avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Reminder that Meta can't even do this. Meta Reality Labs loses about $2500 for about every $500 Quest headset they sell. The revenue they get from hardware sales, software sales and application store fees doesn't even remotely cover their R&D and cost of business expenses.
Seriously, they should be investigated for antitrust or anticompetitive business practices because dumping Quest hardware on the market is making it impossible for companies to come and compete in the space.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
Interesting. What data source do you use to know the return rates? And is there a way to know the reasons?
Some of the blogosphere agree with you and others say the vp is being returned in “large numbers.”
curious to know if there is a reliable common source to reference in order to bypass a lot of the bias-Infused hot takes.
Msn says users are frustrated over discomfort and eye strain, but it sounds like those are just a few interviews they conducted. Others and their interviewees say the same thing though. And others cite lack of productivity. MSN, Tom’s guide, bgr, and many more. And that’s just the preorder return window customers.
Some positives amongs those returning are the thoughts thought it works great, but there are physical trade offs that outweigh the positives.
It’s no secret that I am not a fan and I’ve stated reasoning long before it was even out (headsets don’t work. Needs to be glasses/sunglasses). These return issues match with my thoughts. But I want more data than taking an authors word for it. How does someone verify return rates? And is there a way to get the “why” data other than conducting random interviews?
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
My initial reaction to Apple’s pricing of the VP was that it was reminiscent of the pricing of the original iPhone x2. There was tons of criticism and groans that Apple had the audacity to charge $800 for the top tier 8gb model. I was at the keynote where Steve wowed us all with the wide screen iPod with touch controls, the revolutionary mobile phone, and the breakthrough internet communication device that was the original iPhone. The day they went on sale, I stopped by my local AT&T store and demoed it. So intuitive and brilliant I bought it on the spot. It was clear Apple had poured a lot of new thinking into the product.
Present day - VP certainly includes a lot of cool tech - it just isn’t as immediately accessible and relevant the way the iPhone was. So from that standpoint the $3500 asking price is too high.
BUT…I think I may have mistaken Apple’s intent here. Certainly, Apple is interested in lots of sales, at least eventually, Perhaps the VP is priced crazy high specifically to ensure the mass market doesn’t pick up gen 1 of their effort. They want more time and data to work out the kinks - then eventually a version that is more appropriately priced will be released.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Without a BoM there is only speculation.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Without a BoM there is only speculation.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
So, you don't actually have a clue, but feel free to bloviate.
This is shocking news. You mean to tell me that real people are actually deciding for themselves whether the Vision Pro is something they want to continue to be part of their lives? I would have figured they would simply accept what they read and hear from tech pundits as guidance for what they must do with their personal purchases.
The Vision Pro will live or die based on the value it delivers to people who buy it. There’s no reason to defend it or denigrate it, especially if you have no skin in the game.
I think defending it is OK as long as it's a realistic, balanced defence and not a knee-jerk reaction against any criticism.
I can't see any valid reason to denigrate it though.
No VR/AR/XR product is ticking all the boxes to make it truly a 'must have' everyday item for consumers.
They are all running into the same well trodden issues. That is reasonable because it's a tough nut to crack with current technologies
The key is that the industry as a whole is moving forward and knows full well where it wants to go.
In that sense, upping the specs is definitely a plus, even if it comes at a price. The user will decide if the overall outlay justifies the purchase.
Returns are part of that process and YouTubers are part of that. It's nothing new.
On a wider note there is room for discussion on other areas which are again, well trodden.
For example, if traction via app creation is a business goal, then enticing developers to create native apps would be aided by having more devices to write for.
That begs the question of how long until a Vision SE without some bells and whistles?
There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons.
The upshot though, is that there are pros and cons to all the different strategies but everyone wins (down the road) if the product is put to market. That is the best route and cuts down on the time for it to become more consumer friendly with regards to price.
I mostly agree, but I’m more inclined to say the Vision Pro (or its accessories) does not need to be defended. It defends itself through the process of people buying it and staying with it wherever it goes. It’s a very personal product that needs to be evaluated at a very personal level. I’m not here try to either convince or dissuade anyone who hasn’t already jumped on it or decided that it wasn’t quite right for them. People should make up their own minds for themselves. Your own experience with the product is the only thing that matters. Give it a try and see where that leads you.
I wonder if the younger generations, perhaps even generations that aren't born yet, will think it's odd that the one computing device that has unlimited user accounts that can be created so it be used by countless users is the one that we call the personal computer,.
