Apple Highlights Developer Reactions to Vision Pro Labs: 'Audible Gasp'

I understand why Apple had to price it so high:
- R&D money needs to be recouped
- It’s Apple, so it needs to be a premium
- The technology is far head of rivals so is the user experience
- It’s a beautiful interpretation

But I do hope Apple understands that if this does not sell well, it’s understandable. It’s a lot of money to spend on such a first gen device. I can afford but I also understand the value of earning money. Which means, I don’t like parting with it.

I was never there for the first Mac, iPod, iPhone, MacBook, Watch either. So I’m more than fine waiting out a few iterations.
 
GreenPixel said:
To all the “gasping at the price” people:

The original Apple released in 1976 was priced at $666.66 which today is equivalent to $3,581.63.

The original Mac debuted in 1984 for $2,495. Today that would be $7,340.

The price will not determine if the product is a failure. The price is fine.
Click to expand...
Those computers were priced high at the time due to a number of reasons. One was high R&D costs. Another is supply chain and manufacturing inefficiencies. Wasn't the original Apple-1 computer built by hand in Steve Jobs' garage? And they only sold about 175 units in 1976, while they sold about 50,000 Macs in 1984. The low unit sales means Apple cannot take advantage of the economies of scale.

MacWorld also says the higher than expected price for the Mac was because...

$2,495 – The price of the original Macintosh (£1,800 in pounds but with inflation taken into account around £3316.66). There were a number of reasons for the ramped up price: Apple had spent $78 million in development costs when building it; and then CEO John Sculley had agreed to spend $15 million on an advertising blitz that included the 1984 commercial. Steve Jobs had originally hoped to sell the Mac for $1,495.


Apple, meanwhile, says they'll be making under 400,000 Vision Pro units to sell in 2024 using a global supply chain and low cost labor.

You also didn't mention that Apple lowered the price of the original Apple-1 computer to $475 in April 1977 (less than 1 year later). $475 is equivalent to $2,396.09 today, or almost $1,200 less. Do you expect Apple to lower the price of the Vision Pro by $1,200 in 2025?
 
GreenPixel said:
To all the “gasping at the price” people:

The original Apple released in 1976 was priced at $666.66 which today is equivalent to $3,581.63.

The original Mac debuted in 1984 for $2,495. Today that would be $7,340.

The price will not determine if the product is a failure. The price is fine.
Click to expand...
100%. Apple showed many times how well it can do despite charging much more than the competition. The users on this forum should know that more than anyone else. And when you look at the amount of technology in this headset, you understand more why it is that expensive. You can't really compare the Vision Pro with the Meta Quest Pro.

So I agree with you that the price itself is not the problem. But I think this product will suffer from a slow adoption both by consumers and developers. Because it is that expensive, not many people will use visionOS (until a cheaper headset is released), which means that there is little business incentive to develop visionOS AR apps. The lack of native apps will itself make the headset less appealing to consumers. Some people compared Vision Pro to the Apple Watch, but I think that Vision Pro will face a lot more market resistance than the AW as it is a much more niche market.
 
Last edited:
spaxxedout said:
One thing I’d add to the price debate is that the product is easily shipped and sold if needed, unlike a big TV. That’s the main thing helping me validate such a ridiculous purchase. The product is expensive, but the value prop is there.
Click to expand...

I can order a TV and have it shipped direct to my home easily, unlike a VP.

The VP requires a visit to an Apple Store for fitting - and will be hard to resell if needed.
 
I'm genuinely curious about this once it rolls out, although I'm unlikely to even consider being in the market for it for several years. I'm still sceptical about the broad utility of this once the initial wonder wears off, but we'll see.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, though, I do however think that those pointing to Apple past successes, particularly those in the last 20 years, need to remember that those were almost entirely built on improving products or product categories people were already using quite a lot.

People didn't need convincing that phones or mp3 players were a good idea. The iPad is the phone you already have, but bigger and better. The AirPods are the better version of wireless headphones, and everyone has headphones. The Apple Watch is probably the odd one out, but it didn't really take off until it was reinvented as a fitness accessory (and doesn't compare in price to the AV).

I'm really not trying to diminish Apple's achievements here, but it is entering a market that has massively struggled to convince or excite a lot of people and it is doing so at a price point that's going to be painful in the consumer space it apparently is targeting.
 
Last edited:
DelayedGratificationGene said:
Agreed. Vision Pro imo will see huge demand. $3500? A large screen OLED TV alone costs 2,000 and no one complains about that. Also that’s just one item that Vision Pro can replace and help you save. iPhone replaced so many things same will be for Vision Pro.
Click to expand...
It’s really easy for a 16” MBP to get to $3500 and people don’t seem shocked by that price. Obviously the current Vision Pro is not built nor priced for high volume consumer use. It will mainly appeal to early adopters and those with a special need for some of its features. It is going to take another iteration of the product to bring out something that most of us could justify. This will require bootstrapping a market for such a device.
 
Last edited:
If they do 0% financing with Apple Card, it's tempting. But they probably won't.

I'll hold on to my existing iPad and AppleTV, but I'll replace future purchases of those product lines with this instead.

Lifestyle of Mac + iPhone + HomePod + Vision headset sounds simpler and about right. The watch and the iPad can go away.
 
