The price is high on purpose, to keep the average Joe from getting disappointed.
They will gather the data needed for a second version for the masses.
No it will never be under 2000 dollars, too much leading edge tech hardware/software in it. M1, M2, M3, M4 MacBook Pro's aren't for the masses and neither are iPad Pro 12.9.
It is interesting that gaming PC's are considered worthy of the 2 grand price.
Because you can do more than just game on them. With a gaming PC you can do everything that can be done on a $7200 MacBook Pro plus at least one thing that can't be, which is play most PC video games (Nvidia GeForce Now type solutions notwithstanding). Just one example: the Twitch and YouTube crowd streams from and produces/edits their videos on the same gaming hardware that they play on. Software engineers? Same. A great TensorFlow machine for machine learning or node.js machine for Javascript visualization is just as great for Spider-Man Remastered and Flight Simulator.
The main issue with AR/VR headsets isn't the cost, apps or use case. The problem is that almost no one wants to strap these things to their face, especially for extended periods of time and particularly in public. When I heard about Apple entering this area I was thrilled. I bought a Google Daydream back in the day, and while it was very good for watching Netflix while on my exercise bike there is NO WAY that I would have gone out in public with it, if only because it obstructs your field of vision. So when I saw that it was just an Oculus Rift/PlayStation VR with superior internals and - we hope - a better UX/UI experience I was disappointed. I was hoping that Apple would be the ones to actually succeed with Google's other failed idea in this area - Google Glass - just as Apple succeeded with Google's failed Android Wear/WearOS concept with the Apple Watch. Sure, everyone hated Google Glass, but I chalked that up to dislike and mistrust of Google. I was thinking that were Apple to make a "similar but better" version of the same product, it would be embraced by the same crowd who hated phablets, OLED, curved screens, widgets, pro tablets with stylus and oh yeah smartwatches (the first LTE etc. smartwatches were mocked to no end) etc. when they were Samsung distinctives but fell in love with them when Apple copied them.
Yes, I know that crowd claims that "Apple didn't do it first but it right." Well I was hoping Apple would do Google Glass right, like make AR/VR glasses that looked like (oversized) Top Gun style Ray Ban sunglasses - I was an 80s kid so sue me - and provided some method of being able to see what was going on around you continuously, or at least (almost) immediately when you wanted/needed to.
Apple didn't gain much market share with Apple TV or the HomePod because - despite all the hype - they didn't fundamentally improve on what was already there. It was just the Amazon Fire TV and Amazon Echo (and the Google competitors) except way more expensive and with less functionality. Apple's offering a slightly better than what already exists VR headset except costs 5-10 times as much, it isn't going to gain much traction. I believe that app makers feel the same way. You have to remember that these things aren't new at all. They have been around since at least 2014 with some of the most successful companies in the world - not just "free services with advertising" companies like Facebook and Google but companies that actually excel at consumer products with huge customer bases like Valve (Steam), Samsung and Sony - haven't moved the needle. The Vision Pro seems so similar to previous "failed to barely successful niche" efforts that everyone is in a wait and see mode.
I haven't given up hope. As Apple has stated multiple times that they are fully invested in this area, I hope that this is merely a dev kit of sorts to get the ball rolling. And that 4 years from now, when the 5nm M2 chip that is in the current Vision Pro will be a 1nm chip, Apple will deliver the Ray Ban style glasses that I was hoping for. And if I recall correctly, Apple actually does want to solve the "you won't be able to interact with what is around you" problem. Consider the extremely underrated anime Denno Coil - yes it is on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/81299264 - where the AR glasses looked like laboratory goggles and it superimposed 3D images on the real world instead of shutting the wearer off from them. As a result, Denno Coil's was the opposite of Ready Player One, as where the latter was used as an escape from a (terrible) real world, Denno Coil's tech integrated it and the user with it. If Apple can pull it off, good for them. But if not, well it will join Google Cardboard and Samsung Gear VR (Samsung didn't support Google's platform because they were fighting at the time, so Samsung supported the Oculus tech instead, and the result was neither succeeding) as failures.
I'm sorry, but where exactly is "the struggle" to market it? Apple is halfway to its targeted sales for the first YEAR just 72 HOURS after pre-orders opened.