Yes because it is the only one that copes with me having different aspects to my life I don’t want mashed together in one account.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Without a BoM there is only speculation.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
So, you don't actually have a clue, but feel free to bloviate.
I actually do have a clue but I'm not taking the decisions.
If it were down to me and an SE was deemed necessary I would opt to meet the goals of that device without impacting what happens inside the software experience.
You are claiming outright that such a device will never exist because it basically can't be done.
I'm saying 'never say never' and that the rumours are already out there, along with an analogous example with the iPhone/iPhone SE thinking.
I'm also saying I'm sure the question has already been on the table and maybe still is.
I'm open and not ruling anything out.
And I have no idea why you consider a feature like Eyesight (while being one of my favourite features) a defining feature on a hypothetical lower cost device.
It literally has nothing to do with the user experience and would probably be the easiest sacrifice to make in a cost cutting exercise.
I highly recommend you re-read what I actually said.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Without a BoM there is only speculation.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
So, you don't actually have a clue, but feel free to bloviate.
I actually do have a clue but I'm not taking the decisions.
If it were down to me and an SE was deemed necessary I would opt to meet the goals of that device without impacting what happens inside the software experience.
You are claiming outright that such a device will never exist because it basically can't be done.
I'm saying 'never say never' and that the rumours are already out there, along with an analogous example with the iPhone/iPhone SE thinking.
I'm also saying I'm sure the question has already been on the table and maybe still is.
I'm open and not ruling anything out.
And I have no idea why you consider a feature like Eyesight (while being one of my favourite features) a defining feature on a hypothetical lower cost device.
It literally has nothing to do with the user experience and would probably be the easiest sacrifice to make in a cost cutting exercise.
I highly recommend you re-read what I actually said.
I wish that i could re-read for comprehension, but it is, in this case, you, the poster that needs to clarify.
I'm pretty sure that no one here can tell if you are commenting about the current VP, or promoting an evolved, future, lower cost model, but it surely seems that you have muddied the waters with your poorly written posts.
How about clarification.
In the meantime, I gave you an opening to note what features of the VP could be reduced, removed for cost reduction, and the only thing that you noted was the "Eyesight". Otherwise, it appears that all you are arguing for is Apple to have delivered a $1000 divide for merely competitive reasons; that didn't happen.
What Apple employees are telling me about Apple Vision Pro returns
seriously, you need to ask from other people, not from apple for god sake :facepalm
Right, because social media claims with hyperbole about MY APPLE VISION BLEW OUT MY EYES AND KILLED MY CAT are reliable. These are folks I've been speaking to for years.
What you got in text underneath that section is exactly what the headline promised.
This isn't a piece about WHY Apple Vision Pro is getting returned. This is a piece about HOW MANY.
So….as someone who worked there for a long time and know people that are still currently there, I can tell you that retail employees will never give you the truth. Apple is consciously worried that someone from the press or competitors will ask questions to gain some sort of advantage over Apple on insider knowledge, so I don’t think they’ll be truthful with you because they risk losing their jobs.
For example, I worked in the store in Dallas that was at the center of the article called something like “The Worst Apple Store In America”, which was Northpark Center. We were briefed on that entire ordeal before it blew up and were told not to acknowledge the article when asked about it or lie and say we hadn’t heard the story. These kinds of responses are designed to kill “rumors”, even though one of the guys that sent in that story was a close friend of mine, and I can confirm everything mentioned in that article is true.
They even go through a training section called “stop words”, and it’s designed by their legal team to help avoid lawsuits by avoiding particular words or terms. For example, if a customer said their phone caught on fire, we had to notate this as “the phone encountered a thermal event”.
I wouldn’t trust what their employees are telling you because they’ll never paint a bad picture of Apple on behalf of them. It’s as they call it internally “controlled chaos.” They know exactly what they’re saying and doing.
What Apple employees are telling me about Apple Vision Pro returns
seriously, you need to ask from other people, not from apple for god sake :facepalm
Right, because social media claims with hyperbole about MY APPLE VISION BLEW OUT MY EYES AND KILLED MY CAT are reliable. These are folks I've been speaking to for years.
What you got in text underneath that section is exactly what the headline promised.
This isn't a piece about WHY Apple Vision Pro is getting returned. This is a piece about HOW MANY.
So….as someone who worked there for a long time and know people that are still currently there, I can tell you that retail employees will never give you the truth. Apple is consciously worried that someone from the press or competitors will ask questions to gain some sort of advantage over Apple on insider knowledge, so I don’t think they’ll be truthful with you because they risk losing their jobs.
For example, I worked in the store in Dallas that was at the center of the article called something like “The Worst Apple Store In America”, which was Northpark Center. We were briefed on that entire ordeal before it blew up and were told not to acknowledge the article when asked about it or lie and say we hadn’t heard the story. These kinds of responses are designed to kill “rumors”, even though one of the guys that sent in that story was a close friend of mine, and I can confirm everything mentioned in that article is true.
They even go through a training section called “stop words”, and it’s designed by their legal team to help avoid lawsuits by avoiding particular words or terms. For example, if a customer said their phone caught on fire, we had to notate this as “the phone encountered a thermal event”.
I wouldn’t trust what their employees are telling you because they’ll never paint a bad picture of Apple on behalf of them. It’s as they call it internally “controlled chaos.” They know exactly what they’re saying and doing.
I'm comfortable with what they're telling me. I trained most of them how to repair things before there were Apple stores.
These aren't randos or cold calls.
Does "It's just the f***ing YouTubers so far" sound like stop words to you?
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Reminder that Meta can't even do this. Meta Reality Labs loses about $2500 for about every $500 Quest headset they sell. The revenue they get from hardware sales, software sales and application store fees doesn't even remotely cover their R&D and cost of business expenses.
"Quest 3 is reportedly being sold at a loss, as it costs Meta roughly $478 after tax to manufacture a Quest 3. After factoring in R&D costs, marketing, and various other expenses, the final cost is vastly higher than $499"
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Reminder that Meta can't even do this. Meta Reality Labs loses about $2500 for about every $500 Quest headset they sell. The revenue they get from hardware sales, software sales and application store fees doesn't even remotely cover their R&D and cost of business expenses.
"Quest 3 is reportedly being sold at a loss, as it costs Meta roughly $478 after tax to manufacture a Quest 3. After factoring in R&D costs, marketing, and various other expenses, the final cost is vastly higher than $499"
Yeah, I basically use a rule of 3: BOM = 1/3, cost to sell, support the device = 1/3, and margin = 1/3. That margin has to cover R&D for the next version as well taxes and stuff, and depending on that, the amount of profit the company can have. So, Meta really needs to sell the Quest 3 at $1500, and get the same amount of unit sales, while reigning in their R&D spending to have a chance of it being a self-sustaining business. Perhaps they could extract $100 ARPU per year in ads, fees, digital goods though? Tough going.
They know that unit sales at $1500 is going to be plummet by 90% as only a few people buy a $1500 device to play VR games. The higher the price, the more it has to become a productivity device, but that requires more expensive hardware, more expensive software. Vicious circle.
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
How many $999 headsets do you think they would be able to convince people to buy into compared to the current 'Pro' model?
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
Your question is a loaded one. It's obvious that a less expensive model opens up the door for more potential buyers, but you frame it as if you're making a profound statement that somehow Apple is too foolish to have even acknowledged in their many years of development and research. What your disingenuous questioning fails to note is that Apple has specifically chosen — not overlooked — a specific route for making and introducing their Vision Pro device.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Nothing at all profound in anything I said.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
More to the point, what features, functionality, and specifications that Apple has in the VP would you give up to cost reduce the VP $2500?
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Without a BoM there is only speculation.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
So, you don't actually have a clue, but feel free to bloviate.
I actually do have a clue but I'm not taking the decisions.
If it were down to me and an SE was deemed necessary I would opt to meet the goals of that device without impacting what happens inside the software experience.
You are claiming outright that such a device will never exist because it basically can't be done.
I'm saying 'never say never' and that the rumours are already out there, along with an analogous example with the iPhone/iPhone SE thinking.
I'm also saying I'm sure the question has already been on the table and maybe still is.
I'm open and not ruling anything out.
And I have no idea why you consider a feature like Eyesight (while being one of my favourite features) a defining feature on a hypothetical lower cost device.
It literally has nothing to do with the user experience and would probably be the easiest sacrifice to make in a cost cutting exercise.
I highly recommend you re-read what I actually said.
I wish that i could re-read for comprehension, but it is, in this case, you, the poster that needs to clarify.
I'm pretty sure that no one here can tell if you are commenting about the current VP, or promoting an evolved, future, lower cost model, but it surely seems that you have muddied the waters with your poorly written posts.
How about clarification.
