12 ms·

A lot of people have told me they'll buy it when it gets down to around $1,000 and I just don't see a way to get there from here. You can drop the second displ

A lot of people have told me they'll buy it when it gets down to around $1,000 and I just don't see a way to get there from here. You can drop the second display, make the frame out of cheaper parts, that gets you down to what -- $1,200 in costs? Maybe they get the cost of the chips down? I don't think they'll ever use a cheaper main display -- if anything they'll just keep improving the quality. I don't see this going below $2,000 any time soon.

ildjarn 3y ago
Lots of people would probably pay 2k for a much better headset too. There are multiple ways Apple can attack this.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  I think the main reason that they aren't going to focus on cost reduction is that it's not really good enough right now. The people that won't buy it at $3500 won't buy it at $2000, either. Anything north of $1,000, if you're not just selling it to ultra wealthy people who don't care about money, it's got to be a core part of their existence like a phone is, or their job is paying for it. And I don't think the product, as it is, is that. A lot of people wouldn't use it if you gave it to them _for free_.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Unless they can come up with financing options. A lot more people might be willing to pay $150 a month for a new VR headset every couple of years.
  - posix_monad 3y ago
    If you have a small apartment but enough disposable income to drop $2000 on a TV-set (common situation) I can see it be compelling.
    - 65 3y ago
      Can't watch it with other people though. Still need to strap a heavy headset to your face instead of just clicking a button to turn the TV on. I'd still rather have a TV than Vision Pro.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- 65 3y ago
  I would pay $2,000 for great AR/VR glasses - not goggles like the Vision Pro or Quest. Something like the XReal Airs but higher resolution. Why Apple didn't work on this category - glasses - and instead worked on VR goggles, which for years have already been a niche for gaming (something Apple sucks at), is beyond me.
  - apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
    The reports a year ago were that this was their true goal, but they had to postpone AR glasses due to "technical challenges". The Vision Pro was the fallback product that let them enter the market years ahead of where they otherwise would have been able to. 1: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-indefinitely-postpones-launch-ar-glasses-bloomberg-news-2023-01-18/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-indefinitely-postpo... 2: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-18/apple-postpones-ar-glasses-plans-cheaper-mixed-reality-headset https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-18/apple-pos...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - markus_zhang 3y ago
    A side note: it might still be valuable for developers to get one of these -- if we believe that Apple can eventually produce those glasses, I'd assume that experience in developing apps on Vision Pro is still valuable.
  - empath-nirvana 3y ago
    > Why Apple didn't work on this category - glasses - and instead worked on VR goggles Probably because it's a fantasy that can't exist with current technology.
    - 65 3y ago
      It already exists: https://www.xreal.com/us/ https://www.xreal.com/us/
larsnystrom 3y ago
I don’t think they’ll lower the price for Apple Vision Pro, but if they can get good performance out of cheaper components they might release an Apple Vision Air I guess. Not happening anytime soon though.
the_other 3y ago
It's such a niche product with no real world applications. Keep it expensive; no big deal.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Well, there's a vicious cycle with this sort of tech. When sales are low, nobody releases great new applications for it. When nobody releases great new applications for it, sales stay low.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Apple needs to release a killer app. If even they can’t, then they have a serious problem.
  - politician 3y ago
    Only Apple can release apps for this because no one else can justify the lost revenue that Apple takes off the top in fees.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    Nah, people have been building amazing content for VR headsets since the 80s. i used to use them in arcades and companies toured devices and content across college campuses in the 90s and we've had Quest for a decade with 6 million MAU today so there's plenty of attempts and it all falls short of mainstream value. Useful for gaming and some VR porn and that's about it. No strap-on dorkbox face computer will ever take off for productivity, not as long as half of office workers spend huge amounts of time on hair an makeup to look nice at the office. No chance they're gonna muss that all up to get another couple screens at their desk when they've got desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones already.
    - the_other 3y ago
      > face computer will ever take off for productivity, not as long as half of office workers spend huge amounts of time on hair an makeup to look nice at the office. The hair and make-up thing seems like it'll be a thing. But the main thing is that it's just not a productive interface. It might be, eventually... but I doubt it. There's very little usability gain in distributing most "work" data in 3d like this. Most of us rarely need to track or navigate around three dimensions of data in real time, and when we do, 2d projections are usually enough.
madeofpalk 3y ago
For comparison, Macbook Air starts at 13" $1100 or 15" $1300. iPad Pro is $800 or $1100 depending on screen size. Both have M2 chips, like the Vision Pro. Functionality wise Vision Pro is a lot closer to an iPad than Mac, but it's also a lot 'higher tech' than either of them. There's no way even a cheaper variant is priced under iPad.
- amelius 3y ago
  Why do you think it is "higher tech" than a laptop?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    it is more advanced technology. E.g. the exceptionally dense resolution displays, compared to the displays in laptops. All the sensors and eye and hand tracking.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      Lots of development cost, in other words, that needs to be amortized.
  - Arn_Thor 3y ago
    Top of the line displays, not one but two advanced CPUs one of which is brand new, a smorgasbord of sensors…
dannyw 3y ago
Huh? $1542 of BOM for a relatively low-volume, first-gen product is actually quite low. With volume, scale, and manufacturing improvements, there is certainly room to keep the same quality and parts and get it under $500 BOM. I'm sure. But you'll need to wait a couple years. My first 4K monitor costed me $2k maybe a decade ago. Today, I can get a better one for $350.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  yes in a decade they can sell the AVP for $500 and not lose money. in a decade the AVP will be a joke and we'll have abandoned this nonsense once and for all (except for the actually useful gaming and porn applications.)
loregate 3y ago
Why don't they just buy a Meta Quest 3?
- ekun 3y ago
  No Apple logo.
- wl 3y ago
  Requires having an account with Facebook.
- mattgperry 3y ago
  Because the screens are shit, comparatively. Also the OS is years behind.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    the smearing with any head movement on the AVP and the glares or flares or whatever those are have made it unsuitable for movie watching for my movie buff friend who got it because of the "better" screens. He's back to his Quest.
- Retric 3y ago
  Ultimately the Quest is designed as a VR game console and it does that well for an affordable price, but it’s the AR aspects of the Vision Pro that people are excited about. Head to head the Meta Quest 3 has worse screens and cameras, only runs one app at a time, requires controllers, less comfortable while reclined etc. And while Meta removed the mandatory Facebook integration that really damaged people’s perception of the brand. In the end more affordable products sell, but people still lust after supercars not daily drivers.
  - drivers99 3y ago
    > mandatory Facebook That was the reason I was never going to touch any future Oculus product but I didn’t realize they dropped that requirement until now.
  - 3y ago
mattgperry 3y ago
They might carry on improving the quality for the Pro (although this also has limits and diminishing returns) but they don't need to do that if they're targeting a sub $1000 headset, they just need to make these screens cheaper.
stetrain 3y ago
They'll keep improving the quality for the top end product, sure. But screens with today's quality will fall in price over the next few years. Apple loves putting tech they have already paid the initial manufacturing scale-up costs on into lower tier products.

