Kuo: 2025 Apple Vision Pro to Get M5 Chip and Apple Intelligence

[Agent007]

I see a lot of pragmatic, well-thought-out opinions dooming the Vision Pro - a far cry from 6 months ago.

I'm amazed they don't put a few demo models in stores - I've still never worn one. I think Apple thought this would catch on as a gimmick with the disposable income crowd and buy them enough time to develop it into something useful. That's how the Apple Watch was successful. I'm not 100% convinced that AVP is a failure but I'm a lot closer in recent months.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Hope it’s cheaper than £3500

Hope Meta can beat it to market. Naaaaaah, who’m I kiddin?

 

[LEStudios]

I can’t wait. 😎

 

[SFjohn]

Count me in for a day 1 purchase! Seriously, I love the current version and would appreciate the ability to add ray tracing & better AI functionality.

 

[bgillander]

Well I appreciate the story.

It’s not 1989.

And what you’re describing doesn’t happen today with $3500 products.
It certainly doesn’t happen with Apple.
And certainly not flagship products.

But I suppose the whole AI thing was a last minute after through that Apple jumped in on late into the game.

The iPhone 15PM can use the upcoming AI. A previous generation product.
The fact a significantly more expensive and more powerful device can’t.

That will do nothing but show consumers that investing early into a new product segment with Apple is a bad idea and a terrible financial gamble.

Sorry, the rumor is that Apple is coming out with a new version of AVP for a similar price after more than a year, and they are just bumping up the processor. That sounds unusual to you? How is that different from most of the recent Apple computer upgrades, other than jumping from M2 to M5, rather than M1 to M3, like the iMac?

If they only bump the processor for the same price, that is actually the best case scenario for current owners. Everyone was expecting/hoping for a major design change to reduce the size, and a huge drop in price.

"Early adopter" does not mean that you are first in line to buy the newest iteration of some already existing device. It actually means you are buying into a new concept that is at huge risk of dramatic change and possible cancellation.

I know it isn't 1989, but welcome to the good old days, because this new paradigm brings back those old risks that came with being an actual early adopter.

As for the AI, the article reads to me as that just being the new visionOS 3. If AVP1 doesn't run that OS, I will be surprised.

 

[bgillander]

Edit: And yes I'll say it, despite the bad pricing of the Quest Pro, you still could do more with it than the Vision Pro.

Depends what you want to do. While I do love playing Cubism, I would actually prefer to be able to watch my iTunes Marvel and Disney movie collection in 3D.

 

[bgillander]

I see a lot of pragmatic, well-thought-out opinions dooming the Vision Pro - a far cry from 6 months ago.

I'm amazed they don't put a few demo models in stores - I've still never worn one. I think Apple thought this would catch on as a gimmick with the disposable income crowd and buy them enough time to develop it into something useful. That's how the Apple Watch was successful. I'm not 100% convinced that AVP is a failure but I'm a lot closer in recent months.

Where are you that your Apple Store doesn't have demos?

I'm in Canada and even we now have demo units (though they are made of birch bark and maple syrup here. 😀) We apparently do actually get different demonstration productions, though, as the Apple Genius doing my demo told me he got an Avatar demo in the US, but couldn't get it here. That was disappointing, as watching 3D movies from my iTunes collection would be a major selling point to me. As that wasn't part of the demo, I couldn't even confirm that the the films already in my library are even streaming in 3D here, yet. If they enabled that and 3D out on an AppleTV, Apple would get me to buy another AppleTV, too.

Not enough people may have cared about 3D TV when it came out, but all the ones that I knew that did care, actually cared enough to buy a lot more equipment and movies than the average consumer. It seems to me like the kind of consumer you would want to appeal to when you are selling a niche product.

 

[Silverado]

So they've released the first version and charged consumers £3500-£4000, barely released any content for it, and theres now rumours a second version is coming out with updated hardware already?? Sorry what? Talk about hanging their customers out to dry.

How is releasing updated hardware considered hanging their customers out to dry? Would not releasing updated hardware be taking care of their customers?

