-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Report - Apple Vision Pro sales have ‘fallen sharply’ as Apple struggles to whip up demand
- Thread starter wafflebrain
- Start date
Shocking but not surprising?
That it's selling poorly is no surprise but That the numbers are half of a figure for something Apple didn't expect to be a big mover anyway is something
That it's selling poorly is no surprise but That the numbers are half of a figure for something Apple didn't expect to be a big mover anyway is something
No, Apple Didn't Really Cut Vision Pro Production By 50%
Headlines are circulating claiming Apple cut Vision Pro production by almost 50% due to weak demand. But here's why this is almost certainly false.
www.uploadvr.com
400k is a pretty good number for the price, and especially when you realize that Apple's grand vision for their revolutionary spatial computing paradigm is flat screens hanging in the air to use iphone apps.
Interesting. A video I happened to watch on tech for VR screens explains why it's the case. IIRC, basically a screen's original brightness, even at 1000nits gets cut down as you put lenses and other processing shit in front of it. Will need super super bright display tech.
As always with VR headsets, it's a case of waiting for the tech to get better. And cheaper.
Soon.
Launching later this year supposedly.
The tech is getting real close.
No, Apple Didn't Really Cut Vision Pro Production By 50%
Headlines are circulating claiming Apple cut Vision Pro production by almost 50% due to weak demand. But here's why this is almost certainly false.
So, this story is being refuted. Seems like this ought to get added to the OP.
Honestly those numbers aren't even bad to begin with. It's multiple years early and at a completely undesirable price point.
If the first iPhone released in 2005 for 2300$ it would've done similarly low numbers.
If the first iPhone released in 2005 for 2300$ it would've done similarly low numbers.
This'll age well.
Real, "we will never need more than 640k RAM" energy.
The insanely overpriced AR headset that nobody wished for is not selling like hotcakes anymore?
Woah, shocking news
Woah, shocking news
So basically 'Apple on track to sell all Vision Pro headsets they can make'? Guess that's not as catchy as saying it's doomed.
Not sure what people were expecting, it was always going to be something for a minority of users. This is V1 and apparently it's already an incredible experience. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it niche? Yes. Over time though the cost will come down, the device will shrink down, it'll become more user friendly and developers will think of new and exciting ways to utilise the technology.
We need more than a VR enthusiast site as a source to refute.
I'm no Apple enthusiast so I don't know but do they give out sales numbers for any of their devices, can we expect official numbers one day?
Still crossing my fingers for this device to sell enough and evolve over time, the more VR/AR investments the better, shit is still far too expensive and cumbersome.
Still crossing my fingers for this device to sell enough and evolve over time, the more VR/AR investments the better, shit is still far too expensive and cumbersome.
It's a $3,500 novelty with extremely marginal utility.
Even with the Apple branding I'm shocked it sold more than 100k, and even more shocked expectations were close to a million.
Even with the Apple branding I'm shocked it sold more than 100k, and even more shocked expectations were close to a million.
Every amazing piece of hardware needs software. And avp just doesn't have anything compelling enough. It's puzzling how uncreative apple's own software offerings are on this thing.
Im happy this exists as a product since I dont want this one, I want like, the tenth one
However, its no real mystery why this is failing to make an impact and they all know why. They have to play the PR game and say some bullshit, but they know. The alternative is that they're completely out of sync with what regular people are like which is also believable if you watch, well, any apple conference, but theyve earned some benefit of the doubt.
However, its no real mystery why this is failing to make an impact and they all know why. They have to play the PR game and say some bullshit, but they know. The alternative is that they're completely out of sync with what regular people are like which is also believable if you watch, well, any apple conference, but theyve earned some benefit of the doubt.
Yeah. This would be cool if Apple had any fun with it. Instead all built-in apps are virtual iPads.
The tech is cool, and this is a good 1st gen device to develop for. I mean the dev experience is already a country mile ahead of Oculus.
Yeah, and not just that, but even the things Apple is trying to sell in their marketing material seem so uninspired and... downright visionless (pun very much intended).
