Cheaper Apple Vision headset rumored to cost $2000, arriving in 2026
A new report claims that both a successor to the Apple Vision Pro and a different, less expensive Apple Vision headset are likely to launch within the next two years.
Work continues on a successor to the Apple Vision Pro, alongside a less-expensive version.
Rumors suggest that the lower-end Apple Vision headset would likely cost around $2,000, compared to the $3,499 Apple Vision Pro. It would allegedly use a less-powerful chip and lower-resolution screens than the higher-end model.
Bloomberg's report suggests the lower-end headset would drop some technology seen in the Apple Vision Pro, such as the Eyesight feature. That required a lenticular display on the outside of the headset, allowing others to "see" the wearer's eyes.
The lower-end Apple Vision is likely to be powered by an A-series chip used in a future iPhone lineup rather than the M2 that currently runs the Apple Vision Pro. As for materials, it seems reasonable to assume that it will make greater use of lighter materials to make it less weighty on the wearer's head.
A successor to the current Apple Vision Pro is expected to ship alongside the lower-end Apple Vision model. This will give Apple the opportunity to offer consumers interested in an AR/VR headset a choice of features and price points.
Apple is said to expect to sell twice as many of the Apple Vision headset as it will the Apple Vision Pro, due to the lower price tag. Work continues on a second Apple Vision Pro, but the primary hardware change is currently expected to be an upgrade to the processor.
Both are expected to arrive at some point in 2026. Apple is said to also be working on an augmented-reality "smart glasses" project alongside the Apple Vision and Apple Vision Pro headsets.
Rumor Score: Possible
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
The ones in the video below weigh 1/3 the AVP, Apple can get to this kind of form factor with the 2nd model:
so 2026 is either A19 or A20 both could potentially outperform the M2 on less power and less heat. Now if R series does double duty as Apples modem for most radios so that it makes sense to integrate it with the A20 after say testing in iPhone slim and SE 2025. Then you knock a big load of complexity, heat and weight out of device. Which would help reduce price a lot.
still at $2,000 they need to make 20 times as many units and still have away to upsell in to the Pro price range now they know there is money to be had in that range.
I own both a Quest 3 and AVP (for work / development) and the AVP has no consumer appeal IMHO.
To cut costs Apple will eventually integrate much of the existing tech into single components. The teardown of AVP showed the complexities of having multiple circuits connected with ribbon cables, a very complex product to manufacture and assemble.
I don't care about that. I do care about what other features or level of performance Apple might sacrifice to lower the price. Don't sink the flagship just to get the price lower. Don't dial back performance to race to the bottom. Masses be hanged. The "masses" won't want anything like this device. They'll want something that looks like Oakleys and costs $100. It will be years before there are "most consumers" for this kind of device, not the other way round. I'm solely a consumer and the Vision Pro has a lot of appeal to me. I'm the only consumer who wants one? A load of crap.
"Apple can't afford to make another mistake..." What a load of crap. Along with the rest of that. Spatial computing isn't for the masses but there is a niche market and these will be a niche product. Unlike the millions of Quest 3s that the masses and most consumers now possess.
I want a cheaper Apple Vision Pro but not at the sacrifice of performance. Apple always plays a game with tiers and features, something similar to new car packages where you give of one thing you want for something else you want more. Make an Apple Vision, but keep the Pro for those who are willing to pay more for more. The masses can wait. They will because they aren't really interested, though they wouldn't mind that pair of $100 Oakley VRs. But then most of them aren't concerned with realistic pricing anyway.
As for the supposed Vision Pro "failure": the most recent rumored estimates are that they've sold about 500K units to date. I don't personally put a lot of faith in most "rumored" Apple sales numbers, considering that most of them tend to be of the negative, "Apple is failing, falling behind, etc." variety. But let's accept 500K units as accurate--here's what's remarkable about that number: starting in summer of '23 and in the months leading up the AVP launch, there were multiple rumored estimates that the maximum production capacity for the first year would be constrained to between 400K-600K units due to complexity of manufacturing and limited supplies of certain crucial parts. No one thought much about those numbers and there was no reaction to speak of in the tech press. Now here we are at the end of October, and if Apple has sold 500K units, they're selling about 50K per month--which means that by the end of December, Apple will have sold out, or be very close to selling out, the high end prediction of AVP production capacity for year one. And this is a "failure" how?
When I look at the current state of AVP hardware and its $3500 price point, the idea that we're going to have mass market priced Apple smartglasses two years from now--or even $3500 smartglasses--seems ridiculous. Tech just doesn't advance that quickly. Far more possible is a $2,000 version of AVP in 2026, but I'm not convinced that will move the needle sufficiently unless Apple has better clarified AVP's use cases. Considering the incredible complexity of the both the hardware and the new OS, kudos to Apple for releasing a v1.0 product that is polished beyond expectations. It offers unique and in many ways groundbreaking capabilities, but how those capabilities can be put to use in more of a mass market way has yet to be defined. Of course, we don't even know if mass market adoption is even necessary for AVP to be successful. The Mac Pro desktop has never been (nor was it ever intended to be) a mass market success, but it remains in the lineup after almost 20 years. I actually think next year will be a far more important year than this one for the future of AVP--the first year rush of sales from developers and early adopters will be over and AVP will have to define itself by use cases more than just capabilities. We shall see. Let's see if the tech press cuts Apple the same slack as Meta: 10 years of abject financial failure in headsets, tens of billions of dollars down a rat hole of promises that never come true, and yet somehow still regarded as a "success."
Yeah no, that's like saying the original tube TV shouldn't have been released until they could do a flat-panel display. Errnnt. Crawl, walk, run. Iterative product development is the name of the game. Of course everyone want's AR spectacles, but that is many, many years away, and is a different use case than VR.
Imagine if people had taken that position when the original Macintosh was released! It cost over $7,000 when corrected for inflation, and had a fraction of the capabilities of today's Macs: "Too expensive, display too small, black & white. Fail!" lol