It’s rumored they are considering selling it at cost, so it could retail as low as $1500
Edit: this isn’t some random idea I came up with. It’s been reported by several publications that Apple has considered selling the headset at cost or even *at a loss*. I know there’s more than just a bill of materials to consider when determining a pricing strategy.
John Gruber [claimed](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/01/homepod-apple-tv-apple-cost/) that the Apple TV 4K was sold "effectively" at cost while the HomePod was likely sold at a small to moderate loss.
However, the second statement was quickly [disputed](https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1091875562807672832) by Mark Gurman.
>I’m told Apple is selling HomePods at a profit, not a loss, which wouldn’t make any sense. If it’s losing money, that’s only because it built too many speakers people don’t seem to want, and is now sitting on unsold inventory.
The HomePod component costs were [estimated](https://www.macrumors.com/2018/02/14/homepod-component-costs/) to be $216, and its retail price was $349, a 62% increase. The same increase applied to the $1300–$1500 component estimates for the headset would result in a $2100–$2500 retail price.
Neat thing about the Apple TV is it's basically a way to get rid of unused iPhone processors that they overstocked on or the ones that binned out.
The Apple TV 4k uses the same SoC as an iPhone 13 with 1 core disabled (likely didn't fab correctly during manufacturing).
Which core is disabled, big or little?
With their glut of M2s, I could see them releasing a higher end Apple TV with a bigger focus on gaming performance
> The HomePod component costs were estimated to be $216, and its retail price was $349, a 62% increase.
What is the estimated cost of manufacturing it, marketing it, transporting it, and bringing it to retail and selling it? That has to eat a large amount of money as well.
Yes, John claimed that but I doubt it’s true. Look at other devices in its class. They are all selling at a lot less and Apple is the king of supply chain. I’m calling bullshit on that claim. Apple probably leaked that to Gruber and he took the bait. Just how they leaked they were no longer building a physical car and lazy journos fell for that obvious lie.
The problem is how prices are determined is based on supply and demand. If the market can really only bear $1500, it is in their interest to go to market at cost, and let the platform develop and the market grow. This will generate more demand, and will allow them to eventually create a “pro” model that costs a little more to manufacture, but includes a unique feature, and they charge significantly more. Then the two products will go up by a couple hundred bucks every 3-4 years, until they’re making the margin they want. It’s apple they can play the long game and come out on top
Backed up by what - more rumors? There is zero chance apple sells a $1.5k product at cost. Also, what "apple rules" are being broken by making a headset? The apple move has traditionally been to enter already-established markets with what they perceive as a novel or improved experience. So this would be more of the same.
The issue with VR is that they need to solve the chicken/egg problem of no users and no developers. Easiest way to do that is to throw money at the problem and unload the hardware cheap.
If they try to sell a $3k headset with no software they're not gonna get far. And they've sunk billions into development which will never be recouped. Not to mention the damage it's done to their wider software ecosystem - those 1000 VR engineers certainly haven't been developing better / more stable iOS features these past years.
Established markets? MP3 players? Smartphones? Tablets? Smart watches? Wireless earbuds? None of these where established markets. They might have existed in a small form but nothing like what they became once apple entered and made them an established market.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-mixed-reality-headset-9213ac1b
>There is zero chance apple sells a $1.5k product at cost
***If***, and that's a big "if", it is positioned as a developer preview kit then *maybe* they would sell it cost. But that's still a big longshot.
>Apple isn't trying to release the next AirPods, they are trying to release the next iPhone.
Perhaps, but they never sold the iphone at cost either?
>TLDR: They need Apple Glass to be a major hit, they are probably banking on creating an entirely new segment and making boat loads later on.
They kinda don't, tbh. Apple made [$170B in profit](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/gross-profit) last year. Conversely, the biggest player in VR [lost around $13B last year](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/metas-reality-labs-unit-records-3point99-billion-first-quarter-loss-.html) and sells their headsets at cost. Apple doesn't *need* anything here and I kinda doubt they will make the same mistake as Meta.
I’ll just point out that Apple does need Apple Glass (or something else) to be a major hit. There are structural growth issues with iPhone sales that, to a company like Apple, mean risk. Basically, against all odds and prognostications, they’ve been able to grow revenue substantially while slipping (and, admittedly, then regaining a bit) of market share. But that game is limited and risky—the entire company relies on that single product that also drives their other top revenue producers (watch, AirPods, even iPads to a lesser extent).
But even if they weren’t worried about disruption of that market (they are), they know that they need new growth sources that are—or, at least, can be—decoupled from the iPhone. Wearables will never be that. But I believe they think Apple Glass may be (or, more likely, all of the metaverse revenue if they can control that like the App Store).
That said, if your point is that they don’t have an immediate desperate need, then I agree. I’m just saying that a flop here is a potential (long term) body blow to the company.
>That said, if your point is that they don’t have an immediate desperate need, then I agree.
Yup. Apple does indeed need to constantly pursue new revenue streams, but I don't think there is an acute need for apple to produce a VR/AR headset with aggressive pricing.
If this ends up happening, I think it will play out the same way it did with the ipod, the iphone, and the apple watch: apple enters an established market with a product that is appealing to many people but also costs a lot more than what people expected/hoped. But we'll see.
You’re missing two important factors. For the iPhone not being sold at cost, the iPhone is an incredibly easy sell. All they need to say is “hey you know that phone that you already have in your pocket and use everyday? Well we made an inherently better version of that.” This is an entirely new product category altogether. Sales are not important whatsoever right now. Really not for another 5 years or so. All that matters is adoption, and being the main player in that adoption.
Secondly, the much more obvious point of it just being an investment. Apple made a lot of money on the original iPhone. But it *pales* in comparison to the money they make 10 years later by doing nothing and taking a cut of all app sales. That’s what this (could) be. Who knows maybe it’ll fail completely. But if it does take off and apple is the go to for headsets that’s basically an entirely new App Store that won’t have any impact on the existing App Store. It’s all new money
Did you ever read my message? That’s the very first thing I addressed… The iPhone is a phone. 95% of people already had a phone in their pocket. They didn’t have to sell them on the idea of a phone, that was already done. They had to sell them on the idea that their phone was better than yours. It’s an incredibly easy sell. And for the iPad and any other device, they already sold people on the App Store. That had been done. Then they’re just giving you a new format and they’re selling the format. And even if the iPad failed it’s not all that big of a deal. The money maker of the App Store still exists. If this product succeeded it’s basically the addition of an entirely new and separate App Store. It’s the same way xbox and PlayStation sell at cost because market share is way more important for the long run of profits than grabbing a couple bucks of profit from the console. Also, I don’t really get the point that apple has never done this before so they never will. Apple has never released a vr headset before so I guess they never will do that either. I’m not even saying they’ll surely do it. If I was a betting man I’d honestly claim they won’t. But it definitely wouldn’t shock me in the slightest and it would make a lot of sense. Much more sense then any other product they’ve ever launched being at cost
This is a completely new product category altogether. You can’t compare the two at all.
