Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But it’s terrible as a gaming device, with a GPU on par with a PS4 Pro (or a mid range NVDA card from 5+ years ago) it has no hope of creating full rendered VR environments common to gaming, even with huge gains from foveated rendering. It’s got great resolution and contrast and clearly geared towards AR tasks and activities, but AR games are basically non existent at this point. Hell even a 4090 would struggle to render complex graphics at the Vision Pros resolution levels.
Again, not terribly needed given that gaming for 99% of the gaming population is more enjoyable with a controller with most preferring the handheld with sticks and buttons and triggers and some preferring mice and keyboard using the far more adept and sensitive hand eye coordination of hands at rest.
 
So you dislike the concept of Vision Pro because the demo shows a person alone while using the device? Is this any different from the experience that Meta offers, or any other device of this sort? What about mobile phones, laptops, tablets — are these “social” experiences or are they designed to be used alone for a specific purpose? I’ve seen groups of people that are all on mobile devices and not engaging with each other. And when groups of people watch television or a theater screen together, there is very little if any socializing going on. The truth is that all of us have individual experiences that happen when we are by ourselves, and sometimes around others.

You think Vision Pro is “inherently solipsistic”? Solipsism is a philosophical theory that basically questions the actual existence of the external world and those around you. An electronic device can’t be inherently anything because it is a man made machine, and it certainly can’t generate a philosophical thought. A machine also can’t be nihilistic or narcissistic. A person using a machine can be nihilistic or narcissistic, but not on account of the machine they are using.

It is clear that you don’t understand the meaning of the terms you are spouting off, so why the verbal gymnastics? The bigger question to ask yourself is why an electronic device would make you so angry.
it is solipsistic in that the device completely relies on shutting out the user from interacting with reality and manipulating reality to suit the selfish needs of a single user. Hundreds if not thousands of people can watch a big screen all at once. Only one user can see the VR screen. Sure, you can share it to a TV, but then that begs a very significant question of WHY THE HELL NOT JUST USE THE TV?????

And for $3499, I can get a REALLLLYYY NICE TV.

Solipsistic: Definitions of solipsistic. adjective. relating to the theory that all that is known to exist is one's own self or consciousness. adjective. extremely selfish or self-centered.
 
The 50 million is potential user base, not that it will be realized. Even with a million sold, its a good entry for Apple for those will take advantage to build out the content and app ecosystem. We mostly talk about developers, but the content development side is another big deal.
50,000,000 in a pool of 2,500,000,000 potential customers is 2%. So, your potential is 2%.

The Apple Watch sold 40,000,000 units alone in 2021. It has an affordable price point, and a unique Use Case separate but not completely separate from the phone.

So, if a potential lifetime user sales base is barely above Apple Watch yearly, this device is not even remotely profitable at any price point below the $3000 range. It will essentially be a Mac Pro, only needed by a small few
 
Perhaps. But once this is available for live demo in Apple stores, I think there will be an explosion of interest.
Yes, interest. But does the average person have $3499 plus tax available for a completely unnecessary digital product?

Smartphone does all the things the Vision Pro does, fits in your pocket, and has 18-24 hour battery life (newest devices).

Most people use $3499 to buy a car or home improvement, bills, and for many of the American populace who will get first dibs....$3499 is more than they make in a month at $15 at 40 hours....if they get 40 hours at the minimum wage of $15....if their local area has set minimum wage $15.

But the average American at $15 an hour has a 1/4 chance of owning an iPhone, the other 3/4 being an Android user.
 
Yes, and apparently what you got with the early iPhones wasn't necessarily enough to justify the high prices, hence the quick and notable price reductions.
I have several friends that bought on launch day. They complained it was an expensive purchase. But, it didn't stop them from making it. So, while the broader public definitely thought it was expensive. There was enough early adopters to take the plunge and pony up the money for it. And as time went on. The lines to purchase on launch day only got bigger.

