This interpretation fundamentally doesn’t understand how Apple organizes its hardware design teams. Has Apple given up on the MacBook Pro when all the designers move off the MacBook Pro team to work on MacBook Airs? Had they given up on the Mac Pro after the last Intel Mac Pro came out and before the M2 Ultra Mac Pro - cause they sure as shit didn’t have that team staffed up in the intervening years. Apple routinely stands up and shuts down hardware teams as needed, shifting people around. They don’t have hardware engineers who are dedicated to a single product.
Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter jeanlain
- Start date
A counterpoint would be to point to how Apple generally bifurcates its products: There's the first-tier items, like the iPhone, MacBook Pro/Air, AppleWatch, and (to an extent) iPads that get the appearance of continual evolution, marketing, and support, regardless of how their back-end engineering resources may be moved around for the sake of efficiency. Then there are the "hobbies": AppleTV, HomePods, iMac, MacPro, iPad Mini (to an extent), etc. that seem to disappear from Apple's consciousness for months on end.
The AVP can't afford to be the latter if it's going to succeed. There's too much that still needs to be built, ecosystem-wise, and too much convincing of the public that it is a product they need. It doesn't need to be an iPhone (what ever will be that again?) but the trajectory it's on right now is far too flat. So perhaps a cheaper, more simple, more refined consumer-oriented model is the right choice, really. Save the beefy 2.0 version for when it is actually needed.
Anyone else remember the iPad 2? It refined all the right things compared to the original iPad: It was lighter, thinner, and more powerful. It added cameras, a second color choice, and a much wider array of first-party accessories. It was functionally the same, but became a far more desired product because it felt and appeared more complete. It was impossible to get one for months on end due to demand, something I acutely remember as my then girlfriend/now wife really wanted one. Apple needs its next "AV" to have a similar moment.
The AVP can't afford to be the latter if it's going to succeed. There's too much that still needs to be built, ecosystem-wise, and too much convincing of the public that it is a product they need. It doesn't need to be an iPhone (what ever will be that again?) but the trajectory it's on right now is far too flat. So perhaps a cheaper, more simple, more refined consumer-oriented model is the right choice, really. Save the beefy 2.0 version for when it is actually needed.
Anyone else remember the iPad 2? It refined all the right things compared to the original iPad: It was lighter, thinner, and more powerful. It added cameras, a second color choice, and a much wider array of first-party accessories. It was functionally the same, but became a far more desired product because it felt and appeared more complete. It was impossible to get one for months on end due to demand, something I acutely remember as my then girlfriend/now wife really wanted one. Apple needs its next "AV" to have a similar moment.
Not just the iPad 2 (great example, btw) but the Apple Watch. They originally marketed it as a luxury fashion item but quickly changed gears to it being all about fitness. However I doubt you'd consider the Apple Watch a failure, they just had to sort out what people really wanted out of it.
No doubt that's going on with AVP today. They knew the 1st gen was really just a very elaborate public beta, not just for hardware but also use case. We'll probably see that evolve with subsequent OS updates and especially where they take the hardware.
No doubt that's going on with AVP today. They knew the 1st gen was really just a very elaborate public beta, not just for hardware but also use case. We'll probably see that evolve with subsequent OS updates and especially where they take the hardware.
So, per the article, it seems that the display is the one thing that Apple currently isn’t considering compromising. They want the AVP display in a cheaper package. So, if display production is a bottleneck, then Apple wanting to focus resources on a cheaper AV with the same display suggests that they think they can divert displays to a budget device without harming AVP capacity.
In other words, the display is a bottleneck, but not enough people are pouring from the AVP bottle for that to matter.
In other words, the display is a bottleneck, but not enough people are pouring from the AVP bottle for that to matter.
Or… after having manufactured however many AVPs and all the learning about the manufacturing process that goes with that, Sony now has a viable scaling plan which they didn’t have a year ago.
I know I keep coming off as hopelessly glass half full. I think the negative assumptions are probably right. I just don’t know that we can fully jump to those conclusions with the available data. It all seems pretty thin to me.
