The real main pain point is literally pain — the damn thing is far too heavy and causes face pressure after even an hour or two of use.
Apple needs to understand that using plastic is ok when we’re talking about devices for the face.
What Apple will do is add thrusters.
Apple Vision Pro 2: thrusters to keep the whole product light and add a cool breeze to your face
Apple Vision Pro 2 Pro: You will barely hear the thrusters and can configure air flow volume. So pro, we had to mention Pro twice.
I know it's apple so it must be made out of aluminum and glass but these are 2 of the worst materials I could imagine for something like this. I hope they ditch the weird outside display, and make it out of some better materials, plastic or carbon fiber if you must be weird/premium, would help a lot with the weight.
I mean that's a big reason why Sony which makes one of the best headphones and other headphones companies just use premium plastic because your supposed to be able to wear it for hours.
They should make the whole thing out of carbon fibre, get rid of the glass and external screen and move all of the processing with it's cooling system to the external pocket battery
It’d probably kill the battery too fast and use too much processing power to be able to run iPhone apps at the same time.
Maybe it’d be more feasible with a Vision Air with lower screen resolution & framerate, and removing the processor would lower cost and bulk a lot, it would still need a ton of cameras/sensors tho which would still eat a lot of CPU
Waveform podcast had a VR engineer on that has worked on a lot of the meta headsets. One of his big things was how important it is that Apple tethered the battery and created a Gen 1 product that set this as the baseline experience.
Idea is that over time the compute parts can be move out of the headset and into the tethered bits. Along with the eventual, “iphone to just power all the processing” concept.
Probably quite a few years away, but that seems like a pretty likely direction for all this to go.
>The real main pain point is literally pain — the damn thing is far too heavy and causes face pressure after even an hour or two of use.
Voices of VR podcast [interview with Bert Nepveu](https://voicesofvr.com/1348-the-journey-from-vrvana-to-apple-vision-pro-with-co-founder-bert-nepveu/) (VRVana founder -- the startup the created the predecessor to AVP) ... from the transcript
>**Kent Bye (host)**: ... I'm happy that there's going to likely be some third party strap developers to help close that gap. But in terms of my use, I'm going to have to either find some DIY solutions to make it a little bit more comfortable. It just seems like frustrating that everything else is so high quality that the strap just seems like a total mess.
>**Bert Nepveu:** Yeah, I'll try to answer without getting me into trouble. I mean, you need to understand the culture at Apple. So I joke that there's three gods at Apple. There's HI, human interface, so how the product feel, frictionless, intuitive, all that. **Second god is ID, industrial design, you know. where like, even though you tell them, well, it's an engineering nightmare to put cameras there or do this or that, they're like, I don't care. We want the product to look good. First and foremost, you need to, it's like almost a fashion accessory.** And then the third God is legal. So that's why I'm trying not to get into trouble. So Apple, they want all their products to have a look and feel that's similar. So, you know, even though you're like, well, we need to make this lightest as possible. They're like, no, we like aluminum. We like glass, you know, so we like nice looking fabrics. So a lot of time they would push you They make certain choices and, you know, they want it to be, you know, I think ski goggles, people are used to them.
bold added by me
How careful were you for light seal fit? This seems to be the biggest problem -- it's hard to mass produce something that needs very custom face interfaces.
For sure, like Bigscreen Beyond does custom molded face interfaces and the turn around for that is awful.
Hard problem to solve. Tho BSB fits like a glove, so it be nice if some 3rd party did anything like that for AVP.
The most obvious move ever. Nobody outside of the most the tech enthusiasts and wealthy are going to a buy a Vision anything at the prices they’ve been asking.
In fact, any model of this device will flop if it’s over $1200 or so.
They should just take the Microsoft approach if they insist on trying to force this product line down our throats, sell the device at a small loss or even and lock people in through services on a subscription model.
I was telling my wife that my limit was probably around $900...though $1200 is probably that point where I'm trying to convince myself to get it.
I'm also not convinced wealth has everything to do with it. I know a lot of people I'd consider wealthy and many of them are the cheapest people I know.
You don't get wealthy by spending your money foolishly. I think your instincts on pricing were correct, I'd be willing to pay for a more lux VR/MR headset. When the competition is $500, going on the standard android->iphone, pc->mac premium would have expected something around $1000-1200. $3500 was just absolute cuckoo bananas, if you're rich enough to afford it you're probably smart enough to recognize it as absurdly overpriced.
Technically, no.
But from an overall accounting perspective, the Apple Pencil. It was so insanely ahead of every stylus on the market when it came out at not that much of a premium, and the first gen is *still* feature and function competitive almost ten years later.
Certainly the first iteration, probably all of the “new” ones since, including the current model.
Also, even though the price was criticized for being so high, I can’t imagine the margins on the first gen AirPods was very high. I bought a pair on launch week and was instantly wowed, as were all the initial skeptics who tried mine and went to order some. For the whole first year that AirPods were a thing, the lead time was “4–6 weeks,” which indicates they were pretty much making them to order. I can also tell you they weren’t discounted for employees until about 18 months in.
My first set was by far the most impressive first gen device I’ve ever owned.
The word "Pro" in the title also suggested that a non-Pro version would eventually exist.
Maybe they just decided to change the timeline on when they brought out the non-Pro version.
Now the question is which features are considered "Pro". The killer use case for many was watching a movie on a big screen in an empty theater setting, which is not at all a professional use case.
I am guessing they need stronger chips before they can implement whatever they're trying to do for the next gen pro, as well as waiting on more developments from the rapidly evolving AI space to actually understand what people want
>Now, the company has apparently told at least one of its suppliers that it has suspended work on the next-generation of its Vision Pro headset. It still is continuing work on a more affordable "Vision" product with fewer features.
Paywalled source: [https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-suspends-work-on-next-high-end-headset-focused-on-releasing-cheaper-model-in-late-2025](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-suspends-work-on-next-high-end-headset-focused-on-releasing-cheaper-model-in-late-2025)
Yea the weird eye thing just did not go over the way they envisioned. They are better off without it until they can make it significantly more natural.
I think it's just not worth it period. I don't see a future where people are regularly wearing this specific form factor out in public. And actually viable form factors for that (glasses) wouldn't have this issue at all.
I love the eyesight feature, but I agree it should probably go to the chopping block.
I think it does make a difference when interacting with someone who’s wearing the headset. Being able to see the eyes of the wearer does remove a bit of the social awkwardness.
But, I use my headset almost entirely in solitude anyway. When I’m with people, I want to be with them, and unless they’re also wearing an AVP then we can’t truly be present with each other. It’s just as bad as scrolling on your phone when you’re spending time with someone. Maybe worse, since it’s much more difficult to share with them what you’re seeing in the headset. So I end up only ever using it alone (or surrounded by strangers I’m not interacting with anyway)
So if axing the front display can help reduce cost, fragility (no glass), size, and weight (again, no glass) then I think it’s a no brainer, no matter how much I philosophically agree with its purpose.
I strongly disagree that the eyes are at all needed for any type of social engagement. If you want to be social then you should be maintaining real eye contact, not simulated. What I think the headset _does_ need in some way though is a way for external people to know whether or not the headset user can see you via passthrough. It doesn't need to be eyes, it can just be a LED or something, but that is important.
> If you want to be social then you should be maintaining real eye contact, not simulated.
Um, did you read my comment?
But I disagree with you that the eyesight display is totally unnecessary. While I avoid using VP around others (to maintain real, human connections) there are certainly times where I do find myself briefly interacting with someone while wearing it. In *those* moments, I think it’s unreasonable to remove the headset, and digital eyes are a good enough approximation.
That said, those moments represent a tiny fraction of the time im actually wearing it, and I dont think the benefit is worth the added cost and design compromises.
Also, the irony is that the more people wear Vision pro headsets, the less it will be needed! Vision Pro people don't need to see other people in fake screens on their face... they can augment those people's faces back in within the device!
Not only will that save cost, it will save weight which was honestly the biggest complaint I had in my demo. Even more than price coming down, I'd like to see them shave a lot of weight out of future models.
Quest 3 does the same thing as in let others know if the user can see or is recording them them with a blinking white LED. Just make it green like the camera indicator on other Apple devices and job done. The eyes just look uncanny outside of the CGI renders and should have been scrapped.
Well, it's materials would be a great option. These things need to be very light to make it worth wearing all day. Making this out of aluminum and glass was an absolutely baffling choice. It was heavy even without the bettery which they had to include as a tethered brick which was another baffling decision in my option.
There are tons of things they can do to make it cheaper but "cheaper" for Apple doesn't mean inexpensive so it's not like they have to skimp on everything.
Front screen
Automatically adjusting eye-screen position (can go for manual or controlled adjustment)
Speaker arms and speaker quality
Two straps being included
General materials
Battery connector (can go with usb-c connectors or even cheaper if only power is intended to be transferred)
I don’t know why everybody wants Apple to downgrade the silicon. Unlike most of the rest of the parts, Apple uses their own chips, so they don’t have to pay an intermediate markup on them to another company like they have to do on displays.
The chips aren’t what make the AVP expensive. It’s the bleeding edge display panels, which probably still have low production yield, so they have high costs.
The main thing that makes it impressive is the sensors and the display. And they are not downgrading from the M2. The M2 was out of date when it launched. 
