3 ms·
Spoiler alert: the [edit: real, not stated] reason is because they bought it for the review, and the 14-day return period is expiring. Dropping $3500+tax off t
by schiffern 3y ago
Spoiler alert: the [edit: real, not stated] reason is because they bought it for the review, and the 14-day return period is expiring.
Dropping $3500+tax off the production budget and double-dipping for a second video/thinkpiece? That's irresistible for a content creator. So now we're getting a spike in "Vision Pro return" memes.
Most people naturally tend to emulate popular trends. They'll never say that's the reason, of course.
There's also just a classic thundering herd effect. There was a big spike as people tried it out, so there's a spike in returns on a ~2 week lag.
- ed 3y agoThat’s not what the article says
- phmqk76 3y agoRead the article, he interviews several real people.
- threeseed 3y agoThere were at minimum 200,000 Vision Pro sold. At industry standard return rates 2000 returns would be normal. Easy to find enough people to interview.
- phmqk76 3y agoI’m glad he had an easy job then?
- moneywoes 3y agothat is 700 million in revenue. wow
- threeseed 3y agoIf all Vision Pro does is become an iPad for your face i.e. content consumption. Then it will be a $30 billion a year business for Apple.
- throwaway49849 3y agoThat means that for the 9 people interviewed that returned the devices, Bloomberg would have had to contact 900 AVP buyers just to find those 9 (1%). Either that, or the ratio is off.
- threeseed 3y agoOr they just search on X/Threads for Vision Pro return and DM them.
- throwaway49849 3y agoWhoops, yeah you're right. I forgot for a moment that people who buy one of these things are probably posting everything that they do with it.
- throwaway49849 3y agoWho is "they"? The content creators that you allude to are not the people in the article.