The original Mac Computer was sold for $2,495, in 2023 dollars that’s ~$7,285. it would appear the ~$3,000 cost of a generation one device may be more of a bargain than it appears. 💴👀😉
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
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm not suggesting that Apple release a "cheap" product. I'm saying that I don't think the product will sell particularly well if it's not "accessory" priced. It's an accessory. It's highly unlikely that it will function as a stand-alone product. It will need an iPhone, iPad or Mac to work. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it's iOS only for the first release.
If the headset comes in at the rumored $3000, only the most affluent, hardcore fans will buy it. There won't be much of a market, so developers probably won't devote much time to developing for it. Look at the total wasteland that is the Apple TV App Store. It's dismal. (Apple should just kill apps on the Apple TV altogether. The Apple TV App Store is a stain on Apple's image.) More and more developers seem to be abandoning the Watch as well, despite the fact that Apple sells tens of millions of those.
Above $1000, I think the headset will be a very hard sell. There are niche use cases like multiple virtual monitors that will appeal to certain users, but these users are a very small percentage of Apple's overall customers. I don't think many people will pay $3000 to watch a movie on the virtual big screen or to transform sunbathing on the deck at home into a day at the beach. I also don't believe that AR is going to take off until it's in our eyeglasses and contact lenses. Goggles, no matter how Apple-stylish, are a non-starter for many people. I'm happy to eat my words if I'm wrong, but I don't see people wearing AR goggles around.
I think you're completely wrong about the "nichness" being baked into the economic equation. They have devoted many years and likely spent several billion dollars in R&D on this product. On some level, everyone in tech is watching this product and wondering if Apple still has the magic. This is the first major new product category that doesn't have Steve's fingerprints somewhere. It's the first truly new major product since the iPhone. On some basic level, the iPad is just a big iPhone and the Watch is a small one. The headset is something completely new.
So no, I don't think "nicheness" is baked in anywhere. Apple has been pushing AR for years, despite the fact that not many people seem to use it much on the iPhone. This is a legacy product, maybe THE legacy product, for Tim Cook. No one at Apple wants this to be a "niche" product.
I expect it to function as a stand-alone product. It will be a full computer, not a headset that needs to be tethered to another Apple device.
This is what I'm saying, and this is for a first generation device meant for developers with a rumored consumer edition following which should be substantially cheaper. A 13" Macbook Pro starts at $1299 with a vanilla M2 chip. If the consumer edition of this headset ends up being $1500 with a M2 chip, it's not that crazy of a price. Even the $3k developer model, I'll bet they stick a M2 Max into that, if not a M3.
When has Apple ever released an expensive first generation device for developers, only to follow up with a "consumer" edition? Um, never. This silly idea just won't die, despite the fact that there's no historical precedent for such a move. Without confirmation that a "consumer" device is coming soon, why would developers spend their precious time and resources developing? And what about all of the non-developer buyers who will feel screwed over a year later when the "consumer" edition arrives?
Apple just doesn't operate this way. The price point they set for a new product pretty much defines future pricing. Could they release a gimped "SE" version of the headset in the future? Sure. But it will be full of compromises, just like their other SE products. This silly "it's a developer product" rumor needs to die. It makes no sense. It's totally illogical. Developers aren't going to spend time and money on a product no one is buying, nor are they going to develop with the hope that Apple releases something more affordable in the future.
I don't know that it will need to be tethered to operate, but I imagine it will require an iOS device or Mac to setup, install apps, media, etc. In short, I think it's another "ecosystem" product, like the Watch, not a standalone device. I'll be quite shocked if it can operate completely independent of an iOS device or Mac.
I don’t believe that Apple wants the headset to only be taken up by developers but they must know that it will take time to build up interest from the general populace. The first gen is likely to be purchased by developers, enthusiasts, and companies.
As to precedence, you might have to go back a while, but there are parallels with the launch of the Lisa followed by the launch of the Macintosh. The Lisa was more powerful, more expensive and only sold in small numbers to a very technical crowd. They used learnings from the Lisa and applied them to slower but less expensive components to bring out the first Macintosh. That was when the Mac caught people’s attention and sold to a wider audience.
