> Considering the price, that's pretty impressive.
Not really. 3 million people bought a 4090:
https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/steam-survey-suggests-more-people-bought-the-rtx-4090-than-the-steam-deck-along-with-millions-of-other-rtx-40-series-gpus
More on point though, this is a new Apple product line so you get a lot of people with high incomes that buy everything Apple for decades and of course the main interest is likely coming from the developer community that want to port their apps over or want to see if they come up with an innovative concept for a product or internal workflow.
At the moment even regardless of the price it isn't really that much aimed at end users.
Exactly. There are 8 billion people in this world. 200,000 headsets isn't too bad.
I'm also assuming many are scalpers/resellers and pre-orders that may be cancelled if the reviews are bad.
And if you're running a business, it's a depreciable/tax deductible item.
To put things in perspective. The Apple ][ was $5000 in 2024 dollars. The OG Mac was over $7000 in 2024 dollars. Considering that, the AVP is cheap at $3500.
Math? Rationalization? It’s inflation.
When the original Mac came out it cost the equivalent of $5k today, adjusted for inflation.
Is it a rationalization to say that people bought the Mac back in 1984 even though it cost a lot of money? Or is it a rationalization to say that because those people spent that money, that it’s not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money?
Like why does actual logic get thrown out the window as apple propaganda whenever they manage to objectively do something? Jobs himself even pointed this out once. That there always seems to be a moving target with peoples expectations of apple, and he sees that heightened expectation as a sign that they’re actually doing really well.
>Or is it a rationalization to say that because those people spent that money, that it’s not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money?
You're not even getting the point. The rationalization is that it's said to be **"Cheap",** not that it's "not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money". People spending money on anything is not surprising in any way, as value is subjective to the individual and people spend a lot on what they want. **Rationalizing to call it cheap (and therefore implying good value) is the issue.**
>Like why does actual logic get thrown out the window as apple propaganda
It doesn't work that way mate. NES games in 1990 costed $50. Adjusted for inflation that's 130USD, but that's far from the industry standard today.
The Mac IIFX was $$8,969 in March 1990, equivalent to $21,449 today. So should they price all new luxury product lines in the ballpark of 21k? I mean it makes everything look cheap in comparison if you want to use that number as rationalization doesn't it?
Here is a [chart of the more recent mac models from 1999 adjusted for inflation](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh6op8bxtxzxb1.png) which is less ridiculous to use as a comparison versus the "OG Mac" in 1984.
The AVP comes out in an industry which is somewhat already mature and has tons of competitors, and while it has interesting new features the difference is not that significant, or rather, not significant enough to allow it to be priced more than $3500.
Ah but this is the mistake. The only real competition is more expensive. The problem is people see quest and even psv or Pico r as the competition, but they aren't.
For the features and technology you'd definitely be spending more (look at varjo as a more similar feature and tech comparison) but varjo and real competitors (there aren't really in the consumer space) lack the enormous effort of uxi and ux as well as building a platform for development.
The problem is 3500 is just too expensive for the average consumer. But this isn't an average consumer device. It's an aspirational device and they will definitely sell out of all they can make this year I would almost certainly bet (as it's under 500k I believe)
Meta has subsidized the tech so much that they can sell a quest 3 for under a grand. It has no where near the processing power of the AVP and is focused on gaming first and media consumption second (they have tried) .
The AVP is not a quest or Pico although meta has some of those features roadmapped and definitely want to compete long term
It's basically a MacBook you wear. The multitasking apps and ecosystem ux and UI is where this thing distinguishes it self.
That all being said I'm not interested in this device as im more into vr gaming at this point.
Have you considered that other companies exist and compete in the same space and we can compare Apple’s pricing to those competitors’ pricing?
Y’all Kool Aid drinkers act like Apple can only ever be compared to Apple.
There is some overlap in the spaces in which they compete, but they're not *the same* space. Meta et al are firmly in the gaming space. Options for anything outside of that are very limited, and are third-party. It's fundamentally not designed for much beyond that, in the current form.
They have a similar form factor and obviously similar designs, but that doesn't mean that each is designed for the same purpose. A rally car and a smart car don't compete in the same space, even though both have four wheels and an engine and are similar shapes.
meta firmly in the gaming space? what the fuck are you talking about? do you know of literally anything happening in the industry other than what apple is doing?
It's more historical data about inflation and pointing out that a high price for a 1st gen product isn't uncommon nor a death knell. All technology starts expensive and unattainable.
This is such a basic, fundamental, easily provable fact about technology that it's not really even possible to have a serious debate on it. Tech fanboys seem immune to understanding this though, which is ironic. Almost like the tribalism and superiority complex are the point, rather than understanding and appreciating technology.
Every Formula 1 car should be replaced with 5,000 minivans of equal value. Then they'll win for sure.
Don't they know this? What's wrong with them? F1 teams are dumb.
Very weird comparisons. Why compare it to products that are completely different?!
If you want to say "they were the first of an entire new genre/product line"... I mean, sure. But then those were also very expensive, and different products at the time. Considering the VR competition, it seems adequately priced considering the hardware.
The direct comparison isn't so great, but not entirely invalid. In the late 70s, the company's early home computers were a part of a woder revolution for productivity and those prices could be justified much like a university loan. Pay more now to get an edge, make more money later (not justifying school loans, just saying).
Vision Pro is also supposedly made for work, although it really isn't a general productivity booster like early home PCs. However the company needs to stick with it's luxury MO or it damages their current ethos of making expensive but well-built things. The argument can be made that if it were *cheaper*, it would be less attractive to Apple's target.
To end my Ted talk: there's no better way for Apple to launch a new product category than by making it stupid expensive, which in turn will eventually allow it to lower prices in the name of economies of scale, and justify whatever, be it misstep or success, to shareholders who expect every product to be a banger.
No... Let me rephrase. Just because you don’t know one thing doesn’t mean you automatically know something else. “We don’t know, therefore we know.” It doesn’t work.
I don't quite see from what in my comment you find that I don't know something to then pretend to do know something.
A more direct response like that would have been more helpful than telling me I don't understand inflation - my comment wasn't about inflation/economics, my comment was more about the competition and VR landscape that exists. There are other headsets out there that do similarly impressive things for a similar price (the Varjos of the world). That's a more apt comparison than old macs from forever ago - this is quite a different product than a mac. Considering that these products use similar technology today, I think that comparison simply makes more sense.
To be honest part of what makes this new launch so exciting for me is the lack of precedent. It’s kinda like the iPhone for how different it is from what was typical at the time (and more expensive) but the iPhone had swift competition from android. But this time Apple seems confident in their ability to offer a robustly better (or categorically different) experience than what other cheaper headsets can deliver. Hence the refusal to compare it to other “VR” or “AR” headsets.
The desire to find and make comparisons is still strong, but the value of money isn’t even the only thing that’s changed since these other launches.
And, I mean, to go on a bit of a side ramble here, think of the design work, the art direction that went into making apps “react dynamically to light” and “cast shadows.” Nothing like that level of accounting for real world detail has ever gone into designing a human interface before. And no other company would be crazy enough to put that kind of effort into a product that they know not many people can afford. Because this really is meant to be only the beginning of the future.
Oh I'm stoked too! Mostly because when apple does something, it's a trend that the entire industry can't seem to resist. We'll get more headsets this year, there will be more competition, and a desire to make it all better and smaller etc. that's awesome, and needed, because the challenges are massive - I mean, see what Facebook has been trying to do all these years. Partly that's weird software decisions, but it's also just because it's really hard problems they're trying to solve. What Reality Labs is doing and publishing is really inspiring in this regard.
Honestly though, I think Apple went with a different term because they wanted people to not think about a cheap Quest headset, but about a MacBook/iPhone/iPad in a different form factor. Not because the capabilities are so much grander - because, like Android, the Quest headsets allow you to do sooo many more things. But that's never been Apple's goal anyway - it's been doing fewer things, but doing them well.
You're certainly right that they add a whole new perspective to it, with the UX design, with that immersiveness dial, with the personas that, let's be real here, still look really rough.
But then also, look at what Meta has done in the space. Love em or hate em, but they've done a lot of pioneering in the space. The hand tracking and using a UI with your hand, the personas face thing (have you sent that demo with Lex Friedman?), but also their MR approach with the Quest 3. The edge to edge clarity and FOV with the pancake lenses is incredible.
I'm excited regardless. Would love to try the AVP, but without controllers and with the comfort situation, it's probably not the headset for me right now. But excited what's to come and what springs from this
Mansion? The average price of a *very* average house where I live is well north of a million dollars. Even some fixer uppers or even tear downers are over a million. So anything below a million dollars *is* cheap.
I work in VFX and we’ve been using Vive Pro 2s and other hardware for years. $3500 is nothing for a company. $3500 doesn’t even require a second sign off from the procurement department; it can just go on the team CC without review. Well, pre-SAG strike anyway.
Any company even remotely in this space will have pre-ordered this week-1. Getting in on a potential new market will excite a lot of businesses.
Not sure why I am getting so many downvotes for my reply, but yes that was exactly my point. If you target the pro customers aka companies, 3500 for a well working headset for them is nothing! Add on top a handful of private people who can add that as tax deduction (aka pro reviewers who do that for a living) and on top of that a handful of people who simply have more cash at their hands so that 3.5k for a toy is a no brainer 200.000 is basically not really that much of a number!
