If the price doesn't change significantly, and no absolutely game-changer of a killer app comes out, I don't think much is going to change. It's still a hard sell and essentially a toy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gurman: No Apple Vision Pro 2 Launch Planned Before End of 2026
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This. I remember when the iPod came out, it had a clear advantage over the competition.
When the iPhone came out, it just did everything a little bit better and cooler than what was available at the time.
The iPad leveraged all the successes of the iPhone into a product no other company could even compete with, and that remains true to this day.
The Apple Watch even had the functionality of being a decent accessory to your iPhone, and the fitness aspects really took off.
Vision Pro just doesn’t have a compelling use case. I think that’s more because the product category doesn’t have one, rather than Apple failing to have one.
Still though, Apple hasn’t created a compelling use case here. So it seems odd that it was released, let alone at the eye-watering price it was released at.
Looking forward to seeing how Apple handles this one. Might be the first legit flop of the post-Steve era.
Dude the iPad was an immediate hit. Like, massive hit. And it kicked ass at what it promised to do, and for an affordable price.
I know because I remember well, and bought one summer of 2010 and really enjoyed it. And then they iterated on it relentlessly and it pretty much peaked like 5 years later, but that’s a different discussion.
AVP isn’t comparable in any way. At all.
You need to go back and look at all the announcement posts about those products and see how most of them said the same things they said about AVP. I don't expect it to be an instant success in its current form and, essentially, a dev tool. I also think there's a huge corporate and medical market for the AVP.
I don’t need to go back and look, because I remember reading them. The only difference here is that I think this time, the naysaying is actually true.
Time will tell. But I am no stranger to the negativity new Apple products draw online. This is however the first time I am part of the doom-sayers. I just don’t see the path for this product category, even with Apple jumping in.
H I L A R I O U S (told ya!)
Once more: to all the delusional kiddies watching their little AVP ship sink while grasping for lifeboats, yelling: "Please, just give us 10 more years, guys, please!" -- this thing has already seen nearly 20 years of development to get to this point. If you really think 10 more years is going to make a difference, you're as much of a lost case as this product is.
Timmy thought he could ride Steve's coat tails one last time 🤣
Apple needs to cut their losses and cancel this vanity project before they further embarrass themselves and Timmy needs to hurry up and focus on more stock buybacks to bring it up to $200/share, so he can at least leave the company on a high note and then announce his resignation by 2026.
Once more: to all the delusional kiddies watching their little AVP ship sink while grasping for lifeboats, yelling: "Please, just give us 10 more years, guys, please!" -- this thing has already seen nearly 20 years of development to get to this point. If you really think 10 more years is going to make a difference, you're as much of a lost case as this product is.
Timmy thought he could ride Steve's coat tails one last time 🤣
Apple needs to cut their losses and cancel this vanity project before they further embarrass themselves and Timmy needs to hurry up and focus on more stock buybacks to bring it up to $200/share, so he can at least leave the company on a high note and then announce his resignation by 2026.
Last edited:
This, and it's sad that the whole situation could have been fixed with better pricing. Did Apple learn nothing from the grow-at-all-costs success startups of the 2010s? Uber, Airbnb, and other VC darlings proved it as well as many before them. Heck, these companies became what they were because of Steve's Apple iPhone!
AVP created superior tech with the most mass market ecosystem potential in the entire headset industry. This was their leverage against Meta and everybody else. All they needed to do is convince tons and tons of people to buy it and justify the purchase. Instead, they convinced millions of potential customers why they shouldn't buy it.
Opinions may differ, but it's better to have a "we can't make these fast enough and everybody's talking about it" problem than a "uh oh the market has spoken and the market says no" problem.
If there's any company in the world that could have sold this amazing tech at a loss to dominate the market Apple would have been it. They're the only company that can afford to develop this amazing tech, sell it at a loss and not care. But they cared too much and consumers didn't.
If they are willing to drop their profit margin they could make an Apple Vision Air with the CPU in the battery, plastic shell, flat glass, no external display and no built-in headphones to force people to buy AirPods with it. They can still sell it for $2200 but recoup some money on AirPod sales
If the intent is to make a cheaper, less featured version it seems weird that they launched the more expensive ‘pro’ version first. They’ve never done that with other products before. Were they that desperate to not be compared to Meta and other existing VR headsets?
I think there’s a lot more than price as to why people aren’t buying VP. The biggest being no compelling use case and most people not wanting to wear big, bulky googles on their face. As far as I know Apple hasn’t sold hardware products at a loss before so if they did with VP that’s all anyone would be talking about.
My God are you rich. Can I please have your job or some of that money you throw away on Apple products?
I think it is hilarious that so many are giving Gurman and Kuo so much credit. We have very little known info on how AVP is doing. They both are "news" makers meaning they need to make clicks to stay relevant.
Seems to me they were desperate to not have VP be directly compared to existing VR headsets on the market. In fact Apple execs go out of their way not to use VR language, using spacial computing instead.
Can you provide a source please? From what I've seen, the iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch, etc., all got good or acceptable reviews from the major review sites (WSJ, CBS/ The Verge/ etc.). A lot o f the reviews for the AVP is basically saying "this is cool, but where's the value?"
The gold Apple Watch Series Zero comes to mind as a more expensive "pro" version. But it was pro just based on looks (ohh, gold! shiny!) and not on technical utility.
1. I'm an Apple Shareholder. If Apple can't make products that sell, it'll lower the stock price.
2. I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing in this product. What use does the Apple Vision Pro have? What value does it serve? Why isn't Apple communicating that value on their website?
I can think of an actual good business use case..... LIVE SPORT EVENTS. Imagine being there, at you favorite football/tennis/baseball game. In the crowd.
Go ahead and link to something Gurman said in the past that never happened. I am waiting.
Kuo, on the other hand, is a clown, this we can agree on.
That's not a business use case, but be that as it may...
What value does the Apple Vision Pro over seeing the event live in person? The Apple Vision Pro doesn't replicate the experience of watching a live sporting event (I don't think). This includes the smell of the arena, the taste of the food/ popcorn, the shared experience of others of watching the team win/ fail.
There is no compelling use case *FOR MASS CONSUMERS* that I can see (I can see niche or edge cases, but Apple usually doesn't market in that segment). If marketed correctly, this can be helpful for businesses and governments. But Apple's customers are not businesses or governments though.
Just can this thing and stop wasting resources on it
I can't see that FOR CONSUMERS being the market unless the price goes really low (like in the $100 or thereabout range), because of how infrequent it will be used.
However, for organizations, I think it'll be really cool. For example, I can see a tour group wearing this at Angkor Wat so people can see what the compound looks like when it was a large thriving city in the 1400's. One mode for "current time", and with a press of the button, to go back to the 1400's when it was the largest city in the world.
But again, that's something that tour organizations should own, and not general consumers.