Sidebar 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

AppleTO said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except by saying no trade in value they are essentially saying it is worth nothing and letting the 2nd had market dictate it.

As a current owner, I’ve discovered I’m not the demographic for this. For gaming with a PC I could find a use case for this device. But given Macs cannot game with AAA pc titles and simulators, it’s worthless in my case. I also don’t like a separate battery for it. Don’t believe I will be coming back again for another anytime soon if ever. Apple kinda over promised on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
diamornte said:
Apple is a master at screwing over its first generation product buyers. This will not continue without consequences: Apple is effectively announcing that buying their first generation products is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Eh, its not like anyone really seems to care. People will forget, just like they forgot about the original iPhone purchasers or the limits on the first Apple watch. I doubt that $300 for a device a year later was going to make anyone happy either.
 
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...
But it does have a killer price, so the app would have to be somewhat beyond killer. Full immersive 3d live NFL games would get me to buy one. Or live Broadway shows where you can move around watching it. But the technology isn't there. So many limitations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TVreporter
This is a such an unnecessary PR hit. Most of the people who bought the original Vision didn’t use them for more than a few weeks, so I’m guessing the number of early adopters who would be incentivized by a $450 trade-in credit to spend an additional $3500 for the new model is close to nil. Why wouldn’t Apple just issue a handful of credits and avoid openly signally that the original Vision, which is practically identical to the new model except for a spec bump, is worthless?
 
Even though this company likes every dollar they can get, I think they generally want to discourage current users from upgrading to a new one since there’s not too much different.
They’d also have to eventually sell the refurbs at a discount which they probably don’t want to do.
They probably have plenty of backstock for repairs/replacement units.
Lastly, refurbing them could be challenging with their recycling partners although they recycle complex products including the Vision Pro so highly doubt that’s a major issue they couldn’t overcome.

They want new customers with the M5 version not existing ones.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: HazeAndHahmahneez
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...
Having developed iPhone and iPad apps myself I don’t think many devs will support the Vision Pro. Nowadays too many people think apps should be free. Subscription fatigue is a real thing.

Which dev is going to put himself €3500 in debt to buy the device and then spend a few weeks/months doing unpaid work on an app for a device that is (as good as) dead? Not to mention the horror of dealing with the AppStore review process.

At least with iPhone and iPad apps you know there is a huge market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeftwillP
If the content sharing feature is available between the M2 & M5 variants in VisionOS 26.x it might be a good idea to buy an M5 and keep the M2 so (wealthy) users can watch the same thing at the same time.

Besides apple's trade in values never reflected market value anyway. Maybe they reflected market value minus the 15-20% ebay charges to sell on its platform?
 
Dirk Pieters said:
Having developed iPhone and iPad apps myself I don’t think many devs will support the Vision Pro. Nowadays too many people think apps should be free. Subscription fatigue is a real thing.

Which dev is going to put himself €3500 in debt to buy the device and then spend a few weeks/months doing unpaid work on an app for a device that is (as good as) dead? Not to mention the horror of dealing with the AppStore review process.

At least with iPhone and iPad apps you know there is a huge market.
Click to expand...

It's an expensive device that is aimed at the business market (cost ~ 2 months of a typical mortgage and probably more). It is out of reach for many average households.

Apple didn't implement the "trade in" program probably because the parts of the AVP can't be recycled or repurposed into new devices. In addition, they don't want this "toy" to become available to the mass which lowers the value. Imagine the "I am special because I drive a Rolls Royce" being faded away when everyone in the world drives a Rolls and you no longer feel the "special" one.

When nobody buys one, it is less likely the developers will make good apps for them (think of the Windows phone).
 
joshwithachance said:
You know a product is a total flop when the company ITSELF doesn't even want it...
Click to expand...
I know what you’re saying but this is how all businesses work 😅 They don’t want the products they supply, they want the money (hence lowball trade in values generally, yours is worthless when they have millions on hand)
 
diamornte said:
Apple is a master at screwing over its first generation product buyers. This will not continue without consequences: Apple is effectively announcing that buying their first generation products is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I learned this lesson when I bought the first gen iphone before the price reduction. I didn't buy an ipad until five years after the first one was released. I still don't own an apple watch, but probably will eventually.
 
TKSX said:
It's an expensive device that is aimed at the business market (cost ~ 2 months of a typical mortgage and probably more). It is out of reach for many average households.
Click to expand...
It is a lot, isn’t it?

The whole shebang where users can see a projection of your eyes from the outside … I wonder how much hardware could be stripped and weight saved by removing that.

I mean, that’s a gimmick, isn’t it? It’s kinda cool yet cringeworthy at the same time.

And completely unnecessary.
 
Dirk Pieters said:
The whole shebang where users can see a projection of your eyes from the outside … I wonder how much hardware could be stripped and weight saved by removing that.
Click to expand...
I posted in response to a different story on MR that it was an interesting idea, but the technology just isn't where it needs to be yet. Therefore it should not have been included in the original device.
 
this has uses in industrial areas like flight tutorials, fixing cars tutorials, surgery tutorials, but i doubt people want a $3K toy to see things in 3D for fun
 
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