There's basically no actual AR / XR to be seen, it's all just floating windows or a bit of (but not too much) 3D environments. There's like a gazillion cameras on this thing but it's all either passthrough or gesture identification.
That's just... boring.
No, they didn't know. Can we please stop pretending Apple is some kind of incredible magic wizard group knowing the future and never doing wrong? They didn't put a 4000$ device on the market because "they knew". No freaking company would do that. They expected the hype to latch on and at least sell a good bunch of these things to hardcore fans, influencer watchers, techbros and cryptobois. They expected to take over VR within weeks. They expected developers to salivate over shooting out apps onto the store on basically day one. None of these things happened.
I've never seen an apple product where hype inflated and completely puffed out so quickly like with this. It's an absolute failure in terms of its launch and opening weeks, and no amount of "yes but what might be in 10 years" will change that. In 5 years, there's not suddenly gonna be a Vision Pro 5, for 1000 bucks, sized like regular sunglasses with even more impressive tech. R&D and costs for any 2.0 must be completely off the charts, and there's no way it's prioritized anywhere at Apple at the moment. Like, why would it? Nobody bought this thing, and everyone who did already has it collecting dust. All the big Youtubers telling you how this is the future _never_ got seen again with the AVP on head after their initial video. All those "I'll wear this _EVERYWHERE_" tech weirdos and Apple super fans were never heard of or seen again after a week.
This was a gigantic flop, and if we see anything new in terms of Vision Pro hardware within like 5 years even, I will happily eat crow.
This doesn't make any sense after all the effort they put in to market it as NOT a VR device and by giving it almost no VR content.
They branded it as "spatial computing" because they know the terms VR/AR are scorched earth. Yet _everything_ they showed was VR/AR. You're gonna actually tell me you suck up marketing phrases this easily while looking at the tech industry via era for years now? Come on, we don't need to pay pretend here.
I'm not playing pretend, there was hardly any VR content (nor APIs), that's actually the main problem of the device, they thought they could leapfrog the existing market, but with no vision for spatial computing it currently serves nobody.
And here is where I think Apple has really fumbled it with the AVP: the branding.
There isn't a consumer market for this headset, and Apple clearly doesn't think there is. It isn't priced for the mass market, it doesn't have a big suite of apps or games, it's only available in the US, everything about it screams "v1". This is blatantly for developers who need something to test on and for big companies to evaluate how they can use this shiny new toy in their organisations. That way, when the consumer-grade model(s) launch, everything and everyone will be ready to lap it up.
And yet, they called it the "Pro", a name which normally, in Apple land, means "Expensive but worth the cash if you want the power". You don't have to be a professional at anything creative-related to want an iPad Pro, or a MacBook Pro, or an iPhone Pro.
I honestly think this whole kerfuffle could've been avoided had they simply called it the "Apple Vision Enterprise" or something similar.
Perhaps you forgot the discourse that followed the release of the original Apple Watch?
The bigger problem is that it's a bad developer headset because the cost of entry is extremely high and there's no chance of ROI for developers, and developer trust in Apple in in the toilet due to years of their behaviour.
If you're an independent developer, sure. I was thinking more about software teams in larger companies.
It's no better in larger companies. You can't take a punt on a hit in a large company, you'd have to demonstrate a business plan. What is the business plan for the Apple Vision Pro for a corporate? "It's got no user base, so you won't make any money. Apple might make a cheaper accessible one at some point but they might not and they certainly won't tell us. You have to spend a really non-trivial amount on Unity developer licenses. There are precious few libraries and devs with the relevant skill sets are expensive and could be doing more profitable things. If you do have a good idea Apple will probably steal it and give themselves preferential treatment, and even if you come up with something you've probably got to watch 30% of your revenue walking out of the door and the arbitrary approval mess that makes corporate teams despite iOS development. The liability terms are insane, with no upside to balance them. The headsets are set up to be actively hostile between passing around staff to do testing and development."
Did they really expect 700K corporate types buying this to fill up their down time in their glassy offices?
