New Book Details Vision Pro's Troubled Launch in Apple Stores

[boswald]

Price. The economy is crap; people are pinching pennies to provide the basics to their families. iPhones and Macs in general are a luxury to most (including the SE, e, Air, etc), so a $3500 toy that's basically a glorified monitor on your face was the last thing people needed. Including "upgrades," the price skyrocketed to $4k and people were immediately out. Sometimes you have to lower the price a little to get people to budge. Tim hasn't figured that out yet because he's a millionaire/billionaire. All these executives need to get out of their ivory tower and see how the real world works sometimes.

 

[LincolnBio]

Apple was full on wanting to this to be another iPhone industry changing product, instead they failed.

I do think this is true to an extent. All the talk of the release of AVP being Tim Cook's "iPhone moment" wasn't for nothing. There is a fair amount of cope going on whenever the argument is made that Apple didn't expect the VisionPro to be a market success. Of course they did. It's a new product from Apple! They wanted it to sell well, as they do with all their products. The same was true of HomePod, another product that did not disrupt or capture the market like they'd hoped.

At the same time, it's hard for me to think anyone at Apple was high enough on their own supply to truly believe that a $3500 headset (a product category that has never proven to have wide appeal) was going to be the next iPhone.

 

[axantas]

It is not rocket science...
Buying my AVP I had indeed to go trough that demo at a special appointment. Ok, got it after the demo.

But I needed the inserts, which was a TEDIOUS process, I could not finish without help of a kind person on the phone. My order (with prescription) was refused twice, because it did not match the requirements of Apple - my optometrists prescription was not acceptable for Apple - reason unknown - order refused, case closed.

So: Do not make it such an incredibly complicated process to get that thing.

...and do not warn me every time, my eyes could be damaged, because the distance between the inserts and my eyelashes is to narrow...

 

[turbineseaplane]

At the same time, it's hard for me to think anyone at Apple was high enough on their own supply to truly believe that a $3500 headset (a product category that has never proven to have wide appeal) was going to be the next iPhone.

I can promise you, the "supply" is VERY high in Cupertino.

 

[Happy_John]

Unrealized gains from stock is also not income.

But it becomes income as soon as it is realized. It also become taxable once it is realized, which is one of the reasons why the holders of such stock choose not to realize it until needed. But it is still very much wealth.

Jobs was not in the game for charity's sake. He most definitely was not "above" wealth or materialism. Which is the point that people here are reacting to with the "he only wanted to be paid one dollar" guff.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Vision Pro flopped because Apple gave us no compelling reason to buy it. It wasn't the price or awkward retail demos that sunk Vision Pro. While the technology is very impressive, the user experience isn't. Big floating iPad windows don't wow anyone. The ghostly FaceTime avatars are creepy. For an immersive device, the UI feels 2D, a monitor strapped to one's face. Of course (almost) no one wanted to spend $3500+ for that.

When the iPhone launched, the multi-touch UI was really groundbreaking. Maybe it's tech fatigue, but the Vision Pro user experience didn't feel groundbreaking at all and that is why Vision Pro flopped. No one wants to wear a heavy/hot headset just to use iPad apps. Apple failed to deliver Vision Pro apps that captured the public's interest. They hoped third party developers would step up and do the hard work for them, but why would they? Why would developers invest precious/expensive hours into developing for a platform no one is buying?

The one thing that could have saved Vision Pro is gaming, but, as usual, Apple was stubborn and didn't lean into the one obvious market that would have embraced the device. Vision Pro is dead. Some of the tech will no doubt find its way into future products, but "spatial computing" is a total flop.

 

[Poot Windbreaker]

I know there were many reasons for the failure of the Vision Pro, but reading this story, it does make sense as to why my husband and I received such terrible demos. Our displays were both completely blurry (mine was worse) and our presenters (we took the demo at the same time) both just kind of shrugged when we asked for assistance.

We had not planned to buy a VP that day (even if we were blown away by the demo), but the shocking quality of what we were run through cemented that we would never look at the device again.

