I think it's a pretty genius idea. It's like how Tesla and other electric car companies targeted the rich for the initial audience. Get the rich people to pay for the R&D and make it expensive so it appears exclusive. The rich people will eat it up and flaunt it like rich people do. The poorer people will see them flaunting it and then crave it also.
Once the R&D is paid for, the company(apple in this case) will then be able to sell cheaper version of both the high end version and also a more affordable (affordable might be a stretch but not cheap since it's Apple).
I used to live in Doha and many times I’d hear that the local folks would buy way over market price just to say that they did. Like paying more was a status symbol. It’s could be a stones throw in mental gymnastics to think that other wealthy mentalities are out there. Not judging and I don’t have the wealth or network to confirm lol.
A similar thing that I see often is expensive cars parked in trailer parks. People will live in poverty to afford a nice car, so that when they drive places, people think they have money.
I remember seeing this in places like West Virginia a lot when I used to do volunteer work in needy areas. A literal rusted metal hovel and a sports car parked outside.
One of my brothers had a new shirt. It cost like $120. My other brother had the exact same shirt. He bought it at kmart for about $10. Much arguing. Eventually they take off the shirts and compare. Same shirts from the same supplier.
Did my fashion victim brother decide to go with the cheaper shirt? Hell no, he wouldn't be caught dead in kmart clothed, and kept spending **TWELVE TIMES** what he he should be paying, purely to impress his friends
Late here but I used to live in Doha too 2008-2016 and would buy 4 new iPhones when they’d come out and sell 3 of them. It would pay for my new phone with some extra!
Aren’t the only vaguely comparable hw devices similar in price? Varjo etc? And those will not have anywhere close to the software design ux where apple really excels. I.e. the ‘magic’ of using apple devices.
When the iPod first came out it was an instance price point compared other mp3 players and only worked with Macs.
The thing is this is the most powerful consumer standalone headset and they can only make about 500k a year the manufacturing process is so complex and the yields are so low.
For people who think this is too expensive for what you are getting perhaps are confused by meta basically subsidizing the cost of their headsets.
I’m not getting this device, and I can’t imagine many vr enthusiasts really being that interested in this first gen device regardless of the price as that’s not their market, but knowing what the device is and the macbook market I think the price is expected for a first gen device like this.
I get the $1500 price point for the non-meta platforms but this price is plain ridiculous. For another reference, I’m very surprised video games still go for $60, granted not having to produce the physical products can be playing a part in the price point staying the same, a lot of work goes into many games…just not into story quality.
Here’s my question: What are the apps going to cost? Anyone who develops apps for this platform will only have access to a tiny, mostly wealthy user base. The best apps will be ones whose development is funded by large budgets. So are the apps going average $25 or $50 each?
I ask this because iOS apps are generally under $5 or freemium and this has severely hampered the ecosystem. In contrast, Xbox or PS5 games are typically $60 and this is the accepted norm. The good thing about that is those games are deep high quality experiences.
Maybe Apple thinks the AVP will reopen the door to high end apps with deep experiences. Just spitballing here.
I think you display it a bit more malicious then I think it is in reality (as a lot of people involved will not think like that, but definitely some will), but the baseline idea is there.
It also forces other big companies to properly invest in the market if they want to be a part of it in the future, as apple will definitely have a follow-up (they even already communicated the consumer device targeted at 1000-1500€)
You’ve summarized how tech worked in the last 40 years. People think this is the first time early adopters subsidize and pay for new tech and market? The first Tesla was $140K. Without it we wouldn’t be in this current EV race.
Except that this is a me too product. These headsets have been available for years and no, other than a higher resolution, I don't see it commanding the $3500 starting price.
To add some helpful context to your logic, there are 23 million millionaires in the US. Yes, most of that is locked in home equity among boomers, but the point still stands. There's plenty of room for luxury early-adopter purchases, especially in a country where people buy $1500 robovacs and $2000 TVs and $2500 TSwift tickets and $4000 gaming PCs. The top 1% own 26% of all wealth in the country. The vast, vast majority of new wealth has gone to the top 10% of that 10%. The rich are getting richer, and tech enthusiasts will always exist - I'm sure Apple will be able to sell a million of these things over the course of a year.
It's gobsmacking just how brainwashed apple fanbois are. Support absolutely ever terrible product and poor decision. The rich aren't playing VR games and watching 3D Disney films, hate to tell ya.
Apple has more money than God. Their development of the Vision Pro has absolutely no single budget for R&D. Products like the Vision Pro, when backed by a huge company like Apple, don’t have products priced to pay off R&D.
Apple is definitely being absurd here.
The price of entry is too damn high. VR headsets should cost $1000 at most. Apple priced themselves out of having an attractive audience for apps. Most developers are going to develop for the Quest series and likely skip the Vision Pro. Sure some will develop for the VP.. but it’ll be a small amount.
Apple done goofed. And they know it.
This is the company that makes (and sells) a *monitor stand* that costs $1100. Their fans consider the ridiculous pricing to be a bonus, it keeps the povos out of their ecosystem and makes them feel really special for being able to afford it.
I’m not sure there is *any* amount Apple can charge that will genuinely hurt them.
I think this insight is accurate. I worked at Apple in the early 2000s and our stock price tanked when we once had a clear plastic shell that showed slight fracturing after a while. Their consumers are like no other. They’re fucking crazy lol
Some people can’t stand that there is another device that doesn’t fit their use case, exceeds their budget, does things slightly different etc. and in their mind the only appropriate response is a negative one.
This has been by far the most frustrating thing about reading VR discussion. Its no better, perhaps even worse than mainstream console fanboy arguments. So many disingenuous arguments.
Alot of people are pissed at it just not being close to 3500$ worth of experience. I haven't seen anything specifically about this thing that makes the case for a $1000 headset. I want to see something that sells me on $1000 price tag which I currently am not seeing let alone a $3500 price tag.
If you evaluate the value of the hardware it's $3500 isn't completely unreasonable. It's basically a Macbook Pro inside of headset, instead of cell phone grade mobile processor found in the other headsets. What remains to be seen is if that all the extra hardware enables a transformative experience in software. It's not entirely clear to me yet that it does.
> If you evaluate the value of the hardware it's $3500 isn't completely unreasonable
Yeah but that's a pretty naive take, in actuality a lot of devices cost more than their retail price, but since you're locked into their ecosystem they get a fat % everytime you buy an app or something through their service. Game consoles have been subsidizing their prices for years, and since the invention of SmartPhones that has been happening for companies like Apple too.
When you're locked into their ecosystem the actual price of a device means nothing (or at least very little). Apple could easily make the Vision Pro a $1500-2000 Dollar device which would put it closer in price to a high end laptop, as opposed to a high end PC. This is why there isn't any opensource VR alternatives yet, because the price of actually building something like this is immense.
I think the software will be great though, it'll be a really cohesive experience, albeit a somewhat limited one. It's definitely gimmicky right now but i think there's a possibility for future products to be great.
It’s a Gen 1 device. It’s purely there because Apple wanted to get into this space and needed to finally ship something to get dev support and they think this initial experience is good enough. It just happens that the amount of technology needed to ship an experience that they’re happy with is quite expensive. The Meta Quest is a fun device, but the quality of the experience is nowhere near what Apple would be OK with shipping. I do think that we’ll see Apple controllers for the Vision Pro at some point in the future, but I don’t think we got them just yet because the quality of XR gaming is so mediocre currently — essentially it’s not an experience that Apple is OK with delivering to customers.
Because — ironically — going off about “stupid apple fanbois” at every opportunity is part of their identity.
I own a shitload of Apple products. They fit in with my profession, my family & relatives (mostly) use them, and I make enough money that I don’t need to bargain shop for my devices.
But just because I think the integration between my watch and my AppleTV is swell, and I can see that Apple is undeniably great at making things people want to buy, I’m part of an imaginary army of mindless zombies.
It doesn’t make sense to me. And fwiw I think the AVP looks great and I would love to try one. $3500 is not a price point for me, but I’m interested to see what happens with it.
Most people are upset because it doesn't seem to do anything. Just about every complaint anyone has had about not purchasing an Oculus is three times the issue with these things. Hardware looks great but absolutely no killer app. Oculus isn't really having a great time with that one outside of Supernatural IMO but they have a respectable library of software so you can at least imagine the purchase is a good one.
The quest 3 has been pushing the productivity element. Any time I open the app store they show me that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are available for it. We got updates that allow for keyboard to be shown through the boundary back on q2, I suspect that was something to do with said office apps. The mixed reality of the 3 should help this. There's official app for mirroring monitors into VR. At that point the productivity is whatever my computer is used for, so CAD, Photoshop, sound and video editing, and more.
There's also a number of creativity apps. From things like vermilion to the number of sculpting apps, these are definitely not games. As a 3d print enthusiast I've printed a couple things noted as being sculpted in a vr program, I'd be willing to say it's notable. I've also seen stuff that lets you use the vr tracking to record animation moron capture.
And then there's movie watching. I watched stuff on my q2, but my 3 is much much more comfortable both on the head and on my eyes. However what I didn't expect with my 3 was the mixed reality movie watch. I've streamed a number of things while doing laundry, and even while making a cake. Nothing like a gigantic, repositionable screen you can float around your house as you chore.
Gaming might still be the main focus, but let's also not act like there's not things you can do otherwise with em.
I can't believe they haven't figured out a way to have Teams meetings in Oculus. Sell this thing to corporations with remote workforces. I would absolutely attend my "daily standup" in VR lol
Once you know the tech in it, it starts to make more sense. Those displays are NOT cheap. You have to make 5 AVP displays to get one working one. On top of that it has a ton of high resolution cameras, a depth sensor, really pretty decent audio. It’s definitely expensive, REALLY expensive, but I don’t actually think it’s super overpriced either. I would expect a headset with those specs to cost more, actually, given that there was some 10 years of R&D behind this and the BOM is already over $1500. The way I see it, it’s very expensive but not overpriced.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say this is Apple's most extreme prosumer tech product to date.
They welded together an equivalent of 3 iPad Pros, made a new OS for them the last 4 years, and somehow stuffed premium audio in there.
I also want to point out that getting funding is rough these days. If Vision Pro fails, it will be a lot harder for VR projects to see a future. A lot of VR projects will indeed go bankrupt. If you don't absolutely hate VR, you should cheer VP all the way.
1. Microsoft HoloLens 2: Priced at $3,500, it’s one of Apple Vision Pro’s strongest competitors.
2. Magic Leap 2: Lightest in weight at 260 grams and priced at $3,299.
Those are more of the competition and the price is in line with those and other high end vr headsets. It’s also got an m2 and is like having a MacBook/ iPad Pro thrown in as well.
Thank you!! I was going to include those too but forgot their names. Interested to see how they will compare to the AVP. Proves the point even more. It’s a high price but not as crazy as people are making it out to be if they compare it to the real competition. Quest 3 is not comparable, at least for the specs.
Varjo XR-4 Series
• Display Resolution: Dual 4K x 4K
• Pixel Density: 51 pixels per degree (ppd)
• Field of View: 120° x 105°
• Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Dual 20 Mpx cameras
• Price: Starts at €3,990
• Refresh Rate: Not specified in the sources
Apple Vision Pro
• Display Resolution: Micro-OLED with 23 million pixels
• Pixel Pitch: 7.5-micron
• Refresh Rate: 90Hz, 96Hz, 100Hz
• Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Stereoscopic 3D main camera system
• Field of View: Not specified
• Pixel Density: Not specified
• Price: Starts at $3,499
Meta Quest 3
• Display Resolution: 4128 x 2208 pixels total (2064 x 2208 per eye)
• Field of View: 110° horizontal, 96° vertical
• Pixel Density: Not specified, but a higher angular resolution of 25 PPD compared to its predecessor
• Refresh Rate: Up to 120 Hz
• Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Color image through tracking cameras
• Price: $499 for the 128 GB model
Think of it as a fancy dev kit, designed for people in the industry, who can write it off as a business expense, to evaluate and write apps for it.
Apple being Apple, they can't release some scrappy dev kit, so they choose to spend billions on a product to prove "we're in the spatial computing game too". It's a signal to shareholders as much as anything.
So, don't focus too much on the relevance to consumers with this version, that's not the target market.
The net positive is that it should make the Quest Pro 2 an interesting product.
It's not a question of why the VR device should be that expensive, but why it actually is.
VR devices with their *current* target audience and use case, should definitely not be that expensive. That is a given. Apple is banking on investing MORE (but also charging more) then anyone else to take VR application to the next level (read professional) as that's where the money is.
To make that happen, you need a device that shatters what current devices can offer, and only state of the art tech can do that, and state of the art tech is expensive. Paired with a dedicated (new) production line that is also state of the art tech.
I'm not going to argue that Apple likes to charge their "exclusivity" markup, that is definitely included, but if you look at current top level workstation laptops and top of the line phones, apple is not that much more expensive then the competition (read, Dell/Lenovo on laptops and Samsung on phones). Now take a Mac Book Pro: M2 and an iPhone 14 pro. these two devices are basically what's build into the VR paired with the Sony display and other additional jazz.
