Cheaper Apple Vision Headset Likely to Launch by End of 2025

[dasjati]

The next generation of this device category will be much improved. I expect the first gen device to be discontinued at that point, like they did with the first iPhone, first iPad, first Apple Watch.

The first generation often is a public beta, a kind of preview, a mass produced prototype. Something to show off the near future.

I would also expect, that this model is the new baseline and a future more affordable model will not go below the specs of the first gen. But "EyeSight" still seems like a weird feature that increases price and complexity while lowering battery life. Maybe they find another, simpler way to show people on the outside if a person is immersed or seeing them. But the user experience for the actual user needs to be perfect. Like even a "budget iPhone" still has a great performance.

I hope they get over themselves and show a second, more afforable model that's made out of plastic, not only to make it cheaper, but also lighter. Apple's design team really hates plastic. But at times it's the right material for the job.

The expensive and heavy glass in the front to hide the cameras and make "EyeSight" more convincing is also not exactly necessary. Take that away and price and weight go down further.

 

[kfireven]

And still no one has a compelling case for why the average consumer would wear this on their face. As it is right now it’s Mac Pro level niche. Introducing a cheaper version won‘t change that. The only thing that might change it is if this tech ends up in glasses not much bulkier than reading glasses. But the possibility of that is probably decades away, if ever.

It'll give you a better experience than a high-end home cinema that cost several times more for one..

 

[aidler]

A headset priced above $500 (max. $999) will always remain a niche product. They need to start with a low price to create a market and once established they can slowly increase the price.

 

[Analog Kid]

“with the non-Pro model likely to be called […] "Apple Vision,"”

🤯🤯🤯

In the Gruber interview, they made a point of saying no one new the product name until the week of launch. Anyone who claims to know names 2 years in advance is just making it up, and anyone repeating it is likely revealing their source.

 

[anakin44011]

At some point, I assume that Apple will be able to move the brains (or at least the M chip) to your iPhone (along with a bigger external battery that works for both devices). So you'll have the Vision, which you'll pay a lot for, but won't be upgraded as often. And you'll have the iPhone Pro, which will contain the M4 (or M5, M6, etc) and be upgraded every year or two, thus giving the Vision greater capabilities without asking for $3500/year.

If you think about it, it will extend the iPhone dominance for several more years. Because at some point, the current iPhones just don't need to be upgraded as often. They are really, really good for the majority of users. But the Vision could continue the demand for the higher end.

 

[Iconoclysm]

That's a good way to put it. Or at the very least, it is a hybrid between spatial and visual? But I like your description!

Don't give me credit for it, that's Apple's marketing term lol

 

[Analog Kid]

A headset priced above $500 (max. $999) will always remain a niche product. They need to start with a low price to create a market and once established they can slowly increase the price.

Nope. That's what everyone else has tried and failed at. Apple did the right thing here-- price it where it needs to be priced but prove the potential.

Others sell cheap headsets and they're still niche products. The difference is they're losing a ton of money while still not building any significant ecosystem. Honestly, if Apple didn't go the route they went, and put something out as mediocre as the others, people would have written this entire market off for another decade or more.

 

[Iconoclysm]

The prizing is just way off for the Pro. Especially in Sweden where I live. It’s more than double of a monthly income from a regular job. Sadly this cheaper version is just gonna have too many compromises (and wrong ones) and be priced the way the Pro version should have been priced. Ditch the outer screen and replace the glass with plastic or flat glass. Lower res-LCD screens are just gonna ruin what’s good with the product.

This is not a smartphone, it's not in that category where everyone needs this. At least not this iteration.

 

[MuppetGate]

A headset priced above $500 (max. $999) will always remain a niche product. They need to start with a low price to create a market and once established they can slowly increase the price.

”Start with a low price to create a market,” … said no one at Apple, ever.

 

[Analog Kid]

At some point, I assume that Apple will be able to move the brains (or at least the M chip) to your iPhone (along with a bigger external battery that works for both devices). So you'll have the Vision, which you'll pay a lot for, but won't be upgraded as often. And you'll have the iPhone Pro, which will contain the M4 (or M5, M6, etc) and be upgraded every year or two, thus giving the Vision greater capabilities without asking for $3500/year.

If you think about it, it will extend the iPhone dominance for several more years. Because at some point, the current iPhones just don't need to be upgraded as often. They are really, really good for the majority of users. But the Vision could continue the demand for the higher end.

I don't think the two chips are the expensive part. They sell the Mac Mini for $500. There is a lot of precision required to make this all work-- manufacturing has to be really expensive on this. And then every unit requires a custom fitting, at least for now.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Nope. That's what everyone else has tried and failed at. Apple did the right thing here-- price it where it needs to be priced but prove the potential.

Others sell cheap headsets and they're still niche products. The difference is they're losing a ton of money while still not building any significant ecosystem. Honestly, if Apple didn't go the route they went, and put something out as mediocre as the others, people would have written this entire market off for another decade or more.

That's a good point. Think to yourself what would have happened if Apple just basically revealed a Quest Pro at around the same price with the standard Apple materials and build quality. Also, no AR. This isn't even a VR headset...the only market alternative to this is the Hololens, which costs...$3500 and is years old.

 

[Iconoclysm]

”Start with a low price to create a market,” … said no one at Apple, ever.

And for good reason. A market typically has a leader and a "long tail" that covers the cheaper alternative and comprises of many companies. That's how Apple leads in virtually every market they're in.

 

[aidler]

Apple as a company has really never targeted customers who have trouble affording higher end tech. They avoid the downmarket segment for a reason.