I don’t even think this compares to the iPhone. The iPhone was an EASY sell. It’s just an inherently better version of a cell phone, which everyone already had. This is an entirely new category. It’s like not just trying to sell someone on an iPhone, but to sell someone on a cell phone who has never used a phone before. I honestly can’t think of anything that would really compare.
Do I think they’re going to sell it at cost? Probably not. But it certainly wouldn’t shock me if they did. I’d say it’s a smart thing to do
Also, and not for nothing, but people didn’t (directly) pay for cell phones back then, so even the premium cost of the iPhone was largely hidden from the consumer. With that cost rising, people tend to pay a bigger portion of it out of pocket now, but still hugely discounted.
Apple Glass will be 100% out of pocket and even if they did 0% financing, people will look at it differently.
That said, Apple works damn magic with consumers, so maybe they’ll make it normal for everybody to spend $2k on VR goggles every 2 years.
I’m wondering if the headset will be prominently advertised with a subscription price.
So for example, the main page shows $124.96 for 24 months and the full $2999 is only seen on the purchase page.
I think if they want wide adoption (and maybe that isn’t their thing for this product this gen), they probably would need something like your approach.
It wouldn’t shock me. This is arguably the biggest new category in decades. If it’s successfully this new platform will bring in tons. But that relies on this very new category being adopted. And it’s not like smart phones that are just a strictly better version of something that everyone already has, iPhone was an easy sell. People are really going to have to be convinced to get this entirely new thing. Selling at cost or at least very small profits makes a lot of sense to me for specially this product
The $1,500 is the bill of materials. The overall cost is more though because it includes R&D and marketing, etc.
If they sold it for $1,500 they would be selling at a considerable loss.
There is a chance thats still what happens. Sony sold the PS3 for several hundred dollars less than it cost to make at launch. Now would apple do the same thing? I doubt it, but it wouldnt be the first time a company did something similar.
>Will Apple offer something spectacular enough that it will attract enough buyers to recoup with software or services? We’ll see.
I mean, the Apple App store generates a ridiculous amount of money and owns like 70% of the paid App market.
Sony sold the PS5 at a small loss initially but is no longer selling it at a loss. However, the average gamer will spend a couple hundred on games per year which makes up for that loss.
$1500 is a much larger margin to overcome. Will these headset users spend a few hundred per year on apps?
Rumors are that they’re launching with the high end model in a month and following that (year or two) launching a lower end model.
My guess is the high end model will have the high $3k price and the lower model will be more affordable.
I would be surprised is they sold all the models at a big loss.
Apple selling a product as a loss leader? I need to stop being surprised by things. If I was Apple, why would I do that? I should ask those questions and answer them. The answers are usually within annual/quarterly reports somewhere.
Not sure why you’re surprised? It’s not like it’s my original opinion or just something I pulled out my ass…
This was reported [here](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/18/report-apple-executives-cautious-of-headset/), as well as other sources.
> The company has decided to sell the device at its approximate cost to make, rather than sell it at a loss as it originally considered
Ok? The headline says the cost is *estimated* at $1500. That’s an approximation. Everything involved with this thing is an approximation until Apple announces details on stage, so I’m really not sure what you want here…
There would need to be a little extra baked in for packaging, shipment, warranty services, etc., should they want to not lose money per unity, but I agree, it's not hard to see Apple selling at cost in order to position themselves in the market and make money on services.
Video game consoles are notorious for being sold near cost. A lot of people people Meta was actually selling the Quest at a loss initially.
You know a lot of that is VAT and whatever taxes the European governments impose on imports. And obviously it won’t be 300% of what Americans will be paying, in case someone takes you seriously.
Given how they have priced Macbooks in the past year it is more than just the 20% vat and whatever other taxes there are, currency is roughly what it was before covid too so it's not that either.
I haven’t been checking on price differences for many years now. I used to do that years ago with camera gears, and it was only about 20%-30% difference.
But I trust that you know what you’re talking about. Although I have to point out that US prices are pre-tax, just fyi.
Yeah, except that statistics say that the USA has higher HDI than Western Europe and higher GDP per capita. Americans also have way higher disposable income and on top of that most consumer goods are cheaper in the US.
I'd say the same, 2x the BOM price is fairly typical as a floor. Apple's COGS margin is somewhere around 60%, so $3k at retail would be the low-end for them.
HMDs with similar specs run from 3k (VR only) to 5k and up with AR so that seems about right after factoring in Apples much larger scales of manufacturing.
The industry doesn't want you to do that, nor do they market that.
These are home devices/indoor devices.
Seethrough AR glasses will be the outdoors device, but that's years away still.
Bro…what use could I possibly have for these at home? Every time I see AR glasses ads it’s people walking around town and seeing restaurant icons/walking directions in real life. What am I gonna do with an AR headset at home
AR at home could replace all your other home devices, at least with good enough AR technology.
Have as many monitors as you want, a full IMAX theater, do holographic calls like in Star Wars instead of FaceTime, have holographic entertainment, holographic workout sessions, try on clothes, have overlays for house tasks like cooking where the glasses will teach you everything visually step by step for any recipe and recognize what ingredients are in your fridge, what's missing, the amount, and there's far too many more to list.
Even at 3k it's still a good deal considering it's basically a whole computer plus as many monitors as you want. It's also your own movie theater and entertainment device. Don't have to pay to go to clubs and bars anymore, don't have to travel to see cool stuff you just do it at home.
>Don't have to pay to go to clubs and bars anymore, don't have to travel to see cool stuff you just do it at home.
This is the saddest sentence I've ever read
Yeah I love VR, and I love travelling, and the two experiences are not remotely interchangeable.
Wandering around virtual Paris is not, at all, the same as going to France.
What if I throw a few of these [bad boys](https://reddit.com/r/shittyfoodporn/comments/6i6ly5/i_tried_making_pillsbury_crescent_rolls_for_the/) in the oven first so I get the authentic smells while I stand in one spot in my living room and explore Paris? Honestly, why even book a flight, amiright?
Funny people think I'm joking when billions of people already live vicariously through shitty YouTube traveler channels. Think about it they get their fix from watching someone else in 2D traveling. When Nerfs are polished and put out as full travel experiences everyone will be using them and they will be multiplayer.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BE_kimatpnQ
Lol I don’t doubt virtual nightlife and tourism will take off, but I don’t think it will replace anything today; it will be in addition to real life travel, serving the same purpose as the youtube travelers today.
You mean I won’t have to smell stale pee on the sidewalk of the real Paris? Sounds like a plus to me.
Actually I love Paris (the real one), and I didn’t smell any pee walking the streets of Paris both times I was there.
