Apple Vision Pro is NOT expensive and Not VR device.

[sunny5]

Microsoft HoloLens

Landing page for Microsoft HoloLens.

www.microsoft.com

First thing, Vision Pro is NOT just a VR device and you probably need to compare with AR device. There are quite a lot of people misunderstanding between AR and VR.

Beside, MS already made HoloLens several years ago and they cost $3500 so for Apple Vision Pro with a premium price, it's not really bad.

But yeah, I hope they can make Vision Air lower than $1000 in some point.

 

[romanof]

What most are apparently missing is the keyword in the name. This is a PRO device that few consumers would (or could) buy, just as is the Mac Pro - a computer not needed or affordable by most. I suspect that we will see the "non-pro" device once the hardware and software is proven and matures.

So why not start at the bottom and work up, just as was done with the M1 line? Because Apple is pushing the state of the art big time with this and has probably just barely carried the ball over the "Hey, it is finally working!" line. If they could make these right now for a retail price of, say $999, the plants would be in full production.

I am old enough to remember the predictions that color TV was a fad that would peak, then disappear. They cost too much, had lousy pictures, no available programming, could not be bumped even slightly without causing a service call... Had anyone said that one day you could get a 75 inch color TV that was an inch thick and cost (in 1960 dollars) about fifty bucks... Well, in those days the media had actual editors. They would not even have printed such nonsense.

If this device has a use that is wanted by the average person, mass production will bring the cost down just as it has done for everything else.

 

[FSMBP]

It is expensive. It has a lot of innovative tech that drove up the price...

I'm sure Apple could make an amazing iPhone for $2,500 (having insane battery life, bezel-less, Face ID camera under the screen, etc), but it would still be too expensive for what you get out of it.

This is just the first gen and things will change - but this is a tough first gen product.

 

[jimbobb24]

What most are apparently missing is the keyword in the name. This is a PRO device that few consumers would (or could) buy, just as is the Mac Pro - a computer not needed or affordable by most. I suspect that we will see the "non-pro" device once the hardware and software is proven and matures.

So why not start at the bottom and work up, just as was done with the M1 line? Because Apple is pushing the state of the art big time with this and has probably just barely carried the ball over the "Hey, it is finally working!" line. If they could make these right now for a retail price of, say $999, the plants would be in full production.

I am old enough to remember the predictions that color TV was a fad that would peak, then disappear. They cost too much, had lousy pictures, no available programming, could not be bumped even slightly without causing a service call... Had anyone said that one day you could get a 75 inch color TV that was an inch thick and cost (in 1960 dollars) about fifty bucks... Well, in those days the media had actual editors. They would not even have printed such nonsense.

If this device has a use that is wanted by the average person, mass production will bring the cost down just as it has done for everything else.

I hope it’s more like iPhone Pro at some point. Well within the reaches of most.

 

[HDFan]

Pricing starts at $3499. What options will be available? What will a fully configured headset cost?

 

[Longplays]

This will create more coach potatoes.

Sedentary lifestylers...

 

[frownface]

The AVP is not expensive for the amount of technology they've crammed into it.
But it is expensive in the absolute sense of the word.

 

[subjonas]

The AVP is not expensive for the amount of technology they've crammed into it.
But it is expensive in the absolute sense of the word.

Yeah “expensive” is a very general use word, because it totally depends on what you’re comparing to, and you can compare it to anything. Eg. a car is expensive compared to a bicycle but not compared to a house. I think “overpriced” is the word OP is looking for (that the VP is not overpriced). It’s more specific. Because something is only overpriced if you can feasibly get a very similar thing for cheaper by some other means.

 

[Night Spring]

Pricing starts at $3499. What options will be available? What will a fully configured headset cost?

I'm thinking storage. 500GB, 1TB, etc.

 

[wrcousert]

The iPad Pro has two different RAM configurations, based on the amount of storage you buy. I hope they don't do the same with the Vision Pro.

 

[frownface]

Yeah “expensive” is a very general use word, because it totally depends on what you’re comparing to, and you can compare it to anything. Eg. a car is expensive compared to a bicycle but not compared to a house. I think “overpriced” is the word OP is looking for (that the VP is not overpriced). It’s more specific. Because something is only overpriced if you can feasibly get a very similar thing for cheaper by some other means.

Yep.
It also heavily depends on the useful lifespan of the device.

If this is something you can buy once and use for life then $3.5k isn't so bad.

If it's a device that you have to replace every 3-5 years, and you need multiple in a household. Then that's going to be hefty.

Unfortunately, with a battery (which we don't know yet whether it'll be user servicable), plus an internal processor + OS; which will surely go out of date eventually. The latter is looking more likely.


With the first series of apple watches, apple tried to tackle the veblen goods market with the $10,000 18k gold apple watch edition.

Apparently Switzerland was ****ed.

Those $10k watches succumbed to the same obsolescence that affected the $400 sports model. Meanwhile the rolexes, cartiers and omegas from the same era are still valuable today and will continue to function and hold value in 50 years.

 

[menist]

If they want it in everybody's hands like a Mac, iPad, and iPhone, they need a cheaper alternative. This could be another trash can Mac pro.

 

[subjonas]

Yep.
It also heavily depends on the useful lifespan of the device.

If this is something you can buy once and use for life then $3.5k isn't so bad.

If it's a device that you have to replace every 3-5 years, and you need multiple in a household. Then that's going to be hefty.

Unfortunately, with a battery (which we don't know yet whether it'll be user servicable), plus an internal processor + OS; which will surely go out of date eventually. The latter is looking more likely.


With the first series of apple watches, apple tried to tackle the veblen goods market with the $10,000 18k gold apple watch edition.

