^This. Before the iPhone, nobody was willing to pay $1000 for a phone. Heck, back in the 90s and early 2000s most of us expected the carrier to give us a phone for “free” with our plans.
This is also the “Pro” model. It’s a way to get the technology out there so devs can get some killer apps released before the more affordable consumer oriented version comes out in a couple years.
i think the cost of a top of the line phone has been relatively stable when inflation adjusted imho (but the features/capabilities have greatly expanded). The first iphone is around $600, so inflation adjusted today is about $877, so by paying about $200 dollars more, you got today's iphone, which is probably about 100x better!
The same people who pay $3500 for a LV bag or $1500 for a GPU. rich people, aka Apple's primary customer. The secondary customer is poor people, so Apple will eventually release a $1799 VR headset in a couple of years, and it'll be available for $72/month via payment plan.
"People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - people who said the original iphone will fail due to being super expensive for it's time.
and this is all coming from an apple hater who has never owned an apple product
$1500 + for the fastest consumer GPU is one thing, $3500 for a slow computer that wraps around your head with no real application is another. This thing is priced for the US defense dept (its biggest opportunity), and other tiny specialized industries. Even if it were $350, i still would barely be intrested tbh ...
Well, it would be more than that for me, since I don't own a Mac, so I'd have to buy that too. With my budget that's unlikely, especially since I'm pretty happy with my Windows laptop and desktop.
Looks like a lovely toy, if you can afford it and don't mind wearing bulky goggles, but I think I'd prefer to keep my head unencumbered for most computer tasks.
If you have to ask you can't afford it, as the saying goes.
You could ask who can afford a $5,000 purse or a $25,000 piece of jewelry, or a $200,000 car. Lots of people. 1.3 bn people around the world paid for iPhones, which can cost up to $1,600 retail. LVMH reported record revenues of €79.2 bn last year, selling stuff less objectively useful than a VR headset.
I bought an original Macintosh in 1984 and paid $2,500 for it, on my unexceptional programmer salary. I remember people back then asking "Who can afford $2,500 for a cute little computer that can't do anything useful?" I didn't regret buying it.
I won't but people forkout lots of cash for apple products already so $3500 is not out of the realm. Specialty if they can make a business case for its use. Video editing comes to mind. It's not a mass market product now but once they bring down the price, which they will, people are going to eat it up.
I mean, I could get it. I've got a Quest and a powerful desktop already though, paying $3,500 for the privilege of upgrading to a wire is a hard sell to me.
I could see some people getting it, though. My cousins are fairly wealthy and love blowing money on rich people paraphernalia (drones, home theater, massage chairs, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to come over in 2 Christmases and see them playing with one.
> In November, 2018, Microsoft announced that it is readying HoloLens for combat. The company won a $480 million military contract with the U.S. government to bring AR headset tech into the weapons repertoire of American soldiers.
If it comes with Apple's usual 14 day no questions asked money-back guarantee, I will absolutely try it. If I can comfortably code in it for a workday instead of external monitors, I will definitely keep it.
It isn't as much as who can afford, but who is compelled to? What kind of experiences does the Vision Pro headset enable that other headsets (or completely different products) don't?
besides the whole Apple 'premium' which has been debated to death, $3500 is on the low side for a new tech especially for devs and researches looking to implement it. it's not exactly aimed at the mass consumer market yet (and likely there's no production capability for that either).
You could have the same resolution/frame rate, with manual adjustment, for about $1000. It won't feel as refined or polished, but it will be functionally the same for VR world.
The same people who pay $5300 for a thin laptop?
Its one of the deadest beaten horses on the internet, but Apple has a way of opening tech buyers' wallets like no one else.
Also there are some legitimate business niches, but I think that market is relatively small.
^This. Before the iPhone, nobody was willing to pay $1000 for a phone. Heck, back in the 90s and early 2000s most of us expected the carrier to give us a phone for “free” with our plans.
This is also the “Pro” model. It’s a way to get the technology out there so devs can get some killer apps released before the more affordable consumer oriented version comes out in a couple years.
> nobody was willing to pay $1000 for a phone.
i think the cost of a top of the line phone has been relatively stable when inflation adjusted imho (but the features/capabilities have greatly expanded). The first iphone is around $600, so inflation adjusted today is about $877, so by paying about $200 dollars more, you got today's iphone, which is probably about 100x better!
The same people who pay $3500 for a LV bag or $1500 for a GPU. rich people, aka Apple's primary customer. The secondary customer is poor people, so Apple will eventually release a $1799 VR headset in a couple of years, and it'll be available for $72/month via payment plan.
"People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - people who said the original iphone will fail due to being super expensive for it's time.
and this is all coming from an apple hater who has never owned an apple product
$1500 + for the fastest consumer GPU is one thing, $3500 for a slow computer that wraps around your head with no real application is another. This thing is priced for the US defense dept (its biggest opportunity), and other tiny specialized industries. Even if it were $350, i still would barely be intrested tbh ...
