[valianteffort]

No they're just overspec'd and overpriced. If their goal was to ultimately release a consumer level device, they shouldn't have gone overboard with tech that has limited room for cost cutting.

It's typical of Apple's hubris, to throw in all these features they think people will want, meanwhile if the headset had no cameras and was just a display strapped to your head for $1000, it likely would have sold a lot better. But they didn't want a VR device for whatever reason.

At the same time you could blame discretionary spending being at some of the lowest levels in a decade.

[schmidtleonard]

> typical of Apple's hubris

> meanwhile if the headset had no cameras

I remember when apple got universally panned for putting cameras in laptops. Most people surely wanted the cost savings, while the small number of power users who needed video chat should have no trouble picking up a USB camera for $100 (more like $200 in present-day USD). Of course, what actually happened was that people (and apps!) in the mac world could suddenly assume that everyone else already had a camera set up, even if they weren't technical, and that was the real killer feature. The rest of the industry quietly memory-holed the snide commentary and followed suit.

Volume will drive price down once VR gets Good Enough. Right now it isn't, so I'm glad that Apple is playing to their strengths by taking swings at substantive challenges -- like the fact that VR makes the wearer look like a complete dope -- rather than becoming discount VR vendor #312.

[Xylakant]

Or when they release a phone with no keyboard, no apps, that couldn't even do 3G speeds. Followed by the iPhone funeral parade held by microsoft. Or when they release a tablet. Everyone was talking about how that was merely a content consumption device and no one would want it at that price point. Later everyone was concerned that Apple would cannibalize its laptop market.

Apple has a history of doing products that seem expensive and weirdly overspecced at the beginning, and then stick with it if they truly believe in it. OTOH, there are also clearly products that Apple killed because they didn't work out. But I believe it's still to early to tell where the Vision line is going.

[pjmlp]

They got lucky, many of us remeber a Apple that was about to send everyone home for the last time, and that only did not happen due to a set of lucky accidents that turned out great.

[dzhiurgis]

> I remember when apple got universally panned for putting cameras in laptops.

Damn you just reminded me there was time laptops didn't have cameras. Like phones!

[bee_rider]

Disagree, it needs to be better and different, not worse. Every other Apple product is sleek and fashionable, this is a big goofy VR headset. A VR “screen for your face” device would probably be a little better but only in the sense that it is better to not waste a bunch of money on R&D for a device that is not going to be bought.

For a real attempt, the UI needs to be augmented reality you can wear walking around, and the form factor needs to be a pair of normal glasses. It is certainly possible the tech doesn’t exist yet. But that won’t convince people to buy a silly version.

[spookie]

They need cameras for tracking your position and orientation. Also, tracking your eyes can be beneficial in many ways, i.e. enabling foveated rendering, not just for showing a blurred face on the external screen.

[steveBK123]

Arguably had this thing shipped during peak of COVID bubble spending, say summer 2021 - summer 2022 it might have absolutely killed.

[ulfw]

Well it's a device for people sitting at home alone. So yes I agree. But not just because of bubble spending.

Now that we are all more social again, the point of a device that shuts you out of the world is a bit... less useful.

[timeon]

I do not think the price is only issue. Problem with VR headsets is that you need to commit your self to use it.

Personal computing did not reach mainstream until smartphones. Even notebooks were too much of commitment for most people. Maybe AR [0] glasses could go in path of smartphones but VR headsets are polar opposites to smartphones.

[0]: Actual augmented reality that is projected on top of real vision - not recorder reality with camera like in case of this product.

[wooger]

They're smoking something if they think anyone is buying this for 3.5k when it has exactly zero game & app support - discretionary income is going to be spent on things that are fun for deep immersion in a hobby, or else something that can be shared and enjoyed with others.

[dmonitor]

I'd wager they overstuffed this thing with sensors and high quality tracking to gather good training data, and the next model will be as effective with fewer cheaper sensors.

[wkat4242]

You need cameras either way. If not for passthrough then for tracking. Or you use Lighthouse tech but its even more expensive.

[mimsee]

Isn't it part of the Apple way to release expensive and weird products at times to keep Apple in the minds of people as a luxury brand. Things like $400 wheels for Mac Pro or the $1000 stand for the external display.

I can see AVP as being half luxury and half tech-demo/devkit for a more budget friendly device.

[latexr]

> to keep Apple in the minds of people as a luxury brand. Things like $400 wheels for Mac Pro or the $1000 stand for the external display.

I have never seen anyone look at those two examples and think “luxury”. Even the most ardent proponents of Apple products laugh at those prices and think they are absurd. With good reason. Who ever is going to look at computer wheels and think they’re a sign of luxury¹?

¹ Yes yes, someone surely will, just like there’s someone for everything. I’m making a general point.

[ToucanLoucan]

Rich tech fetishists. I worked for one for several years and he had every fancy Apple gadget they ever made. On a positive note, I frequently got his castoffs when he got bored with them.

[latexr]

That was directly addressed by the footnote.