Updated hardware doesn’t cause the previous hardware to stop working. I have an M1 Mac that works great even though multiple updated versions were released since.

 

[svish]

Good to know. Not expecting a significant price drop.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

Depends what you want to do. While I do love playing Cubism, I would actually prefer to be able to watch my iTunes Marvel and Disney movie collection in 3D.

Yes, there's some content thats exclusive on Vision Pro.

To expand from what I said before, the Quest is more versatile than Vision Pro. Its OS is open-source which means I could do almost everything I want on it. And its been on the market for a long while, so theres a lot more apps and games developed for it.

For now, Meta is king in the mixed/virtual reality realm. I'm hoping Apple catches up and gives Meta a good challenge.

I have the Cubism game as well, challenging but fun.

 

[vantelimus]

Wait, I thought this was going to be the next iPhone. But now apparently it's only for a small, niche market and that's okay? The goalposts are always moving...

Selling something only to early adopters is not a winning business strategy. Despite the claims on this site, the first Vision Pro was not for "developers only". They wouldn't have it in the store right next to the iPhones if that were the case. Their goal is mainstream adoption. It just hasn't happened.

The goalposts aren’t moving. You just don’t know what they are.

 

[lilkwarrior]

The processing power never was the issue with this device, never mind with its ability to reach mainstream adoption. It's... everything else. The weight, the abysmal battery life, the form factor itself, etc. And probably most importantly: the price.

It’s a prosumer device and the form factor should probably be best exclusive for that audience with glasses for mainstream audiences.

The big mainstream use case for headset form factor is AAA gaming which isn’t of interest of Apple and would actually necessitate higher costs or compromising screen sharpness and quality unbecoming of a modern Apple product.

It’s pointless for Apple with non-AAA-gaming platforms compromise making a good headset for mainstream audiences for gaming when manufacturers who solely making gaming headers have had mediocre results that are non-profitable nor appeal to AAA gamers compared to non-VR gaming platforms.

Many including Apple sees spatial computing as on par and better or more advanced than traditional computing ideally m; that means it has to be more expensive.

 

[lilkwarrior]

I find the Vision Pro as interesting as the polishing cloth. I have no idea where this product is going. I think its price needs to be reduced by 60% to become popular... It also needs a killer feature and more regular features.

The Pro Display nor the Mac Pro had to be towards being successful for things beyond mainstream adoption

Mainstream adoption requires sacrifices and compromises Apple isn’t tackling yet

 

[lilkwarrior]

Regardless of potentially amazing specs and battery life in future models, I still don't see how something priced like a high-end Mac that, apart from mirroring a Mac you own, doesn't let you do a lot productive/professional work than you can do on an iPad or iPhone is going to appeal to the average Apple user or consumer electronics enthusiast at large?

Yes, the immersive experience and quality of the built-in display might be market-leading.

Even as a home theater or large TV, you don't get to show it off or share the viewing experience with others. So the whole "it's also an amazing and gigantic TV" is a truth with a big caveat.

A necessary upgrade would be a much lower price or it coming down to the size of a pair of big sunglasses that you can pop on and do Spatial Computing anywhere (not happening in the next 10 years).

Tim Cook, whatever you do, please change it drastically!

The show it off use case is laughable on your part—it’s a screen on your face and it ultimately can Airplay its output to TVs, iPads, and even Macs.

The sunglasses bit is ignorant as that’s a whole different spatial computing device category than a headset that will co-exist.

The Vision Pro has spatial spacing of screens and will even have a 5K2k mirror of their output with Dolby Vision + HLG HDR: No tablet or portable monitor or 2nd screen can do things as well as the Vision Pro.

Portable prosumer monitors that kinda do cost $3000

 

[lilkwarrior]

Spot on. Mainstream adoption may only occur when the price drops significantly, the ski-goggle look is replaced by a more streamlined design, and the battery is integrated into the frame.