It’s a display that happens to have a computer built in. If you really want to work then you’ll tether it to your actual laptop.
I would imagine most software developers could buy one.
If it's better than a MacBook with a sidecar iPad I think I would consider it.
It depends strongly on how much of a drop-in replacement it is for multi-screen.
I think the weakest point of the headset is it's interface, so if it seamlessly integrates with my laptop I might consider it.
I suspect this V1 of AR will probably involve a lot of unpleasant-ness and it will feel truly beta.
I am not confident apple has a killer app for it either.
Well, it would be more than that for me, since I don't own a Mac, so I'd have to buy that too. With my budget that's unlikely, especially since I'm pretty happy with my Windows laptop and desktop.
Looks like a lovely toy, if you can afford it and don't mind wearing bulky goggles, but I think I'd prefer to keep my head unencumbered for most computer tasks.
Does look like a cool way to watch videos though.
If you have to ask you can't afford it, as the saying goes.
You could ask who can afford a $5,000 purse or a $25,000 piece of jewelry, or a $200,000 car. Lots of people. 1.3 bn people around the world paid for iPhones, which can cost up to $1,600 retail. LVMH reported record revenues of €79.2 bn last year, selling stuff less objectively useful than a VR headset.
I bought an original Macintosh in 1984 and paid $2,500 for it, on my unexceptional programmer salary. I remember people back then asking "Who can afford $2,500 for a cute little computer that can't do anything useful?" I didn't regret buying it.
The Mac 128K was the equivalent of $7,400 in today's dollars when it launched.
A few years later the Mac SE (with 20MB hard drive) was $10,000.
I won't but people forkout lots of cash for apple products already so $3500 is not out of the realm. Specialty if they can make a business case for its use. Video editing comes to mind. It's not a mass market product now but once they bring down the price, which they will, people are going to eat it up.
I mean, I could get it. I've got a Quest and a powerful desktop already though, paying $3,500 for the privilege of upgrading to a wire is a hard sell to me.
I could see some people getting it, though. My cousins are fairly wealthy and love blowing money on rich people paraphernalia (drones, home theater, massage chairs, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to come over in 2 Christmases and see them playing with one.
I mean - 75" OLED are 3k and they sell like hot cakes. The top 20% have more than enough disposable income for entertainment.
I imagine the government can:
> In November, 2018, Microsoft announced that it is readying HoloLens for combat. The company won a $480 million military contract with the U.S. government to bring AR headset tech into the weapons repertoire of American soldiers.
- The Enthusiasts - The Gamers - The Professionals - The Disney Fans - The Early Adopters
It's an easy purchase with Apple Card Monthly Installments or even easier with Apple Card BNPL.
Apple has spent a LONG time preparing for a release like this.
If hoardes of people bought a $500 set of headphones from them, they'll get the Vision Pro no problem.
If it comes with Apple's usual 14 day no questions asked money-back guarantee, I will absolutely try it. If I can comfortably code in it for a workday instead of external monitors, I will definitely keep it.
The same people who have:
$3500 gaming rigs
$3500 motorcycles
$3500 kayaks
$3500 artwork
$3500 rolexes
$3500 ATVs
$3500 lawnmowers
$3500 boats
$3500 plastic surgery
$3500 tool chests
$3500 worth of old phones in a drawer
$3500 worth of largely-unused yearly subscriptions
I have several of these things, personally. I can swap them in and out without too much effort. Almost anyone working in tech can, as well.
It isn't as much as who can afford, but who is compelled to? What kind of experiences does the Vision Pro headset enable that other headsets (or completely different products) don't?
Yeah I’m curious about this as well. How well does it solve the VR problem? It’s already improving on Quest 2 but it’s a steep jump to get to it.
I was paying ~$20k in 2023 USD for development boxes in the early 90's. If it were to enable anything useful, that'd be cheap.
$3.5k is the consumer price not the development kit.
When it comes to apple the consumer version is the development version.
besides the whole Apple 'premium' which has been debated to death, $3500 is on the low side for a new tech especially for devs and researches looking to implement it. it's not exactly aimed at the mass consumer market yet (and likely there's no production capability for that either).
The price is set as an anchor for sunk cost fallacy in the chase for adoption
The Apple price is a large part of the allure, for some people.
A device with these capabilities is pretty much impossible to do at an appreciably cheaper price.
Nah.
You could have the same resolution/frame rate, with manual adjustment, for about $1000. It won't feel as refined or polished, but it will be functionally the same for VR world.
And you could surely ship it yourself ;)
Same person who is dropping 4-5k for their display
i plan to buy 3 of these
[dead]