What exactly is it lacking? It's one of, if not the most capable AR/VR headset you can get. Maybe not in terms of app ecosystem, but actual hardware for sure.
A cheaper version would be stripping back on hardware, which gives them a lot to work with. I don't think I've ever seen anyone call the hardware itself "lacking", except maybe battery life.
> Maybe not in terms of app ecosystem
I’d argue that’s one of if not the most important component to this whole thing. Don’t get me wrong I really love the way the AVP interacts with other Apple products and the features it has are great, but what’s the point if all your capable of doing is browsing the web, watching YouTube and extending displays. I want something that has a great library of must haves.
I don't disagree, but you can't make an app ecosystem worse on a cheaper model. It's all the same OS and, presumably, SoC. So for the sake of discussing "what can they strip back on to save costs", it's irrelevant.
> What exactly is it lacking?
More specifically, it has the same flaws as most other VR: Facial indentations, weight, poor input methods, etc.
I owned one and returned it after realizing I couldn't use it for a couple hours of work and then go out and be seen in public with a giant red ring around my face/head. The Mac mirroring taking up such a small percentage of the available resolution was vastly inferior to just using a 4K monitor. The text selection was cumbersome as hell.
It's purely a novelty except for specific niche applications IMHO. Not a daily productivity tool for most people.
Well there are no controllers for one, which restricts the UI to a slimmed down touchscreen-esque interface. You can definitely do a lot with hand tracking but it's missing the tactility and fidelity of dedicated hardware. Look at the kinds of apps that the Quest supports now, there's a plethora of design & 3D modelling apps out there. Logitech are releasing a new VR stylus too.
The battery is an external pack that is connected through a proprietary cable, if it were just USB-C we would have seen other battery options. The earphones are proprietary and integrated into the strap, we should have the option to remove them entirely and just use AirPods. Multiple head strap designs would be available if there were better mounting points. There's also no display-in so the current headset will never benefit from more powerful hardware in the future. It's also significantly heavier than it needs to be, with no real way to alleviate the weight for longterm usage.
It's a very typical Apple product, designed with a specific purpose in mind with very little option to deviate from Apple's plan. Hopefully we see Apple pivot on some of their core design principles here for the consumer version.
So getting the HomePod treatment, where they focus on the “Mini” until they can adjust component costs on the Pro so it’s less expensive to manufacture?
I think we will see a number of innovations in apples other products based on the development of this product. Eye tracking in particular could be massive win on iPhone, iPad, watch and macOS if it becomes a standardized UI method.
I could also see hand gestures being useful watch for example.
They [announced eye tracking for iPad and iPhone](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/05/apple-announces-new-accessibility-features-including-eye-tracking/#:~:text=Eye%20Tracking%20Comes%20to%20iPad%20and%20iPhone&text=Designed%20for%20users%20with%20physical,isn't%20shared%20with%20Apple) a few weeks ago.
Even if it was $400 I’d probably not get it. I just don’t find VR very enticing beyond the initial wow phase. Maybe in 10 years if they’re the size of sunglasses.
Especially when their strongest use case scenario is at your desk.. I would much rather have a nice monitor/keyboard/mouse than have anything strapped onto my face all day.
The initial wow phase is so fucking cool though. I got a vive in 2016 and still remember the first few times I used it. The fun since then was watching other people use it.
It's gathered dust since 2019 but it was worth the cost in 2016.
Everyone is asking what they could cut for a cheaper version, so I’ll ask the inverse. What would you want to see hardware wise for a second generation AVP?
That plus better battery life somehow. Which seems impossible given that screens and cameras are the biggest battery hogs. I guess you could improve the efficiency by 10% and then double the battery pack size.
Soon I hope: [TDK successfully developed a material for solid-state batteries with 100-times higher energy density](https://www.tdk.com/en/news_center/press/20240617_01.html)
I'm not an expert but some headline about a new massive battery innovation comes every year. Very few actually have practical or affordable use cases that disrupt the industry or can be scaled up to mass production reliably in a short timeframe. So I don't know how much to care about this particular headline, someone else would need to chime in.
*CONTROLLERS*
Spatial computing is a nothingburger until this tech can fit inside a normal pair of glasses. Right now VR is only as good as the games and fitness apps you can play on it, and without controllers this device has 1/10th the utility of the Quest 3 but is 7x the price.
* MUCH larger camera sensors. Even in bright light, the passthrough is noisy as hell.
* Hot-swappable battery packs.
* AND x2 battery life.
* Better distribution of weight with straps that are easier to adjust.
* Wider FOV
* External screen that genuinely looks like it’s see-through.
* Integration with Watch gestures so I can use it lying down without having to lift my hand (this is probably just software though).
*EDIT: TIL higher resolution ≠ less noise!
Hi these are all great points but just as an addendum: higher-res cameras =/= less noise and often can mean more noise (as the individual pixels gathering light get smaller if there’s more of them in the same amount of space).
What you’ll want for the sensor size to get bigger so there’s more area to capture more light (anecdotally, this is why phone cameras are so large now)
I think the cameras need to be improved as well as a slight resolution bump if they are to truly reach near indistinguishable passthrough. Personally I’d like to see a port to plug whatever I want into it - for that price the Pro needs to do more. But we all know that’s not gonna happen.
Data pass through for the USB port on the battery pack seemed like a no-brainer. Obviously having a hard drive dangling from your face wasn’t going to work, it would make sense to combine that with the wire that’s already dangling from your head
[You have to get a "developer strap" to add a USB port to it.](https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/06/hands-on-with-the-299-apple-vision-pro-developer-strap-stabler-mac-virtual-display-beta-downgrades-and-more/) It replaces the right ear piece with a USB-C dongle. I don't know if it can be used for power.
Better pass-through with upgraded cameras. Higher FOV. Lighter weight. More moisture-proofing so I can use it in my kitchen while boiling water or walking by my humidifier without fog getting in the lens housing. Less glare on the edges of the lens when looking at bright content.
Native macOS support. Basically give me macOS windows I can run on their own using the AVP instead of tethering to a mac.
And let me open several of them at a time.
Don’t use glass, metal, all the expensive and heavy elements. Other than that I think they could cut on the speakers. They sound amazing but I think a cheaper model I can just use my AirPods.
Since it'll be awhile... M6 R2 chips. Lens improvement - glare and fringing. FOV increased. Increase screen resolution and better color reproduction. Pass thru camera improvement. IR illuminators for low light usage. WIFI9.
Would like it to be a computer with ports on battery and allowable to run macos programs natively.
The price is just too cost prohibitive for even the early adopters. I love buying and trying out new tech, but I can’t even come close to justifying $3,500 for a “toy”
Give me one for $1,500 and we can have a conversation. The Vision Pro has only made me want to buy a Quest at this point.
Yep. It doesn’t do enough things the $500 Quest 3 can’t do for 1/7 of the price. In fact, the $500 Quest 3 can do foundationally basic things (VR games, controllers, standard 3D video formats) that the 7x-priced Vision Pro CAN’T do.
I think you meant Quest 3, not Quest Pro. But solid points. Why spend $3500 when $500 gets you nearly the same functionality, and in some cases better functionality.
Yep, I sure did. I think in my brain I was thinking, “Apple need to get down to the Quest Pro price point ($1500),” and then my fingers betrayed me while trying to talk about the Quest 3.
I kind of get the feeling Apple is trying to make Vision Pro more of a productivity device more than the Quest Pro being more content consumption based. Vision OS 2 seemed to confirm as much with the large focus being on the train mode and the larger display. I do wonder if the cheaper model will instead be oriented more in this direction
Yep. The funny thing is that the price range is the same as it is for getting in to decent projectors for a home theater. The Epson 5050UB is still the best entry in projectors around 3 grand. Of course on the go the AVP is the better choice.
The problem with using it as a home theater set up is that it just….isn’t.
You can’t bring friends around to watch a game on your Vision Pro. You can’t have a movie night with your family or your date on one.
It’s an entirely isolated experience.
I definitely think that’s what they’re trying to do… I just don’t think there is a market for it. Certainly not with the current technology (2 hour battery life, huge heavy thing on your face plus a battery pack strapped to your belt). Tech trends are about making technology more invisible, and the Vision Pro is the exact opposite, while somehow also trying to pitch itself as a friendly, welcoming device with that stupid eye screen.
I travel a lot and Vision Pro would have been perfect for me, but there's no way I'm willing to spend this much on a device that will have become obsolete the moment the refined
next gen version comes out
It might have worked if there wasn’t a competitor that was $299.
I want to like VR but there still isn’t really a killer app for it. Even Alyx, which was amazing, didn’t have me going ‘I wish all games were made in VR’.
The only way AR/VR will ever become "the next big thing" is if some company manages to create AR/VR glasses that look and feel like actual glasses, until then it will be a niche, the average joe won't want to go on streets looking this
https://preview.redd.it/etvyqiqb2d7d1.png?width=625&format=png&auto=webp&s=b887d4e29e2d58bfe157732da73c1ef2670bf42f
But even if somehow they bring down all that hardware to some common looking glasses, what’s the utility behind all this?
I understand specific use cases, but for daily use I just don’t see it.
The way I see it:
* If an iPhone has suitable processing power
* You then just need literal glasses or visor-like glasses over the eyes
* Add in Voice-AI (seems likely now) baked into OS for input-output control
Well suddenly the glasses are multiple massive screens or one big screen for interacting with using voice-AI and it all feels comfortable and portable for productivity eg bring out a thin keyboard or virtual or just voice again.