Does it currently lack a killer app? Absolutely. Quick: tell me the killer app for iPad tabllet computing when it first debuted? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one, which led to it being derided as "just a big iPhone" upon launch. Kajillions of iPad sales later, the lack of a killer app upon launch seems to have worked out okay, no? In fact, I would argue that there's STILL no killer app for iPad, but developers found all kinds of ways to make it uniquely useful.
I'm glad you brought up Apple Watch--apart from the laughably dumb idea to market it as "fashion accessory," its functionality was laughable as well--essentially useless except for telling time unless it was tethered to your iPhone that had to be with you. And yet, kajillions of Watch sales later, that worked itself out over succeeding models.
I don't know if Vision Pro will ultimately be a success. Nobody does. It brings an array of capabilities and potential to computing that we haven't seen before, but what I feel absolutely certain about is that it will take some time to develop what's possible with that platform in terms of apps. We've been here before. It will be the most difficult marketing job for Apple since the Macintosh. And how long did it take the Mac to really catch on? It's worth remembering that 13 years after the Mac debuted, Apple teetered on the verge of bankruptcy, and it wasn't until the first iMac debuted about a year or so after Apple's near death experience that Mac sales really took off.
Apple has a history of new platforms taking time measured in years to become hits. They are in a better financial position then ever to weather that kind of wait with Vision Pro and to continue the needed investment to nurture it. Let's see where we are with a killer app next year and the year after. Then we can talk about whether there's a struggle to market it.
On Marques Brownlee’s show they were speculating if the high price is actually intended to keep people from buying it.
I believe it was...Apple knew they'd have a hell of a time mass producing this so they put the price higher than normal. It wasn't necessarily out of greed to get more revenue...I think it was more of we can't make these fast enough and if we price it too cheap we'll be drowning in orders for months and months, pissing customers off because of the long ship times. That being said they do have a lot of R&D costs to recoup.
Like with iPhone, this is a new space for Apple and it will take a couple of years to perfect it. It was the same way with iPhone and it took a couple/few years before it really took off. People will just need to be patient. There will be more than 1 version I'm sure and the price will go down so it's more affordable. I don't see this ever being "cheap" but it should get cheaper in time as they're able to make the tech even better and cheaper. Overall the headset will get better as well as they improve the technology inside it. THey'll take customer feedback and things that probably didn't make it to the original for various reasons and it will just get better and better.
Again, people including the media will just need to be patient with this. It seems like everyone thinks everything Apple releases needs to be an overnight success or else it's a failure when they forget even the iPhone wasn't an overnight success. The iPod wasn't for that matter either.
Doesn’t get it. The $3500 price is an anchor. When a $2500 device is introduced it will be considered a bargain. If they led with $2500 it would have been considered expensive. They know what they are doing. Selling 180,000 in a few hours shows the marketing was pretty good. Three of my friends and I bought one and we are just regular folks, though three of us are 70+. We just love the idea of spatial computing. Can’t think of a better way to spend that social security money.
Actually the marketing is great - the website shows a young woman with the perfect hairstyle for this device LOL. Also, the rest of the webpages about the product are up to the usual high quality for other products. It’s not a question of marketing but rather usefulness,
Doesn’t get it. The $3500 price is an anchor. When a $2500 device is introduced it will be considered a bargain. If they led with $2500 it would have been considered expensive. They know what they are doing. Selling 180,000 in a few hours shows the marketing was pretty good. Three of my friends and I bought one and we are just regular folks, though three of us are 70+. We just love the idea of spatial computing. Can’t think of a better way to spend that social security money.
No, people aren't going to pay more for a less functional device. The first iPhone cost $499, which is about $725 in today's money. No one was going to pay $2499 for it because it was a less capable device than a MacBook Pro. Motorcyle? Same deal. They start at about $4000 where cars start at $20,000. So $2500 would be paying more than a Mac Studio for a device that for most people will be less useful than an iPhone SE or an iPad Air. I know that Apple claims that doctors will be able to use it to perform surgery, but surgeons aren't most people.
Now if you remember: the first iPhone was was a VERY spartan device. 412 MHz CPU, 128 MB RAM, 4 GB storage, 2G, 3.5 inch screen, only on AT&T. Sold 270,000 the first week. Now compare that to the iPhone 6: 1.4 GHz 64 bit CPU, up to 5.5" screen, 1 GB RAM, biometrics, up to 128 GB storage, LTE. Such a fundamentally different device that it far more closely resembled the Samsung Galaxy Note line than the original iPhone. Sold 4 million the first day.
My guess: the Vision Pro 6 is going to be just as different. And yes, there will ultimately be a Vision SE that is priced competitively with the other headsets one day too, just as Apple released an iPhone SE to do the same (after years of Daniel Eran Dilger and others on this site insisting that they wouldn't because "it would be impossible to do so without sacrificing the iPhone's quality." Yes those articles are still archived on this site and they are still a hoot.).
Interesting comments like what I read when the first Air came out and everyone is trashing it.
Now they said it is beloved.
Let’s see what the VP will be in a year’s time.
I may have crows for lunch or I will end up making good money being a shareholder when Apple's share price flies.
If they sold the estimated 160,000 units in the opening weekend… that’s $640M in 48hrs. How long did it take AppleInsider to generate $640M in revenue? 2 weekends?
Vision Pro is closer to Apple Watch. Nobody had really dominated the digital watch market despite high profile and innovative attempts. Google Glass, Sony, Oculus/Meta, Microsoft, and other large and small companies have tried with mixed-to-low success.
Most of these entries pushed 3D games or 3D movies as the “killer app”.
Apple is the only (as far as I know) “Spatial Computing” platform looking for developers to develop innovative apps that will create a killer (or 2,3,…) domain(s) in the near future. Apple priced it to target enthusiasts and visionaries, not the general public. Yet, they turned on the Apple Marketing Machine to make everyone aware of the innovation… and lusting after one, even when they can’t afford it.
Then they sold 2/3 of a Billion dollars in 48 hours to people that will love it and either sing praises or develop a new generation of spatial apps.
its also not unlike the original 1984 Macintosh which sold for $2500 ($7500 in today’s world… twice the price of Vision Pro). It had a novel graphical interface without a killer app except the notion of WYSIWYG screen-to-print. Priced for enthusiasts, but launched at the SuperBowl.
Look at the WWDC23 developer videos. Like the Mac, the emphasis is on all the spatial functions and interface elements/indicators to create a consistent UI for future 3rd party apps. That’s what made the Mac successful: you knew how to use every app the first time you opened it. Not true for Microsoft DOS and early Windows apps. Every app was a chaotic mess.
i don’t think we have to wait “5-10 years” for Vision to take off. We’ll see innovative game changers in 2-3.
I pre-ordered one and look forward to the immersive environment and seeing how many apps I can integrate to productively use in this environment. Not just another game and 3D video platform those are just the table stakes.
There’s really no need to defend or denigrate the Vision Pro at this time. Almost nobody has really put it through its paces with doing anything that clearly justifies or questions its price. Until we get real people who spent real money on it trying to do real things (beyond demos) we have no idea what we’re dealing with.
The Vision Pro won’t succeed or fail based on how well Apple markets it (the 4 Ps of marketing as a minimum). It will succeed or fail based on how good it is. The iPhone didn’t take over the world due to slick advertising and flashy demos. It captured the world because it was a great device, even when it was in its most primitive state. If it wasn’t good enough from the start it would not have made it to a second, third, and well beyond iteration.
Let’s see what it really is before we pass judgement on it.
In introducing the AVP, Apple accomplished two things:
1. They shifted the paradigm for spatial computing and immersive user experiences. The the rest of the industry will be obliged to follow.
2. The polished experience they created (both in terms of design and the mix of technology) is hard to recreate. Their rivals will struggle to match Apple for over the next couple of years.
Typos and misspelling aside, the author’s level of ignorance about marketing and advertising strategy and tactics makes this article unworthy of publication. Embarrassing for both the author and AppleInsider…
Looking back at 'new' product categories done by Apple, this is one that has no immediate use case, that makes sense. You need an assistant to even try it out apparently. Otherwise why wouldn't they just show it off. It's a device that is not 'easy to use' instead you need to go through a complex setup process to get it to work.
