So, there are only a few apps for the headset at the moment and they are all first party. Apple needs developers to make apps for the headset before they start selling it in mass.
If they do not have apps for it, then people will see a “dead” ecosystem and possibly view it as a failed product.
They priced it at a point where consumers won’t really get it, but devs will. At least larger devs will. Selling it, shows the devs that it’s ready for the market and encourages them to get in early so they can possibly catch the wave of new users.
Once there are a decent amount and variety of apps for the headset, they will sell a slightly trimmed down version for significantly less.
What do you think?
Agreed! I think there’s also genuine uncertainty about what uses will be popular, much like the early Apple Watch iterations involved some amount of flailing to figure out what works.
The spare-no-expense approach can be seen as an effort to not close off avenues of exploration before they know what works. When optimizing for cost, decisions will be made to save money at the expense of ruling out some potential appeal, but right now nobody knows what will have appeal. The EyeSight feature seems like a prime example of something that very few would include in a product today because the appeal is uncertain while the cost is high. It might turn out to be a home run of a feature, and this luxury version of the Apple Vision product is how they can gain experience with it. If the response is instead that it looks like googly eyes, makes people uncomfortable, or doesn’t achieve the goal of letting people use Vision while in the presence of others, then maybe it would find itself on the chopping block to get costs down.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It has an m2 chip, just like you can run iphone/ipad apps on a mac you’ll be able to run them on VisionOS. Yeah there won’t be many native apps but it’s still usable at that stage. I’d be cool to scroll lemmy in a holographic interface that sits on your table.
I think that’s been pretty obvious form the start. It was clearly priced at a premium upon being announced, and their initial production was cut from ~1mil units to just south of 400k. They know they won’t have many buyers for this first gen product and are pricing/producing as such.
I have some coding experience, and a formal education in software development. There’s little chance of me actually making something, but I want to buy it anyways.
Oh so do I. But not for $3500.
The optimist in me says I can play with it and find a cool use cas, and be one of the first to develop something for it, and make lots of money… or at least cover the device cost.
I would sooner use Meta’s solution for a virtual office, for a fraction of the price, but I won’t buy a Meta headset haha. I’ll definitely consider the later versions of Vision Pro assuming the price falls to closer-to-Index pricing.
To me it’s by far the most “Gen-1” product Apple has shown in a long time. I saw someone say that it feels like they wanted to make AR glasses but the tech wasn’t ready yet, and I have to agree. I do hope it will succeed, but I’ll need to see the next few iterations to be really sold on it.
It definitely seems like they want to build out the app ecosystem with the Vision Pro, and then probably release a more mainstream, less frills headset down the line.
It looks so nice, but it really has their “pro” look to it.
I think this concept is cool and I were not in so many video conferences, I’d pick it up at a much lower price.
I do think they’ll eventually sell a trimmed down Apple Vision if only because they’re launching with just Apple Vision Pro, but I don’t think the reasoning is that complicated.
Apple is not known for dead products or ecosystems, so there’s confidence in its success; developers will be on board. It was the same thing for the iPad, and it was the same thing for the Apple Watch.
The high price is just a reflection of the three compounding factors: it’s AR/VR, it’s Apple, and it’s the Pro version. So it was always going to be expensive.
I think the whole point of having the headset priced in this range was to make sure that the experience really is very good. I’m sure thet they could’ve made this juuuust a little worse and therefore a bit cheaper (e.g., leave out the eye display to the outside, use one or two cameras less etc).
But then, everyone using it would probably be like “meh, this is nothing special, maybe AR isn’t there yet” and abandon the idea. I think the first impression really matters here.
In the end, it’s a feedback loop: If noone develops apps for this, there are no apps and nobody wants to use it. If nobody uses it, nobody wants to develop for it.
I’m comparing this with the transition from iphone to apple watch (in terms of tech and size). It took countless iterations on both iphone and watch to arrive at the apple watch ultra which effectively can be an iphone replacement. based on the current industry iterations, I’d guess that we’ll see a really great product in 3-4 years which is based on this tech just much smaller.
as an ex-mobile dev myself I can say that in my opinion the interface and controls are really interesting already and will allow for a yet not available immersive experience. for example I’m using an wireless VR headset to play halflife alyx and even though that tech is relatively dated, the hand and head tracking is superb; making the experience absolutely amazing. if you’ve not tried it, I highly recommend it, it’s been eye opening for me. any dev that wants to stay relevant has to buy this device and learning how to properly develop for it will likely take 3-4 years as well just to see what people will engage with.
another point that hasn’t been mentioned is privacy, you get to watch your personal movies / recordings / meetings / documents without anyone around you seeing it. this is huge for travelers. just like the ability to have a huge screen with you without having to actually carry a screen.