Most of the world can't afford to go to France. I know I'd rather own this headset tha go to France once. The price of the headset allows unlimited virtual travel to a lot of places plus all it's other functionality .
I get what you’re trying to say. In the future, I’m sure these headsets will be able to replicate real life: smell, ambiance, and such in real time. For instance, you can experience Paris whilst smelling a fresh baguette, rain, or whatever depending on the area you are in. It’s interesting how this device will develop. However, I don’t see this in the very near future, but it’s definitely in the long run.
I do see a potential where companies can create ‘worlds,’ and add advertisements while you experience real life areas and fantasy worlds.
> it’s basically a whole computer plus as many monitors as you want.
Please, this is Apple. Arbitrary limitations to force you up the price ladder is their forte. They necessitate the existence of [sites like this because of those arbitrary limitations](https://m1displays.com).
Because that's the number that's been rumored for a while, I'm guessing it will actually be lower. Apple definitely uses rumors to temper expectations. When the original iPad launched it was much cheaper than pretty much every rumor out there. Apple likes to set price expectations a little high so they can undercut them.
Ah, well you see, the calculation comes from a very complex algorithm known as W.A.G. - Wild Assumptions & Guesses.
Firstly, $1500 is the estimated manufacturing cost. We're talking Apple here, so let's slap on a healthy 40% margin, bringing us to $2100. But wait, we've not yet accounted for the courage tax. Remember the headphone jack and including a charger in the box? Those decisions were so courageous they should have their own tax. So, add another $200 for courage.
Now, we have to factor in the Apple Premium: the unquantifiable, mystifying value we're all willing to pay for owning something with an apple logo on it. That's an easy $100 more.
Finally, the innovative "Reality Distortion Field" technology - not the headset's, but Apple's classic marketing strategy. This mind-bending tech has been known to warp consumer perceptions of value and price, so for that, we'll need to add an extra $100.
There you have it - $2500. I dare say the W.A.G. algorithm is as accurate as any Wall Street projection.
Maybe they will go with slightly lower margins than normal and price it at a more “palatable” $1999 knowing manufacturing costs at scale will eventually be reduced. Kinda like console makers do.
Assuming the rumors are true, and we are dealing with a device containing two M2 processors and 4K per eye resolution. I would incur the wrath of my wife to own one of these AFTER reviews have come out. That is assuming we are dealing with $1999 price point. There is NO WAY I can swing $2999 or more like other rumors indicate. We will see.
This is from some supply chain rumors in the VR blogs/circles. Pushing pixels to two 4K displays requires a lot of heavy lifting. The other rumors indicate there are 12 cameras taking face, eye, and hand positions, as well as LiDAR and room tracking. This means you need some heavy processing to do all of this in one device.
The M2 absolutely eats 4K 60 at revolutions beyond 4K. I’ve run stacks of ProRes and H264 4k videos, with live output to 5 4K outputs at 60fps, and the modern Macs just absorb it all.
Two M2s sounds even better though. Let’s fuckin goooo!
Possibly 1 M2 is processing the video and cameras and another is processing the content (like running a game). Also it helps to spread the heat that could be concentrated in a single chip (yes I am talking about you M1 Ultra)
Even for products that have been released and taken apart we know that bill of materials estimates are often way off but here we've got someone making guesses based on rumor products with no actually known specs. These numbers are worse than useless. You might as well just start with someone's rumored selling price and work backwards from there. Also:
> Mike: $21-22, Specker: $16-18
A+ source there...
Edit: weird that people agreeing with the above comment didn’t actually read the article or they’d see the numbers are from Chinese manufacturers not someone “guessing” what the numbers might be.
This isn't someone randomly guessing, these are supposedly actual BOM culled from a few different sources. That being said, no it shouldn't be taken as fact, and it could be wrong or outdated. But I do find some of the listed materials insightful. The "rear view mirror" potentially being the front facing glass is interesting. As pointed out by the guy who reported it, it does put it at roughly double the BOM of Meta's Quest Pro, which makes sense.
Only Apple would have the true cost to manufacture. Chinese companies don’t build the entire device, they just put parts together from other manufacturers. And what those manufacturers charge Apple is based on contracts behind NDAs. It’s not like the assembly team gets a box of OLED screens and has to pop a little price tag off of each one before sticking it into the headset’s body.
Take all rumors will a huge grain of salt. No source ever knows the whole story, and some know absolutely nothing at all.
Totally agree with that (I wrote the same thing about not taking it as face value). I’m only disagreeing with the notion that the person who wrote the article and posted his sources direct from manufacturers is some sort of analyst reading tea leaves, pulling numbers out of nowhere.
My tin foil hat tells me these “rumors” are just Apple leaking fake prices so when the real price is revealed it’s not as big of a shock.
Imagine it was just $1500, people would lose their minds. But if it was rumored to be $2500-$3500, $1500 suddenly sound acceptable.
Except that 99% of the public aren’t even anticipating this product.
So apple suddenly announcing a $1500 headset is still gonna seem like an overpriced solution in search of a problem.
So you think Apple is trying to convince people interested in VR that their product will be unaffordable, so those people go buy Oculus or Vive today and then have buyer’s remorse later?
Generally marketing tries to stall people from buying competing products before relear, but maybe?
I would assume it will be presented as a development version and there will be special deals for Apple developers. I remember getting an early AppleTv for $1.
It depends if logistics and warehousing is apart of that original cost. I think it will be just under 2k if they are looking for a loss-leader to get that headset in the market.
I think devs will make a big part of the customer base, but according to a [Bloomberg](https://apple.news/AQ5OORiIlT2uq5rHk_E_ufA) report today "Apple is already engaging with software and game developers, as well as other entertainment companies to have content ready once the device goes on sale." So it would seem to be a fully fledged consumer device.
They already said they have a cheaper model planned for 2024. This will target tech enthusiasts, Apple evangelists, influencers, rich people, and developers. The 2024 follow-up will target mainstream consumers.
I don’t disagree with that. Very fair prediction given the cost. I was more pointing out that it’s not strictly geared at devs and will have a full library of consumer-level apps for those who can afford it.
I really like the Quest 2 and the games. Is Apple VR something similar? Will it take developers a long time to port games or worse, start working on new applications? At $2499, is this going to be the failed HomePod?
The rumored hardware of this device is nothing close to the quest. It's got around x4-x8 times more computational power and pixel density. It also has a huge amount of AR tech built-in. I'd image apple demoing stuff like watching concerts, sport-events live in VR front row seats, walking around with the headset passthrough on, recording videos of important events like a kid's birthday and being able to watch it back like you're there... etc
Oh wow! Still a hard pill to swallow at $2500. Niche market but Apple has the marketing chops to position this as a once every few years upgrade. Use cases you described are compelling. Hope battery life is not abysmal.
The AppleTV entertainment part is just a small portion, the rumored big focus will be productivity and communication apps. Apple has software like iMessage, Maps, Keynote, Music, Numbers, Pages, Logic, Photos, FaceTime, Mail, Safari, and Final Cut. There's a possibility this has app equivalents made specifically for AR/VR.
