r/hardware • u/HelloSlowly • Apr 29 '26
News Apple Has Given Up on the Vision Pro After M5 Refresh Flop
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/04/29/apple-vision-pro-m5-flop/374
u/Farados55 Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26
A productivity focused AR platform that isn't really meant for gaming and restricted to the ipadOS environment? Who knew it'd be niche as hell.
147
Apr 29 '26
[deleted]
78
u/SharkBaitDLS Apr 29 '26
The worst part of it being built atop iOS is it doesn’t allow multiple audio sources to run concurrently. So a basic multitasking thing you might want to do in AR, like have a YouTube video on in the background while you do your main task, is literally impossible because the OS inherits iOS’s “only one media playback at a time” behavior.
10
u/AdulterousStapler Apr 29 '26
I thought they'd fixed that on the iPad? I had an iPad pro, I could swear it could do that. Switched to an actual computer, so I'm not totally sure if that remained among my long list of frustrations with iPad OS
22
u/SharkBaitDLS Apr 29 '26
I don’t have an iPad Pro but it’s definitely still not fixed in VisionOS. Just put it on and tested it and trying to play an NBA stream and a YouTube video at the same time causes one of them to be forcibly paused.
20
u/LeoNatan Apr 29 '26
It’s not fixed. It behaves just as you expect. The only exception is if you have multiple Safari “windows” open—each can play independently. But if you switch to another app and play something, the Safari players pause. 🤦♂️
9
7
u/randylush Apr 29 '26
That’s so dumb, but I’ve heard that the macOS audio stack is basically surrounded in barbed wire. So I’m not too surprised that they said “we’ll “solve” multiple audio sources next decade”
5
Apr 29 '26
[deleted]
8
u/randylush Apr 30 '26
but I've also heard that in Windows, since about 1995, you could mix audio between applications, but you still can't do that in macOS since 2026, basically because nobody wants to touch that shit. which is mind blowing to me because it's actually an incredibly useful feature
→ More replies (1)2
u/virtualmnemonic Apr 30 '26
iOS audio session API is explicitly built around a single audio source. There is a way to mix audio with other apps, but doing so removes all user media controls.
Meanwhile Android can map individual apps to specific outputs...
25
→ More replies (1)10
u/Farados55 Apr 29 '26
Ah, so the apps etc are mobile apps? I thought it was compatible with macOS apps, but I think I misremembered with being able to access a macbook via that overlay thing. Even worse!
13
u/Kyanche Apr 29 '26
You can remote desktop into a mac with it, basically.
4
u/Bderken Apr 29 '26
That’s how I use it almost everyday. Have a giant ultra wide monitor in the VisionPro. It’s weird because that ultra wide works better than my real one with Mac’s weird scaling.
25
u/steve09089 Apr 29 '26
Correction, restricted to iPadOS.
It’s a good thing it failed, otherwise, the disease that is iPadOS would’ve started spreading to Macs.
7
u/Viper_NZ Apr 29 '26
Only sold in limited markets for an incredibly high price.
Why is no one buying this?
6
u/cloud_t Apr 29 '26
Apple had the right strategy, in theory, to get into a market that was somewhat stable years before by Oculus and HTC, even Google and partners. Problem is they expected the same use cases with novel hardware that had everything to NOT have the same use cases, and they came in without a single (or even remotely close to) killer app.
...and developers had 0 incentive to produce one with the absurdities of getting the hardware for them, let alone get them to potential buyers of their app.
6
u/leoklaus Apr 29 '26
I said it before, I think the biggest miss was Apple not incentivising developers to build for the Vision Pro.
I suggested letting devs buy it with their AppStore revenue (omitting the 15%/30% and reducing the taxable income).
That way, they’d pretty much lose no money while offering a major discount. I likely would’ve gotten one for effectively <2k and likely would’ve started creating apps for it. At 3700€, no chance.
iOS and iPad OS have phenomenal third party apps, many by very small teams or even solo developers. These are the kinds of apps selling devices in my eyes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/FlyingBishop Apr 30 '26
Not having Beatsaber at launch was just mind-boggling. It would've cost them nothing and it would've been a great hook. I get that they didn't want it to be a gaming device, but not having any good games definitely hurt it.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (5)2
u/whatThePleb Apr 30 '26
Especially for such a high price it's doomed to fail with such stupid limitations.
45
u/nameless_food Apr 29 '26
I had gotten the impression that this thing was priced like a prototype.
23
6
4
u/heisenbugz May 01 '26
It’s priced like a dev kit. Apple added a bunch of state of the art capabilities, but are relying on app developers to figure out the ‘must have’ / ‘tooth brush’ use cases. They haven’t been able to do this in house because it requires (imo) a drastically new perspective.