Agreed. However, I don't think we'll see a "consumer" version anytime soon. The price point they establish for this new product category will be the price point for the foreseeable future. Eventually they'll get the price down and offer a few models with different features/specs, but the idea that this first release is "for developers" and that a "consumer" version will land soon after at 1/3 the price, as many have suggested here, is just laughable.
That argument is a total reach. You're talking 40 years ago. That doesn't count in my book. Apple is a completely different company today. The entire industry is completely different. If you look at Apple post Steve's return, which is what I consider to be the Apple of today, there's zero precedent. Furthermore, it took many many years for the Mac to even turn a profit. That was one of the reasons Jobs got the boot. He wanted to go all-in on the Mac and kill the Apple II line despite the fact that the Apple II line was keeping Apple afloat. The Lisa was insanely expensive. The Mac was just crazy expensive.
I don't think the Lisa comparison holds up either, because Apple was just getting their footing at the time. They learned from the experience of the Lisa, but I don't think they set out to create a "developer only" device. In fact, the Macintosh was developed in parallel with the Lisa by Jobs (who'd been kicked off the team developing the Lisa), in effect in competition with the Lisa. Those two products almost represented two rival factions within the company. I highly doubt anything like that is going on with the Reality Pro. Saying the goggles are "developer only" seems like a cope, a way to shield against accusations of failure. If they're only for developers, then they don't need to be a commercial success, therefore they will succeed no matter what happens. (Well, unless developers don't like them either).
Ok let's go on the assumption that there will never be a cheaper consumer grade device. Cost of manufacturing, possibly in-housing some hardware, vendor deals, etc should all improve as with any other hardware and allow Apple to sell this for cheaper as the technology matures. Even then, if this is really $3k for consumers, it's still not out of line with buying a Macbook Pro or desktop.
I get that your average consumer doesn't want a set of goggles attached to their head for most of the day, but I can still see significant utility outside of the "play" space. Virtual meetings, using this on an airplane, remote medical care, manufacturing, etc. But even in the play space, we have consumers paying $1800 for video cards to add to their multi thousand dollar computers just to play games. Again, I don't see this product as something that will sell like an iPhone, it will be a niche product where Apple plays the long game and builds an enticing ecosystem around. The one thing that I think would catapult this over the top would be simply a video out port, if it truly has a M2 chip and you can still connect it to an external and/or portable monitor that would be huge IMO.
But with all that said, I still personally disagree. Maybe it's just semantics, developer edition, consumer edition, who cares, it all boils down to having multiple products at different price points regardless of what label you put on them. Virtually all of Apple's hardware products have cheaper versions. iPhone Pro Max, or iPhone SE? Macbook Pro or Macbook Air? Etc etc. Apple is savvy enough to compete for the absolute flagship market where money is no object, and also compete for consumers who want a good product, have some money, but aren't ready for flagship prices.
Well said. The "it's for developers" argument makes no sense whatsoever. Developers aren't going to allocate the time and resources to developing for a product that only other developers are buying. Like you said, that argument is a cope, a way to conveniently move the goal posts to fit the narrative. Comparing the headset to the Lisa is just more smoke and mirrors. Bottom line, Apple wants to sell a lot of these. If this product fails, many will view that failure as a sign that Apple has lost its magic. This is a huge release for them on many levels, not some hobby project.
To be clear, I don't doubt that, eventually, we will see multiple products within the headset line. I also don't doubt that Apple will bring the price down somewhat over the coming years. I am pushing back against the argument that this first release is a "developer release" and that we'll soon see a much cheaper consumer version. There's no precedent for this and it also just doesn't make sense. Apple likely already has blessed developers working on apps. They want consumers to buy this device.