The AVP as it is is such a weird product - how can anyone be so out of touch with reality and expect this thing to go mainstream? (pun intended)

It’s not intended to be mainstream; wait for a mainstream option from Apple if they decide to.

Apple has every right to ship products not for most people.

They already do that with their monitors and desktop towards that as very much things prosumers and up want at a quality level well beyond low prices

 

[lilkwarrior]

This is a niche product with a steep price point, and given its limited target audience, it's hard to imagine it achieving mainstream success. visionOS 2 failed to introduce any truly innovative features in terms of usability. What Apple needs to prioritize is a redesigned version that is more accessible to the masses.

It’s not a mainstream product in the same way the Pro Display XDR, iPad Pro, Mac Studio, Mac Pro, and even the Macbook Pro relative to their markets.

Prosumer devices typically don’t seek mainstream adoption with completely different success metrics.

Even a prosumer component like a 4090 isn’t mainstream by design

 

[lilkwarrior]

This is just highway robbery. A one year old Pro headset that costs 4k is not getting AI while a 2-3 year old iPhone does? How is that even possible? I would be very disappointed with apple if they render this device obsolete by software fencing features one year in

This isn’t true with Apple confirming VisionOS 2 will have AI features.

It has a dedicated chip to do so after all that devs and creatives leverage with the VisionOS and iPad apps it can run.

You’re not entitled to every new AI feature Apple creates having older hardware—just like salty gamers who had older Nvidia cards not understanding upgraded dedicated AI hardware can’t always be backwards compatible with older cars

 

[re-cycle]

The Vision Pro is rumored to already use a lot of the neural engine power of the M2 for hand occlusion etc, so an upgraded processor would be good if we want AI features etc.

For me, I’d most like an upgraded R1 processor so that the foveated rendering could be expanded, along with larger FOV.

And for those *still* complaining about price, my perspective is that I effectively paid for a ticket into Apple’s research lab to see a product that might not have launched for years if they had waited to eliminate every compromise. Every time I use the AVP, I feel privileged to be seeing a slice of the future. I’m fascinated to see what Apple do with this.

 

[chfilm]

And for those *still* complaining about price, my perspective is that I effectively paid for a ticket into Apple’s research lab to see a product that might not have launched for years if they had waited to eliminate every compromise. Every time I use the AVP, I feel privileged to be seeing a slice of the future. I’m fascinated to see what Apple do with this.

That’s exactly How i see it too

 

[Dawn of Individual Merit]

Apple has every right to ship products not for most people.

Sure they have.

Unlike a Homepod or a Studio Display, though, the AVP would benefit from third party support, meaning you would expect Apple wanting to create a platform, not a hardware product.
Apple thinks that developers will flock to the opportunity of selling products to a minuscule number of users and paying Apple 30% for the privilege - but that business model only makes sense when you have a big enough userbase to pay for all the overhead.

Because of that, comparisons with the Mac Pro or iPad Pro also don't quite work, since there's non-Pro Macs and iPads sharing the same ecosystem with their expensive counterparts - not to mention, developers not being forced into the App Store on Macs.


To be a little hyperbolic: unless Apple can make the AVP mainstream, it will be nothing but an expensive monitor to watch Disney or AppleTV on.

 

[vantelimus]

Apple thinks that developers will flock to the opportunity of selling products to a minuscule number of users and paying Apple 30% for the privilege - but that business model only makes sense when you have a big enough userbase to pay for all the overhead.

I think you misunderstand Apple’s current target. How many television commercials have you seen promoting the AVP, let alone the AVP as a consumer-electronics product for the mainstream? What you also aren’t seeing are the bus. dev. and product marketing efforts promoting it to enterprises and early adopters.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s Apple’s: “Incredible new enterprise experiences leverage spatial computing to customize workspaces, collaborate on 3D designs, deliver specialized employee training, and guide remote fieldwork in entirely new ways”

If you don’t want to believe Apple, here is an article explaining this:

Yes, Apple’s Vision Pro is an enterprise product

Enterprises are finding ways to use Apple’s Vision Pro in a variety of industries. Apple is moving to help spur that interest along.

www.computerworld.com

Because of that, comparisons with the Mac Pro or iPad Pro also don't quite work, since there's non-Pro Macs and iPads sharing the same ecosystem with their expensive counterparts - not to mention, developers not being forced into the App Store on Macs.

