Logical and insightful...NOT! Just why is it a dumb product? I assume you can articulate your rationale for making that statement. What does the AVP have to do with monitors and cloud services. Don't you think Apple is capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
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 Has Sold Approximately 200,000 Vision Pro Headsets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple sells a large chunk of those iPads in sub $500 section. iPad is the greatest learning tool since chalk and board. Don't compare real utility products with hobby projects.
$3500 is affordable to 95% of consumers if they choose it and save for it. This isn't a $200, 000 G wagon. Now...will lots of people want this? I doubt it but we will see how it does. And I will be checking it out for my job.
Well, it would be a successful fraud, that's for sure.
About a decade ago, you could walk around universities, large institutions and certain companies and see Apple-outfitted rooms everywhere. Now it's just LG, Samsung and PCs everywhere. I doubt you'll see rooms of these anytime soon.
In my view this has widely overshot the mainstream market. Same with the Apple display. Same with cloud.
I’ve been an Apple fanboy for over a decade so my opinion isn’t stated lightly. I’ve been using AirPods Max for about 4 years now and I stopped using them about a year or two ago because they hurt my head. They’re never comfortable for more than a couple min at a time. I’m constantly having to adjust them because the band hurts my head.
I think people will initially think the Vision is super cool. But after their first couple attempts at wearing it, they’ll find out the weight is unbearable and will either try to sell it or it’ll collect dust. Give this thing a year to truly see how well it’s doing.
I think people will initially think the Vision is super cool. But after their first couple attempts at wearing it, they’ll find out the weight is unbearable and will either try to sell it or it’ll collect dust. Give this thing a year to truly see how well it’s doing.
Well, I could have been more precise in defining what I meant, but let's go with a dual monitor solution that costs less than $3000, has less than two cameras, and less than 12 speakers.
I’m intrigued by this product, but typical Apple will overprice the hell out of it, in their first iteration of new product. But like the first homepod, too pricey and to niche to really be sold at high rate to the masses. Probably in 5 to 10 years, as cost decreases and computing efficiency increases this product will make sense.-
I have a complex workflow and I'm employed by a company most have heard of. No doubt there are plenty of use cases that aren't complex like mine, but this is Spatial App Store'ing, not general purpose computing.
200,000 x 3500 = 700,000,000 - and that's if everyone bought the cheapest one. Looks good to me. That's 7 times more than a 100 million blockbuster movie opening weekend, and this thing will still sell for some time. If the margins are only 20% they've already made 140 million - then subtract R&D and publicity/marketing.
I have no doubt Apple will sell a lot. Just not to me. If you would have asked me 10 years ago I might have considered buying one if I had the money. But today, I try staying in the real world as much as possible.
You probably meant that as a rhetorical question. But the answer is also yes.
“Ming-Chi Kuo claimed that Apple had sold an estimated 160,000 to 180,000 Vision Pro units during the pre-order weekend”
Headline: “Apple Has Sold Approximately 200,000 Vision Pro Headsets”
Who cares about 40k more or fewer devices. Gotta round those numbers, baby. 🤣 Apple will like it.
Headline: “Apple Has Sold Approximately 200,000 Vision Pro Headsets”
Who cares about 40k more or fewer devices. Gotta round those numbers, baby. 🤣 Apple will like it.
Drawing absurd conclusions from an assumed answer to an absurd hypothetical rehtorical question doesn't constitute support for your argument. That's a fallacy.
If this was some startup on kickstarter taking pre-orders for their new vaporware product, then yeah, demand outstripping supply wouldn't mean much, but we're talking about Apple, here. You don't have to love 'em or hate 'em to recognize that they're fairly competent at market analysis and supply chain coordination. The few cases where excess demand wouldn't indicate a successfull product launch don't realistically apply to Apple.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple isn’t planning for this iteration of Apple Vision Pro to sell in large numbers or be a huge success. It's mainly a device for developers or enthusiasts, paving the way for future versions.
That's $700 million in one weekend. Does that not blow anyone's mind? And this is for an unproven product.
Truth be told, 200,000 is EXTREMLY low to form a market. Meta Quest 2 sold 20,000,000 in 3 years and MS HoloLens 2 sold 150,000 just for B2B in a year. Even then, Meta Quest 2 was NOT successful.
You see the problem? Vision Pro is a consumer product and yet, it didnt sell a lot. That 200,000 sale is what B2B products would achieve with a niche market. Apple was planned to make over 1,000,000 Vision Pros but they reduced to 200,000. Since Meta Quest 2 did not sold well even they sold more than 20 millions to form a market, Apple Vision Pros' sold estimation is extremely poor and it barely matched B2B products sale.
Apple supposed to sell more than at least 1 million to form their own market but that's a fatal failure. At this point, they really need to make a cheap version as soon as possible or otherwise, VisionOS and Vision series will fail.
I wouldn't trust any reviews in the coming weeks. They are all heavily influenced by Apple. If you have the patience, wait 1 or 2 months, and then you might get truely objective reviews.
It’d be one thing if that $3500 investment wasn’t going to a piece of technology that will be outdated and worth $500 in 4 years.
Also 95%? Really? The average income of the bottom quintile of earners in the U.S. is $16k. Spending almost a quarter of their yearly income on this is affordable? They can probably barely make rent and keep food on the table even with government assistance.
Last edited: