IMHO, he wasnāt wrong to sell out of AAPL in early 2000s. Then, Apple Inc didnāt have a clear path to explosive growthā¦ Mac canāt match WinTel and iPod is a simple music player. What I am surprised is he didnāt buy in 2007ā¦ iPhone moment. 2014 is late but still good that he held on.
As always Brownlee had a pretty level headed review. Still think 5 years to lower price to $2k may be too short, not too long. Either Vision Pro or vanilla Vision. This thing is a very souped up computer. It uses an computer-grade M2 chip instead of the A series mobile chips. It needs to drive two 4K displays, one for each eye. It only has 2 hour battery life because of all the compute it needs to do.
But it will certainly get cheaper. Question is how long. And that question is existential for Meta. There are many use cases of Vision Pro that Oculus should be able to do today, like watching an immersive 2D movie or even 3D movie. Just for that use case alone many people will pay 300 bucks. Zuck needs to move fast to capture the low end, and hopefully scale from that base to get the app ecosystem flywheel moving. He has less than 3 years to make it happen.
.
over 10 years? Since 1997, CAGR of AAPL is 29%, so 10x over 10 years is to be expected 
Uber bull, Gene Munster, only willing to give $5T 
However, he thinks price of ļ£æVision would be $700 in three years as compared to @manchās $2k in fifth year.
Dan gives $4T over 3 years. Guess ļ£æVision to be priced at $1500 in 2nd year.
$4T potential only? 
He needs to show his rationale for that assessment. I just donāt see it. Maybe I will change my mind next year. One needs to go through the engineering to see how profound that little computer is.
Itās sorta like 2007 when Apple first released the iPhone. Everything barely worked. Chip was slow. Network was slow. Battery life sucked. Screen was tiny. Apple would spend the next 10 years to massively improve it. Only after those improvements did Apple get to optimize price.
So Iād expect something similar with the Vision headset. Instead of cutting price Apple would use the budget to massively improve it. After those improvements are done then Apple would optimize price.
Could be wrong of course. Just my current thinking.
People who think ļ£æVision Pro is expensive is because they are thinking it is a headset. The reality is it is a spatial computer . The beginning of a new era of computing platform. For those old enough to know, the first PC and first Mac is pretty expensive, costing few thousand dollars and can hardly do anything.
Before long, there should be plenty of guessing games as to when (2-5 years) would Apple release the consumer grade ļ£æVision, what should it be called e.g. ļ£æVision or ļ£æVision Air or ļ£æVision SE, and how much would it cost ($500-$2000)? Presumably, there should be more powerful versionā¦ ļ£æVision Ultra
Zuck may open source Oculus and goes full android on Appleās vision. Whatever he chooses to do he needs to move fast.
I think Zuck has no chance at all competing with Apple alone. Only hope is open source the Oculus and grow it into a real platform. Allow every app on it including the most important p**n, gambling, racy gaming etc. Apple will never let those apps in. Rally the whole world. Do it before itās too late.
High end will be forever gone to Apple. Only hope is to get a piece of the low end like Android before Apple moves prices down. But he needs to move extremely fast.
Before the announcement and demo, I was like just another VR. Not something I have much interest in.
Then I watched YouTube videos on folks who demo it. Everyone was blown away. Revolutionary; something from the future being brought to present today; black mirror vibe. Etc. It does seem like it has ability to be a game changer.
So it will depend on content and apps.
Apple increases ļ£æVision Pro sales target to 150k units vs previously discussed 50k units.
An industry insider tells me that the initially discussed volume was 50k, which as then increased to 100k before being increased to 150k this time.
Zuck:
Above YouTube influencer shares my opinionā¦
@manch
Zuck is desperate. The YouTuber influencer above is responding to his comments.
Zuckās original remarks (different from published by NYT)ā¦ more polished.
Doesnāt matter what you compare vision pro with, the fact of the matter is not many people will pay $4k for a headset. Itās like not many people will pay 200K for a Ferrari, even tho itās a very good car and not outrageously expensive considering the luxury items they put in it.
You wonāt even buy one yourself.
I hope Zuck is not delusional. Time is running short. He needs to make an ecosystem out of Oculus before Apple moves down in price.
.
Headset, hell no. Apple didnāt use the word, headset.
I didnāt say so. You have weird interpretation. Canāt pre-order yet.
He is not delusional. He is happy that Apple leaves a 3-5 years window and the low-end for him.
Really? You are going to buy the first gen Vision Pro when it comes out next year?
.
Obviously. Spatial computer. Start of a new computing paradigm.
I will likely buy the 3rd or 4th gen one. Not an early adopter. Unlike the watch which I still donāt see any use case, I can clearly see the headset will be great.
I refuse to use that word game āspatial computerā. Give me a break.
.
? Zuck did a good job of framing the mindset of the audience and reader. Zuck intentionally uses the word, āheadsetā, to frame ļ£æVision Pro as an accessory and conjure in peopleās mind a picture of a headset and its characteristic. Zuck understands humans.
Is a lousy name. Is just for talking in a blog. For the same reason, an iPhone is not called a mobile computer, the spatial computer is called Vision Pro. You have to learn to differentiate what it is and what it should be called to be generally acceptable for consumers and the general public. You should read up on marketing and advertising.
Btw, ļ£æWatch is a wearable iPhone (what it is). Is called a watch because thatās what people call something with a display wearing on the handā¦ hard to change peopleās fossilized mind.
