This was almost 25 years ago, when Apple had an easy to understand product line, and not a dozen variations of everything now, with ridiculous names differentiating them.
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 Likely to Make Vision Pro Lineup More Affordable in Two Ways
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This was almost 25 years ago, when Apple had an easy to understand product line, and not a dozen variations of everything now, with ridiculous names differentiating them.
So many "I don't want it so no one should" comments. Typical for every AVP thread.
Remember when Mac users had imaginations? Good times.
Remember when Mac users had imaginations? Good times.
those headset aren't going to be released till 2027 gotta get more sales out of the current one on the market
If you do any significant work on that 13-inch MacBook Air for any length of time, you have a use case. I have grown to love my AVP resizable 5120x1440 virtual display so much that I have little use for all the monitors I have sitting on my desk. It is truly a game changer for me. If these things were $300, display sales for Mac would take a hit.
I can’t get over how, before the AVP was released, every analyst said Apple could only produce 400–500,000 units in 2024, and now every analyst is like “Apple only sold 500,00 units this year! Apple is doomed!”
I’ve been saying since day one that Apple has planted their flag for MVE (minimal viable *experience*) when it comes to resolution.
Apple is not going to lower the resolution, period. It’s vital to the experience and they’re not going to degrade it, costs for these displays will fall over time and they’re skating to where the puck is going.
Apple is not going to lower the resolution, period. It’s vital to the experience and they’re not going to degrade it, costs for these displays will fall over time and they’re skating to where the puck is going.
I think Apple to a degree still has that strategy. Every product they have has one with pro in the name, and one without it in the name.
There’s some variations, but even Steve was headed on this path. iPod nano. iPod shuffle. iPod Classic. iPod Touch. And that’s just with iPods.
The MacBook lineup was starting to get fragmented before he stepped down as CEO. He introduced the MacBook Air, then they had a plastic MacBook and an aluminum MacBook, then a base Macbook Pro that wasn’t really pro and hard to distinguish between the non-pro model. It kinda was turning into a mess.
It will go through it maturity stages and will look much smaller and easier to carry 10 years from now.
People wore the VP on the streets and subway 🚇 social media showed.
Don't know how much Apple will reduce the price. In the future, expecting Apple to price it atleast at $1999. A lower resolution display is a way to start reducing the cost. Also not expecting to see the next Vision headset in the near future.
No one likes wearing this thing on their face for any extended period of time. Not to mention the countless circumstances when using a phone use is easy but using a headset would be cumbersome at best or dangerous at worst. Unlike an early iPhone adopter e-mailing a picture to Grandma on her CRT iMac, viewing spatial content made for/recorded on AVP requires another AVP or the experience is crippled or impossible. Also, Grandma is NEVER getting an AVP.
The AVP is not sparking any kind of computing revolution like smartphones did. Apple will keep half-assing and over-hyping what they have until it's finally something the masses want or until their money runs out.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
To get the $1999 price by embracing what the pessimists will then call a much blurrier experience, does that actually accomplish anything? Because as soon as Vpro compromises the "vision" part, it's basically the same "blurrier" image available on far-cheaper-than $1999 units already in the market.
Last edited:
yeah but a hundred thousand in Silicon Valley is barely enough for a bag of rice
Look how fast they went from a 1T company to 2, to 3, to 4. It's out of control.
I don't understand what your statement proves other than the fact that most people won't buy something they don't need or want.
This is not the measure of every tech product on the market. A product doesn't have to have the reach and impact of smartphones in order to be considered a success.
Home pods will never spark any kind of computing revolution like smartphones did. I, personally, have no use for or interest in Home pods, full size or mini. I've never owned one and likely never will.
You know what else? I've never even opened a HomePod-related thread on MacRumors much less replied to one. Presumably they're full of happy HomePod buyers and users who are enjoying their products and discussing the future of the product line. There's nothing of interest or value that I can contribute to those threads.
Last edited:
That's the Steve Jobs era, now the lineup would not fit in the entire screen, pro, air regular version, mini, plus , max and so on.
