existing AirPods for audio, have a quality but maybe not premium quality headband. Perhaps not provide the “eyes/face” feature for anyone else near you in the room.
An approach like the above would not diminish the visual experience of AppleVision ??? In any way for the user but would sacrifice other areas that would save money. A bit like having an Apple Watch with a neoprene strap instead of a top end stainless steel links/webbing strap or whatever - the watch functionality is identical but the overall experience is not so “premium”.
The highest costs are estimated to be in the optics/displays:
This compares costs to the Meta Quest 3, $430 vs $1700. The display cost is way higher at $700 vs $80. They need to get the display manufacturing down to smartphone display costs, under $100 per display.
If they lowered the margin for expensive products, they can increase the unit volume.
If they make 40% margin on a $499 iPad, they make $200. 40% margin on a $3499 product is $1400. If they had 20% margin, the price would be $2699.
That's why high-end Macs can have $1000 discounts in sales and still be profitable.
In the above cost structure, if they get the lenses down to $100, displays down to $300, that brings cost down to $1140 and it would be possible to get a retail price under $2k.
It seems like they should be able to build a fairly premium headset with $1000 of components when they can build an M2 Macbook Air with under $700 of components.
But I wouldn’t expect them to compromise on the display. If you sell it on the strength of the incredible display quality and the OS then it would seem unwise to bring out a cheaper version that takes the main features of the device and diminishes the experience.
But I wouldn’t expect them to compromise on the display. If you sell it on the strength of the incredible display quality and the OS then it would seem unwise to bring out a cheaper version that takes the main features of the device and diminishes the experience.
It would still be a step up over what's available due to the motion tracking and software and it's really the only option for there being a cheaper model.
The old Macs introduced Retina displays at the high-end before they filtered down to the entry level.
Millions of people currently use headsets with 2K resolution because that's what's affordable. It may mean that text-based tasks aren't as feasible like typing a lot of text but the other experiences like movies would be ok. It also gives a lower entry point for more developers to make content for the platform.
The displays could also remain high resolution but with a cheaper panel type than OLED. The following company makes a custom display type, CLPL, and can sell dual 4K for ~$1000 without controllers:
HDR video wouldn't look as nice, lower contrast ratio but it would offer the same interaction experience. Vision Pro would be an upsell like the Macbook Pro with XDR display and higher spec.
At the launch event, people were enthusiastic about the product:
but not the entry price, this was a worse reaction than the $999 display stand:
Most people don't have $3500 disposable income for this kind of product. Even $2k is a stretch but low enough for significantly more people to build a userbase.
But I wouldn’t expect them to compromise on the display. If you sell it on the strength of the incredible display quality and the OS then it would seem unwise to bring out a cheaper version that takes the main features of the device and diminishes the experience.
It would still be a step up over what's available due to the motion tracking and software and it's really the only option for there being a cheaper model.
The old Macs introduced Retina displays at the high-end before they filtered down to the entry level.
Millions of people currently use headsets with 2K resolution because that's what's affordable. It may mean that text-based tasks aren't as feasible like typing a lot of text but the other experiences like movies would be ok. It also gives a lower entry point for more developers to make content for the platform.
The displays could also remain high resolution but with a cheaper panel type than OLED. The following company makes a custom display type, CLPL, and can sell dual 4K for ~$1000 without controllers:
HDR video wouldn't look as nice, lower contrast ratio but it would offer the same interaction experience. Vision Pro would be an upsell like the Macbook Pro with XDR display and higher spec.
At the launch event, people were enthusiastic about the product:
but not the entry price, this was a worse reaction than the $999 display stand:
Most people don't have $3500 disposable income for this kind of product. Even $2k is a stretch but low enough for significantly more people to build a userbase.
Until people get a hands-on experience at one of the 527 Apple stores that will sell the Apple Vision Pro, we won’t know what the market will bear but the various people who came out of the demo babbling to themselves means that the bar has been raised high, and there will be plenty of people who will recalibrate their expectations and what they are willing to pay for this device.
