Cheaper Apple Vision headset rumored to cost $2000, arriving in 2026

Posted:
in Apple Vision Pro

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.

Hands holding an Apple Vision Pro with a sleek, glossy black visor and white head strap.
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

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 3,015member
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    retrogustosflagelnubusdewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 31
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,136member
    DAalseth said:
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 31
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 3,015member
    DAalseth said:
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 
    As others have said elsewhere, it may not make sense to go to a “less powerful chip”. Now that the M4 is out, the M2 IS the less powerful chip. 
    edited October 13 sflagelbyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 31
    Almost there!!! Fo that price I expect a carrying case to be included.
    fred1watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 31
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,479moderator
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 
    As others have said elsewhere, it may not make sense to go to a “less powerful chip”. Now that the M4 is out, the M2 IS the less powerful chip. 
    If they are happy with M2-level performance, the iPhone chips will reach this soon and cost less:



    A18 Pro is just behind M2, A19 Pro on 2nm in 2026 will get even closer:


    This could save them $150. To hit a $2k price point, they need to get $1700 costs down to around $1000. Cutting the Eyesight feature will save around $100, maybe more.

    The number of AVP units sold are likely below 300,000.
    At a $2000 price point, they can sell 3m units, which is $6b.
    At a $1500 price point, they can sell 5m units, which is $7.5b. If they hit $2000, there will eventually be units available at $1500.

    Meta has a VR install base of over 20 million, active userbase around 1/3 of this.

    Within 2 years of having a more affordable headset, Apple could become the most widely used platform. This would need a focus on comfort and usefulness. Movie content is the most widely appealing use case.

    There's an 8K (same as AVP, dual 4K) headset that was announced recently but may not ship priced at $1899 and uses a headband for comfort like the PSVR and HoloLens:


    Distributing the weight across the top and sides of the head and away from the eyes and nose in a compact design would make it more widely appealing to wear on a regular basis.

    The ones in the video below weigh 1/3 the AVP, Apple can get to this kind of form factor with the 2nd model:

    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 31
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,475member
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 
    As others have said elsewhere, it may not make sense to go to a “less powerful chip”. Now that the M4 is out, the M2 IS the less powerful chip. 
    The A18 out preforms the m2 on single core but only gets 80% multi core and 75% on graphics.

    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. 




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 31
    iadlibiadlib Posts: 116member
    Still too expensive. Which is good, because by the time they make a relatively affordable version, it will actually be usable.
    entropysCheeseFreezebloggerbloggrandact73
  • Reply 8 of 31
    correct, $1999 without EyeSight but keeping the M2, $999 for an Axx, Apple has to keep the current design and user's experience or else,
    edited October 13
  • Reply 9 of 31
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,475member
    miiwtwo said:
    correct, $1999 without EyeSight but keeping the M2, $999 for an Axx, Apple has to keep the current design and user's experience or else,
    If Apple wanted to play that game they’d be selling M1 MacBook at a discount. 
    I doubt they drop below the MacBook Pro with Mpro version in pricing. Even if they could. 
    williamlondondewmewatto_cobrabyronl
  • Reply 10 of 31
    Too expensive still. The “spatial computing” positioning doesn’t work. Nobody wears a VR headset to be productive in work. 
    It’s primarily an entertainment and educational device. Price and spec it accordingly I say.

    I own both a Quest 3 and AVP (for work / development) and the AVP has no consumer appeal IMHO.
    edited October 14 williamlondonsurf monkeydewmebyronl
  • Reply 11 of 31
    PemaPema Posts: 140member
    Almost there!!! Fo that price I expect a carrying case to be included.
    No need to wait. Meta Quest 3 is here and now for a bargain basement price. Buy your own damn case with the change left over. 
    byronl
  • Reply 12 of 31
    Apple can’t really afford to make another mistake here. 

    Get the thing into a self-contained pair of sunglasses/glasses, get the price point down to $999 and we will have something. 

    Don’t launch another product until you can do this. Wait and launch when it’s just right. 

