Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazing proof of concept. But it doesn’t need to be that heavy and expensive.

It literally just needs to be a lightweight display… maybe the computer part sits on your desk and it connects wirelessly.

Or maybe it should just be a headset for a Mac or iPhone idk
 
Repeat after me. The $3,500 Vision Pro wasn’t intended to be a device with mass market appeal that sells in the kind of quantity that headphones, watches, smart phones, tablets, laptops or desktops do. They are even more niche devices than the Mac Pro.

It was intended to be a device that laid the ground work for the technology and software that will, when the technology is ready, be delivered in the AR glasses form factor.

Right now, even the best “smart glasses” aren’t AR/VR glasses that can do anything near what the Vision Pro can do. The display technology still isn’t there and it’ll still be years before it’s possible to get close.

Apple’s mistake was in not seeing that smart glasses would have appeal before those high quality displays could be built into them as a result of LLMs.

Meta proved that there was enough appeal there to sustain a voice controlled, LLM based, smart glasses product without those glasses having any displays.

Apple responded by pausing production on further serious refinements to the Vision line of products that revolved around AR/VR in order to put their resources into smart glasses of their own.

Even if Apple doesn’t make another dime off of the Vision Pro it’ll still be a huge asset for them in the medium term in the smart glasses race thanks to VisionOS. Once smart glasses with built-in displays become the standard in Apple already has an OS with a pre-existing app ecosystem and a content library that’s ready to go on day one.
 
its still a bleeding edge developer/early adopter device.

Eventually it will shrink down to smaller than ski goggle size, and then glasses, and then eventually contact lens or neural interface size.

We’re still very early. Apple are looking at 5-10 years out and using this hardware to get the UI and software done. These current devices are just stepping stones and only appropriate for hardcore AR/VR people and developers right now.

If you think the end goal here is just a cheaper box on your head like a Quest3, you’re not thinking far enough ahead.


Think the type of shrink in size vs. performance of Mac Pro afterburner card -> media engine block on the M1 Pro chip. To Mac Pro 2019 itself to Mac Studio. That’s the type of jump you can expect inside of 5-10 years. For that product to exist though, it will need some software, and that takes time to develop.
 
Many good points here. Personally, I do not think "price" was the main hurdle.

Apple do not seem to have put enough effort to research what software categories would benefit most from an AVP.

* It isolates the user. It is time consuming to setup/use (compared to phone/laptop). It makes you immobile.
Features that go against general development trends the last four decades

Some use cases that may benefit from that, in my opinion....

1. Military planning at hq, to get an immersive view of available information
2. Other complex professional operational environments
3. Handling sensitive documents in an open office landscape
4. Home planning and real estate business
5. Sports
6. Fitness
7. Undisturbed work environment for sensitive people
8. Gaming
9. Prn
10. Social interaction

1 and 2 have deep pockets, but very high requirements
3 needs a very secure implementation
4 could use a high quality software, but it could take many years to develop and polish
5 require new high volume production environment and unique user features (and how to compensate lost social interaction?)
6 some attempts, but far from taking full advantage of the system
7 works good today, but could be vastly improved
8, the easiest one, only require massive investments in gaming industry
9 could be a killer app, but the industry has struggled for some time and may lack high quality developers
10. How to use the full potential of cooperative work and entertainment?


Only 6 and 7 seem to be have well established developers in the Apple ecosystem

Since it is a rather expensive high quality system, the software have to reflect that all through, and not feel like half hearted attempts to shoehorn ipad apps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H_D
It’s the most amazing thing - an expensive High end product aimed at early adopters that cannot be produced at scale due to the scarcity of parts and is too high-priced for the mass market, does not sell like an iPhone. Let’s burn Apple at the stake.

For the almost prototype kind of product it is,the AVP is fantastic. It lacks many things, of course, but what it delivers is already maybe the most amazing and fresh take on interfacing with digital content I know. None of the low poly motion sickness of the Meta, integrated (if not seamlessly) into a powerful software and cloud environment, with Virtual Desktop being the most obvious use, along with consuming media… but it is the widgets, the virtual surroundings (especially by Disney), the immersive environments that show the true potential. Blending real and digital architecture or even making the real world replaceable are so consequential and powerful, it boggles the mind. And it is not expensive in terms of what a high-spec Studio or MacPro or even MBP costs, where you quickly end up at twice the cost.

Instead of stopping work on it Apple should focus on the Pro as a work tool with more power, Virtual Desktopping, 3D creation, the power of a Mac in Blended reality. There is much to do and explore here. The Vision Air would be lighter and cheaper, more focused at the mass market. Not sure if hyper creepy Meta glasses are the right choice for Apple, but in the end light AR glasses would not be a replacement for VR but a different product altogether with very different user interface and needs. I would consider it if it were integrated in regular glasses, but so far, if it not more or less replaces the iPhone experience, what’s the point? Still, with AI, some wearables might come up to replace hand held devices, Apple should forge ahead.

