3 ms·

So when you follow the link under "Apple initially had a sales target of 3 million Vision Pro units in its first year", you'll see that this number came from Bl

So when you follow the link under "Apple initially had a sales target of 3 million Vision Pro units in its first year", you'll see that this number came from Bloomberg's Marc Gurman, and is based on nothing. The author bolsters his argument by quoting Ming-Chi Kuo's similarly unsubstantiated "800,000 units" claim. Since the 72.5% accurate¹ Kuo can't possibly have guessed wrong, his face-saving explanation is that Apple intended to hit that number but has since had to slash production. Only, this doesn't agree with Kuo v2023.09, who noted, "Based on some component suppliers’ maximum production capacity estimates, Vision Pro shipments in 2024 will be at most 400,000–600,000 units"². (The Financial Times, The Information, and The Elec all reported on the 400-500K unit limit imposed by the availability of the ultra-high-resolution OLED microdisplays manufactured by Sony.) Also, Apple was telegraphing fewer than 400,000 units in 2024 way back in July of last year.³ Look, I understand that analysts gonna analyst. But anybody with even a tiny bit of tech history knowledge should understand by now that Apple plays the long game. This is just poorly-researched, long-form, "gotta generate engagement" shitposting. ¹ https://appletrack.com/ming-chi-kuo/ https://appletrack.com/ming-chi-kuo/ ² https://medium.com/@mingchikuo/apple-vision-pro-shipment-growth-may-be-below-market-expectations-apple-vision-pro%E5%87%BA%E8%B2%A8%E6%88%90%E9%95%B7%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E4%BD%8E%E6%96%BC%E5%B8%82%E5%A0%B4%E9%A0%90%E6%9C%9F-7a5eeb613ab0 https://medium.com/@mingchikuo/apple-vision-pro-shipment-gro... ³ https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/07/03/apple-will-reportedly-make-fewer-than-400000-vision-pro-headsets-next-year-due-to-production-snags/?sh=2bf46fa71f58 https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/07/03/apple-w...

FireBeyond 3y ago
LOL. Your argument amounts to "the analysts who named a high number had no idea what they were talking about, and had no evidence" while "the analysts who named a lower number, with no evidence" were much better?
- FabHK 3y ago
  The commenter names three publications that gave a lower number with good evidence, namely supply constraints.
bredren 3y ago
The article is bad but just look at the engagement! Notably, the Forbes article mentioning the 400k units "telegraphed" is sourced from a Financial Times article that cites two sources close to Apple and the supplier Luxshare. [1] Also, an insider was very actively leaking information about Vision Pro and other Apple products at this exact time. [2] It is believable that actual internal unit estimates would have come out of this source. The article also pulls in the Humane pin, and Cybertruck which have nothing to do with the Vision Pro. If the article were presented as something intended to showcase perceived new product failures hey, it is okay to editorialize something like that. What is this author other than some self-presumed analyst themselves? Instead, it looks like something that may have started that way and then got editorialized into a VP hit piece. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/b6f06bde-17b0-4886-b465-b561212c96a9 https://www.ft.com/content/b6f06bde-17b0-4886-b465-b561212c9... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24115067/apple-leak-lawsuit-andrew-aude https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24115067/apple-leak-lawsu...
oefrha 3y ago
Gurman seems to get some controlled leaks from headquarters from time to time but interprets them wrong all the time. Kuo gets some supply chain leaks and everything else he says can be ignored. But of course there’s an entire industry pumping out highly engaging Apple rumors and analyses like this one based on what might have been one sentence leaks Gurman or Kuo originally got.

FireBeyond 3y ago

LOL. Your argument amounts to "the analysts who named a high number had no idea what they were talking about, and had no evidence" while "the analysts who named a lower number, with no evidence" were much better?

FabHK 3y ago
The commenter names three publications that gave a lower number with good evidence, namely supply constraints.

bredren 3y ago

The article is bad but just look at the engagement! Notably, the Forbes article mentioning the 400k units "telegraphed" is sourced from a Financial Times article that cites two sources close to Apple and the supplier Luxshare. [1] Also, an insider was very actively leaking information about Vision Pro and other Apple products at this exact time. [2] It is believable that actual internal unit estimates would have come out of this source. The article also pulls in the Humane pin, and Cybertruck which have nothing to do with the Vision Pro. If the article were presented as something intended to showcase perceived new product failures hey, it is okay to editorialize something like that. What is this author other than some self-presumed analyst themselves? Instead, it looks like something that may have started that way and then got editorialized into a VP hit piece. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/b6f06bde-17b0-4886-b465-b561212c96a9 https://www.ft.com/content/b6f06bde-17b0-4886-b465-b561212c9... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24115067/apple-leak-lawsuit-andrew-aude https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/28/24115067/apple-leak-lawsu...

oefrha 3y ago

Gurman seems to get some controlled leaks from headquarters from time to time but interprets them wrong all the time. Kuo gets some supply chain leaks and everything else he says can be ignored. But of course there’s an entire industry pumping out highly engaging Apple rumors and analyses like this one based on what might have been one sentence leaks Gurman or Kuo originally got.