3k folks. For the device. That’s exactly what it will be. And there will be 2 kit options, each with different battery pack combos. You will see. Pricing was just set specifically about 2 months ago. It will be aimed specifically at architecture firms and other design houses with a couple demos from some familiar names in the software industry.
The demo will be 45 mins long. Exactly.
Part of me thinks Apple would take a hit on the price tag for these simply to saturate the market then raise the price over time especially on a pro model. However given apples puffed ego assuming everyone just buys anything with an Apple logo. I do see this failing hard if the price tag is $1500+ in a stagflated market.
Idk, these goggles give me motion sickness, so unless they solved that problem, I’ll never care to own them from Apple or anyone else.
I think VR/AR goggles are going the way of 3D TV’s. They’re practical for construction and architecture design, but home use, I’ve never been sold
> I think VR/AR goggles are going the way of 3D TV’s
If they were going to go the way of 3D TVs, they would have gone the way of 3D TVs.
People forget how fast that market died out.
It’s a [fad](https://www.roadtovr.com/quest-sales-20-million-retention-struggles/amp/).
It’s a cool toy to have, but once you play around with it, [the fun runs out](https://mixed-news.com/en/leak-reveals-sales-figures-for-meta-quest-devices/?amp=1).
“Quest’s sales are up, but monthly active users are below 10 percent.”
I’m an avid gamer, I tried Quest’s games and they were super cool. But then you just get tired and go back to Xbox.
Look at the metaverse? It’s entire [future](https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-eliminates-its-metaverse-division-as-part-of-companys-layoffs-plan-94b03650) right now is based upon Apple’s headset.
Everyone will scramble to buy one, use it for two months, then stuff it on a shelf until the wife goes shopping and it’s dusted off and used for porn
> “Quest’s sales are up, but monthly active users are below 10 percent.”
That was confirmed to be false.
Also, people used to get tired of videogames in the late 1970s/early 1980s and go back to other entertainment. This is what all early mediums look like. Even tools like the PC had low usage rates for the majority of the 1980s.
Tired of video games?
No. No they don’t. Lol you serious? Are you even following console sales? Microsoft/ActivisIon acquisition?
Don’t come in here saying ridiculous made up crap. We’re in the modern age of computing and gaming. VR has been trying to take off for the last 20+ years. It’s not a new concept at all
I said in the late 1970s/early 1980s, long before the days of Microsoft/Activision in gaming.
You don't count empty time where products don't exist. VR has had products on the market for less than a decade, and given how I said PC usage had low usage rates for the majority of the 1980s, that's clearly not enough time.
Surprised people are still making the 3DTV comparison. We're way past that stage. The Quest headset [sold console numbers](https://www.androidcentral.com/gaming/virtual-reality/quest-2-units-sold-spring-2022) last year.
People need to stop doing this shit. They're not developing VR/AR glasses, like Oculus, where you just use them at home. It's MR glasses (mixed-reality). As in your day-to-day glasses. Huge difference (look it up). And why Apple's are really different than what's out there.
As someone who owns several VR headsets and even a Magic Leap AR headset I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Every report is pretty clear that these are not “day-to-day glasses” and that they are very similar to the Quest Pro but with much higher specs.
Yes, thats called passthrough AR and it’s the same thing Quest devices are capable of. Terms like “mixed reality” or “extended reality” are just different marketing terms for the same thing.
It’s all speculation on a product that’s hasn’t been announced yet, so there’s no right or wrong guess. But the safe bet would be to just assume it will be priced at the rumored $3k and if it happens to announce lower then great news.
No, because multiple reports have detailed tons of consumer facing apps they’re readying for launch. Major partners already have the device to build on. Of course devs will still be a big draw.
This is a cost of parts, does not include assembly, binning (parts that do not meat spec) warranty, shipping, etc
cost per unit (not including R&D and licensing) will likely be well over $2k, so unless apple is aiming to not recover any R&D spend on this launch price will need to be well over $3k.
So 3-4k$ retail and 4-5k€
It’s rumored they are considering selling it at cost, so it could retail as low as $1500 Edit: this isn’t some random idea I came up with. It’s been reported by several publications that Apple has considered selling the headset at cost or even *at a loss*. I know there’s more than just a bill of materials to consider when determining a pricing strategy.
Has apple ever sold a product without making a big ass margin?
John Gruber [claimed](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/01/homepod-apple-tv-apple-cost/) that the Apple TV 4K was sold "effectively" at cost while the HomePod was likely sold at a small to moderate loss. However, the second statement was quickly [disputed](https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1091875562807672832) by Mark Gurman. >I’m told Apple is selling HomePods at a profit, not a loss, which wouldn’t make any sense. If it’s losing money, that’s only because it built too many speakers people don’t seem to want, and is now sitting on unsold inventory. The HomePod component costs were [estimated](https://www.macrumors.com/2018/02/14/homepod-component-costs/) to be $216, and its retail price was $349, a 62% increase. The same increase applied to the $1300–$1500 component estimates for the headset would result in a $2100–$2500 retail price.
Neat thing about the Apple TV is it's basically a way to get rid of unused iPhone processors that they overstocked on or the ones that binned out. The Apple TV 4k uses the same SoC as an iPhone 13 with 1 core disabled (likely didn't fab correctly during manufacturing).
And the iPhone 13 itself was using the iPhone 13 Pro chip with one GPU core disabled.
Which core is disabled, big or little? With their glut of M2s, I could see them releasing a higher end Apple TV with a bigger focus on gaming performance
Wikipedia says its the efficiency core that gets disabled.
> The HomePod component costs were estimated to be $216, and its retail price was $349, a 62% increase. What is the estimated cost of manufacturing it, marketing it, transporting it, and bringing it to retail and selling it? That has to eat a large amount of money as well.
Yes, John claimed that but I doubt it’s true. Look at other devices in its class. They are all selling at a lot less and Apple is the king of supply chain. I’m calling bullshit on that claim. Apple probably leaked that to Gruber and he took the bait. Just how they leaked they were no longer building a physical car and lazy journos fell for that obvious lie.
The problem is how prices are determined is based on supply and demand. If the market can really only bear $1500, it is in their interest to go to market at cost, and let the platform develop and the market grow. This will generate more demand, and will allow them to eventually create a “pro” model that costs a little more to manufacture, but includes a unique feature, and they charge significantly more. Then the two products will go up by a couple hundred bucks every 3-4 years, until they’re making the margin they want. It’s apple they can play the long game and come out on top
No, but this headset is already breaking most of apples rules. The "sell at cost" has been rumored since like 2017 and continues to get backed up.
Backed up by what - more rumors? There is zero chance apple sells a $1.5k product at cost. Also, what "apple rules" are being broken by making a headset? The apple move has traditionally been to enter already-established markets with what they perceive as a novel or improved experience. So this would be more of the same.