I would argue the price had to be higher than all other options out there. Mainly to separate the iPhone from the pack (Premium product). Price matters when it comes to making a purchase of course, and many will scoff at the initial price and just dismiss it out of hand. But, for the large audience (Apple fans and Apple users). It's not as important. It may delay a purchase or alter other purchases so they can get this device. Many of us are just that way where that price is a secondary thing. Which is why I feel confidently that Apple will sell a million of the Vision Pro's in the first year. We want the device, period. There will be price drop. Could be early or late in the product cycle. But I don't think Apple is looking at this product any differently from the iPhone. They know it's a better product, and it should command a higher price than the competition. If any price adjustments need to be made, so be it. But, they have to set the bar and find out what the market and appetite for it is.
When you consider inflation and factor in that those early iPhone prices were with 2 year AT&T contracts, even by today's standards (much better and more capable phones) those launch prices were high. $499 (4GB) or $599 (8GB) would be around $735 or $880 in today’s dollars. You can get a better and larger 64GB iPhone SE for just $429 or a much better and much larger 128GB iPhone 14 for $829, both without any carrier contract requirements. Throw in today’s various carrier "deals" (and commitments) and net prices can go down a lot from there.
Moores law on the hardware side. Which accelerated much faster than inflation (target inflation is 2% where Moores law is 100% every what 18 or 24 months). I would say it's basically flat if not a touch higher priced today. Now, you can get models that didn't exist back then like the SE or even older model phones like the 12 and or 13. But primarily speaking you're spending a little more today for the equivalent top end from then. Not including say the Pro Max.
Ballmer's poor handling of Microsoft's phone business, including the purchase of Nokia's device business, was a major contributor to his exit in 2014.
In a world where Apple doesn't exist. He's most likely right. We would have had a few more years of "business" class devices with email(BB or Active Sync exchange), messaging (BBM), and crap internet surfing. And on the other end, basic cell phones with maybe larger screens and with the ability to store music on them. Cameras would have improved but most likely not at the same pace. Again with an iPhone not in the picture.

Eventually, maybe a Samsung or Motorola would have come up with a more consumer friendly device running Android. Big keyboard, and big screen. With decent web browsing, GPS-Maps, good cameras, and content. And it would have cost $499.
 
I have several friends that bought on launch day. They complained it was an expensive purchase. But, it didn't stop them from making it. So, while the broader public definitely thought it was expensive. There was enough early adopters to take the plunge and pony up the money for it. And as time went on. The lines to purchase on launch day only got bigger.

I would argue the price had to be higher than all other options out there. Mainly to separate the iPhone from the pack (Premium product). Price matters when it comes to making a purchase of course, and many will scoff at the initial price and just dismiss it out of hand. But, for the large audience (Apple fans and Apple users). It's not as important. It may delay a purchase or alter other purchases so they can get this device. Many of us are just that way where that price is a secondary thing. Which is why I feel confidently that Apple will sell a million of the Vision Pro's in the first year. We want the device, period. There will be price drop. Could be early or late in the product cycle. But I don't think Apple is looking at this product any differently from the iPhone. They know it's a better product, and it should command a higher price than the competition. If any price adjustments need to be made, so be it. But, they have to set the bar and find out what the market and appetite for it is.

Pricing the iPhone "high" may have been ok but they went too high and that is essentially what Ballmer was reacting to. The fact that the prices dropped SO MUCH (33% to 40%) and SO QUICKLY (in less than three months) shows that they were too far off on the price at launch.
 
Again, not terribly needed given that gaming for 99% of the gaming population is more enjoyable with a controller with most preferring the handheld with sticks and buttons and triggers and some preferring mice and keyboard using the far more adept and sensitive hand eye coordination of hands at rest.
This is a false dichotomy, and your numbers are off. The reality is like 20% of gamers in the US have a VR device and prefer to play some games in VR, and other games in 2D. I'm the same way. There are games I only play in VR, and games I would never play in VR.
 
The first was Steve Ballmer, second was Mike Lazaridis.. will Zuckerberg be the 3rd.
 
The first was Steve Ballmer, second was Mike Lazaridis.. will Zuckerberg be the 3rd.