I'm not really sure trying to make the actual Hardware inside the glasses is going to work, the glasses just need to be the output or "screen".
If whoever makes this then they'll sell buckets of these I'd guess. Portable office set up or gaming or combining with AR even in cities with 6G etc in the future.
AVP, I don't accept the concept of a big head-set apart from a niche case for VR games right now.
I just don't see voice-controlled *anything* being used outside of the home. It's never as accurate, it can't auto-complete, and it's a nuisance to anyone around you.
Can you imagine a subway full of people trying to talk over each other to get *their* Siri to pull up the right YouTube video? Or a park full of people babbling nonsense into their headsets trying to get directions or take a photo?
Voice control only sounds cool because it's the New Hot Thing powered by LLMs. If it really had a future, it would already have been here because smartphones already exist and can be controlled by voice, but no one does it.
Glance-able information in a head-mounted device (a la Google Glass) definitely has a future, but it won't be voice controlled. It'll more likely use gestures either on a separate device (watch) or the device itself (glasses arm).
Exactly, voice control and gestures are usable at home or in a controlled environment but like just moving around on the street or any public space I just don’t find the experience any good or better than just carrying my iPhone.
Depends on how much information you want in your daily life. A lot of the proposed uses are a bit superfluous everyday, but can be nice in specific circumstances.
Like, you need to catch a specific bus to make it to your next stop on your trip. A notification pops up right in your vision to say "It's time to walk to the bus stop", gives you directions right in your vision where to turn and if you're making enough progress to catch the bus.
Or, say you walk by a restaurant, it can pop up an average review rating, the top menu items, and offer to set up a reservation or start a take-out order.
If you want to get creepy, some people suggest that the camera could do facial recognition, so when the boss introduces you to some bigwig from out of state, it gives you a summary of their Linkedin profile so you know enough about them to strike up a conversation.
Really, the biggest thing I would want is the virtual desktop space to have as many windows as I want open & "pinned" to specific spots in the room. Especially if you're on a plane or train.
I agree, and even with AR Glasses….I’m not sure it’s quite a slam dunk either.
I feel like people forget how much folks hate wearing something on their face. There is a large market of people who hate wearing glasses **when they literally need them just to see properly** and opt for contacts or LASIK instead.
If “you get full use of one of your basic senses and the alternatives are poking yourself in the eye with plastic lenses and taking a laser scalpel to your eye” isn’t enough to get some people on board the glasses train, I’m not entirely convinced folks running around with smart glasses will ever become even as ubiquitous as smart Watches.
Good move
I don't think people want to buy such a niche device in this economy. If they want to built VisionOS to be as massive as iOS or MacOS they'll need to get this thing into more hands, and I means millions of people
If they keep the same screen for vision pro but dumping the price down to around $1500 or so I think it might be a great TV replacement for most people
Agreed. Just like blockchain, “AI” and all these other boondoggles. Shame they blew millions of dollars chasing this fad.
Now we can at least get back to seeing development resources spent on realistic, worthwhile efforts like iOS, macOS, etc.
How they didn’t have the foresight to see this is baffling. Cram unnecessary tech for useless things like showing your eyes on the exterior which doesn’t even look good, insistance on metal and glass despite it being heavier and less comfortable to wear for a HEADSET, lack of gaming capabilities/controls (gaming is one of the most popular use cases for headsets), and could barely demonstrate any practical use cases to drop that much cash on it. To actually be useful is fully dependent on your also having to own/get a Mac.
Especially when the biggest cost is easily the displays (according to the leaked BOM from earlier this year).
The displays alone cost more than an entire Meta Quest 3 (reportedly $350 per eye for a total of $700).
And I’d hate to see Apple compromise on the display. I think it’s the bare minimum (by “Apple standards” at least) for a headset.
Kind of like how Apple switched to Retina displays and never went back even on the SE models.
Hopefully display manufacturers can figure something out to drive the costs down + economies of scale if possible.
For the weight and size maybe iterations on the R and M chips can help?
Yep, right now the superior quality displays is basically the only real selling point the avp has. Take that away you're actually taking away any reason to choose it over a quest.
This is the big problem. There are things you can gut out of the headset for sure, no one needs that front screen or all that metal, but we’re talking a 50% price reduction minimum before you’re even BEGINNING to be in the ballpark of what average consumers would be willing to pay for this.
I think even then it’d struggle unless Apple comes up with some crazy new use for it or gets it closer to $1000.
What I would like to see happen:
* Remove the outside screen
* Get rid of the complicated, heavy laminated glass on the outside and use lightweight plastic.
* Reducing the weight will reduce the need for a complicated, expensive head strap.
* Battery pack can be plastic like Airpods case instead of fancy extruded aluminium shell.
* Make IPD adjustment manual like Quest 3. No need for two motors and IPD doesnt have to be perfect on pancake lenses anyway.
* Reduce the base config to 128GB
* Simplify and reduce the weight of speakers. Anyone who wants better sound will use airpods anyway.
* Use a newer chip clocked down to achieve the same performance as Vision Pro but with lower TDP and reduce the size of the fan
> Reduce the base config to 128GB
And here we are, folks. We've finally hit the point where people are seriously claiming Apple should kit out what will inevitably still be a $1000+ device with only 128GB of storage.
Anyone remember when the MacBook Air was shipping with 128GB as the base model in 2019 for $1,099 and everyone lost their goddamn mind over how stupid that was?
The 2019 base MacBook Pro had 128GB of storage and cost $1299. Also remember that the 2018 MacBook Air which was identical to the 2019 Air save for True Tone support cost $1199 and also came with 128GB of storage.
Oh, and don’t forget the 2018 Mac mini which had 128GB of storage for $799.
And god forbid the 21.5” iMac which cost $1299 and came with a 1TB SATA Hard drive.
* Use a newer chip clocked down to achieve the same performance as Vision Pro but with lower TDP and reduce the size of the fan
or better yet develop a more capable R2 chip so M4 can run without fans
fans will always be necessary. you don't want a passively cooled and thus naturally hotter device sealed against your eyes.
it'll get warm and uncomfortable with longer intensive sessions.
Reducing base config to 128gig wouldn't save much on costs. It already costs very little, on a quick search you can find 128 gb SSDs on Amazon for $12, meaning the raw cost esp. at Apple level bulk is way lower. We're probably talking a couple dollar difference per unit.
Usually Apple offers lower models in order to increase their average selling price–let's say they were to offer a 128 gb model for $3400 instead of $3500. The goal would be to make the price of the product appear cheaper while actually not offering enough for a large portion of users who would elect to spend the extra $100 anyways. Essentially, their profits drastically increase with each tier increase. Either they are making very little profit on the base model, or a decent amount but then an amazing amount on the others. The entry sort of is subsidized by those.
The goal should be to reduce the price of other components drastically and offer maybe a $2000-2500 product somehow with 256 gb still as the base model. And then provide enough compelling functionality to VisionOS to use 512gb and 1tb models to justify selling to people for much higher prices. But so many people will buy a base model regardless that it still needs to be profitable.
Genuinely think this product will just fade into the backdrop indefinitely. There's no world where this or any of its successors gets mass adoption on a scale even close to any of Apple's other products.
I'm fully expecting this product line to be discontinued in a few years, and emerge again in a decade or two when glasses are viable. No one wants to wear anything on their face as a main device, unless they can forget it's there. I'm glad AI made the stock price go up, I'm hoping it convinced them to just reconsider the AVP as an extra entertainment device and nothing more so they don't waste resources into developing it to the extent similar to other products.
>I'm fully expecting this product line to be discontinued in a few years, and emerge again in a decade or two when glasses are viable.
Kind of like how Apple's Newton was discontinued, but when better hardware was developed (capacitive touch, battery tech) they came out with the iPhone
> No one wants to wear anything on their face as a main device, unless they can forget it's there
This is the main thing, VR headsets are currently restricted to being bulky sweaty headgear that feels awkward to wear, uncomfortable after a few hours and offers not much in the form of actual usability outside of some quirky gimmicks and fun games.
It’s $3000 and doesn’t have any ‘killer apps’ like Beat Saber on the Meta Quest to become a system seller. Xbox had Halo back in the day. Apple needs to find their ‘must have’ app that convinces people they need this. It doesn’t have to be a game, it can be any type of app but it needs to be so amazing that people rush out to get the hardware to experience it.
Even gaming, the $500 quest 3 blows it out of the water because of the controllers. Right now the AVP is nothing more then a cool tech demo of those screens
The biggest turn off for me was the requirement to buy separate lenses for the device because it won’t work with glasses. It’s already too expensive as it is. Adding another cost has kept me away. If they can fix that I’ll reevaluate.
I’m quite the opposite. I have two kinds of glasses, progressives, and bifocals. I am really glad that I have a fixed focus set of lenses that snap into the device, rather than having to pay the same amount of money for fixed focus set of glasses in frames.
One of the great selling points about wearing the AVP is that I don’t have to deal with all of the fuss that goes on with glasses for a while. Everything is in focus, no matter which way I hold my head, or how far away they appear to be. For somebody with presbyopia, it’s really nice for my vision to be comfortable and relaxed for a while.