The frustration with Apple is that they come up with brilliant stuff that in many ways has changed the world we live in… and then just stop developing it. From minor things like the Music and Books App not being developed more actively to frustrating slowness in product evolution such as with iPadOS to actually starting new products and abandoning them, like AirPod Max or HomeKit…

The thing is to
— bring back innovation. In the sense of creatively synthesizing, fusioning, enriching, embedding already existing technologies, but also coming up with the groundbreaking new stuff that surprises and delights

And then
— put the work in and make it better. The MBP or iPhone did not start as the products we know today, in fact the iP was only acceptable after the fourth generation and MacBooks started to rival desktop class machines in recent years only. If you do not abandon hard- and software innovation and work on actually making the Apple integration better and stronger each year, the way this brand operates will still see success. No competition comes close to the experience of a shared ecosystem across multiple devices, ease of use, almost-magically integration. This is where AI will amazingly boost Apple, as a seamless part of their user experience in toto, not as some Gemini-clone.

The AVP and its further development can be a massive part of that, for consumers but absolutely for creators. Let’s not give up on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Varmann
Many good points here. Personally, I do not think "price" was the main hurdle.

Apple do not seem to have put enough effort to research what software categories would benefit most from an AVP.

* It isolates the user. It is time consuming to setup/use (compared to phone/laptop). It makes you immobile.
Features that go against general development trends the last four decades

Some use cases that may benefit from that, in my opinion....

1. Military planning at hq, to get an immersive view of available information
2. Other complex professional operational environments
3. Handling sensitive documents in an open office landscape
4. Home planning and real estate business
5. Sports
6. Fitness
7. Undisturbed work environment for sensitive people
8. Gaming
9. Prn
10. Social interaction

1 and 2 have deep pockets, but very high requirements
3 needs a very secure implementation
4 could use a high quality software, but it could take many years to develop and polish
5 require new high volume production environment and unique user features (and how to compensate lost social interaction?)
6 some attempts, but far from taking full advantage of the system
7 works good today, but could be vastly improved
8, the easiest one, only require massive investments in gaming industry
9 could be a killer app, but the industry has struggled for some time and may lack high quality developers
10. How to use the full potential of cooperative work and entertainment?


Only 6 and 7 seem to be have well established developers in the Apple ecosystem

Since it is a rather expensive high quality system, the software have to reflect that all through, and not feel like half hearted attempts to shoehorn ipad apps.
Plus…
Product design
Architecture
Medical use
Music and video editing
Graphic Design

And so on.

Your point 9 has been a driving force of media evolution, from VHS to the internet, but Apple is not the company to use that lever, Meta might.

Your 10 is a mixed bag as the glasses perse isolate the user and, let’s face it, are creepy. But it opens up interactional participation for people already isolated… while in a hospital or hospice,e,g., that could be very helpful and make life more accessible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Varmann
Plus…
Product design
Architecture
Medical use
Music and video editing
Graphic Design

And so on.

Your point 9 has been a driving force of media evolution, from VHS to the internet, but Apple is not the company to use that lever, Meta might.

Your 10 is a mixed bag as the glasses perse isolate the user and, let’s face it, are creepy. But it opens up interactional participation for people already isolated… while in a hospital or hospice,e,g., that could be very helpful and make life more accessible.
Yes, there are loads of high end professional areas, many with users accustomed to a very streamlined work environment. It takes dedication to get into those areas.

I do not believe in 9 myself. It was a big driver for VHS and internet, but today the industry is not a big money generator for large companies (except Visa and Mastercard). I bet cheap AI generated material is first priority here.

The last point is interesting. As you mentioned, while it isolates people physically close to each other it may work much better for those who are forced to be apart. Distant co-working could be vastly improved, though the current "talking head" animation is slightly disturbing, I see much more potential working side-by-side. Having your different displays side by side while working on a joint project, and easily focus and discuss items on on screen while taking notes/keep working on your own.
 
It's not hard, Apple - there are cheaper, more lightweight, with more apps, not tethered...

I think some sort of glasses would be good, but the Vision Pro is like wearing a tank.
 
If 390,000 units is correct and assuming that all of those are the base model at $3499 for simplicity…

That’s at least $1,364,610,000 Vision Pro revenue in 2024.

Conclusion: Apple is doomed!
And I bet less then 200M in Profit after all the setup costs. So yep AVP is doomed
 
The high price is definitely not helping. Apple has to get the price down by a lot to see an increase in number of units sold. Even then, not many will buy. Cannot see many wearing a headset (heavy or not) for extended periods. The glasses are what is required in the AR segment and waiting to see Apple release its version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mganu
I'm late to this discussion but I wonder if poor vision is affecting take-up, too.