While some people do spend $3000+ on a computer, most do not. For the headset to be anything but a very niche product, it needs to be priced under $1000. Many of the use cases people toss around, like video conferencing, are plausible on the surface, but when you stop to consider that each person on the call needs to buy a headset, those arguments fall apart pretty quickly. If the headset truly costs $3000 and there are ten people on the call, that's a $30,000 investment for video conferencing. I don't see any company spending that kind of money when Zoom and existing hardware gets the job done for $0.
I honestly think your panties are wound way too tightly about the whole "developer" thing, that's simply a rumor and nothing else, hence the forum name Mac"RUMORS" Personally I just see it as semantics, but if virtually every other piece of hardware Apple sells is anything to judge by, then there will eventually be different price levels for this product. Will that be this year, or even next year? No, probably not, but eventually (and *IF* it actually makes a profit) there will, IMO, most definitely be different price points.
I also disagree about the $1000 price point, but only without knowledge of what their actual cost to build and market one of these things. Most of the rumors I've read say that there is a very tight profit margin, if any, on that $3k so I wouldn't expect that price to drop until Apple has built an ecosystem of apps, or whatever "service" they will build around it, if they plan on offer it at a loss. Although even with Apple's App Store and all their services, when have they ever offered hardware at a loss? $1k is at least 5 years away IMO, and maybe longer. But at $3k I think there is enough utility there versus something equally or even higher priced, such as a macbook pro or desktop, where it will sell in sufficient numbers to keep Apple playing the long game. Hell Apple is still selling those atrocious AirPods Max at an astounding $549 (although if you are a audiophile you would know that's actually not a lot in that world).
Finally, this is all in the realm of speculation because we don't know what we are getting. If we get a passive VR device like the Quest 2 for example, then there is no way in hell they will sell any of these to anyone at $3k, no matter how good the specs. However, if as rumored (again that "rumor" thing) this has a M2 chip and its own OS where you can run desktop quality apps on a huge virtual screen, then that's a different story as I've been saying and will easily make it worth the price IMO. Would I personally buy something like that? Yeah I think I would if it had a video out port. Lots of maybes, I guess we will find out soon.
What do you think a better term would be? (preferably a term that wouldn't include video glasses, but may include something like a CAVE)
I wouldn‘t have expected many people to be spending $1000 on a portable phone, plus a $1000 fee each year to use it. But today's "phones" are multipurpose computers that are able to reproduce and usually exceed the capability of over a dozen electronic devices from the 90's.
I don't see many people buying a $3000 headset just for a big screen experience, but as one capability among many.
And many people were perfectly happy with a computer that is fixed to one location. I think most people would have a use for a screen that is at least sometimes bigger than 13", even if they don't always need it, or they think the weight and portability advantage of a 13" screen is worth the tradeoff. What people think they need changes with the availability of technology.
Apple can use the first headset to analyze how people use it, and inform their decisions on what to compromise on when making a cheaper device.
I don't expect that many families of 4 would buy four $3000 headsets instead of a TV. But it could be like the transition from desktop computers to smartphones. Families used to share a single computer, but now most of them have a phone for each member of the family.
Quest headsets require a phone for initial setup, but not beyond that. You can use it to browse the app store while not using the headset, in the same way I often browse the Steam store on my iPad, even though it can’t be used to play the games, except through streaming.
I don’t expect the Apple headset to be any more dependent on an external device than the Quest is, and I expect that it won’t require any other Apple hardware to set up or operate.
A watch simply has many physical constraints that don’t apply to a headset.
You (and others) are saying this is a release aimed at developers, not me. I'm simply responding to that idea and saying that it's silly, makes no sense, and has no precedent. This product, like all the rest, is aimed at consumers.
Agreed.
Enough utility versus a MacBook Pro? Are you kidding? I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be sorely disappointed by the limited feature set when it's released. There are so many wild ideas about all of the features it will have, just like the lead-up to the Apple Watch. In the end, the Watch turned out to be much more limited than most of the hardcore fans thought it would be. Even now, how many generations later, we still don't have a lot of the features that many Watch enthusiasts believed would be part of the first generation product. I think history is about to repeat itself with the headset.
