Apple has dropped the number of Vision Pro units that it plans to ship in 2024, going from an expected 700 to 800k units to just 400k to 450k units,...
The problem with a bunch of small-group testing in an echo chamber is that you’ll always get biased results that miss a lot of issues you’ll discover with a wide release. This is a tricky tech that really needed more testing, and future versions will benefit from what they learn. But Apple made a mistake by marketing it a bit too ambitiously.
The iPhone and Watch took a while to really hit their mark, too, but they both had an everyday “wow” factor that made them cool and useful, despite their early shortcomings. The Vision Pro has such specific use cases and such a high price tag that the broad appeal just doesn’t exist to float the product from early days to the “sweet spot” when all the kinks are worked out.
I saw that most reviews say it’s really impressive and a real amazing gadget.
I’ve also seen them say, they don’t really know what to do with it or what’s it for. The work/application stuff needs more improvement and is hard to justify the cost.
Yeah, you’d expect that, if nothing else, it would be amazing for gaming.
Nope. It’s still a Mac, which means it has all of the difficulties that come with porting games to macOS nowadays, from Metal’s bitchiness to the Apple Silicon architecture. The availability of Mac-compatible games nowadays is limited, and the Vision Pro isn’t very good with even the existing VR offerings, if it’s compatible at all.
This is a product that was clearly not ready for release yet. The hardware in overengineered and unaffordable (not to mention problematic) while the software is underdeveloped and missing critical tools and features. Maybe in a few years…
Interesting choice of phrase. I usually consider “Beyond Expectations” to be positive financial language. It reads to me something like:
We have fantastically exceeded our projections in the negative, sir! Excellent news, good good. Carry on then.
The problem with a bunch of small-group testing in an echo chamber is that you’ll always get biased results that miss a lot of issues you’ll discover with a wide release. This is a tricky tech that really needed more testing, and future versions will benefit from what they learn. But Apple made a mistake by marketing it a bit too ambitiously.
The iPhone and Watch took a while to really hit their mark, too, but they both had an everyday “wow” factor that made them cool and useful, despite their early shortcomings. The Vision Pro has such specific use cases and such a high price tag that the broad appeal just doesn’t exist to float the product from early days to the “sweet spot” when all the kinks are worked out.
I saw that most reviews say it’s really impressive and a real amazing gadget.
I’ve also seen them say, they don’t really know what to do with it or what’s it for. The work/application stuff needs more improvement and is hard to justify the cost.
Yeah, you’d expect that, if nothing else, it would be amazing for gaming.
Nope. It’s still a Mac, which means it has all of the difficulties that come with porting games to macOS nowadays, from Metal’s bitchiness to the Apple Silicon architecture. The availability of Mac-compatible games nowadays is limited, and the Vision Pro isn’t very good with even the existing VR offerings, if it’s compatible at all.
This is a product that was clearly not ready for release yet. The hardware in overengineered and unaffordable (not to mention problematic) while the software is underdeveloped and missing critical tools and features. Maybe in a few years…
The normal phrase would be “below expectations”. Really weird wording, wouldn’t be surprised if it was purposely trying to trick people