Apple Likely to Make Vision Pro Lineup More Affordable in Two Ways

[MacRumors]

Apple plans to launch its next-generation Vision headsets as early as 2026, and they will likely be more affordable, according to TrendForce.

In line with previous rumors, the Taiwanese research firm today said Apple is planning to introduce both a next-generation Vision Pro and a mainstream headset, which would likely be named "Apple Vision" without the "Pro" modifier.

For the next-generation Vision Pro, TrendForce said Apple will likely consider sourcing components from suppliers beyond Sony to reduce production costs, and this move could contribute to the headset having a lower price. Currently, the Vision Pro starts at $3,499 in the U.S., and this price has naturally limited sales of the device.

In an interview earlier this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook acknowledged that the Vision Pro is not a mass-market product due to its high price.

"At $3,500, it's not a mass-market product," said Cook. "Right now, it's an early-adopter product. People who want to have tomorrow's technology today—that's who it's for. Fortunately, there's enough people who are in that camp that it's exciting."

In July, research firm IDC estimated that Vision Pro sales would be below 500,000 units this year.

While the next Vision Pro could be at least slightly more affordable, TrendForce ensured that the device will continue to have high-end specifications, including display technology with a resolution exceeding 3,000 pixels per inch.

In addition to a Vision Pro price cut, a lower-end model is also expected eventually.

For this mainstream Vision headset, the research firm said that Apple is expected to focus on "affordability and "cost-efficiency" as a main priority, which should make visionOS accessible to more customers at a considerably lower price compared to the Vision Pro. It said the device could have less-advanced displays to keep costs down.

"Possible display options for this model include glass-based OLED displays and LCDs with LTPO backplane technology, both of which offer a balance between performance and cost," said TrendForce, in a press release.

Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo last month said the next Vision Pro will actually launch in 2025, with an M5 chip in place of the current M2 chip, but he said Apple pushed back its plans for a cheaper Vision headset until beyond 2027.

Article Link: Apple Likely to Make Vision Pro Lineup More Affordable in Two Ways

 

[lilkwarrior]

As expected and makes more sense then previous rumors: Continue to have a headset for prosumers and finally give mainstream audiences with more modest interest and need for a headset an option.

It would be a good time for them to release a prosumer spatial computing glasses simultaneously as an upsell option being something that has to be a bit more expensive than the headset or about as expensive as the Vision Pro today.

Pixel dense panels for glasses that also meet Apple’s prosumer standards for a display (Dolby Vision + HLG HDR, retina-like pixel density) will be unavoidably expensive.

It would be a great way to show VisionOS’s versatility

 

[deckard666]

Under a 1000 would be very appealing....especially with some decent interface to my iPhone

 

[twolf2919]

The main problem isn't really the price, although I'm sure there will be more takers if the price were half its current one. It is that it's really a niche product (gamers and specific business segments) rather than one with real mass market appeal like, say, an iPhone or an AirPod. The only place you can use it without looking like a fool is at home - and then while wearing it you're isolated from the rest of the family, if you have one.

And since it'll never sell in mass-market numbers, its appeal to app developers is always going to be limited too.

Apple's next big thing isn't the Vision Pro. It's going to be the Apple AR glasses Tim Cook swooned about in 2017 but then never delivered.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Give me high quality screens that can be used with MBP, iPad Pro or iPhone. Forget foldables with same screen size constraints, I will get one for work/play on my travels. Make one for 1500-2k with same high quality wide screens and take my money. Apple should treat AVP as headphones of screens, and folks talked about how ugly headphones were earlier.

 

[lilkwarrior]

Under a 1000 would be very appealing....especially with some decent interface to my iPhone

For the non-pro maybe. That price doesn’t make sense for the Vision Pro just like a Pro Display XDR monitor under $2000.

Prosumer portable monitors are $3000 and 5K2K ultrawides with modest HDR it also outclasses are $1500 minimum and more than $2000

 

[dannyyankou]

I was under the impression that was the plan all along. Launching a product with “pro” in the name and not following it up with a consumer version would be very un Apple-like.

 

[Andres Cantu]

I think the price isn’t necessarily the only show-stopper for a lot of people.

Even at $300 for the exact same headset, I wouldn’t buy one for myself because I don’t see a use case for it, for me at least.

 

[dannyyankou]

Under a 1000 would be very appealing....especially with some decent interface to my iPhone

My prediction is it will have iMac pricing. $1,299 starting price.

 

[ZipZilla]

I still don't know who this is for

 

[brofkand]

I think the price isn’t necessarily the only show-stopper for a lot of people.

Even at $300 for the exact same headset, I wouldn’t buy one for myself because I don’t see a use case for it, for me at least.

Agreed. It could be free, like Google Cardboard basically was, and I wouldn’t use it. No use

 

[mozumder]

Just give it a USB HDMI input for use as a Mac monitor. The new ultra wide Mac Virtual display now makes the Vision Pro my daily monitor for my Mac. I even bought a separate base Mac mini to use as a headless work computer. It’s incredible and a game changer.

 

[dugbug]

Shees apple just drop that stupid front display that has almost no value. Put a cool looking LED indicator on it if you want to indicate the wearer sees you as you approach. It would even make the thing lighter.

