Why Does the Vision Pro cost so much?

[@the48thronin97]

The “people forgetting about packaging costs” thing is so funny to me, because I work in a factory that ships stuff out in barrels and on pallets and always forget that those things like, cost significant money, and I’m around them every day. Of anyone, I should remember, and I don’t.

[@hrmmmmmm]

Yeah but those get split between units and often are recycled, so it’s usually not a ton.

[@rui518]

⁠@@hrmmmmmmi worked at a toilet paper factory and we couldn't really reuse pallets, always brand new ones, it was close to 30€ unit if not mistaken...

[@polloman15]

I used to work in a recycling company a couple of years ago, some customers had to ship waste in Stainless Steel containers, the fact that we were contractually obligated to return them speaks about how expensive those were.

[@ArchusKanzaki]

@@hrmmmmmm people recycle it, because it costs a ton. It's like container. Also, while the per-unit costs for the pallete can seems to be low, you still need to pay for it.

[@d.b.1176]

My favorite punctuation is the comma, how about you?

[@Havreflan]

As someone who's worked in QA in a ton of factories, people really have no idea what it costs to make stuff.

[@radikk7874]

Right, must cost a lot to employ Chinese workers

[@DanielFerreira-ez8qd]

@@radikk7874 Yeah, actually. What, you think 'chinese worker' immediately means cheap labor? Guess what - a lot of cheap labor eventually adds up to a lot of money.

[@Mr.Marbles]

Yup. Those articles like „there are only 50$ worth of material in this 1500$ product. What a scam 1!!!!11“

[@cyjanek7818]

You don't have to work in QA, you could just try to build anything yourself. Every time there is new road or public toilet, whatever, people cry how it was a scam because materials were cheaper. Someone had to build it, someone had to take responsibility for safety of that thing etc etc

[@radikk7874]

@@cyjanek7818 you talk as if they make only one Vision Pro, specially for me, they do R&D, manufacturing lanes, employ a lot of people to create a single unit to be sold to me. You seem to forget that they made 200k for the first version, then they will sell millions for the next one. They went all in into marketing, showing how amazing the quality is, but it's not practicall at all. This is a scam, and they even want their money back for all the investment from this first version. Have a lot of beta testers who will pay no matter how much it costs because it's Apple.

[@mrembeh1848]

Research is EXPENSIVE! 100 engineers, one year, 100.000$ each. 10 Million down before the product Goes into production

[@Lanselot2069]

expensive and overpriced are not always the same thing and way too many people don't seem to understand that.

[@ggwp638BC]

I think it's more of an emotional reaction, really. With prices going up everywhere, and tech that used to get cheaper actually getting more expensive or stagnating, in the midst of a shrinking economy, people get frustrated and a 3.5k glorified monitor comes as out of touch. Most people don't even own basic VR headsets, so it's not like they should care about it, but it just feels off and ends up being a venue for people to voice their frustration.

[@vanhalenbr]

LMG making and selling their own products give them a great understanding to comment on this type of report and how the profit margins works. This is a great review/comment on that btw

[@NugKnights]

If it costs me 3k to make a sandwich dose not mean the sandwich is worth 4k on the open market. Them paying alot to make something dose not add value to the product. Cost to produce is apples problem not the consumers.

[@TehJumpingJawa]

I'm honestly more surprised by the low price of the Quest 2 & 3, than I am by the high price of the AVP.

[@toututu2993]

Meta is more of a donation company that's why their products are too good to be true

[@tai6188]

They’re probably subsidizing it substantially through a cut on game sales and selling data they collect.

[@FGJamz]

I can only speak to where i work, but as someone who works at a manufacturing plant if the product fails QC it never leaves the plant and we take it as a loss not and the supplier we work for

[@katrinabryce]

Sure, but the unit price you charge will take expected QA fails into consideration.

[@The-Caged-King]

It’s not overpriced, it’s just not worth the money

[@Lord_of_Dread]

Had it been made by a different company with better principles, and more effort put into broader functionality and ecosystem interoperability, it might have been a legitimate halo product. But as none of those things are true, yeah, it's basically an expensive face monitor with more restrictions than an actual monitor. Sad really, but as that ol' Apple saying goes; "fuck you, give me money"

[@slipknot1943]

So it is not worth the money implying that it should be cheaper eg. overpriced..?

[@NabPunk]

@@slipknot1943no, it means they did not develop it to fit into a reasonable price bracket to begin with. It basically does not need to exist, but if it makes money and starts a trend, they wont care.

[@PEZ1514]

It's overpriced. Look at the hololens tech and price point. Better more comprehensive tech and the same price

[@TheGuillotineKing]

Your not the target audience it's meant for developers

[@blitzar8443]

Micro oled vr displays are the future. Itll be worth the money when production costs of the same tech go down because of cheaper machinery, streamlined processes etc.