For example, I can't use Vision Pro, ever. Nor any other eye-tracking VR headsets. This is because of an eye condition. It's not a common one but aggregated together, I think there are a high number of people whose vision conditions prohibit (or make difficult) the use of Vision Pro.

Or perhaps more accurately, there are people who assume their vision prohibits use of the Vision Pro.

And I wonder if older people with presbyopia — which we all get from our 40s onwards — are thinking the same thing. Even if that's actually fixable via lens inserts.

Traditionally, the small market for VR headsets has been amongst gamers. That's mostly self-selecting young people, who haven't yet developed age-related vision problems.

But Apple isn't chasing gaming. It's chasing the general user experience, across all age ranges. In fact, advertising for Vision Pro is one rare example where Apple isn't focussing exclusively on people aged <25. There are often middle-aged people depicted. It's depicted as a family device, or a professional device.

I also think the clunkiness of these headsets is another factor that's related to age. Younger people are likely to be much more amenable to wearing a big headset. Older people? Not so much.

So, my advice to Apple: pivot the Vision Pro to young people. Aim for education, perhaps, or creativity. Apple markets the iPad almost exclusively in this area. It's all about teens and early 20s. Do the same with the Vision Pro.
 
Also AR in all its forms will always require placing some sort of device in front of reality to augment it.

From a practical perspective, currently that means a person having to hold a device or a giant screen of sorts.

People get tired doing that.

Let’s strap it to their heads?

People get tires or at least their necks do.

Make it light weight?

Oh you already stopped there because you needed to recoup some money?


Problem is Apple leadership.
 
I have the Meta 3 headset. It's really cool and different, but a pain the ass to use beyond the initial excitement. The software works really well and the display is really good, but I don't think I've even charged it in six months. I just don't have a use-case that makes it better than picking up a phone, Ipad or PC.

I regret buying it.
I bought two Meta Quest 3S headsets, accessories, and a few games for Christmas for about $650 total. The price was great for an entry-level introduction to VR. But other than games and 3D movies (which are pretty fun), I can see why people aren't clamoring to get one. Still, I don't regret my purchase at all; it's not something that I'd use everyday. If I had more money, I would have bought the standard 3 model with more memory.

I struggled to see what Apple's reasoning was for making these before, and after buying the Quest, I'm even more baffled. They aren't a gaming company. If I want to watch the 3D version of a movie I already own through Movies Anywhere, I have to jump through hoops to "re-purchase" it--and 3D movies aren't for everybody anyway, so just watch it on TV. Using it as a larger computer display? Why not just buy a larger display for less money?

If Apple had released a $500 headset with similar hardware specs to the Meta Quest 3S but in their own ecosystem, a decent library of games, and easier options to upgrade/repurchase 3D movies and content; I would have bought one right away. At $3500, I just can't justify that at all. Even if I had that kind of money to spend, I don't think I could justify money spent vs. use.
 
Repeat after me. The $3,500 Vision Pro wasn’t intended to be a device with mass market appeal that sells in the kind of quantity that headphones, watches, smart phones, tablets, laptops or desktops do. They are even more niche devices than the Mac Pro.
Repeat after me, Apple sold it as a mass market device. The Mac Pro marketing isn’t highlighting watching movies, playing Apple Arcade games or taking photos of your kids. It instead highlights performance with tasks such as 3D rendering, video processing, video editing, scientific computing, 3D simulation, etc. The AVP marketing puts it squarely in iPad/iPhone territory. The Mac Pro is clearly aimed outside of that.

That a corporation will gather data and learn from any/every product they release and use that knowledge to shape future products is (or at least, should be) a given. Trying to paint that as a valid reason for releasing a product with no future (as it increasingly looks) and that looks like it lacked any reasonable market research isn’t going to fly.
 
I've seen so many apple fans defend AVP, calling it a success, but every news report regarding the AVP paints a bleak picture

Give apple kudos for trying but they completely misread the market when other VR head sets cost a tenth of what the AVP costs, and then they acted surprised people didn't flock to them
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Plus…
Product design
Architecture
Medical use
Music and video editing
Graphic Design

And so on.

Your point 9 has been a driving force of media evolution, from VHS to the internet, but Apple is not the company to use that lever, Meta might.

Your 10 is a mixed bag as the glasses perse isolate the user and, let’s face it, are creepy. But it opens up interactional participation for people already isolated… while in a hospital or hospice,e,g., that could be very helpful and make life more accessible.

Guys, there is less market for these than folks think.

Screenshot 2026-01-02 at 12.29.50.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr_Ed
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.