In the meantime, I gave you an opening to note what features of the VP could be reduced, removed for cost reduction, and the only thing that you noted was the "Eyesight". Otherwise, it appears that all you are arguing for is Apple to have delivered a $1000 divide for merely competitive reasons; that didn't happen.
Hey! Hold your horses.
I actually don't need to clarify anything because it's so clear (there is actually more on that but I'll put it at the end of this post).
That is why when I countered the OP on the 'profound/loaded questions' thing, all that was needed was for me to copy/paste a piece from my original comment.
I had quite literally said exactly what the OP thought I hadn't taken into account.
That's how clear it was!
But I clarified it anyway out of courtesy.
You know, people misread things sometimes. It's no big deal.
You did exactly the same thing and continue to do so by referring to 'VP'.
The idea of a lower cost solution (and like I said, it's an existing, and actually widespread, rumour) specifically caters to the notion of a non-Pro solution).
Forget the 'P'!
You continue to completely ignore that by referring to VP even though I pointed out to you that such a solution could easily fall into an SE type of product branding.
Then you just completely ignored that SE type reference when I challenged your notion of 'defining features'. How about you answer the question I posed?
Or, my comment on Eyesight.
As I made abundantly clear from the get go, the idea of an SE version is a rumour. It's a completely logical rumour and, as I also made clear from the get go, I'm sure Apple not only considered it, but possibly still has that option as a 'live' option.
As they are rumours, the target prices vary wildly. There is a broad spectrum. I could have said $2,000, $1,500 or basically any other price.
I chose 'sub $1000' specifically because the hypothetical goal in my post was the idea of stimulating developer interest through higher sales of the device.
Phew!
You know? None of what I just said was actually necessary because it was clear enough from the outset.
So, getting back to what I said at the start of this post...
My reply was in support of the article's general position and Dewme's comment.
That was the point. That was it. I agree with both.
I expanded on Dewme's comment on why, IMO, denigration is not a valid option for the VP. Again, supporting what the VP represents.
I then added this:
"That begs the question of how long until a Vision SE without some bells and whistles?
There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
You know, a general comment.
I'm betting you didn't even read that. Because if you had, you wouldn't have jumped in Gung Ho.
So, as you didn't even bother to answer my other questions, I'll ask you another.
Exactly, which part of the comment wasn't clear to you?
avon b7 said: There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
Apple isn't trying to emulate $500 headsets. The functionality/price of those hasn't resulted in consumer popularity so I'm not sure where people would get the idea that emulating them would "kick start" anything.
It's not about emulating a €500 device.
At $3,500, your sales targets are impacted on release. That is clear.
However, if your product is dependent on apps and content, the people writing those apps and content could sit back and wait for some sales traction first. That's understandable.
I'm talking about real native apps.
That could be slow in coming at $3,500 per device.
A way to kick-start that would be to make the platform more affordable. More unit sales. More platform interest in general and from developers.
Apple has definitely considered this.
Where they stick the 'affordable' label would be the question.
But that brings a major problem: Comparisons.
What is Meta saying? 18 million devices sold and counting?
It might not be 'consumer' in the same way as a tablet is, but given the choice, and from a kick-start position, it has its appeal.
That comparison problem.
The lower the price, the lower the feature set and the specs of those features.
The resulting device (depending on final price) would get closer and closer to current devices in some regards (Quest etc) and to comparisons Apple doesn't want to see made.
We can all understand why.
That said, I think it's likely we will see a lower specced device at some point and that, in general, the industry will reach a point where similarly specced consumer grade offerings (at common consumer price bands) all co-exist and do largely the same things.
How long? I have no idea. Those rumours I mentioned ranged from this year to next.
Just like the phone business now in fact, but not before open, interoperable XR content becomes more widely available.
The phone side of things really took off with the 4G era. XR will struggle until 5.5G arrives. We're looking at next year or the following in some major areas for that (this year for some pilot cities). That is just around the corner in tech terms.
Comments
What impact do you think those sales would have on developer interest?
Not to mention the impact on sales for competitors.
I'm sure such an option was being floated around Cupertino as soon as they green lighted the VP.
I can also understand why some would be reluctant to bring such a device to market fresh off the bat.
I'm sure there was a long meeting on the pros and cons of such a move.
In the meantime, I expect the rumours of a Vision 'SE' will persist.
You may as well argue that Apple should've just sold a dumb phone to users in the 1990s instead of making the first great smartphone OS that it created from reducing macOS down to its core and building it back up. They surely could've competed with Nokia a decade earlier and at a much lower price point had they done that. I, for one, am glad they didn't do that.