All in all it looks and feels like a prototype and lacks polish we are used from Apple when it comes to ease of use.
It also looks like they haven't found a decent 'killer app' use case. Feels like a first that Apple comes up empty to produce a complex/expensive new piece of hardware that has an immediate end-user-relevant use case that makes it a must have.
To add to the 'lacking killer app' feature. It looks like they also haven't seen anything from a 3rd party developer. We can assume that each and every developer, that so far has put some decent resources into developing software for that device, has already shown up at an Apple Developer Center for an in person testing. You can bet that information of any great 3rd party product will have reached Apples Marketing department trying to sell this thing. But ... nothing worth talking about. So far.
Last but not least - if the rumors are correct - they will probably not able to manufacture too much hardware. The 'ultra slow' rollout (starting US only) seems proof of that. So why bother wasting tons of money for a product people don't want, have no winning use case and can't even buy!?
So I rest my case. At this moment it's mostly tech geeks and (hopefully) a bunch of 3d party developers that'll buy it ... and lets hope they'll come up with some killer use case in time for a great 2nd or 3rd generation Apple Vision Air or something.
Rememember that was similar to other products like the Mac (with Desktop Publishing as a killer app) or the iPhone (with Social Media ... alas he iPhone could at least replace the mobile phone you had ... but the additional cost was borderline ). I guess we'll all know more in 1-2 years (by then it will either blossom or fail).
To me, the Get Ready ad conveys that to be able to do or see great things, you need to wear something over your head. There is a convincing subconscious message to it.
A. M2 Mac Mini with 16GB unified memory and 256 GB storage = $799 B. 100" 4K QLED TV = $5,000 C. 83" 4K OLED TV = $3,800 D. 98" 4K OLED TV = $29,000 E. 4K OLED 47" computer gaming monitor = $879 F. Multiple 4K 32" non-OLED computer monitors = $600
People need to get real about the AVP pricing. It's a very reasonable price relative to what you're getting. Remember...it's above 4K resolution and it's OLED. And according to this site it can upscale video content to 8K. The cheapest comparable package that you could get in terms of functionality would be A + C + E + F...that gets you an M2 computer on par with AVP and a really large 4K OLED TV and a really large 4K OLED gaming monitor and an array of non-OLED 4K computer monitors. Price tag = $6,078.
And that functionality IS what Apple is marketing. Do you want a solid computing device that isn't bleeding edge? Check. Do you want to watch TV/movies on a gigantic 4K OLED screen? Check. Do you want to be able to play games on a gigantic 4K OLED screen? Check. Does a multiple 4K OLED computer monitor setup sound appealing? Check. That's the core of what Apple is selling. The other stuff that people aren't accustomed to...spatial computing, 3D dinosaurs, immersive virtual environments etc. are really the value-added part at this point.
They really need an app that makes this meaningful. I almost always buy the initial version of what Apple releases, but this is the first thing I've skipped in ages. I just don't see a single reason at this point.
Comments
Yes, I know that crowd claims that "Apple didn't do it first but it right." Well I was hoping Apple would do Google Glass right, like make AR/VR glasses that looked like (oversized) Top Gun style Ray Ban sunglasses - I was an 80s kid so sue me - and provided some method of being able to see what was going on around you continuously, or at least (almost) immediately when you wanted/needed to.
Apple didn't gain much market share with Apple TV or the HomePod because - despite all the hype - they didn't fundamentally improve on what was already there. It was just the Amazon Fire TV and Amazon Echo (and the Google competitors) except way more expensive and with less functionality. Apple's offering a slightly better than what already exists VR headset except costs 5-10 times as much, it isn't going to gain much traction. I believe that app makers feel the same way. You have to remember that these things aren't new at all. They have been around since at least 2014 with some of the most successful companies in the world - not just "free services with advertising" companies like Facebook and Google but companies that actually excel at consumer products with huge customer bases like Valve (Steam), Samsung and Sony - haven't moved the needle. The Vision Pro seems so similar to previous "failed to barely successful niche" efforts that everyone is in a wait and see mode.
