It’s been apparent from the start that the Vision Pro was merely Apple’s initial foray into the AR/VR headset arena, and that a more affordable Apple Vision option would soon be on the horizon. However, there have been varying reports on when this might actually materialize.
So far, various sources have speculated that the non-Pro Apple Vision headset could debut in 2025, 2026, or even 2027, with the most recent updates indicating that the company is “ramping up” its development efforts…
Timelines for the affordable Apple Vision
Just last October, Bloomberg reported that progress on the device was on schedule, with a potential launch “as early as 2025.” While Mark Gurman’s usual phrasing is quite broad, any year from 2025 onward technically fits.
Shortly thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo contested this by suggesting that Apple was focusing on enhancing the Vision Pro, effectively delaying the launch of a less expensive model until 2027.
As of yesterday, Gurman countered both Kuo’s position and his earlier speculation by stating that there are currently no indications of an upgraded Vision Pro, but a more affordable headset is likely not coming until 2026.
Anticipated features of a non-Pro Apple Vision
Apple must navigate the launch of a lower-priced model carefully. On one hand, it needs to significantly reduce the price to make it appealing to a broader audience beyond niche early adopters.
On the other hand, it cannot compromise too much on the quality that sets Apple Vision products apart from existing competitors like Meta’s Quest headsets.
EyeSight will definitely be omitted
EyeSight was one of the flagship features of Vision Pro, with Apple promoting its utility in indicating to others when a user is aware of their presence, alongside psychological benefits aimed at mitigating feelings of isolation for users of the spatial computer.
However, this feature is quite costly, as it relies on an additional display, and anecdotal evidence suggests that users don’t find it particularly valuable. Many report that it falls short of the marketing claims, a sentiment supported by my personal hands-on experience.
For these reasons, it’s reasonable to expect EyeSight to be absent from the budget-friendly model.
Reduced resolution displays are inevitable
A significant advantage of Vision Pro over lower-priced competitors is its display quality, made possible by an OLED technology called OLEDoS, or OLED on Silicon.
Traditional OLED relies on a glass substrate, whereas OLEDoS mounts the display directly to silicon with the pixel drivers, allowing for much smaller pixels that enhance pixel density to several thousand per inch. This technology also supports the high refresh rates needed to eliminate motion blur.
Vision Pro features OLEDoS displays with an impressive resolution of 3,660×3,200 pixels per eye, delivering lifelike images. However, manufacturing these displays is a delicate and costly process. Currently, only Sony is capable of producing OLEDoS at this resolution, albeit at a limited output of around 1 million units annually, which translates to roughly 500k units available.
Apple will likely continue using OLEDoS technology for a more affordable model to maintain low latency, but it’s almost certain that the resolution will be scaled back to reduce costs and enable manufacturers to achieve the required production yields for a more affordable device.
Reports indicate that Apple has been seeking samples of OLEDoS displays with approximately half the resolution from both JDI and Samsung, aiming for a pixel density in the range of 1,500 to 1,700ppi. This adjustment may also come with a narrower field of view to preserve image realism.
More plastic, less aluminum
Vision Pro’s substantial use of aluminum contributes to its premium feel but also raises production costs.
Furthermore, even lightweight metals like aluminum can be heavier than plastic, contributing to user feedback that suggests the device can only be comfortably worn for limited durations.
Hence, it is reasonable to anticipate that a more budget-friendly version will primarily feature a plastic construction.
iPhone tethering—possible but unlikely
While I am confident about the prior predictions, the possibility of Apple requiring the headset to be tethered to an iPhone remains uncertain. This would offload much of the processing requirements, thereby lowering manufacturing costs for the headset.
Mark Gurman from Bloomberg mentioned last summer that Apple is “considering” this approach, but there has been no further information since.
This would represent a major shift, especially since the device already requires a tethered battery, and it’s doubtful an iPhone could provide sufficient power. The notion of double tethering seems cumbersome, so for now, I would classify this as ‘possible but unlikely.’
Projected pricing in the $1500-2000 bracket
One of the chief criticisms of Vision Pro centers on its steep price tag of over $3,400. Even CEO Tim Cook acknowledges that this positions it as a niche product.
“At $3,500, it’s not a mass-market product,” Cook states. “Right now, it’s an early-adopter product. People who want to have tomorrow’s technology today—that’s who it’s for.”
Many experts believe that Apple needs to target a price around $1,500 to make it a more commercially viable option, while others argue for a critical price point of $1,000.
This was my perspective until I actually tried it. Now, I think that if Apple can solve the comfort issue for all-day wear (which is a substantial concern), I could see myself tempted at a price of $2,000.
Currently, the most credible expectation is that the price will fall between $1,500 and $2,000.
Would you consider this purchase?
Setting aside iPhone tethering and assuming it still functions as a standalone device, let’s consider a median projected price of $1,750.
Without EyeSight, with a reduced resolution (but still OLEDoS) display, and a plastic design—would you be interested in buying it? Please participate in our poll and share your opinions in the comments.
Photo by Bram Van Oost on Unsplash
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