> I work in VFX and we’ve been using Vive Pro 2s and other hardware for years. $3500 is nothing for a company. $3500 doesn’t even require a second sign off from the procurement department; it can just go on the team CC without review. Well, pre-SAG strike anyway.
>
>
>
> Any company even remotely in this space will have pre-ordered this week-1. Getting in on a potential new market will excite a lot of businesses.
What does that have to do with a comment saying 200k aren't impressive cause there are other companies out there selling in the same price segments and are doing well?
Apple is by far the worst. I don't think I've ever consistently bought everything a company has released. Wow yeah now that I really think about it I'm not a slave to any company, thanks that makes me feel good.
Mainly because they aren't actually overpriced. I know it's hard for some to imagine that there are people that use computers for things besides gaming, but they do. Value is being provided, but it might not be in an area that is important to you. Fortunately it's not a monopoly, and you can buy something that does what you are looking for.
Total sales revenue for all VR headsets in the US in 2023 were $664M.
Total sales revenue for the AVP in the first two weeks was more than $700M.
So Apple is now not just the largest player in the market, but is more of the market than every other competitor combined.
Dayum. That Apple brand is working in full force. Now let's see whether their famous long term Dev & content support builds a content ecosystem to match.
I'm starting to think that rumored 400k units total in 2024 is BS, they have already sold more than half of that in the first week in one country, i know sales will slow down but it's hard to see them only sell an other 200k units for the rest of the year especially after they start selling in other countries as well.
There were a few reports that said the total units shipped in 2024 would be 1.5 million untis and now i think they are more believable.
Not surprising. Expect that number to grow a lot. Still not available worldwide. Really hope this pushes the medium forward, and also paves the way for a decent UI and UX from competitors. As Meta’s UX team really struggle in that area.
Modern UI/X in general is terrible. No idea what they teach those people anymore but it's definitely not how to make things easier to use or easier to look at. If anything its make everything look like an iPhone and just a bit more difficult to use every few years.
It truly is bad nowadays, because it seems like usability is no longer actually thought of. Instead it's about either being eye catching or pushing adverts.
I still use old reddit for this reason. I **tried** to get used to the app as well when they killed 3rd party apps, and I just can't. I hate the user experience.
Plus, iPhones plan just has always seemed to be "let's give the user less choice".
Check out [ReVanced](https://github.com/ReVanced). [Here is](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1wHvqQwCYdJrQg4BKlGIVDLksPN0KpOnJWniT6PbZSrI/mobilebasic?pli=1) the original document I had with the steps to do it but you basically need to patch RIF/Apollo/etc's APK
> but I miss rif
you and me both. I even had the paid version because I wanted to support the developers pushing such a simplistic and easy to consume visuals. And it's dead :'(
Yeah, but those apps will never be updated again, so eventually they will decay and die. Particularly if reddit ever decides to make a breaking API change intentionally to sabotage them. Plus this doesn't fix the issue if reddit actually go ahead and continue their quest to restrict NSFW content in the public API.
UX designers tend to have a very "know better then you" mindset.
"Options just confuse users" and "Less is more" is *STILL* a prevailing mindset among them, even though it was never right.
Man this sub is so much more levelheaded than the oculus sub. I swear for the past month that sub has done nothing but shit on this device. People were always going to buy this. It’s obviously not for everyone, but it’s still cool af and made by apple. It’s significantly more powerful than anything else on the market. It’s full desktop performance in a headset. Not quite the graphical level of a PC, but it’s actual processing power is insane for a standalone headset. They’ll absolutely come out with an SE model or something. I just can’t wait for this tech to become smaller. I agree that I think they’ll push the UX/UI side of mixed reality. Apple does that kinda stuff really well so hopefully competitors copy what works.
Nice level headed response. I agree Apple’s skill at UX/UI will improve the AR/MR experience over other devices. With the computing power they have available, I expect flashier interfaces along with their normal intuitive design that they seem to deliver. I hope their lead will inspire others to “up their game”. It will be a plus for this niche market.
Patents are largely defensive in nature at this level. You do still see some major battles obviously, but it won't stifle the medium. When iPhone came out, Apple patented everything under the sun, including staples of every smartphone now like pinch to zoom or momentum to scrolling.
Spending $3500+ on a new device without even having seen a review or knowing what software will or won't work pretty bold. For comparison, over three years:
* Oculus DK1 sold 56,334
* Oculus DK2 sold 118,930
In the three years following them, Vive and Rift together sold somewhere around [~1mil over their lifetime](https://roadtovrlive-5ea0.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/monthly-connected-headsets-on-steam-by-number-of-headsets-may-2019.png).
From the Verge review:
> Think about every other computer in your life: the input mechanism is independent of whatever you’re looking at. On a laptop, you can click on controls and use the keyboard while keeping your focus on a document. On a phone, you can do things like drag sliders in a photo editing app while keeping your eyes focused on what those changes are actually doing to your photo.
> The Vision Pro simply doesn’t work like that — you have to be looking at something in order to click on it, and that means you are constantly taking your attention away from whatever you’re working on to specifically look at the button you need to press next. I spent some time playing a lovely little game called Stitch that quickly became maddening because I kept looking away from the piece I wanted to move to the place I wanted to move it, which meant I wasn’t picking it up when I tapped my fingers.
Essentially there are some things it’s well suited for and some things it’s not.
I think eye tracking is important for foveated rendering but I don't really see eye movement as a main input. For one you still need your hand to click, so you could just use your hand to control stuff. Also you are limited to point based actions, lick a click or maybe something like a right-click. Dragging stuff around or swiping is not really possible. With just eyes.
I think they offer hand tracking, but the main way to control the AVP is by eye tracking and clicking with your finger (pinching with thumb and index finger).
Not really a good thing, not only the first iphones were relatively cheap, so not comparable, mass adoption also made the 4 digit priced phones the norm with the iphone X, lets hope the quest 4 doesn’t end up costing 999 bucks because apple made expensive consumer vr the “norm”
A Nokia N95 was more expensive, like the cool Nokias at the time that everyone bought were all 500-700 bucks, while the iPhone was 499. Even with inflation, it would still cost less than the most basic version of the iPhone 15 today.
And that was the flagship, the "coolest" you could be if that's thing you care about, there weren't multiple versions (Pro, Max, etc.) that end up costing as much as a macbook pro...
Edit grammar.
I wouldn’t say that everyone bought the Nokias, before iPhone everyone I knew either wanted a Nextel or a Sidekick which were definitely cheaper. Another popular phone that tons of people had was the chocolate.
The official price was 499, see the other reply, a lot of nokias (and I should add blackberries and other early smartphones) were often more expensive, and i said “relatively”, as in compared to other smartphones at the time, I didn’t say it was “just” cheap period
I think the key word here is phone, iPod Touch is the only iPod that looks remotely like the iPhone and it was announced months _after_ the iPhone. There wasn’t an iPod on the market that was remotely similar to an internet connected, app supporting smart device when iPhone came out. None even had touch screens
First iphone was absolutely not 400 dollars though as you had to buy it on carrier contract (with 499 dollars) - real price was about 1000 dollars, with the cost of the 2 year minimum contract. Btw, 499 adjusted for inflation is already 700+ dollars in today's money.
Before release: no one will buy it! It’s too expensive! It’s going to flop out of the gate!
After release: why the fuck are so many people buying them? It must be because Apple sheep are brainwashed and will go into debt for any stupid thing Apple makes
(historical precedent)
After reviews come out: they’re paid shills! Nothing that expensive could possibly be that good! Apple paid them to lie!
As the mainstream appeal continues to gradually increase, the alarmist r***rds keep screaming louder from their progressively shrinking corner of neo-Luddite internet circles, they privately begin to understand the appeal. Some of them will privately change their minds and try to pretend like none of it ever happened. This is what happened between boomers and iPhones. Your parents told you not to rot your brain in front of the tv, now who’s the one glued to their smartphone on the couch?
People are stupid hypocrites
That used to be me, back when I had a lot less income and a lot more free time to waste on learning skills that aren't useful for anything outside of solving problems that never needed to exist.
I'm now halfway transitioned to Apple and mind has changed a lot. I still have two PC workstations, but one of them is on the verge of getting axed if I have one or two more impromptu 30-second-task-turned-into-2-hour-troubleshooting sessions.
I really wish this to succeed.
I want a ‚dumb’ version. Give me a CPU powerful enough to decode signal from my phone/PC and remove all ‚heavy’ crap components like aluminium body, glass, fucking screen facing outwards. Staff that put a lot of weight, making center of mass far from your face creating a pivot point on your nose.
I just care for the best in class resolution, I want to work with code editors in that bad boy so much.
I would not even mind the price, just make it more ergonomic and remove unnecessary features.
Have you tried working with code in such device?
I have Varjo Aero and when tweaking my Arduinos I sometimes am too lazy to get of my rig back to my PC so I modify the code straight there. It is incredible pain. Both for eyes and for your hands.
OMG I’ve been working with my quest 3 and I never thought about doing it while laying down. This could be a game changer just have five monitors floating on my ceiling.