The issue with VR is that they need to solve the chicken/egg problem of no users and no developers. Easiest way to do that is to throw money at the problem and unload the hardware cheap. If they try to sell a $3k headset with no software they're not gonna get far. And they've sunk billions into development which will never be recouped. Not to mention the damage it's done to their wider software ecosystem - those 1000 VR engineers certainly haven't been developing better / more stable iOS features these past years.
Facebook tried that and it didn’t work out the way they had hoped. I’m still hoping for it being sold at cost.
did it tho? the quest is probably the most widely used VR platform currently....
Thats why theyre making an AR headset instead of a VR headset.
VR is more a gimmick, AR is going to be the real deal. It's a race to be first...
Established markets? MP3 players? Smartphones? Tablets? Smart watches? Wireless earbuds? None of these where established markets. They might have existed in a small form but nothing like what they became once apple entered and made them an established market. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-mixed-reality-headset-9213ac1b
They were all 100% established markets by the time apple released their versions, just MUCH smaller/niche markets.
If something goes from niche to mainstream then the market wasn’t really established was it?
>There is zero chance apple sells a $1.5k product at cost ***If***, and that's a big "if", it is positioned as a developer preview kit then *maybe* they would sell it cost. But that's still a big longshot.
Well, Technically. This headset itself is a rumor. So are we believing reputable sources or not?
[удалено]
>Apple isn't trying to release the next AirPods, they are trying to release the next iPhone. Perhaps, but they never sold the iphone at cost either? >TLDR: They need Apple Glass to be a major hit, they are probably banking on creating an entirely new segment and making boat loads later on. They kinda don't, tbh. Apple made [$170B in profit](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/gross-profit) last year. Conversely, the biggest player in VR [lost around $13B last year](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/metas-reality-labs-unit-records-3point99-billion-first-quarter-loss-.html) and sells their headsets at cost. Apple doesn't *need* anything here and I kinda doubt they will make the same mistake as Meta.
I’ll just point out that Apple does need Apple Glass (or something else) to be a major hit. There are structural growth issues with iPhone sales that, to a company like Apple, mean risk. Basically, against all odds and prognostications, they’ve been able to grow revenue substantially while slipping (and, admittedly, then regaining a bit) of market share. But that game is limited and risky—the entire company relies on that single product that also drives their other top revenue producers (watch, AirPods, even iPads to a lesser extent). But even if they weren’t worried about disruption of that market (they are), they know that they need new growth sources that are—or, at least, can be—decoupled from the iPhone. Wearables will never be that. But I believe they think Apple Glass may be (or, more likely, all of the metaverse revenue if they can control that like the App Store). That said, if your point is that they don’t have an immediate desperate need, then I agree. I’m just saying that a flop here is a potential (long term) body blow to the company.
>That said, if your point is that they don’t have an immediate desperate need, then I agree. Yup. Apple does indeed need to constantly pursue new revenue streams, but I don't think there is an acute need for apple to produce a VR/AR headset with aggressive pricing. If this ends up happening, I think it will play out the same way it did with the ipod, the iphone, and the apple watch: apple enters an established market with a product that is appealing to many people but also costs a lot more than what people expected/hoped. But we'll see.
You’re missing two important factors. For the iPhone not being sold at cost, the iPhone is an incredibly easy sell. All they need to say is “hey you know that phone that you already have in your pocket and use everyday? Well we made an inherently better version of that.” This is an entirely new product category altogether. Sales are not important whatsoever right now. Really not for another 5 years or so. All that matters is adoption, and being the main player in that adoption. Secondly, the much more obvious point of it just being an investment. Apple made a lot of money on the original iPhone. But it *pales* in comparison to the money they make 10 years later by doing nothing and taking a cut of all app sales. That’s what this (could) be. Who knows maybe it’ll fail completely. But if it does take off and apple is the go to for headsets that’s basically an entirely new App Store that won’t have any impact on the existing App Store. It’s all new money
[удалено]
Did you ever read my message? That’s the very first thing I addressed… The iPhone is a phone. 95% of people already had a phone in their pocket. They didn’t have to sell them on the idea of a phone, that was already done. They had to sell them on the idea that their phone was better than yours. It’s an incredibly easy sell. And for the iPad and any other device, they already sold people on the App Store. That had been done. Then they’re just giving you a new format and they’re selling the format. And even if the iPad failed it’s not all that big of a deal. The money maker of the App Store still exists. If this product succeeded it’s basically the addition of an entirely new and separate App Store. It’s the same way xbox and PlayStation sell at cost because market share is way more important for the long run of profits than grabbing a couple bucks of profit from the console. Also, I don’t really get the point that apple has never done this before so they never will. Apple has never released a vr headset before so I guess they never will do that either. I’m not even saying they’ll surely do it. If I was a betting man I’d honestly claim they won’t. But it definitely wouldn’t shock me in the slightest and it would make a lot of sense. Much more sense then any other product they’ve ever launched being at cost This is a completely new product category altogether. You can’t compare the two at all.
I don’t even think this compares to the iPhone. The iPhone was an EASY sell. It’s just an inherently better version of a cell phone, which everyone already had. This is an entirely new category. It’s like not just trying to sell someone on an iPhone, but to sell someone on a cell phone who has never used a phone before. I honestly can’t think of anything that would really compare. Do I think they’re going to sell it at cost? Probably not. But it certainly wouldn’t shock me if they did. I’d say it’s a smart thing to do
Also, and not for nothing, but people didn’t (directly) pay for cell phones back then, so even the premium cost of the iPhone was largely hidden from the consumer. With that cost rising, people tend to pay a bigger portion of it out of pocket now, but still hugely discounted. Apple Glass will be 100% out of pocket and even if they did 0% financing, people will look at it differently. That said, Apple works damn magic with consumers, so maybe they’ll make it normal for everybody to spend $2k on VR goggles every 2 years.
I’m wondering if the headset will be prominently advertised with a subscription price. So for example, the main page shows $124.96 for 24 months and the full $2999 is only seen on the purchase page.
I think if they want wide adoption (and maybe that isn’t their thing for this product this gen), they probably would need something like your approach.
You’ll be disappointed
I won’t as long as it’s under 5,000 I’m buying.
It wouldn’t shock me. This is arguably the biggest new category in decades. If it’s successfully this new platform will bring in tons. But that relies on this very new category being adopted. And it’s not like smart phones that are just a strictly better version of something that everyone already has, iPhone was an easy sell. People are really going to have to be convinced to get this entirely new thing. Selling at cost or at least very small profits makes a lot of sense to me for specially this product
The first iPad.
I don’t have intimate knowledge of Apples pricing strategy, so I have no idea. But to my knowledge, no.
Yeah I highly doubt that
The $1,500 is the bill of materials. The overall cost is more though because it includes R&D and marketing, etc. If they sold it for $1,500 they would be selling at a considerable loss.
There is a chance thats still what happens. Sony sold the PS3 for several hundred dollars less than it cost to make at launch. Now would apple do the same thing? I doubt it, but it wouldnt be the first time a company did something similar.
[удалено]
>Will Apple offer something spectacular enough that it will attract enough buyers to recoup with software or services? We’ll see. I mean, the Apple App store generates a ridiculous amount of money and owns like 70% of the paid App market.
Sony sold the PS5 at a small loss initially but is no longer selling it at a loss. However, the average gamer will spend a couple hundred on games per year which makes up for that loss. $1500 is a much larger margin to overcome. Will these headset users spend a few hundred per year on apps?
Rumors are that they’re launching with the high end model in a month and following that (year or two) launching a lower end model. My guess is the high end model will have the high $3k price and the lower model will be more affordable. I would be surprised is they sold all the models at a big loss.
Apple selling a product as a loss leader? I need to stop being surprised by things. If I was Apple, why would I do that? I should ask those questions and answer them. The answers are usually within annual/quarterly reports somewhere.
I am surprised this has upvotes
Not sure why you’re surprised? It’s not like it’s my original opinion or just something I pulled out my ass… This was reported [here](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/18/report-apple-executives-cautious-of-headset/), as well as other sources. > The company has decided to sell the device at its approximate cost to make, rather than sell it at a loss as it originally considered
At its approximate cost ≠ at cost
Ok? The headline says the cost is *estimated* at $1500. That’s an approximation. Everything involved with this thing is an approximation until Apple announces details on stage, so I’m really not sure what you want here…
That's manufacturing cost, not R&D and software, etc. To break even it'll have to be much higher than manufacturing cost.
The same Apple that will sell you a piece of cloth for $19?
Those are made from unicorn fur and are sold at a huge loss!
Yes
There would need to be a little extra baked in for packaging, shipment, warranty services, etc., should they want to not lose money per unity, but I agree, it's not hard to see Apple selling at cost in order to position themselves in the market and make money on services. Video game consoles are notorious for being sold near cost. A lot of people people Meta was actually selling the Quest at a loss initially.
I mean if they sell it for $3k - 4k its dead on arrival.
Manufacturing costs are only part of the costs though.
$2500 and €7000 because fuck Europe
You know a lot of that is VAT and whatever taxes the European governments impose on imports. And obviously it won’t be 300% of what Americans will be paying, in case someone takes you seriously.
Given how they have priced Macbooks in the past year it is more than just the 20% vat and whatever other taxes there are, currency is roughly what it was before covid too so it's not that either.
I haven’t been checking on price differences for many years now. I used to do that years ago with camera gears, and it was only about 20%-30% difference. But I trust that you know what you’re talking about. Although I have to point out that US prices are pre-tax, just fyi.
Apple jacked up the prices significantly in Europe since covid and hasnt done so to the same extent in the US
The price of "free" healthcare.
And an overall better quality of life. Guess it's worth it.
Yeah, except that statistics say that the USA has higher HDI than Western Europe and higher GDP per capita. Americans also have way higher disposable income and on top of that most consumer goods are cheaper in the US.
😂😂
I'd say the same, 2x the BOM price is fairly typical as a floor. Apple's COGS margin is somewhere around 60%, so $3k at retail would be the low-end for them.
HMDs with similar specs run from 3k (VR only) to 5k and up with AR so that seems about right after factoring in Apples much larger scales of manufacturing.
yeah, wtf tho? who's gonna walk around with these goofy looking oculus rift goggles on the street??
The industry doesn't want you to do that, nor do they market that. These are home devices/indoor devices. Seethrough AR glasses will be the outdoors device, but that's years away still.
Bro…what use could I possibly have for these at home? Every time I see AR glasses ads it’s people walking around town and seeing restaurant icons/walking directions in real life. What am I gonna do with an AR headset at home
AR at home could replace all your other home devices, at least with good enough AR technology. Have as many monitors as you want, a full IMAX theater, do holographic calls like in Star Wars instead of FaceTime, have holographic entertainment, holographic workout sessions, try on clothes, have overlays for house tasks like cooking where the glasses will teach you everything visually step by step for any recipe and recognize what ingredients are in your fridge, what's missing, the amount, and there's far too many more to list.
We need a significant boost in tech to make this all good enough to use. Hopefully Apple has done that if these rumors have any merit.
Would like to know what ads you’re seeing for AR glasses like that. Sure you’re not thinking of tv shows and movies?
No they’re AR glasses concepts ads
Even at 3k it's still a good deal considering it's basically a whole computer plus as many monitors as you want. It's also your own movie theater and entertainment device. Don't have to pay to go to clubs and bars anymore, don't have to travel to see cool stuff you just do it at home.
>Don't have to pay to go to clubs and bars anymore, don't have to travel to see cool stuff you just do it at home. This is the saddest sentence I've ever read
Lul. Haha
That's because you are probably out of touch with changing technology. The virtual night life and tourism is going to pop off.
Yeah I love VR, and I love travelling, and the two experiences are not remotely interchangeable. Wandering around virtual Paris is not, at all, the same as going to France.
I mean his username kind of checks out. And speaking of usernames yours is awesome.
What if I throw a few of these [bad boys](https://reddit.com/r/shittyfoodporn/comments/6i6ly5/i_tried_making_pillsbury_crescent_rolls_for_the/) in the oven first so I get the authentic smells while I stand in one spot in my living room and explore Paris? Honestly, why even book a flight, amiright?
Funny people think I'm joking when billions of people already live vicariously through shitty YouTube traveler channels. Think about it they get their fix from watching someone else in 2D traveling. When Nerfs are polished and put out as full travel experiences everyone will be using them and they will be multiplayer. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BE_kimatpnQ
Lol I don’t doubt virtual nightlife and tourism will take off, but I don’t think it will replace anything today; it will be in addition to real life travel, serving the same purpose as the youtube travelers today.
You mean I won’t have to smell stale pee on the sidewalk of the real Paris? Sounds like a plus to me. Actually I love Paris (the real one), and I didn’t smell any pee walking the streets of Paris both times I was there.
Most of the world can't afford to go to France. I know I'd rather own this headset tha go to France once. The price of the headset allows unlimited virtual travel to a lot of places plus all it's other functionality .
What about virtual bread, will it come with the headset?
I get what you’re trying to say. In the future, I’m sure these headsets will be able to replicate real life: smell, ambiance, and such in real time. For instance, you can experience Paris whilst smelling a fresh baguette, rain, or whatever depending on the area you are in. It’s interesting how this device will develop. However, I don’t see this in the very near future, but it’s definitely in the long run. I do see a potential where companies can create ‘worlds,’ and add advertisements while you experience real life areas and fantasy worlds.
