Apple’s ‘cheaper’ Vision Pro may not be so cheap after all

Apple’s Vision Pro headset is going to be incredibly expensive (Apple says you’ll have to pay $3,500 for it) and that’s led to speculation that a cheaper version could be coming. Now, we have an idea of ​​how much it could cost – and it still seems like an eye-watering price.

Writing in his weekly Power On newsletter, Bloomberg journalist Mark Gurman claims that Apple “has internally discussed prices ranging from $1,500 to $2,500” for the lower-cost model. That’s still a lot more than rival devices like the Meta Quest Pro, so it seems Apple may be hoping that the quality of its product will outweigh potential users’ price concerns.

How will Apple reduce costs? Gurman believes there are some plans in place. These include “using lower-resolution displays and iPhone processors instead of Mac chips” as well as reducing the number of external cameras and sensors.

According to Gurman, Apple may also remove the Vision Pro’s iSight feature. It displays the headset wearer’s eyes to external observers, which Apple believes helps create connections between Vision Pro users and those around them. Since it is owned by Vision Pro, it was presumably expensive to develop and implement, explaining why it may have been removed.

odd Future

Interestingly, Gurman said Apple is shifting employees away from developing a pair of augmented reality (AR) glasses and toward the cheaper Vision Pro headset. This is apparently because Apple considers the glasses to be “technically very challenging”, which doesn’t bode well for the future of the wearable product.

This is in stark contrast to a report by another well-known Apple leaker, Ming-Chi Kuo. According to Kuo, Apple may have abandoned the cheaper Vision Pro altogether. Apparently, Gurman doesn’t believe that yet.

Along with a cheaper headset, Apple is also working on a second-generation Vision Pro, Gurman says. Compared to the first version, it will have “all the features but will be smaller and lighter, making it more comfortable to wear.” Gurman claims it will incorporate prescription lenses directly into the device instead of using an insert.

If Gurman is right about the less-expensive headset, it would be good news for users who are frustrated by the exorbitant price of the standard model. But $2,500 will hardly make it the “cheap” device some might be hoping for. We’ll have to see if this will be enough to convince wary customers to part with their cash.