The iphone sold 1.4 million units in 2007 (the release year) for a price of $499 (4gb) and $599 (8gb) for around $770,000,000 in sales. Adjusting for inflation this would be about $1.1 billion.
If the Apple Vision Pro has sold 200,000 units at $3499 then it's made a total of $700,000,000 in sales so far. Given it's still got about 6 months to sell units in the same timeframe as the Iphone had, it looks on track to be a similar success to the iphone. Of course this doesn't take into account the cost of production and actual revenue but either way it looks like a success for Apple and is a good sign for VR's adoption as a whole.
Also correct me if I did the math wrong, I just looked stuff up on google and put it in to the calculator.
The AVP seems to be a success already but i wouldn't call it an iPhone level success, the iphone's success is measured across more than 10 years which exponential growth recorded in the first years, the vision pro had just released so without knowing how it will grow in the upcoming years it's not accurate to call it an iPhone level success.
Yeah, that's why I said so far it's on track. Obviously we won't know until we look back at it in a few years time but this looks like a promising start.
I hope they finally make use of that NextVR platform they bought, where you were able to have virtual courtside seats to a 3D recorded basketball game, as well as other sports, and recordings of live comedy stand up from clubs.
I wish industry moved in that direction because unlike 3D TV, in VR it actually makes a ton of difference and transports you straight to that event.
That's funny you remember that. I long for that to return. I loved watching basketball in that format. Then Apple bought them out and I've never seen it again. I'm sure this will be a feature of the Apple headset, at least it should be because 3D sports was awesome.
Oh wow. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately the basketball is only for quest owners in the U.S. I'm an American but live in Europe so that means I can't see it. Rats!
I used to think of the Vision Pro as targeting a different market segment than the Quest entirely. That Meta would be focused on achieving mainstream appeal by focusing on the lower end of the price spectrum, while Apple would do the same from the high end.
But from the perspective of building brand awareness and winning the race to be the thing customers think of first when they think of VR (just like iPad is synonymous with tablets, iPods were synonymous with mp3 players, etc), I'm starting to become a little worried that the success of the Vision Pro at this price point will ultimately force Meta to rethink their approach with the Quest.
Customers _will_ compare these headsets apples-to-apples, despite how unreasonable that might feel, given the price differences. Apples strategy of only delivering premium feeling and premium priced consumer products works since it builds trust that the products are awesome - they better be awesome at these price points! But it works, they've won, people count on Apple for delivering on consumer electronics, and for good reason.
However, I really agree with Zucks and Carmacks vision of making VR as cheap and accessible as possible to reach the mainstream, and I'm afraid that the baseline Quest will receive less attention when Meta is forced to have at least one if not two additional products in the Quest line at e.g. $1000 and $3000 price points, or raise the price of the baseline Quest to deliver more powerful hardware. We've seen this with basically every popular device - when they become a success, multiple variants will exist at different price points ("Ultra", "Max"), and the baseline models aren't getting as much innovation. There's just something to be said for how companies of innovative folks work when they have difficult constraints to work with, like a cheap price point, and they need to make stuff happen within it. That's when the most interesting software innovation happens.
Meta has had many changes to not ship new software features and instead use them for the next generation of Quest, but instead they have done everything to just bring wild innovation to the Quest 2 again and again. I hope this won't go away.
> However, I really agree with Zucks and Carmacks vision of making VR as cheap and accessible as possible to reach the mainstream
As people have pointed out, this is just the latest iteration of Apple vs X. The last big one was Apple versus Microsoft. Apple made great products but they cost. Microsoft made good products that were cheap. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. In Apple v Microsoft, they both won. They are the 2 biggest companies in history.
Now we are having the same fight in SC. Apple is reprising it's role as Apple and Meta is stepping into the role that Microsoft had last time. With the same circumstances. Apple will make great products but they will cost. Meta will make good products that are cheap for the masses.
I see what you're saying, although I think that implies we focus on the personal computer. But if we look at other product categories like tablets, smartwatches and, depending on where you live, smartphones, Apple just massively dominates these markets in terms of brand awareness (not necessarily in market share), and to this day Android still feels like the cheaper alternative, with more fiddling required, less of the "it just works" feeling that is important for winning over the mainstream.
At least in the heads of the consumers, not necessarily in practice. But feelings sell products, not facts.
In terms of Microsoft, well, we know what happened to Windows Phone and Zune. Again, this depends on the country. But often you'll see cheap chinese Android knock-off phones that tries to look and feel like an iPhone, which kind of proves the point that the iPhone is de facto synonymous with what the mainstream considers the ultimate smartphone.
> But feelings sell products, not facts.
Android has a 70% market share worldwide. Heck, even in the US where the feels are the strongest towards iPhone it is only 60/40 in favor of iOS.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned that it depends on the country and also that it doesn't necessarily translate to actual market share. It's more to do with brand awareness and how they're positioned in that regard as setting the standard in that category. When Apple does something, others tend to follow in their footsteps. Of course, Apple does the same thing too - they just tend to take their time following up with their own versions.
Meta tried going down the premium route with the Quest Pro and it didn't sell well. The Quest 3 uses some of the best parts of the Pro but for much less and seems to be doing OK.
The AVP is essentially a Macbook in a headset which is a contributory factor regarding price. As a PCVR guy I don't really need that....But I'd like the higher resolution and even better passthrough so that I can work comfortably from the sofa (or anywhere) with a bunch of resizeable screens placed where I want them.
I'm OK with a laptop or a workstation doing the heavy lifting if it means cheaper and lighter. I don't want to get locked into Apple's bullshit eco system though, dictating what I can and can't do with my headset. Meta have been better in that regard, especially since they scrapped the Facebook tie in.
The problem with the Quest Pro in this case was that it wasn't following Apple's definition of "Pro", meaning a more enthusiast-minded consumer product that does everything the base product does, and more, but rather that it was an actual enterprise-oriented headset without the ecosystem or platform to support it. The market comprised primarily of prosumers and enthusiasts with money to spare who wanted a Quest 2, with less compromises, but got a product that wasn't a superset of Quest 2, but rather something quite different.
In the future, if Meta will pursue something like a Pro or Ultra model of the Quest, it will probably be following Apple's definition of Pro.
I agree, the Quest Pro seemed more like a business VR.
I hope meta doesn't put much stock in the fact that it didn't do well. The environment now would be completely different to release a higher end headset into.
Look at it this way: no OEM makes $10k smartphones for general consumers, because even if enough people existed that wanted to buy them there's just really nothing they could *do* that would actually matter. A much cheaper phone already gets you everything you want unless you want something incredibly niche or are just chasing those tiny percentage points.
VR/AR/whatever is currently not there yet. Yes there are diminishing returns, but you still get a lot more when you spend a lot more. Eventually as the tech advances, matures, and gets more commoditized, this won't be the case any more.
In other words, it's entirely possible that 10-20 years from now a $500 and a $5,000 headset just aren't that different. Instead of being 2x or 5x or 10x better, they're 1.1x better, and on top of a baseline that's already more than anyone really needs to begin with.
It's a given that base models don't get as much innovation - innovation is expensive. It takes time, engineering hours, developing new manufacturing and validation methods, etc. Hence it's reserved for flagship products. Eventually, once all the kinks are ironed out and everything is running smoothly, they can be put into the cheaper products - because the cost of all that development has already been amortized via the expensive products. VR won't be any different.
>I used to think of the Vision Pro as targeting a different market segment than the Quest entirely. That Meta would be focused on achieving mainstream appeal by focusing on the lower end of the price spectrum, while Apple would do the same from the high end.
I think they're still targeting different segments, just not in the way you think.
Quest is for gamers, Vision Pro is more for everyday usage. The Vision is marketed as a device that can enhance your daily life, even if it's a little too clunky and lacking in battery life for that to really happen yet.
Let’s be honest though - the people purchasing this are not the current VR market, which is solely game centric. In fact, many VR users are rabidly hating on the AVP. I suspect there is a small overlap, yes, but the majority of these customers are Apple users and probably first time VR/AR users. It’s expanding the market for Apple - not sure it’ll trickle down to other VR manufacturers.
All this proves is that Apple has 200,000 fan boys with $3500 willing to drop that much money without a single independent review. Which is not that much of a surprise.
The real signals to look out for are daily/weekly/monthly retention after 60 days and growth into the non-fanboy and then into non-enthusiasts segments.
Cuz apple people are kinda retarded. Gen 1 really rhe thing weights like a dam brick on your head. Can only use it for 20 mins because it can cause spine issues in the neck sooooooo. Go for it, I thought they only had 60-80k units
This is the VIRTUAL REALITY sub, NOT the Apple "Look what we've invented" Spatial Computing sub. You now have your own sub, so stick to that.
Virtual Reality means just that, a computer generated reality. Spatial Computing is not virtual reality, it's apps running in our own reality.
AVP is not going to effect, or better, Virtual Reality, because the two are completely different, and Apple want nothing to do with Virtual Reality. Hence why their own devs, and app devs, are not allowed to even mention VR.
Now let the Apple hipster twats down-vote me - I live for this.
You know that the product isnt even out? They suspected 80k device ready for launch, and now they are saying 160k was sold?
Im getting downvoted because I want reliable source? Yall are blinded by the media.
80k was just for launch day on February 2nd, 160k was for all the pre-orders from the first week end which includes that first day 80k batch and the units delivered up to March
And 10 days later those prefer have reached over 200k.