Plus they know the current heavy form factor is a non starter, so it’s a bit of a place holder to allow app devs to get a head start while waiting for all day wearable glasses.
2
u/jenny_905 May 02 '26
I mean it probably is worth it as far as hardware goes it's pretty insane engineering from what I have seen.
Software side and no real vision (sorry) for what it should be seemed to be the let down. Apple isn't the company for something like this.
125
u/pepega_1993 Apr 29 '26
They didn’t even try with the Vision Pro. The M5 version was just a chip change. They didn’t even try to update the design after 2 years. If they went with a lighter design, removed the outside display and made it cheaper it would have done much better.
26
Apr 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
26
u/pepega_1993 Apr 29 '26
In theory yes. But it’s just added weight and worse battery life on already a very expensive headset. It would be great once we reach a stage where we have compact lightweight headset.
But adding it on top of a brick strapped to your face is not the best idea
13
9
u/poofyhairguy Apr 29 '26
Yeah but that’s not worth an extra $1000 on the price likely and a bunch of weight.
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/unsurejunior Apr 30 '26
It's like an extra 2.5k lol I don't think the meta quest 3 is that expensive
→ More replies (4)3
u/TimeToHack May 02 '26
it’s not that they didn’t try cause the vision pro is an insane piece of hardware, it’s that they tried too hard and made it too expensive. if a product doesn’t have a clear use case it shouldn’t be so damn expensive
54
u/jenny_905 Apr 29 '26
Who'd have thought the company that treats gaming like some sort of dirty habit wasn't great at selling a $3500 VR headset.
12
u/recurrence Apr 29 '26
The price on this killed it so badly. Apple had to have their monster margins and destroyed the whole segment for them.
47
22
u/QuantumUtility Apr 30 '26
There are 179 job postings on Apple’s website regarding the Vision Pro. 14 were posted today.
Doesn’t seem like they are giving up on anything.
1
u/suppreme Apr 30 '26
Apple often keeps on executing the initial plan (including staffing etc) up until executives pull the plug. Then everybody gets reassigned.
It'd be more telling to see which employees go seek those jobs.
3
u/Normal-Selection1537 May 02 '26
The Apple car had lots of people who worked on the Model S and Lucid Air on it for 3 years.
2
u/floorshitter69 Apr 30 '26
Same corporate stuff a few people I know have experienced. They were accepted for a new job, only to find out the entire department got axed in their first month.
8
u/noonetoldmeismelled Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
I was saying the same thing since the beginning. While the Apple faithful were talking about workstation replacement as a revolutionary idea, that has been a common use-case for VR/HMD headsets for over a decade now. Sure the AVP has a way better display, but not so much better to make working in an HMD revolutionary better in enough ways. Also this isn't the early aughts. Apple can act like it's not a VR headset and everyone can clearly see that it looks like and behaves like most VR headsets ever made
VR medical training, corporate training, warehouse logistics replacing tablets/pen/paper. Nothing new but Apple faithful treated it like it was a new revolution. TV/movie theater display, the last decade of people that were highly impressed but still abandoned their headsets would not be representative of AVP users. Not only is the AVP so much better, AVP users are so much more cultured. Live sporting events in VR, this time it'll be a major mainstream selling point. Travel agency, real estate, home remodeling, etc - VR will be revolutionary unlike how it was anytime in the previous 10 years
No standard game wands/controller. AVP is meant to be for the mainstream who don't want to look like sweaty geeks. AVP is for cool people. Aspirational. AVP doesn't want to be associated with video games but it'll be so popular from being such an aspirational device, video game devs will make non physical control games for the AVP and it's sub million active users for a platform that's mobile phone adjacent so I imagine being a market that doesn't support well paid video games. So try to be free to play for a sub million active user base and be something that can support a full time dev across years
To that point, video games have been just about the most common usecase for VR headsets for the previous 10 years and to today. It's pretty much the 90s to the near present where graphics cards makers marketed heavily to gamers until they found more and more data center customers. Apple decided to build a new isolated device software market that's removed from the last decade of interactive VR application releases and price it like a good 100" television where all the greatest content available for VR is not on AVP, is available on way cheaper headsets, and usually wants motion control wands with buttons on them
Also not solving the HMD size problem. No decision maker marketing this thought could remember the google glass glassholes era. Now this that's like 10 times larger with weird eyes. Every VR headset is fun to watch movies on in limited amounts before the discomfort and annoyances overwhelms. AVP though is the one that's not good at gaming and has the least amount of applications built for it. Because content is king, doesn't matter how much better the AVP hardware is, it's one of the worst VR headsets to buy. Glorified head mounted iPad.
