4 ms·

> Apple Vision Pro with the M5 chip and Dual Knit Band starts at $3,499 (U.S.), and is available in 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB storage capacities. Apple being sting

by scrlk 1y ago

> Apple Vision Pro with the M5 chip and Dual Knit Band starts at $3,499 (U.S.), and is available in 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB storage capacities. Apple being stingy with storage (and RAM) isn’t new, but the base $3.5k spec with only 256 GB is extreme. EDIT: clarity

ceejayoz 1y ago
You're not paying $3.5k for the SSD.
- hu3 1y ago
  They didn't said that.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    "$3.5k for 256 GB is extreme" 256GB is $3499; 512GB is $3699; 1TB is $3899. You're paying ~$200 for that storage.
    - someguyiguess 1y ago
      That’s not how it works.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      I think the meaning was meant more as a `Nobody would intend to buy a new sports car with 14" wheels, but they sure love to advertise the price lower prices for sports cars by making a trim that way` type statement than "gee, $3,500 for an SSD!". Edit: the clarity edit of the original seems to agree. Apple's SSDs are actually priced a bit silly though, but I think that's a different discussion. It was significantly cheaper/GB to upgrade my M4 Mac Mini's internal SSD via 3rd party despite the performance being the same (if not better) than 1st party.
      - scrlk 1y ago
        Yes, that what I was trying to aim for. Some further thoughts: two of the use cases AVP was pitched for are content consumption (streaming + offline) and spatial video/photo production. IMO the base storage should reflect that. Given that AVP sales are struggling, I’m not sure why Apple isn’t trying to throw people a bone and offer a more reasonable amount of storage in the base config.
    - cubefox 1y ago
      ... for the difference between the 256 and 512 version. You could argue that for 3500 USD there should already be more storage than that included. There are even 400 USD Android smartphones with 512 GB of storage.
    - lewiscollard 1y ago
      You removed some words just now, which changes the meaning of the sentence. > but the base $3.5k spec with only 256 GB is extreme. The plain meaning of this sentence is "I expect more than 256 GB of storage when paying $3.5K for a device". You can argue for or against that if you like (I don't give a shit, because I would not buy it at any price), but not against something they did not say.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > You removed some words just now, which changes the meaning of the sentence. I did not, no. The parent poster's "EDIT: clarity" note should be a clue here.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - fennecfoxy 1y ago
      Well from that you could extrapolate 1TB overall cost is actually $400 ($200/512GB). And that a unit without any storage is $3399. A $400 1TB SSD hmmmmmm.
    - hollandheese 1y ago
      ~$200 for that amount of storage is still extreme
rs186 1y ago
I am just surprised they didn't increase the price, like what they did with almost every other new product (other than base iPhone, I guess). My conspiracy theory is that they don't want to grab attention and get any more bad rep for this product when they are already half giving up.

by scrlk 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

You're not paying $3.5k for the SSD.

hu3 1y ago
They didn't said that.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  "$3.5k for 256 GB is extreme" 256GB is $3499; 512GB is $3699; 1TB is $3899. You're paying ~$200 for that storage.
  - someguyiguess 1y ago
    That’s not how it works.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    I think the meaning was meant more as a `Nobody would intend to buy a new sports car with 14" wheels, but they sure love to advertise the price lower prices for sports cars by making a trim that way` type statement than "gee, $3,500 for an SSD!". Edit: the clarity edit of the original seems to agree. Apple's SSDs are actually priced a bit silly though, but I think that's a different discussion. It was significantly cheaper/GB to upgrade my M4 Mac Mini's internal SSD via 3rd party despite the performance being the same (if not better) than 1st party.
    - scrlk 1y ago
      Yes, that what I was trying to aim for. Some further thoughts: two of the use cases AVP was pitched for are content consumption (streaming + offline) and spatial video/photo production. IMO the base storage should reflect that. Given that AVP sales are struggling, I’m not sure why Apple isn’t trying to throw people a bone and offer a more reasonable amount of storage in the base config.
  - cubefox 1y ago
    ... for the difference between the 256 and 512 version. You could argue that for 3500 USD there should already be more storage than that included. There are even 400 USD Android smartphones with 512 GB of storage.
  - lewiscollard 1y ago
    You removed some words just now, which changes the meaning of the sentence. > but the base $3.5k spec with only 256 GB is extreme. The plain meaning of this sentence is "I expect more than 256 GB of storage when paying $3.5K for a device". You can argue for or against that if you like (I don't give a shit, because I would not buy it at any price), but not against something they did not say.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > You removed some words just now, which changes the meaning of the sentence. I did not, no. The parent poster's "EDIT: clarity" note should be a clue here.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - fennecfoxy 1y ago
    Well from that you could extrapolate 1TB overall cost is actually $400 ($200/512GB). And that a unit without any storage is $3399. A $400 1TB SSD hmmmmmm.
  - hollandheese 1y ago
    ~$200 for that amount of storage is still extreme

rs186 1y ago

I am just surprised they didn't increase the price, like what they did with almost every other new product (other than base iPhone, I guess). My conspiracy theory is that they don't want to grab attention and get any more bad rep for this product when they are already half giving up.