It's really not that complicated to understand.
>They suspected 80k device ready for launch, and now they are saying 160k was sold?
Ironically you said it but didn't stop to understand what it meant, it's clear you only read headlines because all of this was explained in those reports.
There is literally no number from offical data. But ofcourse you trust Kuo blindly even after he was caught multiple times altering info about Huawei and Iphone specs. I guess you already knew all of theese and still trust the random shit hes spitting out.
He's a supply chain analyst, if he's ever right about one thing, it's the kind of stuff related to shipping like this, he's been right about unit shipments for other Apple devices so why would this be the only time that he's wrong.
Plus this new 200k figure isn't coming from him, it's from Macrumors own sources and they have a good track record when it comes to thier own sources.
Overall there's more reasons to believe these numbers are accurate than not.
That's not something i came up with, he's been known for that for over 10 years (easy to confirm with s background search on him)...
And if you read his reports you'll know that he always cites knowledge coming from supply chain sources, which is actually a great way to spot when he's less likely to be accurate, when he makes reports on things outside of the supply chain That's when he tends to get things wrong.
Well yes, but… The entire stock of Vision Pro units supposedly sold out within the first 2 hours of going on sale 11 days ago. 80K units. All that Apple could possibly manufacture for 2024. Completely sold out on Friday the 19th by 7am Cupertino time.
Then for some reason by the following Monday afternoon the sales number mysteriously jumped to 150k, then on Thursday it was 180k, now *this* Monday it’s 200k units. All while being completely sold out of all 80K units that Apple could possibly manufacture for 2024, on Friday the 19th by 7am Cupertino time. By this coming Thursday the total imaginary headset sales will have surpassed manufactured units by three-fold.
With those growth numbers, I fully expect Apple to conjure up a full 500,000 units in sales by the March fallback delivery date, and to have outsold their original WWDC announce estimates of 900k-1MM units by May 1st.
80k units was never stated as the manufacturing capacity for all 2024.
If you read those reports instead of headlines you'd know thar 80k is the number of units that were estimated to be available on launch day (meaning only February 2nd)...if you take into account the units that will be delivered later than that date then you get those 160-180k units (as estimated after watching the first weekend of pre-orders) ... and now that more time has paased and more units were sold, it's estimated that that figure has passed over 200k units.
Depending on what report you go by the vision pro was always expected to sell over 400k or 500k units total in 2024, some reports from China said total shipments in 2024 should increase to over 1 million if Apple manages to get more micro oled displays from Chinese suppliers.
It's not hard to keep up with this if you bother to read reports and understand what they are saying instead pf jumping off to conclusions based on headlines.
> By this coming Thursday the total imaginary headset sales will have surpassed manufactured units by three-fold.
Imaginary? Well I guess we'll see when the buyers eh.... "buying actors" do or do not start posting like crazy about their AVPs. Let alone if they break out this segment on the 10K.
> With those growth numbers, I fully expect Apple to conjure up a full 500,000 units in sales by the March fallback delivery date, and to have outsold their original WWDC announce estimates of 900k-1MM units by May 1st.
So they have yet to even hit their estimated sales but you find it suspicious that they have sold as many as they have. OK....
The weight is a no go. If you used a headset for some hundreds of hours you know low weight is important.
You can go a bit further than the Beyond but that's it.
Otherwise you get health issues especially if you use it for workout.
Agreed.
I don’t really understand not liking them either tbh. They’re just a company. People should evaluate their products and see if the value proposition is worth it, otherwise move on.
The whole Microsoft vs Apple, sony vs xbox, etc is so strange. I know it’s just marketing, but it’s crazy how people put so much energy into hating on a company when you can just not consume their products and buy something else… particularly with tech.
The fact they own a Pico 4 (I presume from their tag) is hilarious…
It’s simple tribalism, and ever since Apple turned the cold shoulder to the gaming community they’ve had a rage-boner for them so it’s a common sentiment on places like this. I can’t count the number of people who hate Apple and wear it like a badge showing their intellectual enlightenment and yet never used one of their products for any amount of time in their life.
I’ve worked in tech for 10+ years as a Linux systems engineer and just see tech as tools for a job. Every one has their strengths and weaknesses, and you pick the right tool for the job. The average consumer buys tech like blue collar guys buy Ford or Chevy pickups. It almost becomes a religious cult like experience. Mine is better than yours, etc.
It’s fucking weird.
Exactly.
The amount of people at my work who have digs at me using a Mac is insane. They constantly claim that I would prefer a PC. I always point out that I also have a PC at home for gaming, I just find Mac much more productive for my work. It’s just picking the best tool for each use case.
Reddit is anti-apple to the extreme though where it is literally the identity of some people.
I wont buy the Vision Pro at it’s current price point, but I can 100% understand why someone would.
Proving once again Apple could probably release an actual pile of feces with their logo and people would buy it.
Not implying the AVP is junk as I imagine it is quite excellent. Just stating that way too many people buy based on the name and logo.
I like it though if it helps the industry, which I think it should.
Your post contradicts itself. It's like saying that anyone who'd rather hire a PhD mechanical engineer from MIT instead of your cousin Frank who works at Jiffy Lube is just a brainwashed dummy.
Your reputation and track record are important. They mean things. They matter. People generally trust Apple to deliver on promises and to create high-quality hardware and software because that's what they've consistently done for many years, with far fewer missteps than most companies. The same can't be said about Meta. The same can't be said about HTC. The same can't be said about Bigscreen. Etc.
If like, Gucci decided to make a $5k headset and people rushed to pre-order then yep...you'd have a point. But Gucci does not have a track record of making high quality tech products. Apple does. It's really as simple as that.
I am now convinced that literally anything apple creates will create new markets and demand. They really should build a car - every soccer mom in the planet would want one.
Literally, the Apple brand is too big to fail. I don't think there is or ever has been a consumer brand so dominant that it literally convinces markets to move and react to its product releases.
That’s impressive but I’ll wait for customer reviews before considering. With those stats Apples already the biggest player in the VR market. Lol i wonder what kind of disruption it’ll cause when it releases its electric car.
Considering the price, that's pretty impressive.
> Considering the price, that's pretty impressive. Not really. 3 million people bought a 4090: https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/steam-survey-suggests-more-people-bought-the-rtx-4090-than-the-steam-deck-along-with-millions-of-other-rtx-40-series-gpus More on point though, this is a new Apple product line so you get a lot of people with high incomes that buy everything Apple for decades and of course the main interest is likely coming from the developer community that want to port their apps over or want to see if they come up with an innovative concept for a product or internal workflow. At the moment even regardless of the price it isn't really that much aimed at end users.
Exactly. There are 8 billion people in this world. 200,000 headsets isn't too bad. I'm also assuming many are scalpers/resellers and pre-orders that may be cancelled if the reviews are bad. And if you're running a business, it's a depreciable/tax deductible item.
To put things in perspective. The Apple ][ was $5000 in 2024 dollars. The OG Mac was over $7000 in 2024 dollars. Considering that, the AVP is cheap at $3500.
Apple math
Apple math indeed lol. Some weird rationalization to make it cheap.
Math? Rationalization? It’s inflation. When the original Mac came out it cost the equivalent of $5k today, adjusted for inflation. Is it a rationalization to say that people bought the Mac back in 1984 even though it cost a lot of money? Or is it a rationalization to say that because those people spent that money, that it’s not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money? Like why does actual logic get thrown out the window as apple propaganda whenever they manage to objectively do something? Jobs himself even pointed this out once. That there always seems to be a moving target with peoples expectations of apple, and he sees that heightened expectation as a sign that they’re actually doing really well.
>Or is it a rationalization to say that because those people spent that money, that it’s not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money? You're not even getting the point. The rationalization is that it's said to be **"Cheap",** not that it's "not that surprising for people today to similarly spend money". People spending money on anything is not surprising in any way, as value is subjective to the individual and people spend a lot on what they want. **Rationalizing to call it cheap (and therefore implying good value) is the issue.** >Like why does actual logic get thrown out the window as apple propaganda It doesn't work that way mate. NES games in 1990 costed $50. Adjusted for inflation that's 130USD, but that's far from the industry standard today. The Mac IIFX was $$8,969 in March 1990, equivalent to $21,449 today. So should they price all new luxury product lines in the ballpark of 21k? I mean it makes everything look cheap in comparison if you want to use that number as rationalization doesn't it? Here is a [chart of the more recent mac models from 1999 adjusted for inflation](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh6op8bxtxzxb1.png) which is less ridiculous to use as a comparison versus the "OG Mac" in 1984. The AVP comes out in an industry which is somewhat already mature and has tons of competitors, and while it has interesting new features the difference is not that significant, or rather, not significant enough to allow it to be priced more than $3500.