I think there’s also an element of “AI is right around the corner” with this device. Perhaps more than any other Apple device there’s just enormous opportunity for AI to benefit the user experience. In the same way that Apple Intelligence can read your screen for context, a future AVP can read your world. The hardware team is not doubt working hard on the consumer model, but the software side of the house must be salivating over what they’ll be able to do with an M4 or M5.
In theory, AVP might be the device that can be most helped with AI. The ultimate tech is one that just works silently in the background making everything you do easier. The bicycle for your mind, as Steve Jobs described the computer.
In the context of AVP perhaps on board AI can interpret what's going on around you and make context aware app suggestions or even placement. For instance, it sees you're cooking and puts a timer app over the stove when you simply ask siri to start one. Or Siri asks if you'd like the recipe you reviewed earlier displayed.
It might recognize you're at your desk and pull up your work related apps and calendar. Or knows you're on an airplane and cues up entertainment, music or whatever it knows you like to do while flying.
The thing Apple will do is make it all just happen. They won't put a Chat GPT text box (or worse) cartoon agent on the screen constantly pestering you with Clippy-like suggestions. You might not even notice half the stuff it's doing as it all just feels natural. "Of course my Excel spreadsheet is open on my desk, that's right where I left it!" "Why wouldn't the kitchen timer app be ready to go? I'm right here cooking dinner."
Sure, but that's because the Watch found PMF in the fitness direction nearly immediately. The AVP has not found PMF nor has it moved in the direction of finding it along any path.
It doesn't seem like it, but if they did iterate that direction, it would be like speedrunning the Hololens playbook.
It has 100% penetration of the Fortune 500 companies and it wouldn't surprise me if the AVP cleans up in the Healthcare industry as well. That seems like a solid path for a high-end device to follow
What does 100% penetration even mean though? That each company has bought at least one? That it's rolled out units to some significant fraction of their workforce?
I don't doubt there are uses for it here and there, but I don't see any signs of broad adoption. If Apple had seen strong signs of PMF in enterprise applications,we would probably have seen indications at WWDC for enterprisey things like fleet management, MDM, multi-user, etc.
Kind of writing the obituary early, aren’t we? When the Apple Watch was as old as the AVP people were still busy mocking the $$$ gold edition model.
I don't consider conference sessions as necessarily indicative of product direction, and enterprise requires a roadmap which we haven't seen yet. It sounds like we'll be in a holding pattern on enterprise features for a while. So on the "is AVP moving in the direction of PMF?" question, I still think the answer is "no".Looking at WWDC there were a notable number of AVP in the enterprise themed sessions. So
Luxury was only one of the directions they tried with the Watch. It failed. Companion apps did ok, but "better Fitbit" found PMF and Apple leaned in hard.
AVP hasn't had any of the initial directions catch fire, so it's in more of a HomePod situation.
I'm not sure I'd characterize the launch that way. I'm pretty confident that Apple always planned the mass adoption of Watch to be around fitness. I think they just wanted to skim some margin off the top with the luxury overlay.
Yes, Apple has effectively given up on the Mac Pro, repeatedly. Occasionally they briefly drag it out of retirement before leaving it to rot for years more. As Chris FOM said, that is absolutely not how a successful product is managed, and the MP indeed is no longer successful as it was when it had normal, yearly updates.
Which has often been really, really stupid and crappy given the stage they're at. But it looks worse in a scenario like this. The fundamental point of such a startup-style of organization is theoretically to move fast and throw everything behind new categories, like the AVP, and executing very well, with the downside being neglect of existing product lines. But here we're seeing it all being backwards, with them suffering the downsides yet also apparently unable to aggressively pursue the new disruptor. That's (potentially) bad. It might not be in practice if nobody else can do well either, but it certainly opens up the possibility for someone to come along and eat Apple's lunch.
My understanding from retrospective reporting is that the stupid, stupid $10k Edition was driven entirely by Ives. No one else wanted it, but he was high on his post-Steve invincibility and already heading down the path of designing form of function rich people toys.