[@maxieroo629]

Ehhhhhhhh no. QDEL is the future. There's an issue with OLED: OLED displays use organic molecules that break down over time. This breakdown happens faster the more energy/light you push through it. In VR displays, we have moved from bulky fresnel lenses that had issues with god rays and chromatic aberations, to pancake lenses. Fresnel lenses let through about 80% of light, pancake lenses let through 20-25%. Because of this, you have to make the displays run brighter, which breaks down the organic compounds faster. QDEL uses quantum dots to emit light, instead of relying on an organic material like OLED. They are more stable and durable than organic molecules, which can degrade over time and cause burn-in, color shift, and reduced brightness. So, QDEL panels can achieve higher brightness, contrast, and color accuracy than OLED, while having lower power consumption and heat generation. That is why they are the future of VR displays. Holy crap, sorry for the essay, you found my special interest hahaha 😅

[@lordbasti3185]

i mean the profit margain is always kind of unknown, because its kinda ever changing (just random numbers that will not be true in the slightest) if we say that marketing and creation cost 1million $ and you sell 2 items, that 1 million is spread across 2 items so each is carrying 500k of overhead, now if they sell 1000 units they only have 1000$ overhead that the unit needs to bring in after part vosts before it can make a profit, so the more they sell, the bigger the profit margain actually gets

[@s.mtambo6712]

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense, but in finance or more specifically management accounting, there is a number of units to *produce* that is used to allocate the overhead expenses along with the variable expenses to arrive at unit cost. From there you have options of method but you eventually get to a selling price. So if I produce 500k units that cost 1M in total, that's a cost $2 per unit, sell it at $3 per unit and it's a 50% gross profit margin (that is before all the other expenses that don't go out the door with the product or that were directly involved in the production such as marketing or HR or admin) Then there is the concept of break even, which means it cost me $1M to produce the product, I had to sell 333k products at $3 a piece to start making profit that cash flows. So as a random guy on the internet, you didn't need me explaining that, but my point is that there is a finance specific language that can sometimes be misunderstood if you don't have your finance cap on. It's just one of those technical terms that isn't explained every time because the assumption is that it's really only finance people that we're speaking to. Maybe we should explain those terms but it would be too cumbersome to do it every time

[@lordbasti3185]

@@s.mtambo6712 hey i dont mind you explaining that at all. my comment wasnt even based on anything, its just what made the most sense to me, so umim glad you could teach me more about it :D

[@lovetekman]

i dont want to think about all the tooling they had to make for this, thats a lot of cost. The aluminum frame alone, or the band, all the custom fixtures and tooling for assembling this fucked up shape

[@25566]

But all these expensive and heavy materials were their choice, i mean they had to separate the battery because of how heavy it already is without one..

[@shanecoleman2937]

@@25566 Sure, and it's your choice whether or not you buy one. At the end of the day, it's a premium device that costs a premium amount of money to build and deliver.

[@wojtek4p4]

Honestly, I don't think the frame increases the cost much. According to the estimate, all structural members cost ~120$. Even if the CNC alu frame took half of that budget, would a price of ~2440$ be that much better? I'd consider it an "apple tax" - it's unnecessary, but definitely makes the product "feel" more premium (metal look and feel, slightly less bulky than plastic). If anything, the front display seems less useful (70$), but I don't see people complaining about that.

[@Utrilus]

You're talking as if the price the manufacturers set for the components don't take it all into account. So apple more than doubles the price. And then I watch this video talking about what of the employees, what of the shipping, what of the packaging. As if all of that isn't already calculated into the manufacturing costs. The only thing unacounted for would be the R&D really. Designing the device and software. Which is difficult to set a price to. Tho apple thinks that's worth $2000.

[@shanecoleman2937]

@@Utrilus "As if all of that isn't already calculated into the manufacturing costs." Development/marketing/delivery/etc. are not factored into the BOM. This is not unique to Apple. BOM is just the unit price of raw components added together.

[@TakeAStabProductions]

I work for apple and when someone asks me if its worth it, I always tell them "It is if you're the person this was made for. If you're not, then no."

[@SteveDonev]

I’d agree with that if the AVP had a clear use case. It lacks games to be a good gaming headset. It lacks apps to be a great media consumption device. It lacks battery life and comfort to be a long term productivity tool. That being said, the first iPhone and iPad were pretty garbage too. By the time we get the Vision Pro 3 it may very well be an incredible device, but right now it’s a proof of concept that is for no one.