$1,500 is not downmarket. Besides that, there is a broad consensus that Apple sees its AR/VR headset as the successor to the iPhone in the years to come. Replacing the iPhone with a $3,000 device is absolutely impossible. The majority of Apple users expect a device with a similar price point to the non-Pro iPhone.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Several hundreds less? What are we talking here? $2500? $2000? $1500? All those still seem out of reach for most

So does a $1500 phone, but they sure seem to sell a lot.

 

[Iconoclysm]

$1,500 is not downmarket. Besides that, there is a broad consensus that Apple sees its AR/VR headset as the successor to the iPhone in the years to come. Replacing the iPhone with a $3,000 device is absolutely impossible. The majority of Apple users expect a device with a similar price point to the non-Pro iPhone.

How can you say $1500 isn't the downmarket when that market doesn't even exist? AR headsets do not have a market outside of Hololens.

 

[msackey]

Don't give me credit for it, that's Apple's marketing term lol

LOL. Oh is that right? I didn't watch WWDC nor read everything about it. So I guess they did use that term spatial OS, eh? Welp, even without fully indulging in WWDC and with just minimally seeing what they're doing with VisionPro, I guess I came to a similar conclusion ;-)

 

[gank41]

Ok. That doesn't sound better than the current VisionPro (the one in development). What you're suggesting sounds more like to me an improvement over Google Glasses, so it sounds more like a regression AND more significantly a different concept of what such devices are used for.

Google Glasses is more inline with how Apple Watches function: notification and phone/video device with some mini-app uses.

What I'm suggesting is a counterpart to a"Pro" model of a device. A device that would have less features. Pro version gets immersive experience and tons of cool features (at a price) while "Regular" model is limited in functionality but far less expensive. Very much like Google Glass, like I said in my post, but not some clip on thing.

 

[aidler]

Nope. That's what everyone else has tried and failed at. Apple did the right thing here-- price it where it needs to be priced but prove the potential.

Others sell cheap headsets and they're still niche products. The difference is they're losing a ton of money while still not building any significant ecosystem. Honestly, if Apple didn't go the route they went, and put something out as mediocre as the others, people would have written this entire market off for another decade or more.

Then, unfortunately, I have to say that this product will go down into history as a very good effort and a small number of people undoubtedly will have a lot of fun using the few services and specifically made applications produced for it, but ultimately it will fail as a new product category for the masses.
If Apple is content that it will remain a luxury niche product, they certainly have the money to keep it alive for a long time.

 

[msackey]

What I'm suggesting is a counterpart to a"Pro" model of a device. A device that would have less features. Pro version gets immersive experience and tons of cool features (at a price) while "Regular" model is limited in functionality but far less expensive. Very much like Google Glass, like I said in my post, but not some clip on thing.

I see.

I think right now I can't clearly see what a non-Pro line of this device would be like. I'd think that a version that's very much like an improved Google Glass would be very blah though.

 

[ipedro]

this has me thinking…wasn’t there a rumor some weeks/months ago about non-Pro iPhone cameras going back to a non-diagonal design?

there might be some dots to be connected here…🧐

anyway, everything else you said here is pretty on-point, imo—just wanted to highlight this particular idea for the sake of hypothesizing

Existing iPhones can already shoot in a form of 3D, which is what Portrait Mode is. The telephoto lens offset from the primary lens enables the iPhone to separate the background and see slightly behind the subject from different angles. VisionPro appears to have a more life-like 3D, where you can see slightly different perspectives of the foreground subject in each eye.

Every iPhone sold today will already provide 3D content for Apple's Vision line, though a future iPhone might have lenses further apart to create that richer 3D. I also think that iPhones and iPads will be able to view these 3D pictures, in the same way as parallax wallpapers could be seen, by moving the phone.

We're entering a new era. Apple is going deep into 3D (ha a pun!) and we can expect to see it integrated further across their entire product line from cameras to possibly even displays like the Nintendo 3DS.

 

[gank41]

I see.

I think right now I can't clearly see what a non-Pro line of this device would be like. I'd think that a version that's very much like an improved Google Glass would be very blah though.

It would be easier to market and get people to buy as opposed to the face hugger model. Something people can wear all the time instead of "for an experience".

 

[jimbobb24]

I wouldn't mind a version that is only for media consumption like the only part that really stood out / impressed me was the whole "watching a movie" experience. Maybe someone could also make a "calm" app where you can pick a location and you can make yourself feel like you are chilling in Hawaii instead of the ****** cloudy wet and cold weather for half the year we get here in Germany sort of like a anti-depressiviant device

The meditation app on the device already does this.

 

[jimbobb24]

I just saw Samsung is coming out with a similar device. My guess is it comes in at 2999. Then the two big phone and OS systems will be in the market and things will get interesting. The videos about Samsung device look very similar to what apple is doing.

 

[jimbobb24]

Honestly you can reduce image quality. The Vision Pro can be 4K while the consumer model be 1440p. There's probably more the consumer model doesn't need, like recording 3D video.

Then text will not be crisp destroying a major piece of the special computing. I think it’s only going to go up from here.

 

[msackey]

It would be easier to market and get people to buy as opposed to the face hugger model. Something people can wear all the time instead of "for an experience".

I guess I don't see it that way because I keep thinking that these are fundamentally different differences. That is, what Google Glass was trying to do IS NOT what Apple Vision Pro is trying to do.

I don't know what another good analogy would be but maybe something like this:
the difference is like that between a Palm Pilot (what did we call those devices back then? It's essentially an electronic diary) versus a Garmin watch. Both are transportable devices but both do different things. Garmin watches are intended to track distance, HR, steps etc. Electronic diary is intended just for calendar and contacts. Different things.

Google Glass was never very successful and I thought the street name for it, Glassholes, was perfect for it as it was a decidedly intentionally snobbish and exclusive device that was intrusive into other people's realms.