I haven't given up hope. As Apple has stated multiple times that they are fully invested in this area, I hope that this is merely a dev kit of sorts to get the ball rolling. And that 4 years from now, when the 5nm M2 chip that is in the current Vision Pro will be a 1nm chip, Apple will deliver the Ray Ban style glasses that I was hoping for. And if I recall correctly, Apple actually does want to solve the "you won't be able to interact with what is around you" problem. Consider the extremely underrated anime Denno Coil - yes it is on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/81299264 - where the AR glasses looked like laboratory goggles and it superimposed 3D images on the real world instead of shutting the wearer off from them. As a result, Denno Coil's was the opposite of Ready Player One, as where the latter was used as an escape from a (terrible) real world, Denno Coil's tech integrated it and the user with it. If Apple can pull it off, good for them. But if not, well it will join Google Cardboard and Samsung Gear VR (Samsung didn't support Google's platform because they were fighting at the time, so Samsung supported the Oculus tech instead, and the result was neither succeeding) as failures.
Does it currently lack a killer app? Absolutely. Quick: tell me the killer app for iPad tabllet computing when it first debuted? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one, which led to it being derided as "just a big iPhone" upon launch. Kajillions of iPad sales later, the lack of a killer app upon launch seems to have worked out okay, no? In fact, I would argue that there's STILL no killer app for iPad, but developers found all kinds of ways to make it uniquely useful.
I'm glad you brought up Apple Watch--apart from the laughably dumb idea to market it as "fashion accessory," its functionality was laughable as well--essentially useless except for telling time unless it was tethered to your iPhone that had to be with you. And yet, kajillions of Watch sales later, that worked itself out over succeeding models.
I don't know if Vision Pro will ultimately be a success. Nobody does. It brings an array of capabilities and potential to computing that we haven't seen before, but what I feel absolutely certain about is that it will take some time to develop what's possible with that platform in terms of apps. We've been here before. It will be the most difficult marketing job for Apple since the Macintosh. And how long did it take the Mac to really catch on? It's worth remembering that 13 years after the Mac debuted, Apple teetered on the verge of bankruptcy, and it wasn't until the first iMac debuted about a year or so after Apple's near death experience that Mac sales really took off.
Apple has a history of new platforms taking time measured in years to become hits. They are in a better financial position then ever to weather that kind of wait with Vision Pro and to continue the needed investment to nurture it. Let's see where we are with a killer app next year and the year after. Then we can talk about whether there's a struggle to market it.
Like with iPhone, this is a new space for Apple and it will take a couple of years to perfect it. It was the same way with iPhone and it took a couple/few years before it really took off. People will just need to be patient. There will be more than 1 version I'm sure and the price will go down so it's more affordable. I don't see this ever being "cheap" but it should get cheaper in time as they're able to make the tech even better and cheaper. Overall the headset will get better as well as they improve the technology inside it. THey'll take customer feedback and things that probably didn't make it to the original for various reasons and it will just get better and better.
Again, people including the media will just need to be patient with this. It seems like everyone thinks everything Apple releases needs to be an overnight success or else it's a failure when they forget even the iPhone wasn't an overnight success. The iPod wasn't for that matter either.
Now if you remember: the first iPhone was was a VERY spartan device. 412 MHz CPU, 128 MB RAM, 4 GB storage, 2G, 3.5 inch screen, only on AT&T. Sold 270,000 the first week. Now compare that to the iPhone 6: 1.4 GHz 64 bit CPU, up to 5.5" screen, 1 GB RAM, biometrics, up to 128 GB storage, LTE. Such a fundamentally different device that it far more closely resembled the Samsung Galaxy Note line than the original iPhone. Sold 4 million the first day.
My guess: the Vision Pro 6 is going to be just as different. And yes, there will ultimately be a Vision SE that is priced competitively with the other headsets one day too, just as Apple released an iPhone SE to do the same (after years of Daniel Eran Dilger and others on this site insisting that they wouldn't because "it would be impossible to do so without sacrificing the iPhone's quality." Yes those articles are still archived on this site and they are still a hoot.).
If they sold the estimated 160,000 units in the opening weekend… that’s $640M in 48hrs. How long did it take AppleInsider to generate $640M in revenue? 2 weekends?
