How Apple Should Have Framed the $3,500 ‘Vision Pro’ Price Point

A little bit of the old Steve Jobs plain talkin’ distortion…

Mark Gurman’s newsletter a couple weeks ago directly took on the Vision Pro’s $3,500 price tag:

At $3,500, Apple Vision Pro isn’t priced to sell. No matter how powerful its technology and compelling its functionality, the product won’t be able to reach its potential or have a real future at seven times the price of its top rival.

When the price of the headset was announced, there were loud gasps among the crowd at the company’s campus. The cost has been criticized by consumers and online commentators alike and Apple’s argument for the price point has also been short of compelling.

There was quite a bit of chatter leading up to the unveil that perhaps the rumored $3k price (which Gurman himself was the first to report, I believe) was Apple “sandbagging” just as it seemingly had done with the original iPad years ago. That Apple would reveal a $1,499 price point or something. Boom. But just a few minutes into the presentation, it was clear that not only was that not the case, $3k may have even been optimistic. There was just so much high-end technology crammed into this thing. Sure enough…

Overall, I agree with the concept of getting the price out there now and letting everyone digest it for months before any actual purchasing decisions need to be made. I agree less with Apple trying to spin the price as similar to a high-end TV (mixed with other high-end equipment), as executive Mike Rockwell tried to do on stage. The use cases will not be the same. And the justification betrays the sensitivity Apple clearly has here.

I would have had Apple come out and own it, Steve Jobs-style.

Something like:

Yes, this is a high-end product with a high-end price. That’s why we gave it the ‘Pro’ name. It’s going to carry a premium cost to buy because it comes at a premium cost to build. Make no mistake, this is great value. No one comes close to the technology we have put into this machine. (Reiterates) Not even close. I mean just look at the headsets out there in the market right now.

[Cut to Keynote slide showing Quest, PS VR, etc specs and design.]

Even Facebook — I’m sorry, “Meta” (laughs) — recently tried to release a high-end version of their Quest headset. And let’s just look at it.

[A new slide with the Quest Pro specs and design.]

Now let’s look at Vision Pro. These are not the same device. These aren’t even in the same stratosphere.

[Leave out the fact that Meta had to significantly cut the price of the Quest Pro soon after launch as it might imply Apple may have to do the same. As they did with the original iPhone!]

This is not some simple VR device. This is a new vision of digital reality. We’re calling it “Spatial Computing” because we think this is far bigger than what others have been trying to do. And we poured everything we have — the years of expertise in chips, in cameras, in software, in industrial design, in packaging — into this device. We think it’s worth every penny. And we think you’ll agree when you get your hands on one. And your eyes in one. This is the next generation of computing. The future. Right now.

Now, this is all easier said than done, of course. Most notably because Steve Jobs had the gravitas and track-record to back up such claims. This is what actually powered the “Reality Distortion Field” — the fact that he was so often correct, so you couldn’t fully discount even outrageous claims. Others, even those within Apple, would have a harder time pulling it off. Still, Apple’s long track-record speaks for itself. Including more recently with Apple Watch.¹ So I would have taken the above approach.²

It also would have provided a better pre-emption of Mark Zuckerberg’s dismissive response — itself an obvious mistake — of the device simply because of the price point. Without question, Apple is leaving a door open for Meta here — a wide one in the $0 to $3,498 price range! This will change over time, of course, with Gurman noting in his piece that Apple already has work well underway on a non-Pro ‘Vision’.³ Still, Apple will presumably be ceding the sub-$1,500 price points for a good long while. Years, I imagine. But that doesn’t mean Apple won’t control and dictate this market from the high-ground. In fact, I would not bet against that.⁴

You know, like the iPhone. Own it. Millions and millions people literally do. Apple should figuratively here with the Vision Pro pricing and positioning.

¹ Which still feels like a device which is spiritually similar to Vision Pro.

² Now, do I believe that Steve Jobs, were he still with us, would have worn the Vision Pro on stage? It’s impossible to say, of course. Gurman (and many others) have cited the PR downside in having someone like Tim Cook wear the headset on stage. While many others noted that the fact that he (or anyone from Apple) didn’t do it, is indicative of… something. Something not great. Let alone insanely great. But I continue to wonder how much of it wasn’t simply tied to the device not being fully baked yet. Clearly the ‘EyeSight’ feature is not ready yet (more on that below). Still, it was weird not to even bring it out on stage (or faux stage, since the event, like all recent ones, was pre-recorded). But doing that without putting it on would have just driven home the point above. So again, I would have addressed it head-on: “And here it is. It’s not quite ready for prime-time yet. But everyone here is working as fast as they can to get it into your hands by early next year. And for developers, we’ll be getting you development kits much sooner than that. We can’t wait for you to try it. It’s amazing.” (And then letting select people try it after the event and word slowly trickling out how great it is even in these early demos would have generated even better buzz, I imagine…)

³ Though I am surprised by how Apple may bring costs/prices down — or rather, how they apparently won’t be doing it:

But there are a few areas I believe Apple will not compromise on in a cheaper Apple Vision. The external screen, known as EyeSight, to show a wearer’s eyes, as well as the eye- and hand-tracking system, are as core to the Apple Vision as a touchscreen is to an iPhone. I would expect a cheaper model to keep those features.

I would have guessed that EyeSight would be the first thing to go in a non-Pro ‘Vision’ device. But not so, says Gurman. This is a core feature, Apple believes. I’ll be curious if that belief changes over time. It’s hard to know right now since the feature clearly isn’t fully baked yet (which is why no one on the outside has tried this particular feature yet) but it feels… dare I say… gimmicky? Maybe not Amazon FirePhone “3D” level. But, it’s weird. On several levels. And, undoubtedly, insanely expensive both from a compute and build perspective…

⁴ Which is why I think it was such a mistake for Zuckerberg to be dismissive, Steve Ballmer-style. He thinks the upside is to rally his troops, but the downside of such comments are just as likely to haunt him. He should have taken the high-road, and focused on the very real door open to Meta, “I think it’s great that Apple has just validated the space with such a big announcement. A space which we’ve been operating in for years, of course. We clearly have different strategies, and I think that’s good for both companies and the ecosystem. This sounds like BS, but it’s clearly not. We’re going to operate and execute on our strategy to get Quests into as many hands as possible over the coming years. And Apple is now going to help us market and open up the space, whether they want to or not. So I’m honestly excited. I was yesterday, I’m even more excited today.” Simple.