Apparently Switzerland was ****ed.

Those $10k watches succumbed to the same obsolescence that affected the $400 sports model. Meanwhile the rolexes, cartiers and omegas from the same era are still valuable today and will continue to function and hold value in 50 years.

Very true, gotta factor in total cost of ownership, plus return value possibly even monetary if one uses it for work. That word “expensive” is hard to nail down.

The battery is external/detachable so pretty certain it’ll be easily replaceable, which is definitely good for longevity. So the processors and maybe the radios should determine how long the device will be usable. Hopefully the hardware will be supported in the ecosystem for a long long time.

 

[Jorbanead]

If they want it in everybody's hands like a Mac, iPad, and iPhone, they need a cheaper alternative. This could be another trash can Mac pro.

I think that’s obviously the goal here.

The original MacBook Air with an SSD was priced at $3,098 when it came out in 2008 ($4,369 adjusting for inflation). Now it’s Apples cheapest notebook.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

This will create more coach potatoes.

Sedentary lifestylers...

It won't create more coach potatoes (it won't even create more couch potatoes)... at most it will just be another device for those that already use other devices at home... More than likely it would be used the Apple Vision Pro instead of an iPad, or instead of an iPhone, or instead of a Mac at home. In a small way, it might encourage someone to get out of their seat (old device) and pace or wander around while using it. Even if it did, it is not the devices fault for 'making people sedentary'... that is the choice of the user.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I think that’s obviously the goal here.

The original MacBook Air with an SSD was priced at $3,098 when it came out in 2008 ($4,369 adjusting for inflation). Now it’s Apples cheapest notebook.

The first casualty on the list is likely to be the Varjo XR-3 (priced at $7,000EUR + subscription price). As the mass production and component prices come down in price they will eventually be able to make lower priced devices, but I cannot currently see it dropping below around $1,500USD (maybe in 3+ year's time) or so for the foreseeable future... Until they work out manufacturing these at scale (which they have not yet done) they will sell the same amount of devices at $3,500 as they will at $1,500 since it is going to be constrained in how many they can make. It is also why they are only initially releasing it in ONE market... the US... they won't have enough to sell it in more than one market.

 

[frownface]

Apple don't really do "cheap"

Their attempts at affordable typically fall into the upper-mid price range of their competitors. I don't really see this falling below 1.5k-2k.

 

[matrix07]

This will create more coach potatoes.

Sedentary lifestylers...

Just buy Apple Watch and it will notify you to get up once every hour.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Microsoft HoloLens

Landing page for Microsoft HoloLens.

www.microsoft.com

First thing, Vision Pro is NOT just a VR device and you probably need to compare with AR device. There are quite a lot of people misunderstanding between AR and VR.

Beside, MS already made HoloLens several years ago and they cost $3500 so for Apple Vision Pro with a premium price, it's not really bad.

But yeah, I hope they can make Vision Air lower than $1000 in some point.

Your title is wrong, it is an expensive device... what you are justifying in the body of your argument is not that it is not expensive but that it provides value for the price. Those are completely different things. For the average consumer, this is an expensive device.

 

[TLewis]

People really aren't getting the Vision Pro.

• Just as the Apple Lisa and Macintosh 128K were harbingers of the future, so is this.
• Just as the Apple Lisa and Macintosh 128K were horribly unaffordable for most families, so is this. Adjusted for today's dollars, a Lisa would cost around $30000 today and a Macintosh 128K would cost over $7000. The Vision Pro is "cheap" by comparison (but still unaffordable by most). So it's unaffordable. Gen1 devices often are. I'll also guess that a decently-configured Vision Pro will cost around $4000-$4500. Screw the $3500.
• Computers with GUIs and a mouse were unaffordable in the beginning, yet here we are. While this will sell, I don't see it becoming "affordable" for at least another 10-15+ years -- possibly longer. Yes, we'll all be waiting a long time.

 

[kkee]

Starting at $3500 is not overpriced for Apple Standard. Honestly I expected it to be over $5k for the first gen. Remember this is a company which sells a monitor stand for a $1000 (excluding the monitor). Apple is a branded company regardless how you'd think about it.

It's not cheap but it's not overpriced either. The value of having different experience for the first time with Apple products are invaluable for some people. Which is why I have no concern whatsoever that nobody is getting one. In fact I have a suspicion it will be a long waiting list before you can get hold of one. Time will tell.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

People just have differ price thresholds depending on the product. Those who won’t spend $3500 on the Vision Pro, would spend it on something else you might find ridiculous.

 

[matrix07]

People just have differ price thresholds depending on the product. Those who won’t spend $3500 on the Vision Pro, would spend it on something else you might find ridiculous.

This guy - a home theater enthusiast- has a convincing argument, in that Vision Pro is a Sony OLED TV that you can scale it as big as you’d like.
Consider the price of those hi-end Sony TV at ~ 70”, Vision Pro is already cheaper.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

If they will be able to buy it, Sony - the maker of the OLED panels (2 needed per headset) is only producing about 200,000 per quarter and either cannot or won't (my guess is cannot) per quarter... or a maximum of 100K headsets per quarter...

 

[solq]

This guy - a home theater enthusiast- has a convincing argument, in that Vision Pro is a Sony OLED TV that you can scale it as big as you’d like.
Consider the price of those hi-end Sony TV at ~ 70”, Vision Pro is already cheaper.

But a normal OLED TV can be watched my multiple people at once. And it’s going to be sharper and not give you eye strain.

Like any VR headset, watching tiny screens a couple of inches away from your eye (that’s where you keep your focus, all the time) is not good for your eyes nor something you should do for too long.