Vision Pro is closer to Apple Watch. Nobody had really dominated the digital watch market despite high profile and innovative attempts. Google Glass, Sony, Oculus/Meta, Microsoft, and other large and small companies have tried with mixed-to-low success.
Most of these entries pushed 3D games or 3D movies as the “killer app”.
Apple is the only (as far as I know) “Spatial Computing” platform looking for developers to develop innovative apps that will create a killer (or 2,3,…) domain(s) in the near future. Apple priced it to target enthusiasts and visionaries, not the general public. Yet, they turned on the Apple Marketing Machine to make everyone aware of the innovation… and lusting after one, even when they can’t afford it.
Then they sold 2/3 of a Billion dollars in 48 hours to people that will love it and either sing praises or develop a new generation of spatial apps.
its also not unlike the original 1984 Macintosh which sold for $2500 ($7500 in today’s world… twice the price of Vision Pro). It had a novel graphical interface without a killer app except the notion of WYSIWYG screen-to-print. Priced for enthusiasts, but launched at the SuperBowl.
Look at the WWDC23 developer videos. Like the Mac, the emphasis is on all the spatial functions and interface elements/indicators to create a consistent UI for future 3rd party apps. That’s what made the Mac successful: you knew how to use every app the first time you opened it. Not true for Microsoft DOS and early Windows apps. Every app was a chaotic mess.
i don’t think we have to wait “5-10 years” for Vision to take off. We’ll see innovative game changers in 2-3.
I pre-ordered one and look forward to the immersive environment and seeing how many apps I can integrate to productively use in this environment. Not just another game and 3D video platform those are just the table stakes.
Jim in Boulder
All in all it looks and feels like a prototype and lacks polish we are used from Apple when it comes to ease of use.
It also looks like they haven't found a decent 'killer app' use case. Feels like a first that Apple comes up empty to produce a complex/expensive new piece of hardware that has an immediate end-user-relevant use case that makes it a must have.
To add to the 'lacking killer app' feature. It looks like they also haven't seen anything from a 3rd party developer. We can assume that each and every developer, that so far has put some decent resources into developing software for that device, has already shown up at an Apple Developer Center for an in person testing. You can bet that information of any great 3rd party product will have reached Apples Marketing department trying to sell this thing. But ... nothing worth talking about. So far.
Last but not least - if the rumors are correct - they will probably not able to manufacture too much hardware. The 'ultra slow' rollout (starting US only) seems proof of that. So why bother wasting tons of money for a product people don't want, have no winning use case and can't even buy!?
So I rest my case. At this moment it's mostly tech geeks and (hopefully) a bunch of 3d party developers that'll buy it ... and lets hope they'll come up with some killer use case in time for a great 2nd or 3rd generation Apple Vision Air or something.
Rememember that was similar to other products like the Mac (with Desktop Publishing as a killer app) or the iPhone (with Social Media ... alas he iPhone could at least replace the mobile phone you had ... but the additional cost was borderline ). I guess we'll all know more in 1-2 years (by then it will either blossom or fail).
B. 100" 4K QLED TV = $5,000
C. 83" 4K OLED TV = $3,800
D. 98" 4K OLED TV = $29,000
E. 4K OLED 47" computer gaming monitor = $879
F. Multiple 4K 32" non-OLED computer monitors = $600
People need to get real about the AVP pricing. It's a very reasonable price relative to what you're getting. Remember...it's above 4K resolution and it's OLED. And according to this site it can upscale video content to 8K. The cheapest comparable package that you could get in terms of functionality would be A + C + E + F...that gets you an M2 computer on par with AVP and a really large 4K OLED TV and a really large 4K OLED gaming monitor and an array of non-OLED 4K computer monitors. Price tag = $6,078.
And that functionality IS what Apple is marketing. Do you want a solid computing device that isn't bleeding edge? Check. Do you want to watch TV/movies on a gigantic 4K OLED screen? Check. Do you want to be able to play games on a gigantic 4K OLED screen? Check. Does a multiple 4K OLED computer monitor setup sound appealing? Check. That's the core of what Apple is selling. The other stuff that people aren't accustomed to...spatial computing, 3D dinosaurs, immersive virtual environments etc. are really the value-added part at this point.