Oct 1, 2024

Apple Becomes the Pupil

Snap and Meta teach Apple a lesson...

There was a line of thinking leading up to the launch of the Vision Pro earlier this year that went something like this: it's cute what Meta and others have been doing in the VR space, but once Apple ships, it's game over.

Now, it was never really going to be game over. And the Vision Pro was always more likely to help Meta's Quest line of products because they were just playing in two different universes in terms of price points. But there was still some thought that in part thanks to the price difference, Apple was going to ship something so above and beyond what Meta could ever hope to that it would be demoralizing for the artist formerly known as Facebook. But it hasn't really played out that way.

Fast forward about eight months and the Vision Pro is... barely talked about any more. I've visited a number of Apple Stores in a number of different cities over these past many months and while the tables for the iPhones and iPads and Macs are generally busy, you rarely see anyone ogling the Vision Pro. It was and remains a rather incredible piece of technology, but it's just not that interesting as a product right now. That's Apple's own fault. And recent unveilings by Snap and yes, Meta, showcase why.

Five months ago, I wrote the following:

And so I'm left wondering why Apple didn't take a totally different approach here. Why didn't they simply release the initial batches of Vision Pro as a true dev kit? I know this isn't really Apple's playbook, but they've also done it to varying degrees in the past when needed, such as with the Mac transitions to new CPUs. Obviously this is quite different as a full-on new product category for Apple. But I'm just not sure they've done themselves any favors by releasing the Vision Pro into the world given the current state of things.

Well, guess who just used that exact dev kit strategy in their roll-out plans? Both Snap and Meta. Sure, their respective AR glasses are technically different products, but they're all operating in the same general "XR" space. More broadly, all of this work being done in VR (or, "Spatial Computing" if you must) is to get us to a point where AR can be the reality. Meta silenced at least some critics with their "Orion" glasses reveal last week – the billions sunk into the space wasn't all for nothing! After some missteps with the Quest, they now appear to be on the right path with the $299 Quest 3S. And the Ray-Bans (where they beat Snap at their own game)! Stay low and "ladder up" to the future. Snap is trying to do the same without going down the VR rabbit hole.

Apple? They shipped a $3,500 rabbit hole to consumers.

Few seem to be buying it – both literally and figuratively. More importantly, developers don't seem sold – both literally and figuratively.

Back to my piece from April:

A second key component of this problem is that Apple has been way, way, way too slow to populate the device with content that might demand you do the laborious work to use it. This means exclusive 'Apple Immersive' content made for the device – which is stunning, though far too short – which Apple seems to ship on a tri-monthly basis right now. And content made by others but converted to a format that does well on the device, such as 3D. And it means apps. Apple undoubtedly thought developers would be there for the new Apple hardware on day one. For the most part, they were not.

And now, a full quarter after its release, they're still not there. Sure, there's the occasional new release, but for the most part, Apple is highlighting the same apps and updates to those apps, over and over again. And if anything, developers are perhaps even less likely to build for the device right now. Because it just has a stink around it like product roadkill.

Sure enough, almost two full quarters beyond this, they're still not there. Vision Pro is now entering Apple Watch territory with regard to developers. That device – while now great and hugely successful – stumbled out of the gate as a platform for third-party developers, and they just never really got on board as a result. We're already entering a world where the truly interesting apps for Vision Pro are either made by Apple or are very bespoke partnerships with the company for very specific use-cases (such as some enterprise ones). But that's not the kind of ecosystem Apple aspires to build, of course. They want the iPhone. Or the Mac. At the very least, the iPad.

And so I ask again: why did they not release this as a developer kit first and seed the market ahead of a true consumer launch? Keep a feeling of exclusivity amongst developers who would feel "lucky" to have access to such future technology, early, and as such, would work hard to build impressive apps and services for it. And it would keep an aura of envy and desire amongst the broader public not yet privy to the device except through whispers of how cool it is and selective, inevitable NDA-breaching leaks of some details.

Obviously Apple must have debated this, but they chose poorly. Easy to say in hindsight, of course. And others have noted that it's brave of Apple to put the Vision Pro out there despite the market not being there. But it's not brave, it's foolish and could actually backfire. We've seen the general VR space fail to launch so many times now over so many years. Apple, you were the chosen one!

Again, this is the exact playbook that Snap and Meta are now running with their AR glasses. We'll see if it works with developers, but if nothing else, it has to work better than a public launch that results in crickets. And it has to work better because it will give the technology time to come into its own. And those developers on board will undoubtedly feel lucky to be along for such a ride. Developers seemingly increasingly don't feel lucky to be along for the ride with Apple. If anything, those relationships are going in the opposite direction as Apple stubbornly digs into its arcane rules and postures.