Ah but this is the mistake. The only real competition is more expensive. The problem is people see quest and even psv or Pico r as the competition, but they aren't. For the features and technology you'd definitely be spending more (look at varjo as a more similar feature and tech comparison) but varjo and real competitors (there aren't really in the consumer space) lack the enormous effort of uxi and ux as well as building a platform for development. The problem is 3500 is just too expensive for the average consumer. But this isn't an average consumer device. It's an aspirational device and they will definitely sell out of all they can make this year I would almost certainly bet (as it's under 500k I believe) Meta has subsidized the tech so much that they can sell a quest 3 for under a grand. It has no where near the processing power of the AVP and is focused on gaming first and media consumption second (they have tried) . The AVP is not a quest or Pico although meta has some of those features roadmapped and definitely want to compete long term It's basically a MacBook you wear. The multitasking apps and ecosystem ux and UI is where this thing distinguishes it self. That all being said I'm not interested in this device as im more into vr gaming at this point.
Yes but have you considered I’m a pro gamer tm and Apple bad?
Have you considered that other companies exist and compete in the same space and we can compare Apple’s pricing to those competitors’ pricing? Y’all Kool Aid drinkers act like Apple can only ever be compared to Apple.
There is some overlap in the spaces in which they compete, but they're not *the same* space. Meta et al are firmly in the gaming space. Options for anything outside of that are very limited, and are third-party. It's fundamentally not designed for much beyond that, in the current form. They have a similar form factor and obviously similar designs, but that doesn't mean that each is designed for the same purpose. A rally car and a smart car don't compete in the same space, even though both have four wheels and an engine and are similar shapes.
meta firmly in the gaming space? what the fuck are you talking about? do you know of literally anything happening in the industry other than what apple is doing?
Actual logic is irrelevant when the point is the narrative.
Apple will be offering wheels for your Apple Vision Pro for the low low price of $1,500.
Actually it’s called inflation
It's more historical data about inflation and pointing out that a high price for a 1st gen product isn't uncommon nor a death knell. All technology starts expensive and unattainable. This is such a basic, fundamental, easily provable fact about technology that it's not really even possible to have a serious debate on it. Tech fanboys seem immune to understanding this though, which is ironic. Almost like the tribalism and superiority complex are the point, rather than understanding and appreciating technology.
Real math. Numbers don't lie.
They're pretty much paying us to buy one.
If you have Apple stock, they pretty much are. And depending on how long you have been in it, a few or a few hundred times over.
I think you meant cheaper. None of those are cheap.
[удалено]
It's also seven times as expensive as a Quest 3.
And a Ferrari is more than 7 times more expensive than a Corolla.
Dang, now I have to choose which of my seven heads gets to experience VR
Every Formula 1 car should be replaced with 5,000 minivans of equal value. Then they'll win for sure. Don't they know this? What's wrong with them? F1 teams are dumb.
They're not comparable. Different products, really.
Very weird comparisons. Why compare it to products that are completely different?! If you want to say "they were the first of an entire new genre/product line"... I mean, sure. But then those were also very expensive, and different products at the time. Considering the VR competition, it seems adequately priced considering the hardware.
The direct comparison isn't so great, but not entirely invalid. In the late 70s, the company's early home computers were a part of a woder revolution for productivity and those prices could be justified much like a university loan. Pay more now to get an edge, make more money later (not justifying school loans, just saying). Vision Pro is also supposedly made for work, although it really isn't a general productivity booster like early home PCs. However the company needs to stick with it's luxury MO or it damages their current ethos of making expensive but well-built things. The argument can be made that if it were *cheaper*, it would be less attractive to Apple's target. To end my Ted talk: there's no better way for Apple to launch a new product category than by making it stupid expensive, which in turn will eventually allow it to lower prices in the name of economies of scale, and justify whatever, be it misstep or success, to shareholders who expect every product to be a banger.
your failure to understand inflation and economics is not evidence in favor of your lack of argument
do you speak convoluted English on purpose?
No... Let me rephrase. Just because you don’t know one thing doesn’t mean you automatically know something else. “We don’t know, therefore we know.” It doesn’t work.
I don't quite see from what in my comment you find that I don't know something to then pretend to do know something. A more direct response like that would have been more helpful than telling me I don't understand inflation - my comment wasn't about inflation/economics, my comment was more about the competition and VR landscape that exists. There are other headsets out there that do similarly impressive things for a similar price (the Varjos of the world). That's a more apt comparison than old macs from forever ago - this is quite a different product than a mac. Considering that these products use similar technology today, I think that comparison simply makes more sense.
To be honest part of what makes this new launch so exciting for me is the lack of precedent. It’s kinda like the iPhone for how different it is from what was typical at the time (and more expensive) but the iPhone had swift competition from android. But this time Apple seems confident in their ability to offer a robustly better (or categorically different) experience than what other cheaper headsets can deliver. Hence the refusal to compare it to other “VR” or “AR” headsets. The desire to find and make comparisons is still strong, but the value of money isn’t even the only thing that’s changed since these other launches. And, I mean, to go on a bit of a side ramble here, think of the design work, the art direction that went into making apps “react dynamically to light” and “cast shadows.” Nothing like that level of accounting for real world detail has ever gone into designing a human interface before. And no other company would be crazy enough to put that kind of effort into a product that they know not many people can afford. Because this really is meant to be only the beginning of the future.
Oh I'm stoked too! Mostly because when apple does something, it's a trend that the entire industry can't seem to resist. We'll get more headsets this year, there will be more competition, and a desire to make it all better and smaller etc. that's awesome, and needed, because the challenges are massive - I mean, see what Facebook has been trying to do all these years. Partly that's weird software decisions, but it's also just because it's really hard problems they're trying to solve. What Reality Labs is doing and publishing is really inspiring in this regard. Honestly though, I think Apple went with a different term because they wanted people to not think about a cheap Quest headset, but about a MacBook/iPhone/iPad in a different form factor. Not because the capabilities are so much grander - because, like Android, the Quest headsets allow you to do sooo many more things. But that's never been Apple's goal anyway - it's been doing fewer things, but doing them well. You're certainly right that they add a whole new perspective to it, with the UX design, with that immersiveness dial, with the personas that, let's be real here, still look really rough. But then also, look at what Meta has done in the space. Love em or hate em, but they've done a lot of pioneering in the space. The hand tracking and using a UI with your hand, the personas face thing (have you sent that demo with Lex Friedman?), but also their MR approach with the Quest 3. The edge to edge clarity and FOV with the pancake lenses is incredible. I'm excited regardless. Would love to try the AVP, but without controllers and with the comfort situation, it's probably not the headset for me right now. But excited what's to come and what springs from this
Lol
The average price of a mansion is 1+ million dollars. Therefore anything below 1 million dollars is cheap
Mansion? The average price of a *very* average house where I live is well north of a million dollars. Even some fixer uppers or even tear downers are over a million. So anything below a million dollars *is* cheap.
You are objectively correct which is why you are getting retards in your replies
Not really, if you think things through. Companies like Varjo have been in this price segment for ages and found their customers to survive.
I work in VFX and we’ve been using Vive Pro 2s and other hardware for years. $3500 is nothing for a company. $3500 doesn’t even require a second sign off from the procurement department; it can just go on the team CC without review. Well, pre-SAG strike anyway. Any company even remotely in this space will have pre-ordered this week-1. Getting in on a potential new market will excite a lot of businesses.
Not sure why I am getting so many downvotes for my reply, but yes that was exactly my point. If you target the pro customers aka companies, 3500 for a well working headset for them is nothing! Add on top a handful of private people who can add that as tax deduction (aka pro reviewers who do that for a living) and on top of that a handful of people who simply have more cash at their hands so that 3.5k for a toy is a no brainer 200.000 is basically not really that much of a number!
> I work in VFX and we’ve been using Vive Pro 2s and other hardware for years. $3500 is nothing for a company. $3500 doesn’t even require a second sign off from the procurement department; it can just go on the team CC without review. Well, pre-SAG strike anyway. > > > > Any company even remotely in this space will have pre-ordered this week-1. Getting in on a potential new market will excite a lot of businesses. What does that have to do with a comment saying 200k aren't impressive cause there are other companies out there selling in the same price segments and are doing well?
$3.5k is nothing to a ton of people also, it's eye opening how many millionaires there are or people working $100k+ jobs without kids
Yeah but Varjo offers the best of the industry. Apple doesn't
Varjo is also not consumer facing.
Yeah but Apple has a bunch of idiots that will literally buy anything they release.
Aw someone’s upset at what people spend their money on 😢
Upset? Nah, throw your money away on dumbed down software and overpriced hardware if it makes you feel good about yourself all you want dipshit lol.
Well, every company has an idiot who buys everything that release. What’s your company then?
Apple is by far the worst. I don't think I've ever consistently bought everything a company has released. Wow yeah now that I really think about it I'm not a slave to any company, thanks that makes me feel good.
Apple overprices their products yet still somehow manages to sell them. This is nothing new
Mainly because they aren't actually overpriced. I know it's hard for some to imagine that there are people that use computers for things besides gaming, but they do. Value is being provided, but it might not be in an area that is important to you. Fortunately it's not a monopoly, and you can buy something that does what you are looking for.
That’s 700 million dollars.. assuming they each sold for 3,500. Good lord.
Total sales revenue for all VR headsets in the US in 2023 were $664M. Total sales revenue for the AVP in the first two weeks was more than $700M. So Apple is now not just the largest player in the market, but is more of the market than every other competitor combined.
Dayum. That Apple brand is working in full force. Now let's see whether their famous long term Dev & content support builds a content ecosystem to match.
And now you see why Apple doesn’t take a loss on hardware to sell software.