    As an alternative, Apple could release an airplay set of glasses with processing provided by Mac and iOS devices. But others are already doing that. 
    edited October 14
  • Reply 13 of 31
    Steve HumistonSteve Humiston Posts: 26unconfirmed, member
    That's a little less than what I paid for a 1tb used... :)
    williamlondon
  • Reply 14 of 31
    Price point is still too high - most consumers can’t justify even $2000. Tim & co missed it on AV. Going for super high end with the price point vs bringing the VR world to the masses like iPhone did with smartphones. 2026 is also too far away to try to save the product line. 
    nubuswilliamlondongrandact73surf monkey
  • Reply 15 of 31
    y2any2an Posts: 222member
    You need to think of what applications will run on this before jumping to conclusions over a chip. Vision headsets use multitasking which for architectural reasons is more the M series domain.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 31
    Still too expensive for the masses to rush out and buy.    I would say $1500 is high for the masses, but within range so more would be willing to spend on it.   I would say Apple really don't know what they want to do with this product, they wanted to be different from the competition that they accomplished with a product most won't spend the money for that hasn't found it's niche.  Is it a head worn monitor, is it a spacial graphics viewer, and latest direction a spacial movie system.   In trying to be different they've lost it.  Epic Apple marketing failure. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 17 of 31
    If Apple really wants to kill the AVP they would use lower res screens. The advantage of keeping EyeSight is you can leave them on during a quick chat like during a flight or if you decide to wear them at work, it's a strong distinguishing factor that no one else has.
    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.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 31
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,443member
    Apple is STILL not targeting the masses, so the price and consumer blather isn't all that relevant. People just don't get that. $2K is a decent price for those genuinely interested and not afraid of the bleeding edge. That's NOT the masses. I'd be fine with losing the Eyesight and avatar crap. I get that Apple wants wearers not to scare those around them and 'blend in', the experience being as normal as a teen with their head buried in a phone.

    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.
    StrangeDayswilliamlondonbadmonkdewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 31
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,132member
    I have to laugh at the comparisons to Meta products as the example of what Apple should be doing. Meta has been at this for ten years and its "Reality Labs" division continues to lose $1 BILLION PER MONTH, every single month, and has been doing that for years, with no end in sight. Its headset "business" judged as a business is a complete and utter money-losing failure, always has been for a decade, and the only reason any of it still exists is because Zuckerberg makes so much cash monetizing your privacy and data, he can afford to throw tens of billions of dollars at his personal money-hemorrhaging hobby, and Wall Street allows it because it continues to blindly believe that somehow, someday, Zuck is gonna deliver on what he perpetually promises will be the next big thing and never is. Remember "the metaverse?" Idiots were actually buying "land" in the metaverse. We were all going to have digital twins living and playing in the metaverse. How's that working out? Now Zuck's big idea is... wait for it... Google Glass. Oops, I'm sorry, I mean smart glasses that look like RayBans at some question mark date in the future. Nevermind that anyone wearing Google Glass was labeled a "glasshole" and that, in general, no one wants to talk or interact with anyone who might be recording them with cameras in their glasses. 

    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." 
    StrangeDayswilliamlondonbadmonkmacgui
  • Reply 20 of 31
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,086member
    DAalseth said:
    Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 
    I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 
    I don't see Apple ditching the digital avatar. It's the most personal feature when using the social features - FaceTime, Zoom, Teams.

    Apple can’t really afford to make another mistake here. 

    Get the thing into a self-contained pair of sunglasses/glasses, get the price point down to $999 and we will have something. 

    Don’t launch another product until you can do this. Wait and launch when it’s just right.  
    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. 

    jamesreb said:
    Price point is still too high - most consumers can’t justify even $2000. Tim & co missed it on AV. Going for super high end with the price point vs bringing the VR world to the masses like iPhone did with smartphones. 2026 is also too far away to try to save the product line. 
    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
    edited October 14 13485williamlondonmattinozbadmonkdewme
Sign In or Register to comment.