Because it will be able to replace cannibalize several other Apple products because of the software that it can run on it on day one. so much of the best software on the Mac and the iPad will simply work and work to a high-level, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, Notability, Goodnotes, Morpholio Trace along with most of the Affinity software will be spectacular on the Apple Vision Pro in a very short period of time.
I currently own an iPad Pro, which when fully equipped cost nearly $3000, I won’t be getting a new iPad Pro to replace it. I will be upgrading/jumping up into an Apple Vision Pro in the future.
The price of a product is one of the critical elements. It wasn’t that Apple launched a tablet back when the iPad was introduced. It wasn’t the first tablet. It was the first tablet priced to become a product millions would flock to. If Apple had launched a $1,000 tablet instead of a $500 tablet, it would have barely moved the needle. Been there done that would have been the reaction.
So the pricing for this device does impact how it will go. That the complex launch product is high priced is no surprise in so much as I suspect Apple is not looking to start off selling this item in high volume. It makes sense to go slow at launch and use the data that flows from getting this product in consumers’ hands. The pricing of a product is the key element in determining volume. You have to price it to meet specific sales targets. You can sell it for the expected launch price, certainly, but the volume will be X. If you want that to go higher, pricing has to be lowered to make it happen. Period. You can’t really increase volume by enhancing features. You have to find the number that consumers are comfortable with. The launch price is only going to be comfortable for a small group of buyers. But I suspect Apple has big plans for this device in the long run.
Comments
Xed said: But I think these examples show Apple does have a playbook and that is, at some point in the future the tech will diverge into 2 of 3 streams of improvement. The primary stream is better in the same build budget which is what we see MacBook(Pro), iPhone, iPod, iPadAir.
The more common stream-nano, air and other examples were about efficiency. Same function smaller package, lower power usage, smaller boxes and low shipping so it was on retail shelves and open to the higher volume impulse buy market.
The longer-term product stream- iPhone Pro pushing into video production, iPadPro as the other example. Inflation-adjusted build budget and retail Price. Push the function where there is strong interest and see what sort of pricing the market will bear to make use of this function. Apple seems to like high RAM and Storage pricing as a way of really testing the market limits to spending.
Apple VisionPro following that main stream, other savings will lead to better screens, longer battery, less tethering for function and mostly stay an order and ship product. Next year still seems way too soon for the tech to advance enough for Vision (nonPro) to have a distinct market.
Now if they only eliminated the front screen (which shows simulated eyes), maybe some people would go for that, at a lower cost, assuming all other features were retained. But Apple made a big deal about that, and such differentiates VISION PRO from competitor's products, so dropping that feature would seem odd. But it wouldn't ruin the user's experience at all though.
Sometimes, Apple doesn't produce the product that the market wants, at the prices that they set. Lots of examples of this. Apple TV came out at $300-$400. That was driven down to $100 to $200. The Watch Edition models were a misread on what the market wants, and it wasn't a Watch with a gold case for 10k, though I really wish they'd sell ceramic Edition/Ultra models for $1000. Apple needs failures like this to reset their product marketers from devolving too far away from reality.
To achieve mass market popularity, Apple will need to have a Vision model at the $1000 price point. That is not achievable with the microOLEDs for the next 3 years at least. So, any lower end model in the next 3 years will likely be using LCDs, miniLEDs, or regular OLEDs at less pixel-per-degree resolutions. Frankly, that $1000 price point simply will not be possible in the next 10 years. $2000 is probably the minimum for an Apple Vision product that has two 20 ppd displays (about 12m pixels total), two pancake lenses, two M-class SoCs, 8 cameras and sensors, and a whole lot of aluminum, glass and fabric. Note I didn't include EyeSight and 4 cameras+sensors or so.