Back to my hypothetical, after a year or so of only select developers being allowed inside of Willy Wonka's factory, you throw open the gates in 2025. By then, the $3,500 dev kit can be sold for $2,499 – or even better, $1,999. Still way too expensive, but such is the way of Apple. Maybe EyeSight works better by then after another year baking. Or maybe it's scrapped for the consumer release, improving battery life, weight, and cost. Personas is perfected (rather than rolling out in piecemeal fashion). Certainly far more 'Apple Immersive' content is ready to roll. As are games. A few truly innovative apps have been created by developers given enough time to work. And so on...

Now I'm thinking those gates shouldn't even be thrown open until 2026 at the earliest. The market simply is not there right now and as such, developers need more time. Again, Apple could have run the same playbook that Snap and Meta are now executing, working on this XR project more behind-the-scenes (but not in secret), while publicly they focus on what matters right now: AI and making the iPhone great again.¹

Of course, not releasing the Vision Pro when the company is constantly bombarded by calls to ship The Next Big Thing™ would have taken courage. It also would have taken an editor. Meta seems to have one, as Alex Heath details in his report for The Verge about the "Orion" project:

Orion was supposed to be a product you could buy. When the glasses graduated from a skunkworks project in Meta’s research division back in 2018, the goal was to start shipping them in the low tens of thousands by now. But in 2022, amid a phase of broader belt-tightening across the company, Zuckerberg made the call to shelve its release.

This decision is evident by the fact that there are multiple parts of Orion’s hardware that Meta isn’t using, from the front-facing cameras that can capture video but don’t to the disabled GPS in the compute puck. There’s a built-in modem for cellular data that isn’t active. “We’re saving $20 a month,” quips Alex Himel, Meta’s VP of wearables.

Sure, it's an easier decision to make when your device costs around $10,000 to build. Still, Meta could have and would have made more trade-offs to ship something. Perhaps in the price range of the Vision Pro. Zuckerberg said "no go". And now the company seems in an infinitely better position as a result. Have you ever seen such love for a product with no actual ship date?

Apple would never. And here, that was a mistake!

As I concluded in that April piece:

Back to (non-spatial) reality, the latest reports indicate that we may not see a second generation of Vision Pro until 2026. Can you imagine Apple having to answer the above questions over and over again over the next two years? And really, that would probably be a better situation than the worse one: that no one asks questions about the device anymore because no one cares anymore.

Yes, they may do a price cut in the meantime – I mean, at some point it feels like they'll have to. But that won't really matter if the other issues aren't resolved. A $1,700 Vision Pro is better than a $3,500 Vision Pro, I guess, but kind of in the way that a $250,000 Lamborghini is "better" than a $500,000 Lamborghini. A price cut, even in half, isn't going to drastically alter the market for this device.

And I'm not sure Apple should want that right now! A less expensive device that's still a pain to use with few apps and scarce content is not the goal. Certainly not for Apple. It's basically the opposite of their goal.

So I guess the best we can hope for is a full reset of the line in 2026. And the best Apple can hope for is that enough time has past that the aroma of stink no longer lingers. That the content coffers are filled. That the apps have arrived. And that the ever-charging progress of technology has shrunk components and costs enough to make this a much different value proposition. Of all those, the latter is probably the most likely. Which is still problematic for Apple. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

With each passing month, I fear I'm more correct. And these past couple of weeks, Snap and Meta just drove home the point. The students are now the teachers. The teacher is now the pupil.

One more thing: in June 2023, shortly after the Vision Pro was first unveiled at WWDC, I critiqued the way Apple framed the device given the price point. I did this by trying to imagine how Steve Jobs might have talked about the device. Here was my idea:

Yes, this is a high-end product with a high-end price. That’s why we gave it the ‘Pro’ name. It’s going to carry a premium cost to buy because it comes at a premium cost to build. Make no mistake, this is great value. No one comes close to the technology we have put into this machine. (Reiterates) Not even close. I mean just look at the headsets out there in the market right now.

[Cut to Keynote slide showing Quest, PS VR, etc specs and design.]

Even Facebook — I’m sorry, “Meta” (laughs) — recently tried to release a high-end version of their Quest headset. And let’s just look at it.

[A new slide with the Quest Pro specs and design.]

Now let’s look at Vision Pro. These are not the same device. These aren’t even in the same stratosphere.

[Leave out the fact that Meta had to significantly cut the price of the Quest Pro soon after launch as it might imply Apple may have to do the same. As they did with the original iPhone!]

This is not some simple VR device. This is a new vision of digital reality. We’re calling it “Spatial Computing” because we think this is far bigger than what others have been trying to do. And we poured everything we have — the years of expertise in chips, in cameras, in software, in industrial design, in packaging — into this device. We think it’s worth every penny. And we think you’ll agree when you get your hands on one. And your eyes in one. This is the next generation of computing. The future. Right now.

Jobs – sorry, anyone actually at Apple right now – could have still given that spiel about a Vision Pro aimed at developers. How do I know? Because it's similar to how both Evan Spiegel and Mark Zuckerberg framed their AR glasses on stage!

"But for now, you know, I think the right way to look at 'Orion' is as a time machine. These glasses exist. They are awesome. They are a glimpse of a future I think is gonna be pretty exciting."