Basically no one is paying 4 grand for the headsets as they are
Totally agree. Hindsight’s 20/20, but they should have debuted with a more entry level option, got more people on board, then hit us with a higher end Pro. It’s trickier to come out with a lower quality experience after having offered a top-of-the-line experience. It will be interesting to see how the category evolves. Or doesn’t.It needs the same quality but get rid of the front display and make it lighter, if you ruin the optics that’s the main problem, make the fov better and more immersive
If Apple just made one to view photos, videos and movies only that could cost reduction too. That’s how I would probably only use the deviceTotally agree. Hindsight’s 20/20, but they should have debuted with a more entry level option, got more people on board, then hit us with a higher end Pro. It’s trickier to come out with a lower quality experience after having offered a top-of-the-line experience. It will be interesting to see how the category evolves. Or doesn’t.
I think there needs to be multiple price points. The existing vision pro is a halo device to show what is possible now and later at lower cost.It needs the same quality but get rid of the front display and make it lighter, if you ruin the optics that’s the main problem, make the fov better and more immersive
Disagree actually. You need a halo device to show what CAN be done to give a glimpse into the short-medium term future. (say 3-5 years out at a more affordable price).Totally agree. Hindsight’s 20/20, but they should have debuted with a more entry level option, got more people on board, then hit us with a higher end Pro. It’s trickier to come out with a lower quality experience after having offered a top-of-the-line experience. It will be interesting to see how the category evolves. Or doesn’t.
The SONY PSVR2 is not a standalone device. To the mentioned $500, you need to add another $400 for the console. This brings the total to around $900-$1000. And this is roughly the lower limit. Of course, there is also the Meta Quest 3 priced at $500 as a standalone device. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the price for a cheaper device should be around the MBA/base version of the MBP.Sony's PSVR2 is $500.
I am sure Apple could take that as a baseline for reducing costs. Does it really cost them an extra $3000 for the cameras and M2 chipset?
If Apple want to reduce the costs though ultimately they will have to reduce their margins.
It’s very obvious on a lot of comments when someone clearly hasn’t used one.
It’s very obvious on a lot of comments when someone clearly hasn’t used one.
You could give these things away for free and they will still wind up being a paper weight in the corner for the majority of people. Without a use case, price and hardware are meaningless.The ignorant superfans will argue with us to death over this despite the sales and hype in the tech sphere clearly shows that it not offering enough value/$ is the consensus.
Amazing tech? Yes. What does one need it for, entertainment? A few, niche use cases? A giant, virtual display for your Mac? A fairly inexpensive and very compact home theater experience?
Nobody seems to agree. And certainly, nobody is going out of their way to show us how it does any of these on a level that makes it a must-have product.
Even at $1K-$2K, am I really buying an AVP instead of upgrading my iPhone or getting a new Mac?
Without a use case, price and hardware are meaningless.
The complaints are real with this one.Working the quality of the most fundamental feature- the VISION part- down to something similar to much cheaper competition is probably NOT the way. The very vocal crowd so critical of this from long before it launched will have even more points to support their critique. Going from sharp/super-sharp to not sharp/blurry only feeds those hateful/contempt-loaded flames.
I suspect the first problem is Apple is probably starting from their fat margin target. A mentality of preserving maximum margin above all else probably makes ANY compromises made to yield a lower price still yield a much higher relative price than existing competition. Why didn't Apple get into the TV business? Because margins are thin and a logo on the front couldn't get them their 40%-50% margin target when the same company making the screen for them would put it in their own-branded TV and sell it for about half of Apple's price.
IMO as someone who greatly appreciates the many great ideas of Vpro,
More importantly than ALL of that (hardware) stuff: set aside an AppleTV-plus like budget and dedicated talent to drive unique creations of apps and content for Vpro. These resources could have a "dual mandate" to seeding app dev with great potential as Vpro apps AND buying way into deals to offer entertainment that easily drives sales of other A/V equipment at price as high or higher than Vpro. Like what? NFL-ST-VR, NCAAF-VR, NCAAB-VR, NBA-VR, MLB-VR, MLS-VR, NHL-VR, Broadway Season VR, Cirque VR, (next) Olympics-VR, Music Concerts VR, etc. Apple seems to be wanting a "build it and they will come" model when they probably need to put as much into the "media/apps" as they put into developing the hardware.
- Don't cut the most fundamental feature. Maintain the best "vision." As soon as the "vision" is about the same as much cheaper competitors, there's little to rationalize the (still) much higher price for Apple's (same) "vision."
- Do cut margin in an effort to establish the market. Apple would be far from the first. See game consoles as just one example. Make the market by being much more generous on total price and then grow into the target margin over a few generations. Maximizing profit per unit sold on something with so relatively few units to sell won't make or break Apple. But establish the market first so that more and more want one and then the margin can fatten over generations.