 

[Duncan-UK]

Insanely, insanely misleading.
Steve owned tons of Apple stock, even got into some legal trouble for his stock practices, and had a net worth of $10.2 billion at the time of his death, almost entirely generated during his time as Apple CEO.
Not trying to get political here, so please don’t take what I’m about to say as a political statement on my opinion, because it’s not, it’s just the objective truth. Saying Steve only made one dollar a year as CEO is just as misleading as saying our current president makes zero dollars as president because he gives his presidential stipend away. It’s obviously not true..

He sold Pixar to Disney for $10billion…

 

[artifex]

The excerpt doesn't seem to support the title of the book, as it argues how Apple itself changed at a corporate or cultural level, and the retail staff were just following orders for a failed product launch. I was expecting to want to read this book, but now I suspect it's a mess.

 

[rosuna]

AppleVision is a problem in search of a solution, expensive, uncomfortable but, above all, without a function that can only be done with that technology or that can be done better than with any other (laptop, ipad, iphone, etc.). With that basis, bringing that product to the market was really stupid. Steve Jobs would never have allowed it. AppleStore employees are not guilty. They couldn't do anything to sell this dumb concept!

 

[egdiroh]

There was a major marketing problem with the Vision Pro, and that is Apples return policy. So many of the initial Vision Pros were bought to be returned.

It's not part of the influencer image to have to say well folks, I'm returning my Vision Pro, because it's a great product that I am just too poor for. So of course all those why I am returning my Vision Pro videos had to make the product seem worse than it was.

If Apple had been more clear in who the audience for the product was for, than it would have been easier for them to say that they really weren't in the audience for it. But since it didn't have that built in audience it didn't have the built-in out.

There are other potential lessons here. I think that this was a failed launch that might have seriously harmed what might have been transformative. I would really love to see apples report into that failure. And maybe this is an area where Apple needed to fail. There was too much hype around this product category, with everyone getting ready to compete, so while their competitors could justify positioning themselves to compete with the vaporware of Apple's first headset, now their is not such intense focus and apple can get it sorted out. I hope the next release in this space blows us all away

 

[Happy_John]

There was a major marketing problem with the Vision Pro, and that is Apples return policy. So many of the initial Vision Pros were bought to be returned.

It's not part of the influencer image to have to say well folks, I'm returning my Vision Pro, because it's a great product that I am just too poor for. So of course all those why I am returning my Vision Pro videos had to make the product seem worse than it was.

If Apple had been more clear in who the audience for the product was for, than it would have been easier for them to say that they really weren't in the audience for it. But since it didn't have that built in audience it didn't have the built-in out.

There are other potential lessons here. I think that this was a failed launch that might have seriously harmed what might have been transformative. I would really love to see apples report into that failure. And maybe this is an area where Apple needed to fail. There was too much hype around this product category, with everyone getting ready to compete, so while their competitors could justify positioning themselves to compete with the vaporware of Apple's first headset, now their is not such intense focus and apple can get it sorted out. I hope the next release in this space blows us all away

You have some valid points - at this point, the Youtuber influencer culture damages big tech companies like Apple almost as much as it helps them, -, but, when you say "If Apple had been more clear in who the audience for the product was for", I think the fundamental problem is that Apple couldn't be clearer about this because Apple themselves didn't really know who the product was for.

One thing I will say about the huge flaw with headsets in general is that not everyone is a singleton living alone, and headsets are simply anti-social and not family-friendly.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If Apple had been more clear in who the audience for the product was for, than it would have been easier for them to say that they really weren't in the audience for it. But since it didn't have that built in audience it didn't have the built-in out.

Who is the Vision Pro for?

 

[axantas]

Who is the Vision Pro for?

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Price. The economy is crap; people are pinching pennies to provide the basics to their families. iPhones and Macs in general are a luxury to most (including the SE, e, Air, etc), so a $3500 toy that's basically a glorified monitor on your face was the last thing people needed. Including "upgrades," the price skyrocketed to $4k and people were immediately out. Sometimes you have to lower the price a little to get people to budge. Tim hasn't figured that out yet because he's a millionaire/billionaire. All these executives need to get out of their ivory tower and see how the real world works sometimes.