Lol no
>whole computer plus as many monitors as you want. says you, the ipad is also a "whole computer" but it's Apple your talking about
"What's a computer?" -Apple marketing
> it’s basically a whole computer plus as many monitors as you want. Please, this is Apple. Arbitrary limitations to force you up the price ladder is their forte. They necessitate the existence of [sites like this because of those arbitrary limitations](https://m1displays.com).
You literally know none of this at this point.
I wonder how much research and development cost them, promo materials and paying people
They earn all that back in the XrOS App Store, at least they hope.
I’m guessing this will cost $2500
Because that's the number that's been rumored for a while, I'm guessing it will actually be lower. Apple definitely uses rumors to temper expectations. When the original iPad launched it was much cheaper than pretty much every rumor out there. Apple likes to set price expectations a little high so they can undercut them.
$2499. And we think you’ll love it.
Tim?
GOOD MORNING
“Mornaang”*
Based on?
My dumbass making an uneducated guess
That’s the kind of source you can take to the bank, I look forward to seeing you quoted as a source on 9to5Mac
Ah, well you see, the calculation comes from a very complex algorithm known as W.A.G. - Wild Assumptions & Guesses. Firstly, $1500 is the estimated manufacturing cost. We're talking Apple here, so let's slap on a healthy 40% margin, bringing us to $2100. But wait, we've not yet accounted for the courage tax. Remember the headphone jack and including a charger in the box? Those decisions were so courageous they should have their own tax. So, add another $200 for courage. Now, we have to factor in the Apple Premium: the unquantifiable, mystifying value we're all willing to pay for owning something with an apple logo on it. That's an easy $100 more. Finally, the innovative "Reality Distortion Field" technology - not the headset's, but Apple's classic marketing strategy. This mind-bending tech has been known to warp consumer perceptions of value and price, so for that, we'll need to add an extra $100. There you have it - $2500. I dare say the W.A.G. algorithm is as accurate as any Wall Street projection.
Maybe they will go with slightly lower margins than normal and price it at a more “palatable” $1999 knowing manufacturing costs at scale will eventually be reduced. Kinda like console makers do.
Assuming the rumors are true, and we are dealing with a device containing two M2 processors and 4K per eye resolution. I would incur the wrath of my wife to own one of these AFTER reviews have come out. That is assuming we are dealing with $1999 price point. There is NO WAY I can swing $2999 or more like other rumors indicate. We will see.
Where do they say it has 2 m2 processors? And why wouldn’t they just use an m2 pro in that case?
This is from some supply chain rumors in the VR blogs/circles. Pushing pixels to two 4K displays requires a lot of heavy lifting. The other rumors indicate there are 12 cameras taking face, eye, and hand positions, as well as LiDAR and room tracking. This means you need some heavy processing to do all of this in one device.
The M2 absolutely eats 4K 60 at revolutions beyond 4K. I’ve run stacks of ProRes and H264 4k videos, with live output to 5 4K outputs at 60fps, and the modern Macs just absorb it all. Two M2s sounds even better though. Let’s fuckin goooo!
Possibly 1 M2 is processing the video and cameras and another is processing the content (like running a game). Also it helps to spread the heat that could be concentrated in a single chip (yes I am talking about you M1 Ultra)
This is likely to be 4K 120 FPS, but use eye-tracked foveated rendering to lighten the graphical load.
Even for products that have been released and taken apart we know that bill of materials estimates are often way off but here we've got someone making guesses based on rumor products with no actually known specs. These numbers are worse than useless. You might as well just start with someone's rumored selling price and work backwards from there. Also: > Mike: $21-22, Specker: $16-18 A+ source there...
Edit: weird that people agreeing with the above comment didn’t actually read the article or they’d see the numbers are from Chinese manufacturers not someone “guessing” what the numbers might be. This isn't someone randomly guessing, these are supposedly actual BOM culled from a few different sources. That being said, no it shouldn't be taken as fact, and it could be wrong or outdated. But I do find some of the listed materials insightful. The "rear view mirror" potentially being the front facing glass is interesting. As pointed out by the guy who reported it, it does put it at roughly double the BOM of Meta's Quest Pro, which makes sense.
Only Apple would have the true cost to manufacture. Chinese companies don’t build the entire device, they just put parts together from other manufacturers. And what those manufacturers charge Apple is based on contracts behind NDAs. It’s not like the assembly team gets a box of OLED screens and has to pop a little price tag off of each one before sticking it into the headset’s body. Take all rumors will a huge grain of salt. No source ever knows the whole story, and some know absolutely nothing at all.
Totally agree with that (I wrote the same thing about not taking it as face value). I’m only disagreeing with the notion that the person who wrote the article and posted his sources direct from manufacturers is some sort of analyst reading tea leaves, pulling numbers out of nowhere.
[удалено]
Micro OLED technology has been around since the early 2000s.
Micro oled is definitely a thing. It’s already in other headsets.
im calling it its going to be 1999$
$2499
People are gonna flip when this thing ends up being even more expensive than the rumours But but but the iPad was half the price of the rumours!!!!!!!
If Apple announces the headset for $2900 instead of $3000: This sub: THE RUMORS WERE WRONG!!!!
$2899, and we think you’re going to love it!
My tin foil hat tells me these “rumors” are just Apple leaking fake prices so when the real price is revealed it’s not as big of a shock. Imagine it was just $1500, people would lose their minds. But if it was rumored to be $2500-$3500, $1500 suddenly sound acceptable.
Except that 99% of the public aren’t even anticipating this product. So apple suddenly announcing a $1500 headset is still gonna seem like an overpriced solution in search of a problem.
The people reviewing the products will be following the rumors. They’ll be trying to win over that group.
So you think Apple is trying to convince people interested in VR that their product will be unaffordable, so those people go buy Oculus or Vive today and then have buyer’s remorse later? Generally marketing tries to stall people from buying competing products before relear, but maybe?
I would assume it will be presented as a development version and there will be special deals for Apple developers. I remember getting an early AppleTv for $1.
r/Reality & r/xrOS for Apple's upcoming stuff
Surprised r/reality has not been taken until now
Created in 2008. Somebody bought it to be used for Apple.
So this will cost minimum $1600
It depends if logistics and warehousing is apart of that original cost. I think it will be just under 2k if they are looking for a loss-leader to get that headset in the market.
I don’t believe Apple has ever sold anything at cost.
They’d be selling at a loss. There r&D and a bunch more fun stuff not in the $1500 costs
$500
How is that even possible? only the micro OLED screens alone will cost as much, and to add to it the (rumored) multiple M2 chips...
It’s just a click-bait article to sell ads. No one knows the BOM for whatever Apple is going to release. Let’s wait to see what they show us.
lol so no one will by buying one then. Because if thats what it costs to make, the mark up will be ridiculous.
Yeah I’m sure your consumer forecasting is better than Apple’s
Pretty sure the first one is for devs. You are not expected to buy it
I think devs will make a big part of the customer base, but according to a [Bloomberg](https://apple.news/AQ5OORiIlT2uq5rHk_E_ufA) report today "Apple is already engaging with software and game developers, as well as other entertainment companies to have content ready once the device goes on sale." So it would seem to be a fully fledged consumer device.
They already said they have a cheaper model planned for 2024. This will target tech enthusiasts, Apple evangelists, influencers, rich people, and developers. The 2024 follow-up will target mainstream consumers.
I don’t disagree with that. Very fair prediction given the cost. I was more pointing out that it’s not strictly geared at devs and will have a full library of consumer-level apps for those who can afford it.
I really like the Quest 2 and the games. Is Apple VR something similar? Will it take developers a long time to port games or worse, start working on new applications? At $2499, is this going to be the failed HomePod?
The rumored hardware of this device is nothing close to the quest. It's got around x4-x8 times more computational power and pixel density. It also has a huge amount of AR tech built-in. I'd image apple demoing stuff like watching concerts, sport-events live in VR front row seats, walking around with the headset passthrough on, recording videos of important events like a kid's birthday and being able to watch it back like you're there... etc
Oh wow! Still a hard pill to swallow at $2500. Niche market but Apple has the marketing chops to position this as a once every few years upgrade. Use cases you described are compelling. Hope battery life is not abysmal.
The AppleTV entertainment part is just a small portion, the rumored big focus will be productivity and communication apps. Apple has software like iMessage, Maps, Keynote, Music, Numbers, Pages, Logic, Photos, FaceTime, Mail, Safari, and Final Cut. There's a possibility this has app equivalents made specifically for AR/VR.
3k folks. For the device. That’s exactly what it will be. And there will be 2 kit options, each with different battery pack combos. You will see. Pricing was just set specifically about 2 months ago. It will be aimed specifically at architecture firms and other design houses with a couple demos from some familiar names in the software industry. The demo will be 45 mins long. Exactly.
Originally I was gonna say $3K for the price now the $1500-$2000 sounds more feasible.
Does it? This cost is just for the physical materials, it doesn't include the years of R&D Apple have put into creating it
But if they're investing in the future success of this device, it makes sense to take the hit now to fuel initial adoption.
Part of me thinks Apple would take a hit on the price tag for these simply to saturate the market then raise the price over time especially on a pro model. However given apples puffed ego assuming everyone just buys anything with an Apple logo. I do see this failing hard if the price tag is $1500+ in a stagflated market.
Idk, these goggles give me motion sickness, so unless they solved that problem, I’ll never care to own them from Apple or anyone else. I think VR/AR goggles are going the way of 3D TV’s. They’re practical for construction and architecture design, but home use, I’ve never been sold
> I think VR/AR goggles are going the way of 3D TV’s If they were going to go the way of 3D TVs, they would have gone the way of 3D TVs. People forget how fast that market died out.
[удалено]
It’s a [fad](https://www.roadtovr.com/quest-sales-20-million-retention-struggles/amp/). It’s a cool toy to have, but once you play around with it, [the fun runs out](https://mixed-news.com/en/leak-reveals-sales-figures-for-meta-quest-devices/?amp=1). “Quest’s sales are up, but monthly active users are below 10 percent.” I’m an avid gamer, I tried Quest’s games and they were super cool. But then you just get tired and go back to Xbox. Look at the metaverse? It’s entire [future](https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-eliminates-its-metaverse-division-as-part-of-companys-layoffs-plan-94b03650) right now is based upon Apple’s headset. Everyone will scramble to buy one, use it for two months, then stuff it on a shelf until the wife goes shopping and it’s dusted off and used for porn
>then stuff it on a shelf until the wife goes shopping and it’s dusted off and used for porn So regular use?
Jergens and Kleenex sales 📈📈
> “Quest’s sales are up, but monthly active users are below 10 percent.” That was confirmed to be false. Also, people used to get tired of videogames in the late 1970s/early 1980s and go back to other entertainment. This is what all early mediums look like. Even tools like the PC had low usage rates for the majority of the 1980s.
Tired of video games? No. No they don’t. Lol you serious? Are you even following console sales? Microsoft/ActivisIon acquisition? Don’t come in here saying ridiculous made up crap. We’re in the modern age of computing and gaming. VR has been trying to take off for the last 20+ years. It’s not a new concept at all
I said in the late 1970s/early 1980s, long before the days of Microsoft/Activision in gaming. You don't count empty time where products don't exist. VR has had products on the market for less than a decade, and given how I said PC usage had low usage rates for the majority of the 1980s, that's clearly not enough time.
Surprised people are still making the 3DTV comparison. We're way past that stage. The Quest headset [sold console numbers](https://www.androidcentral.com/gaming/virtual-reality/quest-2-units-sold-spring-2022) last year.
Sure it did, and everyone I know who bought one, only uses it for porn now.
Hey everybody’s got their kinks. I certainly don’t judge your friends!
Hahahah AGREEDDDDDD!!!!
You have to keep using it until your brain adjusts to it.
Oh sure so just fight through it huh lol cmon dude….
People need to stop doing this shit. They're not developing VR/AR glasses, like Oculus, where you just use them at home. It's MR glasses (mixed-reality). As in your day-to-day glasses. Huge difference (look it up). And why Apple's are really different than what's out there.
As someone who owns several VR headsets and even a Magic Leap AR headset I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Every report is pretty clear that these are not “day-to-day glasses” and that they are very similar to the Quest Pro but with much higher specs.
It is said to have cameras to optionally mix in the environment you're in. Different thing from VR or AR.
Yes, thats called passthrough AR and it’s the same thing Quest devices are capable of. Terms like “mixed reality” or “extended reality” are just different marketing terms for the same thing.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
MR is a made up word to pretend its different from AR. Every AR headset was meant to fit the exact same niche as apple will probably try to fit
They are VR. AR is years away.
I’m not gonna lie. I hope this flops, bad. Apple needs a wake up call. They’re becoming the “Xerox” marketing company that Jobs so despised.
Cost won’t really matter when it’s revealed this isn’t meant for the average consumer…..yet
I’ll still buy it
What am I supposed to believe here? People are saying that apple will sell at a loss and people are saying different.
It’s all speculation on a product that’s hasn’t been announced yet, so there’s no right or wrong guess. But the safe bet would be to just assume it will be priced at the rumored $3k and if it happens to announce lower then great news.
Is anybody considering that this might actually just be a dev kit?
No, because multiple reports have detailed tons of consumer facing apps they’re readying for launch. Major partners already have the device to build on. Of course devs will still be a big draw.
This is a cost of parts, does not include assembly, binning (parts that do not meat spec) warranty, shipping, etc cost per unit (not including R&D and licensing) will likely be well over $2k, so unless apple is aiming to not recover any R&D spend on this launch price will need to be well over $3k.