Here's why the $3,500 Apple Vision Pro headset is so expensive
Here's why the $3,500 Apple Vision Pro headset is so expensive
The $3499 Apple Vision Pro reportedly costs $1542 to make.
Edit: Archive link https://archive.ph/u4BCi
Yeah there's no way it doesn't cost an absolute fortune to make a Vision Pro. The display is nuts, and if reports are to be believed, extremely difficult to make and with a very low yield. Then there's a bunch of other high tech stuff in there.
It's pretty much a polished prototype for Apple to simultaneously explore possible design avenues in the VR space, gather data on and overcome unforeseen obstacles in new VR tech and its development process, and get the ball rolling on VR software development on the Apple side.
The one perplexing thing is that right now VR has two main usecases: gaming and wanking. Apple takes a dim view of both. I think that's something they'll have to re-evaluate as they work to bring out more consumer-focused, sub $1k VR devices.
Yeah if you watch the iFixit tear down it’s obvious these things are just packed to the gills with tech. I’m not mega surprised they ended up costing so much. It’s really bleeding edge.
That said it’s way too expensive for me to get on board and I think they made some poor choices. Especially the outer display. The amount of weight, battery drain, fragility, and (presumably) expense that display alone added is just plain dumb. And it looks a lot worse IRL than in their videos.
I also think the aluminum looks great but I wonder how much lighter the headset would be if it were plastic without the outer display and glass.
It's basically got a full fat Mac arm PC in it, it's wild
Wearing a display on your head just seems like an awful experience to me. I always wondered as a kid what my "old people just don't get tech" thing would be and I think this is definitely over that line. I just got no desire for this shit. It's frustrating to see people chase it cause I know I'm going to have to deal with it eventually if they do.
gather data on
Yes. I make digital products for a living and our process is continuously informed by usage statistics from our customers. We also do focus group testing, and it has its place, but live data feedback gives us statistically meaningful readings of how people use our products and this tells us what to focus on to make them better.
Apple has been in pure focus group testing for a decade+ on this product and they absolutely just need to get into the field and accelerate their development with usage statistics. It doesn’t have to sell in the tens of millions. Remember focus group participants number in the dozens or hundreds, and a secretive company like Apple can’t afford to have too many of them.
The Vision Pro marks the end of prototyping and the beginning of actual product development. This is why I don’t care at all about the v1 product. It’s a starting point. Everything interesting happens from here on.
Gaming at least I feel like they’ve been trying to support more as a company for several years. It hasn’t necessarily translated to results, but it seems like they’re trying a lot more than they did a decade ago.
They seem to be pushing it on the productivity angle, but until someone makes a super light weight and open air headset I'm not wearing it for 8 hours a day.
The VR wanking and gaming markets are too saturated for Apple to bother with. They want the VR computing market, which is essentially vacant.
For wanking; it still has Safari, and Pornhub still exists 👍🏽
Good luck streaming a 30 to 60gb video.
Spoken as someone who clearly has never used a VR headset for any sort of video content. To get even passable framerates at resolutions that don't look atrocious, you're looking at multiple GB for scant minutes of VR video content.
Unless you just want to watch the same crap you already do, but on an effectively building sized flatscreen, bandwidth and even local data storage and transfer rates become an issue fast.
It has 3D video apps too…
I don't like how hard the article tries to make it seem like the markup is justified because of all of Apple's other costs. Apple will sell the product at whatever price it thinks the customer will pay, and the margins only matter to determine whether the product is worth it for Apple to sell (I'd love to see what the payback period is on the project though). The cost isn't that outrageous if this COGS is correct, maybe slightly on the higher side for a tech product.
The real discussion should be whether the product is worth the price they are charging based on the utility and the cost of being essentially a beta tester as an owner of a 1st gen product.
Here's why Apple users are delusional.
The thing is essentially a public dev kit. If you aren’t stupid rich and you can’t write it off on your taxes for business, it’s not worth picking up yet. And Apple knows that.
Give the tech time to mature. There were people who talked shit about the iPhone when it came out, and now we ALL use smartphones. I genuinely think AR (in a different form factor) will be a big deal. Possibly the thing to unseat smartphones, if manufacturers can start nailing transparent screens. But admittedly there are a few leaps in technology that will need to happen first.
I'm still talking shit about the iPhone. Where else do you see people using a glass keyboard? I don't care if a billion idiots like it. There is virtually no choice in the market, everything boils down to the lowest common denominator. We need open and reusable technology, not this proprietary throwaway shit that you can't maintain.
I think you're attributing more grandeur to Apple's decisions than is warranted.