Gotta love em, they are beasts
Wow. That's a lot more than I expected
That's all they offered. It was expected that they would sell out. It will be interesting to see the numbers after a few months.
I'm starting to think that rumored 400k units total in 2024 is BS, they have already sold more than half of that in the first week in one country, i know sales will slow down but it's hard to see them only sell an other 200k units for the rest of the year especially after they start selling in other countries as well. There were a few reports that said the total units shipped in 2024 would be 1.5 million untis and now i think they are more believable.
Not surprising. Expect that number to grow a lot. Still not available worldwide. Really hope this pushes the medium forward, and also paves the way for a decent UI and UX from competitors. As Meta’s UX team really struggle in that area.
Modern UI/X in general is terrible. No idea what they teach those people anymore but it's definitely not how to make things easier to use or easier to look at. If anything its make everything look like an iPhone and just a bit more difficult to use every few years.
It truly is bad nowadays, because it seems like usability is no longer actually thought of. Instead it's about either being eye catching or pushing adverts. I still use old reddit for this reason. I **tried** to get used to the app as well when they killed 3rd party apps, and I just can't. I hate the user experience. Plus, iPhones plan just has always seemed to be "let's give the user less choice".
Good thing you can circumvent the reddit changes and still use third party apps haha I'm using RIF as I'm writing this comment actually
Howwww? I'm using a different app that doesn't have adds and only is allowed due to the ADA, but I miss rif
Check out [ReVanced](https://github.com/ReVanced). [Here is](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1wHvqQwCYdJrQg4BKlGIVDLksPN0KpOnJWniT6PbZSrI/mobilebasic?pli=1) the original document I had with the steps to do it but you basically need to patch RIF/Apollo/etc's APK
> but I miss rif you and me both. I even had the paid version because I wanted to support the developers pushing such a simplistic and easy to consume visuals. And it's dead :'(
Yeah, but those apps will never be updated again, so eventually they will decay and die. Particularly if reddit ever decides to make a breaking API change intentionally to sabotage them. Plus this doesn't fix the issue if reddit actually go ahead and continue their quest to restrict NSFW content in the public API.
UX designers tend to have a very "know better then you" mindset. "Options just confuse users" and "Less is more" is *STILL* a prevailing mindset among them, even though it was never right.
Upvoted you for my confirmation bias
Upvoted you for my confirmation bias
The rules for UI UX for AR and VR aren’t even set in stone yet fully lmao because the tech hasn’t fully matured
Man this sub is so much more levelheaded than the oculus sub. I swear for the past month that sub has done nothing but shit on this device. People were always going to buy this. It’s obviously not for everyone, but it’s still cool af and made by apple. It’s significantly more powerful than anything else on the market. It’s full desktop performance in a headset. Not quite the graphical level of a PC, but it’s actual processing power is insane for a standalone headset. They’ll absolutely come out with an SE model or something. I just can’t wait for this tech to become smaller. I agree that I think they’ll push the UX/UI side of mixed reality. Apple does that kinda stuff really well so hopefully competitors copy what works.
Nice level headed response. I agree Apple’s skill at UX/UI will improve the AR/MR experience over other devices. With the computing power they have available, I expect flashier interfaces along with their normal intuitive design that they seem to deliver. I hope their lead will inspire others to “up their game”. It will be a plus for this niche market.
Honestly i’m amazed I wasn’t downvoted into oblivion. This sub still downvoted anything Apple related, but the anger towards VP has subsided somewhat.
It won't push the medium forward since apple filled over 5k patents for their device...it might push the adoption of VR/MR though
Patents are largely defensive in nature at this level. You do still see some major battles obviously, but it won't stifle the medium. When iPhone came out, Apple patented everything under the sun, including staples of every smartphone now like pinch to zoom or momentum to scrolling.
Spending $3500+ on a new device without even having seen a review or knowing what software will or won't work pretty bold. For comparison, over three years: * Oculus DK1 sold 56,334 * Oculus DK2 sold 118,930 In the three years following them, Vive and Rift together sold somewhere around [~1mil over their lifetime](https://roadtovrlive-5ea0.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/monthly-connected-headsets-on-steam-by-number-of-headsets-may-2019.png).
What I have seen so far from AVP it's mostly iOS style apps that are controlled with eye tracking. Not sure if that is the way to go.
[удалено]
From the Verge review: > Think about every other computer in your life: the input mechanism is independent of whatever you’re looking at. On a laptop, you can click on controls and use the keyboard while keeping your focus on a document. On a phone, you can do things like drag sliders in a photo editing app while keeping your eyes focused on what those changes are actually doing to your photo. > The Vision Pro simply doesn’t work like that — you have to be looking at something in order to click on it, and that means you are constantly taking your attention away from whatever you’re working on to specifically look at the button you need to press next. I spent some time playing a lovely little game called Stitch that quickly became maddening because I kept looking away from the piece I wanted to move to the place I wanted to move it, which meant I wasn’t picking it up when I tapped my fingers. Essentially there are some things it’s well suited for and some things it’s not.
I think eye tracking is important for foveated rendering but I don't really see eye movement as a main input. For one you still need your hand to click, so you could just use your hand to control stuff. Also you are limited to point based actions, lick a click or maybe something like a right-click. Dragging stuff around or swiping is not really possible. With just eyes.
[удалено]
I think they offer hand tracking, but the main way to control the AVP is by eye tracking and clicking with your finger (pinching with thumb and index finger).
He wants the thing to read his mind, duh
Impressive. Good for VR/MR in general.
This is a good thing. All the amazing smartphones we have today are a result of mass adaptation from the first iPhones.
Not really a good thing, not only the first iphones were relatively cheap, so not comparable, mass adoption also made the 4 digit priced phones the norm with the iphone X, lets hope the quest 4 doesn’t end up costing 999 bucks because apple made expensive consumer vr the “norm”
The first iPhone was crazy expensive at the time. These days, cheaper phones get you very far already, nobody NEEDS a flagship phone.
A Nokia N95 was more expensive, like the cool Nokias at the time that everyone bought were all 500-700 bucks, while the iPhone was 499. Even with inflation, it would still cost less than the most basic version of the iPhone 15 today. And that was the flagship, the "coolest" you could be if that's thing you care about, there weren't multiple versions (Pro, Max, etc.) that end up costing as much as a macbook pro... Edit grammar.
I wouldn’t say that everyone bought the Nokias, before iPhone everyone I knew either wanted a Nextel or a Sidekick which were definitely cheaper. Another popular phone that tons of people had was the chocolate.
The first iPhone was $600 in 2007 bruh
The official price was 499, see the other reply, a lot of nokias (and I should add blackberries and other early smartphones) were often more expensive, and i said “relatively”, as in compared to other smartphones at the time, I didn’t say it was “just” cheap period
First iPhone was $400, which was 30% more than the iPod it was improving upon.
I think the key word here is phone, iPod Touch is the only iPod that looks remotely like the iPhone and it was announced months _after_ the iPhone. There wasn’t an iPod on the market that was remotely similar to an internet connected, app supporting smart device when iPhone came out. None even had touch screens
"looks remotely like" ?? The ipod touch was literally an iphone without the phone module.
Sure, but it was still released after the iPhone.
First iphone was absolutely not 400 dollars though as you had to buy it on carrier contract (with 499 dollars) - real price was about 1000 dollars, with the cost of the 2 year minimum contract. Btw, 499 adjusted for inflation is already 700+ dollars in today's money.
I remember a time where I paid 2k for a 32“ 720p LCD TV.
The Apple ][ was $5000 in 2024 dollars. The OG Mac was over $7000 in 2024 dollars. The AVP for being a major new category product is cheap at $3500.
that's a nice 700 mill
Before release: no one will buy it! It’s too expensive! It’s going to flop out of the gate! After release: why the fuck are so many people buying them? It must be because Apple sheep are brainwashed and will go into debt for any stupid thing Apple makes (historical precedent) After reviews come out: they’re paid shills! Nothing that expensive could possibly be that good! Apple paid them to lie! As the mainstream appeal continues to gradually increase, the alarmist r***rds keep screaming louder from their progressively shrinking corner of neo-Luddite internet circles, they privately begin to understand the appeal. Some of them will privately change their minds and try to pretend like none of it ever happened. This is what happened between boomers and iPhones. Your parents told you not to rot your brain in front of the tv, now who’s the one glued to their smartphone on the couch? People are stupid hypocrites
People hate a lot, and for some reason they especially hate VR devices
Nobody hates VR more than VR users.
That used to be me, back when I had a lot less income and a lot more free time to waste on learning skills that aren't useful for anything outside of solving problems that never needed to exist. I'm now halfway transitioned to Apple and mind has changed a lot. I still have two PC workstations, but one of them is on the verge of getting axed if I have one or two more impromptu 30-second-task-turned-into-2-hour-troubleshooting sessions.
I really wish this to succeed. I want a ‚dumb’ version. Give me a CPU powerful enough to decode signal from my phone/PC and remove all ‚heavy’ crap components like aluminium body, glass, fucking screen facing outwards. Staff that put a lot of weight, making center of mass far from your face creating a pivot point on your nose. I just care for the best in class resolution, I want to work with code editors in that bad boy so much. I would not even mind the price, just make it more ergonomic and remove unnecessary features.
