Apple will reportedly ditch the outside screen to make it more affordable for interested buyers, and instead of the $3,500 price, it would set it at around $1,500 to $2,000.
That’s still way too expensive for what it offers.
Am I remembering right that it is proprietary battery cable shit and doesn’t cooperate with anything but macOS? That will be a hard no from me even if they get it down in the hundreds.
Sure, it still won’t have genuine utility for everyday use, but it will have a rabid fandom who want to be cool to the point of justifying overpriced hardware with weak arguments that reduce to “because I just lile Apple.”
People said the same thing when the original Vision Pro came out. Aside from some rich people flexing that they own one, I haven’t heard anything about it after one week of release.
Sounds like a successful product launch, good enough to justify a second product in the line.
The rich flexing inspires desire. People don’t want a Lamborghini because it is the best car, they want a Lamborghini because they envy people who have one.
Go do the demo. It is honestly really impressive. Had no intention of doing it, I’m not the target demographic or audience, but I was there to get a battery replaced and while I waited they did it. My jaw dropped at least twice.
I’m at a loss for the kind of things it can do for me day-to-day right now (and yeah, they have to come up with good selling points there), but for a virtual desktop I’d be there if it were cheaper. But you kinda see where they’re heading - glasses where you could read the web, check weather, watch tv, or play games, the UI, and the phone is just a computing brick that sits in your pocket all day
The “aspirational brand” value is a bit of Apple-ception, though. The really, really, luxury-level wealthy people buying Vision Pro, to inspire the just really wealthy people to buy the Vision Basic or whatever it’s called. It still is the price of the highest-end iPhone, and it’s far less functional.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they treated the Vision Pro as Apple’s version of the beta product - top-down rather than bottom-up testing.
I don’t see any evidence that this product line is intended only for rich people. Things are generally more expensive in the early adopter stage, and Apple doesn’t make anything that they don’t want to see widely adopted.
The original iPod held 5GB and cost $400 ($700 in 2024 dollars).
The original iPhone came in a 4GB and an 8GB model that cost $500-600 ($700-800 in 2024).
The iPod is gone, replaced by the ubiquity of the iPhone that it evolved into. The cheapest iPhone today is the SE at $430 and it wildly outperforms the original hardware.
If you want an MP3 player with as close to the specs to the original iPod as you can find, you can get one for about $20, and it still outperforms the original iPod.
If the Apple Vision line is successful, I expect to see $20 generic VR headsets that blow everything we currently have out of the water by 2040.
You mean buying the only actually functional ARM-based laptop built with a level of quality and support that I can expect to continue working with a bloat-free UNIX-based OS for the next decade before I switch it to Linux for probably a decade more? And it starts at $1,100?
What are those people thinking? It’s not even Copilot+ ready! /s
It’s a marketing trick. First suggest an insanely high price. Customer rejects. Then suggest a lower price, but still expensive. The customer will be more inclined to buy, because the new lower price feels like a good deal in relation to the incredibly expensive old price.
If they went with the lower price right away, the customer wouldn’t be as inclined to buy because they don’t have the incredibly insane price as a reference point.
Maybe, but it’s close to the price of their other electronics, while still be pingble to claim it’s a premium product compared to other consumer goggles
That’s still way too expensive for what it offers.
Am I remembering right that it is proprietary battery cable shit and doesn’t cooperate with anything but macOS? That will be a hard no from me even if they get it down in the hundreds.
Valid point, but have you considered “Apple”?
Sure, it still won’t have genuine utility for everyday use, but it will have a rabid fandom who want to be cool to the point of justifying overpriced hardware with weak arguments that reduce to “because I just lile Apple.”
People said the same thing when the original Vision Pro came out. Aside from some rich people flexing that they own one, I haven’t heard anything about it after one week of release.
Sounds like a successful product launch, good enough to justify a second product in the line.
The rich flexing inspires desire. People don’t want a Lamborghini because it is the best car, they want a Lamborghini because they envy people who have one.
Go do the demo. It is honestly really impressive. Had no intention of doing it, I’m not the target demographic or audience, but I was there to get a battery replaced and while I waited they did it. My jaw dropped at least twice.
I’m at a loss for the kind of things it can do for me day-to-day right now (and yeah, they have to come up with good selling points there), but for a virtual desktop I’d be there if it were cheaper. But you kinda see where they’re heading - glasses where you could read the web, check weather, watch tv, or play games, the UI, and the phone is just a computing brick that sits in your pocket all day
I don’t want a Lamborghini, what does that mean?
Your calves are defined and your bank account can barely hold a comma?
Accurate.
The “aspirational brand” value is a bit of Apple-ception, though. The really, really, luxury-level wealthy people buying Vision Pro, to inspire the just really wealthy people to buy the Vision Basic or whatever it’s called. It still is the price of the highest-end iPhone, and it’s far less functional.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they treated the Vision Pro as Apple’s version of the beta product - top-down rather than bottom-up testing.
I don’t see any evidence that this product line is intended only for rich people. Things are generally more expensive in the early adopter stage, and Apple doesn’t make anything that they don’t want to see widely adopted.
The original iPod held 5GB and cost $400 ($700 in 2024 dollars).
The original iPhone came in a 4GB and an 8GB model that cost $500-600 ($700-800 in 2024).
The iPod is gone, replaced by the ubiquity of the iPhone that it evolved into. The cheapest iPhone today is the SE at $430 and it wildly outperforms the original hardware.
If you want an MP3 player with as close to the specs to the original iPod as you can find, you can get one for about $20, and it still outperforms the original iPod.
If the Apple Vision line is successful, I expect to see $20 generic VR headsets that blow everything we currently have out of the water by 2040.
It’s Apple.
Plenty if people will pay that and think it’s an amazing deal for cutting edge, futuristic, elegant technology that no other company is providing.
You mean buying the only actually functional ARM-based laptop built with a level of quality and support that I can expect to continue working with a bloat-free UNIX-based OS for the next decade before I switch it to Linux for probably a decade more? And it starts at $1,100?
What are those people thinking? It’s not even Copilot+ ready! /s
As far as really high end VR goes, that’s about what I’d expect
It’s a marketing trick. First suggest an insanely high price. Customer rejects. Then suggest a lower price, but still expensive. The customer will be more inclined to buy, because the new lower price feels like a good deal in relation to the incredibly expensive old price.
If they went with the lower price right away, the customer wouldn’t be as inclined to buy because they don’t have the incredibly insane price as a reference point.
Maybe, but it’s close to the price of their other electronics, while still be pingble to claim it’s a premium product compared to other consumer goggles
Right, just checked their website and a maxed 15 pro max is 1600$ lol that’s a lot for what you get