Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cheaper Apple Vision Headset Likely to Launch by End of 2025

aidler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing Apple sells is cheap for their market segment, yet Apple sells about 20-25 million Macs per year and about 200 million iPhones. They have an installed base of something like 1.8 billion devices.

Meta has sold about 20 million Quest units in total over the past 4 years. Not a trivial number, but Apple will see the same revenue at a tenth of that volume. Even at the higher $399 price, I can't imagine Meta is making much money on these, I think they're selling them as a loss leader into the metaverse market-- which shows no signs of materializing. Apple, I'm sure, is making a profit on each unit sold.

It doesn't need to sell in iPhone volumes to be successful, it just needs to sustain it's own cost long enough for the market to develop around it. A fraction of Mac and iPhone users will buy into the Vision, and a fraction of PC and Android users will buy into the Apple ecosystem because that's the only place a headset of this quality exists.

Meta's bargain basement approach doesn't seem to have worked. The novelty of light sabers has worn off, and "feet" wasn't really the killer feature Meta hoped it would be. I'm not sure why Hololens hasn't evolved further than it has, but it's offering significantly lower spec hardware for the same price as Apple.

Apple did the right thing-- they built a great product and they're pricing it to survive on its own merits. If the 3D world is going to enter computing in any significant way this decade, AVP seems to have the best shot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BionicPurist
syklee26 said:
I cannot believe AVP at $3500 generates almost no profit. What components would cost so much to make it non-profitable?
Click to expand...
The COGS is more than just the marginal cost. Everything is custom, so the cost includes amortization of the tooling; which is going to be high on a per-unit basis, given the relatively low sales projections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
MacRumors said:
The external screen, known as EyeSight, to show a wearer's eyes … [is] as core to the Apple Vision as a touchscreen is to an iPhone
Click to expand...

That’s just objectively untrue. You can use a headset regardless of what you look like to people around you. It might be detrimental to the experience, Apple might think it’s so detrimental that it’s crucial, but you can do it. You can’t use an iPhone without a touch screen.
 
mazz0 said:
That’s just objectively untrue. You can use a headset regardless of what you look like to people around you. It might be detrimental to the experience, Apple might think it’s so detrimental that it’s crucial, but you can do it. You can’t use an iPhone without a touch screen.
Click to expand...
They could have designed the iPhone with a keyboard and a d-pad. It didn’t have to be a touchscreen. It could have had a stylus. Apple had to defend its decision not to include a stylus.

The iSight feature is the difference between looking a bit creepy and actually being a creep. The Vision Pro needs an indicator that the user is watching, and what better indicator than the user’s eyes?
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Arran, mazz0, redbeard331 and 1 other person
mazz0 said:
That’s just objectively untrue. You can use a headset regardless of what you look like to people around you. It might be detrimental to the experience, Apple might think it’s so detrimental that it’s crucial, but you can do it. You can’t use an iPhone without a touch screen.
Click to expand...
It's a bit overstated, but I think it's true that Apple sees the bidirectionality of interaction to be important to their concept here. They don't want it to look like this:

iu


The scuba mask view is a bit odd, but it's less dehumanizing than hiding people's eyes entirely. I'm really curious what it looks like in person because Apple put a ton of development effort into that part, they clearly thought it was critical to the product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran, dante_mr and 4nNtt
floral said:
You're still not catching a glance from me unless you go under $500 or so.
Click to expand...
you don't understand this product at all then. there aren't even any Macs that are under $500. this isn't a "screen"- its a computer. Have fun with the quest and future knockoff goggles, because thats all that will ever catch with such a glance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dante_mr
I don't believe they will compromise anything at all. Every cameras have their purpose. The only way they can get it cheaper is to wait until the Micro OLED price drops, which is currently ridiculously expensive due to limited production per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dante_mr
That’s actually not a bad idea - release the pro version first, then follow up with a consumer-level product later on once it’s refined.