[@ggwp638BC]

I mean.... who was it made for? For real. Even if I had Jeff Bezos in my left pocket and Elon Musk in the right one, I can't see a single use case that would make me buy one. I feel that any utility it has is better served with a monitor, a laptop or a phone. It doesn't do anything particularly better than any other VR headset, and even for enterprises there are far better and cheaper options out there.

[@DanielFerreira-ez8qd]

@@ggwp638BC Linus said it pretty well in his review. The same thing could've been said about smartphones decades ago - but the powerful thing about smartphones is that they were in your pocket, while the tools a phone have are bulkier and less convenient. As soon as devices like this can occupy the same space as, say, ONE laptop, you'll see the uses for this thing pop up immediately.

[@andreirachko]

If you manage a business and do a lot of conferences and travel a lot, bringing a pc with a monitor with you on every trip is not an option. A portable pc that straps to your face and does most of the job is actually the best option really. MKBHD talked about it on his podcast.

[@ggwp638BC]

@@andreirachko I'm a commercial representative, I travel quite a bit and often have to join unexpected meetings. There is nothing I'd get out of a Vision Pro that I wouldn't be better served by a MacBook and an iPad (to keep in line with the Apple ecosystem). In fact, I feel that traveling with that thing would be a much bigger hassle than any normal setup.

[@Qardo]

By the way. For those wondering. The price of gold (as of March 7th, 2024) is $2,138.18 USD for one OUNCE. So get out there and start diggin'.

[@erumabo]

Apple's headset is like those top of the line ultimate gaming PCs: Not expenses spared, top of the line components, most of the people don't need it, and in some years the rest of the industry will catch up and the price will drop, at that point you may acquire it.

[@aimmlegate]

Except they pretty much useless

[@paralytaatylarap9715]

@@aimmlegateWe will see. Many people said exactly that about the iPhone and the iPad. “It’s nice, but nobody needs this.” 1-5 years later every manufacturer has a similar device and this category sells millions of units every year.

[@cunt5413]

@@paralytaatylarap9715You're spot on. Same was said about Apple Watches too, Airpods were made fun off. Apple made an absolute killing on these things and they're genuinely useful.

[@fosterslover]

​@@paralytaatylarap9715 A VR Headset with high-fidelity passthrough is a much more compelling to me than an iPad. The tech is here, but still requires some refinement with less compromises before it goes mainstream.

[@aimmlegate]

@@paralytaatylarap9715 Well first generation of iPhones and iPads wasn’t so useless as AVP. I’m not saying that it flopped, AR/VR devices definitely have promising future, but current AVP just a shiny tech demo. It bad for every thing they advertise, it’s bad as productivity device, they have best possible screen but subpar lenses, so it’s bad as monitor replacement (tests shows that it can’t display virtual screen with same “pixel” density as 1080p monitor), it’s bad for games, their pass through mode lacks depth perception and blurry on move, so outdoor use highly questionable, only thing it good for is watching videos at home.

[@parker73724]

I wouldn't be shocked if they are losing/barely making profit on the vision pro but that doesn't mean it's a good value product.

[@rui518]

They probably have operation profit, but if you factor in R&D they probably lose heavily...

[@Utrilus]

I'm surprised they are talking as if the labor of people doesn't factor into the price.

[@parker73724]

@@Utrilus I'm sure it does but I would imagine it's fairly small compared to R&D and materials. I might be wrong if they aren't as automated as I think.

[@pkrazybrtz]

FYI That estimate released back in 2023 in the summer

[@NaudVanDalen]

5:44 Twice the inches is 4 times the surface area though.

[@the_undead]

I think he's saying double the surface area because TV prices definitely don't go up in price linear to surface area, It's exponential because of the issues Linus was describing

[@sidewalkere]

From the people that still sells a 32'' IPS display for $5000, $3500 for this thing is almost cheap. Guess they are eating a bit of their usually outrageous margin just to put more of the things out and see what people do with them (to then steal the ideias and sell them has their own). Trying to get some traction...

[@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo]

Did you not see what it did to Linus's sinuses? Made him look like he'd been in a Fallout. And all because of a simple lack of gimbal.

[@mrbobgamingmemes9558]

What ? 32 inch ips display for 5000$ heck i can buy huge 75 inch oled tv for less than that , which ips monitor cost that much ?

[@andreirachko]

Probably one of those ultra wide bending 240Hz ones.

[@sidewalkere]

@@mrbobgamingmemes9558 @andreirachko I was referring Apple's own Pro Display XDR, launched 4 years ago. It still costs $5 to $6000, depending on glass finishing. And still has an optional $1000 STAND.

[@radikk7874]

And even that monitor is more usefull than apple's headset.

[@SteveDonev]

Here is my spicy take. Even if Apple was selling the AVP at cost at $1500, it still wouldn’t be worth it. It has no apps, battery life sucks, and is a hassle to use because of weight.