At least the original apple watch was worn by apple fans and techies for longer than a week or two :/
Apple may as well scrap the product now if the use case is just existing iPad apps on a 2d plane. That's absolutely useless. They need developers to come up with actual 3D applications and development.
I see a lot of "VR has yet to take off" takes in the first couple of pages.
Apart from the price, one of the issues with the AVP is that it's barely a VR device. It's primary use case is AR and media consumption. That's a LOT of dollars to give for that. Especially since the design is form over function so it's not comfortable to use for longer periods. Also, the Eye-shield only makes sense in promo videos (where they oversell the functionality). In the real world, it's just added weight and cost with little benefit.
What do I mean with "it's barely a VR device":
-It's primarily designed to be used sitting. Apparently the Micro-Oleds have even worse persistence than the PSVR2 screens but by having the primary use being seated, you rarely notice because you don't move around as much.
-Games is looooow on the priority list. AFAIK, dev's can't access the eyetracking feature which means you are severely limited in the resources available to render the game. Or any app with fancy graphics for that matter.
-By not having controllers you get a lot of freedom, but you also miss out on the immersion you get from a controller's buttons and rumble - both of which help selling the "being there".
As it is, it has a fantastic screen, bad ergonomics, no controllers, barely any VR games. Had it been a "real" mac and able to run OSX software, then that might change things quite a lot for the creative crowd. It's a fascinating first effort and stuff like the ergonomics will definitely be improved in future revisions. But for first movers, I don't think it offers enough. I mean, nothing would be "enough" at that price but some rabid gamers (like me!) would pay top dollar for a stupendous gaming experience. This isn't it though.
Apart from the price, one of the issues with the AVP is that it's barely a VR device. It's primary use case is AR and media consumption. That's a LOT of dollars to give for that. Especially since the design is form over function so it's not comfortable to use for longer periods. Also, the Eye-shield only makes sense in promo videos (where they oversell the functionality). In the real world, it's just added weight and cost with little benefit.
What do I mean with "it's barely a VR device":
-It's primarily designed to be used sitting. Apparently the Micro-Oleds have even worse persistence than the PSVR2 screens but by having the primary use being seated, you rarely notice because you don't move around as much.
-Games is looooow on the priority list. AFAIK, dev's can't access the eyetracking feature which means you are severely limited in the resources available to render the game. Or any app with fancy graphics for that matter.
-By not having controllers you get a lot of freedom, but you also miss out on the immersion you get from a controller's buttons and rumble - both of which help selling the "being there".
As it is, it has a fantastic screen, bad ergonomics, no controllers, barely any VR games. Had it been a "real" mac and able to run OSX software, then that might change things quite a lot for the creative crowd. It's a fascinating first effort and stuff like the ergonomics will definitely be improved in future revisions. But for first movers, I don't think it offers enough. I mean, nothing would be "enough" at that price but some rabid gamers (like me!) would pay top dollar for a stupendous gaming experience. This isn't it though.
Last edited:
The UploadVR defense article is pretty bad. The author even misquotes his own previous reporting. Take this part:
However if you click through the first link it says this:
And if you click through the third link it says this:
I'm not a professional reporter, but I'm pretty sure that 900K is not "less than half a million".
Yep, in the past Apple could get by, by having a relative first mover advantage (and much lower development hurdles). Now Meta has a much bigger market and much more advanced APIs. And as Primal Sage said, even the things that make it relatively unique like eye-tracking, are off limits to developers, so they are not creating a USP for itself.
Outside of thinking daddy Apple will be good for it, there is really no reason for anyone to currently pick the AVP over the Meta Quest as development platform, and daddy Apple has been consistently eroding developer trust.
Problem is you look stupid wearing it. Google Glass had the same problem. They need something attractive if you're gonna put it on your face. These tech companies can be a bit too geeky for the masses.
Didn't bother people buying Airpods in droves tbf.
But I also think AVP is actually pretty premium looking.
But EarPods are cosmetically unobtrusive. That's the brilliance of its design.