Its just the price. If it was lowered, it would sell in the truck loads
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Cuts Vision Pro Shipments as Demand Falls 'Sharply Beyond Expectations'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would write a reply but I can’t get the floating keyboard to work and my neck hurts.
To all the comments related to “not everybody is a billionaire” or that allude that it’s only for the wealthy (even if a snarky attempt at MR first page comment glory), that’s not kinda how it works for the vast majority of cases.
Having seen old and recent reports online about which cars the most wealthy tend to buy and it’s the Toyotas and Hondas up there, way higher than BMWs, Mercedes or the luxury counterparts of some like Acura and Lexus.
Wealthy people tend to be quite responsible with money; and tied with a higher than average income/business is why they are wealthy.
It doesn’t sell not only because it’s indeed expensive, but largely because it doesn’t have any compelling reason yet to go for it… no doubt the build quality and experience is amazing, but there are the Toyotas and Hondas equivalent of it already (Quest et al) doing the job in at least 80% of the “quality” capacity and 100% in practice (VR games, movies and who knows what else).
Having seen old and recent reports online about which cars the most wealthy tend to buy and it’s the Toyotas and Hondas up there, way higher than BMWs, Mercedes or the luxury counterparts of some like Acura and Lexus.
Wealthy people tend to be quite responsible with money; and tied with a higher than average income/business is why they are wealthy.
It doesn’t sell not only because it’s indeed expensive, but largely because it doesn’t have any compelling reason yet to go for it… no doubt the build quality and experience is amazing, but there are the Toyotas and Hondas equivalent of it already (Quest et al) doing the job in at least 80% of the “quality” capacity and 100% in practice (VR games, movies and who knows what else).
I can't imagine its a product in huge demand to be fair. Headset gadgets have always been niche and this particular one is very expensive and limited to what it can do with a limited amount of apps available after release. These sorts of gadgets have always experienced an initial buzz, and then ended up for sale secondhand within months once the novelty has worn off. I think Apple realise it was never going to be for the mainstream consumer market though as they priced it accordingly.
I don't think 3D cinema and 3DTV would have been significantly more successful if it were glasses-free, all other things being equal. Nintendo had a glasses-free stereoscopic 3D game console, the 3DS, and they didn't bring that technology forward to their next hand-held console.
And even if people said in surveys that they didn't like wearing the glasses, it's not necessarily because of the physical sensation of the glasses on their face, but because of visual discomfort from crosstalk, lower brightness, alternating frames between the eyes instead of showing them simultaneously, etc.
If glasses were required for color video, would most movies still be in black-and-white?
I do, however, think VR headsets need to be significantly smaller/lighter. Not necessarily the size of eyeglasses, but maybe a quarter of the weight of typical VR headsets.
VR is still pretty niche even at a lower price point, even the Meta Quest 3 doesn’t shift in the numbers others general devices do.
It’s going to take another decade before VR is good enough and has enough use cases to be something you want to “live in”, that’s if it doesn’t die out like other fads, 3D for example.
Last edited:
The funny thing there is when Playstation released their VR headset for £500, it sold ok, but places like eBay and Facebook marketplace were full of them after a few months. I don't think the market for people wanting to wear these sorts of goggles is that big. They mess peoples hair up, can cause dizziness if worn for too long and they are a bit too immersive for many people. I could see the attraction for watching live sport with them, to give you the feel you are there, but is that a bit of a novelty use case? I'd rather put that £4000 into a really nice TV the whole family can enjoy and use, but maybe that is just me.
Valid points. Annoyingly, LG's outgoing passive 3D OLED sets pretty much perfected everything. Zero crosstalk, zero flicker and only a tiny drop in brightness that could easily be adjusted for. And being 2160p panels with superb video processing, they were also excellent at upscaling the passively-halved resolution back to 1080p. But...by this time it was too late. Everyone already hated 3D TV due to poor content and poor implementation. I don't see AVP being any different. Especially at c.$4000.
I never really saw the need to strap a screen to your face. Sure "spatial computing" looks nice in ads. But I feel like it's going to be really annoying, really quick. For most usecases a monitor is just a lot better. Also the price and the downsides aren't helping it.
Price is too high and gen 1 still has too many issues (namely weight).
I hope Apple has some patience with this platform because I do believe the software platform is amazing and there is tons of potential it’s just that the hardware is not quite there yet
I hope Apple has some patience with this platform because I do believe the software platform is amazing and there is tons of potential it’s just that the hardware is not quite there yet
On the upside, it might mean an end to bludgeoning us to death for years with all those boring AR demos in anticipation of this crock.
