“The Vision Pro debuted in February to tough reviews, with many finding it uncomfortable to wear and lacking in content.”
Most articles about the VP talk about the lack of content, and very few about productivity. $4000 is a lot of money for a movie viewer so it makes sense for Apple to do a course correction, in order to build a wider customer base.
That is my perspective as well. I can go see a lot of movies for $4000k, well, if I don’t buy a lot of over priced popcorn! 
It all depends on how you want to spin this news. They’ve instead put a lower cost Vision non-pro on the front burner. The Vision Pro 2 will still occur, but will arrive later.
Makes sense to me to prioritize a product more people can afford when you are after more adoption.
But I wonder how much the experience will be compromised, not that I’d know the difference; I’ve not tried the VP.
Apparently those creepy eyes will go. But I wouldn’t expect much if any loss of functionality. They need to maintain compatibility with the Vision Pro and its apps.
In any case, I’m not a potential customer. I’d sooner spend $3.5k on a Mac Studio (which would be overkill anyway), but far more productive a device.
I’m with you; I have no interest in computing with such a contraption on my head and waving my arms around and pinching my fingers together at any price. Virtual glasses? A big *maybe.*
So, it seems that somebody who knows somebody heard that somebody may have said something to somebody else. But APPLE so it will drive clicks.
There a plenty of rumor sites should one be interested in that sort of thing. I’m not, and that is why I come here.
And maybe, just maybe, the real story is that Apple had multiple prototypes under consideration. One got picked to move forward with, and the others didn’t. But “Apple, Business a Usual” doesn’t generate clicks.
The size and weight are the worst part of the VP. I used it to watch the Talk Show Live, which is over a week ago now and haven’t used it since. The tech is cool, but just no fun wearing it for any extended period of time. Even a two hour movie is too long.
For me, my 25 minute demo was too long. Even a 33% weight reduction would not be enough. They have to cut 50% or more before I’ll consider it.
But if they cut the weight on our head by 50% and put MacOS on it, I’d pay $4k+ for it immediately (cost with corrective lenses).
I understand the need for a different OS, but that price range for a VR iPad is too much. The only way I can justify prices like this for a piece of technology is to use it for actual work that pays for it. I can’t do my work on iPad and for sure not on VP.
They have to build a critical mass for the platform: enough devices and users to encourage developers and creators to build for it, which will then begin to attract users and sell devices and create a virtuous circle. It’s probably never going to be on the same scale as the iPhone, iPad or Mac but it’s undeniably not big enough yet.
Learning from experience and feedback to date is good and Apple has a pretty solid track record of making sensible u-turns when necessary.
Exactly, the $400 iPod (original) was SLAMMED because it was so much more expensive than competitors, but it was a quality product and the introduction of cheaper (but equally functional) versions (except the no button shuffle) captured the market and the majority of the profit for Apple.
I agree 
. If you’re going to post an article with highly suspect rumors, at least include some insightful commentary to go with it, too.
And this thread did turn into a good discussion of what folks would like to see in a next generation device. And that type of discussion is worth reading.
Cheers.