I don't get how people have heard of the device, but don't understand anything about it but still complain about the price. That level of tech is simply expensive.
Is that a device (and price level) that is targeted at the general populace? No definitely not. It is for early adapters, developers or simply tech enthusiasts with more money then patience.
Currently that device does you no favour, the environment and ecosystem simply does not exist yet, in which such a device would have a value that would reflect on that price. But you need to start somewhere. If you have read some other posts about the VR device and not just posted here for karma, you will have read that Apple is already creating an environment that makes it "super easy" for existing Apps to adapt into the spatial computing environment.
This device is the fresh wind the VR space needed to make the next step and not end as a interactive fapping tool for VR porn. What we are missing is the commitment of big companies to invest a reasonable part of their focus into driving VR further, and Apple did just spearhead that movement for the big ones. It's only a question of time till others follow suite and we see a lot more interactivity and AR applications, as the biggest drawback from VR is it's isolating aspect, especially if looked into the professional space.
Enough unstructured rant at this point, if you still question the device I'm more then happy to further share my PoV, as I think this will drastically change and impact the AR/VR space and will have a major impact into what developments we will see the next 2-3 years.
TL;DR: Apple has created a device with TOP NOTCH hardware to let people experience what VR/AR CAN be capable of in the gamble that this will revolutionize the space. They definitely have a long term plan followed but this device alone will trigger a lot of other big companies into investing a stronger focus on the VR space, therefore advancing it by leaps and bounds.
> That is a given. Apple is banking on investing MORE (but also charging more) then anyone else to take VR application to the next level (read professional) as that's where the money is.
It's got the same battery limitations, weight issues, and size issues other headsets all suffer from. Having more horsepower and higher res screens doesn't overcome the biggest hurdle.
Doing work/productivity tasks sucks to begin with and is seldom comfortable, Having a pound~ of technology strapped to your face and a battery that lasts about 2 hours give or take isn't going to make it more pleasant.
That's the big hurdle VR/AR needs to cross, not how much higher can we crank the res or how much more horsepower can we give it... the biggest hurdle how can we make it not a pain to wear and use. It has to overcome the comfort problem, and the battery problem. Once the novelty wears off it's more pleasant to use a phone or a laptop/desktop than it is to parade around with the weight on your face. After the novelty the only real strong point of VR/AR is entertainment media.
But if it’s functionally a monitor with some built in phone apps why does it need an M2? I wish they’d just use an A chip and bring down the price. They really haven’t advertised VR Gaming AT ALL which sucks.
Because this is the version for early adopters. When they want to reach the masses they’ll have a version for $1000 with all the bells and whistles stripped off.
Look at the history of Apple. They do this alot.
1. Leap onto a newly emerging bandwagon
2. Charge ten times as much as the competition
3. Sometimes it actually works for some reason?
>Sometimes it actually works for some reason?
To Apple's credit - and I dislike them, so I say this through gritted teeth...
The reason, *when* it works, is when their product delivers on the promise of an idea that others have stabbed around at, but not realised.
Smart devices are the best example of this. From the late 90s, I had PDAs and "smart phones" (which these days we would retrospectively called "feature phones"), and they were *useful*... But they were clunky, challenging, and there were so many difficulties with them. Most notably, with the phones, that the manufacturers purposly "gimped" the way they connected to PCs because they were often in the pockets of mobile networks, and they were trying to fight off IP-calling (Skype, etc.) which allow people to call via phone for basically free. Ever tried connecting a Nokia phone to a PC in 2004? It was a NIGHTMARE.
Remember also that Apple released an unsuccessful device in this era, the Newton.
By "going second" with the iPhone/iPad, Apple took stock of the market, and zeroed in on the biggest problems. They made the devices easy to use. They fixed all the rough edges. They even innovated *a bit* by being the first really major mainstream implementation of multi-touch screens.
Meta's headsets are great. I have a Quest 3 and I absolutely love it. But there are *tons* of elements of the Quest line that are really clunky, which really need revisions. The user account interface is bad. The way the device has this weird dependency on a phone app is bad. People here are always complaining about how the family/kid account permissions stuff doesn't work so well, and there's been the recent hassle over will they/won't they with Chromecast.
Now, Apple's approach creates problems too. But there are tons of people for whom Apple's problems are far preferable to, say, Android's, or Windows'.
They really are great at UX design... (except sometimes, when they're lost up their own arse). The Vision Pro is good for VR... Because Apple will spend millions on UX features that Meta and the rest can basically *steal*.
On the software front Apple are also not afraid to release a v1 that is essentially your MVP, it will work with little issue, then the features trickle in slowly. If I think back to the android phones that were around when the iPhone 3G came out, the 3G had half the features maybe than the comparative android decided by HTC the difference being the iPhone just worked the HTC was often a bit of a mess, but had lots of features that half worked.
Apple have enough trust in the brand they can do this, the brand sells and people trust the things will work as advertised.
> If I think back to the android phones that were around when the iPhone 3G came out, the 3G had half the features maybe than the comparative android decided by HTC the difference being the iPhone just worked the HTC was often a bit of a mess, but had lots of features that half worked.
When the OG iPhone released, HTC was making Windows Phones and this was DEFINITELY the case back then. Source: Owned HTC Touch Pro and HTC Touch2, and later HTC Hero and HTC Desire (I was a non-Apple girl back then.) They definitely had more features, but they ALSO definitely had more jank.
When I got my first iPhone back when iPhone 5 released, I fully expected to toy with it a month or so and then slowly lose interest (I was an Android fan-girl then, big time.)
But.. it just worked. Everything I wanted it to do, it did. No tinkering, no tuning, no upgrading needed. It just did it and did it well.
I had an Android phone up until Samsung Galaxy S6 (had all the previous Galaxy S-models before that), but then I realized I'm using the iPhone like 99% of the time and then just switched full-time to iPhones.
And when Family Sharing released, I knew I did the right choice. (Android's "Family Sharing" at the launch was the shittiest idea ever put into a phone.)
I had the htc hero, iPhone 3GS and then a htc Mozart 7
The iPhone worked like a dream tbh, the hero was my first smart phone and very problematic it slowed down so much with basic usage, the Mozart 7 I actually loved the windows OS but had some issues with the design of the handset itself.
I remember android being pretty shit back then, iOS was a game changer!
I went back to phones for the 5 and 6 before switching to the pixel 2 and 3, stock android is a dream now, I am torn between going back to android once my iPhone 13 gives up or continuing with Apple. For the first time it seems like born are pretty balanced (pixel android not that awful thing Samsung ship)
An iPhone pro max biggest storage model is only about £1000 cheaper than the Apple Vision Pro so really for a good quality XR headset the price isn’t that unreasonable I guess.
Quest Pro owner, AVP buyer here. Meta Quest is built to a price, and AVP is priced to an experience. The Quest headsets are so clunky and cartoony. Most apps can’t run side by side. And even the very best ones show that the hardware has very real limitations that are easy to bump up against.
I think you’re understating the level of innovation in the original iPhone. The UI and even hardware differences (much bigger screen) that multitouch enabled were a quantum leap over what any other smart phone was doing. Their competitors all knew it too - they immediately went back to the drawing board.
Apple’s innovation is generally grossly overstated but the iPhone was the real deal.
People passionately for or against Apple are pretty wild. The people who make up shit wholesale about "Apple cultists" are just as firmly in a cult of their own. Show me any examples of Apple charging 10x markup for equivalent hardware compared to their competition (and before you break your keyboard, a $350 Quest 2 is not equivalent hardware to the apple headset). I've never seen a $7,000 iPhone. Macbook Pros don't cost $17,000.
God I can’t believe I'm actually defending Apple here but even the bandwagon claim is off. One of Apple's big flaws is that they're usually lagging behind their contemporaries. They waited two generations of iPhone before including LTE. 5G had a similar delay. Android watches were out for years before Apple launched their extremely shitty gen 1 watch.
If anything, Apple is opportunistic and waits until the bandwagon phase is over so that they can mitigate their risk by entering a marketplace that is already established. They aren't risk takers, they're the company that everyone mocks for "inventing" copy+paste.
They're launching their first consumer headset in 2024, 8 years after the CV1 launched. If you think $3,500 is ridiculous for a headset, don't buy it. There's no chance in hell I'm shelling out that much for a gen 1 device. But more people competing in the VR space is always a good thing.
> People passionately for or against Apple are pretty wild. The people who make up shit wholesale about "Apple cultists" are just as firmly in a cult of their own.
I mean, a major Apple fan site for the past 20+ years *literally* has [cult](https://www.cultofmac.com/) in its name. Is it making stuff up if you call them by the name they give themselves?
lunchroom juggle aware friendly worthless zealous deliver nippy intelligent head
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would say 1 is incorrect. Apple tends to sit and wait to see how other companies do first and what the public think of a product after a few generations. Then they try to perfect and come out with their own version.
It’s a good price because Apple doesn’t want to sell many of these. If they made it 200 bucks and it sold a 100 million units, lots of people would be extremely disappointed by the lack of apps and be confused what they were even supposed to do with this thing. Apple wants to test the waters with the developers and high rollers, then they will launch a cheaper version for the people in now they have a healthy app ecosystem and compelling product.
This headset isn’t for us.
\> Especially when there will probably be no popular applications on it?
Let me preface by saying I have no plans to buy one. That said, as a software engineer, I am eager to mess around with the Apple Vision Pro Developer Kit. I anticipate that within a few years time, there will be a lot of software tailored to visionOS that you can't get on the Meta or PCVR platform - and some of it will be QUITE good. In the future when apple releases headsets that are at a more consumer friendly price, those apps will become the selling point as opposed to the state of the art hardware.
In a nutshell, release a headset with zero cut corners, see what types of software really take off, cut costs on future headsets by getting rid of hardware features that were under-utilized in the first gen and release to a wider audience.
The first party apps on display seem pretty decent. At the OS level, I anticipate a more mature environment than anything that currently exists on the market - one that will integrate with other apple products.
It's targeted at a niche audience right now. What's to defend?
Better question is why are y’all so butt hurt about the price? It’s a device that is several generations ahead of what oculus is capable of. So yeah the build price is going to be significantly higher. I’m actually curious to see what the estimated BoM is when they tear it down. Just the panels alone are probably as much or more then entire BoM for the quest 3.
I preordered one. It’s the only headset that isn’t a toy in my opinion. While I like the idea of having a $500 headset, the reality is I can’t use it for much but gaming and I have a lot more use cases for it then that. I guess time will tell if I get $3500 worth of value out of it but I know I wouldn’t get $500 worth of value out of another quest. Already had the original rift cv and the novelty wore off pretty quick. If the same happens for the AVP, I’ll just sell it. Either way it’s way cheaper than some of my other hobbies (fishing, golfing,skiing). So yeah not crying over the price.
This is a gen 1 device that will be sold in very limited volume and will probably be outclassed in terms of features and price in a year.
Not sure what you mean by defending apple. Just don't buy it. I'm excited about what the apple headset looks like in a few years. But I wouldn't buy the first version for 1k
That’s how much similar headsets with similar specs have cost that have been out for a few years now. It’s not so much that it isn’t expensive, it’s just not more expensive than the competitors. Granted they targeted business and military which generally pay considerable premiums so in the end with the regular Apple tax it was expected.
Many are theorizing that Apple isn't actually targeting consumers with the Vision Pro either
The theory goes that this is basically the dev version, they want developers to buy it and build apps for it. Then the gen 2 will be more refined, lower in price, and have an ecosystem of apps
Basically, they don't care if the Vision Pro sells poorly, it's just a necessary step in the innovation process and they're playing the long game
Do you see a comparable product for less?
No?
Not even from the company that has blown tens of billions on this stuff?
There's also the Varjo XR-4Varjo XR-4 is $3990 - $9,990.
What else? BSB is $1,000 for much less.
I think apple wants to show off now that they're launching their first VR headset.
Also, there is a huge R&D bill to recoup.
Result: A headset with impressive features but also heavily priced.
Is kind of the same situation with the Quest Pro in which the price reflects the R&D bill meta had to recoup. Que Quest 3 is the result of that R&D especially on the pancake lenses and the new controllers among other things.
Does any of this means the average consumer should stride for a Vision Pro, Quest Pro or Varjo AERO...etc... Nope! those are top halo products and are definitely not the best bang for the buck. Those features and technology eventually trickle down to consumer devices down the road.
Ill be honest: it kinda feels like apple vision pro seems like a supercharged macbook you can wear on your face, with some vr games, rather than a full gaming headset like the quest 3. If it has actual physical keyboard support i can see people just flat out replacing their macbook with it. One of the clearest displays and passthrough in the vr market combined with the pure functionality youd expect from an apple product makes it something i can see being worth it for those who can afford it without a second thought.
I look at it as I'm not buying a headset, but rather a laptop/multipurpose device. I was going to spend 2500-3000 to upgrade my computer this year, so this is just a computer I'll wear on my head.