ildjarn 3y ago

Lots of people would probably pay 2k for a much better headset too. There are multiple ways Apple can attack this.

empath-nirvana 3y ago
I think the main reason that they aren't going to focus on cost reduction is that it's not really good enough right now. The people that won't buy it at $3500 won't buy it at $2000, either. Anything north of $1,000, if you're not just selling it to ultra wealthy people who don't care about money, it's got to be a core part of their existence like a phone is, or their job is paying for it. And I don't think the product, as it is, is that. A lot of people wouldn't use it if you gave it to them _for free_.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Unless they can come up with financing options. A lot more people might be willing to pay $150 a month for a new VR headset every couple of years.
- posix_monad 3y ago
  If you have a small apartment but enough disposable income to drop $2000 on a TV-set (common situation) I can see it be compelling.
  - 65 3y ago
    Can't watch it with other people though. Still need to strap a heavy headset to your face instead of just clicking a button to turn the TV on. I'd still rather have a TV than Vision Pro.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
65 3y ago
I would pay $2,000 for great AR/VR glasses - not goggles like the Vision Pro or Quest. Something like the XReal Airs but higher resolution. Why Apple didn't work on this category - glasses - and instead worked on VR goggles, which for years have already been a niche for gaming (something Apple sucks at), is beyond me.
- apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
  The reports a year ago were that this was their true goal, but they had to postpone AR glasses due to "technical challenges". The Vision Pro was the fallback product that let them enter the market years ahead of where they otherwise would have been able to. 1: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-indefinitely-postpones-launch-ar-glasses-bloomberg-news-2023-01-18/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-indefinitely-postpo... 2: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-18/apple-postpones-ar-glasses-plans-cheaper-mixed-reality-headset https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-18/apple-pos...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- markus_zhang 3y ago
  A side note: it might still be valuable for developers to get one of these -- if we believe that Apple can eventually produce those glasses, I'd assume that experience in developing apps on Vision Pro is still valuable.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  > Why Apple didn't work on this category - glasses - and instead worked on VR goggles Probably because it's a fantasy that can't exist with current technology.
  - 65 3y ago
    It already exists: https://www.xreal.com/us/ https://www.xreal.com/us/

larsnystrom 3y ago

I don’t think they’ll lower the price for Apple Vision Pro, but if they can get good performance out of cheaper components they might release an Apple Vision Air I guess. Not happening anytime soon though.

