IDC Estimates Apple Shipped Just 45,000 Vision Pros Last Quarter (ft.com)
- Reference: 0180497465
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/26/01/01/189219/idc-estimates-apple-shipped-just-45000-vision-pros-last-quarter
- Source link: https://www.ft.com/content/ab817ba1-15ec-473f-b609-5b5016b3258d
IDC expects Apple to [1]ship just 45,000 new units in the fourth quarter of 2025 . Apple launched an upgraded M5 version in October featuring a more powerful chip, extended battery life, and a redesigned headband. The company sells the device directly in 13 countries and did not expand availability in 2025.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/ab817ba1-15ec-473f-b609-5b5016b3258d
Silver lining (Score:4, Funny)
They beat the Cybertruck
Re: (Score:2)
These numbers cannot be taken at face value. Hardware is a capital intensive business. As a condition for setting up the headset manufacture, Apple must have agreed to order a large round number of units, with an option for more. Irrespective of the actual demand or market viability. Once built, the factory will ship them to the client, and it's up to Apple to sell them, keep them in a warehouse, or bury them in a landfill while claiming the tax breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
> They beat the Cybertruck
Even robotic colectomies beat the Cybertruck.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Cybertruck outsold a lot of other EVs combined.
Option 1
Chevrolet Blazer EV ~20,800
Nissan Leaf ~10,000 (approx historical)
Kia EV6 ~8,000 (approx)
Total ~38,800
Option 2
Rivian R1T ~15,000
Nissan Leaf ~10,000
Re: (Score:2)
The Ford F-150 Lightning, widely seen as a failure and canceled, outsold the cybertruck by about double. So no, I wouldn't say the cybertruck is successful by any measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not defending Cybertruck, Tesla, or Musk... but the facts... "Tesla sold 38,965 Cybertruck pickup trucks in 2024, according to estimates from Cox Automotive. In its first full year on sale, the Cybertruck dunked on the electric version of the famed Ford F-150. It ran circles around the Chevrolet Silverado EV. It trounced the Rivian R1T, too. It was the best-selling electric pickup in the U.S., and the fifth best-selling battery-powered model overall."
trade-ins (Score:1)
They'd have shipped a lot more if they'd have accepted trade-ins on the M2 ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Except even Apple doesn't want them back.
Re: (Score:2)
> They'd have shipped a lot more if they made something that wasn't over-priced useless pointless crap.
It's not useless, or pointless, or crap. In fact, its the opposite of all of those things. It' just priced 10X more than 99% of the population is willing to pay for something that does the things it does.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. People are upset about affordability and will overlook value and quality. That said, Apple made a few strange decisions... it shouldn't have a front facing screen. Electronics should be in the battery pack, not on the face. Material selection should prioritize weight savings, the battery should be wearable without accessories, it needs an USB-C thunderbolt port by default. All straightforward fixes for a company like apple.
$1.3 BILLION product sales = failure for Apple?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Shipping well over a third of a million high end niche products for $1.365 billion in sales doesn't sound like a failure to me. Not everything is an iPhone.
Re:$1.3 BILLION product sales = failure for Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
WHat were there expectations? If they were much higher, then it's a disappointment. If it was inline, then it isn't. How much did they spend in R&D on the device? Again, if it was a net loss, it's a disappointment. If it was a profit, it might not be. (A loss might also be ok if it launches a category that becomes successful, but this doesn't seem to be the case here).
Given that they shut down manufacturing, it seems very likely they sold way under expectation and overbuilt capacity. It also seems likely in that case they lost money. Which would make this a disappointment.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on how shortsighted a view one takes. Gaining experience and 5,000 patents in a brand new category has worth all by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Experience only matters if you make a new version. Otherwise the experience has no value. The patents are only useful if enforcable, and if they provide defensive value against companies they don't already have defense against, orif the category becomes big enough to leverage against others who do succeed. Seeing as they shut down production, it's unlikely they will create a new version anytime soon. There's not enough demand. They have an extensive patent portfolio, so the defensive value is questiona
Re: (Score:2)
There is no solid evidence that manufacturing was shut down. You are believing what some guy wants you to think.
Has there ever been... (Score:2)
Has there ever been a successful VR headset that has survived long term after the initial launch frenzy? It just seems like something that people are trying to will into existence, but most people have no interest in it. A niche product for hardcore gamers and a few useful applications in science and medicine. No one's come up with a 'gotta have it' application for them. Most of generative AI is trash, but there are more useful applications for that than for VR headsets.
Re: (Score:2)
> Has there ever been a successful VR headset that has survived long term after the initial launch frenzy?
Not one made by Apple.
That many? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm kind of surprised that it's as high as that, frankly. I figured there'd be a giant fanboi blip followed by a continuous flat line.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect there is a market for them as a design/visualization tool for professionals. They aren't cheap or easy enough for casual entertainment, but for people with corporate budgets and a need to see what something will look like in 3D space before committing the money to actually create it, they are good deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I would have guessed it would be more like 4 or 5 units
My company was willing to consider getting me one to use as a screen while flying and traveling (which I do a lot of). So I got the demoit was ok. I’m pretty all in these days on Apple, and I used to work in AR, so you’d think I’d be a perfect customer. But it just didn’t seem worth it.
VR fails again (Score:2)
This is the 6th or 8th time? The tech is not there, the software is not there and people do not actually need it or really want it an the price-tag is too high.
Re: (Score:2)
VR is doing just fine, only Apple has failed here. This year saw again millions of devices sold making Quest headsets far more popular than many (very much not failed) gaming consoles. The hardware is just fine, the software is great within its niche (gaming, with plenty of great games to choose from), and the price is 1/3rd of that of an xbox putting it within reach of any commoner.
But you have your head stuck in the sand (or somewhere worse) as usual with every VR article. You continue to comment about th
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is more nuanced. The tech is there... but Apple hasn't delivered a balanced system. Its incredibly advanced and will matured into a much better selling product once they bring things like weight and cost down.
Hardly surprising (Score:2)
It's overpriced Apple slop which has virtually no application - mostly due to Apple's inability to sell the consumer a device that just does what they want. If Apple can't subsequently nickel and dime you to death, they have no interest in the product.
Consequently, it's a device for spendthrift morons, not the average consumer. It's a measure of Apple's arrogance that they actually thought they could get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is sloppy, lazy thinking. The Apple Vision Pro is one of, if not the most advanced consumer technologies ever released. Just because it’s not affordable doesn’t mean it’s not a fantastic value. You get a full movie theater experience in your home (or airplane seat, etc.). You get a gigantic, crisp display for your laptop and phone. Those two things are worth thousands. Now ply me with your too heavy/proprietary OS argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Its useless. It doesn't do anything anyone needs or wants. Which is why VR headsets have failed in the market repeatedly, and at much cheaper pricepoints. That's why it's not a fantastic value- it's no better than existing tech, it doesn't solve a problem, nobody wants the category, and it's priced at nearly 10x the competition. On every front it's the exact opposite of value.
Re: Woah (Score:2)
45,000 sounds high. Let's not be sloppy.. Based on everything we know and that's been reported-- that Apple cancelled a true AVP successor and is moving ahead with glasses over the AVP, that they sold 300,000 units at launch (at best), that the division the AVP reports under (Wearables) had a *decline* in revenue after it launched, etc. etc. it's pretty clear it's a dead end product.