mattinoz

tht said:

AppleInsider said: ...

While 500,000 units seems small compared to current iPhone or Mac sales, it's impressive for a first, albeit expensive, foray into VR.

The Apple media knows that 500k unit sales for the AVP was the upper limit because they know that Sony can only make about 1m microOLED displays in 2024. The AVP uses two, therefore Apple can only sell 400k to 500k units the first year. This line of thinking hasn't changed in almost 2 years now, when the Information (I think this was the source) revealed how many microOLED displays they could make.

If Sony can make more microOLED displays, they would be cheaper to Apple, and the AVP could be priced cheaper and therefore sell more. It's basic economics and marketing. Apple targeted the $3500 price point for a pretty obvious set of reasons.

AppleInsider said: 

Sales of the Apple Vision Pro headset over the past year, based on data from The Information.

There are only 3 points in this plot. With a nice round 500k number for November, I wonder what type of survey data the Information is using here? Direct leak from an Apple VP? A mole inside Sony? A mole inside the lens maker?

AppleInsider said:

While the Apple Vision Pro sells reasonably well for a AR/VR device, its high retail price of $3,500 prevents it from finding a more mainstream audience. The Meta Quest 3, a gaming-focused competing headset, starts at $399 - and sales are in the millions.

Uh, if Meta sells 5m units per year of the Meta Quests devices with an ASP of $400, that's $2b per year in revenue. Wouldn't you know it, Apple's 500k unit sales of the AVP at $3500 ASP is $1.75b per year. Guess who is doing better here? Apple!

Meta loses about $1000 for every $400 Meta Quest headset they sell. It's just craziness. If there was a thing the DOJ should be investigating, this is one of those. Meta, by subsidizing the sales of their VR hardware has effectively nuked any kind of VR hardware competition they could have, as nobody else has a sugardaddy set of businesses to continually to funnel money to, while any independent VR company will find it impossible to compete on price.

Apple obviously never competes on price. They always go for "value" for high prices.

chasm said:

I agree that adoption/growth is what's important in the long term, but the Apple Vision Pro has only been out for 10 months. You will have to wait at least another year-plus before you (or AppleInsider) can comment on adoption/growth. Indeed, the POINT of the article seems to be that IF Apple and third parties can provide more content and apps for the Apple Vision Pro, it has a good shot at seeing more adoption/growth -- but if it doesn't, then it doesn't stand much chance of that.

Yup, it's a long game. 

The media discussion always gets it backwards imo. Developers never set the virtuous cycle started. It's always the OEM who must provide the initial sales trajectory, with the right features to get customers to buy. When there is a market of users who are willing to pay for apps, the virtuous cycle can start, where availability of 3rd party apps can drive device sales. First and foremost, Apple has to come up with a set of features, price, workflows to get people to buy.

It's pretty clear it is not possible to make an AVP for $1000, and ostensible consumer price, and it's a multiyear waiting game for the microOLEDs, lens, and sensors to come in price. The weight also has to come down by half. That has to be a big priority. As it stands, the AVP is a niche device waiting on technology to cone down in price.

hmlongco said:

mattinoz said:

People didn't want the iPod mini they wanted more songs and more battery, except it did sell rather well. 

Actually, it HAD better battery life due to sold state storage.

What it a pricer "slim" phone allowed Apple to use a more advanced battery technology?

hmlongco said:

Calvinator said:

When you run out of ideas, you make up a solution for a non-problem and pass it off as the reason to upgrade way more often than necessary.

Tim Cook's obsession with thinness and pretty new colors for existing products is embarrassing. 

Steve Jobs would never, and I mean never, allow Apple's user experience to get so out of control.

I'd submit that Apple knows their customer base better than you do. They've done more research than you have. And that they know their customers like colors. If anything, they've often been chastised for having too few.

And as to Steve, I really, really, really, really, really wish people would stop channeling the ghost of someone they don't know and have never met in an attempt to bolster their own weak arguments. I guess they do that when they run out of ideas.

You remember, do you not, when Steve came back to Apple and induced the iMac? In colors?????????

And then later on introduced dozens upon dozens of iPods... in colors?????????

Or when Apple reintroduced the iMac line? in colors?????????

blastdoor said:

MplsP said:

Xed said:

mpantone said:

foregoneconclusion said:

FYI: the current trade agreement with China (and with North America) was negotiated by the first Trump administration. So if Trump wants another “trade war” it’s over his own deals. 

The world has changed since the 45th administration took office regardless of whether you (or anyone else) like it or not.

The incoming administration will do what's best today and looking forward, just like the decisions you make tomorrow might be different than ones you made when you were 22.

Not all change is good but for sure no presidential administration can keep running things the way they have been done four, forty, or four hundred years ago. I would have hoped this would be obvious by now.

The one thing I haven't heard in the last week is that the election was rigged simply because the person someone voted for didn't win. Funny how some people think a free and fair election should only work in one direction.

Not my choice, but if the people overwhelmingly want a felon, rapist, and treasonous conman to steal even more money from then country, hurt their future and freedoms, and destroy America's position in the world then so be it. That's how a democracy works, for better or worse.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve." 
- Thomas Jefferson

I feel that way sometimes. Other times I feel like our system for selecting political leaders is flawed, and those flaws are not the fault of ordinary folks. They are stuck inside the system that exists and they cannot easily change it. 

I also think that many of the flaws in our system developed over time, as changes were made based on magical thinking about democracy and the inherent wisdom of the American people. The framers of the constitution had a healthy fear of mob mentality and tried very hard to devise a system that avoided the pitfalls of democracy while still trying to operate in the best interest of the people. The framers intended a representative republic, not direct democracy. Citizens should choose representatives from among candidates that they know well. Those representatives should, in turn, choose the president and other key leaders from among candidates they know well. That's how the electoral college was meant to work. The original setup might have had some flaws, but instead of addressing those flaws in a way that would move us closer to the framers' intent, we addressed them in a way that moved us away from the framers' intent. 

My hope is that the educated elite are forced to let go of their magical thinking about direct democracy and come to appreciate the wisdom of the framers. If they can do that, then maybe we will eventually be able to make progress towards fixing our broken system.