This assumes that an independent accessory vendor could somehow worm its way into Apple's multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns. Airpods sell primarily due to the value of being a 1st-party Apple accessory.
First of all, I disagree with the premise—plenty of Android users buy AirPods. But putting that aside, why does the success of AirPods invalidate the point that Vision Pro could be successful without being as big as the iPhone?
Airpods are an existing product category (headphones) that everybody with a phone already uses. Couple that with Apple products being a status symbol, advertised everywhere, and it's not hard to see how Airpods could succeed even at a $200-ish price point.
As for AVP, it is a brand new category where the use cases are yet to be identified. It costs 2 months' rent, it has no killer apps that people are going to line up for, and you'll look weird wearing it. It's a completely different proposition.
The history of Apple is a history of "no one in their right mind would pay a premium for THAT." A $500 unsubsidized phone? A $350 watch to get notifications? Stupid-looking $200 earbuds that will fall out of your ears?
AirPods got so much hate in 2016, it can be hard to remember. They were far from a sure thing.
Apple Watch can only be said to be a moderate success at best, considering Apple themselves have never disclosed how many they've sold.
As for unsubsidized phones, the US is the only country that sold them on contract, and the iPhone didn't take off until Apple had AT&Tcut the price to $199 to match other flagships. The Nokia N95 for example retailed at $730 and sold millions in 2007.