4 ms·
“Out there” for who? Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what
by MBCook 3y ago
“Out there” for who?
Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what they’re working on (perhaps a $250,000,000 movie) it’s justified.
The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, it does have ‘Pro’ in the name.
When the Vision or Vision Air. come out in a few years for $1000-$1500, that will be the (higher end) consumer move. And by then software will exist.
For now it seems more for executives. Maybe travelers. On The Talk Show Gruber and Panzarino were talking about how useful it would be for working on secret designs or private financial information or HIPAA information in public. You could be in an airline seat or at Starbucks or whatever and work on the information without anyone else being able to see it, unlike a laptop screen.
And it’s not hard to imagine how it might be very useful to architects or certain other businesses that might be willing to spend the money for an expensive tool to buy expensive software if it really helped them out.
I don’t think Apple will have problems selling them, even at $3500. Is it the next iPod? No.
But right now, they have got to be 109% constrained on those insane displays. Nothing else in the headset seems anywhere near as hard to manufacture.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago<< The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, I would absolutely buy this argument were it not for Apple's own portrayal of it during unveiling that shown a person watching movies, which is not commonly a professional role ( as in, it is intended as a consumer product ). That is not to say that I think it is a bad idea. I am not an apple fanboy and I want to get my hands on it if I can convince wife it is not a waste.
- criddell 3y agoApple recently released Logic Pro and Final Cut for the iPad. It wouldn’t surprise me if that work was done in part to support those apps on the headset at release. It may have looked like that person in the demo was watching a movie, but maybe they were making a movie…
- charcircuit 3y agoWho will be uploading gigabytes of videos to a headset to edit movies with a heavy device on your face instead of to a workstation where you have actual monitors and don't have to keep something heavy on you. Apple already sells machines that are good and comfortable for doing those things. Doing them in VR doesn't automatically make them better.
- criddell 3y agoWho? People who record something and want to edit & post ASAP.
- charcircuit 3y agoA MacBook or ipad will be more portable if you want something you can take along wherever if you want to do that.
- criddell 3y agoIf you want a really big workspace, you are going to have to also haul your large monitors with you.
- charcircuit 3y agoIf you are doing quick edits you don't need a really big workspace. If you don't want to haul things around you probably don't want to also haul around a vision pro carrying case.
- criddell 3y ago> you don’t need To be clear, I don’t think any of this will be driven by need, especially at first. It’s going to be something people want to use. If the virtual screens are just barely usable, they are going to sell a bunch of these things to people who want to work on virtual screens. I can’t seem myself ever doing it, but I know there’s some demand for it.
- theshrike79 3y agoThe person wasn't exactly living in subsidised housing and living on food stamps. People who have the money WILL buy these as early adopters, but it's not a mass-market product. Like the comment above said, the real game changer will be the Vision and Vision Air or whatever they're called. Either the tech gets cheaper or Apple will pare down the sensors and features to a point that satisfies the applications devs have built for the Pro and shown that they are viable. The pass-through eye display for example is just 100% Apple flexing, not something a "normal" user will ever need. That's a few hundred off the price.
- disiplus 3y agoI have a 3500 EUR MacBook pro for the only reason because my company bought it for me for work. There is no way in hell that I would spend that much for a MacBook, and I don't think my company would buy me a 4000eur vision pro. I have a gaming PC that I bought for 2000 EUR pc that I built for entertainment and some work. 4000 EUR is so much out there that I cannot imagine who is buying it with his own money
- MBCook 3y agoI’m a software developer. They’re not going to buy me one. Top designers for Ferrari? Famous architects working on buildings costs tens of millions? Other expensive people like that I can see it.
- disiplus 3y agoOnly if there is content to create for people having apple vision pro. If there is not enough consumers I don't think that would be true.
- newaccount74 3y agoI think you are underestimating how much disposable income some people have. People buy skiing equipment for 2000€ Euros just to go skiing a few times a year. They buy mountain bikes or road bikes for 5000€. They buy brake upgrades on their sports car for 7000€. I think Apple will easily find a few people willing to spend 4000€ on a toy. Whether the market will be big enough for 3rd party developers to be sustainable is another question.
- scarface_74 3y agoPeople don’t seem to understand how much comparatively early adopters have paid for Apple hardware. My Apple //e setup cost around $3500 in 1986. My Mac LCII setup was $4K in 1992. There are enough people in the world who will drop $3500 on the Vision Pro without blinking for Apple to sell all it can make.
- michaelt 3y ago> The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. Someone ought to tell Apple then; I see eight videos on https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/ https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/ and seven of them show home use. Of course, it's possible the product targeting will change. I certainly agree that "it's for business" is how the execs responsible for HoloLens and Google Glass have kept them on life support to delay pulling the plug.
- taeric 3y agoAgreed that the price of the tool can be justified by the value it helps create. I'm always bemused to know that most giant movies are not made with Apple tech, though? Seems render farms in custom linux toolchains are the norm, more than the tools that we so often see in marketing. Or has that changed? I'd be lying if I said I keep up to date on this stuff.
- MBCook 3y agoThe Apple stuff is for the artists or color graders or editors or whatever. That’s my understanding. The rendering farms are Linux.
- taeric 3y agoI think it has largely been the artists in non movie firms, though? Prosumer and journalistic endeavors, at large. Wacom and similar setups dominate the asset creation industry.
- MBCook 3y agoI was specifically thinking of the movie industry, as I know they’ll spend outrageous sums on computers because the tab nothing and they need the best. You’re right, Apple stuff is certainly used in tons of other industries by people who either need them for a specific reason or just prefer them.
- taeric 3y agoRight, I could tell your quote was about the movie industry. I don't know how accurate that actually is, though. Seems every time I've gotten a dive about what tools are used by movie editing groups, it has not been Mac. Do you have quotes showing otherwise? I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong here, mind you.
- troupo 3y agoApple's Final Cut Pro used to hold 60% market share. Movies are not just rendered on rendering farms. There's a ton of other stuff that gets done. Rendering the final movies is the smallest, most boring and trivial part of the whole process.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> For now it seems more for executive For me it seems more like a devkit targeted at developers who are supposed to figure out what can you even do with it.
- troupo 3y ago> Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what they’re working on (perhaps a $250,000,000 movie) it’s justified. Exactly. And Apple showed exactly zero use cases for "vision pro" that would be useful to these people.