Let's say you are committed to AR/VR research. It's expensive. Let's say your research has generated tech that can be built into $2500 headset. You still have

Let's say you are committed to AR/VR research. It's expensive. Let's say your research has generated tech that can be built into $2500 headset. You still have a long road to get better tech into a lower price range. Then somebody proposes that you sell 100,000 of what you have right now for $3500. This provides $100 million dollars of profit to offset your research costs. In the end, you manufacture 80,000 and sell 60,000 of them. So you net $10 million plus 60,000 free testers (well, 1000 after everyone stops using them at all) plus 20,000 surplus units to use in various research. Gizmodo can paint this as a commercial failure. Apple could sell the 20,000 unsold units for $100 each. That would generate another $2 million of profit even at a $2400 marginal loss per unit. They would fly off the shelves and Gizmodo would paint this as a huge commercial success. Even though Apple still wouldn't hit their 100,000 unit target. It would create panic in Apple's competitors even though they actually make a profit on $500 headsets. So read this however you want. It's a commercial failure because it only netted $10 million dollars and might only net $1 million/year going forward. Or it's a successful funding round on the road to cheaper and more capable future products. I'm not particularly an Apple fan, but I think it's silly to portray this in such a bad light. Would somebody like SimulaVR love to experience such a "failure"? (All numbers above except the 100,000 target units and the $3500 price are hypothetical.)