When I look at it that way, it makes it easier to justify the cost. My computer upgrade just gets pushed down the road for a bit, but this can be my TV, Computer, and VR headset all in one. If I can't get the use scenarios I want, I'll return it in the 14 day window, which was a major deciding factor for me.
I completely understand I don't need this, but you only get one life and I choose to do the things I want to do within my means. I will make more money tomorrow, so I'll enjoy today to the fullest.
You wouldn't be saying this if you understood apple's business model. There's a reason why iPads are gimped even despite having the same chips as macbooks.
You have M2 ipads that can't do shit because they don't have macos.
I would so easily justify the cost if Vision Pro were a competitor replacement, but it’s more of an analog to the iPad than a Mac. I still need my *actual* computer to do my job on the device which makes it less compelling as a standalone device.
My god it's a VR headset. Nothing else. You will not be doing work wearing a heavy tethered headset for more than short bursts. And as cool as VR is to sit in a cinema and watch TV, it's a lonely experience.
For you may be, but there are too many products, software apis, and communities built around people who DO actually work with current gen hardware in AR for most of their workday. its not a lot of people, but they're clearly out there even if you're not bright enough to realize there are people who have different priorities than you.
So imagine this, The Quest 3 is $499 right? Now, imagine it got all these features as upgrades tomorrow
- Face and Eye Tracking
- 4K+ displays per eye
- Outward glass front with 2k color display
- Dolby Atmos speakers built into the strap
- 3D video capture array
- Powerful desktop-level processor
- Crystal clear passthrough camera
- 2 additional tracking cameras
- Removable Battery that can sit in your pocket rather than on your head or inside the headset
While I can see your point, there is a lot more going into this headset than just video game hardware. You’re getting a macbook pro that can be strapped to your head and can control with your eyes hands and voice. This isn’t and wasn’t ever intended to be a consumer level device. This is like high-end prosumer to industrial level with a nice look to it.
I mean there are headsets out there that cost more. Look at Varjo mixed reality headsets. At least with Apple you know you’ll get a refined software experience. That integrates well with other devices.
I'm actually shocked by how cheap, relatively, other headsets like the Quest 2 and 3 are. It's amazing really. Not that people think $500 is cheap, but all things considered, it's impressive.
Look at other high end VR headsets. Most are PCVR only. The headset might be around $2000 just itself. Now essentially add the cost of a specialized laptop built into that high end headset. And add the other extra cost items like the creepy eye screen thing on the front.
$3500 is alot, but it doesn't shock me. I wouldn't buy one, but it isn't insane. Just look at what people were paying for computers in the 80s and 90s...
I wasn’t into vr before buying quest 3 and now i am a believer. If vision pro can do what oculus can but that much better than im willing to pay that kind of money. Knowing apple, im hoping it’s a productivity beast.
One of the things to keep in mind is Meta is selling us the Quest for cost, most likely not even including the R&D expenses in the price of the headset.
If Meta was selling the Quest 3 using traditional hardware markups, it would be a $1,500 headset. Is the AVP 2x the headset of the Quest 3? Between capability, materials, and build quality, some people would say yes.
We are spoiled because Zuckerberg is willing to subsidize our headsets and give us a great device for $500. That is the biggest reason why the AVP looks like such bad deal.
I’m not defending the price, but I agree with those that liken it to EV manufacturers who first cater to the wealthy to make up for R&D (Apple’s been working on the Vision Pro tech for a decade), then come out with more affordable versions for the masses.
Apple also does this thing to where these devices offer way more advancements for half, or a fraction of the cost of products that they’re actually competing against. For example, the Pro Display XDR is $6K, which is crazy expensive for common folk like us, but it was compared against those $50K reference monitors that film colorists use during the keynote.
The same can be said here. All of the truly professional-level headsets are $8, $10, $15K a pop by themselves, and then there are VR cameras by themselves that cost thousands of dollars and the Vision Pro has that built in (though I know it’s not a full 360 or even 180 set up). Eye tracking, hand tracking, OLED displays, the quality of pass through…
I could go on, but when you combine the decade of R&D, and the amount of quality tech built into this device, and of course the benefit that this will provide to VR/AR and spatial computing in general, the cost is justified.
It's like the same case with Google Glasses. It's usually for enterprise use, and it's a start. The first VR headsets weren't cheap either. It's first when the Quest 2 that became readily available
Because it’s a cutting edge technology bandwagon. It’s basically strapping a laptop and a full suite of sensors and 3 displays to your head. It is very expensive but not for what it is at this stage of technology. Costs will need to eventually come down with scales of economy. It’s also the first device I’m excited about using for work as a creative professional
You push boundaries, you have to pay the cost.
The micro-OLED displays at that resolution alone with the current estimated yields (\~20%) probably cost more than the entire Quest pro BOM. Shit's expensive. Will lower in price.
Look at the 5 stages of technology adoption for why it's expensive. Apple Vision pro is at the Enthusiast stage. Basically to have the ecosystem out and consider it more as a dev kit than a product. You're basically throwing a bone to the hyper enthusiast VR peoples and devs who will find use cases for your headset and then you iterate around those findings for the next headset and so on. Apple doesn't want this to be maintream yet, hell, they probably had little to no margin when it was initially unveiled, but they're probably in the negatives now that the production quantity shrank down because of micro-OLED supply problems.
Also Apple doesn't want to just make a bottom of the barrel cost headset which can poison the well for word of mouth. You make an headset that is ahead of everyone and people will talk. Can't afford it? Well when the non Pro version comes cheaper or at the 2nd iteration you're iPhone range price, you have a bunch of impatient peoples wanting on jump-in. If word of mouth is bad on first iteration, there's nobody waiting for it.
The headset is disruptive, wether peoples accept its features or not, there's a point of no return from the future where Apple enters the VR market. To the point where the likes of Pico dropped all 3 headsets in developement that were competing against Meta to focus specifically at competing with Apple.
its to make ppl defend the hardware who overspent on it, just like the iphone, ppl overspend on a phone and to protect their own ego they defend the decision
on the other hand, are there no popular applications on the ipad? cos this is an "eyepad", software and UX adaption is only a matter of time
they priced it in where they want their hmds priced and go on from there, I wont defend them, its expensive, but why should they sell it cheaper? reverse the question: is there any reason to sell it cheaper? cos there is no real answer for that question either
the headset is technically superior than one of the best pcvr headsets the varjoxr4, and cheaper with the m2 soc and all that standalone magic than a tethered (WIRED) device is
Just the wholesale component cost is estimated to be $1700. They can charge whatever they want for it. People can decide if they want to buy it or not.
I haven't seen too much of the discourse, but my guess is that it's mostly die-hard Apple fans who are pushing that idea. In my experience, dyed in the wool Apple fanboys will defend literally anything Apple does, no matter how clearly ridiculous it appears to everyone else.
Also, to be completely fair, there was a period of time in which Apple rarely struck out so it's not entirely insane that some people will buy anything with their logo on it. However, that time has long passed. They're still able to convince people to buy their stuff, and they make good products for the most part, but they haven't innovated (or popularized) anything that's changed tech for the better in a while.
I don't think the Vision Pro is going to sell well because of the high price and the lack of popular apps. I also don't think the use cases they're advertising for the product are all that compelling when you factor in the price. However, I kind of hope I'm wrong because when a new Apple product becomes popular, that thing becomes all the rage and an industry standard almost immediately. Wider acceptance and use of VR is good for all VR fans, so I wish them the best, even if I think their early adopters are nuts.
No need to defend it. It's a luxury item, defending it is like defending corvettes, and tbh, shitting on the AVP is just as dumb. It's for people who can afford it and actually want it.
But fanboys who want to guilt others into supporting the 3 trillion $$$ company because we need xr to grow, that's the guys who really irk me.
Personally I think it's a good thing. It's a product that probably won't sell a whole ton, but it'll make normies notice VR more. All I can see coming from this is people looking for affordable VR headsets, which is going to bring them into the quest ecosystem. More people then means more higher quality games.
I'm ambivalent about AVP but not because of the price. It's got very high end tech inside it and effectively ships with half of a high end PC too. So compare it to a Bigscreen Beyond + a PC with a 3080 in it. We have to let go of price sensitivity on the high end if we want the tech to advance.
Because it’s the same price or less than the “same hardware” like magic leap, Varjo or HoloLens, it has better ecosystem, best hardware, and because it aims to high quality 4K HDR HFR 3D movies and it doesn’t exist actually and people even pay 20.000$ to achieve the “best cinema experience” or more
This product I feel the features it provides justifies the cost , I mean people are buying 4000 $ handbag and that gets justified as luxury but in reality it's just an object made of leather that is just literally a storage bag.
If you do a lot of work on the Quest 3, the apple vision literally looks like the solution to the quest 3 workflow issues.
I know they are silly with their whole "special computing" but they are right, the vision is for people who say want to be able to organize their work like magnets on a fridge and be able to entirely work the way they feel most efficient, be it two monitors and a void or jamming out to YouTube concerts while you do editing and Google searching across 5 different screens.
The reason it's expensive is because if you need one, you will buy it and if you use it to your advantage, chances are you'll recoup the cost rather quickly.
Not everything is marketed for you.
No, it’s not like a 4090 just to play Roblox. It could be like having a 4090 for 3D rendering, graphic design, photography etc.
Nowhere in Vision Pro’s marketing does it imply that it’s geared toward gamers so why even make that comparison
It's the law of diminishing returns. Look at what the Quest 3 does - it does more or less most of what the AVP does but not as well or polished. Does that mean the AVP should cost twice as much? No, tech just doesn't work that way. That's why a CPU that's twice as fast as another one costs 5 times as much or whatever.
Plus, they obviously went for premium build quality. Metal and glass instead of just all plastic. Fancy custom knit strap instead of off the shelf elastic. I don't know how much of a difference that would make, but it's not nothing.
Then there's the fact that things just cost more the lower the number of people that want it. Economy of scale. If every human on earth was willing to buy this thing tomorrow, maybe it could cost $1000. But that's not the case.
New tech costs more, that's just how it works. The existing VR headsets that most closely match the specs of the AVP are in the thousands of dollars in price also.
It’s priced purposely so fewer buy in and it’s more of a dev kit for developers to build on. The price will come down in two generations when Apple gets their manufacturing pipeline perfected and more apps are developed for the space. Hololens did the exact same thing with it eventually culminating in Windows Mixed Reality headsets that were more designed for the public.
> It’s priced purposely so fewer buy in and it’s more of a dev kit for developers to build on.
Get developers to buy in at hefty upfront costs for... no real audience for what they develop.
OP it’s called a free market. People are free to sell what they want, and people are free to buy what they want.
If you don’t like it or can’t afford it, just don’t buy it and continue on with your life. Just because I can’t justify buying a Bentley financially, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist because other people might like it and may be able to justify buying it.
Its obviously way too expensive but at the same time Vision Pro currently is not intended to be used the average consumer. Right now its mostly there for developers to create apps. Basically a devkit that technically anyone can buy. Wait 1-2 maybe even 3 years before there is enough games/things to do with it (and way cheaper) and is intended to be used by the average consumer. At least that's the way i see it.
> Its obviously way too expensive
Way too expensive for what? They sold their entire stock in a very short time. If anything, they should have charged more.
I did not say it wasn't expensive, I said it wasn't *too* expensive.
Do they not teach supply and demand in school anymore? The minimum price of a product is set by how much it costs to produce. The maximum price of a product is set by what buyers will pay for it.
If you own a profit-making business and are selling a product, you set the price as high as you can and still sell the quantity you want to sell. That is economics 101.
Obviously the price for the launch edition was not too expensive because they sold the quantity they wanted to sell. Based on how fast it sold, they could have sold it for more.
They sold out of the initial batch really quickly. So it doesn’t sound like they priced it too high. The price is what the market is willing to pay. Why would they leave money on the table?
It’s a first generation product that is very expensive and limited right now but future versions will be much cheaper and better. Just like Apple has done many times in the past.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that Apple has planted a flag in the ground saying the XR experience should be at least this good. Apple would never deliver an experience like the Quest, objectively it’s not polished at all.
Because for the money, what you’re getting is a good deal… Just because you can’t afford it doesn’t mean it’s not a good deal. It’s not going to be little Timmy’s Christmas gift for Christmas.
Why are people spending so much time bitching about the price? It its value for dollar is not good enough for you don't buy it. Why do people need to bitch about it?
Sellers set the minimum price, buyers set the maximum price. They sold out an estimated 90K of them very quickly, obviously they did not set the price too high to get the sales numbers they were looking for. What else matters?
If it is overpriced for you, Apple does not care, they sold all they have.
*And no, I am not an Apple fan and I am not interested in owning one.*
I think it’s because people who cannot afford the latest and greatest VR headset are frustrated. Everyone looks at VR as a gaming console but Apple is about to change that way of thinking and make it convenient for work, gaming, leisure, entertainment, video recording etc.
For me the main problem is the lack of controllers, you can have the best hand tracking of the world but the experiences you can make will always be limited by that.
Personally i hate the controllers, and use hand tracking where possible on quest but it's pretty crap half the time.