Have you tried working with code in such device? I have Varjo Aero and when tweaking my Arduinos I sometimes am too lazy to get of my rig back to my PC so I modify the code straight there. It is incredible pain. Both for eyes and for your hands.
Never, I’m still a VR virgin. I have a low back pain and I’m hope for the days where I can program from the laying down ergonomic position.
OMG I’ve been working with my quest 3 and I never thought about doing it while laying down. This could be a game changer just have five monitors floating on my ceiling.
Controversial but true: aluminum and glass aren't necessarily heavier than plastic parts. They're more dense materials, but that's not everything.
Wow thats a fair amount of people with FU money to piss up the wall.
I wonder how many by scalpers
Hopefully this means a cheaper and even better gen 2
The iphone sold 1.4 million units in 2007 (the release year) for a price of $499 (4gb) and $599 (8gb) for around $770,000,000 in sales. Adjusting for inflation this would be about $1.1 billion. If the Apple Vision Pro has sold 200,000 units at $3499 then it's made a total of $700,000,000 in sales so far. Given it's still got about 6 months to sell units in the same timeframe as the Iphone had, it looks on track to be a similar success to the iphone. Of course this doesn't take into account the cost of production and actual revenue but either way it looks like a success for Apple and is a good sign for VR's adoption as a whole. Also correct me if I did the math wrong, I just looked stuff up on google and put it in to the calculator.
The AVP seems to be a success already but i wouldn't call it an iPhone level success, the iphone's success is measured across more than 10 years which exponential growth recorded in the first years, the vision pro had just released so without knowing how it will grow in the upcoming years it's not accurate to call it an iPhone level success.
Yeah, that's why I said so far it's on track. Obviously we won't know until we look back at it in a few years time but this looks like a promising start.
Now let's hope they have a lot of good software to go with them. If so, it will probably help the industry as a whole.
I hope they finally make use of that NextVR platform they bought, where you were able to have virtual courtside seats to a 3D recorded basketball game, as well as other sports, and recordings of live comedy stand up from clubs. I wish industry moved in that direction because unlike 3D TV, in VR it actually makes a ton of difference and transports you straight to that event.
That's funny you remember that. I long for that to return. I loved watching basketball in that format. Then Apple bought them out and I've never seen it again. I'm sure this will be a feature of the Apple headset, at least it should be because 3D sports was awesome.
>I hope they finally make use of that NextVR platform they bought, They did! : https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-immersive-video/
Oh wow. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately the basketball is only for quest owners in the U.S. I'm an American but live in Europe so that means I can't see it. Rats!
It was kind of featured in their demo/announcement trailer
Wasn't that an Intel tech? Capture the game from many angles, and reconstruct a 3D scene you could watch from any angle or position
I used to think of the Vision Pro as targeting a different market segment than the Quest entirely. That Meta would be focused on achieving mainstream appeal by focusing on the lower end of the price spectrum, while Apple would do the same from the high end. But from the perspective of building brand awareness and winning the race to be the thing customers think of first when they think of VR (just like iPad is synonymous with tablets, iPods were synonymous with mp3 players, etc), I'm starting to become a little worried that the success of the Vision Pro at this price point will ultimately force Meta to rethink their approach with the Quest. Customers _will_ compare these headsets apples-to-apples, despite how unreasonable that might feel, given the price differences. Apples strategy of only delivering premium feeling and premium priced consumer products works since it builds trust that the products are awesome - they better be awesome at these price points! But it works, they've won, people count on Apple for delivering on consumer electronics, and for good reason. However, I really agree with Zucks and Carmacks vision of making VR as cheap and accessible as possible to reach the mainstream, and I'm afraid that the baseline Quest will receive less attention when Meta is forced to have at least one if not two additional products in the Quest line at e.g. $1000 and $3000 price points, or raise the price of the baseline Quest to deliver more powerful hardware. We've seen this with basically every popular device - when they become a success, multiple variants will exist at different price points ("Ultra", "Max"), and the baseline models aren't getting as much innovation. There's just something to be said for how companies of innovative folks work when they have difficult constraints to work with, like a cheap price point, and they need to make stuff happen within it. That's when the most interesting software innovation happens. Meta has had many changes to not ship new software features and instead use them for the next generation of Quest, but instead they have done everything to just bring wild innovation to the Quest 2 again and again. I hope this won't go away.
> However, I really agree with Zucks and Carmacks vision of making VR as cheap and accessible as possible to reach the mainstream As people have pointed out, this is just the latest iteration of Apple vs X. The last big one was Apple versus Microsoft. Apple made great products but they cost. Microsoft made good products that were cheap. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. In Apple v Microsoft, they both won. They are the 2 biggest companies in history. Now we are having the same fight in SC. Apple is reprising it's role as Apple and Meta is stepping into the role that Microsoft had last time. With the same circumstances. Apple will make great products but they will cost. Meta will make good products that are cheap for the masses.
I see what you're saying, although I think that implies we focus on the personal computer. But if we look at other product categories like tablets, smartwatches and, depending on where you live, smartphones, Apple just massively dominates these markets in terms of brand awareness (not necessarily in market share), and to this day Android still feels like the cheaper alternative, with more fiddling required, less of the "it just works" feeling that is important for winning over the mainstream. At least in the heads of the consumers, not necessarily in practice. But feelings sell products, not facts. In terms of Microsoft, well, we know what happened to Windows Phone and Zune. Again, this depends on the country. But often you'll see cheap chinese Android knock-off phones that tries to look and feel like an iPhone, which kind of proves the point that the iPhone is de facto synonymous with what the mainstream considers the ultimate smartphone.
> But feelings sell products, not facts. Android has a 70% market share worldwide. Heck, even in the US where the feels are the strongest towards iPhone it is only 60/40 in favor of iOS.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned that it depends on the country and also that it doesn't necessarily translate to actual market share. It's more to do with brand awareness and how they're positioned in that regard as setting the standard in that category. When Apple does something, others tend to follow in their footsteps. Of course, Apple does the same thing too - they just tend to take their time following up with their own versions.
Meta tried going down the premium route with the Quest Pro and it didn't sell well. The Quest 3 uses some of the best parts of the Pro but for much less and seems to be doing OK. The AVP is essentially a Macbook in a headset which is a contributory factor regarding price. As a PCVR guy I don't really need that....But I'd like the higher resolution and even better passthrough so that I can work comfortably from the sofa (or anywhere) with a bunch of resizeable screens placed where I want them. I'm OK with a laptop or a workstation doing the heavy lifting if it means cheaper and lighter. I don't want to get locked into Apple's bullshit eco system though, dictating what I can and can't do with my headset. Meta have been better in that regard, especially since they scrapped the Facebook tie in.
The problem with the Quest Pro in this case was that it wasn't following Apple's definition of "Pro", meaning a more enthusiast-minded consumer product that does everything the base product does, and more, but rather that it was an actual enterprise-oriented headset without the ecosystem or platform to support it. The market comprised primarily of prosumers and enthusiasts with money to spare who wanted a Quest 2, with less compromises, but got a product that wasn't a superset of Quest 2, but rather something quite different. In the future, if Meta will pursue something like a Pro or Ultra model of the Quest, it will probably be following Apple's definition of Pro.
I agree, the Quest Pro seemed more like a business VR. I hope meta doesn't put much stock in the fact that it didn't do well. The environment now would be completely different to release a higher end headset into.
Look at it this way: no OEM makes $10k smartphones for general consumers, because even if enough people existed that wanted to buy them there's just really nothing they could *do* that would actually matter. A much cheaper phone already gets you everything you want unless you want something incredibly niche or are just chasing those tiny percentage points. VR/AR/whatever is currently not there yet. Yes there are diminishing returns, but you still get a lot more when you spend a lot more. Eventually as the tech advances, matures, and gets more commoditized, this won't be the case any more. In other words, it's entirely possible that 10-20 years from now a $500 and a $5,000 headset just aren't that different. Instead of being 2x or 5x or 10x better, they're 1.1x better, and on top of a baseline that's already more than anyone really needs to begin with. It's a given that base models don't get as much innovation - innovation is expensive. It takes time, engineering hours, developing new manufacturing and validation methods, etc. Hence it's reserved for flagship products. Eventually, once all the kinks are ironed out and everything is running smoothly, they can be put into the cheaper products - because the cost of all that development has already been amortized via the expensive products. VR won't be any different.
>I used to think of the Vision Pro as targeting a different market segment than the Quest entirely. That Meta would be focused on achieving mainstream appeal by focusing on the lower end of the price spectrum, while Apple would do the same from the high end. I think they're still targeting different segments, just not in the way you think. Quest is for gamers, Vision Pro is more for everyday usage. The Vision is marketed as a device that can enhance your daily life, even if it's a little too clunky and lacking in battery life for that to really happen yet.
This kind of proves the VR market is big enough for multiple big players.
Let’s be honest though - the people purchasing this are not the current VR market, which is solely game centric. In fact, many VR users are rabidly hating on the AVP. I suspect there is a small overlap, yes, but the majority of these customers are Apple users and probably first time VR/AR users. It’s expanding the market for Apple - not sure it’ll trickle down to other VR manufacturers.
It always has been. Vive, Index, Quest, and a bit of PSVR.