I think the biggest winner out of this will be Meta. AR/VR is now being talked about as more mainstream than it was in the past. Meta have (what looks like) a pretty good product at a much more reasonable price. People who are now interested will gravitate towards that. Apple may have piqued peoples interest in AR/VR, and made the market, to an extent, but Meta have an implementation they can afford. I wouldn't underestimate Samsung either - I'd be pretty sure they'll try and leverage their ecosystem to bring something to market that's as capable, but cheaper.
Unless Apple bring a lower priced version to market soon, I believe they will likely be squeezed out of the market altogether, and the AVP will indeed become an expensive paperweight.
Unless Apple bring a lower priced version to market soon, I believe they will likely be squeezed out of the market altogether, and the AVP will indeed become an expensive paperweight.
I wonder what percentage of people ever watched 3D content on their TV, given that you needed a special Blu-Ray player and special discs. What if the 3DTV period had overlapped more with the streaming period we're in now? Like if Disney+ had been around with a ton of 3D movies. Netflix actually had a small handful of streaming 3D movies at one time, but only one I had ever hear of.
I never had a 3DTV. I bought a plasma TV before 3D was available, and when I bought an OLED TV a decade later, 3D had already died.
Modern VR has already lasted longer than 3DTV... it's been around for just over eight years now.
Duh. I thought Tim was supposed to be smart. It’s interesting but not for work and it’s outrageously priced for a home amusement with limited software and no killer apps. Something like this will take years to settle into its groove. It is better technology than any other headset out there. They need to keep that advantage or get steamrollled by Meta in a couple of years
it’s funny how the tone of this forum was “Vision Pro is revolutionary and all that doubt it are stupid” to “Vision Pro is useless”.
Apple needs to listen to what Jobs said when he came back to Apple in the 90’s. Tim is slowly steering the company to failure. They are becoming stale and have too many skus. Making products that don’t solve problems. How many iPhone models do we need for sale at the same time? Almost as bad as having 10 Performa models that are mostly the same.
Apple needs to listen to what Jobs said when he came back to Apple in the 90’s. Tim is slowly steering the company to failure. They are becoming stale and have too many skus. Making products that don’t solve problems. How many iPhone models do we need for sale at the same time? Almost as bad as having 10 Performa models that are mostly the same.
It’s a development platform. I’d call it a version “0.9” product. The eye tracking is pretty good, and spatial video is promising (think watching an MLB game with a behind the plate view or an NBA game with a courtside view). I see technology transferring to other products, and cheaper versions incorporating the best bits.
Cook has been CEO longer than Steve Jobs was in his second stint. The company is the second most valuable in history.
I think we will see a more logical iPad lineup this year. The new Pencil will replace the Pencil 2 and the USB-C Pencil will replace the Pencil 1 once the 9th gen is dropped. The iPhone lineup is fine. Apple sells “Pro” and “non-Pro” models in 2 different sizes, and then older versions (usually just in one size) to maintain price points. Now that Apple has dropped the 13” Pro the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines make a lot more sense.
Remember Apple in 1997 was running low on cash. They needed to focus. Apple in 2024 can afford to take risks. For example, while the car project was a money pit, the next generation CarPlay may be a worthwhile result. Not something in itself worth $10 billion, but nonetheless Apple will get something out of it. Same with Vision Pro. It’s far from a consumer product, but Apple will surely use the technology in other products even if Vision Pro itself isn’t a successful standalone product (though it‘s way too early to tell).
It's the primary reason I won't even consider buying one (and I can afford it).
Indeed. Most peoples' experience of 3DTV was watching crappy content on crappy hardware in a crappy setting inside a crappy store. In its final death throes, the content on Blu-ray was by-and-large stunning, and LG's passive OLED sets were excellent at displaying it. The next time I needed a TV the technology had been abandoned due to public confidence having already been destroyed. A crying shame.
Sure but these are baby apps. It’s clunky. You get a headache after 30 mins. You almost have to work from home because no one wants to be seen wearing it.
And if. If it somehow worked out and did wonders for you, you’re dooming yourself to this for how long? Each work day you strap this thing on. You upgrade to the new one. Forever more you’re wearing a computer on your face 9 to 5? I mean no thanks.
His statement is actually about right, though I'd put the number around $180k. In DC, a near $200k income is just the standard upper tier of federal workers - before you get into appointed positions and executives. $200k per year today, after inflation, is just over six figures in the year 2000. A six figure salary in SF, in the year 2000, that was just about anyone working in tech.
The reality of almost any technology is that it's amazing when you first see it but the wow factor levels off after a while and then you ask yourself "now what?" What can I do with it other than being just impressed by the amount of work put into it?
Most people don't work in tech or make those kind of salaries. I live in Seattle - where there is a significant high-tech presence - and the median household income here is $115K (from 2022 numbers, not much changed since).