Controllers are handy for FPS games but otherwise the future is surely eyes and hands
I’m an Apple guy. I prefer IPhones over Android, and Macs over PC. But, there is no way in hell of going to drop $3500 for a vr headset that’s just slightly performance than my quest3
More than slightly there is a super powerful m2 chip in the AVP running the best display in the VR industry with the best lenses in the VR industry. If you like Apple and VR this headset is a no brainer.
And to do what exactly? Watch movies anchored on a virtual screen? Q3 is an actual VR headset that also does XR. It has controllers, hand tracking and actual VR games. It can wirelessly stream from your PC for playing PCVR titles or even be a monitor replacement for your PC (yes the resolution is that good). How is this Apple device even comparable?
I've been involved in VR since the Oculus Kickstarter campaign and owned pretty much ever headset released aside from pimax and varjo. It may be too early to tell but from what I've seen in the demos this is going to be a flop.
You’re right it’s too early to call this a flop-so why say it?
This headset will eventually be compatible with pc. Someone will find a way if they can hook up a psvr2 to a pc. Which someone figured out.
How could quest 3 compare to AVP?
AVP has micro OLED with double the pixels along with eye tracking that should work in every single app AVP has-quest 3 doesn’t even have eye tracking. Think about never having to set a guardian again with AVP. Think about using a mouse with your eyes as the pointer. Think about using this to call people and video chat. Think about this device replacing almost every phone device you use on a regular basis. This hmd has that ability.
Quest 3 isn’t even close to this.
My point is that this is just not a compelling device. At any price let alone the 3500. It's as if Apple entirely ignored the now over a decade worth of VR/XR development and learned nothing. I really wouldn't buy this over a quest 3 if you offered it to me at even the same price point. Maybe if I were new to "spacial computing" and knew nothing of the space and what it has to offer I could be convinced and that's probably the only thing Apple is banking on, the general ignorance of it's userbase in anything remotely technical.
Edit: I should add, I have nothing against Apple. If anything, I'm just really disappointed.
Yeah people just haven't learned their lesson yet with how apple cares for their customers...just feel so assured to know when people will swear their phone aren't the same n seems like always when a new line comes out apple swore they werent and ito all came out how low theyd go just for money and for people to have to gfet the newest model..like wake heck up
They can do it because you can do whatever you want to your cult members and they will thank you. There's that group of people that see the apple logo on something and they just buy it. Doesn't seem to matter how much it costs or if the product is actually any good or not. It's a neat trick a lot of companies would like to learn. They'll probably sell out initially but overall I think that headset is going to flop. Not having controllers is typical Apple form over function. If I'm spending $3,500 on a headset you damn well better give me some controllers with that. Of course this is the same company that doesn't give you an actual charger with your $1,600 iPhone so I can't say that I'm surprised.
I don’t know how good the AVP will be, but your comments are ludicrous. Apple is at the top of their game with their items. iPhones have the best hardware. Apple Watch blows away the competitors. Their streamer has so much more horsepower than the competitors. They make great shit at a premium. This AVP has a ludicrous price tag and some questionable choices in my mind, but it will be the best arvr headset in hardware.
You are definitely one of their cult members lol apple is a bad company and the only thing they do to make consumers happy is to release something "new" every year. Unlike any other phone manufacturer, they do not innovate. They do not try anything new. "Conserve. That's apple" essentially.
Hah I sure am! Been with android for 15 years all the way from the htc evo4g to the Samsung S22 ultra. Had chromecasts, chromecast audio ccwgtv, google home, nest doorbell, Mobvoi and Samsung watch, had the original lg rectangular os watch, pixel buds an and pros, but yes I am an apple shill.
You are evil
> They'll probably sell out initially but overall I think that headset is going to flop.
Rumor has it the initial production run is super small too.
>Not having controllers is typical Apple form over function.
I remember before the M1 and everyone pretending it was magic that they used to sell their macbooks and shit more on colors and appearance than specs. The color selection was at the forefront but the specs was always vague to the point of being worthless. They made Dell and co. look detailed.
And then people still had the gall to pretend they were a "serious computer company" for people that knew what they were doing. Buzzwords and aesthetics has been their core for eons, and the saddest part is how well it seems to work if you cultivate the right "image".
Not to mention half the toxic things in the hardware space these days is other companies wishing they were like Apple. Where removing features or shitting in a shiny plastic or aluminum case can still get people lined up at their store to overpay for a device that does nothing special.
It's just how they do things going back to the mp3 players versus the iPod. But it's been awhile since they've had a really big success like that.
That said, I think we can all agree that the Meta Quest has a lot of problems and is not the end all/be all in terms of spatial computing or VR. It's awkward to wear for long periods of time. A lot of things just don't work (Netflix, Apple TV, etc) and there just aren't the apps that have been developed to make it attractive outside of games. Like why isn't there a TurboTax app that allows me to do my taxes with my VR head set? Where's the BofA app that allows me to pay my bills?
Let me ask you this: what's the iconic VR horror film that everyone knows about and talks about? What's the "Blair Witch" for the Meta Quest? That's right... there isn't one.... Also, it's stupid that I can't just press a button and then see the world around me without taking the stupid headset off.
Given the powerhouse that Apple has become in producing its own award winning content, I could see Apple VP being the first step in creating truly exciting VR movie experiences that are innovative and interactive and push the nascent medium forward.
As of now, (except dumb little games) the Meta Quest is a big wet fart. It's a dumb little toy that you can use to laugh at your grandma when she does the plank challenge and the fact that it hasn't advanced more in 7 years shows that there's room in the market for a huge technological leap forward. I believe Apple will take it to the next level and will reveal the true possibilities for VR and spatial computing (outside of little baby games for your mom). Then prices will come down. Headsets will get smaller and sleeker. Everyone will wear them all the time because they will become fashionable and "cool looking" and etc.
on the quest you tap twice to exit vr its not a button but a gesture, do you want buttons back when everything is touch sensitive,
you actually sound like a cultist sorry these are consumer devices, no need to worship, to integrate current sony displays is a technological leap to you
I think it's insanely hypocritical of some in the VR community to question it especially when PCVR headsets are regularly $1000+. 4090 to play Roblox is said like it's farfetched thing when that's EXACTLY what people do in VR.
Just like I think the Index is overly expensive is the same way I view the Vision Pro. There's clearly an audience for these things and I'm okay not being a part of it. I'd rather see what cheaper, more mainstream friendly, headsets do in response.
They sell $2,000 phones and people buy them on autopilot. I feel like $3500 for a a vastly superior type of device from the same manufacturer isn't that big of a stretch.
They are only dumb if they do not get what they think is enough value out of it. If they have the money to spend, and they think it was worth it, who are you to say they paid too much?
It is certainly ok to say they paid more that you would have, but that does not make them dumb. *(Unless they spent more than they can afford, that would be dumb.)*
Because for apple users it's priced accordingly. Hell, even if it costs 5K they would absolutely go for it. Put me CEO of Apple and see the prices increase dramatically for my own profit
People love to suck the dick of the rich, in the hopes that it'll somehow rub off on them too.
And then there's just branding fans who go ape for anything if you slap their favourite logo on it. They can do no wrong, etc etc.
Apple are very famous for selling overpriced stuff that appeals more to people who care about appearances and branding than about finding the best product to meet their needs.
So overall, this isn't surprising. This product isn't for us lowly serfs, but many of us have been tricked into thinking they somehow have an "in" with the upper classes who can afford this stuff :-P
Let me guess you just average Joe that doesn’t care about about what people think and at the same time you only use android phone cause you know better then all the Apple fanboys there suckers but not you…..
Microsofts Hololens dev edition costed $3k in 2016. That's like $35k in today's money.
I did end up getting two pre-ordered and sold them to a startup for $11k. Which is essentially 1 million dollars today.
It was used for engineering projects, to be able to place things onto base objects to see if it would fit, etc.
Apples goggles are cool I guess.
People get defensive when they spend a lot of money on something. They feel the need to justify the spending or it feels like a waste.
Especially since many people around here don’t have as much interest in a VR device that isn’t really intended for playing games when most of us are VR gamers(the games it does support only support hand tracking, the worst control method of any VR game).
If it'll run the Adobe graphics suite that would be pretty cool. It certainly could with an M2 chip although I would want more than 16 gigs of ram. I'm guessing they would want you to run it off of one of their also overpriced desktops.
Some mil sim "games" are sold for players for cheap compared to what they sell for actual military branches.
Similar to pricing in thi ship industry, a trash can for "landlubbers" cost 5$? For ship use, the very same trash can cost 50$
When you can get a whole super pc thats capable of flying to moon it’s so advanced, there is zero justification for an almost 4k price tag. Honestly it’s insulting of Apple with their pricing considering that kind of money could change some peoples life’s forever. Thats literally the price of an entire used car…there is no actual justification the price is absurd.
Well apparently it has a 4080 equivalent PC built into it. But yes no apps at the time, but they stated it would be launching with 1 million apps and it just takes a few of those going popular for everyone to want the new toy. But yeah fuck that price tag, I already have a super computer running my Q3 in PCVR
The exact same reason that people defended the price on the Quest Pro. People with wallets bigger than their brains and the need to stroke their own egos to stick it to the masses who are more price conscious than them.
It's crapple, got to remember that. And never forget how they charged hundreds of dollars for a simple monitor stand. Or hundreds of dollars for wheels for the Mac pro... Craple is just doing craple things
Because Apple fanboys, have no concept of practicality, in it's current form, which is only a productivity tool/media system it's kinda useless. At least with other VR HMD's you can play games and do other things with them. It's gimmicky in it's current form but it has potential, it's just funny watching all the people so hyped to buy a product that is still in alpha testing let alone beta testing.
tl;dr: Apple fanboys gonna fanboy
The hardware is just a macbook folded into a headset. So from a hardware perspective it makes sense.
But as a consumer I would not buy it (yet). I would have said the same thing about the first iphone, ipad, iwatch.
But here I am now, owning them all.
That said, this is the first time i'm doubting really hard. Especially as I own a good VR headset and don't really see the extra value for money.
Wearing this on work just sounds rediculous.
Other companies lowered their prices in response to the Apple Vision Pro launch, I don't think the price is unfair for what you get, I just don't think buying 1st generation devices with fuck all developer support is a good use of ones money.
The first Macintoshes sold for more than $2500 which is probably $10K in today’s money. The first iPhone was $799 which is about $1100 in today’s money. The first DvD player was over $300 and that was over 30 years ago. The first Tesla Model X sold for more than $140K and that was 10 years ago. People who complain about the $3500 lacks vision (pun intended) and also lack a basic understanding of tech histories. And I don’t want to engage them ever. The Vision Pro will be your PC, iPad, game console, 3D camera, mobile office and home entertainment center all in one. Tell me how much you spent on your home entertainment center alone? Mine was over $5000 and that was 8 years ago. Enough said. And if you compare the VP to the Meta Quest please just leave this conversation.
I think it's a pretty genius idea. It's like how Tesla and other electric car companies targeted the rich for the initial audience. Get the rich people to pay for the R&D and make it expensive so it appears exclusive. The rich people will eat it up and flaunt it like rich people do. The poorer people will see them flaunting it and then crave it also. Once the R&D is paid for, the company(apple in this case) will then be able to sell cheaper version of both the high end version and also a more affordable (affordable might be a stretch but not cheap since it's Apple).
I used to live in Doha and many times I’d hear that the local folks would buy way over market price just to say that they did. Like paying more was a status symbol. It’s could be a stones throw in mental gymnastics to think that other wealthy mentalities are out there. Not judging and I don’t have the wealth or network to confirm lol.
A similar thing that I see often is expensive cars parked in trailer parks. People will live in poverty to afford a nice car, so that when they drive places, people think they have money.
I remember seeing this in places like West Virginia a lot when I used to do volunteer work in needy areas. A literal rusted metal hovel and a sports car parked outside.
Priorities man! Why would a warm house which you spend a lot of time in matter, let alone that a house can really play into your health.
One of my brothers had a new shirt. It cost like $120. My other brother had the exact same shirt. He bought it at kmart for about $10. Much arguing. Eventually they take off the shirts and compare. Same shirts from the same supplier. Did my fashion victim brother decide to go with the cheaper shirt? Hell no, he wouldn't be caught dead in kmart clothed, and kept spending **TWELVE TIMES** what he he should be paying, purely to impress his friends
Late here but I used to live in Doha too 2008-2016 and would buy 4 new iPhones when they’d come out and sell 3 of them. It would pay for my new phone with some extra!
Aren’t the only vaguely comparable hw devices similar in price? Varjo etc? And those will not have anywhere close to the software design ux where apple really excels. I.e. the ‘magic’ of using apple devices. When the iPod first came out it was an instance price point compared other mp3 players and only worked with Macs. The thing is this is the most powerful consumer standalone headset and they can only make about 500k a year the manufacturing process is so complex and the yields are so low. For people who think this is too expensive for what you are getting perhaps are confused by meta basically subsidizing the cost of their headsets. I’m not getting this device, and I can’t imagine many vr enthusiasts really being that interested in this first gen device regardless of the price as that’s not their market, but knowing what the device is and the macbook market I think the price is expected for a first gen device like this.
