To The Moon

Apple has finally unveiled its long-awaited Vision Pro, a mixed reality headset that has been the subject of speculation for many years. We now have a glimpse of its appearance and pricing, although the exact features and functionality are still unknown. This uncertainty surrounding the new device is reminiscent of past technological transitions, such as the shift from horse carriages to automobiles. During that time, many people were unsure if they truly needed cars. Similarly, when mobile phones without keypads evolved into smartphones, there were concerns about their bulky size and the lack of mechanical feedback for button presses. I personally started with an iPod Touch, which my colleagues didn't initially see the value in. However, I found great utility in the apps and functionalities it offered. Eventually, smartphones gained widespread popularity, and the rest is history. This phenomenon highlights the fact that when a completely new technology emerges, the majority of people may struggle to envision its potential benefits, while early adopters are often the first to recognize its value. This pattern is commonly referred to as the technology adoption cycle. Certainly, new products can also fail and never reach mass adoption, like the Xybernaut Poma. There is a risk that the Vision Pro may face a similar fate, as Apple, like other tech companies, has a history of unsuccessful products. Prior to the iPhone, there was the Apple Newton, and other failures include the round mouse and Macintosh TV. It's important to note that the Vision Pro is not the first AR/VR headset. Various organizations, including NASA, Sega, Nintendo, Sony, and Meta, have attempted to create similar devices in the past. In fact, the first virtual reality headset was developed in 1968 by American computer scientist Ivan Sutherland and his student, Bob Sproull. While Apple is often credited with introducing new technologies, they are not always the pioneers of innovation. For instance, we might consider the iPhone as a groundbreaking device, but IBM actually created a touchscreen phone called the Simon Personal Communicator (SPC) in 1992. Apple, however, deserves credit for reimagining the concept and delivering a product with improved form and usability. Similarly, the iPad wasn't the first touchscreen tablet; that distinction belongs to Acorn Computers' NewsPad released in 1996. Omate and their TrueSmart smartwatch in 2013 can be credited with the first smartwatch. Therefore, Apple is often not the first mover in most of its product categories, and it doesn't necessarily need that advantage. Their strength lies in refining and enhancing a product to a point where it becomes accessible to the general public. They innovate and release when the timing is right. Timing is key when it comes to commercializing new products—being too early or too late can result in failure. It is possible that Apple believes the technological advancements in the mixed reality headset are at a point where it can be widely used by the general public. However, with a price tag of $3,499, it is highly likely that the initial demand will come from Apple's devoted fans, early adopters, and AR/VR enthusiasts. Currently, Meta's Quest 2 headset is priced at around $399 and dominates the market, accounting for approximately 80% of the 8.8 million virtual reality headsets sold in 2022. However, The Wall Street Journal previously reported that more than half of the Quest headsets were not being used six months after purchase. Additionally, Meta is planning to release the Quest 3 headset, which they are promoting as a competitor to Apple's Vision Pro, in the fall of this year for $499. As someone who uses several Apple products, I have reservations about spending such a substantial amount to try out a new technology. Personally, I can envision using a headset to enhance my Netflix viewing experience, providing a cinematic feel, or immersing myself in a virtual tour of a foreign city with a 360-degree view. However, for these types of tasks, the price of $3,499 seems excessive and unnecessary. However, being Apple gives the company an advantage in charging a premium for its products due to its brand reputation and excellent design. The "halo effect" surrounding Apple allows it to justify higher prices, and customers are often willing to pay for the Apple experience. Interestingly, when Meta ventured into the metaverse project, it faced significant backlash, resulting in stock sell-offs. In contrast, Apple's announcement had a minimal impact on its share price, with less than a 1% decline. Supporters of Apple can argue that Meta has struggled with hardware in the past, making their risks higher, while Apple has extensive experience in this area. Additionally, Apple already has an established app store that the Vision Pro headset can tap into immediately, whereas Meta had to build its app ecosystem from scratch. Furthermore, Apple's core revenue sources, such as iPhones, Wearables, and Services, remain strong and diverse. The profits generated from these sources are more than enough to fund new product development, including the Vision Pro. On the other hand, Meta's revenue is heavily reliant on the ad market, which has experienced slowdowns and ad targeting challenges under Apple's new privacy policy. This positions Apple favorably to succeed in the race. Disney CEO Bob Iger even made an appearance on stage to announce a collaboration between Disney and Apple, aiming to enhance the immersive experience of Disney+ streaming videos with the Vision Pro headset. As mentioned earlier, Apple has shown great skill in timing the release of usable, leading technology. With the collaboration and a planned release next year, Apple has a chance to compete with and potentially surpass Meta, claiming a significant market share in the coming years.