Analysis: Apple Vision Pro sells well, but needs more content faster

AppleInsider said: ...

While 500,000 units seems small compared to current iPhone or Mac sales, it's impressive for a first, albeit expensive, foray into VR.

The Apple media knows that 500k unit sales for the AVP was the upper limit because they know that Sony can only make about 1m microOLED displays in 2024. The AVP uses two, therefore Apple can only sell 400k to 500k units the first year. This line of thinking hasn't changed in almost 2 years now, when the Information (I think this was the source) revealed how many microOLED displays they could make.

If Sony can make more microOLED displays, they would be cheaper to Apple, and the AVP could be priced cheaper and therefore sell more. It's basic economics and marketing. Apple targeted the $3500 price point for a pretty obvious set of reasons.

AppleInsider said: Sales of the Apple Vision Pro headset over the past year, based on data from The Information.

There are only 3 points in this plot. With a nice round 500k number for November, I wonder what type of survey data the Information is using here? Direct leak from an Apple VP? A mole inside Sony? A mole inside the lens maker?

AppleInsider said:

While the Apple Vision Pro sells reasonably well for a AR/VR device, its high retail price of $3,500 prevents it from finding a more mainstream audience. The Meta Quest 3, a gaming-focused competing headset, starts at $399 - and sales are in the millions.

Uh, if Meta sells 5m units per year of the Meta Quests devices with an ASP of $400, that's $2b per year in revenue. Wouldn't you know it, Apple's 500k unit sales of the AVP at $3500 ASP is $1.75b per year. Guess who is doing better here? Apple!

Meta loses about $1000 for every $400 Meta Quest headset they sell. It's just craziness. If there was a thing the DOJ should be investigating, this is one of those. Meta, by subsidizing the sales of their VR hardware has effectively nuked any kind of VR hardware competition they could have, as nobody else has a sugardaddy set of businesses to continually to funnel money to, while any independent VR company will find it impossible to compete on price.

Apple obviously never competes on price. They always go for "value" for high prices.

chasm said:I agree that adoption/growth is what's important in the long term, but the Apple Vision Pro has only been out for 10 months. You will have to wait at least another year-plus before you (or AppleInsider) can comment on adoption/growth. Indeed, the POINT of the article seems to be that IF Apple and third parties can provide more content and apps for the Apple Vision Pro, it has a good shot at seeing more adoption/growth -- but if it doesn't, then it doesn't stand much chance of that.

Yup, it's a long game. 

The media discussion always gets it backwards imo. Developers never set the virtuous cycle started. It's always the OEM who must provide the initial sales trajectory, with the right features to get customers to buy. When there is a market of users who are willing to pay for apps, the virtuous cycle can start, where availability of 3rd party apps can drive device sales. First and foremost, Apple has to come up with a set of features, price, workflows to get people to buy.

It's pretty clear it is not possible to make an AVP for $1000, and ostensible consumer price, and it's a multiyear waiting game for the microOLEDs, lens, and sensors to come in price. The weight also has to come down by half. That has to be a big priority. As it stands, the AVP is a niche device waiting on technology to cone down in price.