My current theory is that it is priced the way it is because they don’t have the supply chain to currently manufacture en-masse. I think it will be sold out at launch and continue to be sold out for a long time.
I’ll be queuing to try one at the Apple Store even though it would be mostly out of my price range. Considering finance when it is available in the UK
I have a hard time picturing VR becoming mainstream when the headsets are still heavy. It’s cool that the Vision Pro is so high quality and has such great visual fidelity, but at the end of the day, people don’t want to watch movies with something heavy strapped on their face. It’s a worse experience than just using a regular TV.
Did you watch the Disney part of the presentation? They showed some things they have been doing that would be pretty cool.
Maybe in like 5 years time, the tech would have advanced enough to make it a mainstream product.
I’m not a huge fan of vr, in fact, I’ve never tried it. And I don’t think the tech is mainstream just yet, but I can see a future where it’s a household thing.
I’m just disappointed in the VR industry because I think the tech is advancing in the wrong way. Features and fidelity are nice, but I think it’s more important to create a headset that feels nice to wear. I don’t think Apple has confirmed the weight yet, but MKBHD on Youtube said that it felt very heavy. Personally, I would prefer to use a light headset with lower resolution screens than a heavy headset with 4K screens.
I have a hard time picturing VR becoming mainstream when the headsets are still heavy.
Added to this, something Quinn Nelson said; in all the footage we saw of Vision Pro being used it leaves the question of why use that device? Why would you strap on a hat to shitpost on your socials when you can just use your phone? The one solid use-case that interested me was being able to sit in your own IMAX cinema, but is that really worth $3500?
Don’t get me wrong, the thing looks damn cool, and I can’t wait to try one out. But yeah, it seems like you have to want to choose to use VP over just having an iPad in your hands.
VR sporting events. I’d love to watch an away game with great seats w/o flying there, getting a hotel, etc. Of course it’s not the exact same but it’s so much cheaper.
One single away game trip can easily cost as much as the headset. Only an in-person demo will really decide if the experience is worth it.
I’ve heard this exact scenario multiple times since the keynote. I went to an F1 race last year IN MY HOME COUNTRY and it cost me $6k for two of us for the whole weekend. To be honest, I’m glad we went but I wouldn’t do it again. We had an “experience” we won’t forget but sitting in a grandstand in the pissing rain only being able to see turn 1 & 2 isn’t great. Can you imagine how cool it would be to switch to the driver’s helmet cam while wearing a Vision Pro?!
…why use that device? … The one solid use-case that interested me was being able to sit in your own IMAX cinema, but is that really worth $3500?
Except this device isn’t being marketed as an iPhone or iPad replacement. The closest thing to it replacing is a MacBook, but it’s not being marketed as a MacBook replacement either. It seems to me like it’s a blend between a MacBook Air replacement and a Pro Display XDR/general monitor replacement. A good OLED ultra wide monitor is above $1,000. A Pro Display XDR is $5,000-$6,000. With the Vision Pro, you could theoretically never buy a monitor again. I’ve bought two ergotron monitor arms at $200 each just to be able to move my monitors around a fraction of the amount that you can move windows inside Vision Pro. I don’t think the price is out of line, and I do think there is a pretty obvious use case here. It’s a monitor replacement for stationary computer use, with the option of limited portability. With a battery life of 2 hours it seems pretty obvious to me that mobile use wasn’t Apple’s priority with this.
I’m sure developers can’t wait to waste 3.5k and crazy amount of time and effort on a device that has no audience
It’s chicken and egg though, init. If you build it, they will come.
It’s the Hololens all over again and I legitimate don’t understand why the internet is so obsessed with this. If the Meta Quest 2 can’t break into the market at $400, this sure as hell won’t. Everything they showed of the Apple headset is a gimmick. Watch a blurrier version of your TV on a 2 hour battery! Capture videos by wearing a bulky headset that’s not very portable! Use apps that already exist on your phone in a clunkier way!
Am I missing something? It looks like good tech but I agree with OP, there’s no market for this.
deleted by creator
with better voice recognition
RIP Vision Pro, we hardly knew ye.