Looking at WWDC there were a notable number of AVP in the enterprise themed sessions. So
If that‘s your conclusion then you might pay closer attention to Apple. A rollout of public APIs represents a very strong signal, clearly indicating the types of problems Apple intends for its products to solve.
The enterprise APIs Apple revealed aren’t trivial, but rather quite ”gloves off.” They allow in-house applications to make use of compute resources, including the ANE, normally off-limits to and break privacy protections which otherwise constrain other visionOS apps. There’s a particularly interesting entitlement which allows the Vision Pro to run hotter than typically allowed to the point that its fans can become audible… lol.
Kinda funny, but makes perfect sense for a factory floor.
Last edited:
The Apple Watch was a total flop.
Apple Watch is a FLOP: Sales have fallen 90% since April, report finds
Apple is now selling less than 20,000 watches a day in the U.S. since the Watch's opening week, according to a report by California-based Slice Intelligence.
(Yeah, it's Daily Mail, but the Google instantly turned up hundreds of similar links — my Google has irritatingly defaulted to giving me German results in recent weeks, though, and this was the first English-language one in the list.)
Yeah, but again, they don't do anything to move in the direction of PMF - they may allow for some more niche applications, but to find PMF in enterprise, we'd need to see broadly applicable enterprise-forward features, and I don't think we're seeing that on either the hardware or software side.
It probably depends on the factory type and employee role, but the worst-case failure mode of the AVP is to fail blind, vs. Hololens which fails clear. Still, we should see if Apple goes for industrial certifications for AVP like MS did for Hololens as it is nominally a good use-case.
I beg your pardon, but how is it that allowing enterprise apps unique freedoms and capabilities enjoyed by no other apps – how can that not be construed as an 'enterprise-forward' feature?
In isolation that makes total sense. But it this report is accurate, it’s simply doesn’t apply here. You’re focusing on looking at each of Apple’s actions and saying taking those as evidence as poor performance isn’t necessarily accurate and there are alternative explanations. That’s fair, but it’s missing the point. The reason for concern isn‘t what Apple’s doing, it’s the fact that post-AVP launch they made a decision to change their roadmap. The initial plan was to ship AVP then get to work on the AVP2. Now they’re not doing that; instead they’re working on the Apple Vision Cheap while the AVP2 has been sidelined entirely.
Maybe there are other explanations. Maybe supplier roadmaps also changed such that Apple’s initial plans for an AVP2 were no longer viable. Maybe they changed enough that a cheaper model was viable earlier than expected. But the key element to focus in on isn’t what Apple’s doing, it’s what happened post AVP launch causing them to do something different.
You missed the other part which was broadly applicable - those features are only usable by enterprises sure, but will they be needed by most enterprises? The quintessential OS enterprise feature is MDM, in that it's useful for nearly every business above a certain size (we're saying "enterprise" so we're saying generally 5000 employees+, though we can be fuzzy there). From an API standpoint, common enterprise features are things like the conditional access, where apps can only access company-specific cloud storage, have on-device company-specific storage signed with the company's key, and can be revoked by the company.
The features Apple announced are actually probably generally broadly useful, but are limited to enterprise since workers do not have the same expectations (of privacy or battery life) as privately owned devices.
Thanks. Using 'broadly applicable to the enterprise' in the context of an exotic AR headset evokes some creative tension for me. Let's agree that this is all niche and there's little broad about it right now.
Alright, but I thought we were discussing the enterprise features revealed at WWDC. FWIW, the current version of visionOS already supports MDM.
Agreed. And, again, I think it's very notable that Apple chose to loosen these restrictions at all, even in a controlled manner and for a specific set of users.
I know, I was using MDM as an example of a feature broadly applicable to enterprise.
A tidbit on the Epic and Apple front: today I learned that the new Marvel ‘What If?’ experience is the first Unreal Engine app on the visionOS App Store. The Vision Pro can only be targeted when using Unreal tools built from source.
From an interview with two members of the ILM team that built it: https://castro.fm/episode/IMSVhJ
From an interview with two members of the ILM team that built it: https://castro.fm/episode/IMSVhJ
Last edited: