Exactly! And the Vision Pro and potential regular “Vision” model don’t even need to be the same or even comparable.
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.
Cheaper Apple Vision Headset Likely to Launch by End of 2025
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
y’all do realize that people have mortgages and cars that they’re paying off over 10-30 years right? millions of people who can’t afford this will absolutely just finance it over several months/years whether through Apple or another means.
this device cannot be compared to a car or house, but people will always buy what they want especially in this day and age and especially from Apple.
I would never even consider another headset. The only thing bringing me to an Apple one is that cool hologram stuff.
Apple still plans to launch a more affordable version of its Vision Pro headset by the end of 2025, with the non-Pro model likely to be called "Apple Vision One," or more simply, "Apple Vision," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
Writing in his latest Power On newsletter, Gurman reiterated his understanding that Apple is working on a cheaper version of its headset, signaling that it is pursuing a two-product strategy, like it does by offering a standard iPhone and iPhone Pro.
Since the Vision Pro's $3,499 price is thought to be at or near the cost to make it, Gurman speculates that Apple could replace the twin 4K microLED displays and M2 Apple silicon chip with cheaper alternative components, and use fewer cameras.
The company could also go with a simpler headband design with no integrated speakers, requiring wearers to use AirPods for spatial audio instead. However, there are a few things Gurman believes Apple will not compromise on:
Speculating on headset rumors before Apple unveiled Vision Pro, some commentators suggested it would make no sense to add the financial cost of an outward-facing display to the already expensive device and sap its battery life even quicker, but Apple clearly regards the EyeSight feature as a key differentiator from enclosed AR/VR headsets, and the one that allows users to feel like they remain in touch with other people.
Achieving cheaper material costs in other areas, combined with a more streamlined production process, could allow Apple to reduce the price of the headset by several hundred dollars, according to Gurman.
Apple's plan to release a cheaper version of its "spatial computing" headset was first reported in January by The Information and Bloomberg. Industry analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has also reported Apple's intention to have a two-tiered headset category lineup by the end of 2025.
Article Link: Cheaper Apple Vision Headset Likely to Launch by End of 2025
$2750 looks like a reasonable price. But I hope they improve on that cable thingy that is attached to the head. It looks ugly. If Iphone is a powerful computer by itself and is so small size, I think Apple is fully capable of improving the vision headset soon with a battery built into it and no cable attached.
It doesn't really make a difference to most people whether Ted Lasso is in 3D. Most people consume content for interesting characters and stories, not gimmicks and special effects. Outside of sports, there aren't that many shows and movies where 3D makes sense or is worth the product cost. You also have to remember that Apple TV+ sits dead last in the US streaming market. If Tim Cook's strategy is to "double down on it" to drive Vision Pro sales then that invariably means Apple will burn even more cash on the content money pit, in a weak economy no less, just to catch up with Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+. It will take at least 5 years for Apple to get to where Disney+ is today. In summary, it's a really bad strategy, especially given that as time goes on, iPhones will become more and more powerful, and consumers will buy fewer and fewer of them, just like they're buying fewer and fewer personal computers now.
The only way to boost the sales of Vision Pro to a sustainable level is by investing heavily in gaming and social networks. There is no other way.
Either way, Pro or cheaper version, it’s still a piece of crap product. Dead on arrival when every other company has stopped investment in this area. Sign of Apple running out of ideas. It brings nothing new to the table and should be £500 not £3500
Just waiting for the news stories of some idiot using these outdoors and getting punched in the head and having them nicked lol.
Just waiting for the news stories of some idiot using these outdoors and getting punched in the head and having them nicked lol.
Yeah, it is off-putting, but you can use something that’s off-putting. You can’t use something that doesn’t work. I’m not saying it’s not important, I’m say it’s not as important as the primary display and input method.
As for ”Apple thinks it’s fundamental” we don’t know that. We know Apple thinks it’s important enough to do something about it, but we’ve only got one guy’s claim that they think it’s fundamental. Personally I suspect that’s somewhat hyperbolic.
If Apple had to choose between the external display and the inner display do you think that would be a hard decision for them? Of course it wouldn’t, which already proves the external display is not the most important component. Might there be harder choices? Let’s say it comes down to the external display vs reliable finger tracking, or accurate iris tracking, or the dedicated chip for instant displayupdates so there’s no lag? Personally I think they’d sacrifice the external display before they’d sacrifice any of that for a cheaper model, and customers would agree with them.
Edit: one thing that would help justify keeping the external display: it’s probably relatively cheap (or could be for a cheaper model) since it doesn’t need to be as great a display as the one pushed up against your eyeballs.
Further thought: not everyone will be using these in company. Somebody using one in their home office on their own for example has no need of the external display.
Because that’s not how Apple typically does business. They typically have the biggest margins on their products compared to most other companies.
