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 Mixed-Reality Headset Shipments Now Estimated to 'Fall Short of 100,000 Units' This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The developers to embark in any project have to know who the project is aimed at, what type of app would you make and for whom? There has to be customers for your app, even if they are businesses.
My guess is the headset would be aimed at business and top tier professionals and be very niche.
No body will develop, say, games for it if it's $3K with no installed base, there might be proof of concepts here and there but not real apps.
But Apple Silicon had use cases from the get-go. It was a better way of running iPadOS/macOS than anything before it (in macOS's case, Intel chips).
the more articles that come out the more I’m convinced that I’ll end up buying one or at least trying.
this seems like it’ll be really cool and I’d be happy to be a “beta tester” that so many of you seem to hate being when it comes to a first-gen Apple product lol.
remember that return policies exist…
this seems like it’ll be really cool and I’d be happy to be a “beta tester” that so many of you seem to hate being when it comes to a first-gen Apple product lol.
remember that return policies exist…
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How about the 2006-07 stupidity of expecting people to run around with a brick of glass and potentially explosive lithium in our pockets?
But that kind of worked out.
Last edited:
Most people hate it because first-gen products tend to be a mess.
Look at first-gen Apple Watch. In less than 3 years it was practically unusable. The Series 3 held up way longer.
Same with iPad. 2nd gen iPad lasted much longer.
I doubt AS silicon would have done as well in the beginning if it was relying entirely on Rosetta. For something entirely new like this we won’t know what use cases would be possible until developers make it possible, just like how iPhones became so successful only after third party apps started appearing for everything.
If it looks like the renders it's DOA. No one is going to wear Oculus-style VR headsets in their daily lives.
It's bad enough that everyone has their noses stuck in their smartphones when they walk around as it is.
Very true. The issue, however, is the price. Anyone expecting a “cheap” consumer model a year later is likely to be disappointed. Apple has never released a product and then come out with a cheap version a year later. That certainly didn’t happen with the iPhone.
AS running on Rosetta already had significant benefits over Intel.
For one, the fans didn't turn on every time you opened up a more demanding app.
Just like with the Apple Arcade and Windows App Store back in the day, it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple subsidizes developers who develop for the goggles/glasses to reduce their risk while allowing for more options out the gate when consumers would presumably buy.
Still a risky endeavor as it’s uncertain if this concept can acquire a broad consumer audience.
this is true, BUT this is so much different and the first generation packs a ton of technology into it from the jump.
think about the resale value too. if they’re going to be that difficult to get, you can probably still turn a nice profit when the second gen. comes out.
that’s my thought at least.
Apple’s cameras and chips are so much more advanced now compared to when the first iPhone, iPad and Watch came out.
I don’t see this being slow/buggy.
I will say, Apple killed the Newton when it was finally getting good. From what I have read though, because it was a Sculley product, Jobs would have killed it no matter how good it was.
Yes, but a lot of things were also not reliable enough (or simply didn’t run) for people to rely on, especially for many pro apps. I waited a year before getting my first AS Mac, and even then I had to wait some months for some things to get updated.
Insert my previous parody and mockery of the product category and non-surprise at how little demand there is for a VR helmet.
I welcome the usual suspects to come and argue how I just don't understand how 100,000 shipments in a year is somehow a victory in a market space totaling 2,500,000,000 possible customers.
I welcome the usual suspects to come and argue how I just don't understand how 100,000 shipments in a year is somehow a victory in a market space totaling 2,500,000,000 possible customers.
Exactly the comparison that came to my mind. Also, Lisa was the only was to develop Mac apps, so it was basically a $10K developer’s kit.
It's hilarious how many people know the price of an unannounced product.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This idea that a "cheaper, consumer version is coming" doesn't seem to have much history to back it up. When has modern Apple established a price and then rolled out significantly cheaper version of mostly the same thing?
Even the cheapest new iPhone available right now is much more expensive than the original iPhone.
When Apple does develop an "economy" product, what happens? Apparently many of those who verbally say they are interested in it instead pay up for the "premium" one. Why? They want the maximum experience. Both the cheaper iPhone 14s and the PRO & MAX versions do the same things, run the very same apps, etc. And yet... we see stories/rumors of Apple having a hard time selling many of the lower end models... which are the cheaper ones. Why? It seems that even the cash-strapped Apple fans want deluxe versions.
What would make this consumer Goggles (GEN 2) product cheaper? Less cameras? Strip cameras out of iPhone and people opt up for the better cameras. Would it have lower resolution? Cut resolution and people opt up for higher resolution. Weaker (cheaper) chips for slower processing? People opt up for "latest & greatest" chips. Less battery? Less RAM (see endless rants about "only" 8GB of RAM). Monocle instead of TWO 4K screens for a VR experience only if you close the uncovered eye?
We have this idea that a cheaper version will follow because that early price shock (solely based upon someone's perhaps wild guess that this will cost $3K) made some speculate that a cheaper version must follow... and/or other cuts at Consumer VR were priced much lower than $3K... so Apple must roll out something that is as cheaply priced as other VR goggles (like iPhones or iPads must be as cheaply priced as Androids and Amazon Fire products?)
Now we take BOTH rumors (this model is $3K and the latter one will be less/for consumers/etc) as if it is absolute truth. What if it's not? What if GEN 2 improves upon GEN 1 and thus pricing of GEN 2 is HIGHER? I've seen that movie with modern Apple many times before. Recall when the spin to rationalize Silicon was that since Apple would no longer have to pay the Intel premium, Silicon Macs could be cheaper. While that one had high plausibility (that was actually possible), I'm still watching for them cheaper Silicon Macs.
We actually know NOTHING about this product, the price of this product, nor any tangible rumors about a gen 2+ because we don't even know what gen 1 is yet. For all we know, this might be Mac Pro, which, if $3K, would flip opinions to "bargain" by simply branding it Mac Pro. "A Mac Pro for only $3K? OMG! Shut up and take my money!!!" Until we see what it is and an actual price, we have no way of knowing relative value, ripoff vs. bargain, etc.
Last edited:
Considering the billions they’ve spent on R&D, yeah, $300M in revenue would be pretty weak.
Have you seen the real product?