[@nonpondo_]

Shits got no games on it bro, and the only reason quest got big is cause 1 it was cheap and 2 it can work with steam and other peripherals, apple is gonna make sure it doesn't work with fucking anything

[@slob5041]

This is the first time I've heard linus say something interesting, like he actually knows about it

[@Efreeti]

Is it worth the hype? Sure. Is it worth the cost? I don't think so.

[@boogerpicker8104]

It’s not priced based on its build of materials, it’s priced based on predicted demand

[@the_undead]

Basing your price off of bill of materials and basing it off demand is technically kind of the same because if they expected the demand to be quite high then Sony for example could you get an upfront investment to streamline the production of those displays which might bring the cost down by 5 to 20% put that upfront investment would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, so you would only do that if you're expecting to sell a lot of these things, but seeing as they're not expecting to sell a lot of them they didn't do that, which means the overall cost is higher

[@cheeseisgreat24]

As always, 95% of the “ZOMG WHY SO EXPENSIVE?!” Comments about Apple’s pricing are made by people who’ve never even worked for a company that makes something.

[@the_undead]

Apple is generally charging more then what other companies would charge for the same product but it's not double, It's like 10-20% more. But looking at the vision pro, I think this is probably the most aggressively priced thing that Apple has released in a long while (assuming you get the base model)

[@oldmatttv]

My thinking is, what the parts cost is not really important unless you want to have a discussion about ethics and such. But even so, they can do whatever they want with pricing, it's not really an interesting discussion. You choose whether you want to "overpay" or not. What matters more is that they didn't need to make a product with this sort of expense for what the product offers to begin with. It's basically no use for 99.999999% of the people, and yet a lot of people would love to see VR/AR make it into mainstream. Making a product with this approach is unlikely going to do anything much towards that. I reckon they just went with this "all in" approach because they didn't want to place themselves in direct competition with the other headsets and risk looking weak in comparison. If they were smarter about it, with their budget and resources, they could have made a product that makes more sense and provides an experience effectively "the same" (to all intents and purposes) to this where it matters. Nobody gives a crap about half the stuff these expenses pushing the price up provides. It's mostly just fluff to place them in a different bracket and draw eyes in terms of marketing. Most individual things can be done as well or better with more affordable and reasonable approach, other companies have shown this to be the case several times over. Most of them don't have Apple's resources however. Additionally, there is so little real life use for this product that it's in no way pulling apart from the niché it's unavoidably in (as desperately as it wants to pretend to not be in that niché), and even offers a worse experience in many key aspects of that niché. It does barely anything well enough or offers enough variety to make a price point like this in any way sensible. That's what the problem is. It's just in no way whatsoever a useful product at this sort of price point. Drop it to 1k or something, and maybe some might consider it, though I doubt it even then. Really, a product like this needs to be down at around 200-500 range for it to be appealing in any meaningful way. It's not like a smartphone. Apart from a teeny, tiny, non-existent, niché minority, you simply won't want to or need to use it enough for it to make sense.

[@pian-0g445]

Always reminds me how Apple products have very sleek and simple designs, however the little choices made to it, make it cost a lot to manufacture. I think in a lot of areas, apple products are technically cost as much as they’re sold, however doesn’t necessarily mean it provides an experience that can be bought for cheaper. Like the Vision Pro is really good in very specific things. However, is stuck in an ecosystem, one that does not have a large audience for this product. Also doesn’t help the actual making of it is very expensive, not including the research for the tech. Like those aluminum frames are not cheap to design or make, so imagine having to R&D the AR function which is probably the best. Stuck on an apple product…

[@thr0w407]

I liked the vision pro better the first time I used it, when it was called google cardboard.

[@toututu2993]

I used to hate vr until I tried the real one like Quest 2. Haters turn to fanboy I guess

[@thr0w407]

@@toututu2993 I have a valve index.

[@GSOG2]

not the profit margin but you can estimate that the contribution margin is half the price of the headset.

[@aaronrdaniels]

Didn’t know the wan show covered the vision pro back in 2018

[@n9ne]

$220 per panel damn i thought it was $350.. well there is no reason for valve to not use microOLED now. they could easily make one for $1000. i am not sure valve still cares about VR though.

[@aimmlegate]

Price is not all, micro oleds production now has terrible yields, it just impossible to produce them in enough quantity YET. Even Apple not shipping AVP outside US because they can’t produce enough devices.

[@Amphibax]

No way they will make one with microoled at 1000$ they will loose money on every unit sold

[@NaudVanDalen]

I'd pay double for a Quest 3 if it had OLED screens. OLED TVs are more than double the price of cheap TVs. LCD sucks so much when watching dark things. I'm not watching Game of Thrones until I buy an OLED TV.