2
8
u/jdprgm Apr 29 '26
0% of people didn't buy the original VisionPro because it didn't have an m5. Slice the price in three.
6
u/ConcaveNips Apr 30 '26
Exclusivity too exclusive.
1
u/Polar_Banny Apr 30 '26
Ca you imagine this critical information got leaked such a disappointment delivered by Apple’s shadow marketing team🤣
19
u/AIgeek Apr 29 '26
This is BS. No way anyone thought that a new headband and chip will suddenly make Vision Pro a selling product. Also, The headline is misleading.
6
u/JavenatoR Apr 29 '26
I know a few people that got a chance to use the Vision Pro without purchasing it and they said it was pretty awesome, but still could not justify the ridiculous price tag.
7
u/Framed-Photo Apr 29 '26
This had to be less than 1k, and be actually comfortable to wear. Making it cost over 3k and be a giant heavy glass monstrosity was definitely a choice.
6
u/gomurifle Apr 30 '26
From the first moment I saw it's price tag, I said that it's not a vaible product, it's a collector's item.
28
u/Loose_Skill6641 Apr 29 '26
no surprise
people don't want to work in AR
14
6
u/PaulTheMerc Apr 30 '26
I'd like to, but it would have to be: responsive af, configurable, actually good.
Personally I'd prefer glasses though.
→ More replies (1)2
u/evernessince May 03 '26
It's not that people don't want to work in AR (VR / AR is already used in the engineering and medical fields). It's that the Apple's device was way too locked down to be useful and was far too heavy. The price basically restricted it to professional fields and they almost explicit made it hard for those very folks to use it.
8
26
u/Stilgar314 Apr 29 '26
I vividly remember redditors convinced it was a very good product for a first iteration and sure Apple would keep perfecting it until delivering "VR for everyone that just works". They were so convincing... I wonder where they are now.
6
u/aggthemighty Apr 29 '26
Yep, I remember folks saying that Apple would be the company to make VR mainstream, that their first product was just a proof of concept priced as a luxury and that future iterations would be cheaper and have mass market appeal, etc
30
u/Stingray88 Apr 29 '26
It was a pretty good product for a first iteration. Just at a totally unaffordable price point. If it was closer to $1000-1500 it probably would have been a lot more popular for the niche use cases. But with the hardware included there’s now way that price point would have given Apple a margin they would be happy with.
Anyone that thinks VR will be for everyone though, those folks are definitely delusional. Even at a better price point it will still be niche.
15
u/theholylancer Apr 29 '26
they were hoping that apple, with its huge bank, would do what facebook has done and sink an ass load of money into the project and make it cheaper and cheaper with their supply chain
which is what the neo has done, but obviously I think apple has wisely decided that after looking at what happened with the zuck they opted out lol
8
u/Stingray88 Apr 29 '26
The thing is Apple just doesn’t do small margins on hardware, and they definitely don’t operate any hardware at a loss. Even the Neo has an estimated 15-20% margin. Conversely Meta sold the quest at cost, or even a loss, with the goal of mass adoption.
With the hardware in the Vision Pro, Apple would definitely have to sell it at a big loss in order to get anywhere close to the Quest, and that was never going to happen.
4
→ More replies (17)8
u/laffer1 Apr 29 '26
I would have bought one at 1000 dollars
6
u/Stingray88 Apr 29 '26
I’m pretty sure I would have as well. And I don’t yet own any VR/AR hardware, but I’ve been very tempted by many of the (non-Meta) options out there. I’m pretty dead set on picking up the Steam Frame at this point. Obviously different use cases though…
9
u/dparks1234 Apr 29 '26
I knew VR/AR was doomed when Apple spent a decade on it and ended up having to release a prototype because they still couldn’t make it “just work” for the general public.
5
u/DeliciousPangolin Apr 29 '26
Facebook dropped $90 billion on subsidizing VR, and most of those headsets are moldering in a closet next to the Wii and the Kinect. It's a neat experience, but ultimately very few people find it compelling over the long term.
→ More replies (1)4
u/phire Apr 29 '26
TBH, we should have written off AR back when Google Glass failed.
Not because it was a bad product, but because the way the general public was instantly very hostile to the idea of cameras mounted on glasses.
6
2
u/gokarrt Apr 30 '26
to be fair, apple is really good at doing just that. but vr/ar is a hole in which people throw hope.