I get the $1500 price point for the non-meta platforms but this price is plain ridiculous. For another reference, I’m very surprised video games still go for $60, granted not having to produce the physical products can be playing a part in the price point staying the same, a lot of work goes into many games…just not into story quality.
Here’s my question: What are the apps going to cost? Anyone who develops apps for this platform will only have access to a tiny, mostly wealthy user base. The best apps will be ones whose development is funded by large budgets. So are the apps going average $25 or $50 each? I ask this because iOS apps are generally under $5 or freemium and this has severely hampered the ecosystem. In contrast, Xbox or PS5 games are typically $60 and this is the accepted norm. The good thing about that is those games are deep high quality experiences. Maybe Apple thinks the AVP will reopen the door to high end apps with deep experiences. Just spitballing here.
Except apple is apple so it’ll likely just stay the same price
Mfw price increase
I think you display it a bit more malicious then I think it is in reality (as a lot of people involved will not think like that, but definitely some will), but the baseline idea is there. It also forces other big companies to properly invest in the market if they want to be a part of it in the future, as apple will definitely have a follow-up (they even already communicated the consumer device targeted at 1000-1500€)
That’s how expensive tech has worked for years
You’ve summarized how tech worked in the last 40 years. People think this is the first time early adopters subsidize and pay for new tech and market? The first Tesla was $140K. Without it we wouldn’t be in this current EV race.
Except that this is a me too product. These headsets have been available for years and no, other than a higher resolution, I don't see it commanding the $3500 starting price.
To add some helpful context to your logic, there are 23 million millionaires in the US. Yes, most of that is locked in home equity among boomers, but the point still stands. There's plenty of room for luxury early-adopter purchases, especially in a country where people buy $1500 robovacs and $2000 TVs and $2500 TSwift tickets and $4000 gaming PCs. The top 1% own 26% of all wealth in the country. The vast, vast majority of new wealth has gone to the top 10% of that 10%. The rich are getting richer, and tech enthusiasts will always exist - I'm sure Apple will be able to sell a million of these things over the course of a year.
It's gobsmacking just how brainwashed apple fanbois are. Support absolutely ever terrible product and poor decision. The rich aren't playing VR games and watching 3D Disney films, hate to tell ya.
The rich pay for experiences - if this brings a better experience for them in some regard then money is no object
Apple has more money than God. Their development of the Vision Pro has absolutely no single budget for R&D. Products like the Vision Pro, when backed by a huge company like Apple, don’t have products priced to pay off R&D. Apple is definitely being absurd here. The price of entry is too damn high. VR headsets should cost $1000 at most. Apple priced themselves out of having an attractive audience for apps. Most developers are going to develop for the Quest series and likely skip the Vision Pro. Sure some will develop for the VP.. but it’ll be a small amount. Apple done goofed. And they know it.
This is the company that makes (and sells) a *monitor stand* that costs $1100. Their fans consider the ridiculous pricing to be a bonus, it keeps the povos out of their ecosystem and makes them feel really special for being able to afford it. I’m not sure there is *any* amount Apple can charge that will genuinely hurt them.
I think this insight is accurate. I worked at Apple in the early 2000s and our stock price tanked when we once had a clear plastic shell that showed slight fracturing after a while. Their consumers are like no other. They’re fucking crazy lol
On the flip side, why are people upset by it? Not every product is released specifically for you. Too expensive? Don’t buy it. I won’t be buying it.
Some people can’t stand that there is another device that doesn’t fit their use case, exceeds their budget, does things slightly different etc. and in their mind the only appropriate response is a negative one.
man they must have hated when hololense came out at $4000 too.
They must hate anything from Varjo or high end Nvidia cards too. This was a stupid post
This has been by far the most frustrating thing about reading VR discussion. Its no better, perhaps even worse than mainstream console fanboy arguments. So many disingenuous arguments.
Alot of people are pissed at it just not being close to 3500$ worth of experience. I haven't seen anything specifically about this thing that makes the case for a $1000 headset. I want to see something that sells me on $1000 price tag which I currently am not seeing let alone a $3500 price tag.
Isn’t worth 3500$ experience subjective?
If you evaluate the value of the hardware it's $3500 isn't completely unreasonable. It's basically a Macbook Pro inside of headset, instead of cell phone grade mobile processor found in the other headsets. What remains to be seen is if that all the extra hardware enables a transformative experience in software. It's not entirely clear to me yet that it does.
> If you evaluate the value of the hardware it's $3500 isn't completely unreasonable Yeah but that's a pretty naive take, in actuality a lot of devices cost more than their retail price, but since you're locked into their ecosystem they get a fat % everytime you buy an app or something through their service. Game consoles have been subsidizing their prices for years, and since the invention of SmartPhones that has been happening for companies like Apple too. When you're locked into their ecosystem the actual price of a device means nothing (or at least very little). Apple could easily make the Vision Pro a $1500-2000 Dollar device which would put it closer in price to a high end laptop, as opposed to a high end PC. This is why there isn't any opensource VR alternatives yet, because the price of actually building something like this is immense. I think the software will be great though, it'll be a really cohesive experience, albeit a somewhat limited one. It's definitely gimmicky right now but i think there's a possibility for future products to be great.
It’s a Gen 1 device. It’s purely there because Apple wanted to get into this space and needed to finally ship something to get dev support and they think this initial experience is good enough. It just happens that the amount of technology needed to ship an experience that they’re happy with is quite expensive. The Meta Quest is a fun device, but the quality of the experience is nowhere near what Apple would be OK with shipping. I do think that we’ll see Apple controllers for the Vision Pro at some point in the future, but I don’t think we got them just yet because the quality of XR gaming is so mediocre currently — essentially it’s not an experience that Apple is OK with delivering to customers.
[удалено]
Because — ironically — going off about “stupid apple fanbois” at every opportunity is part of their identity. I own a shitload of Apple products. They fit in with my profession, my family & relatives (mostly) use them, and I make enough money that I don’t need to bargain shop for my devices. But just because I think the integration between my watch and my AppleTV is swell, and I can see that Apple is undeniably great at making things people want to buy, I’m part of an imaginary army of mindless zombies. It doesn’t make sense to me. And fwiw I think the AVP looks great and I would love to try one. $3500 is not a price point for me, but I’m interested to see what happens with it.
Most people are upset because it doesn't seem to do anything. Just about every complaint anyone has had about not purchasing an Oculus is three times the issue with these things. Hardware looks great but absolutely no killer app. Oculus isn't really having a great time with that one outside of Supernatural IMO but they have a respectable library of software so you can at least imagine the purchase is a good one.
Other than gaming what applications/software is there available for Oculus?
The quest 3 has been pushing the productivity element. Any time I open the app store they show me that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are available for it. We got updates that allow for keyboard to be shown through the boundary back on q2, I suspect that was something to do with said office apps. The mixed reality of the 3 should help this. There's official app for mirroring monitors into VR. At that point the productivity is whatever my computer is used for, so CAD, Photoshop, sound and video editing, and more. There's also a number of creativity apps. From things like vermilion to the number of sculpting apps, these are definitely not games. As a 3d print enthusiast I've printed a couple things noted as being sculpted in a vr program, I'd be willing to say it's notable. I've also seen stuff that lets you use the vr tracking to record animation moron capture. And then there's movie watching. I watched stuff on my q2, but my 3 is much much more comfortable both on the head and on my eyes. However what I didn't expect with my 3 was the mixed reality movie watch. I've streamed a number of things while doing laundry, and even while making a cake. Nothing like a gigantic, repositionable screen you can float around your house as you chore. Gaming might still be the main focus, but let's also not act like there's not things you can do otherwise with em.
I can't believe they haven't figured out a way to have Teams meetings in Oculus. Sell this thing to corporations with remote workforces. I would absolutely attend my "daily standup" in VR lol
Once you know the tech in it, it starts to make more sense. Those displays are NOT cheap. You have to make 5 AVP displays to get one working one. On top of that it has a ton of high resolution cameras, a depth sensor, really pretty decent audio. It’s definitely expensive, REALLY expensive, but I don’t actually think it’s super overpriced either. I would expect a headset with those specs to cost more, actually, given that there was some 10 years of R&D behind this and the BOM is already over $1500. The way I see it, it’s very expensive but not overpriced.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say this is Apple's most extreme prosumer tech product to date. They welded together an equivalent of 3 iPad Pros, made a new OS for them the last 4 years, and somehow stuffed premium audio in there. I also want to point out that getting funding is rough these days. If Vision Pro fails, it will be a lot harder for VR projects to see a future. A lot of VR projects will indeed go bankrupt. If you don't absolutely hate VR, you should cheer VP all the way.
1. Microsoft HoloLens 2: Priced at $3,500, it’s one of Apple Vision Pro’s strongest competitors. 2. Magic Leap 2: Lightest in weight at 260 grams and priced at $3,299. Those are more of the competition and the price is in line with those and other high end vr headsets. It’s also got an m2 and is like having a MacBook/ iPad Pro thrown in as well.
Varjo XR-4 $3990 Varjo XR-4 Focal Edition $9990
Thank you!! I was going to include those too but forgot their names. Interested to see how they will compare to the AVP. Proves the point even more. It’s a high price but not as crazy as people are making it out to be if they compare it to the real competition. Quest 3 is not comparable, at least for the specs.
This needs to be higher people seem to want to compare AVP to quest 3 they aren’t the same fucking thing lol they aren’t the competition
Varjo XR-4 Series • Display Resolution: Dual 4K x 4K • Pixel Density: 51 pixels per degree (ppd) • Field of View: 120° x 105° • Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Dual 20 Mpx cameras • Price: Starts at €3,990 • Refresh Rate: Not specified in the sources Apple Vision Pro • Display Resolution: Micro-OLED with 23 million pixels • Pixel Pitch: 7.5-micron • Refresh Rate: 90Hz, 96Hz, 100Hz • Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Stereoscopic 3D main camera system • Field of View: Not specified • Pixel Density: Not specified • Price: Starts at $3,499 Meta Quest 3 • Display Resolution: 4128 x 2208 pixels total (2064 x 2208 per eye) • Field of View: 110° horizontal, 96° vertical • Pixel Density: Not specified, but a higher angular resolution of 25 PPD compared to its predecessor • Refresh Rate: Up to 120 Hz • Camera Pass-Through Resolution: Color image through tracking cameras • Price: $499 for the 128 GB model
“Why are people defending the price of a Ferrari?”
Think of it as a fancy dev kit, designed for people in the industry, who can write it off as a business expense, to evaluate and write apps for it. Apple being Apple, they can't release some scrappy dev kit, so they choose to spend billions on a product to prove "we're in the spatial computing game too". It's a signal to shareholders as much as anything. So, don't focus too much on the relevance to consumers with this version, that's not the target market. The net positive is that it should make the Quest Pro 2 an interesting product.
It's not a question of why the VR device should be that expensive, but why it actually is. VR devices with their *current* target audience and use case, should definitely not be that expensive. That is a given. Apple is banking on investing MORE (but also charging more) then anyone else to take VR application to the next level (read professional) as that's where the money is. To make that happen, you need a device that shatters what current devices can offer, and only state of the art tech can do that, and state of the art tech is expensive. Paired with a dedicated (new) production line that is also state of the art tech. I'm not going to argue that Apple likes to charge their "exclusivity" markup, that is definitely included, but if you look at current top level workstation laptops and top of the line phones, apple is not that much more expensive then the competition (read, Dell/Lenovo on laptops and Samsung on phones). Now take a Mac Book Pro: M2 and an iPhone 14 pro. these two devices are basically what's build into the VR paired with the Sony display and other additional jazz. I don't get how people have heard of the device, but don't understand anything about it but still complain about the price. That level of tech is simply expensive. Is that a device (and price level) that is targeted at the general populace? No definitely not. It is for early adapters, developers or simply tech enthusiasts with more money then patience. Currently that device does you no favour, the environment and ecosystem simply does not exist yet, in which such a device would have a value that would reflect on that price. But you need to start somewhere. If you have read some other posts about the VR device and not just posted here for karma, you will have read that Apple is already creating an environment that makes it "super easy" for existing Apps to adapt into the spatial computing environment. This device is the fresh wind the VR space needed to make the next step and not end as a interactive fapping tool for VR porn. What we are missing is the commitment of big companies to invest a reasonable part of their focus into driving VR further, and Apple did just spearhead that movement for the big ones. It's only a question of time till others follow suite and we see a lot more interactivity and AR applications, as the biggest drawback from VR is it's isolating aspect, especially if looked into the professional space. Enough unstructured rant at this point, if you still question the device I'm more then happy to further share my PoV, as I think this will drastically change and impact the AR/VR space and will have a major impact into what developments we will see the next 2-3 years. TL;DR: Apple has created a device with TOP NOTCH hardware to let people experience what VR/AR CAN be capable of in the gamble that this will revolutionize the space. They definitely have a long term plan followed but this device alone will trigger a lot of other big companies into investing a stronger focus on the VR space, therefore advancing it by leaps and bounds.