Steve was in the right path, few choices is better, less bloat and less devices to account for.
But hey, I might be living in the past. ( And loving it )
It's a no-brainer. Major Apple devices have at least two versions: iPad Air/Pro, MacBook Air/Pro, iPhone SE/iPhone/iPhone Pro, etc. Apple will do the same for Vision. I'd call it Apple Vision Air, especially if it's lighter than the Pro.
By that logic, perhaps don't reply to it, then?
At the very least, I find the agreements and disagreements with my post interesting and informative.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There are no $4T valuation companies with a tiny (AKA "simple") mix of products. The biggest of "big oil" companies is in that same valuation space and they have a surprisingly large portfolio of products & services beyond only canning crude.
Jobs era simplification wasn't necessarily genius but required to save Apple from dying. It was so close, he had to borrow relatively small money from Microsoft to keep Apple's doors open. Was that genius or was that desperation at play?
The relatively small mix of products fit well into the 2000s because that Apple was far smaller than 2024's Apple. If anything, 2024 Apple needs a broader mix of products and services to maintain growth. Part of why many of us have that "nickel & diming" frustration is driven by Apple having probably too FEW offerings and thus attempting to harvest every possible nickel out of each of them.
I know this for sure: they don't make anything that has no buyers at a profit. The product that makes the least sense to any one poster is someone else's ideal choice of the one they want to buy or own now. There should be no assumption that if 4 or 5 iPhone models was reduced back down to 1 iPhone model, that all iPhone buyers would just happily take the "one size fits all" option again. That ship sailed when “good revenue” for Apple swung from millions to many billions each year. The only way back is if Apple (revenue) swung the other way (again).
Last edited:
I use my Quest Pro 3 because the games are engaging enough to deal with all the negatives of wearing a giant thing on your head. It’s the only use case for me that’s worth the trade off and even then, only in small bursts.
it's not just about money
it could be $100 and I still wouldn't be interested
I'll be suprised if this category ever really takes off
even vr gaming is super niche
...
I was at the mall the other day and walked by the Apple Store, I noticed that while the store was VERY busy there was a whole corner that seemed completely empty and abandoned. upon closer inspection it was the table with a couple headsets on it. no one seemed to even be glancing at them let alone interested in them
it could be $100 and I still wouldn't be interested
I'll be suprised if this category ever really takes off
even vr gaming is super niche
...
I was at the mall the other day and walked by the Apple Store, I noticed that while the store was VERY busy there was a whole corner that seemed completely empty and abandoned. upon closer inspection it was the table with a couple headsets on it. no one seemed to even be glancing at them let alone interested in them
Sure, but think of how much more you could have made if Apple was spending that money on iPhone research and development rather than these dead end projects. They’re selling the same iPhone for the fifth or six year in a row now while everyone else has moved on behind on every aspect with phones, except for silicon
Going forward, the field of AR and VR is wide open for Apple.
AVP and where Apple is now just scratches the surface. It takes just a wee bit of thinking and imagination to see the future potential.
AVP and where Apple is now just scratches the surface. It takes just a wee bit of thinking and imagination to see the future potential.
I think the issue is that, historically, Apple is always conservative on how popular a new product is. Their internal expectations always leak, and then in reality, they sell like 5-10 times more than that. This is the first product where it's been barely living up to expectations.
That said - I owned an AVP originally; I thought it was cool but nowhere near worth $4000 (the actual price when all is said and done). I returned mine, but I'll probably buy one again when they make it cheaper - I think $1500-$2000 is where they need to be to sell in numbers that make it a worthwhile platform for third party developers. Here's how I think they get there:
1. Drop EyeSight (not useful)
2. Drop the speakers (everyone uses AirPods anyway)
3. Use an older processor (or what will be an older processor in 2026/7, maybe the M4 or M5)
4. Drop the display resolution slightly (not much, it already is at the minimum of what I consider to be acceptable)
5. Accept that you need to sell it at a lower margin for a while to achieve market success