Remember, Meta's Reality Labs division (produces the Quest headsets and associate software) basically loses about $2500 for every Quest headset they sell at $500. From 2020 to 2023, that division has about 7b in revenue (?) but has about 40b in losses. IOW, they spent $40b to make $7b or so. Last time I checked, that shouldn't be how a business works. The damning thing is that the rate of loss hasn't stopped. The Quest is on its 3rd generation, and it doesn't earn enough revenue to slow down the rate of loss, and these seem to be losing more for every unit sale. Maybe in 2024 if they sell a lot of Quest 3 units.
So, Meta has basically skewed what the actual cost of these headsets are by taking these losses. They need to be selling Quest headsets for about $2000, with the same number of unit sales, to have the division even come close to breakeven, and I don't think they would even at that price.
An approach like the above would not diminish the visual experience of AppleVision ??? In any way for the user but would sacrifice other areas that would save money. A bit like having an Apple Watch with a neoprene strap instead of a top end stainless steel links/webbing strap or whatever - the watch functionality is identical but the overall experience is not so “premium”.
The Apple Vision Pro will partially cannibalize some of the Apple products because it will be able to run most of the software from some the other Apple devices very well, and it will also be able to cannibalize large screen tv's, and it will in time make a dent into area's where people don't have a ton of space that day is coming very soon.
https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-production-cost-estimate/
This compares costs to the Meta Quest 3, $430 vs $1700. The display cost is way higher at $700 vs $80. They need to get the display manufacturing down to smartphone display costs, under $100 per display.
Apple's margins are also high (usually 40% https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/gross-margin ). Meta sells hardware close to break-even or at a loss.
If they lowered the margin for expensive products, they can increase the unit volume.
If they make 40% margin on a $499 iPad, they make $200. 40% margin on a $3499 product is $1400. If they had 20% margin, the price would be $2699.
That's why high-end Macs can have $1000 discounts in sales and still be profitable.
In the above cost structure, if they get the lenses down to $100, displays down to $300, that brings cost down to $1140 and it would be possible to get a retail price under $2k.
It seems like they should be able to build a fairly premium headset with $1000 of components when they can build an M2 Macbook Air with under $700 of components.
The old Macs introduced Retina displays at the high-end before they filtered down to the entry level.
Millions of people currently use headsets with 2K resolution because that's what's affordable. It may mean that text-based tasks aren't as feasible like typing a lot of text but the other experiences like movies would be ok. It also gives a lower entry point for more developers to make content for the platform.
The displays could also remain high resolution but with a cheaper panel type than OLED. The following company makes a custom display type, CLPL, and can sell dual 4K for ~$1000 without controllers:
https://pimax.com/pimax-8k-x/
https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/
HDR video wouldn't look as nice, lower contrast ratio but it would offer the same interaction experience. Vision Pro would be an upsell like the Macbook Pro with XDR display and higher spec.
Vision = 8GB/256GB/4K IPS = $1999
Vision Pro = 16GB/1TB/4K Micro-OLED/EyeSight = $3499
At the launch event, people were enthusiastic about the product:
but not the entry price, this was a worse reaction than the $999 display stand:
Most people don't have $3500 disposable income for this kind of product. Even $2k is a stretch but low enough for significantly more people to build a userbase.
Because it will be able to replace cannibalize several other Apple products because of the software that it can run on it on day one. so much of the best software on the Mac and the iPad will simply work and work to a high-level, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, Notability, Goodnotes, Morpholio Trace along with most of the Affinity software will be spectacular on the Apple Vision Pro in a very short period of time.
So the pricing for this device does impact how it will go. That the complex launch product is high priced is no surprise in so much as I suspect Apple is not looking to start off selling this item in high volume. It makes sense to go slow at launch and use the data that flows from getting this product in consumers’ hands. The pricing of a product is the key element in determining volume. You have to price it to meet specific sales targets. You can sell it for the expected launch price, certainly, but the volume will be X. If you want that to go higher, pricing has to be lowered to make it happen. Period. You can’t really increase volume by enhancing features. You have to find the number that consumers are comfortable with. The launch price is only going to be comfortable for a small group of buyers. But I suspect Apple has big plans for this device in the long run.