Personally, I don't think that Apple could've sold a sub-$1000 VR headset with a reasonable profit margin for a given number of units sold that included the M2, R1, eye tracking, and hand tracking sensors, regardless of whether it choose displays with a poor PPD or not. These sensors affect the core of the SW development so you may as well start with a solid foundation instead of switching a core input on users a few years later.
Seriously, they should be investigated for antitrust or anticompetitive business practices because dumping Quest hardware on the market is making it impossible for companies to come and compete in the space.
I even explicitly stated that I'm sure, within Apple, they looked at (and possibly still are) a cheaper option but they probably held off for comparative reasons.
If I said I'm sure they looked at it, it is clear they chose not to take that route:
"I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
What I'm saying is that more device sales would lead to more developer interest and progress on that side. To get those sales the device would have to make more concessions. Nothing profound or loaded about it.
Nothing is framed one way or another. I'm saying both ideas are valid, Apple chose not to offer an 'SE' version but they could offer one at some point. Hence the rumours.
As for if it is possible or not to provide such a device at $999, that would depend on the BoM and how willing Apple is to take lower margins.
We know neither at the moment.
curious to know if there is a reliable common source to reference in order to bypass a lot of the bias-Infused hot takes.
Certainly not the compute hardware, as that is Apple's forte, and low latency is reason enough for that. You could reduce the number of cameras, and add a hardware pointing device, like all the other devices on the market, but, ironically that is one of the most loved features of the VP, but it would get you partway there.
That really only leaves the optical system and the visual hardware, and while you could certainly reduce cost, and remove the faux view of the user to the outside world, those are as well defining properties of the VP. Sure, you would give up useful connection to Apple's other devices, like the mac, and various apps, by reducing resolution, but costs must be cut!
This is your big chance to make your pitch to all of us here on how you would have shipped a $1000 in "larger" quantities, vs the minimum 200,000 VP's that have already shipped.
Present day - VP certainly includes a lot of cool tech - it just isn’t as immediately accessible and relevant the way the iPhone was. So from that standpoint the $3500 asking price is too high.
BUT…I think I may have mistaken Apple’s intent here. Certainly, Apple is interested in lots of sales, at least eventually, Perhaps the VP is priced crazy high specifically to ensure the mass market doesn’t pick up gen 1 of their effort. They want more time and data to work out the kinks - then eventually a version that is more appropriately priced will be released.
who knows.
The rumours are already out there.
The point was it would be a way to increase developer interest and with that, the platform as a whole.
Options? There are many but not for me to decide on. That will depend on cost factors which we don't have. Or margins.
The compute experience would ideally have to be the same minimum spec. Latencies would have to be in the same ball park too.
Obviously, to ensure a uniform minimum software experience for the user.
As for 'defining qualities' of the VP, we are talking about a potential 'Vision SE'.
The defining property of modern iPhones was FaceID but it hasn't stopped the SE from existing.
Now, please remind me. What purpose does the SE serve?
They do the same things but in different ways with different hardware.
If it were down to me and an SE was deemed necessary I would opt to meet the goals of that device without impacting what happens inside the software experience.
You are claiming outright that such a device will never exist because it basically can't be done.
I'm saying 'never say never' and that the rumours are already out there, along with an analogous example with the iPhone/iPhone SE thinking.
I'm also saying I'm sure the question has already been on the table and maybe still is.
I'm open and not ruling anything out.
And I have no idea why you consider a feature like Eyesight (while being one of my favourite features) a defining feature on a hypothetical lower cost device.
It literally has nothing to do with the user experience and would probably be the easiest sacrifice to make in a cost cutting exercise.
I highly recommend you re-read what I actually said.
I'm pretty sure that no one here can tell if you are commenting about the current VP, or promoting an evolved, future, lower cost model, but it surely seems that you have muddied the waters with your poorly written posts.
How about clarification.
In the meantime, I gave you an opening to note what features of the VP could be reduced, removed for cost reduction, and the only thing that you noted was the "Eyesight". Otherwise, it appears that all you are arguing for is Apple to have delivered a $1000 divide for merely competitive reasons; that didn't happen.
For example, I worked in the store in Dallas that was at the center of the article called something like “The Worst Apple Store In America”, which was Northpark Center. We were briefed on that entire ordeal before it blew up and were told not to acknowledge the article when asked about it or lie and say we hadn’t heard the story. These kinds of responses are designed to kill “rumors”, even though one of the guys that sent in that story was a close friend of mine, and I can confirm everything mentioned in that article is true.
