Apple Confirms Vision Pro is Not Eligible for Trade-In

[Kevin Palser]

And why did Apple want $3500 for it? It was essentially an iPad shaped like Google glasses.

Because they could get away with charging that ... at least with early adopters to the detriment of any wider sales. I bought my M2 model to have something different/novel connected into the Apple ecosystem, which it in those respects it delivers. Do I regret buying it?, definitely but only because I wish I had waited a few months more for the M5 model. There are obvious things Apple could have done to reduce costs, e.g. lose the external front screen, make the battery optional for people that travel by having a direct power cord. Form factor is cumbersome but I shouldn't want to see any other functionality experience compromises.

Assuming you have tried on an AVP, putting R & D, manufacturer costs and jokes aside, what do you think Apple should/could have charged?

 

[BornAgainMac]

I hope the Vision Pro 3 has a reasonable price. I still want one. I think the original Microsoft Air was about 3K fully loaded.

 

[Kevin Palser]

I can attest to wearing the AVP in our household feels unsociable. Finding myself waiting until no one is around before I wear it so to avoid the sensation of being awkward to others like I am putting them out - but not because I feel extra conspicuous.

 

[sparklez]

Wow. So in other words, Apple doesn't care if people lost $3500 on iPad googles.

 

[AppleWes]

Wow. So in other words, Apple doesn't care if people lost $3500 on iPad googles.

Rage bate?

Apple didn't force anyone to buy it. If $3500 is a lot of money to someone Vision Pro shouldn't even be in their budget. If it's truly worth it then you're free to resell.
I would never spend that much but to each his own.