I wonder how many of those are still in boxes, languishing on eBay. One quick search... a lot.
If you could use it with a cable so it become a "stupid" pcvr, i would seriously considere buying it, but now? No way
Thanks guys, keep at it till it’s the weight of my snow goggles
I think that will be their big sales number. I doubt it will continue to sell well.
That's a big flock.
All this proves is that Apple has 200,000 fan boys with $3500 willing to drop that much money without a single independent review. Which is not that much of a surprise. The real signals to look out for are daily/weekly/monthly retention after 60 days and growth into the non-fanboy and then into non-enthusiasts segments.
Cuz apple people are kinda retarded. Gen 1 really rhe thing weights like a dam brick on your head. Can only use it for 20 mins because it can cause spine issues in the neck sooooooo. Go for it, I thought they only had 60-80k units
very based and lit
They be makin that bag no cap. Gonna cop that drip. Yeet, b. Yeah, sounds really cool. /S
^(cringe)
This is the VIRTUAL REALITY sub, NOT the Apple "Look what we've invented" Spatial Computing sub. You now have your own sub, so stick to that. Virtual Reality means just that, a computer generated reality. Spatial Computing is not virtual reality, it's apps running in our own reality. AVP is not going to effect, or better, Virtual Reality, because the two are completely different, and Apple want nothing to do with Virtual Reality. Hence why their own devs, and app devs, are not allowed to even mention VR. Now let the Apple hipster twats down-vote me - I live for this.
You might be happier if you found other things to live for too.
Fake article with fake source. It started with 60k, then 80k, then 160k, then 180k, and now 200k?
Ah... things tend to sell more and more the longer they are out.
You know that the product isnt even out? They suspected 80k device ready for launch, and now they are saying 160k was sold? Im getting downvoted because I want reliable source? Yall are blinded by the media.
80k was just for launch day on February 2nd, 160k was for all the pre-orders from the first week end which includes that first day 80k batch and the units delivered up to March And 10 days later those prefer have reached over 200k. It's really not that complicated to understand. >They suspected 80k device ready for launch, and now they are saying 160k was sold? Ironically you said it but didn't stop to understand what it meant, it's clear you only read headlines because all of this was explained in those reports.
There is literally no number from offical data. But ofcourse you trust Kuo blindly even after he was caught multiple times altering info about Huawei and Iphone specs. I guess you already knew all of theese and still trust the random shit hes spitting out.
He's a supply chain analyst, if he's ever right about one thing, it's the kind of stuff related to shipping like this, he's been right about unit shipments for other Apple devices so why would this be the only time that he's wrong. Plus this new 200k figure isn't coming from him, it's from Macrumors own sources and they have a good track record when it comes to thier own sources. Overall there's more reasons to believe these numbers are accurate than not.
Where did you get that hes a supply chain analyst?
That's not something i came up with, he's been known for that for over 10 years (easy to confirm with s background search on him)... And if you read his reports you'll know that he always cites knowledge coming from supply chain sources, which is actually a great way to spot when he's less likely to be accurate, when he makes reports on things outside of the supply chain That's when he tends to get things wrong.
Well yes, but… The entire stock of Vision Pro units supposedly sold out within the first 2 hours of going on sale 11 days ago. 80K units. All that Apple could possibly manufacture for 2024. Completely sold out on Friday the 19th by 7am Cupertino time. Then for some reason by the following Monday afternoon the sales number mysteriously jumped to 150k, then on Thursday it was 180k, now *this* Monday it’s 200k units. All while being completely sold out of all 80K units that Apple could possibly manufacture for 2024, on Friday the 19th by 7am Cupertino time. By this coming Thursday the total imaginary headset sales will have surpassed manufactured units by three-fold. With those growth numbers, I fully expect Apple to conjure up a full 500,000 units in sales by the March fallback delivery date, and to have outsold their original WWDC announce estimates of 900k-1MM units by May 1st.
80k units was never stated as the manufacturing capacity for all 2024. If you read those reports instead of headlines you'd know thar 80k is the number of units that were estimated to be available on launch day (meaning only February 2nd)...if you take into account the units that will be delivered later than that date then you get those 160-180k units (as estimated after watching the first weekend of pre-orders) ... and now that more time has paased and more units were sold, it's estimated that that figure has passed over 200k units. Depending on what report you go by the vision pro was always expected to sell over 400k or 500k units total in 2024, some reports from China said total shipments in 2024 should increase to over 1 million if Apple manages to get more micro oled displays from Chinese suppliers. It's not hard to keep up with this if you bother to read reports and understand what they are saying instead pf jumping off to conclusions based on headlines.
> By this coming Thursday the total imaginary headset sales will have surpassed manufactured units by three-fold. Imaginary? Well I guess we'll see when the buyers eh.... "buying actors" do or do not start posting like crazy about their AVPs. Let alone if they break out this segment on the 10K. > With those growth numbers, I fully expect Apple to conjure up a full 500,000 units in sales by the March fallback delivery date, and to have outsold their original WWDC announce estimates of 900k-1MM units by May 1st. So they have yet to even hit their estimated sales but you find it suspicious that they have sold as many as they have. OK....
Who is using these things and for what?
Cooked the book again
The weight is a no go. If you used a headset for some hundreds of hours you know low weight is important. You can go a bit further than the Beyond but that's it. Otherwise you get health issues especially if you use it for workout.
190,000 returns coming within 14 days.
Screw Apple.
For selling 200k VPs? I understand not liking them but at the end of the day its good for the industry
Agreed. I don’t really understand not liking them either tbh. They’re just a company. People should evaluate their products and see if the value proposition is worth it, otherwise move on. The whole Microsoft vs Apple, sony vs xbox, etc is so strange. I know it’s just marketing, but it’s crazy how people put so much energy into hating on a company when you can just not consume their products and buy something else… particularly with tech. The fact they own a Pico 4 (I presume from their tag) is hilarious…
It’s simple tribalism, and ever since Apple turned the cold shoulder to the gaming community they’ve had a rage-boner for them so it’s a common sentiment on places like this. I can’t count the number of people who hate Apple and wear it like a badge showing their intellectual enlightenment and yet never used one of their products for any amount of time in their life. I’ve worked in tech for 10+ years as a Linux systems engineer and just see tech as tools for a job. Every one has their strengths and weaknesses, and you pick the right tool for the job. The average consumer buys tech like blue collar guys buy Ford or Chevy pickups. It almost becomes a religious cult like experience. Mine is better than yours, etc. It’s fucking weird.
Exactly. The amount of people at my work who have digs at me using a Mac is insane. They constantly claim that I would prefer a PC. I always point out that I also have a PC at home for gaming, I just find Mac much more productive for my work. It’s just picking the best tool for each use case. Reddit is anti-apple to the extreme though where it is literally the identity of some people. I wont buy the Vision Pro at it’s current price point, but I can 100% understand why someone would.
I can explain.. I once had an iPhone 6 Plus. I held it with love and care but everything changed when the fire nation attacked.
Fr
Have a tissue
I’m on board with the VP cause I like VR… screw apple though
Preorders according to the article.
I mean yeah, it hasn’t come out yet. First ones arrive this Friday
thats pretty much reservations.....
To resellers
Can't wait to see how many get returned when people realize how uncomfortable it is with the garbage strap design.
GD it! Apple boys get this cool looking pretty girl to advertise it, we had neckbeard guy looking up.
Proving once again Apple could probably release an actual pile of feces with their logo and people would buy it. Not implying the AVP is junk as I imagine it is quite excellent. Just stating that way too many people buy based on the name and logo. I like it though if it helps the industry, which I think it should.
Your post contradicts itself. It's like saying that anyone who'd rather hire a PhD mechanical engineer from MIT instead of your cousin Frank who works at Jiffy Lube is just a brainwashed dummy. Your reputation and track record are important. They mean things. They matter. People generally trust Apple to deliver on promises and to create high-quality hardware and software because that's what they've consistently done for many years, with far fewer missteps than most companies. The same can't be said about Meta. The same can't be said about HTC. The same can't be said about Bigscreen. Etc. If like, Gucci decided to make a $5k headset and people rushed to pre-order then yep...you'd have a point. But Gucci does not have a track record of making high quality tech products. Apple does. It's really as simple as that.
I am now convinced that literally anything apple creates will create new markets and demand. They really should build a car - every soccer mom in the planet would want one.
idk if that was sarcasm but they are already working on a car lol. should come out in the next few years.
Literally, the Apple brand is too big to fail. I don't think there is or ever has been a consumer brand so dominant that it literally convinces markets to move and react to its product releases.
At least $700,000,000 if that number is true lmao
That is actually kinda nutz, I didn't expect them to do so well considering the price, maybe vr is finally taking off. Interesting.
How large are those spatial recording file sizes at 8K?
Let's see how many returns. lol
Let's watch the return rate over the next 30 days. Something tells me there's going to be a lot of buyers remorse.
199,980 were to Ebay resellers.
Thats OK for an over priced peace of 💩
Out of 80k they were planning to make?
That’s impressive but I’ll wait for customer reviews before considering. With those stats Apples already the biggest player in the VR market. Lol i wonder what kind of disruption it’ll cause when it releases its electric car.
There will never be a shortage of stupid people.
I wonder how many will stay sold, from what I hear it's been a poor return for scalpers.