You're still going to need a MacBook Pro or iPhone to use the headset. I see no chance that it's a standalone device that can be setup without owning any other Apple products. At $3000, this thing is a luxury novelty for the 1%, not something for the masses. I stand by my belief that it needs to come in under $1000 for it sell in any kind of significant numbers. Without sales, developers won't develop for it, just like hardly anyone develops for the Apple TV today.
Agreed. It's all speculation. I don't think those rumors are remotely true either. I don't think it will run desktop quality apps on a huge virtual screen. I think that's one of those fantasy features, like the early Watch fantasy features. I can imagine it serving as a virtual display for a Mac or iOS device, though. Supposing it is a standalone device, runs its own apps, etc., I still think $3K will be a hard sell for most people. Put on a pair of ski goggles and spend the day wearing them and tell me if that's really how you want to spend your work day. I also don't think most people want to experience "reality" through a camera and screens.
No, I'm just discussing rumors out there, it almost seems you are under the impression that I have insider information or something. That's why it's a discussion, I hear you that you think it's ridiculous there will be a developer version, point taken, although that's not the point I was making. Unfortunately I used the "developer" version terminology instead of saying I felt there will eventually be less expensive price points.
Enough utility versus a Macbook Pro? Yes if *some* rumors are to be believed, but again it's just a discussion and any points either of us make are moot until something is actually unveiled. But IMO if this has a M2 chip, has an OS and the ability to run desktop apps and programs without being tethered, then I'd personally be comfortable purchasing if it had a video out. That means possibly replacing most, if not all, of my existing devices. But again I have no idea what's going to be unveiled. Again, whether it still needs a Mac or iPhone to use we don't know yet. If it's not a standalone device then I agree, $3k is way overpriced for the general consumer market if this is just piggybacking off a computer or phone.
But I don't think we disagree in essence, we just choose to ascribe to different rumors. Let's wait a little bit more and see what actually gets revealed.
Lol. I've never once thought you (or anyone else here) has insider information. What I've said all along, in this thread and others, is that the "it's for developers, the cheap consumer version will come soon after" argument is ridiculous. That's not how Apple works. Never has been. It's illogical and implausible on so many levels. This product is aimed at everyone and there won't be a "consumer" version next year. That's all I've said.
Fair enough. That would make for a much more interesting product than the one I suspect we'll get.
Which is precisely why it won't be that product! Apple is about building an ecosystem and selling you many different products. Do you really think they want people to replace "most, if not all" of their existing devices? Think it through.
I suspect it will, if their other "accessory" products are any indicator. I think the headset will follow the Watch model. It will be able to operate somewhat independently, but it will still be tied in to the ecosystem and require one of Apple's primary computing platforms (macOS and iOS) for certain functions.
I think it's neither. It won't be fully stand alone, but it won't require constant connection to another device either. Again, I see the Watch as a pretty good model for how the headset fits in to the Apple ecosystem.
I agree. I think we're largely on the same page. I think you're just a lot more optimistic than I am about the possible feature set.
Why? A watch has a tiny screen and very constrained input. What about a VR headset with onboard compute would make it unsuitable as a completely standalone device requiring no other Apple hardware? What functions would require a separate Apple device? I’m guessing it won’t run Mac apps natively, and those may require some sort of Airplay mirroring to work from the headset. But there’s no reason they couldn’t allow native desktop-class apps.
The iPhone replaced the iPod. Apple doesn't mind one product replacing another if it is significantly more expensive.
On the other hand, an iPhone docked to a display would be powerful enough to replace a desktop Mac for many users, but that would probably cut into Apple's profits more than it would help them sell more iPhones.
For many people, the iPad and/or iPhone has replaced the need for a Mac.
From what Gurman was saying Apple see this as a stand alone device going Forward and Apple expects people will in the future use this all day. Maybe it surprises and is cheaper than we expect.
I can totally understand his point, as it's been one I've been making for years. Just the simple fact that Mac Os isn't available on iPads is the strongest argument here; Apple simply wants users to buy 2 devices, 3 if you count your iPhone. I could comfortably use my Samsung Fold as a single device, desktop via Dex, tablet unfolded, and phone folded (although each of those are admittedly compromised somewhat, but the foundation is there).