- Virtualize an iPhone within it, add cellular capability and thus get the cell phone subsidy *with plan. That gets "other people" (like Verizon, AT&T, Tmobile, etc) chipping in about $1000 up front. $3499 immediately becomes $2499 to the buyer without any quality cuts at all. I'm surprised it didn't launch this way. Note: this doesn't replace anyone's physical "my precious" but simply brings "subsidy pricing options" to the proposition. And if someone CAN go virtual iPhone, they could have the latest model every year via VR OS updates... as well as a fold/roll/scale-to-any-size phone screen phone too that never wear out, never gets long-in-tooth, never gets dropped, needs no case, comes in ANY color, can't be stolen/lost, etc.
- Drop the monitor on the front that shows faux eyes. The benefit seems to fall well short of the concept. The idea wasn't bad but the implementation seems well short of probably what they had in mind. Maybe revive that when they have a much better implementation in some future model.
- Jettison audio to "sold separately" in buds/headphones.
- Create the option to lean on the battery built inside a Mac to buy much more battery life.
- Create the option of a Mac creating the Vpro view so that the 'heavy lifting' can be done by Mac and then passed to Vpro through the same cable delivering power from Mac. This could yield the MANY multi-screens desired by many by the Mac painting that picture instead of being constrained by how much can "airplay" from a Mac.
- More plastic vs. aluminum to lighten the load.
Install a MRI-like scanner (obviously not an actual MRI but only a good 360º scanner) in Apple stores that can scan all sides of a subject to create "whole body" avatars and bill it as PRO PERSONA or similar for "only $49" or "only $99" or Apple-behing-Apple "only $249." Hold/Pin hair up to properly scan ears, hair down scan, glasses on & off, etc. Basically, do the best possible job of capturing the look of a person.
Not only would these virtual in-person meetings seem much more like everyone is there, but all of this sit-together to watch the movie/game, etc stuff would also seem more like being together... because the Persona would have full depth instead of only half depth. If you look left or right at your friend, the "back " of them doesn't fade out to nothing but is as much there with you as their front.
Lastly, since people are already hacking this, offer a VR accessory that is basically the bottom-half of a MB with no lid but maybe an even bigger battery. Think an Apple-like Commodore 64 or Amiga 500-type product that can either connect to a desktop monitor with a thunderbolt cable or to Vpro to share battery and give it much longer use life before battery needs recharged. Again, people are already making this work by buying MBs with damaged lids, removing the lids and then using them as lid-less computers...
![]()
Do some or all of these things and Vpro probably becomes much more desirable to many. The "as is" approach where Apple seems to be waiting for OTHERS to make it a success does NOT seem to be the way.
It's really bad if this timeline is correct. Apple will be launching a device over 4 years newer than the current VisionPro but with a worse display? That is crazy.It was bad enough launching the Vision Pro at an eye watering price to begin with, but selling a cheaper version with a lower resolution display is not exactly tempting. Of course it has to be a cheaper product for the average consumer, but compromising on resolution doesn't exactly sell the experience. How about dumping the pointless front display which would save cost and weight, making it a nicer device to wear? I am sure Apple can rationalise this product in a sensible fashion.
It just needs a much lower price and lighter. No need to take away features or water it down.
It just needs a much lower price and lighter. No need to take away features or water it down.
No real use case ? How do you explain the Oculus/Quest selling so well , even though its tech is inferior to the VisionPro ?Does Apple really think the problem is "oh no, too much advanced technology in this thing" instead of "there is no real use case"?
Apple probably can't maintain the super fat margin they seek and deliver "much lower price" without watering it down. When target margin of Apple stuff approaches 50% these days, upwards of most of the "lower price" is IN the margin.
I think the only way to a lower price with modern Apple Inc. is indeed "watering it wayyyyyy down." Since the consistent argument that the bulk of the cost is in the 4K-per-eye lenses, it's no surprise to me at all that the path to actual lower prices without cutting Apple's margin is to cut resolution. Plenty of competition sells the "much cheaper" VR glasses/goggles driving all this "cheaper price" mentality BY using much lower resolution. Apple can do that too... BUT Apple's demand for super fat margin will likely undermine Vpro 1080p too. Why? Presumably, the existing market already offering lower res VR do NOT demand Apple's margin... so Apple's specs will be much more similar (especially this most key spec to a product with "Vision" in the name) but Apple's price will still be much higher.
Weight is not an issue. However I’ve noticed that less fortunate people seem to complain about the price. People should better themselves, get better jobs, get rid of that car payment and save money if they want what they call “expensive” toys.
Ok, then I'll stick with Macs and iPhones.