The economy isn't crap for everyone. We're doing just fine, for example.

Apple could lower the price to $299 and I wouldn't buy it, because there is nothing to do on it. Well that, and it gives me motion sickness something fierce, both times I've used one....

 

[mrmod]

The issue wasn't the price or the hardware tech... it was Apple not releasing anything special to go with it. They basically released it and then put the entire project on the back burner. You still can't set it up for multiple people... Who ever made the decisions for the vision pro should be fired.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The economy isn't crap for everyone. We're doing just fine, for example.

Apple could lower the price to $299 and I wouldn't buy it, because there is nothing to do on it. Well that, and it gives me motion sickness something fierce, both times I've used one....

I'll admit, I'd probably keep one around if it were $299.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

I'll admit, I'd probably keep one around if it were $299.

I was exaggerating, and would too if I didn't want vomit after using it...it was bad.

 

[maflynn]

. The same was true of HomePod, another product that did not disrupt or capture the market like they'd hoped.

No question on the homepod. I bought one and it was good, not great, but good. the price point was too high, and the Siri was (and is) horrible, so it had never achieved critical mass in terms of sales.

 

[Kriss_De_Valnor]

Exactly right.

"VR Gaming" has entered the chat and would like a word about this comparison.

VR Gaming and - someone has to say it - XXX VR content.

 

[egdiroh]

Who is the Vision Pro for?

I'm not sure that they've got it nailed down, because they want its successor to be for everyone. Groups I think this is for.
1) developers. (obviously)
2) industries with specific AR type apps
3) people who want a Big Mac screen on the go (or without the space)
4) people with a lot of in train / plane time that want a better experience.
5) people with ergonomic constraints or space constraints that might not have access to this sort of experience with large screens.

People this is not for who might be in the above (in this form factor):
1) people who are in face to face meetings with people a lot.
2) people who are not in one spot for extended periods and might have issues with the life.

 

[Nekronos]

But it becomes income as soon as it is realized. It also become taxable once it is realized, which is one of the reasons why the holders of such stock choose not to realize it until needed. But it is still very much wealth.

Jobs was not in the game for charity's sake. He most definitely was not "above" wealth or materialism. Which is the point that people here are reacting to with the "he only wanted to be paid one dollar" guff.

The fact that it is unrealized is something I feel too many do not appreciate or the fact that until said stock is sold the value fluctuates and could always become much less valuable. Including unrealized values in net worth should always be caveated with that fact.

Steve Jobs's salary being limited to a dollar is notable - it is not common for high level executives even today and was extremely unusual at the time. Obviously company paid expenses and equity enabled him to do this but it's worth noting nonetheless

 

[Nekronos]

Average people simply don't want to strap on VR headsets.

That's a HUGE part of the problem with all HMDs.

I'm not sure if that's true regarding "wants", I imagine a fair amount would want to though opportunities for that may be limited for the average person.

I think the fact that the quest has sold over 20 million units shows there is a fair amount of interest. If we consider that outside of niche professional use, children and young adults would have the most opportunity to utilize these devices, 20 million isn't such a bad number against that population.

 

[Ct applefan]

The Apple Vision Pro is still 100x better than any Meta Quest.

Better means nothing when you’re not selling them.

 

[ThailandToo]

Insanely, insanely misleading.
Steve owned tons of Apple stock, even got into some legal trouble for his stock practices, and had a net worth of $10.2 billion at the time of his death, almost entirely generated during his time as Apple CEO.
Not trying to get political here, so please don’t take what I’m about to say as a political statement on my opinion, because it’s not, it’s just the objective truth. Saying Steve only made one dollar a year as CEO is just as misleading as saying our current president makes zero dollars as president because he gives his presidential stipend away. It’s obviously not true..

No. He was the founder and owned half the company from the start. Those shares were his to begin with. Big difference from being a founder and getting stock by screwing over all the stakeholders who aren’t shareholders!