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.
Sketchy Rumor Says Vision Pro Will Launch in Final Week of January
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank you. I couldn't have said what you wrote any better, and it would have been far less nuanced.
I also participate on another forum that's relatively new, with a very strong Apple/Mac user presence. It's comprised of a wide range of people in a variety of tech and non-tech disciplines. Everyone is intelligent and behaves in a civil/mature manner.
Everybody gets along. It's polite. Nobody feels the need to engage in juvenile burns/comebacks/put-downs/etc in order to feel good or important/powerful. That wouldn't be tolerated - not by the mods necessarily (it's lightly moderated), but by those who participate in everyday posting.
It really is a breath of fresh air in comparison.
While there may have been some strong views expressed here in the past, the rapid rise of social media over the last dozen years has accelerated the juvenile nastiness to a level we see today.
So anyone who expresses any criticism of or skepticism toward the AVP hates Apple and all their products? You are greatly misrepresenting the perspective you are condemning, though that's probably intentional as doing so makes dismissing it a lot easier. I don't think you have much understanding of where criticism/doubt of AVP comes from. As much as you bristle at being called a "fanboy", it is equally unfair to characterize the opposition as "haters". If your enthusiasm for AVP isn't "blind", then neither is the criticism of it.
And I've only seen one "juvenile burn" posted here today and it was from one of the pro-AVP users. Take that as you will.
I don't believe he said anyone. Words matter.
I have many Apple products and feel it is fine to discuss on this forum why in my opinion the Vision Pro isn’t a good direction for Apple. Given opportunity costs involved (one earlier poster brought up AI development), I think of it as constructive criticism of the company.
Your take on this seems very extreme to me.
To prove your immaturity? No other reason really.
I do enjoy seeing you guys argue with others on a product that hasn't been released yet, that utilises technology that's in its infancy.
I have put my livelihood on the line for AR as I do believe in the benefits. But the reality is this - I highly doubt you will be seeing groundbreaking apps for at least a year or 2. Its extremely difficult to create for, beyond simple stuff.
Amiga - Atari wars of the 1980s...
HP vs. all other calculator makers in the 1970s....
And so on.
I adore these types of factual takedowns. 10/10. Bravo!Excuse me?
Saturday, April 3, 2010.
Apple Announces April 3rd Launch Date for Wi-Fi iPad in the U.S.
Apple today announced that Wi-Fi models of the iPad will go on sale in the United States on Saturday, April 3rd. 3G-capable models in the U.S., as...www.macrumors.com
Also, the initial launch of Mac OS X 10.0 was on Saturday, March 24, 2001.
Let’s see what they’ve got, literally, I’m exited about a vr headset knocking it out of the park, but it’s a difficult task, I’m not convinced they have something worth investing 5 K€. Btw somebody said that at that price you can buy the best tv in the market and watch it your family.
'Lack of confidence'? lol. lol. This is a brand new product, and Apple has no idea how well it will sell. Of course they won't produce 20 million of these to only sell 300,000 .... lose tons of money and their stock to tank. Apple is a business. They have CONFIDENCE they will sell somewhere around 1/2 a million. The Oculus Quest 1 sold 425 million in its first year. So, they are expecting similar results for a much higher priced item.
It's also a matter of material availability, there are just so many of those high resolution screens and other components being made currently. Thats also part of the reason the cost is so high. We will never know how many Apple would have made if there were no constraints, but I agree with you that it is silly to suggest its a 'lack of confidence.'
Apple will do well with first gen AVP and will quickly sell as many as can be produced (a strong function of parts availability).
I know that doesn't fit the popular narrative that Apple has no confidence in AVP and will be intentionally constraining supply to stimulate demand. That's so funny. Especially being one of the most successful tech companies in the world. Apple doesn't need to play the amateur hour game.
You know as well as I do that Apple could sell millions of them sight unseen. Because that’s how many blind Apple accolytes there are. So the fact that they’re intentionally restricting production says a lot, whether you choose to admit it or not.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it that Apple are "intentionally contstraining production." I don't know where you came across that information. But, accepting for the sake of the argument that this is correct, what does it say?
I genuinely have no idea what "restricting production says a lot" means to you. Spell it out for us.
Also curious if your market research can tell us what percentage of potential customers are "blind Apple acolytes" and what percentage are legitimate consumers with a genuine interest in and/or use for the product. Surely there exist both types of consumer in the marketplace, right?