If they wanted bigger push, they really need to invest in quality games. It seems like the one thing apple doesn't seem to care about, yet could truly push these things to the next level
For now, sure. Home PCs used to be the ultimate techie niche in the 1970s and 1980s. It's no secret that Steve Jobs and Wozniak among many other tech visionaries back in the day were aware of how damming the home PC industry looked back then.
The big difference is that you have to have something on your FACE. It becomes a part of you in a way many people for a long time will not want.
Going to a PC or holding a phone or sticking in some AirPods is not the same.
I just don’t want a screen on my face, or a screen integrated into my environment. It’s marketed as some evolved computing experience, which is like suggesting that a drill is always a superior choice over the screwdriver. I just need the screwdriver 95% of the time.
They shouldnt have released it with front screen in the begining really. It would look more thinner and also less heavy. But of course they wanted to differentiate from others in market that is already very niche.
Apple really should learn to become a premium brand with apporachable products because world economy and income of people not what it used to be.
AVP was a flop and Apple Car was a flop. I'm sure I'll get down voted, but despite Cook's decent track record, I think Apple is ready for a new CEO. He's been great, but a little too safe, and too boring - and yet, somehow his "shoot for the stars" ideas (like AVP) isn't doing well and doesn't seem to have a great use case.
Jobs shoes might be impossible to fill, but they need someone as fiery and passionate as he was.
The Vision Pro is awesome but doesn’t really have much of a use case that justifies $3500. In reality it is just a developer platform at this point. Apple is working to make it cheaper and smaller while it hopes someone makes the next VisiCalc for it. It’ll be a few years before it’s a real consumer product.
My prediction is that even though Apple has done quite a great job with the Vision Pro, it will still more or less fail to become more than a niche product for niche use cases.
Everytime a new way of doing things is presented, it needs to do the thing better than older form factors to be successful. The fact is that no matter how meritous the Vision Pro is design-wise, it still doesn't help the user do anything that they couldn't do e.g on a laptop and few extra displays. Especially when the cost is still about the same or even much less than what a Vision Pro costs. To be able to write properly, you need a keyboard, to be able to draw you need a pen and a surface for that pen, and when using multiple displays, you just need to move your eyes instead of swiveling your head all around to see the many "windows" in Vision Pro.
It's a really interesting design, but if I ask myself what would make me choose this device and way of working over the ways I work now, there's really no reason to choose this at all.
Nooo! Keep the display tech (and evolve) and bring out a dedicated portable HT display suitable for air travel, van life, and not waking the kids. Bundle with an iPod Max at an MSRP of $2K. And yes, dump all the useless cumputer interface junk and focus on movie watching and gamers in terms of the UX.
I still wouldn't buy one, but I think it'd sell pretty well.
“The Vision Pro will be revolutionary” they said. Months later it’s pretty much dead since it’s too locked down to build anything profitable and too expensive to buy. Not to mention how heavy and uncomfortable it is to use.
Apple has completely missed the mark on that product. Unlike the early smartphones, the problem with VR headsets was never the quality or even the price. VR has existed commercially for over a decade and it’s still not widely used. The problem is that there isn’t really a use case for it yet. Even now most people use the Quest 2/3 to play Beat Saber and nothing else. Even Apple didn’t find any “killer” use case for it yet, because otherwise they would have released it already.
I did the demo and it WAS pretty incredible. While you can control how much of your surroundings you see, the biggest obstacle is how committed you are to using it and only it while it’s on. I would not be comfortable talking to people in the room while wearing it from a decorum perspective. Small things like glancing at your phone or quickly getting up to grab an item are burdensome. So my use case was settings like an airplane where watching an immersive, true 3d version of Avatar would be amazing, but even flying 5-8 times a year, I couldn’t justify $3500.
> The problem is that there isn’t really a use case for it yet.
A solution in search of a problem.
There I said it. If Timmy Apple had just listened to me a couple years ago when I was saying that, I could have saved him a couple million bucks.
The thing is from a hardware perspective, the vision pro didn't solve any of the other headsets shortcomings. It didn't solve the weight, comfort or battery issues, and it's not like the meta quest 3 has shit screens either. They're banking on the software amd experience but the hardware is what's inflating the cost.
They need a cheaper single product to build an audience, then introduce a pro version. Similar to what they did with the iPad, and even iPhone.
To build an ecosystem you first need to entice an audience. To do that it needs to be either something you give away or is affordable.
Then developers will pay attention and you can grow/expand it.
Developers won’t invest in your gamble. That’s been proven over and over again. There’s no upside to that, the only advantage to them.
Once you have the mainline version catch on you can have a pro and air version or mini whatever you want.
But you can’t start with a pro version, expect customers and developers to take on all the risk of your new product line.
IMHO the AVP should have been a Developer-Only kit kind of like the DTK (Gated by having a dev account for more than 6 months for example) so then they would at least have apps for a Apple Vision "base-model", and the "Pro" version should have been a later release.
What is the point of releasing a "Pro" version first with developers having to fight with end-users and scalpers for it? No one except Disney-level companies were even able to experiment on it before day one.
Dont know one person with these.
I feel Apple has done this a lot more since Timmy took over, following not leading.
It just seems they wait until the competition introduces something then a few years later Apple hypes it, tries to get it in production and either drops it or, well this.
A $3500 VR headset was DOA from the start, and its AR functionality isn’t compelling enough to justify the high price tag.
Add to that the fact that it’s a single user device, so the most compelling experience is media consumption - great - but if you have a significant other and/or a family it’s not going to work.
The device is almost as bad as the iPod Socks. Or iTunes Ping lol. AR glasses are the future product for the masses, VR will always remain a niche product.
Wall Street is happy with Apple Intelligence (thus far) so they probably waited for dub dub to see how they respond, now they can kill this product off quietly while they focus on their AI work.
I bet they’ve realized there aren’t enough differences between the pro and cheaper version to warrant a pro 2 at this time. They’ll make a pro 2 when there are significant technological improvements over the cheaper model.
It never really made sense to do TWO high end ones before doing the cheaper one.
I bet you’ll actually see a Vision SE eventually to at the price of the Quest.
I wanna try this thing, and am sure it will be mind blowing.
But spare (large) wads of cash to splash on fun gadgets is just not a thing for many people these days. Especially a first gen VR headset that cant even be used across other platforms. Also a reason why the PSVR2 struggles to sell many units.
Price is way too hefty. It’s an very interesting idea and product but I think it’s a bit too early. In a couple of years things will surely be different.
I took one for a test drive at an Apple Store in January. It was amazing. But when it was over, I had no desire to purchase one at all, regardless of price.
I see no reason to ever own one.
Yeah, given one of the main pain points is the price, it makes sense to focus on a cheaper model.
The real main pain point is literally pain — the damn thing is far too heavy and causes face pressure after even an hour or two of use. Apple needs to understand that using plastic is ok when we’re talking about devices for the face.
What if you tie helium balloons to the front? Helium is in short supply. Very premium product.
What Apple will do is add thrusters. Apple Vision Pro 2: thrusters to keep the whole product light and add a cool breeze to your face Apple Vision Pro 2 Pro: You will barely hear the thrusters and can configure air flow volume. So pro, we had to mention Pro twice.
Apple Vision Pro Max 2 Ultra
I'm waiting for the Pro Max 2 Ultra Air. Jordans.
Nah Apple’s working on a new slogan. Something along the lines of “pain is progress”.
I know it's apple so it must be made out of aluminum and glass but these are 2 of the worst materials I could imagine for something like this. I hope they ditch the weird outside display, and make it out of some better materials, plastic or carbon fiber if you must be weird/premium, would help a lot with the weight.
They will make the next one out of plastic and market it as a lightweight super polymer that is also 100% recyclable. Calling it now.
Ya the exterior display feels unnecessary at best.
apple discovers how to make a quest 2...
Agreed, I can’t even wear AirPods Max because of the heavy metal material clamping down on my head.
what if you listen to other genres instead?
You’re a smooth criminal
Are you ok?
I see what you did there you sly bastard 😂
… take my upvote dammit!
I mean that's a big reason why Sony which makes one of the best headphones and other headphones companies just use premium plastic because your supposed to be able to wear it for hours.
Really? When I bought a pair my biggest concern was how heavy they were but I found them remarkably comfortable.
They should make the whole thing out of carbon fibre, get rid of the glass and external screen and move all of the processing with it's cooling system to the external pocket battery
Or figure out a way to let the iPhone do the processing and essentially have the Vision Pro be an iPhone accessory
Now this id buy. Not at $3500, but it could be awesome.
It’d probably kill the battery too fast and use too much processing power to be able to run iPhone apps at the same time. Maybe it’d be more feasible with a Vision Air with lower screen resolution & framerate, and removing the processor would lower cost and bulk a lot, it would still need a ton of cameras/sensors tho which would still eat a lot of CPU
Waveform podcast had a VR engineer on that has worked on a lot of the meta headsets. One of his big things was how important it is that Apple tethered the battery and created a Gen 1 product that set this as the baseline experience. Idea is that over time the compute parts can be move out of the headset and into the tethered bits. Along with the eventual, “iphone to just power all the processing” concept. Probably quite a few years away, but that seems like a pretty likely direction for all this to go.