the_other 3y ago

It's such a niche product with no real world applications. Keep it expensive; no big deal.

michaelt 3y ago
Well, there's a vicious cycle with this sort of tech. When sales are low, nobody releases great new applications for it. When nobody releases great new applications for it, sales stay low.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Apple needs to release a killer app. If even they can’t, then they have a serious problem.
- politician 3y ago
  Only Apple can release apps for this because no one else can justify the lost revenue that Apple takes off the top in fees.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Nah, people have been building amazing content for VR headsets since the 80s. i used to use them in arcades and companies toured devices and content across college campuses in the 90s and we've had Quest for a decade with 6 million MAU today so there's plenty of attempts and it all falls short of mainstream value. Useful for gaming and some VR porn and that's about it. No strap-on dorkbox face computer will ever take off for productivity, not as long as half of office workers spend huge amounts of time on hair an makeup to look nice at the office. No chance they're gonna muss that all up to get another couple screens at their desk when they've got desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones already.
  - the_other 3y ago
    > face computer will ever take off for productivity, not as long as half of office workers spend huge amounts of time on hair an makeup to look nice at the office. The hair and make-up thing seems like it'll be a thing. But the main thing is that it's just not a productive interface. It might be, eventually... but I doubt it. There's very little usability gain in distributing most "work" data in 3d like this. Most of us rarely need to track or navigate around three dimensions of data in real time, and when we do, 2d projections are usually enough.

madeofpalk 3y ago

For comparison, Macbook Air starts at 13" $1100 or 15" $1300. iPad Pro is $800 or $1100 depending on screen size. Both have M2 chips, like the Vision Pro. Functionality wise Vision Pro is a lot closer to an iPad than Mac, but it's also a lot 'higher tech' than either of them. There's no way even a cheaper variant is priced under iPad.

amelius 3y ago
Why do you think it is "higher tech" than a laptop?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  it is more advanced technology. E.g. the exceptionally dense resolution displays, compared to the displays in laptops. All the sensors and eye and hand tracking.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Lots of development cost, in other words, that needs to be amortized.
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
  Top of the line displays, not one but two advanced CPUs one of which is brand new, a smorgasbord of sensors…

dannyw 3y ago

Huh? $1542 of BOM for a relatively low-volume, first-gen product is actually quite low. With volume, scale, and manufacturing improvements, there is certainly room to keep the same quality and parts and get it under $500 BOM. I'm sure. But you'll need to wait a couple years. My first 4K monitor costed me $2k maybe a decade ago. Today, I can get a better one for $350.

asadotzler 3y ago
yes in a decade they can sell the AVP for $500 and not lose money. in a decade the AVP will be a joke and we'll have abandoned this nonsense once and for all (except for the actually useful gaming and porn applications.)

loregate 3y ago

Why don't they just buy a Meta Quest 3?

ekun 3y ago
No Apple logo.
wl 3y ago
Requires having an account with Facebook.
mattgperry 3y ago
Because the screens are shit, comparatively. Also the OS is years behind.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  the smearing with any head movement on the AVP and the glares or flares or whatever those are have made it unsuitable for movie watching for my movie buff friend who got it because of the "better" screens. He's back to his Quest.
Retric 3y ago
Ultimately the Quest is designed as a VR game console and it does that well for an affordable price, but it’s the AR aspects of the Vision Pro that people are excited about. Head to head the Meta Quest 3 has worse screens and cameras, only runs one app at a time, requires controllers, less comfortable while reclined etc. And while Meta removed the mandatory Facebook integration that really damaged people’s perception of the brand. In the end more affordable products sell, but people still lust after supercars not daily drivers.
- drivers99 3y ago
  > mandatory Facebook That was the reason I was never going to touch any future Oculus product but I didn’t realize they dropped that requirement until now.
- 3y ago

mattgperry 3y ago

They might carry on improving the quality for the Pro (although this also has limits and diminishing returns) but they don't need to do that if they're targeting a sub $1000 headset, they just need to make these screens cheaper.

stetrain 3y ago

They'll keep improving the quality for the top end product, sure. But screens with today's quality will fall in price over the next few years. Apple loves putting tech they have already paid the initial manufacturing scale-up costs on into lower tier products.