[@aimmlegate]

@@NaudVanDalen meta announced partnership with LG, so I guess quest pro 2 with micro oled is immenent.

[@BunkerSquirrel]

@@NaudVanDalen OLED has drawbacks, biggest of which is motion blur. For a headset designed for most gaming a LCD panel is probably better

[@Necropheliac]

Honestly I think the reason Apple charges so much, especially for new products, is because they’ve got a bunch of unprofitable services limping along or downright in the gutter. For instance, Apple TV+ cannot be profitable. The production costs of their shows is so insanely high and their streaming market share is not even registering on the same scale as their competitors. In other words, Apple Vision Pro costs a lot because Apple needs to hire big name actors for their failing television network.

[@oldmatttv]

They charge as much as they do because they can. They are multi trillion dollar company. Whether there's anything wrong with their pricing or not is anyone's personal opinion, but their services or any other random things similar to that have nothing to do with their pricing. Besides, they've always charged the way they still do, before they became what they are today. It's just a branding/quality premium type approach.

[@PeppercornVR]

Maybe it wouldn't have cost so much if they didn't put a bloody LENTICULAR DISPLAY in the _front_ of it 🤷‍♂

[@xenoxia]

That's literally a main selling point of it

[@cesarlin]

I am probably in the minority on this, but I think the eyes thing is one of the biggest strength of VP, but maybe wait till they are brighter and cheaper. Me and my gf game on Quest often, not able to see her eyes is really annoying.

[@hyl]

That costs like 30 bucks it’s like 700 pixels and a plastic lenticular filter in front of it

[@Amphibax]

That would same 100 at most not worth it

[@fxarts9755]

@@cesarlin im with you. it is not that good rn but the idea is great. many complain that its useless but it feels so much more natural talking to someone this way. it shows awareness and gives feedback to the other person which no other headset does. and i think its necessary for headsets to see mass adoption. hope competitors will implement this soon too

[@SafarWIP]

40% as usual

[@armandovanhaaren9823]

I don't care how the sausage is made . i only care is the experience worth the price tag ?

[@LilOleTinyMe]

Hah. If the company might is big enough they can make you pay not just for the no good component but also for the product they couldn't make if you didn't send enough to keep their production going

[@RedRose-yl8dt]

Because it has an Apple logo on it

[@simeontodorov9353]

pioneer devices are always premium cost. If it goes mainstream and licensed to other companies, the costs go down. Like foldables. They were just as expensive, but as more companies adopt them, the retail price goes down.

[@muhumuzageffrey550]

does R&D still add to mobile phone prices... they all mostly look the same

[@Amphibax]

Most of the basic rnd has already been done thats why the iPhone is the money makes for Apple

[@HimothySquared]

Estimates are never that accurate, just try to get an insurance estimate on auto body damage 😭

[@orppranator5230]

Or ask the hospital to predict a general ballpark on what your bill will be, they can’t do it.

[@shanieboi86]

It is overpriced if the intent is to get the upper middle class to buy it. As a toy for the 10%ers its fine. They should have paid their design team more to come up with a way offload the cost. Maybe a dumb headset connected to a smart phone. So the bom could mostly be displays and not a chipset that will be outdated in 6 months.

[@MrDecessus]

For poor people nothing is ever worth the cost. Everything is an issue and nothing seems to satisfy their needs.

[@rustler08]

They're also forgetting the cost of tooling, process assembly, etc. The fact that it is $1,500 in parts alone shows that it's really not a bad deal at all.

[@Brodozer39]

Not only that but even the R&D costs of all the tooling, process, and assembly is massive! Not to mention the R&D aspect of every single other little detail from start to finish. You are right, it’s surprisingly not over priced at all.

[@Utrilus]

That stuff tho is counted into the manufacturing costs of the factories. As is the packaging stuff. I found this video super strange talking as if the manufacturing costs don't account for people's labor. The only things not accounted for are R&D and Apple brand tax, $2000. And maybe a tiny per unit shipping cost as they ship em in bulk to a regional warehouse, after which shipped to the customer - where the latter half is paid by the customer.

[@tosvus]

I'll guarantee they don't pay $200 per oled..

[@johnsherby9130]

Based on what? It’s a 4k display in one square inch. It’s pretty damn impressive, you got a 4k oled I can buy for less than $200??

[@0106johnny]

They probably do, because there's almost no competetion in display tech and they can charge whatever they want for the panels

[@Crimsonoverlord.]

because youl buy it..if it cost 300 more you still would... just for a logo

[@0106johnny]

The AVP is extremely overpriced. A product is overpriced if it offers less value than it should at its price. A toothbrush made out of gold will be expensive and rightfully so when it comes to material costs, but even at break-even it will be overpriced, because it offers no more value than toothbrush for a few bucks.