They even go through a training section called “stop words”, and it’s designed by their legal team to help avoid lawsuits by avoiding particular words or terms. For example, if a customer said their phone caught on fire, we had to notate this as “the phone encountered a thermal event”.
I wouldn’t trust what their employees are telling you because they’ll never paint a bad picture of Apple on behalf of them. It’s as they call it internally “controlled chaos.” They know exactly what they’re saying and doing.
These aren't randos or cold calls.
They know that unit sales at $1500 is going to be plummet by 90% as only a few people buy a $1500 device to play VR games. The higher the price, the more it has to become a productivity device, but that requires more expensive hardware, more expensive software. Vicious circle.
I actually don't need to clarify anything because it's so clear (there is actually more on that but I'll put it at the end of this post).
That is why when I countered the OP on the 'profound/loaded questions' thing, all that was needed was for me to copy/paste a piece from my original comment.
I had quite literally said exactly what the OP thought I hadn't taken into account.
That's how clear it was!
But I clarified it anyway out of courtesy.
You know, people misread things sometimes. It's no big deal.
You did exactly the same thing and continue to do so by referring to 'VP'.
The idea of a lower cost solution (and like I said, it's an existing, and actually widespread, rumour) specifically caters to the notion of a non-Pro solution).
Forget the 'P'!
You continue to completely ignore that by referring to VP even though I pointed out to you that such a solution could easily fall into an SE type of product branding.
Then you just completely ignored that SE type reference when I challenged your notion of 'defining features'. How about you answer the question I posed?
Or, my comment on Eyesight.
As I made abundantly clear from the get go, the idea of an SE version is a rumour. It's a completely logical rumour and, as I also made clear from the get go, I'm sure Apple not only considered it, but possibly still has that option as a 'live' option.
As they are rumours, the target prices vary wildly. There is a broad spectrum. I could have said $2,000, $1,500 or basically any other price.
I chose 'sub $1000' specifically because the hypothetical goal in my post was the idea of stimulating developer interest through higher sales of the device.
Phew!
You know? None of what I just said was actually necessary because it was clear enough from the outset.
So, getting back to what I said at the start of this post...
My reply was in support of the article's general position and Dewme's comment.
That was the point. That was it. I agree with both.
I expanded on Dewme's comment on why, IMO, denigration is not a valid option for the VP. Again, supporting what the VP represents.
I then added this:
"That begs the question of how long until a Vision SE without some bells and whistles?
There are rumours, but a sub $1,000, lower resolution, lower material quality, Eyesight-less device with controllers might have kick started the platform.
I'm very sure that was put on the table (and might still be there) but was voted down for 'comparative' reasons."
You know, a general comment.
I'm betting you didn't even read that. Because if you had, you wouldn't have jumped in Gung Ho.
So, as you didn't even bother to answer my other questions, I'll ask you another.
Exactly, which part of the comment wasn't clear to you?
At $3,500, your sales targets are impacted on release. That is clear.
However, if your product is dependent on apps and content, the people writing those apps and content could sit back and wait for some sales traction first. That's understandable.
I'm talking about real native apps.
That could be slow in coming at $3,500 per device.
A way to kick-start that would be to make the platform more affordable. More unit sales. More platform interest in general and from developers.
Apple has definitely considered this.
Where they stick the 'affordable' label would be the question.
But that brings a major problem: Comparisons.
What is Meta saying? 18 million devices sold and counting?
It might not be 'consumer' in the same way as a tablet is, but given the choice, and from a kick-start position, it has its appeal.
That comparison problem.
The lower the price, the lower the feature set and the specs of those features.
The resulting device (depending on final price) would get closer and closer to current devices in some regards (Quest etc) and to comparisons Apple doesn't want to see made.
We can all understand why.
That said, I think it's likely we will see a lower specced device at some point and that, in general, the industry will reach a point where similarly specced consumer grade offerings (at common consumer price bands) all co-exist and do largely the same things.
How long? I have no idea. Those rumours I mentioned ranged from this year to next.
Just like the phone business now in fact, but not before open, interoperable XR content becomes more widely available.
The phone side of things really took off with the 4G era. XR will struggle until 5.5G arrives. We're looking at next year or the following in some major areas for that (this year for some pilot cities). That is just around the corner in tech terms.