There has been a lot of speculation recently about Apple’s Reality Pro launch plans, as well as about the price of the device.
The consensus view so far has been that Apple will announce the Reality Pro AR/VR headset at WWDC on June 5, and that the price will be around $3,000. But some are wondering whether…
We’ve of course heard multiple reports that Apple plans to announce Reality Pro at its WWDC keynote on June 5, though it won’t go on sale until later this year. To me, that makes perfect sense.
First, and most obvious, Reality Pro will need apps. Apple will of course have its own apps and maybe One or more of these would make a strong case for wanting or needing the device, but so far the general view of VR Headphones at least are still a solution in search of a problem.
Apple’s device will combine augmented and virtual reality — and it seems likely to put more emphasis on the latter, given Tim Cook’s earlier remarks about wanting technology to connect people, not isolate them. This opens up the opportunity for more uses, but still — the more apps you have, the greater the chances that one or more of them will be a selling point for the headset.
So developers are key. bloomberg I mentioned that a key part of Apple’s plan is to enable existing iPad AR apps to be adapted for the Reality Pro headset.
A big part of the effort is adapting iPad apps for the new headset, which blends virtual and augmented reality. Users will be able to access millions of existing apps from third-party developers via the new 3D interface, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because plans are still wrapping around.
He. She maybe Be that as it may, xrOS does the heavy lifting here, and the workload required for a developer is minimal, but I can easily envision a situation similar to adapting iPhone apps for the iPad. Yes, you could run an existing iPhone app in 2x mode, but it wasn’t pretty! Reality Pro’s native apps are likely to be more compelling than iPad apps with minimal adaptation.
For me, it’s hard to imagine that Apple no The device was first announced at WWDC.
Launch Reality Pro
However, some argue that the entire new product category is too big to fit into the main presentation, and that it really requires a stand-alone event.
Apple wants Reality Pro to have its own moment on the iPhone, and it just doesn’t seem like the right time for that to happen.
My own opinion is that the reasoning is sound, but the conclusion is wrong.
Yes, Reality Pro is definitely something that needs a file a lot time to submit it. Apple would first have to prove such a device exists in the first place, and then explain why the iPhone maker would go into this arena.
It should explain why AR is better than VR, but at the same time the headset has VR capabilities too. The company must show enough usage examples to make sense for an appropriate percentage of the market. Then you should operate by the specific capabilities of the headset itself.
This is a big ask, and it won’t be covered in one major presentation.
But here’s why it makes sense for this to be a two-stage declaration:
- WWDC: Reality Pro advertisement
- Later: Reality Pro launch
The former will give consumers broad brush strokes – what, why and when? Subsequent WWDC sessions will give developers the hands-on experience and deep dive they need.
Later, once the headset is ready for sale, there will be a separate Reality Pro launch event, which will then be able to offer more realistic usage scenarios as Apple will have the opportunity to choose the third-party apps it thinks are the best way to own one.
If this doesn’t convince you, there are other strong arguments for declaring WWDC. First, there are the following:
On Monday night, there will be the traditional Apple Design Awards keynote and then a special mystery evening activity that you “won’t want to miss” at Caffè Macs […]
Join us in the Apple Developer Center as we discuss some of the latest announcements. Choose from three different showtimes. Space is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Aka Reality Pro demo session, followed by an in-depth briefing once the developers test it.
Second, there’s the fact that the WWDC revelations are largely being reported as fact, and Apple does nothing to stop that. Will be particle Disappointment if it doesn’t happen after all the hype, so I guarantee you we and others will take quiet (or loud) hints from Apple PR if the reports are wrong.
Reality Pro pricing
We’ve been hearing that $3,000 number for a long time. this huge amount of money, especially when no one has explained why any of us would want to buy it.
Like many of you, I have a Meta Quest 2 sitting somewhere behind a drawer. I bought it because it was an affordable way to see what all the VR fuss was about. After my curiosity was satiated, and I enjoyed riding some rollercoasters, and letting friends play with it, it was probably less than a few weeks before she was banished, never to appear again.
So, if many of us can’t find a reason to still use a device that costs two or three hundred dollars, why spend ten times that amount on a more complex – but still similar – device? Sure, AR, but we have that on iPhones and iPads. What would force us to spend thousands of dollars on a Reality Pro headset?
So it is understandable to me that many may inquire about prices.
This $1,500 report is fake fake
Then there was the $1,500 report. There, some said, we told you that it would cost not three thousand, but half as much.
Well, no. The $1,500 (actually $1,400) report was describing what is known as a bill of materials. That is, the actual cost to Apple of the components needed to make one, as well as assembly.
Even considering only direct costs, we still need to add packaging, warehousing, shipping costs, import duties, and miscellaneous handling costs. But then we need to add the cost of marketing and selling it (Apple store space has to be counted), and TRUE The all-in cost must also factor in development costs – reportedly $1 billion annually. That’s a big bill.
Given that Apple expects to sell one headset per store per day, that bill is broken down on a scale small size number of units. No, in this report, the device doesn’t cost Apple $1,500, and it certainly wouldn’t make any money selling it for it. The $3,000 figure seems more realistic.
But there is a wildcard
apple Known This is a very expensive first-generation device, and it knows it needs to create a market for less expensive models down the road. This model would be the decisive but short-lived LISA, ahead of the less expensive Macintosh.
bloomberg It reported that the Cupertino company even considered selling the first-generation model at a loss, before deciding instead to sell it as a break-even price.
We also need to consider that the bill of materials report was just appreciation What the ingredients might cost. We do not know the actual components nor the actual price Apple pays for these components. We know the company is running a tough bargain with suppliers, so instead of underestimating real-life costs, the BoM may be an overestimation of Apple’s true cost.
Finally, there’s the original iPad, which was widely rumored to cost a thousand dollars, and actually launched for half that. The smart money says Apple leaked the $1,000 price to make $500 look like a bargain. The company could do the same again here.
So we might be pleasantly surprised
So there’s at least the possibility that the $3K pricing and $1.5K BoM are Apple misinformation, and that they will launch for $1,500.
However, I will not hold my breath. Personally, I wouldn’t expect to buy one at either price – how about you?
FTC: We use affiliate links to earn income. more.
#Reality #Pro #launch #pricing #Understanding #speculation