[@OneBiOzZ]

You can complain that apple's vision pro is overpriced, its not priced more than makes since for whats included, but they made a lot of decisions that cost money and does not at all justify its added cost the worst offender is that front screen and the fake glass window, its at best cool, at worst a complete waste of money and weight budget and all in probably approaches $1000 in added costs to the end user

[@freescape08]

After hearing about this BOM, my complaint about the vision pro is not the cost, people who worked on it, or the fact that it's so limited, it's just that they wouldn't optimize it better for an attainable cost. They went all-out on displays, but couldn't make a more ergonomic headband? They get facial scans, but don't even offer custom CNC faceplates? They could dial back the brightness a hundred dollars and provide a better seal with more comfort, but they'd rather make the casing CNC'd metal?

[@the_undead]

4:46 ish Also, that machine requires electricity to function.

[@virityrealtual3831]

Overpriced depends on the use-case. is a 4090 overpriced for someone who's just looking to get top end gaming performance, probably yes. Is it overpriced for someone who wants to train AI models locally or uses it die hard for videography related work etc? Probably not. Is it overpriced in the sense of, are they making a lot of profit out of it? Who knows? But probably yes cuz they make a shitton of profit. Either something is overpriced because: 1. The profit margin (takin' into account middle man, logistics, RandD, BOM etc.) is too high. (subjective cuz some might consider 5% profit extortion while others would find 100% margin acceptable). 2. You as an individual don't get enough value out of it because maybe your use-case is sending emails while sitting at your desk. (Also subjective as fuck). So don't understand Linus just blatantly saying it's not overpriced. For my situation it sure would be. Espcially since i don't see myself having such a stupid thing on my face for productivity. And from a gaming perspective VR needs to develop a bit more for my tastes.

[@shivorath]

Overpriced has nothing to do with use-case, ever. The term you're looking for is "too expensive." Overpriced implies it's an indefensible scam. Too expensive implies that the product costs more than it is worth to you, and that is dependent on use case. If a product is overpriced, it is overpriced for everyone. If a product is too expensive, that is a matter of perspective.

[@douglasrobitaille7122]

Yes, Vision Pro is expensive. But should it be? It's just NOT $3,000 better than Quest 3. Vision Pro should have set a $1,999 USD price and called it a day!

[@TamasKiss-yk4st]

So for you the different between the 1080p 2D video streaming with just stereo audio and the 4k 3D vudeo szreaming with 7.1 sound (spatial audio), should cost the same? They pay different amount of license/service cost for Disney+, and the result is also very different.. one of them can give you the full imax cinema quality in 4k, the other gives you the regular video on a simple monitor in 1080p..

[@zachmoyer1849]

@@TamasKiss-yk4st he didnt say it was worth the same he said it was worth 1500 more

[@dogbot55]

​@TamasKiss-yk4st yeah but did you consider that most people dont care about that at all and just want something they can have fun with and maybe sometimes use to give them extra monitors?

[@drlemon7729]

Tbf the quest 3 is sold at loss

[@toututu2993]

Meta Quest sold for a loss. Is like comparing a charity to business company

[@Amg2k]

in my opinion, they're probably keeping the price high so only the hardcore fans can get their hands on it. That way, word of mouth is going to be notably higher because it stays out of the hand of people who don't like/use apple products. Only true fans will get them.

[@Slazerith]

LMAO "GUYS i said it in my review video... I think it comes out tomorrow"

[@UndyingNero]

It is overpriced. The term I don't think should be exclusive to products that have a fair market price for the materials and time spent on the product and such. But instead the term should refer to what it is worth to any one individual and what $1,500 to them is worth. Like that is a whole month's rent for a lot of people (most people). Unfortunately the company is so fucking rich that not a single one of these units could sell and we would still see them making a vision pro 19 years down the line because they are so beyond the point of ever being a failure due to a bad product simply because the phones sell too well.

[@reimusklinsman5876]

I still think it's overpriced regardless of the material costs. There's no reason of Apple to have a lot of those materials that add no or little value to the device. The AVP will be obsolete in a few years, the metal structure is wholly unnecessary. The 4k displays with such a poor FOV are going to waste and could have been toned down with no hit in quality. Their R&D Costs could and should be recouped throughout the lifetime of the family of devices. If Apple wanted to go any further than they needed to, that's a cost they should eat but Apple has a habit of abusing their very loyal fanbase and they are doing the same here considering that every single person who purchases this is very much a beta tester for a Gen 0 product. As much as I hate to say it, Meta did the right thing in their first few VR products by subsidizing the cost of their headsets in order to make a superior and far more valuable product.

