Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Confirms Vision Pro is Not Eligible for Trade-In

sonic84 said:
I wish more App devs would take an interest in this product. it's got potential... but no "killer app" yet.
Click to expand...
It’s not about finding a “killer app.” The use cases are already there. Watching movies on a giant screen, using multiple virtual monitors, and so on. The problem is the number of compromises. It’s too heavy, too awkward, and it looks ridiculous on your head. You need a bag to carry it around. It’s too expensive, and the battery doesn’t last long. If this device were the size of normal glasses and cost about the same as a smartphone, everyone would buy one. The use cases exist. The technology just isn’t mature enough yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Sami13496 said:
It’s not about ”killer app”. It has plenty of cool uses cases like watching movies on a giant screen or using multiple virtual monitors. The problem is too much compromises. It’s too heavy. It’s too awkward. It’s too expensive. Battery doesn’t last long. If this thing would be in form or normal glasses and cost like a smartphone everyone would be buying one. The use cases are there. The tech is not mature enough yet.
Click to expand...
The problem is that if the main thing you want to do is watch movies on a giant screen or use a virtual monitor, the Meta Quest does this for $500 (and that's the more expensive version). Sure, the black levels on the OLED displays in the AVP are a bit better, but there's no universe in which the difference justifies $3000. If Meta Quest never existed, this might have had a slightly better longshot, but as it is this thing is basically a prototype of a dev kit.
 
Paddle1 said:
Outdated the next year and no trade-in, effectively punishing a dedicated group of early adopters on an already low selling device. This is going to hurt sales.
Click to expand...
The have 'punished early adopters' on multiple previous occasions. Apple are experts at it.
 
I’ve stopped doing the trade-in of my Apple stuff with Apple.
It went from bad to horrible very fast.

There’s no Apple Store where I live, so I realized it’s way better to buy from retailer's and do the trade in with them as well. Win win 🥳

But I have no intention to get a scuba-mask though 😉
 
All they need to accept for the trade in are the unit itself, the speaker straps and the battery. The rest is like Apple Watch bands the customers can keep for their next device. I don’t understand how hard it can be…
 
Innovati0n said:
You shouldn't be upgrading from the M2 version anyway. If you need to, just sell it privately for a higher number than Apple ever would have given anyway. And yes I know private sales can be risky. Protect yourself.
Click to expand...
I may pass the upgrade anyway, until I see a real benefit. The M2 is currently capable of doing everything I need.
 
Bad move by Apple, but you would get short changed by them anyway if they did accept trade-ins. Always sell through a 3rd party.
 
willzyx said:
Exactly like a Cybertruck, lol
Click to expand...
36632F4F-8FBA-4E95-B827-ACC08C58E917.png



AI took a crack at it. The idea is ROTFLAMO.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Bigg Macc, canadianreader, turbineseaplane and 3 others
Made S, Sold S, they know its S. Of course they don't want to take it back. This is exactly what I have been warning people. Apple releases S products to get a profit and let it bleed to death.

Be happy they did not release the car and ended its lifecycle on release date.

The Macbook Pro when maxed is around $6000 after a year its $800.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Pitogyro said:
All 145 owners who wanted to trade in their $3.5K purchase for $450 credit towards pretty much the same device still costing $3.5K must be devastated.
Click to expand...
HAAHAA I was going to ask who actually bought this? Lol I know there's only 145 owners in the world. HAAHAA
 
trusso said:
Somewhat off-topic, but recently I've been thinking: maybe, just maybe, the "next big thing" isn't going to be in tech. Tim Cook, Sam Altman, and thousands of software developers are hoping to stake their legacy on new gadgets or experiences in the techsphere. The problem is, it's not organic; it's forced. The personal computer was a natural outgrowth of hobbyist computing in the 70s. The iPod was a natural evolution of the MP3 player market in the early aughts. Likewise, the iPhone (and smartphones in general) were a huge step forward.

The key is, those inventions (at least at the outset) were tools that gave enormous power and agency to individuals. They were so revolutionary because they implicitly worked to democratize the way people interacted, created and consumed. But AVP and AI are not, at their core, about democratizing access to anything, or giving individuals any more power than the tech behemoths decide. They're disguised as givers, but they're really takers. And I think, intuitively, most people understand this.

So maybe, the "rebels," the "round pegs in the square holes," should not be looking at the consumer tech sphere to make their mark on the world. We need solutions in clean energy, economics, social policy and fragile democratic governments the world around.

Maybe we devote more of our energies into that?
Click to expand...
I remember in the late 2000's and early 2010's all the tech bros started investing in green energy seeing it as the next big thing. They all quickly realized that investing in large scale, long term ideas like this don't create immediate return like they were used to. They pretty much abandoned it after that point.

Our economy has basically become a meme stock. It's based on hype and vaporware. All these companies are panicking bc tech has matured significantly and there is no real "next big thing" coming. Zuck spent $40B+ hoping VR was it and whiffed big time. Now these companies are spending $100's of billions of capital that could be put into real world tangible and necessary assets but instead, they created a circle jerk of money that just swirls around to make each company look far more valuable that it actually is without creating anything.

Our country essentially gave up on building necessary future technologies for the good and health of the economy to sell out to the share holders who for 20+ years only have a "line must go up" mentality, regardless if its real or not. (see Tesla)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle, Bigg Macc and trusso
Madmic23 said:
If they accepted trade-ins, they'd likely be selling used / refurbished models at a discounted price. I don't think they want to show any type of a discount on the AVP yet.

With the pricing on the Samsung headset, Apple really should look at reducing the price.
Click to expand...
It is also possible they don't have a cost effective way to refurbish it to Apple standards
 
Amazing Iceman said:
I may pass the upgrade anyway, until I see a real benefit. The M2 is currently capable of doing everything I need.
Click to expand...
Agreed, watching the reviews and videos, doesn’t seem like worth an upgrade from the M2 to M5 version. Faster loading and rendering but overall just as capable. Be interesting to see the whether the next iteration of visionOS in 2026 brings M5 only features.
 
Kind of makes sense to me. By offering a trade in value they are essentially dictating the "base" used value of the product. If they offered a low trade-in value, they would be indirectly admitting that despite being expensive to purchase, the actual value of the product is low. Rather than this, they will just exclude it from the program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back