 

[Osxguy]

I haven’t seen one of these in the wild… and I travel about 140 hours a year… from the beautiful Pacific Northwest to the ugh concrete island of the Bay Area. I wouldn’t expect many up in the beautiful northwest but when at the unaffordable dystopian traffic hustle of the concrete island that paved paradise and put up a parking lot I’d expect a few. All don’t Bay Area my area joking aside would it be cheaper to make it an hdmi out/usb c and have an iPhone/macbook/ipad be the brains. I believe it’s the optics that cost the most so this may not be the cost point I want it to be. I really just want my $1,200 iPhone 16 Pro to act like a Mac mini and give me macOS when I plug it in.. a dual boot option

 

[lilkwarrior]

The main problem isn't really the price, although I'm sure there will be more takers if the price were half its current one. It is that it's really a niche product (gamers and specific business segments) rather than one with real mass market appeal like, say, an iPhone or an AirPod. The only place you can use it without looking like a fool is at home - and then while wearing it you're isolated from the rest of the family, if you have one.

And since it'll never sell in mass-market numbers, its appeal to app developers is always going to be limited too.

Apple's next big thing isn't the Vision Pro. It's going to be the Apple AR glasses Tim Cook swooned about in 2017 but then never delivered.

The Vision Pro never had mainstream aspirations as its primary success metric much like the Pro Display XDR, Mac Pro, Mac Studio, Macbook Pro, iPad Pro, and so on.

Apple is a very known brand with a lot of window shoppers who were never the intended audience scoffing the price people will pay for it; they latently worry for whatever reason if it’s successful it would have the side effect of making all headsets closer to its price.

It’s like incumbent Honda Civic buyers more appropriately needing to wait for EVs like the Honda Preclude scoffing at and fear mongering about the price of higher-end EVs because of $100,000+ Porsche Teycans, Lucid Airs that appeal to what more affluent drivers seek for themselves.

It’s the side effect of social media where everyone can voice an opinion and have echo chambers of irrational and unfounded sentiment of the original thought

 

[jakebrosy]

We have a headset in the office and no one will enter a space where someone is using it: the weird googly-eyes on the front makes them either nervous or nauseous. Too horror-flick inducing appearance. So those could easily go to cut costs. Perhaps even reduce the battery drain and maybe about 4 pounds of weight dragging your head forward.

As I was typing this I wandered over and checked on ours. Completely dead batteries and covered in dust and discarded usb cables. In a room full of tech enthusiasts and technologist.

Tim is right. This is an early adopter product. At this point much like the Newton or Second Life: a product in search of a market…fingers crossed a product can be created that is actually wearable AND also does more than offer a novel experience.

 

[Scotty_Trees]

They can make it as "affordable" as they want, I'll never buy one.

 

[grantishere]

Fortunately, there's enough people who are in that camp that it's exciting.

Who?

 

[lilkwarrior]

I think the price isn’t necessarily the only show-stopper for a lot of people.

Even at $300 for the exact same headset, I wouldn’t buy one for myself because I don’t see a use case for it, for me at least.

The world doesn’t revolve around your use cases nor mine and you’re not obligated to have a need for every computing device a manufacturer comes up with to sell.

Headset form factor can fundamentally not work with people with legit and worthwhile spatial computing needs needing glasses instead (even because of hair or their on-the-go needs) similar to not everyone needs or want a desktop compared to a laptop/tablet

 

[lilkwarrior]

They can make it as "affordable" as they want, I'll never buy one.

…Okay, then why you’re commenting and following a device variety you have no interest in buying instead of a device category you actually find worthwhile?

 

[DocMultimedia]

I think the price isn’t necessarily the only show-stopper for a lot of people.

Even at $300 for the exact same headset, I wouldn’t buy one for myself because I don’t see a use case for it, for me at least.

Yeah, I still don't see a single app that makes me want to buy one.

 

[Scotty_Trees]

…Okay, then why you’re commenting and following a device variety you have no interest in buying instead of a device category y or actually find worthwhile?

iPhones cool. iMacs cool. Air Pods cool. VR tech is just stupid.

 

[kengeon]

If Apple fostered a serious gaming ecosystem instead of a swamp of gacha p2w gambling, maybe the vision pro would have a solid use case. As it stands the most compelling use for VR is gaming. As much as Apple tries to not call the Vision Pro a VR headset, that’s just what it is. If Apple is truly serious about this platform and product they need to be directly funding startups and companies making content for the Vision Pro, just like Meta has been for the Quest. But it really doesn’t seem like Apple is willing to do that.

 

[rymc02]

The main problem isn't really the price, although I'm sure there will be more takers if the price were half its current one. It is that it's really a niche product (gamers and specific business segments) rather than one with real mass market appeal like, say, an iPhone or an AirPod. The only place you can use it without looking like a fool is at home - and then while wearing it you're isolated from the rest of the family, if you have one.

And since it'll never sell in mass-market numbers, its appeal to app developers is always going to be limited too.

Apple's next big thing isn't the Vision Pro. It's going to be the Apple AR glasses Tim Cook swooned about in 2017 but then never delivered.

You make the argument that AR glasses are the next big thing. Can I ask how? Don't these fall into the exact same niche product segment you mentioned? There aren't that many use cases that people will go out of their way to use AR devices when the watch, phone and maybe potentially Siri (if they ever focus on it) can do it nearly as well.

The most enticing features of a headset or glasses would be media consumption (gaming & movies) and that is done objectively better with immersion only attainable with a headset.

I've yet to hear any real use case that would be a "game changer" in the VR or AR space. And that is the crux of this whole thing. Just no reason to use them regardless of price.

 

[lilkwarrior]

I still don't know who this is for

Spatial computing has several benefits for:

- Private computing

- More optimal on-the-go/portable computing with better ergonomics than hunching over a physical screen

- Superior active content creation and DIY computing keeping your hands free like action sports (i.e. biking), dancing

- Superior in-the-moment content creation or capturing line concerts that is also less unobtrusive (i.e. it will be archaic having as many cameras in the way of concerts and etc)

- Multi-tasking spatially has plenty of advantages