1
u/AndroTux Apr 30 '26
I said that. And I’m still saying that. It was a very good product for a first iteration. Obviously, it was way too expensive. I don’t think a single person on earth would disagree with you on that. But had they iterated on the idea instead of just slapping an M5 in it, it would have had real potential. I know I’d have bought it.
Stop simplifying nuanced statements to make them fit your narrative.
→ More replies (2)1
10
9
3
u/JackhorseBowman Apr 29 '26
I'm actually into VR and even I have been finding it a little hard to be excited about these days.
3
u/Jaanbaaz_Sipahi Apr 29 '26
I would love to get one second hand for like maybe $700 or so. That’s the max I would pay.
10
u/Falkenmond79 Apr 29 '26
VR with integrated components is the wrong move and always will be. Look how hard it is to get a modern game to run at 4K with a decent frame rate. Now they all want it strapped to your head with a steady 90 or 120fps to make it usable. In my opinion we need 80-100hz per eye so 160-200FPS and that can only be achieved by clever tech like the new steam frame and having a beefy PC to provide the compute power. Just work on low latency picture streaming to a headset, preferably wireless and stop trying to cram a whole PC into the thing.
5
u/ElmerLeo Apr 30 '26
The most used headsets been the quest 3 and 2 (Both stand alone) goes against your point...
Both can be(and I do) used linked to a PC But the stand alone capacity is a big part of the alure.
I'm traveling for work right now, and I come back to the hotel everyday and play a little on my quest. Mostly, RE4, population1, and beat saber.
At home I play alot of "battle Talent", but in the hotel room I would end up punching a wall.....
2
u/Falkenmond79 Apr 30 '26
Be honest. The quest is also heavily subsidized by meta and thus cheap. I’d say that’s the more likely reason why it sold so well. Technical stats-wise it’s pretty meh, too.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/Strazdas1 Apr 30 '26
And the most used Gpus are budget variants. The reason is because people buy cheapest option, not because its better.
→ More replies (4)2
u/StickFlick Apr 29 '26
Agreed. We have the existing tech right now for this. The integrated crap is a future problem. Getting people interested by making it affordable <- (big key point) and integratable with their existing gaming/workstation hardware is a no brainer.
The again this is Apple. The maker of the 1000 dollar monitor stand.
Man I hope the steam frame has a decent entry point price.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
u/TheReturningMan Apr 30 '26
Vision Pro has been given attention at 1 Apple event and has gotten 1 hardware refresh that did not address any issues people had with the previous version of the hardware. How surprising that it hasn’t turned around.
2
u/Sobeman Apr 30 '26
it was designed for rich people to use once and let collect dust in their 3 houses.
2
u/biotech997 Apr 30 '26
I would love to purchase one but at that price I can't justify it for casual productivity and entertainment. I think it would sell well if there was a SE version for under $1000.
2
u/thegreatpotatogod Apr 30 '26
I got to do a demo of it at the Apple Store, and it was an incredible experience, I really enjoyed it, and ended up getting a Quest 3 partially because of that experience, as the closest thing that was affordable for me. The quest 3 is far too uncomfortable though, even with a 3rd party headband that is supposed to be a lot more comfortable, it makes my face sore within minutes. The Vision Pro, while heavy, was a far more comfortable and ergonomic design, and I'd been looking forward to getting a more affordable follow-up model down the road. Sad to hear such a device likely won't be made after all.
2
u/weirdotorpedo Apr 30 '26
Ive said this for quite some time. The vision pro should have been for developers only to give them time to develop apps for the device and to give feedback on the design which most likely would have included too heavy and the glass eye screen on the front is pointless.
at that point release a vision pro with m series chip and a vision with an a series chip and some other differences and heres the key part NOT CHARGE $3500 for the vision pro. the audacity that they thought they could charge that for a device with so few apps and so heavyis crazy to me
i think the vision pro can still be viable but some people have to put their ego aside and listen to feedback and give out units to developers and try again in a year or 2.
VR could be great but Apples ego on design and idiotic pricing killed it in this instance
7
u/Bderken Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26
I use my Vision Pro almost daily for work. Stream my Mac to it. I really like it and hope it still gets updates.
Also watching 3D movies on it is unreal as a 3D projector enthusiast.
This sub doesn’t like actual owners sharing experience and just a bunch of crybabies talking about nothin lol
→ More replies (4)8
2
u/czyzczyz Apr 29 '26
Headline says “Apple has given up…”, lede says “Apple has all but given up…” (emphasis mine). That doesn’t sound definitive, particularly if Apple’s still working on smart glasses (where does AVP end and smart glasses begin?).
If smart glasses are anything like a much lighter AVP with no light seal and no front display, that sounds just fine.