I also see your point, if $3k goggles replaced $1k iPhones I'm sure Apple would be ok with that. But consumer pricing is probably much higher than that when factoring in for a iPad and a Macbook. Even at the lower end many consumers are already spending close to that $3k already, at least the consumers who would consider replacing it all with standalone goggles.
Personally I'm quite fascinated with the proposition of having a standalone device, but already see many issues, and that's *IF* the rumors I like come true. If this has a M2 chip and is truly standalone it's going to be amazing IMO, and Apple can force you to buy other hardware simply by NOT including a video out. But if hell freezes over and Apple actually makes this standalone and includes a video out, personally I think these will sell really well. More realistically they are almost definitely going to neuter these, no video out and some sort of reliance on existing Apple hardware.
Why? Simple. Because this is Apple we're talking about. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it will happen. Apple is about customer lock-in, growing their ecosystem, and sucking as much subscription revenue as possible out of each customer. This headset will expand the ecosystem, not replace existing ecosystem devices.
Silly argument. First and foremost, a few power nerds aside, no one is going to want to replace his or her iPhone or Mac with goggles. Like I said in another post, spend the day wearing a pair of ski goggles and tell me that's really how you want to spend your work day. The phone is very convenient. Slip it in your pocket when not in use. Notifications are easy. Glance at the screen and put the phone back in your pocket.
With the headset, you're wearing silly goggles all day with an external battery pack (that won't have all-day battery life, so there's BIG problem #1). Think it through. Why would anyone replace the sublime convenience of an iPhone with such a clunky solution? Maybe one day, when the goggles are lightweight AR glasses that have all day battery life and no external battery pack...but we're a decade away from that, at least.
The iPhone replaced the iPod (and point and shoot camera) because it was a logical evolution. There's nothing logical about VR goggles replacing an iPhone (or Mac). I also strongly doubt that most people want to experience their day to day "reality" through cameras and and screens.
Exactly.
I don't know about that. Apple's Mac sales have been quite strong in recent years. It seems that more and more people are buying Macs, not replacing them with iPhone or iPad.
I'm curious, why would you want a video out? You wouldn't see it live, and any recording can be done by the headset itself.
But why make it an artificial requirement to have other devices if it’s already a practical requirement? You’re making my case for me here. I don’t think the first generation device will completely replace the need for other devices for most people, so there’s not really a financial benefit to making it an artificial requirement. And by providing technologies like Handoff, people are still incentivized to get an iPhone when shopping for their next phone, because it makes the HMD more valuable for them.
And if it does replace a device, it surely won’t be an iPhone. I wasn’t suggesting it would by bringing up the fact that the iPhone replaced the iPod. If anything, the HMD may replace the need for a desktop or laptop computer for people who only occasionally need a bigger screen, but mostly get by just fine with a phone as their primary computer.
I think they just mean that it could be used as a Mac mini. Why buy a headset and a Mac mini when the headset is just as powerful and could be used as a Mac?
There are a number of reasons. First and foremost, I imagine that Apple views the headset as an accessory, not a new platform on the same level as iOS and macOS. If the rumors about the external battery pack and short battery life are true, there's a user experience argument to be made for making the headset more of an accessory and less of a platform. There's really no technical reason the Watch can't be a standalone product. With Siri and dictation, setup could be very easy. Apple chooses to keep the Watch artificially dependent upon the iPhone and I imagine they'll follow the same approach with the headset.
For sure.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't think people are going to want to wear goggles to do work or surf the web. I also don't think the person who occasionally needs a bigger screen is going to drop $3K for a headset either, not when a $500 iPad does the trick.
To spend $3K, you need to be very invested and see a lot of benefits. That's going to be the hard sell for Apple. They have to convince the general public that this headset's features are worth that kind of spend. Proponents keep bringing up these niche and casual use cases, none of which will sell the device to the general public in my opinion.