Ballmer was at least right about the iPhone's launch prices. In less than three months, iPhone prices were reduced 33% to 40% and reduced even more the next year. Had those significant price reductions not occurred, things may not have turned out as well for the iPhone.

Will the same be true for the Vision Pro? With a $3,499 price (assuming that sticks for a while), it’s obviously not meant to be as much of a mass market product at this point.
 
This is a false dichotomy, and your numbers are off. The reality is like 20% of gamers in the US have a VR device and prefer to play some games in VR, and other games in 2D. I'm the same way. There are games I only play in VR, and games I would never play in VR.
Thumbs up, dude. Enjoy being 20 PERCENT. That's not a very large market. And that's just gaming. Again, again, again, again, again, HOW IS THIS THE FUTURE?
 
Perhaps this isn't meant to be a product for everybody. You're right, "most people" won't buy it. But again, most people don't buy many of Apple's higher end products. Still, I think this is going to sell just fine, and over time, will become an important product for Apple. But hey, apparently, according to you, I'm just a nihilist and a narcissist if I see value in this product ;)
Thumbs up, thanks for agreeing.
 
Thumbs up, dude. Enjoy being 20 PERCENT. That's not a very large market. And that's just gaming. Again, again, again, again, again, HOW IS THIS THE FUTURE?

I remember back in 2007 when people were arguing whether Steve meant "1% of the market by the end of 2008" or "1% of the market by the beginning of 2008", and whether "the market" was cellphones in general or smartphones in particular (which, at the time, were about 20% of cellphones), and it ended up being a completely irrelevant argument because 1) smartphones went on to dominate cellphones, and 2) the iPhone went on to grab a significant portion of them.

You can look at AR/VR right now and say it's not a big market, but more interesting is the question whether the market will explode once headsets are actually good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djphat2000
I remember back in 2007 when people were arguing whether Steve meant "1% of the market by the end of 2008" or "1% of the market by the beginning of 2008", and whether "the market" was cellphones in general or smartphones in particular (which, at the time, were about 20% of cellphones), and it ended up being a completely irrelevant argument because 1) smartphones went on to dominate cellphones, and 2) the iPhone went on to grab a significant portion of them.
I remember that too. And it was just to get in and be considered a success. Since the cell/smart phone market was big enough that just 1% would be pretty darn good.
You can look at AR/VR right now and say it's not a big market, but more interesting is the question whether the market will explode once headsets are actually good.
Too many people are looking at the price and shrugging it off. AND the fact that all the current options for AR/VR are not that good. So they don't have a big market. The products simply aren't good enough yet. Now comes Vision Pro and the current reviews of it are saying it's really good, as advertised. We will see.
 
I remember back in 2007 when people were arguing whether Steve meant "1% of the market by the end of 2008" or "1% of the market by the beginning of 2008", and whether "the market" was cellphones in general or smartphones in particular (which, at the time, were about 20% of cellphones), and it ended up being a completely irrelevant argument because 1) smartphones went on to dominate cellphones, and 2) the iPhone went on to grab a significant portion of them.

You can look at AR/VR right now and say it's not a big market, but more interesting is the question whether the market will explode once headsets are actually good.
The Vision Pro is not the future of computing. I do not foresee a need to wear the eventual evolution into a smaller pair of glasses, either.

I do however see a need for a computer that fits in my POCKET. Which is why the iPhone is a hit because of the form factor and the utility. Just because you have a highly engineered pair of neat goggles doesn't mean it somehow is going to be more convenient than an iPhone.
 
Not everything Apple does has to be "the future of computing". It just has to have more purchasers than naysayers.
 
I don’t see how anyone can equate a Facebook account vs Sign in with Apple or an Apple ID in terms of tracking.



Hence the saying - he who laughs last, laughs best.

And my personal favourite - one bets against Apple to their own detriment.

FB is worse, but both have your account and both can track you and might are. As for ballmer comments, do not forget Apple had their flukes. G4 Cube, MobileMe, Siri, iTunes Ping, FireWire...off the top of my head.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.