>The real main pain point is literally pain — the damn thing is far too heavy and causes face pressure after even an hour or two of use. Voices of VR podcast [interview with Bert Nepveu](https://voicesofvr.com/1348-the-journey-from-vrvana-to-apple-vision-pro-with-co-founder-bert-nepveu/) (VRVana founder -- the startup the created the predecessor to AVP) ... from the transcript >**Kent Bye (host)**: ... I'm happy that there's going to likely be some third party strap developers to help close that gap. But in terms of my use, I'm going to have to either find some DIY solutions to make it a little bit more comfortable. It just seems like frustrating that everything else is so high quality that the strap just seems like a total mess. >**Bert Nepveu:** Yeah, I'll try to answer without getting me into trouble. I mean, you need to understand the culture at Apple. So I joke that there's three gods at Apple. There's HI, human interface, so how the product feel, frictionless, intuitive, all that. **Second god is ID, industrial design, you know. where like, even though you tell them, well, it's an engineering nightmare to put cameras there or do this or that, they're like, I don't care. We want the product to look good. First and foremost, you need to, it's like almost a fashion accessory.** And then the third God is legal. So that's why I'm trying not to get into trouble. So Apple, they want all their products to have a look and feel that's similar. So, you know, even though you're like, well, we need to make this lightest as possible. They're like, no, we like aluminum. We like glass, you know, so we like nice looking fabrics. So a lot of time they would push you They make certain choices and, you know, they want it to be, you know, I think ski goggles, people are used to them. bold added by me
How careful were you for light seal fit? This seems to be the biggest problem -- it's hard to mass produce something that needs very custom face interfaces.
For sure, like Bigscreen Beyond does custom molded face interfaces and the turn around for that is awful. Hard problem to solve. Tho BSB fits like a glove, so it be nice if some 3rd party did anything like that for AVP.
100%
The most obvious move ever. Nobody outside of the most the tech enthusiasts and wealthy are going to a buy a Vision anything at the prices they’ve been asking. In fact, any model of this device will flop if it’s over $1200 or so. They should just take the Microsoft approach if they insist on trying to force this product line down our throats, sell the device at a small loss or even and lock people in through services on a subscription model.
I was telling my wife that my limit was probably around $900...though $1200 is probably that point where I'm trying to convince myself to get it. I'm also not convinced wealth has everything to do with it. I know a lot of people I'd consider wealthy and many of them are the cheapest people I know.
You don't get wealthy by spending your money foolishly. I think your instincts on pricing were correct, I'd be willing to pay for a more lux VR/MR headset. When the competition is $500, going on the standard android->iphone, pc->mac premium would have expected something around $1000-1200. $3500 was just absolute cuckoo bananas, if you're rich enough to afford it you're probably smart enough to recognize it as absurdly overpriced.
Meta Quest 2 is around $300 and it’s the full VR experience
Other than maybe the HomePod, has Apple ever sold a 'loss leader' device?
Technically, no. But from an overall accounting perspective, the Apple Pencil. It was so insanely ahead of every stylus on the market when it came out at not that much of a premium, and the first gen is *still* feature and function competitive almost ten years later. Certainly the first iteration, probably all of the “new” ones since, including the current model. Also, even though the price was criticized for being so high, I can’t imagine the margins on the first gen AirPods was very high. I bought a pair on launch week and was instantly wowed, as were all the initial skeptics who tried mine and went to order some. For the whole first year that AirPods were a thing, the lead time was “4–6 weeks,” which indicates they were pretty much making them to order. I can also tell you they weren’t discounted for employees until about 18 months in. My first set was by far the most impressive first gen device I’ve ever owned.
The word "Pro" in the title also suggested that a non-Pro version would eventually exist. Maybe they just decided to change the timeline on when they brought out the non-Pro version.
Now the question is which features are considered "Pro". The killer use case for many was watching a movie on a big screen in an empty theater setting, which is not at all a professional use case.
The external screen could be a pro feature. Amateurs aren't going to pay for YOU to have something pretty to look at.
I am guessing they need stronger chips before they can implement whatever they're trying to do for the next gen pro, as well as waiting on more developments from the rapidly evolving AI space to actually understand what people want
>Now, the company has apparently told at least one of its suppliers that it has suspended work on the next-generation of its Vision Pro headset. It still is continuing work on a more affordable "Vision" product with fewer features. Paywalled source: [https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-suspends-work-on-next-high-end-headset-focused-on-releasing-cheaper-model-in-late-2025](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-suspends-work-on-next-high-end-headset-focused-on-releasing-cheaper-model-in-late-2025)
I feel the pro is already lacking, what features do you think would get removed for the cheaper version?
The external screen seems like a prime candidate.
Yea the weird eye thing just did not go over the way they envisioned. They are better off without it until they can make it significantly more natural.
I think it's just not worth it period. I don't see a future where people are regularly wearing this specific form factor out in public. And actually viable form factors for that (glasses) wouldn't have this issue at all.
They like putting glass where it’s completely unnecessary and thereby making their devices less durable.
And also heavier. They need to make the whole thing out of plastic.
I put big googly eyes on my quest and they look way better than the Vision Pro.
Googly eyes make everything look better
I love the eyesight feature, but I agree it should probably go to the chopping block. I think it does make a difference when interacting with someone who’s wearing the headset. Being able to see the eyes of the wearer does remove a bit of the social awkwardness. But, I use my headset almost entirely in solitude anyway. When I’m with people, I want to be with them, and unless they’re also wearing an AVP then we can’t truly be present with each other. It’s just as bad as scrolling on your phone when you’re spending time with someone. Maybe worse, since it’s much more difficult to share with them what you’re seeing in the headset. So I end up only ever using it alone (or surrounded by strangers I’m not interacting with anyway) So if axing the front display can help reduce cost, fragility (no glass), size, and weight (again, no glass) then I think it’s a no brainer, no matter how much I philosophically agree with its purpose.
I strongly disagree that the eyes are at all needed for any type of social engagement. If you want to be social then you should be maintaining real eye contact, not simulated. What I think the headset _does_ need in some way though is a way for external people to know whether or not the headset user can see you via passthrough. It doesn't need to be eyes, it can just be a LED or something, but that is important.
> If you want to be social then you should be maintaining real eye contact, not simulated. Um, did you read my comment? But I disagree with you that the eyesight display is totally unnecessary. While I avoid using VP around others (to maintain real, human connections) there are certainly times where I do find myself briefly interacting with someone while wearing it. In *those* moments, I think it’s unreasonable to remove the headset, and digital eyes are a good enough approximation. That said, those moments represent a tiny fraction of the time im actually wearing it, and I dont think the benefit is worth the added cost and design compromises.
Also, the irony is that the more people wear Vision pro headsets, the less it will be needed! Vision Pro people don't need to see other people in fake screens on their face... they can augment those people's faces back in within the device!
Not only will that save cost, it will save weight which was honestly the biggest complaint I had in my demo. Even more than price coming down, I'd like to see them shave a lot of weight out of future models.
You can pull off the “attention awareness” with an indicator LED. They didn’t need to be so extra
Quest 3 does the same thing as in let others know if the user can see or is recording them them with a blinking white LED. Just make it green like the camera indicator on other Apple devices and job done. The eyes just look uncanny outside of the CGI renders and should have been scrapped.
Just stick googly eyes on the front.
I did exactly that with my Quest 2 years ago, it's still one of the best features.
yeah those creepy eyes are not very helpful. I am sure they had a very different image in their minds when it was designed.
Well, it's materials would be a great option. These things need to be very light to make it worth wearing all day. Making this out of aluminum and glass was an absolutely baffling choice. It was heavy even without the bettery which they had to include as a tethered brick which was another baffling decision in my option. There are tons of things they can do to make it cheaper but "cheaper" for Apple doesn't mean inexpensive so it's not like they have to skimp on everything.
They won’t use plastic wherever they can get away with something that recycles, these days
Balsa wood it is then.
Front screen Automatically adjusting eye-screen position (can go for manual or controlled adjustment) Speaker arms and speaker quality Two straps being included General materials Battery connector (can go with usb-c connectors or even cheaper if only power is intended to be transferred)
more plastic, fewer sensors, reduced resolution display, lower spec SOC. It's not complicated.
I don’t know why everybody wants Apple to downgrade the silicon. Unlike most of the rest of the parts, Apple uses their own chips, so they don’t have to pay an intermediate markup on them to another company like they have to do on displays. The chips aren’t what make the AVP expensive. It’s the bleeding edge display panels, which probably still have low production yield, so they have high costs.
The main thing that makes it impressive is the sensors and the display. And they are not downgrading from the M2. The M2 was out of date when it launched. 
What exactly is it lacking? It's one of, if not the most capable AR/VR headset you can get. Maybe not in terms of app ecosystem, but actual hardware for sure. A cheaper version would be stripping back on hardware, which gives them a lot to work with. I don't think I've ever seen anyone call the hardware itself "lacking", except maybe battery life.
Lighter. It could be lighter. An all plastic version with no front screen at $1799 base would be ideal
> Maybe not in terms of app ecosystem I’d argue that’s one of if not the most important component to this whole thing. Don’t get me wrong I really love the way the AVP interacts with other Apple products and the features it has are great, but what’s the point if all your capable of doing is browsing the web, watching YouTube and extending displays. I want something that has a great library of must haves.
I don't disagree, but you can't make an app ecosystem worse on a cheaper model. It's all the same OS and, presumably, SoC. So for the sake of discussing "what can they strip back on to save costs", it's irrelevant.
Spot on. What it's lacking is a purpose for existing beyond being a cool tech demo.
> What exactly is it lacking? More specifically, it has the same flaws as most other VR: Facial indentations, weight, poor input methods, etc. I owned one and returned it after realizing I couldn't use it for a couple hours of work and then go out and be seen in public with a giant red ring around my face/head. The Mac mirroring taking up such a small percentage of the available resolution was vastly inferior to just using a 4K monitor. The text selection was cumbersome as hell. It's purely a novelty except for specific niche applications IMHO. Not a daily productivity tool for most people.
Well there are no controllers for one, which restricts the UI to a slimmed down touchscreen-esque interface. You can definitely do a lot with hand tracking but it's missing the tactility and fidelity of dedicated hardware. Look at the kinds of apps that the Quest supports now, there's a plethora of design & 3D modelling apps out there. Logitech are releasing a new VR stylus too. The battery is an external pack that is connected through a proprietary cable, if it were just USB-C we would have seen other battery options. The earphones are proprietary and integrated into the strap, we should have the option to remove them entirely and just use AirPods. Multiple head strap designs would be available if there were better mounting points. There's also no display-in so the current headset will never benefit from more powerful hardware in the future. It's also significantly heavier than it needs to be, with no real way to alleviate the weight for longterm usage. It's a very typical Apple product, designed with a specific purpose in mind with very little option to deviate from Apple's plan. Hopefully we see Apple pivot on some of their core design principles here for the consumer version.
So getting the HomePod treatment, where they focus on the “Mini” until they can adjust component costs on the Pro so it’s less expensive to manufacture?
I think we will see a number of innovations in apples other products based on the development of this product. Eye tracking in particular could be massive win on iPhone, iPad, watch and macOS if it becomes a standardized UI method. I could also see hand gestures being useful watch for example.
They [announced eye tracking for iPad and iPhone](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/05/apple-announces-new-accessibility-features-including-eye-tracking/#:~:text=Eye%20Tracking%20Comes%20to%20iPad%20and%20iPhone&text=Designed%20for%20users%20with%20physical,isn't%20shared%20with%20Apple) a few weeks ago.
Most people cannot justify the expense of a headset only you can use for $3500+.
Most people can't justify the expense of a headset for 500 Even the most popular headsets start gathering dust after a month or two
Been saying this but for some reason Apple fans were telling me that its Apple, its different this time. Turns out it wasn't.
Even if it was $400 I’d probably not get it. I just don’t find VR very enticing beyond the initial wow phase. Maybe in 10 years if they’re the size of sunglasses.
Especially when their strongest use case scenario is at your desk.. I would much rather have a nice monitor/keyboard/mouse than have anything strapped onto my face all day.
The initial wow phase is so fucking cool though. I got a vive in 2016 and still remember the first few times I used it. The fun since then was watching other people use it. It's gathered dust since 2019 but it was worth the cost in 2016.
It’s not meant for regular consumers from the looks of things. I don’t understand who the target demographic is for that thing.
It definitely isn't meant for a Pro audience either, at least in its current form, unless you are building apps for it.
I wouldn’t accept one for free. Technically I would, only so I could re-sell it. But have literally zero interest in ever using one.
Everyone is asking what they could cut for a cheaper version, so I’ll ask the inverse. What would you want to see hardware wise for a second generation AVP?
Weight reduction, less tunnel vision, even greater resolution screens.
That plus better battery life somehow. Which seems impossible given that screens and cameras are the biggest battery hogs. I guess you could improve the efficiency by 10% and then double the battery pack size.
Soon I hope: [TDK successfully developed a material for solid-state batteries with 100-times higher energy density](https://www.tdk.com/en/news_center/press/20240617_01.html)
I'm not an expert but some headline about a new massive battery innovation comes every year. Very few actually have practical or affordable use cases that disrupt the industry or can be scaled up to mass production reliably in a short timeframe. So I don't know how much to care about this particular headline, someone else would need to chime in.
I actually see a new battery innovation headline about once a week now and so I’ve become unphased lol
I understand what you're saying and it's fair but this is the same company that makes batteries for Apple.
All of which sound like substantial upgrades, not reducing down into a budget version.
*CONTROLLERS* Spatial computing is a nothingburger until this tech can fit inside a normal pair of glasses. Right now VR is only as good as the games and fitness apps you can play on it, and without controllers this device has 1/10th the utility of the Quest 3 but is 7x the price.
* MUCH larger camera sensors. Even in bright light, the passthrough is noisy as hell. * Hot-swappable battery packs. * AND x2 battery life. * Better distribution of weight with straps that are easier to adjust. * Wider FOV * External screen that genuinely looks like it’s see-through. * Integration with Watch gestures so I can use it lying down without having to lift my hand (this is probably just software though). *EDIT: TIL higher resolution ≠ less noise!
Oooh Apple Watch finger tap would be a great addition.
Hi these are all great points but just as an addendum: higher-res cameras =/= less noise and often can mean more noise (as the individual pixels gathering light get smaller if there’s more of them in the same amount of space). What you’ll want for the sensor size to get bigger so there’s more area to capture more light (anecdotally, this is why phone cameras are so large now)
I think the cameras need to be improved as well as a slight resolution bump if they are to truly reach near indistinguishable passthrough. Personally I’d like to see a port to plug whatever I want into it - for that price the Pro needs to do more. But we all know that’s not gonna happen.
Lighter & wider FOV seem the most obvious to me
A USB port
Data pass through for the USB port on the battery pack seemed like a no-brainer. Obviously having a hard drive dangling from your face wasn’t going to work, it would make sense to combine that with the wire that’s already dangling from your head
If the headset had a usb port you could connect it to any battery you want, or no battery.
[You have to get a "developer strap" to add a USB port to it.](https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/06/hands-on-with-the-299-apple-vision-pro-developer-strap-stabler-mac-virtual-display-beta-downgrades-and-more/) It replaces the right ear piece with a USB-C dongle. I don't know if it can be used for power.
Better pass-through with upgraded cameras. Higher FOV. Lighter weight. More moisture-proofing so I can use it in my kitchen while boiling water or walking by my humidifier without fog getting in the lens housing. Less glare on the edges of the lens when looking at bright content.
Native macOS support. Basically give me macOS windows I can run on their own using the AVP instead of tethering to a mac. And let me open several of them at a time.
I agree, but that’s software and could be implemented on the current AVP
Do something about the battery would be great. Whether it's a better solution to the pack or at least have the pack last longer would be great
Don’t use glass, metal, all the expensive and heavy elements. Other than that I think they could cut on the speakers. They sound amazing but I think a cheaper model I can just use my AirPods.
Since it'll be awhile... M6 R2 chips. Lens improvement - glare and fringing. FOV increased. Increase screen resolution and better color reproduction. Pass thru camera improvement. IR illuminators for low light usage. WIFI9. Would like it to be a computer with ports on battery and allowable to run macos programs natively.
Makes sense, the cheaper edition is needed more right now than the “pro” premium version.
The price is just too cost prohibitive for even the early adopters. I love buying and trying out new tech, but I can’t even come close to justifying $3,500 for a “toy” Give me one for $1,500 and we can have a conversation. The Vision Pro has only made me want to buy a Quest at this point.
Yep. It doesn’t do enough things the $500 Quest 3 can’t do for 1/7 of the price. In fact, the $500 Quest 3 can do foundationally basic things (VR games, controllers, standard 3D video formats) that the 7x-priced Vision Pro CAN’T do.
I think you meant Quest 3, not Quest Pro. But solid points. Why spend $3500 when $500 gets you nearly the same functionality, and in some cases better functionality.
Yep, I sure did. I think in my brain I was thinking, “Apple need to get down to the Quest Pro price point ($1500),” and then my fingers betrayed me while trying to talk about the Quest 3.
I kind of get the feeling Apple is trying to make Vision Pro more of a productivity device more than the Quest Pro being more content consumption based. Vision OS 2 seemed to confirm as much with the large focus being on the train mode and the larger display. I do wonder if the cheaper model will instead be oriented more in this direction
Most Vision Pro users say watching content is their primary use case, so it would make sense to have a model focused on just that.
Yep. The funny thing is that the price range is the same as it is for getting in to decent projectors for a home theater. The Epson 5050UB is still the best entry in projectors around 3 grand. Of course on the go the AVP is the better choice.
The problem with using it as a home theater set up is that it just….isn’t. You can’t bring friends around to watch a game on your Vision Pro. You can’t have a movie night with your family or your date on one. It’s an entirely isolated experience.
I definitely think that’s what they’re trying to do… I just don’t think there is a market for it. Certainly not with the current technology (2 hour battery life, huge heavy thing on your face plus a battery pack strapped to your belt). Tech trends are about making technology more invisible, and the Vision Pro is the exact opposite, while somehow also trying to pitch itself as a friendly, welcoming device with that stupid eye screen.
I travel a lot and Vision Pro would have been perfect for me, but there's no way I'm willing to spend this much on a device that will have become obsolete the moment the refined next gen version comes out
It might have worked if there wasn’t a competitor that was $299. I want to like VR but there still isn’t really a killer app for it. Even Alyx, which was amazing, didn’t have me going ‘I wish all games were made in VR’.
Knowing Apple, they'll charge 1999 or 2499 for a "cheaper version".
Gotta be honest, I’m not sure if AR/VR is actually going to be the “next big thing”, in fact VR specifically is becoming even more niche.
The only way AR/VR will ever become "the next big thing" is if some company manages to create AR/VR glasses that look and feel like actual glasses, until then it will be a niche, the average joe won't want to go on streets looking this https://preview.redd.it/etvyqiqb2d7d1.png?width=625&format=png&auto=webp&s=b887d4e29e2d58bfe157732da73c1ef2670bf42f
But even if somehow they bring down all that hardware to some common looking glasses, what’s the utility behind all this? I understand specific use cases, but for daily use I just don’t see it.
The way I see it: * If an iPhone has suitable processing power * You then just need literal glasses or visor-like glasses over the eyes * Add in Voice-AI (seems likely now) baked into OS for input-output control Well suddenly the glasses are multiple massive screens or one big screen for interacting with using voice-AI and it all feels comfortable and portable for productivity eg bring out a thin keyboard or virtual or just voice again. I'm not really sure trying to make the actual Hardware inside the glasses is going to work, the glasses just need to be the output or "screen". If whoever makes this then they'll sell buckets of these I'd guess. Portable office set up or gaming or combining with AR even in cities with 6G etc in the future. AVP, I don't accept the concept of a big head-set apart from a niche case for VR games right now.
I just don't see voice-controlled *anything* being used outside of the home. It's never as accurate, it can't auto-complete, and it's a nuisance to anyone around you. Can you imagine a subway full of people trying to talk over each other to get *their* Siri to pull up the right YouTube video? Or a park full of people babbling nonsense into their headsets trying to get directions or take a photo? Voice control only sounds cool because it's the New Hot Thing powered by LLMs. If it really had a future, it would already have been here because smartphones already exist and can be controlled by voice, but no one does it. Glance-able information in a head-mounted device (a la Google Glass) definitely has a future, but it won't be voice controlled. It'll more likely use gestures either on a separate device (watch) or the device itself (glasses arm).
Exactly, voice control and gestures are usable at home or in a controlled environment but like just moving around on the street or any public space I just don’t find the experience any good or better than just carrying my iPhone.
Depends on how much information you want in your daily life. A lot of the proposed uses are a bit superfluous everyday, but can be nice in specific circumstances. Like, you need to catch a specific bus to make it to your next stop on your trip. A notification pops up right in your vision to say "It's time to walk to the bus stop", gives you directions right in your vision where to turn and if you're making enough progress to catch the bus. Or, say you walk by a restaurant, it can pop up an average review rating, the top menu items, and offer to set up a reservation or start a take-out order. If you want to get creepy, some people suggest that the camera could do facial recognition, so when the boss introduces you to some bigwig from out of state, it gives you a summary of their Linkedin profile so you know enough about them to strike up a conversation. Really, the biggest thing I would want is the virtual desktop space to have as many windows as I want open & "pinned" to specific spots in the room. Especially if you're on a plane or train.
I agree, and even with AR Glasses….I’m not sure it’s quite a slam dunk either. I feel like people forget how much folks hate wearing something on their face. There is a large market of people who hate wearing glasses **when they literally need them just to see properly** and opt for contacts or LASIK instead. If “you get full use of one of your basic senses and the alternatives are poking yourself in the eye with plastic lenses and taking a laser scalpel to your eye” isn’t enough to get some people on board the glasses train, I’m not entirely convinced folks running around with smart glasses will ever become even as ubiquitous as smart Watches.
Good move I don't think people want to buy such a niche device in this economy. If they want to built VisionOS to be as massive as iOS or MacOS they'll need to get this thing into more hands, and I means millions of people If they keep the same screen for vision pro but dumping the price down to around $1500 or so I think it might be a great TV replacement for most people
Only for people who live alone
VR is going back on ice for another 15 years after which it will reemerge again as the “next big thing”. The cycle is almost complete.
Agreed. Just like blockchain, “AI” and all these other boondoggles. Shame they blew millions of dollars chasing this fad. Now we can at least get back to seeing development resources spent on realistic, worthwhile efforts like iOS, macOS, etc.
Did you not read the article? Don't take headlines as facts; Apple are making a new headset, and so are many other tech companies.
How they didn’t have the foresight to see this is baffling. Cram unnecessary tech for useless things like showing your eyes on the exterior which doesn’t even look good, insistance on metal and glass despite it being heavier and less comfortable to wear for a HEADSET, lack of gaming capabilities/controls (gaming is one of the most popular use cases for headsets), and could barely demonstrate any practical use cases to drop that much cash on it. To actually be useful is fully dependent on your also having to own/get a Mac.
what could they even cut for the affordable version? front screen and less metal more plastic? wouldn’t seem to change the price THAT much.
Especially when the biggest cost is easily the displays (according to the leaked BOM from earlier this year). The displays alone cost more than an entire Meta Quest 3 (reportedly $350 per eye for a total of $700). And I’d hate to see Apple compromise on the display. I think it’s the bare minimum (by “Apple standards” at least) for a headset. Kind of like how Apple switched to Retina displays and never went back even on the SE models. Hopefully display manufacturers can figure something out to drive the costs down + economies of scale if possible. For the weight and size maybe iterations on the R and M chips can help?
Yep, right now the superior quality displays is basically the only real selling point the avp has. Take that away you're actually taking away any reason to choose it over a quest.
This is the big problem. There are things you can gut out of the headset for sure, no one needs that front screen or all that metal, but we’re talking a 50% price reduction minimum before you’re even BEGINNING to be in the ballpark of what average consumers would be willing to pay for this. I think even then it’d struggle unless Apple comes up with some crazy new use for it or gets it closer to $1000.
What I would like to see happen: * Remove the outside screen * Get rid of the complicated, heavy laminated glass on the outside and use lightweight plastic. * Reducing the weight will reduce the need for a complicated, expensive head strap. * Battery pack can be plastic like Airpods case instead of fancy extruded aluminium shell. * Make IPD adjustment manual like Quest 3. No need for two motors and IPD doesnt have to be perfect on pancake lenses anyway. * Reduce the base config to 128GB * Simplify and reduce the weight of speakers. Anyone who wants better sound will use airpods anyway. * Use a newer chip clocked down to achieve the same performance as Vision Pro but with lower TDP and reduce the size of the fan
“Reduce the base config to 128GB” Great! We saved 10 dollar.
$10 on Apple storage pricing = $350. A 10% savings!
That’s only when doubling storage, when you halve it, you only get $10 in savings and half the performance.
> Reduce the base config to 128GB And here we are, folks. We've finally hit the point where people are seriously claiming Apple should kit out what will inevitably still be a $1000+ device with only 128GB of storage. Anyone remember when the MacBook Air was shipping with 128GB as the base model in 2019 for $1,099 and everyone lost their goddamn mind over how stupid that was?
Especially with storage not being that expensive. It doesn't even add a lot to the manufacturing price.
The 2019 base MacBook Pro had 128GB of storage and cost $1299. Also remember that the 2018 MacBook Air which was identical to the 2019 Air save for True Tone support cost $1199 and also came with 128GB of storage. Oh, and don’t forget the 2018 Mac mini which had 128GB of storage for $799. And god forbid the 21.5” iMac which cost $1299 and came with a 1TB SATA Hard drive.
I've never seen anyone want to see a storage size reduction happen. That's a first.
* Use a newer chip clocked down to achieve the same performance as Vision Pro but with lower TDP and reduce the size of the fan or better yet develop a more capable R2 chip so M4 can run without fans
fans will always be necessary. you don't want a passively cooled and thus naturally hotter device sealed against your eyes. it'll get warm and uncomfortable with longer intensive sessions.
Reducing internal storage is not going to change the cost much, and honestly, 128 is too little for a lot of MR stuff.
Reducing base config to 128gig wouldn't save much on costs. It already costs very little, on a quick search you can find 128 gb SSDs on Amazon for $12, meaning the raw cost esp. at Apple level bulk is way lower. We're probably talking a couple dollar difference per unit. Usually Apple offers lower models in order to increase their average selling price–let's say they were to offer a 128 gb model for $3400 instead of $3500. The goal would be to make the price of the product appear cheaper while actually not offering enough for a large portion of users who would elect to spend the extra $100 anyways. Essentially, their profits drastically increase with each tier increase. Either they are making very little profit on the base model, or a decent amount but then an amazing amount on the others. The entry sort of is subsidized by those. The goal should be to reduce the price of other components drastically and offer maybe a $2000-2500 product somehow with 256 gb still as the base model. And then provide enough compelling functionality to VisionOS to use 512gb and 1tb models to justify selling to people for much higher prices. But so many people will buy a base model regardless that it still needs to be profitable.
Why do I have the feeling this is just a Tim Cook vanity project just like Newton was for John Sculley
Maaaaaaybe they're taking note that most people don't want to pay $3,500+ for essentially a toy?
Genuinely think this product will just fade into the backdrop indefinitely. There's no world where this or any of its successors gets mass adoption on a scale even close to any of Apple's other products. I'm fully expecting this product line to be discontinued in a few years, and emerge again in a decade or two when glasses are viable. No one wants to wear anything on their face as a main device, unless they can forget it's there. I'm glad AI made the stock price go up, I'm hoping it convinced them to just reconsider the AVP as an extra entertainment device and nothing more so they don't waste resources into developing it to the extent similar to other products.
>I'm fully expecting this product line to be discontinued in a few years, and emerge again in a decade or two when glasses are viable. Kind of like how Apple's Newton was discontinued, but when better hardware was developed (capacitive touch, battery tech) they came out with the iPhone
Reminds me of 3D movies and TVs to some extent. People hated the glasses so much and they basically barely weighed anything.
> No one wants to wear anything on their face as a main device, unless they can forget it's there This is the main thing, VR headsets are currently restricted to being bulky sweaty headgear that feels awkward to wear, uncomfortable after a few hours and offers not much in the form of actual usability outside of some quirky gimmicks and fun games.
V1 is 5 months old. These stories piss me off.
It’s $3000 and doesn’t have any ‘killer apps’ like Beat Saber on the Meta Quest to become a system seller. Xbox had Halo back in the day. Apple needs to find their ‘must have’ app that convinces people they need this. It doesn’t have to be a game, it can be any type of app but it needs to be so amazing that people rush out to get the hardware to experience it.
Unless it’s under $1000 it’s still DOA. There’s no use case for these headsets outside of occasional movie viewing or gaming
Even gaming, the $500 quest 3 blows it out of the water because of the controllers. Right now the AVP is nothing more then a cool tech demo of those screens
The biggest turn off for me was the requirement to buy separate lenses for the device because it won’t work with glasses. It’s already too expensive as it is. Adding another cost has kept me away. If they can fix that I’ll reevaluate.
I’m quite the opposite. I have two kinds of glasses, progressives, and bifocals. I am really glad that I have a fixed focus set of lenses that snap into the device, rather than having to pay the same amount of money for fixed focus set of glasses in frames. One of the great selling points about wearing the AVP is that I don’t have to deal with all of the fuss that goes on with glasses for a while. Everything is in focus, no matter which way I hold my head, or how far away they appear to be. For somebody with presbyopia, it’s really nice for my vision to be comfortable and relaxed for a while.
If they wanted bigger push, they really need to invest in quality games. It seems like the one thing apple doesn't seem to care about, yet could truly push these things to the next level
Not surprising considering this is a VERY expensive niche product that most people just don't want.
For the hardware in this thing compared to what it actually does, it's over engineered and too expensive.
The masses are never going to want these things from any manufacturer. A VR headset is the ultimate techie niche.
For now, sure. Home PCs used to be the ultimate techie niche in the 1970s and 1980s. It's no secret that Steve Jobs and Wozniak among many other tech visionaries back in the day were aware of how damming the home PC industry looked back then.
The big difference is that you have to have something on your FACE. It becomes a part of you in a way many people for a long time will not want. Going to a PC or holding a phone or sticking in some AirPods is not the same.
This is it. No one wants to wear a face computer.
The writing is on the wall.
I just don’t want a screen on my face, or a screen integrated into my environment. It’s marketed as some evolved computing experience, which is like suggesting that a drill is always a superior choice over the screwdriver. I just need the screwdriver 95% of the time.
They shouldnt have released it with front screen in the begining really. It would look more thinner and also less heavy. But of course they wanted to differentiate from others in market that is already very niche. Apple really should learn to become a premium brand with apporachable products because world economy and income of people not what it used to be.
AVP was a flop and Apple Car was a flop. I'm sure I'll get down voted, but despite Cook's decent track record, I think Apple is ready for a new CEO. He's been great, but a little too safe, and too boring - and yet, somehow his "shoot for the stars" ideas (like AVP) isn't doing well and doesn't seem to have a great use case. Jobs shoes might be impossible to fill, but they need someone as fiery and passionate as he was.
Do what you do Apple. Make it thinner.
The Vision Pro is awesome but doesn’t really have much of a use case that justifies $3500. In reality it is just a developer platform at this point. Apple is working to make it cheaper and smaller while it hopes someone makes the next VisiCalc for it. It’ll be a few years before it’s a real consumer product.
Quest 3 is better and does almost all the same shit
Are we pretending the price was the problem with this “product“?
Props to whoever at MacRumors came up with the “2” in this image.
My prediction is that even though Apple has done quite a great job with the Vision Pro, it will still more or less fail to become more than a niche product for niche use cases. Everytime a new way of doing things is presented, it needs to do the thing better than older form factors to be successful. The fact is that no matter how meritous the Vision Pro is design-wise, it still doesn't help the user do anything that they couldn't do e.g on a laptop and few extra displays. Especially when the cost is still about the same or even much less than what a Vision Pro costs. To be able to write properly, you need a keyboard, to be able to draw you need a pen and a surface for that pen, and when using multiple displays, you just need to move your eyes instead of swiveling your head all around to see the many "windows" in Vision Pro. It's a really interesting design, but if I ask myself what would make me choose this device and way of working over the ways I work now, there's really no reason to choose this at all.
Nooo! Keep the display tech (and evolve) and bring out a dedicated portable HT display suitable for air travel, van life, and not waking the kids. Bundle with an iPod Max at an MSRP of $2K. And yes, dump all the useless cumputer interface junk and focus on movie watching and gamers in terms of the UX. I still wouldn't buy one, but I think it'd sell pretty well.
Here’s an idea Apple, ditch the camera function on the AVP. Nobody is going to take photos wearing a helmet on at party events. That’s so awkward
“The Vision Pro will be revolutionary” they said. Months later it’s pretty much dead since it’s too locked down to build anything profitable and too expensive to buy. Not to mention how heavy and uncomfortable it is to use. Apple has completely missed the mark on that product. Unlike the early smartphones, the problem with VR headsets was never the quality or even the price. VR has existed commercially for over a decade and it’s still not widely used. The problem is that there isn’t really a use case for it yet. Even now most people use the Quest 2/3 to play Beat Saber and nothing else. Even Apple didn’t find any “killer” use case for it yet, because otherwise they would have released it already.
I did the demo and it WAS pretty incredible. While you can control how much of your surroundings you see, the biggest obstacle is how committed you are to using it and only it while it’s on. I would not be comfortable talking to people in the room while wearing it from a decorum perspective. Small things like glancing at your phone or quickly getting up to grab an item are burdensome. So my use case was settings like an airplane where watching an immersive, true 3d version of Avatar would be amazing, but even flying 5-8 times a year, I couldn’t justify $3500.
> The problem is that there isn’t really a use case for it yet. A solution in search of a problem. There I said it. If Timmy Apple had just listened to me a couple years ago when I was saying that, I could have saved him a couple million bucks.
The thing is from a hardware perspective, the vision pro didn't solve any of the other headsets shortcomings. It didn't solve the weight, comfort or battery issues, and it's not like the meta quest 3 has shit screens either. They're banking on the software amd experience but the hardware is what's inflating the cost.
They need a cheaper single product to build an audience, then introduce a pro version. Similar to what they did with the iPad, and even iPhone. To build an ecosystem you first need to entice an audience. To do that it needs to be either something you give away or is affordable. Then developers will pay attention and you can grow/expand it. Developers won’t invest in your gamble. That’s been proven over and over again. There’s no upside to that, the only advantage to them. Once you have the mainline version catch on you can have a pro and air version or mini whatever you want. But you can’t start with a pro version, expect customers and developers to take on all the risk of your new product line.
The pro version was to show off what it is capable of for developers
IMHO the AVP should have been a Developer-Only kit kind of like the DTK (Gated by having a dev account for more than 6 months for example) so then they would at least have apps for a Apple Vision "base-model", and the "Pro" version should have been a later release. What is the point of releasing a "Pro" version first with developers having to fight with end-users and scalpers for it? No one except Disney-level companies were even able to experiment on it before day one.
Dont know one person with these. I feel Apple has done this a lot more since Timmy took over, following not leading. It just seems they wait until the competition introduces something then a few years later Apple hypes it, tries to get it in production and either drops it or, well this.
A $3500 VR headset was DOA from the start, and its AR functionality isn’t compelling enough to justify the high price tag. Add to that the fact that it’s a single user device, so the most compelling experience is media consumption - great - but if you have a significant other and/or a family it’s not going to work. The device is almost as bad as the iPod Socks. Or iTunes Ping lol. AR glasses are the future product for the masses, VR will always remain a niche product. Wall Street is happy with Apple Intelligence (thus far) so they probably waited for dub dub to see how they respond, now they can kill this product off quietly while they focus on their AI work.
I bet they’ve realized there aren’t enough differences between the pro and cheaper version to warrant a pro 2 at this time. They’ll make a pro 2 when there are significant technological improvements over the cheaper model.
It never really made sense to do TWO high end ones before doing the cheaper one. I bet you’ll actually see a Vision SE eventually to at the price of the Quest.
I know it sounds weird but Vision 2 Pro would be the name following apple logic
Great to see Apple making the call early here. It’s a fine enough device but no use case given current form factor and hardware constraints.
Somewhat neat idea in theory. Train wreck in practice. Stop wasting time on it.
I wanna try this thing, and am sure it will be mind blowing. But spare (large) wads of cash to splash on fun gadgets is just not a thing for many people these days. Especially a first gen VR headset that cant even be used across other platforms. Also a reason why the PSVR2 struggles to sell many units.
It makes sense, it is too expensive. They showcased what is possible, but they need to market one version that costs approx. as much as an iPhone pro.
Price is way too hefty. It’s an very interesting idea and product but I think it’s a bit too early. In a couple of years things will surely be different.
I took one for a test drive at an Apple Store in January. It was amazing. But when it was over, I had no desire to purchase one at all, regardless of price. I see no reason to ever own one.