Media consumption is my primary focus for this device, not work or productivity. Although I can’t see myself paying more than a high-end iPhone for it. Time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran and gank41
I agree that Apple would probably dig their feet in on keeping the external facing display.

I don't think Apple would lower the resolution. A key use case is rendering text and I don't think they can lower that resolution without compromising that. I'm not sure if there are other aspects of the display that could be reduced, but it doesn't feel likely it will be lower resolution. Possibly Apple could use less expensive lenses in front of the display. I suppose the Vision Pro could get more pixels in 2025-26 and the standard might get the same as the original model with better yields by that point. Reducing anything else is probably fair game.
 
GermanSuplex said:
That’s actually not a bad idea - release the pro version first, then follow up with a consumer-level product later on once it’s refined.

Media consumption is my primary focus for this device, not work or productivity. Although I can’t see myself paying more than a high-end iPhone for it. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I think it will get to that price eventually, but we are probably talking at least 6 years to hit the same as the highest priced iPhones. Probably longer. The latest cutting edge chips need to get a lot less expensive.
 
boss.king said:
I already have very little faith in Apple's naming ability, but if they call the lesser headset Apple Vision One instead of just Apple Vision then someone over there needs to lose their job.
Click to expand...
Honestly though, I think Apple just uses different versioning schemes for all their products just to mess with us.

Macs: MacBook Pro Mid 2023, MacBook Pro Late 2023
iOS: iPhone 13, iPhone 14
iPad: iPad 9th Generation, iPad 10th Generation
Apple Watch: Apple Watch Series 0, Apple Watch Series 1
Maybe... Apple Vision: Apple Vision One, Apple Vision Two
Maybe... Apple Car: Apple Car Mark 1, Apple Car Mark 2
 
Last edited:
Gasu E. said:
Why not? They should be charging based on their marketing strategy, not the manufacturing cost. Since they certainly don't expect profits for years, what's the problem with break-even pricing?
Click to expand...
Because they are just starting. There is still a massive amount of R&D going forward.
 
4nNtt said:
I mean it could be worse... Apple Watch Series 0 (programmers will be like 0 is the first model index)
Click to expand...
Haha, fair point, but it's not actually called the Series 0. That's just what us Apple nerds refer to it as. I think they were called the Apple Watch, the Apple Watch Sport, and the Apple Watch Edition.
 
cardfan said:
(1) Nope, vision pro is a wireless monitor for a mac. You still need a mac close by along with a kb and mouse which looks to be a joke.

(2) As for ipad apps, they need to be ported to or allowed to be in the visionOS app store.
Click to expand...

1. Nope, you do not need a Mac. Vision Pro is a standalone system with an M2. What you are talking about is a feature of the Vision Pro that allows it to act as a virtual external monitor for a Mac.

2. Apps do not need to be specifically created for the Vision Pro. A lot of iPad apps will just work as Apple stated in the keynote.
 
mazz0 said:
That’s just objectively untrue. You can use a headset regardless of what you look like to people around you. It might be detrimental to the experience, Apple might think it’s so detrimental that it’s crucial, but you can do it. You can’t use an iPhone without a touch screen.
Click to expand...

From a technical perspective sure, but from a philosophical perspective, that's completely up to Apple to decide, not you or anyone else.

Socially speaking, with or without a headset, if you're talking to someone and they're not looking or have indicated in some manner that they're focused on you, it is extremely off-putting.

This is just a first step in solving that problem current headsets have and it would appear that Apple thinks of it as a fundamental problem to solve before these devices can become socially acceptable.
 
  • Love
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: mazz0, Arran and dante_mr
Cheaper headset by the end of 2025 is definitely a possibility, although it could be early-mid 2026, too.

This is going to be a list of very unpopular opinions and wild-ass guesses, but:
  • The Vision Pro is basically a gen1 harbinger of things to come. While it does many things decently to great, it will only be improved upon. We're still in the early days, much like the early days of the Macintosh 128K. Anyone remember that? Yeah, just as the Macintosh 128K was not for everyone, neither is the Vision Pro.
  • Speaking of the Macintosh 128K, that was even less affordable than the Vision Pro. In today's dollars, the Macintosh 128K's price would be over $7000. Not many people could have afforded the Macintosh 128K; the same goes for the Vision Pro.
  • Despite the price and the current economy, there are lots of people who'll buy the Vision Pro, even though neither you nor I can afford it. I don't know if a huge number of people will buy it, but it should sell well enough. For better or worse, there are lots of people with money. If nothing else, it should be usable as a large 3D monitor. Heck, I have an iPad stand that can hold an iPad above me or in front of me while reclining on a chair, and it's pure awesome laziness. I don't even have to raise my arm (I use an Apple trackpad). A Vision Pro would be even better.
  • If Apple can acquire enough sports broadcasting rights, hardcore sports fans will throw lots of money at this. They'll kill for 3D in-your-face video from prime viewing locations. However, this is probably now a pretty big "IF", as I imagine the competition may buy up broadcasting rights just to deny them to Apple (and later use them for their own headsets). The early announcement will give them plenty of time to pivot before the Vision Pro ships. I'm sure the big semiconductor players are now hard at work designing high-density/high-res small display parts for Apple's competition.
  • I don't know if there will be any killer apps, but the ability to use existing iPad/iOS apps gives Apple a big lead over the competition. As Apple said, niche markets like collaborative 3D CAD design will be popular (within that niche). Heck, even ignoring the 3D features, the large viewing space will be very useful for collaborative programs like DaVinci Resolve.
  • Speaking of shipping, I'll pull a number out of my nether regions and guess that the Vision Pro will probably ship around maybe April-May-ish of next year. That's a long way away. Except for announcements where they have actual shipping dates, Apple's product availability estimates seem to slip but that could be my imagination. I'd love love love to be wrong, though. I want Apple to prove me wrong.
  • Gen2 will probably happen at least 2ish years after gen1 and will probably be around the same price -- unless the competition catches up because of the early announcement. Something like a reduced-cost "Air", "SE", or "non-Pro" will almost certainly happen, but not anytime soon as that would cannibalize sales of the Pro (likewise another 2ish+ years, so "end of 2025" is a definite possibility).
  • Socially, this gen1 will probably be restricted to mostly home/office/hotel use. As others have said, anyone wearing this in public will likely be ostracized and/or ridiculed, much like google glass wearers. However, airplanes will likely be an acceptable wearing location, as some of the other passengers may feel jealous. Public transit will likely be a no-go, as wearers probably have a pretty high risk of having it ripped off their head and stolen (yeah, so what if it's Optical ID and activation-locked -- you think that will stop thieves?). I wonder how soon it'll be before someone complains that their Vision Pro was stolen?
 
TLewis said:
Cheaper headset by the end of 2025 is definitely a possibility, although it could be early-mid 2026, too.
  • Gen2 will probably happen at least 2ish years after gen1 and will probably be around the same price -- unless the competition catches up because of the early announcement. Something like a reduced-cost "Air", "SE", or "non-Pro" will almost certainly happen, but not anytime soon as that would cannibalize sales of the Pro (likewise another 2ish+ years, so "end of 2025" is a definite possibility)
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple is going to release another device in the Vision lineup in 2025.

My only reasoning is that Apple already announced that the Vision Pro is going to launch late 2024 for non-US markets and we don't even know if they plan on making a large scale release (HomePods for example are only sold in select countries, not even in countries where they have official Apple Stores).

And given the rumors of the limited quantities being sold/manufactured, I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision lineup goes for an extended release schedule unlike the iPhone and more like the Mac or iPads--average is like 18 months?

It would be strange to start selling the Vision Pro in limited quantities in late 2024 only to drop another Vision the following year. Maybe announcing the non-Pro Vision in 2025 and start selling it in 2026?

I hope I'm wrong though because a more consumer-level Vision would be great. And the sooner the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back