Heh... no doubt the 600,000+ Apple customers (also known as blind Apple acolytes) who purchase iPhones everyday of the year (on the average), drank too much of the Apple Kool Aid and are now just Apple automatons taking orders daily from Apple's Space Park campus.
Apple could manufacture and sell an additional 2 million iPhones per day, but lacking confidence they're intentionally holding back production to generate market interest and demand. It's a sound strategy, one that's propelled Apple to being one of the most successful tech companies in the world.
Stanford University's business school has recently taken notice of Apple's success and now offers a required course called; "No Confidence, No Problem - Restrict Product Availability." Other United States business schools are now taking notice and developing new curriculums around that concept.
Apple Reportedly Can't Make Many Vision Pro Headsets
Apple reportedly can't make more than half a million Vision Pro headsets per year due to limited supply of its near-4K OLED microdisplays.
www.uploadvr.com
I mean, I suppose if you take what Apple says at face value. But let’s be serious here. The notion that they can only muster enough parts to make 400k of them is patently absurd.
Apple Reportedly Can't Make Many Vision Pro Headsets
Apple reportedly can't make more than half a million Vision Pro headsets per year due to limited supply of its near-4K OLED microdisplays.
I mean, I suppose if you take what Apple says at face value. But let’s be serious here. The notion that they can only muster enough parts to make 400k of them is patently absurd.
"I mean, I suppose if you take what Apple says at face value. But let’s be serious here. The notion that they can only muster enough parts to make 400k of them is patently absurd."
Where in the story you linked to up above did Apple say *anything*?
The display Apple is using is a full custom 3,680x3,140 OLEDoS (OLED on silicon substrate) Sony display. Two are required per AVP. For reference, Quest II display resolution is 1,832x1,920 (twice the resolution of Quest I).
It's likely you're very familiar with Sony's display technology, yields, and availability in order to support your assertion that Apple not being able to quickly procure more than 800,000+ displays in order to produce more than 400,000 AVPs per year, is patently absurd.
Please elaborate on that in detail.
Last edited:
A fully loaded MacBook Pro can also run Mac apps, Windows apps (with emulation), etc. This can't. Well, pedantically, you could run Mac apps on this, but only by combining it with that fully loaded M3 MacBook Pro and using it as a glorified second display.
By itself, this can run only iOS apps plus apps specifically written for it. I can buy a refurbished 6th generation iPad for $160 that can run iOS apps. So unless the head-mounted form factor and Vision-specific apps somehow add $3339 worth of value, it really is that expensive. It's staggeringly expensive for a glorified iOS device on your face, when you compare it with, for example, Google Cardboard. 😁
(Yes, that last bit is sarcasm, but only up to a point.)
Yup. And that decision basically eliminates the #1 reason people buy VR/AR hardware. I can't remember the exact number with absolute certainty, but I remember reading that somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of VR headset buyers intended to use it for porn. Apple won't let people put porn on their store. Therefore, by locking it down like iOS, Apple wiped out 75% of this product's potential market right off the bat.
The remaining potential market gets wiped out for other reasons, as noted below.
If they were thinking clearly, they'd launch it with full Mac compatibility, not just iOS compatibility. Apple's bizarre complete control fetish (App-Store-ification) is what's going to end up killing this platform, IMO. If it could run all Mac apps without restriction on day one, it wouldn't matter what software was out there, because it would be a real computer in and of itself. And apps could then figure out what cool stuff they can do with it over time.
As it stands, most of the stuff I'd like to do on this hardware can't be done because of the App Store. In particular, their policies are incompatible with the software licenses of all the Free Software 3D modeling apps I use, which means they will literally never be available on the platform unless Apple opens it up.
And by letting app developers ship apps directly to consumers, that would also give Apple the ability to sell to all the people who want to use it for porn content without Apple having to make it available on their own store site. (Yeah, in theory, you might kind of be able to do some of that to a limited extent with the web, but realistically, no, nobody is going to rewrite software like that in JavaScript with WebGL.)
As designed, though, it doesn't make sense to use it unless every app you need to run can run on iOS or as a native VisionOS app. That knocks out most of the rest of the market, except for people wiling to use it as an external display for their Mac.
And all it would take is Meta spending a few days of engineering time to make a tethered display mode for macOS (it already exists for Windows), and even that market would pretty much evaporate, since the Quest 2 is almost an order of magnitude less expensive.