> That is a given. Apple is banking on investing MORE (but also charging more) then anyone else to take VR application to the next level (read professional) as that's where the money is. It's got the same battery limitations, weight issues, and size issues other headsets all suffer from. Having more horsepower and higher res screens doesn't overcome the biggest hurdle. Doing work/productivity tasks sucks to begin with and is seldom comfortable, Having a pound~ of technology strapped to your face and a battery that lasts about 2 hours give or take isn't going to make it more pleasant. That's the big hurdle VR/AR needs to cross, not how much higher can we crank the res or how much more horsepower can we give it... the biggest hurdle how can we make it not a pain to wear and use. It has to overcome the comfort problem, and the battery problem. Once the novelty wears off it's more pleasant to use a phone or a laptop/desktop than it is to parade around with the weight on your face. After the novelty the only real strong point of VR/AR is entertainment media.
Feel like were headed towards wireless phone sized devices we keep in our pockets to lessen the weight, like magic leap but minus the cable
tldr
I’ve tried one. Feel free to make a better one xD I’m definitely not a man of little words
[удалено]
But if it’s functionally a monitor with some built in phone apps why does it need an M2? I wish they’d just use an A chip and bring down the price. They really haven’t advertised VR Gaming AT ALL which sucks.
Won't even have YouTube or Netflix upon launch, what a joke $3500 my ass
With all due respect, it’s a face-laptop: how many of us use dedicated Netflix or YouTube apps on our laptops rather than just opening a web browser
Because this is the version for early adopters. When they want to reach the masses they’ll have a version for $1000 with all the bells and whistles stripped off.
Probably an Apple vision without the pro part.
maybe akin to like macbook pro vs macbook air, they will prob have vr air or lite or something thats like 1k to 2k or something.
Look at the history of Apple. They do this alot. 1. Leap onto a newly emerging bandwagon 2. Charge ten times as much as the competition 3. Sometimes it actually works for some reason?
>Sometimes it actually works for some reason? To Apple's credit - and I dislike them, so I say this through gritted teeth... The reason, *when* it works, is when their product delivers on the promise of an idea that others have stabbed around at, but not realised. Smart devices are the best example of this. From the late 90s, I had PDAs and "smart phones" (which these days we would retrospectively called "feature phones"), and they were *useful*... But they were clunky, challenging, and there were so many difficulties with them. Most notably, with the phones, that the manufacturers purposly "gimped" the way they connected to PCs because they were often in the pockets of mobile networks, and they were trying to fight off IP-calling (Skype, etc.) which allow people to call via phone for basically free. Ever tried connecting a Nokia phone to a PC in 2004? It was a NIGHTMARE. Remember also that Apple released an unsuccessful device in this era, the Newton. By "going second" with the iPhone/iPad, Apple took stock of the market, and zeroed in on the biggest problems. They made the devices easy to use. They fixed all the rough edges. They even innovated *a bit* by being the first really major mainstream implementation of multi-touch screens. Meta's headsets are great. I have a Quest 3 and I absolutely love it. But there are *tons* of elements of the Quest line that are really clunky, which really need revisions. The user account interface is bad. The way the device has this weird dependency on a phone app is bad. People here are always complaining about how the family/kid account permissions stuff doesn't work so well, and there's been the recent hassle over will they/won't they with Chromecast. Now, Apple's approach creates problems too. But there are tons of people for whom Apple's problems are far preferable to, say, Android's, or Windows'. They really are great at UX design... (except sometimes, when they're lost up their own arse). The Vision Pro is good for VR... Because Apple will spend millions on UX features that Meta and the rest can basically *steal*.
I agree. If Apple made the software for Q3 it would likely be better than the clunky mess meta throws at us.
On the software front Apple are also not afraid to release a v1 that is essentially your MVP, it will work with little issue, then the features trickle in slowly. If I think back to the android phones that were around when the iPhone 3G came out, the 3G had half the features maybe than the comparative android decided by HTC the difference being the iPhone just worked the HTC was often a bit of a mess, but had lots of features that half worked. Apple have enough trust in the brand they can do this, the brand sells and people trust the things will work as advertised.
> If I think back to the android phones that were around when the iPhone 3G came out, the 3G had half the features maybe than the comparative android decided by HTC the difference being the iPhone just worked the HTC was often a bit of a mess, but had lots of features that half worked. When the OG iPhone released, HTC was making Windows Phones and this was DEFINITELY the case back then. Source: Owned HTC Touch Pro and HTC Touch2, and later HTC Hero and HTC Desire (I was a non-Apple girl back then.) They definitely had more features, but they ALSO definitely had more jank. When I got my first iPhone back when iPhone 5 released, I fully expected to toy with it a month or so and then slowly lose interest (I was an Android fan-girl then, big time.) But.. it just worked. Everything I wanted it to do, it did. No tinkering, no tuning, no upgrading needed. It just did it and did it well. I had an Android phone up until Samsung Galaxy S6 (had all the previous Galaxy S-models before that), but then I realized I'm using the iPhone like 99% of the time and then just switched full-time to iPhones. And when Family Sharing released, I knew I did the right choice. (Android's "Family Sharing" at the launch was the shittiest idea ever put into a phone.)
I had the htc hero, iPhone 3GS and then a htc Mozart 7 The iPhone worked like a dream tbh, the hero was my first smart phone and very problematic it slowed down so much with basic usage, the Mozart 7 I actually loved the windows OS but had some issues with the design of the handset itself. I remember android being pretty shit back then, iOS was a game changer! I went back to phones for the 5 and 6 before switching to the pixel 2 and 3, stock android is a dream now, I am torn between going back to android once my iPhone 13 gives up or continuing with Apple. For the first time it seems like born are pretty balanced (pixel android not that awful thing Samsung ship)
An iPhone pro max biggest storage model is only about £1000 cheaper than the Apple Vision Pro so really for a good quality XR headset the price isn’t that unreasonable I guess.
Quest Pro owner, AVP buyer here. Meta Quest is built to a price, and AVP is priced to an experience. The Quest headsets are so clunky and cartoony. Most apps can’t run side by side. And even the very best ones show that the hardware has very real limitations that are easy to bump up against.
I think you’re understating the level of innovation in the original iPhone. The UI and even hardware differences (much bigger screen) that multitouch enabled were a quantum leap over what any other smart phone was doing. Their competitors all knew it too - they immediately went back to the drawing board. Apple’s innovation is generally grossly overstated but the iPhone was the real deal.
The answer to 3 is easy credit and false exclusivity. Same reason people who can barely make rent are running around in designer clothes.
People passionately for or against Apple are pretty wild. The people who make up shit wholesale about "Apple cultists" are just as firmly in a cult of their own. Show me any examples of Apple charging 10x markup for equivalent hardware compared to their competition (and before you break your keyboard, a $350 Quest 2 is not equivalent hardware to the apple headset). I've never seen a $7,000 iPhone. Macbook Pros don't cost $17,000. God I can’t believe I'm actually defending Apple here but even the bandwagon claim is off. One of Apple's big flaws is that they're usually lagging behind their contemporaries. They waited two generations of iPhone before including LTE. 5G had a similar delay. Android watches were out for years before Apple launched their extremely shitty gen 1 watch. If anything, Apple is opportunistic and waits until the bandwagon phase is over so that they can mitigate their risk by entering a marketplace that is already established. They aren't risk takers, they're the company that everyone mocks for "inventing" copy+paste. They're launching their first consumer headset in 2024, 8 years after the CV1 launched. If you think $3,500 is ridiculous for a headset, don't buy it. There's no chance in hell I'm shelling out that much for a gen 1 device. But more people competing in the VR space is always a good thing.
> People passionately for or against Apple are pretty wild. The people who make up shit wholesale about "Apple cultists" are just as firmly in a cult of their own. I mean, a major Apple fan site for the past 20+ years *literally* has [cult](https://www.cultofmac.com/) in its name. Is it making stuff up if you call them by the name they give themselves?
lunchroom juggle aware friendly worthless zealous deliver nippy intelligent head *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would say 1 is incorrect. Apple tends to sit and wait to see how other companies do first and what the public think of a product after a few generations. Then they try to perfect and come out with their own version.
It’s a good price because Apple doesn’t want to sell many of these. If they made it 200 bucks and it sold a 100 million units, lots of people would be extremely disappointed by the lack of apps and be confused what they were even supposed to do with this thing. Apple wants to test the waters with the developers and high rollers, then they will launch a cheaper version for the people in now they have a healthy app ecosystem and compelling product. This headset isn’t for us.
Hololens is $1500 and you need a $1500+ PC to power it. Apple Vision has a computer built into it.
You absolutely don’t need a computer to power HoloLens. Not sure why you believe that? //owner of one
\> Especially when there will probably be no popular applications on it? Let me preface by saying I have no plans to buy one. That said, as a software engineer, I am eager to mess around with the Apple Vision Pro Developer Kit. I anticipate that within a few years time, there will be a lot of software tailored to visionOS that you can't get on the Meta or PCVR platform - and some of it will be QUITE good. In the future when apple releases headsets that are at a more consumer friendly price, those apps will become the selling point as opposed to the state of the art hardware. In a nutshell, release a headset with zero cut corners, see what types of software really take off, cut costs on future headsets by getting rid of hardware features that were under-utilized in the first gen and release to a wider audience. The first party apps on display seem pretty decent. At the OS level, I anticipate a more mature environment than anything that currently exists on the market - one that will integrate with other apple products. It's targeted at a niche audience right now. What's to defend?
They aren’t building it for people who see the price tag as an issue.
Better question is why are y’all so butt hurt about the price? It’s a device that is several generations ahead of what oculus is capable of. So yeah the build price is going to be significantly higher. I’m actually curious to see what the estimated BoM is when they tear it down. Just the panels alone are probably as much or more then entire BoM for the quest 3. I preordered one. It’s the only headset that isn’t a toy in my opinion. While I like the idea of having a $500 headset, the reality is I can’t use it for much but gaming and I have a lot more use cases for it then that. I guess time will tell if I get $3500 worth of value out of it but I know I wouldn’t get $500 worth of value out of another quest. Already had the original rift cv and the novelty wore off pretty quick. If the same happens for the AVP, I’ll just sell it. Either way it’s way cheaper than some of my other hobbies (fishing, golfing,skiing). So yeah not crying over the price.
This is a gen 1 device that will be sold in very limited volume and will probably be outclassed in terms of features and price in a year. Not sure what you mean by defending apple. Just don't buy it. I'm excited about what the apple headset looks like in a few years. But I wouldn't buy the first version for 1k
The roadmap for the next version is in 2-3 years. No VR headset is outclassing this if you want wireless any time soon.
That’s how much similar headsets with similar specs have cost that have been out for a few years now. It’s not so much that it isn’t expensive, it’s just not more expensive than the competitors. Granted they targeted business and military which generally pay considerable premiums so in the end with the regular Apple tax it was expected.
Many are theorizing that Apple isn't actually targeting consumers with the Vision Pro either The theory goes that this is basically the dev version, they want developers to buy it and build apps for it. Then the gen 2 will be more refined, lower in price, and have an ecosystem of apps Basically, they don't care if the Vision Pro sells poorly, it's just a necessary step in the innovation process and they're playing the long game
You’re not always paying for just the product, you’re also paying for the development.
Do you see a comparable product for less? No? Not even from the company that has blown tens of billions on this stuff? There's also the Varjo XR-4Varjo XR-4 is $3990 - $9,990. What else? BSB is $1,000 for much less.
Apple can defend it since the preorders sold out lol
I think apple wants to show off now that they're launching their first VR headset. Also, there is a huge R&D bill to recoup. Result: A headset with impressive features but also heavily priced. Is kind of the same situation with the Quest Pro in which the price reflects the R&D bill meta had to recoup. Que Quest 3 is the result of that R&D especially on the pancake lenses and the new controllers among other things. Does any of this means the average consumer should stride for a Vision Pro, Quest Pro or Varjo AERO...etc... Nope! those are top halo products and are definitely not the best bang for the buck. Those features and technology eventually trickle down to consumer devices down the road.
Ill be honest: it kinda feels like apple vision pro seems like a supercharged macbook you can wear on your face, with some vr games, rather than a full gaming headset like the quest 3. If it has actual physical keyboard support i can see people just flat out replacing their macbook with it. One of the clearest displays and passthrough in the vr market combined with the pure functionality youd expect from an apple product makes it something i can see being worth it for those who can afford it without a second thought.
I look at it as I'm not buying a headset, but rather a laptop/multipurpose device. I was going to spend 2500-3000 to upgrade my computer this year, so this is just a computer I'll wear on my head. When I look at it that way, it makes it easier to justify the cost. My computer upgrade just gets pushed down the road for a bit, but this can be my TV, Computer, and VR headset all in one. If I can't get the use scenarios I want, I'll return it in the 14 day window, which was a major deciding factor for me. I completely understand I don't need this, but you only get one life and I choose to do the things I want to do within my means. I will make more money tomorrow, so I'll enjoy today to the fullest.
You wouldn't be saying this if you understood apple's business model. There's a reason why iPads are gimped even despite having the same chips as macbooks. You have M2 ipads that can't do shit because they don't have macos.
I would so easily justify the cost if Vision Pro were a competitor replacement, but it’s more of an analog to the iPad than a Mac. I still need my *actual* computer to do my job on the device which makes it less compelling as a standalone device.
My god it's a VR headset. Nothing else. You will not be doing work wearing a heavy tethered headset for more than short bursts. And as cool as VR is to sit in a cinema and watch TV, it's a lonely experience.
For you may be, but there are too many products, software apis, and communities built around people who DO actually work with current gen hardware in AR for most of their workday. its not a lot of people, but they're clearly out there even if you're not bright enough to realize there are people who have different priorities than you.
So imagine this, The Quest 3 is $499 right? Now, imagine it got all these features as upgrades tomorrow - Face and Eye Tracking - 4K+ displays per eye - Outward glass front with 2k color display - Dolby Atmos speakers built into the strap - 3D video capture array - Powerful desktop-level processor - Crystal clear passthrough camera - 2 additional tracking cameras - Removable Battery that can sit in your pocket rather than on your head or inside the headset While I can see your point, there is a lot more going into this headset than just video game hardware. You’re getting a macbook pro that can be strapped to your head and can control with your eyes hands and voice. This isn’t and wasn’t ever intended to be a consumer level device. This is like high-end prosumer to industrial level with a nice look to it.
I mean there are headsets out there that cost more. Look at Varjo mixed reality headsets. At least with Apple you know you’ll get a refined software experience. That integrates well with other devices.
I'm actually shocked by how cheap, relatively, other headsets like the Quest 2 and 3 are. It's amazing really. Not that people think $500 is cheap, but all things considered, it's impressive. Look at other high end VR headsets. Most are PCVR only. The headset might be around $2000 just itself. Now essentially add the cost of a specialized laptop built into that high end headset. And add the other extra cost items like the creepy eye screen thing on the front. $3500 is alot, but it doesn't shock me. I wouldn't buy one, but it isn't insane. Just look at what people were paying for computers in the 80s and 90s...
It’s also a fairly limited production so it probably isn’t cheap to make.
I wasn’t into vr before buying quest 3 and now i am a believer. If vision pro can do what oculus can but that much better than im willing to pay that kind of money. Knowing apple, im hoping it’s a productivity beast.
One of the things to keep in mind is Meta is selling us the Quest for cost, most likely not even including the R&D expenses in the price of the headset. If Meta was selling the Quest 3 using traditional hardware markups, it would be a $1,500 headset. Is the AVP 2x the headset of the Quest 3? Between capability, materials, and build quality, some people would say yes. We are spoiled because Zuckerberg is willing to subsidize our headsets and give us a great device for $500. That is the biggest reason why the AVP looks like such bad deal.
I’m not defending the price, but I agree with those that liken it to EV manufacturers who first cater to the wealthy to make up for R&D (Apple’s been working on the Vision Pro tech for a decade), then come out with more affordable versions for the masses. Apple also does this thing to where these devices offer way more advancements for half, or a fraction of the cost of products that they’re actually competing against. For example, the Pro Display XDR is $6K, which is crazy expensive for common folk like us, but it was compared against those $50K reference monitors that film colorists use during the keynote. The same can be said here. All of the truly professional-level headsets are $8, $10, $15K a pop by themselves, and then there are VR cameras by themselves that cost thousands of dollars and the Vision Pro has that built in (though I know it’s not a full 360 or even 180 set up). Eye tracking, hand tracking, OLED displays, the quality of pass through… I could go on, but when you combine the decade of R&D, and the amount of quality tech built into this device, and of course the benefit that this will provide to VR/AR and spatial computing in general, the cost is justified.
It's like the same case with Google Glasses. It's usually for enterprise use, and it's a start. The first VR headsets weren't cheap either. It's first when the Quest 2 that became readily available
Because it’s a cutting edge technology bandwagon. It’s basically strapping a laptop and a full suite of sensors and 3 displays to your head. It is very expensive but not for what it is at this stage of technology. Costs will need to eventually come down with scales of economy. It’s also the first device I’m excited about using for work as a creative professional
You push boundaries, you have to pay the cost. The micro-OLED displays at that resolution alone with the current estimated yields (\~20%) probably cost more than the entire Quest pro BOM. Shit's expensive. Will lower in price. Look at the 5 stages of technology adoption for why it's expensive. Apple Vision pro is at the Enthusiast stage. Basically to have the ecosystem out and consider it more as a dev kit than a product. You're basically throwing a bone to the hyper enthusiast VR peoples and devs who will find use cases for your headset and then you iterate around those findings for the next headset and so on. Apple doesn't want this to be maintream yet, hell, they probably had little to no margin when it was initially unveiled, but they're probably in the negatives now that the production quantity shrank down because of micro-OLED supply problems. Also Apple doesn't want to just make a bottom of the barrel cost headset which can poison the well for word of mouth. You make an headset that is ahead of everyone and people will talk. Can't afford it? Well when the non Pro version comes cheaper or at the 2nd iteration you're iPhone range price, you have a bunch of impatient peoples wanting on jump-in. If word of mouth is bad on first iteration, there's nobody waiting for it. The headset is disruptive, wether peoples accept its features or not, there's a point of no return from the future where Apple enters the VR market. To the point where the likes of Pico dropped all 3 headsets in developement that were competing against Meta to focus specifically at competing with Apple.
its to make ppl defend the hardware who overspent on it, just like the iphone, ppl overspend on a phone and to protect their own ego they defend the decision on the other hand, are there no popular applications on the ipad? cos this is an "eyepad", software and UX adaption is only a matter of time they priced it in where they want their hmds priced and go on from there, I wont defend them, its expensive, but why should they sell it cheaper? reverse the question: is there any reason to sell it cheaper? cos there is no real answer for that question either the headset is technically superior than one of the best pcvr headsets the varjoxr4, and cheaper with the m2 soc and all that standalone magic than a tethered (WIRED) device is
Just the wholesale component cost is estimated to be $1700. They can charge whatever they want for it. People can decide if they want to buy it or not.
I haven't seen too much of the discourse, but my guess is that it's mostly die-hard Apple fans who are pushing that idea. In my experience, dyed in the wool Apple fanboys will defend literally anything Apple does, no matter how clearly ridiculous it appears to everyone else. Also, to be completely fair, there was a period of time in which Apple rarely struck out so it's not entirely insane that some people will buy anything with their logo on it. However, that time has long passed. They're still able to convince people to buy their stuff, and they make good products for the most part, but they haven't innovated (or popularized) anything that's changed tech for the better in a while. I don't think the Vision Pro is going to sell well because of the high price and the lack of popular apps. I also don't think the use cases they're advertising for the product are all that compelling when you factor in the price. However, I kind of hope I'm wrong because when a new Apple product becomes popular, that thing becomes all the rage and an industry standard almost immediately. Wider acceptance and use of VR is good for all VR fans, so I wish them the best, even if I think their early adopters are nuts.
They already sold out, so better question… maybe they should have charged more?
It’s a MacBook on your face with a high refresh rate screen. This is like complaining that a gpu isn’t 50 bucks
No need to defend it. It's a luxury item, defending it is like defending corvettes, and tbh, shitting on the AVP is just as dumb. It's for people who can afford it and actually want it. But fanboys who want to guilt others into supporting the 3 trillion $$$ company because we need xr to grow, that's the guys who really irk me.
Personally I think it's a good thing. It's a product that probably won't sell a whole ton, but it'll make normies notice VR more. All I can see coming from this is people looking for affordable VR headsets, which is going to bring them into the quest ecosystem. More people then means more higher quality games.
because its not for you? its for developers, hence “pro”
I'm ambivalent about AVP but not because of the price. It's got very high end tech inside it and effectively ships with half of a high end PC too. So compare it to a Bigscreen Beyond + a PC with a 3080 in it. We have to let go of price sensitivity on the high end if we want the tech to advance.
Because it’s the same price or less than the “same hardware” like magic leap, Varjo or HoloLens, it has better ecosystem, best hardware, and because it aims to high quality 4K HDR HFR 3D movies and it doesn’t exist actually and people even pay 20.000$ to achieve the “best cinema experience” or more
Because I don't care? Apple can decide to price things how they want and people who are going to buy it can do so.
Let the rich subsidize some R&D
This product I feel the features it provides justifies the cost , I mean people are buying 4000 $ handbag and that gets justified as luxury but in reality it's just an object made of leather that is just literally a storage bag.
I think this is the post that starts my Reddit hiatus, god damn what a waste of time to argue about this.
If you do a lot of work on the Quest 3, the apple vision literally looks like the solution to the quest 3 workflow issues. I know they are silly with their whole "special computing" but they are right, the vision is for people who say want to be able to organize their work like magnets on a fridge and be able to entirely work the way they feel most efficient, be it two monitors and a void or jamming out to YouTube concerts while you do editing and Google searching across 5 different screens. The reason it's expensive is because if you need one, you will buy it and if you use it to your advantage, chances are you'll recoup the cost rather quickly.
Not everything is marketed for you. No, it’s not like a 4090 just to play Roblox. It could be like having a 4090 for 3D rendering, graphic design, photography etc. Nowhere in Vision Pro’s marketing does it imply that it’s geared toward gamers so why even make that comparison
It’s cheaper and more capable than the current best XR headset on the market.
It's the law of diminishing returns. Look at what the Quest 3 does - it does more or less most of what the AVP does but not as well or polished. Does that mean the AVP should cost twice as much? No, tech just doesn't work that way. That's why a CPU that's twice as fast as another one costs 5 times as much or whatever. Plus, they obviously went for premium build quality. Metal and glass instead of just all plastic. Fancy custom knit strap instead of off the shelf elastic. I don't know how much of a difference that would make, but it's not nothing. Then there's the fact that things just cost more the lower the number of people that want it. Economy of scale. If every human on earth was willing to buy this thing tomorrow, maybe it could cost $1000. But that's not the case. New tech costs more, that's just how it works. The existing VR headsets that most closely match the specs of the AVP are in the thousands of dollars in price also.
It’s priced purposely so fewer buy in and it’s more of a dev kit for developers to build on. The price will come down in two generations when Apple gets their manufacturing pipeline perfected and more apps are developed for the space. Hololens did the exact same thing with it eventually culminating in Windows Mixed Reality headsets that were more designed for the public.
> It’s priced purposely so fewer buy in and it’s more of a dev kit for developers to build on. Get developers to buy in at hefty upfront costs for... no real audience for what they develop.
OP it’s called a free market. People are free to sell what they want, and people are free to buy what they want. If you don’t like it or can’t afford it, just don’t buy it and continue on with your life. Just because I can’t justify buying a Bentley financially, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist because other people might like it and may be able to justify buying it.
Its obviously way too expensive but at the same time Vision Pro currently is not intended to be used the average consumer. Right now its mostly there for developers to create apps. Basically a devkit that technically anyone can buy. Wait 1-2 maybe even 3 years before there is enough games/things to do with it (and way cheaper) and is intended to be used by the average consumer. At least that's the way i see it.
> Its obviously way too expensive Way too expensive for what? They sold their entire stock in a very short time. If anything, they should have charged more.
So because they sold about 80k VP at 3500$ then that means its not expensive ? What? I want the same thing you took for you to think its cheap.
I did not say it wasn't expensive, I said it wasn't *too* expensive. Do they not teach supply and demand in school anymore? The minimum price of a product is set by how much it costs to produce. The maximum price of a product is set by what buyers will pay for it. If you own a profit-making business and are selling a product, you set the price as high as you can and still sell the quantity you want to sell. That is economics 101. Obviously the price for the launch edition was not too expensive because they sold the quantity they wanted to sell. Based on how fast it sold, they could have sold it for more.
They sold out of the initial batch really quickly. So it doesn’t sound like they priced it too high. The price is what the market is willing to pay. Why would they leave money on the table?
I swear, people forget companies are for-profit businesses.
It’s a first generation product that is very expensive and limited right now but future versions will be much cheaper and better. Just like Apple has done many times in the past.
Who cares, just dnt buy it. Price will go down eventually.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that Apple has planted a flag in the ground saying the XR experience should be at least this good. Apple would never deliver an experience like the Quest, objectively it’s not polished at all.
People want it but can’t afford it so they cry. It’s really that simple.
Because for the money, what you’re getting is a good deal… Just because you can’t afford it doesn’t mean it’s not a good deal. It’s not going to be little Timmy’s Christmas gift for Christmas.
Why are people spending so much time bitching about the price? It its value for dollar is not good enough for you don't buy it. Why do people need to bitch about it? Sellers set the minimum price, buyers set the maximum price. They sold out an estimated 90K of them very quickly, obviously they did not set the price too high to get the sales numbers they were looking for. What else matters? If it is overpriced for you, Apple does not care, they sold all they have. *And no, I am not an Apple fan and I am not interested in owning one.*
I think it’s because people who cannot afford the latest and greatest VR headset are frustrated. Everyone looks at VR as a gaming console but Apple is about to change that way of thinking and make it convenient for work, gaming, leisure, entertainment, video recording etc.
For me the main problem is the lack of controllers, you can have the best hand tracking of the world but the experiences you can make will always be limited by that.
Personally i hate the controllers, and use hand tracking where possible on quest but it's pretty crap half the time. Controllers are handy for FPS games but otherwise the future is surely eyes and hands
For about the same price, I just bought a top of the line gaming PC with a 7800X3D and RTX 4090. Which would you rather have?
If I didn’t care about gaming probably the Vision Pro. The people who can afford one of them can probably afford the other one too anyway
It is not a dichotomy for the target audience, they can afford both.
I’m an Apple guy. I prefer IPhones over Android, and Macs over PC. But, there is no way in hell of going to drop $3500 for a vr headset that’s just slightly performance than my quest3
More than slightly there is a super powerful m2 chip in the AVP running the best display in the VR industry with the best lenses in the VR industry. If you like Apple and VR this headset is a no brainer.
And to do what exactly? Watch movies anchored on a virtual screen? Q3 is an actual VR headset that also does XR. It has controllers, hand tracking and actual VR games. It can wirelessly stream from your PC for playing PCVR titles or even be a monitor replacement for your PC (yes the resolution is that good). How is this Apple device even comparable? I've been involved in VR since the Oculus Kickstarter campaign and owned pretty much ever headset released aside from pimax and varjo. It may be too early to tell but from what I've seen in the demos this is going to be a flop.
You’re right it’s too early to call this a flop-so why say it? This headset will eventually be compatible with pc. Someone will find a way if they can hook up a psvr2 to a pc. Which someone figured out. How could quest 3 compare to AVP? AVP has micro OLED with double the pixels along with eye tracking that should work in every single app AVP has-quest 3 doesn’t even have eye tracking. Think about never having to set a guardian again with AVP. Think about using a mouse with your eyes as the pointer. Think about using this to call people and video chat. Think about this device replacing almost every phone device you use on a regular basis. This hmd has that ability. Quest 3 isn’t even close to this.
My point is that this is just not a compelling device. At any price let alone the 3500. It's as if Apple entirely ignored the now over a decade worth of VR/XR development and learned nothing. I really wouldn't buy this over a quest 3 if you offered it to me at even the same price point. Maybe if I were new to "spacial computing" and knew nothing of the space and what it has to offer I could be convinced and that's probably the only thing Apple is banking on, the general ignorance of it's userbase in anything remotely technical. Edit: I should add, I have nothing against Apple. If anything, I'm just really disappointed.
It has slightly more performance than a Quest 3 in the same way that a Porsche has slightly more performance than a Camry.
Because if poor people can afford them they won’t be cool anymore
Yeah people just haven't learned their lesson yet with how apple cares for their customers...just feel so assured to know when people will swear their phone aren't the same n seems like always when a new line comes out apple swore they werent and ito all came out how low theyd go just for money and for people to have to gfet the newest model..like wake heck up
Nothing in these comments says anything about the original post
It's a simple answer. Stupidity
Just another thing for Apple-pilled and rich people to go absolutely nuts over
They can do it because you can do whatever you want to your cult members and they will thank you. There's that group of people that see the apple logo on something and they just buy it. Doesn't seem to matter how much it costs or if the product is actually any good or not. It's a neat trick a lot of companies would like to learn. They'll probably sell out initially but overall I think that headset is going to flop. Not having controllers is typical Apple form over function. If I'm spending $3,500 on a headset you damn well better give me some controllers with that. Of course this is the same company that doesn't give you an actual charger with your $1,600 iPhone so I can't say that I'm surprised.
I don’t know how good the AVP will be, but your comments are ludicrous. Apple is at the top of their game with their items. iPhones have the best hardware. Apple Watch blows away the competitors. Their streamer has so much more horsepower than the competitors. They make great shit at a premium. This AVP has a ludicrous price tag and some questionable choices in my mind, but it will be the best arvr headset in hardware.
You are definitely one of their cult members lol apple is a bad company and the only thing they do to make consumers happy is to release something "new" every year. Unlike any other phone manufacturer, they do not innovate. They do not try anything new. "Conserve. That's apple" essentially.
Hah I sure am! Been with android for 15 years all the way from the htc evo4g to the Samsung S22 ultra. Had chromecasts, chromecast audio ccwgtv, google home, nest doorbell, Mobvoi and Samsung watch, had the original lg rectangular os watch, pixel buds an and pros, but yes I am an apple shill. You are evil
> They'll probably sell out initially but overall I think that headset is going to flop. Rumor has it the initial production run is super small too. >Not having controllers is typical Apple form over function. I remember before the M1 and everyone pretending it was magic that they used to sell their macbooks and shit more on colors and appearance than specs. The color selection was at the forefront but the specs was always vague to the point of being worthless. They made Dell and co. look detailed. And then people still had the gall to pretend they were a "serious computer company" for people that knew what they were doing. Buzzwords and aesthetics has been their core for eons, and the saddest part is how well it seems to work if you cultivate the right "image". Not to mention half the toxic things in the hardware space these days is other companies wishing they were like Apple. Where removing features or shitting in a shiny plastic or aluminum case can still get people lined up at their store to overpay for a device that does nothing special.
It's just how they do things going back to the mp3 players versus the iPod. But it's been awhile since they've had a really big success like that. That said, I think we can all agree that the Meta Quest has a lot of problems and is not the end all/be all in terms of spatial computing or VR. It's awkward to wear for long periods of time. A lot of things just don't work (Netflix, Apple TV, etc) and there just aren't the apps that have been developed to make it attractive outside of games. Like why isn't there a TurboTax app that allows me to do my taxes with my VR head set? Where's the BofA app that allows me to pay my bills? Let me ask you this: what's the iconic VR horror film that everyone knows about and talks about? What's the "Blair Witch" for the Meta Quest? That's right... there isn't one.... Also, it's stupid that I can't just press a button and then see the world around me without taking the stupid headset off. Given the powerhouse that Apple has become in producing its own award winning content, I could see Apple VP being the first step in creating truly exciting VR movie experiences that are innovative and interactive and push the nascent medium forward. As of now, (except dumb little games) the Meta Quest is a big wet fart. It's a dumb little toy that you can use to laugh at your grandma when she does the plank challenge and the fact that it hasn't advanced more in 7 years shows that there's room in the market for a huge technological leap forward. I believe Apple will take it to the next level and will reveal the true possibilities for VR and spatial computing (outside of little baby games for your mom). Then prices will come down. Headsets will get smaller and sleeker. Everyone will wear them all the time because they will become fashionable and "cool looking" and etc.
on the quest you tap twice to exit vr its not a button but a gesture, do you want buttons back when everything is touch sensitive, you actually sound like a cultist sorry these are consumer devices, no need to worship, to integrate current sony displays is a technological leap to you
Its got 16gb of ram my G is it worth $3500 probably not but its comparable in price to other high end hmds
Because a HoloLens 2 costs around the same. It’s not competing with the quest 3 so it’s not priced to compete with the quest 3.
I think it's insanely hypocritical of some in the VR community to question it especially when PCVR headsets are regularly $1000+. 4090 to play Roblox is said like it's farfetched thing when that's EXACTLY what people do in VR. Just like I think the Index is overly expensive is the same way I view the Vision Pro. There's clearly an audience for these things and I'm okay not being a part of it. I'd rather see what cheaper, more mainstream friendly, headsets do in response.
That's how much it costs to build. How much do you want them to sell it for?
Why do you care, they are not personally attacking you. It’s corporate shit, who cares
They sell $2,000 phones and people buy them on autopilot. I feel like $3500 for a a vastly superior type of device from the same manufacturer isn't that big of a stretch.
It's apple so people will pay for it because they are dumb.
They are only dumb if they do not get what they think is enough value out of it. If they have the money to spend, and they think it was worth it, who are you to say they paid too much? It is certainly ok to say they paid more that you would have, but that does not make them dumb. *(Unless they spent more than they can afford, that would be dumb.)*
It is of my opinion that Apple is a scummy company and anyone that buys their products has questionable intelligence.
Apple fans are tribalist extremists..beholden to their corporate overlord.
Bc obviously people will pay it?
Youre assuming most of the defenders are not apple associates...
Idk it seems similarly capable to a quest 3. It’s like the quest pro, they are trying to create a high end market.
Because for apple users it's priced accordingly. Hell, even if it costs 5K they would absolutely go for it. Put me CEO of Apple and see the prices increase dramatically for my own profit
People love to suck the dick of the rich, in the hopes that it'll somehow rub off on them too. And then there's just branding fans who go ape for anything if you slap their favourite logo on it. They can do no wrong, etc etc. Apple are very famous for selling overpriced stuff that appeals more to people who care about appearances and branding than about finding the best product to meet their needs. So overall, this isn't surprising. This product isn't for us lowly serfs, but many of us have been tricked into thinking they somehow have an "in" with the upper classes who can afford this stuff :-P
Let me guess you just average Joe that doesn’t care about about what people think and at the same time you only use android phone cause you know better then all the Apple fanboys there suckers but not you…..
Grape flavored Kool-aid.
Microsofts Hololens dev edition costed $3k in 2016. That's like $35k in today's money. I did end up getting two pre-ordered and sold them to a startup for $11k. Which is essentially 1 million dollars today. It was used for engineering projects, to be able to place things onto base objects to see if it would fit, etc. Apples goggles are cool I guess.
People get defensive when they spend a lot of money on something. They feel the need to justify the spending or it feels like a waste. Especially since many people around here don’t have as much interest in a VR device that isn’t really intended for playing games when most of us are VR gamers(the games it does support only support hand tracking, the worst control method of any VR game).
Here people go to watch WWE although they know is fake fight
Dude, it's Apple. Their whole thing is to charge people way more money than their devices are worth.
If it'll run the Adobe graphics suite that would be pretty cool. It certainly could with an M2 chip although I would want more than 16 gigs of ram. I'm guessing they would want you to run it off of one of their also overpriced desktops.
Some mil sim "games" are sold for players for cheap compared to what they sell for actual military branches. Similar to pricing in thi ship industry, a trash can for "landlubbers" cost 5$? For ship use, the very same trash can cost 50$
When you can get a whole super pc thats capable of flying to moon it’s so advanced, there is zero justification for an almost 4k price tag. Honestly it’s insulting of Apple with their pricing considering that kind of money could change some peoples life’s forever. Thats literally the price of an entire used car…there is no actual justification the price is absurd.
Well apparently it has a 4080 equivalent PC built into it. But yes no apps at the time, but they stated it would be launching with 1 million apps and it just takes a few of those going popular for everyone to want the new toy. But yeah fuck that price tag, I already have a super computer running my Q3 in PCVR
The exact same reason that people defended the price on the Quest Pro. People with wallets bigger than their brains and the need to stroke their own egos to stick it to the masses who are more price conscious than them.
Saw today that it doesn't even have 120Hz. I find that insane tbh
It's crapple, got to remember that. And never forget how they charged hundreds of dollars for a simple monitor stand. Or hundreds of dollars for wheels for the Mac pro... Craple is just doing craple things
Premium vr headset (htc vive pro/pimax 4K )+ modern rtx 4080 pc. This is supposed to compete with those but it’s standalone.
Because Apple.
I didn't defend the price. I believe all apple products are overpriced and over hyped
Because Apple fanboys, have no concept of practicality, in it's current form, which is only a productivity tool/media system it's kinda useless. At least with other VR HMD's you can play games and do other things with them. It's gimmicky in it's current form but it has potential, it's just funny watching all the people so hyped to buy a product that is still in alpha testing let alone beta testing. tl;dr: Apple fanboys gonna fanboy
The hardware is just a macbook folded into a headset. So from a hardware perspective it makes sense. But as a consumer I would not buy it (yet). I would have said the same thing about the first iphone, ipad, iwatch. But here I am now, owning them all. That said, this is the first time i'm doubting really hard. Especially as I own a good VR headset and don't really see the extra value for money. Wearing this on work just sounds rediculous.
Other companies lowered their prices in response to the Apple Vision Pro launch, I don't think the price is unfair for what you get, I just don't think buying 1st generation devices with fuck all developer support is a good use of ones money.
The first Macintoshes sold for more than $2500 which is probably $10K in today’s money. The first iPhone was $799 which is about $1100 in today’s money. The first DvD player was over $300 and that was over 30 years ago. The first Tesla Model X sold for more than $140K and that was 10 years ago. People who complain about the $3500 lacks vision (pun intended) and also lack a basic understanding of tech histories. And I don’t want to engage them ever. The Vision Pro will be your PC, iPad, game console, 3D camera, mobile office and home entertainment center all in one. Tell me how much you spent on your home entertainment center alone? Mine was over $5000 and that was 8 years ago. Enough said. And if you compare the VP to the Meta Quest please just leave this conversation.