Apple's iPhone was not the first phone to use a touchscreen - that goes to IBM in the 90s. Apple did produce a PDA the same year with a touchscreen, though it used a stylus-based touchscreen. During that time touch tech was still developing. If you follow the overall evolution of touchscreens, Apple actually deployed its touchscreen phone about as early as they could - probably because every other company was also eyeing making one but were waiting until touchscreens were cheaper and more reliable.
It also was not the first smartphone. Again, that IBM phone with a touch screen also had e-mail capability, a calendar, and various other features, and phones being able to access the web and play games along with various PDA functions was almost standard as we got into the 2000s.
The touchscreen rectangle smartphone was already on the way - Apple just grabbed the bag first.
What Apple consistently does is act brashly by deploying a usually obvious future product before the tech is actually developed enough to fully support it. They then sell it at a stupidly high price which trims off who buys to mostly just futurists with rose-tinted glasses on. It's a very effective strategy to get credit for innovation and leading the future while avoiding bad PR, and it fools massive amounts of people.
Apple is a company that is insanely good at corporate strategy. In fact, if there's anything that Apple has truly pioneered, it's the modern predatory, anti-repair, designed obsolescence fashion-tech environment we currently see.
I had smartphones way before the iPhone but ok..
The lady in the thumbnail looks like she stoking someone nipples like they’re radio dials.
Where do I get that game?
On the app store inside the headset
bill of materials” for the headset at $1,542, and that doesn’t include the costs of research and development, packaging, marketing or Apple’s profit margin.
Please read it, it's just another version of the "the iPhone cost 500$ to make". Research and especially marketing can sometimes be as much as the material and assembly cost. Id be surprised that apple doesn't make a profit on it, but it might not be close at all to 100% .
It costing that much in materials seems a bit much though I heard its casing is milled from a brick (probably not literally) of aliminium. Combing the other high tech and mass production aspects I feel like it costing 1k is more believable. But what do I know not even employed in any manfacturing job.
The reason: Apple.
Unjerk for a moment. How much should something like this cost? Serious question. Seems like it can do things other devices really can’t. Saw a video yesterday from a programmer who said it could replicate an impossible physical setup. I don’t have a need for it but maybe someone else can see the value.
The Apple Vision Pro supports only one 4k display for your Mac. I've seen some unreleased app dev stuff claiming to support another display, but as far as I know today there isn't any way to do it.
Good question. I don't have a good source, but this one guy tried to come up with a breakdown a few months ago and in parts alone he estimated $1529.
Inner and outer display including display lens: $840
Silicon content including M2 and R1 chips: $240
Sensors and cameras: $120
Battery: $18
Spatial Audio: $11
Housing, PCBS, cables, connectors, and packaging: $170
Assembly: $130
It aligns with the number in the article. The rest seems like a business decision.
The Quest 3 is capable of the same stuff and is only $500.
bill of materials” for the headset at $1,542, and that doesn’t include the costs of research and development, packaging, marketing or Apple’s profit margin.
And the software development. I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost is close to the market price. Apple doesn't really need to make profit with this, but to create a market first.
That's not unusual for componsation for overhead and development costs. I'm honestly surprised its that expensive to make.
“Because some dipshits will buy anything to be better than others, and also some people have just fucktons more money than they probably should “ - there, saved you a click
Apple financial statement for 2019, page 17.
This is especially true right now, when the enormous gulf between the wealthy and poor is the worst we've seen in living memory.
People are struggling to pay their rent, and yet Apple is over here selling this bullshit to people.
As long as people keep buying, companies will keep selling.
This. That's why some things are intentionally sold at a loss to increase adoption to be bolstered by post purchase sales on the back end.
Like the Oculus Quest 2 (go to Hell Zuck)
because it is apple?
Got a link that's not paywalled?
Thank you!
Gotta subsidize that lobbying and bribes to keep slavery strong on their assembly lines somehow.
Status costs, you can't want to be a gossip wannabe WO spending anything..
Because Apple
$1000 monitor stand
$80 to undo what you did to slow down my phone.
Didn't they sell $700 casters for THEIR Mac pro. FUCKING CASTERS!!!
/thread
The tech inside is great, but Apple also knows its customers are happy to pay a hefty premium over cost. I hate Apple but they are amazing at branding at end of day.
Apple are almost certainly planning a non “pro” model that will be much cheaper and the pro’s high pricing drives discussion, exclusivity, which leans in on their aspirational brand modus. Thus, the non-pro model will likely have absurd sales as people rush to finally buy in at their price level.
I don’t support it or like it but Apple have been following this playbook for decades now and unfortunately it really works.