Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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
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.
 
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.
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 device
 
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
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 is too expensive for mainstream. The choices are either
  • wait for cost to come down with tech advance
  • put out a lower tier device that can do most of the stuff for people who can't afford the vision pro

or a combination of both.

or abandon the platform. but honestly, eventually - augmented reality is the future. normal people don't want to use traditional computers. they want something to make their life easier while they're going about their regular life tasks - without having to sit down at a desk and stare at a monitor.
 
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.
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).

it doesn't need to sell in volume. Vision pro never was intended to sell in volume - fact is the quantity of displays to sell in volume are simply not available from manufacturing. It was never going to be a high volume product in this iteration.
 
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.
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
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?
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.
 
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
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,
  • 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/iPad 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 iPhone screen too that never wears out, never gets long-in-tooth, never gets dropped, needs no case, comes in ANY color (including easily changing colors), 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.
More importantly than ALL of that (hardware) stuff: set aside an AppleTV+ budget and dedicated talent to drive unique creations of apps and content for Vpro. These resources could have a "dual mandate" of seeding app dev with great potential as Vpro apps AND buying into deals to offer entertainment that easily drives sales of other A/V equipment at prices 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 money & talent into the "media/apps" as they put into developing the hardware.

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-behig-Apple, "only $249." Hold/Pin hair up to properly scan ears, hair down scan, glasses on & off, favorite hat off/on, etc. Step into a booth, follow on-screen prompts, preview your persona in booth, redo anything that isn't quite perfect, etc. Deliver your pro-Persona to Vpro via iCloud or some kind of direct transfer into your Vpro. PRO Persona takes over as your persona in all persona-based communications/exchanges. Basically, do the best possible job of capturing the appearance of a (whole) person. Jettison the partial captures/ghosts/fade to nothing.

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.

And while I'm no fan of financing tricks, roll out 36 months 0% with only sales taxes due up front so they can promote taking one home for "free*". There's a whole world that makes their buy/don't buy decisions on if they can accommodate a monthly payment. Instead of facing $3499+ up front or monthly of about $290/month on a 12-month schedule, marketing could pitch "free*" with payments under $100/month. I'm also surprised that Apple didn't do this at launch.

Lastly, since people are already hacking this, offer a Vpro accessory that is basically the bottom-half of a MB with no lid but maybe an even bigger battery. Picture 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 Macs (and it works just fine)...

full

Do some or all of these things and Vpro probably becomes much more desirable to many. IMO: this last option seems to be ideal "laptop replacement" for on-the-go people longing for a much bigger screen MB without having to deal with folds/roll screens in some kind of MB.

The "as is" approach where Apple seems to be waiting for OTHERS to make it a success does NOT seem to be the way.
 
Last edited:
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,
  • 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.
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.

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...

full

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.
The complaints are real with this one.
 
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'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 just needs a much lower price and lighter. No need to take away features or water it down.

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 HIGH margin... so Apple's specs in this Vpro Jr. would 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Ok, then I'll stick with Macs and iPhones.
 
a crap version for $2k not going to get me out of bed either.

I think a cheaper 27" studio display that worked just as seamless with the mac would be much more attractive to many more people. gotta be something in between a $150 monitor and a $1500 one...
 
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.

Honestly I think you’re trolling, and you should stop. I’ve read MacRumors daily since about 07 (watched the MacBook Air unveil on the liveblog in high school), and I’ve never seen anything cause more harm to this community that I love than the Vision Pro.

In fairness, I’d echo that the weight is like #8 on the issue list for the device. It’s largely hollow and not nearly as front heavy as it looks. However, we as a community need to tone down the vitriol that this product has somehow inspired.
 
Honestly, while it hasn’t been awful, it hasn’t been great either.

I think we’re 2 generations away before this thing really goes mainstream.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.