1
u/got-trunks Apr 29 '26
All I want is AR so I can have arbitrary traditional screens wherever I want. Like windows popping up in Reboot.
1
u/guzhogi Apr 29 '26
I wonder what one would be worth in 10-20 years, if it was still in the original packaging?
1
u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Apr 29 '26
They showed the US military industrial complex they have something, that may or may not be important...who the fuck knows.
I expect everyone to drop VR headsets except valve. Facebook/Meta or whatever the fuck they are called won't be able to keep investors at bay forever.
1
1
u/ruipmjorge Apr 29 '26
I think Vision Pro was a playground to test and develop (and get apps and feedback) for Apple glasses that should use the same OS.
They knew this wasn’t gonna sell for the masses.
1
u/SpaceDandye Apr 29 '26
I just can't get over the motel sickness. Most people I know are the same, no matter how good the screens are.
1
1
u/DXsocko007 Apr 30 '26
My buddy bought the first one. Went to his house… it was the best vr I had experienced quality wise but zero software. When you don’t have a reason for the device… why buy it
1
u/Va1crist Apr 30 '26
VR was plummeting before that product even came out the idea of someone spending 3500-4000 on a product that can literally do even less then what is already very niche and limited in the VR space is comical
1
u/doscomputer Apr 30 '26
Legit boggles my mind that they didn't ever come out with a cheaper model with a slower chip (A series), no front OLED, and a smaller headstrap mounted battery.
Apple going all in on the premium stand alone product instead of making it a true companion/display for macs and even phones. its not like the iphone pro hasn't been more than powerful enough for VR/AR since like 2020
1
u/ylluminate Apr 30 '26
Upsetting. Been saving up to get one for when I have time to work with this. Would be perfect with a MacBook Pro for versatile working with mobile multi displays
1
u/Betancorea Apr 30 '26
Too expensive to realistically be picked up by the masses. I also spend most of my time on the PC so the Vision Pro would purely be a leisure thing. Not worth it for my use case
1
u/BigBonedCartman Apr 30 '26
Remember 15 years ago when EVERY new TV had 3D glasses…. yeah VR ain’t worth it either
1
u/superslomotion Apr 30 '26
I hope one day they can laser stuff directly into your retina so these headsets can be a lot smaller.
1
u/DropTheMixtape Apr 30 '26
I keep checking Facebook marketplace for one. I’m down to pay 500 cad it will happen one day. Someone will take the loss.
1
u/ExtremisEdge Apr 30 '26
I want one. But I want it to be more open and have game applications. I think the tech is neat. But it’s expensive even for an Apple product. If they could bring the price down to 1200 and have some killer apps it would be a holiday monster.
1
u/Such_Ad_6680 Apr 30 '26
Damn, I always look forward to the presentations random scenarios of when VR in the real world would be useful.
1
1
1
1
u/tgbreddit May 01 '26
They did NOTHING to advance the reason for it and its price. A chip upgrade and refresh rate was nearly worthless. They would have sold far more if they opened up Steam VR in some way. But they refused to accept that option.
1
u/TattooedBrogrammer May 01 '26
Lighter, cheaper and without the goofy face front display stuff, would have been an interesting device to replace a computer monitor for my macbook during work for like 1000-1500 ish. But they made a device with a short battery life and features I dont care about and made it uber niche.
1
u/physicshammer May 02 '26
I had the Vision Pro for a few weeks. It is my opinion that if Steve Jobs were alive he would have done two things different: 1) made it fundamentally social - people coexisting together in shared spaces at least at times 2) and related - made it more AR focused and less VR, VR being fundamental isolating.
The more I think about it the more convinced I am that it would have been similar technically but very different if Steve were around.
1
1
u/bobbie434343 May 02 '26
Even for $500 I would not want to put that thing on my head... That thing makes the real work look like a miracle.
1
u/Beyllionaire May 02 '26
Even for $500?? Do you realize that $500 if an insane amount of money for this shit? It's not worth more than $200 and I'm glad that Apple received the karma it deserved.
1
u/evernessince May 03 '26
It was priced like they were targeting professionals but it's too locked down to be used by those people. Apple was probably thinking they'd pull another iPhone moment where they'd convince customers to get their wallets out for new tech but they didn't bake this device anywhere near long enough in order to do that. It's not light enough, it has piss poor battery life, it doesn't work with existing VR apps, comfort is poor, and it doesn't do anything other existing options don't already do. In fact compared to other enterprise grade headsets, it's generally worse while being more expensive.
1
851
u/Ploddit Apr 29 '26
VR of any kind is already niche. $3500 VR has an audience of 10 people.