[@Bingo.0401]

Here to stop people from saying the F word (edited)

[@Lieentz]

you cant stop me first

[@manuelcolon120]

But you said it…

[@Qualab_owl]

i'm here to say first

[@Bingo.0401]

@@manuelcolon120 edited

[@EnrysonFerraz]

for me... the front screen + metalframe + front glass is unnecessary.. Looks god. but the product will be a lot cheaper and will function the same.

[@AshnSilvercorp]

Should Samsung and Sony basically own like 99% of the OLED market stifling competition on pricing?

[@AshnSilvercorp]

@random_bit they brought up OLEDs, but ok.

[@zachmoyer1849]

@random_bit and besides they made the tech they should absolutely be able to stifle competition only discussion there would be how long should that be allowed.

[@authorityofgreed1780]

It's very impressive but not $3500 impressive

[@enzomercier2789]

I am impressed by how much budget was wasted

[@MrDummyisDumb]

It is, you're just not who it's for. It's like $70,000 trucks, they certainly aren't worth it to me, but to a contractor who can use it to generate ten times that in income with it per year, its definitely worth the cost

[@authorityofgreed1780]

@@MrDummyisDumb So it's not worth it.

[@0106johnny]

@iulic9833 I doubt the AVP can improve anyones productivity period.

[@henrymach]

It costs as much as stupid fanboys are willing to pay

[@corbysloan7934]

People only care about the end-product. We aren't trained to think about things in 4-dimensions. This is why skilled trade work costs so much money. You're also paying for their initial investment and accumulated subject-matter-expertise.

[@radikk7874]

Hypocrite, why should I paid for their investment in the first iteration. Go compare prices with Meta or other VR headset manufacturer, I don't see them increasing the prices by 2000$ to recoup their initial investment. Just Apple being greedy and blind sheeps defending it.

[@FARBerserker]

should still not simply break clean in the middle. not at that price.

[@ggwp638BC]

While I 100% agree that the Vision Pro is not overpriced at all, I think the negative sentiment about the price (even though 99.99999% of people who even looked at the pricetag will not buy one) comes a lot from the current situation of things. Economy is bad, people can barely afford rent, food, GenZs are walking into adulthood and realizing they can't afford to have a family, or a house, or even a car, and now even their hobbies are pricing them out of the market. That sort of despair makes you quite bitter in regards to pricing, so Apple releasing a 3.5k glorified monitor comes as out of touch to a lot of people. Granted, this product is not for them and Apple doesn't need to market to them, but it can end up turning into a symbol to focus the emotions people are going through.

[@NaudVanDalen]

I want this thing but just the OLED screens and a basic headset built around it $228 per eye or $456 total. Add $44 for some basic plastic case around it. Sell it for like $700. You get an amazing 100 inch TV everywhere you go.

[@tosvus]

Just check out some of the glasses that cost a few hundred. Yeah, you miss out on the FOV of this, but the OLED picture quality is actually really good.

[@hendrx]

You also need to account for the fact that the materials won't assemble or ship themselves

[@maxieroo629]

Packaging, people, R&D.... It's insane. The nearest competitor in this level of headset was 9k if i remember right

[@Utrilus]

Shipping costs are a pittance per unit because of the scale they work at, besides the customers pay it as they ordeer. The people's labor and machines are calculated into the manufacturing costs. Only thing is the R&D and Brand, which apple charges 2000 for.

[@Thomas-VA]

the most expensive part, the branding. as for what it takes to make, it takes early adopter guinea pigs

[@CompressionPolice]

They don't try to reduce costs, they just try to increase profits. It's the consumer's fault they aren't making more money.

[@TamasKiss-yk4st]

They can reduce the cost later.. you still keep forgeting that, this is tje device what announced on the World Wide Developer Conference, this is a model made for developers to let them make their apps for the environment, and they can't give them the cheaper model with also less features, developers need all the possible features now, they need to know them for their ideas, and for their tests if the app is ready.

[@TheGuillotineKing]

Fun Fact more than 80% doesn't meet apples standard and that's a huge factor in the price

[@sephondranzer]

It’s funny, I remember Apple being a really janky company in the past. I feel like the LTT constant dunking and mocking of their old AirPods really helped them learn a way of doing business moving forward.

[@Henry14arsenal2007]

Just wait for the second generation, its gonna be half the price and twice as good.

[@__-fi6xg]

because it has the apple logo on it, and it cant even use the existing vr stuff, which is so baffling to me.

[@NaudVanDalen]

Just don't buy Starbucks coffee for 2 years and you can afford an Apple Vision Pro. Actually in 2 years there's probably an Apple Vision Pro 2 that's much better and the current version will be like $2000.