So I'm struggling to figure out who will buy this other than people who have extra money that they don't know what to do with, and who really want to play with new toys. That market isn't zero, but it won't sustain a product line long-term. And given that 13 years after iPad became available, it still has a tiny fraction of the Mac platform's market share and still hasn't come close to functional parity with the Mac in spite of costing half as much, I can't imagine any universe in which a similarly limited product costing two or three times as much as the cheapest Mac laptop could ever be anything other than a giant money pit for Apple unless they open it up to Mac apps.
The problem with this device is that every idea I come up with for how I would use it is thwarted by Apple's very deliberate crippling of the device by making it a glorified iOS toy rather than a real computer with AR/VR capabilities. And I think you'll find that sentiment is widespread among people who were initially interested in buying this product.
I've been saying for years that the best thing Apple could do for the iPad Pro series would be to make them run Mac Apps, and that is doubly true for the Vision Pro. As it stands, the devices are crippled by Apple's chronic shortsightedness and irrational desire to control what their users can do with the devices that they paid for, and the result is and will continue to be a vastly inferior user experience until Apple gets over that.
My biggest problem is that I want this device as it was originally described — a spatial computer. Instead, it's a spatial iPhone, which I have remarkably close to zero interest in. The hardware itself sounds like it is going to be downright amazing, but as long as it is based on iOS rather than macOS, the software side is going to be so crippled that I can't justify buying it. And that annoys the heck out of me, both as a Mac user and a stockholder.
If this were a dumb headset with similar capabilities that could connect to a Mac over USB-C for $300, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. If this were a full-fledged Mac, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But instead, it has all the hardware to be a Mac and costs as much as a Mac (and then some), but can't actually run Mac software. As a result, without tethering it to a Mac and turning it into a very overpriced version of that $300 headset, it can't do any of the things I would want to be able to do with it unless they miraculously get a bunch of companies that still don't even support iOS to suddenly decide that spatial computing is a good idea. Everything about that approach seems like the worst of all possible worlds to me.
If this product fails, I doubt it will matter, because the stock market has likely already factored this product's widely predicted failure into the share price. More to the point, as a stockholder (of more than 500 shares), I certainly hope that this is the case. 😁
Apple Reportedly Can't Make Many Vision Pro Headsets
Apple reportedly can't make more than half a million Vision Pro headsets per year due to limited supply of its near-4K OLED microdisplays.
I mean, I suppose if you take what Apple says at face value. But let’s be serious here. The notion that they can only muster enough parts to make 400k of them is patently absurd.
So in summary, everything you stated was incorrect:
- Apple didn’t make any statements at all about how many devices they’re making*
- They’re not constraining production (they’re limited by the parts Sony can supply to them)
- Apple didn’t admit to constraining production
- They’re not “creating an artificial appearance of overwhelming demand”
- It wasn’t reported here (on Macrumors)
* Apple never make any statements about the supply chain except on their financial statements/calls, usually when an analyst asks if product x has reached supply/demand balance and Apple reply that they’re selling as many as they make, that they’re making as many as they can and they would love to be able to make more.
I’m sure we’ll hear the same during the next financial call after the Vision Pro is released.
They will also report negative issues such as when there were global supply chain delays due to the pandemic.
We can place a lot of trust in these statements because falsifying financial statements is a serious crime which can lead to big fines and jail time for executives.
So if they do say they’re making as many they can on the next call and you have any shred of evidence that they’re not then you can report this to the FBI and land Tim Cook and Luca Maestri in jail 😂
AVP is not for you and likely many others. It's not meant to be a general purpose computer with goggles/eyeglasses displays running regular Mac (or iOS) apps. Though it will likely be able to do that as well using one's Mac, and AVP as a display device.
Among other things, it's for people who can take advantage of AR/VR apps to solve problems.
One very simple example would be a home/building architect who wants to give a walk-through presentation of a home or building design with clients. That would give the architect and client the ability to walk through and look around the designed home in immersive 3D, make comments, giving the architect the ability to make small real-time modifications,. And most importantly, giving the client a very realistic sense of the architect's design. Ditto for interior designers and landscape architects.
The above is traditionally done with paper plans presentations, showing multiple views. Or on a 2D computer screen showing 3D generated views. Both lousy, never giving a true sense of a home/building design.
The above is just one simple example. There are hundreds/thousnads more.
Last edited: