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 Vision Pro Unlikely to Hit 500,000 Sales This Year, Says IDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the problem with this analogy is that the goggles aren’t really a new type of device/category/machine, whatever you want to call it that does anything new
Its really just a new-ish display format
The computer itself can’t do anything that can’t already be done, unlike when Macs (and PCs) were coming in to popularity
Why is this the conventional wisdom? Is there some inherent flaw with using a device with your hands? How is moving functions into a face computer better, more useful or more intuitive?
I think many people fail to realize that technology is not an inevitable march from one thing to the next. Take Steve Jobs’ favorite invention for example. The bicycle. It hasn’t changed significantly for over 200 years. Refinements, yes. But the core tech is exactly the same as what was introduced in 1812.
It is very much arguable that a touch screen computer that you hold in your hand is just such a technology. Idea for what it does. “Spatial Computing” may be change for change’s sake alone. The delivery mechanism for it would have to be so drastically different from what we see today that it may not even be possible.
Point being, the idea that Vision will become as mainstream and accepted as computers borders on unrealistic. There’s very little to suggest that outcome now or on any reasonable timeline.
Just because Apple made something doesn't mean it's inevitably going to be "the next thing"..
...not even "eventually"
People seem to really be struggling with the idea that Apple could have invested heavily into something that's quite simply ... "a mistake"
I think if any other company would have made the AVP, the narrative would be literally 180 degrees off from where some folks are at here
...not even "eventually"
People seem to really be struggling with the idea that Apple could have invested heavily into something that's quite simply ... "a mistake"
I think if any other company would have made the AVP, the narrative would be literally 180 degrees off from where some folks are at here
The Mac also wasn’t the first, but it introduced a new way of interacting with and how we think a computer should work, which is basically, how we all use them today.
I think the AVP is very likely to be the same kind of product.
How can that be? Sony’s production line for these displays only had the ability to produce 1 million of these displays needed this year. That was reported numerous times.
In what respect? Hand gestures? Eye tracking? Those are different ways to interact with software, but are they actually better? More intuitive? What is the inherent flaw with current computer interfaces that this solves? What productive task can you accomplish with Vision that simply isn’t possible with a traditional interface?
All of these questions and more have to be answered before such a system could even begin to compete with current software/hardware interfaces, let alone replace them.
The form factor was essentially the same as what was before (normal screen device in front of you)
You're reaching a bit here
Obviously I could turn out to be completely wrong,
But I very much doubt many people are going to strap on goggles to do the majority of their computing tasks
I could imagine a future where people use a projected spatial interface of some kind, but not everyone just wearing giant goggles all day
Well it's an overpriced piece of junk and they've suckered enough victims to buy it. Imagine charging 2500$ for a stupid Apple headset when your competitors charge 500 bucks for the same tech. Apple really are robbing people blind.
One assumes that Apple has had orders for the screens being filled for longer than the calendar year beginning with Vision’s launch, no?
Revenue is meaningless without the COGS + R&D
Let’s say they built 750,000. How many of those do they need to sell to break even?
Wouldn’t that be true also for the first iPhone? Revenues is a way of comparing taking into account that price is very different…
It won’t be big and clunky forever. Kinda like the first mobile phone, it was a briefcase. Everyone back then said this won’t catch on because of its form factor, which obviously, will always improve over time.
I’m talking about how it works, not what it looks like.
Two flaws in your logic:
(1) The iPod was not lacking music access. The iTunes Store was quite robust, and users could rip songs from CDs (or even use illegally pirated songs) to fill the player. The purchase numbers are the purchase numbers.
(2) The AVP is not "widely available." Only in recent weeks was it even available in a single country outside the US.
Further, that the AVP is selling at comparable numbers, despite costing nearly 8X an iPod ($3500 compared to the iPod's $399), is remarkable.
If you don't want it, don't buy it. But the numbers are encouraging for a first year product in an undeveloped market. Apple has proved the concept. Now they can IMPROVE the concept and grow the market in the years ahead.
The iPhone was essentially "subsidized" at launch (required 2 year AT&T contract) and prices were still dropped $200 less than three months later (same phone, same 2 year AT&T contract requirement, etc). Following the price cut, Apple ended up having to give ticked off early adopters a $100 gift card.
Even though it was a new phone (3G), prices were lowered even more the following year thanks to additional subsidies. The price of an 8GB iPhone decreased 2/3rds, going from $599 (original iPhone) to $199 (iPhone 3G), in one year.
My point was that had these rather significant price cuts not happened, it could've been a very different story for the iPhone. If the AVP was being similarly discounted, it would be doing much better.
You may be right: in that case also judging the success based on the mere units is pointless. How can you state that 400k Vision Pros are a success or not? Given the price, I don’t believe the expectation was to sell millions of units the first year.
No? That’s a very bold assumption for a low volume device, that was always going to be a low volume gen 1 device…
Ramp up likely began in November or December, and Sony has reportedly refused to expand the production line beyond its current capacity. There were never going to be half a million units *produced* at this point in time, let alone sales…
Yet being bought in the same volume as a $399 iPod in its first year. Shocking.
I was at an Orioles game yesterday, it was SO hot and muggy that most of our group split up to find seats in the shade and some went home in the first inning.
Watching sports in the comfort of your own home is so much better.
So, the answer is, yah.