Last edited:
sw1tcher said:
they sold about 50,000 Macs in 1984.
Click to expand...
They actually sold 250,000 in 1984, and reached 500,000 in 1985 and 1 million in 1987. 50,000 was just in the first three months. (https://www.macworld.com/article/670960/the-mac-in-numbers-surprising-apple-stats.html)

Nevertheless, the Vision Pro isn’t in a comparable situation, because the tasks that you can only do with the Vision Pro and not with other, cheaper and/or more versatile devices that users typically already own, are relatively limited.
 
I hope to replace my room with the Vision Pro. I need an extra room because I need a gigantic desk which holds 6 monitors (2x3 config). If the Vision Pro can simulate that, I'd get rid of my room and I can work anywhere. If I can go from 3 bd apt to 2bd apt, that will save me a lot of money. I'm holding off buying the Studio monitor because I expect I won't need my monitors anymore.
I tried it with the Quest Pro, but the resolution was too low and it gave me a headache.
 
d686546s said:
I'm genuinely curious about this once it rolls out, although I'm unlikely to even consider being in the market for it for several years. I'm still sceptical about the broad utility of this once the initial wonder wears off, but we'll see.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, though, I do however think that those pointing to Apple past successes, particularly those in the last 20 years, need to remember that those were almost entirely built on improving products or product categories people were already using quite a lot.

People didn't need convincing that phones or mp3 players were a good idea. The iPad is the phone you already have, but bigger and better. The AirPods are the better version of wireless headphones, and everyone has headphones. The Apple Watch is probably the odd one out, but it didn't really take off until it was reinvented as a fitness accessory (and doesn't compare in price to the AV).

I'm really not trying to diminish Apple's achievements here, but it is entering a market that has massively struggled to convince or excite a lot of people and it is doing so at a price point that's going to be painful in the consumer space it apparently is targeting.
Click to expand...
Well said. I'm also skeptical about the broad utility of AVP. There are definitely use cases for such a device, but they're all quite niche and won't support a thriving third party software market.

I'm also surprised by how disinterested, even hostile, most people I know are towards AVP. I figured my 16 year old iPhone/gaming addict nephew would be incredibly excited about AVP but he think it's "lame". My friend's kids have an Oculus. They never use it and said they aren't interested in VR anymore. It's "lame". I thought AVP might appeal to my aging parents for the big, easy-to-read virtual screens, but neither one is interested. They don't want to wear goggles, for starters. None of my friends is remotely interested in AVP either. Pretty much everyone feels the same way about VR. It's just not appealing.

I'm also not trying to diminish Apple's achievements. AVP is clearly an incredible piece of technology that has managed to excite a very very small number of hardcore techies, but I don't think it's going to move the needle when it comes to the general public's interest in VR/AR. The public is already largely disinterested, which makes the $3500+ price point a massive obstacle. Without a killer, and I mean KILLER, app, I don't see the masses jumping on board.
 
clive27 said:
I'm holding off buying the Studio monitor because I expect I won't need my monitors anymore.
I tried it with the Quest Pro, but the resolution was too low and it gave me a headache.
Click to expand...
I expect the experience to be only gradually better than with the Quest Pro. Because the pixels of a simulated monitor don’t translate 1:1 to the pixels of the VR displays, you need at least 3-4 times the resolution of the latter to emulate the former at comparable quality. And the AVP is only roughly 4K per eye. In addition, it won’t be comfortable for most people to wear the front-heavy AVP more than 1-2 hours. So, I don’t think it will be able to adequately replace a six-monitor setup for work.
 
The price is a problem, but it will go down with time. The biggest problem is not working with prescription glasses.

Apple Vision Pro could be awesome to watch 3D movies, and most people will want to use it for that. JUST FOR THAT AND ONLY FOR THAT. Not for fancy virtual interfaces, to control the Mac interface or other awkward interface applications, except for disabled people perhaps.

But the lack of support for standard prescription glasses is a DEAL BREAKER. And no, contact lenses or magnetic inserts are not acceptable workarounds for most people. Just imagine having to spend a lot of money on new magnetic inserts each year, as would be required by many people. And the obnoxious huge environmental impact of all that.

But there is a solution., if Apple wants, of course. Just support prescription lenses with Apple Vision Pro. Or sell two models: one not supporting prescription lenses (current one), and other only to watch 3D movies, allowing prescription glasses (which would also be a much much, much cheaper model, selling like hotcakes). Problem solved for all.

Probably Apple will not do that, unless forced to do it. If sales of the current Apple Vision Pro are scarce and people ask for the other model, Apple could make it. That would be awesome.
 
There's no doubt this thing is an engineering marvel and completely immersive, meriting the audible and assuredly involuntary gasp of anyone who has tried it on.

That does not mean that it's worth its price tag for most people, that it's the future of computing, or that Apple and their fanboys won't end up eating their words in a few years. Time will tell, but I think the analogies to the iPod and the iPhone are off the mark.

Until both the price and the form factor are significantly reduced, this thing is unlikely to catch on in any meaningful way.
 
ckurt25 said:
For people that don't need to watch TV with a group, this is fantastic. You can have a small space, like a studio apartment, and feel like you're in something like an IMAX theater. No need to have a 77" TV anymore.
Click to expand...
Yup. I can’t wait for the the up coming Apple Godzilla series that is rumored to be filming with the VP in mind.

Imagine standing in the ocean shallow of San Fran as the rain is pouring down. As you look up Godzilla is stepping over you as he locks arm with another monster. Spatial Audio firing for the waves, foot falls, and the vocal rumbles from the king of lizards. So ***** can’t wait for this new way to consume movies!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top