I agree 3D TV/film content might not be a big seller (though personally I love it), but I disagree that games and social networks are the only (or even an important) use-case. Here’s why:
1. This can be a better screen for 2D content than any TV that would fit in your house
2. Home made 3D content. I don’t think anyone will want to wear these to record their kid’s birthday party, but I think,people will love using these to watch back the 3D home video shot on future iPhone pros that have 3D recording capabilities (I will be shocked if that doesn’t happen)
3. Work - this can replace your desktop, at least in theory. Depends a lot on how it feels to use for long periods.
4. Porn
5. Game developers aren’t going to invest in this unless there’s a much cheaper option that’s still powerful, and that’s just not Apple’s style. Current high-end Macs have great graphics and could be brilliant gaming machines, but they cost many thousands. There’s no affordable gaming Mac, so there’s naturally very little AAA developer interest. I don’t see any sign of that changing. As for mobile-style games, it would have to absolutely plummet in price before anyone’s going to buy one for those.
When it comes to gaming what I’m hoping is that the tech from this makes its way to other, PC-oriented gaming headsets. I don’t need the computer in the headset, it’s never going to be close to as powerful as my gaming PC, I just need a sharp, comfy headset that shows games running on my PC. Perhaps this will usher that in.
Samsung suffers from a sense of hauteur and over-confidence in the quality of their ‘high-end’ offerings. I think that whatever pseudo-competitive device they release will be priced within $200 of Apple’s Vision Pro. Only they’ll call it the Samsung S-Vision S-Pro S2X Plus(!) (because they need to feel as though they are ‘ahead’ of Apple!).
And, just like their current top of the line Android phones don’t have true retina scanning (as evidenced by the lack of acceptability for purchases and in financial applications), their ‘good-enough’ AR/VR tech will be marketed as ‘equivalent’ or even better than Apple’s device…while falling far short in terms of actual capability and true value to the user.
No. As you alluded to in point 3, the comfort level of sitting on your couch and munching and gulping while watching TV is just so much better than wearing a headset.
No. How often do people watch their wedding videos? Plus each person's body is different, including visual acuity and cranial size, so his or her headset won't likely be shared among family members. Since home videos are almost always watched in a group, you need at least two or three Vision Pros to engage in the activity you just described. I don't see it happening at $3.5K per unit.
No again. The comfort level just isn't there to compete with a freestanding monitor.
Yes. But Apple won't allow any sexually explicit content, including Apps or games, on anything it controls so people who want to participate in the new age of porn (read: not just 3D but 3D with a lot of interactivity) will likely stay away from Apple and its ecosystem.
This is kind of what I'm saying. You're actually agreeing with me without realizing it. Except it's not just price, but the entire Apple leadership and its lack of foresight and organizational competence when it comes to gaming. They're now scrambling to do what I said they should've done years ago (you're welcome to search my post history in regards to "gaming") with Game Mode and a flurry of game announcements. They really should have positioned Apple TV as a game console to compete with PlayStation and Xbox (I said this years ago too).
I just can't see a large swath of iPhone users buying Vision Pro or Apple Vision One (the future non-Pro version). Vision Pro will never replace a freestanding monitor in most use cases. I work in front of my iMac for close to 10 hours a day sometimes but I can't even have my headphones on for more than 2 hours without my ears getting warm and an AR/VR headset by definition will ALWAYS weigh more than a pair of cans on your ears. It just won't happen unless there is a quantum leap in engineering and Apple is able to lower the weight of Vision Pro by half or more while maintaining the same on-device capability. Why do I say on-device? Because Apple Silicon doesn't support an eGPU. This almost guarantees that Apple's competitors in AR/VR will be able to catch up by allowing their devices to offload graphics-intensive tasks, especially in VR, to a desktop or laptop. Just look at the whole new Mac Pro😂, we haven't heard anything about an eGPU even in 2023. Assuming Apple starts to develop its own eGPU now, it will take at least 2 to 3 years before it becomes available, and ONLY on Mac Pro (save a change in form factor to the Mac Mini and Mac Studio).
Apple would be lucky if it can sell as many Vision Pro as it did Apple Watch within the same timeframe. This is its best-case scenario.
Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten about the international market. With that, it'll probably be 18-24+ months after the international release.
That might have been leaker bait.
Actually the head engineer in charge of the Vision Pro, Mike Rockwell, said it was "fundamentally core" to the product on stage during Gruber's, Talk Show Live.
He said it was extremely important that interacting with others was not hampered in anyway. And part of that was them being able to see your eyes. In fact, the user's eyes are rendered and displayed for every possible angle someone might be looking at them so it doesn't look "off" to anyone.
Last edited:
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
End of 2025? We are so far down the pike with this story that it's absurd. Lots of Gurman spitballing. I think Apple has preliminary plans of this sort, but it will all come down to how well the device performs in the first place.
Also, Vision One is an abysmal name.
Also, Vision One is an abysmal name.
Seems logical that they would try and introduce a cheaper headset to capture more of the market.
They changed the name just prior to release. I saw developer videos for Vision OS with the rumoured name.
There is some speculation that this is to prepare for the "consumer" edition that will connect to the iPhone. If the Pro version uses a battery, the cable going from the iPhone to the Apple Vision glasses will be more acceptable.
It's less that they changed the name and more that they kept it hidden by using codenames like xrOS and probably "Reality Pro" as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the marketing team kept the name hidden from even Rockwell until before release (he implies it in the interview but in a joking way so can't tell how serious he was -- and they used codenames throughout development as well).