[@enzomercier2789]

Just don't waste your money for 2 years so you can waste it all in one go

[@minty8429]

Just don't buy a new phone for the next 20 years and you can afford an Apple Vision Pro

[@NaudVanDalen]

@@minty8429 More like 4-5 years. Or 2 years if you buy a used Apple Vision pro or if they drop the price.

[@toututu2993]

People mistaken between haters and people who had never used VR/AR in their life You will see 90% of so called vr haters creeping around the web. Well they actually never tried one and the way they say false thing about a product they are not familar of

[@alumlovescake]

There is a reason they have not tried it

[@toututu2993]

@@alumlovescake Yes because they had no idea what it is lol

[@ZiggyMercury]

Guys, you should replace either Linus or Luke on the WAN show. These two are in overall agreement 99% of the time. It doesn't only make your discussions rather boring, it also makes people who don't agree with you (such as... Myself, 70% of the time) wanna bang their head against the wall, because no one with a microphone presents any different opinion (even if not mine).

[@sharonb.9128]

The AVP is not overpriced. How and what Apple used to make the AVP is the company’s decision. The buyer decides if those are worth spending their money on. The people saying they would have accepted cheaper materials and build quality only can speak for THEMSELVES, not make proclamations that speak for everyone.

[@Alice_Fumo]

So they could sell two versions instead. I'm pretty sure I know which one would sell more.

[@brianm.595]

For 3500 bucks you can get a 55 inch ultrawide, 4k monitor, and a video card to drive it... the immersion is the same. Several thousand of those dollars are covering R&D, the fact that the apple logo is on there, and its a low volume product. Its almost certainly glass, plastic, aluminum, silicon, etc... its probably around 1000 bucks of manufactured stuff at volume. Then everything else you are paying for is baked into buying an apple product. Shrug. I dont buy apple stuff because its never worth paying 20% for the apple logos presence. Thats just reality, if you buy apple stuff you are paying part of the premium for the brand name. Being 40 years old, i remember when apple was almost bankrupted in the 80s/90s because their stuff was overpriced so i feel no compulsion to for example buy a 3500 dollar macbook when the windows equivalent is $2500. It just doesn't make financial sense to me. The issue this product is going to run into is that software developers aren't going to program things for it unless it sells hundreds of thousands of units or apple pays them. History is littered with great products that don't get the support they need to thrive.

[@toututu2993]

I don't take someone who never used one seriously. Can that tv float everywhere and multiply around your real world space????

[@blindfire3167]

Why does it cost so much? Will R&D isn't cheap, definitely doesn't help that they need to make what $350 million a year just to pay Executive paychecks, let alone keep stock holders happy and employee cost. They just charge so much because they know people are stupid enough to pay it because they've marketed so much towards "We are the company that does it this best" knowing full well anyone who uses Apple products will likely listen to that kind of marketing and will never do any kind of research.

[@Jaxv3r]

3rd

[@randomcrandoface2363]

Turns out things cost money

[@doyouevenknowme7494]

yall are so naive and ignorant its adorable. The pallets can get damaged, stolen, lost, etc. and every time one does it gets replaced. now take 15-25 dollars. now you need 1000s of those for your shipments. so now 15-25 bucks is 15000-25000 bucks. Do you know how many milk crates they steal from the shipping companies in and around NYC? Not enough to bring you under but definitely more than enough for the corporation to hemorrhage money just for stupid milk crates that don't get returned. And this is the biggest issue. You cry about "big evil corps" which dont actually exist. Cause people run said "big evil corps". And with that logic anyone on the corporate ladder can be "evil". So by statistics there naturally will be a larger number at the bottom due to more people working there. However you notice it on the other end cause they control a lot more crap. But let's not talk about how workers and customers can be just as bad about driving up costs. No one wants to have that conversation i bet.

[@exil1737]

Linus defending apple... this video made me sick. 4k not overpriced my a.....

[@yoshtg]

to be fair tho, tech that is aimed towards a big range of consumers has always been very cheap. the best gaming PC cost you like 5000€, the best VR headset 3500€, the best smartphone like 1500€, even the high tech tesla cars are available from 43000€ so in total thats like 53,000€ for the tech, thats around 100 hours of hard work, you can do that within a week if you have as much discipline as me. its really amazing how much free time we have these days thanks to all the automation

[@holzvvrm7718]

It's 100h of work for a tiny fraction of a percent of people. That's 530€ per hour AFTER taxes.Most people make less per year.

[@patwick7351]

Its an apple product. Its not shocking that its overpriced.

[@triadwarfare]

Don't care about R&D costs but money is money. If they're selling it for 20% more than its bill of materials, it's profiteering. They should manage their R&D budget better and not pass it on to the customer.