There is no non-Pro Apple Vision product. The Pro designation has traditionally meant a product targeted specifically to the professional and/or prosumer markets, not consumer electronics.

Apple isn’t saturating the airwaves with consumer-targeted messages for AVP like they’ve done with iMacs, iPods, iPhones, AirPods, etc. If you want to know what products Apple is targeting to mainstream consumers, look at the television commercials targeting mainstream customers.

You’ll know when Apple is targeting the mainstream consumer when they produce an Apple Vision product without the Pro qualifier.

To be a little hyperbolic: unless Apple can make the AVP mainstream, it will be nothing but an expensive monitor to watch Disney or AppleTV on.

Yes, it is hyperbolic. However, the comment implicitly recognizes the superior viewing experience the AVP offers for 3D content.

 

[juju90]

Well... If the next Vision Pro is going to be an upgrade like the one for Aipods Max this year, Apple might as well close up shop.

Tim Cook is the issue

 

[VisceralRealist]

The goalposts aren’t moving. You just don’t know what they are.

It's cope. It's not selling at high volumes, so that's being spun into "it's fine, it was never supposed to be popular". Yet if it had sold at high volumes, the reaction would be "see, spatial computing is the future!" No matter what the outcome, it's seen as a win. That's not an honest assessment of a product.

"Pro" in the name doesn’t mean much. The "Pro" iPhones are not enterprise devices unintended for the mainstream. The fact that half the WWDC presentations about AVP have been focused on spatial photos and videos and showed people using it in their living rooms doesn't exactly scream "not for the mainstream". (The Mac Pro is the only Apple device almost entirely marketed at professionals, though the Studio's marketing is mostly professional-focused as well, and even the Mini has its enterprise uses in servers).

The Vision Pro is expensive because if it were cheaper, it would not have met Apple's quality standards for such a device. I expect the price will come down and other devices in the line will be released, but Apple's own marketing (both at launch and at this year's WWDC) indicates that the current Vision Pro was not intended primarily to be an enterprise device, even if that is how it is being used.

 

[rp2011]

This reminds me of the shortsighted folks who so vocally complain of why the chips need to be so powerful, because they could only see 5 mins past and forward. The Vision Pro is not going anywhere, the market for these devices is just not mature, but it's never going to ever disappear, That's just foolish to believe. It's about applications that developers can come up with. The more devices and horsepower developers can access to bring their ideas to life are the only bottlenecks. Apple finds itself ahead of the curve here, whereas when they released the iPhone there was already a huge mature market.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Which raises the question - what compromises are people willing to make in order to hit that price point?

The Vision Pro is as expensive as it is because it does cost that much more to make. The components aren't cheap, and you are basically paying more for a more premium experience. Would a cheaper headset that uses lower-resolution displays have a market if the experience isn't as immersive (because they no longer look as lifelike?). Something like spatial video loses its allure if the footage you are viewing isn't anywhere near that they would appear in real life.

Adding the battery to the headset would just make it heavier, something Apple seems to be trying to minimise, in part because the AVP already weighs as much as it does.

Take away everything which makes the AVP uniquely AVP, and what's the point if it's more or less indistinguishable from other competitors in the market?

I don’t think a headset device will ever be a mainstream product but there is room to make a cheaper option to expand the market further. Once the problem of making a device competitive on price is solved, you then have the issue of it being a wearable and quite an intrusive one at that. When we look at a less intrusive wearable like an Apple Watch where many iPhone users still don’t use them because they don’t like wearing watches, you apply that mentality to wearing something on your face and you have a segment of consumers that aren’t comfortable with that concept. For me I think it’ll always be a niche sector but one that has room to grow further.