Do Consumers Say They Don't Want a Vision Pro in the Same Way They Once Said They Didn't Want an iPhone? Good Point By Matthew Ball.

Metaverse author Matthew Ball (who we were just talking about!) made a good point in Comments, responding to our survey that nearly half the respondents said they "never" want an Apple Vision Pro. 

The thing is, Matt points out, people once said that about the iPhone before it launched in 2007:

I dare say that it’s foolish for (nearly) anyone to say they will “never” buy a product they’ve not yet tried (and almost no one has), at any price (and implicitly, at any future revision). To say nothing of the company that produces it.

To that end, it recalls Universal McCann’s somewhat infamous study from before the iPhone:

"The simple truth: convergence [as in the case of the iPhone] is a compromise driven by financial limitations, not aspiration. In the markets where multiple devices are affordable, the vast majority would prefer that to one device fits all," wrote the report’s author. "Only 31% of Americans surveyed said they wanted a device with multiple capabilities, and that dropped to 27% in Japan. In the US, 60% of mobile phone users already own three or more specialist devices such as digital cameras, MP3 players and portable media devices.

"Demand was highest in Mexico, where 79% said they would like one converged device, with 72% in Malaysia and Brazil, 70% in India and 65% in the Philippines, although the mobile markets in these countries are driven by very cheap or free handsets."

Of course, there is selection bias in contrasting a failed study for a hit device - which is to say, it does not at all validate HMDs overall, let alone now, or in this product - but the circumstances here are quite similar!

Also very interesting that it was most consumers in the "developing" world who first saw the desirability of a device like the iPhone, while most in the US and Japan did not. But as Matt's point about Apple suggests, it wasn't just that the iPhone played music, and took photos, and sent texts, etc. -- it's that the iPhone did all that easily and beautifully.

This also brings to mind a point suggested by Jeff Yang last year, about how an existing desire for many screens at once could benefit the Vision Pro:

Apple has made fundamental choices for years in order to create a new category of device that is meant to replace the computer.

To be clear I know Quest is capable of operating on a standalone basis. I have one. But it’s not designed to be a true laptop replacement (at least yet?) — there’s really no world in which you’re going to productively spend 8 hours a day on your Quest.

Apple is going another way.

It makes sense of course: they’re each trying to future proof their businesses. Zuck is trying to build the next social network, and Apple the next general computing device.

The sticky wicket that's still stickiest is this:

• Many people already know and value laptops and desktop PCs , with nearly half the global population owning one in their home.
• Almost everyone values a mobile telephone -- you know, the core feature underlying of a smartphone -- with 95% of Americans owning a cellphone device of some kind.

By contrast, a mass market still hasn't embraced the form factor of a head-mounted display; as Matt just noted in his latest report, two out of three Quest 2 owners don't even use the device on a monthly basis.

But again (as Matt suggests), we have to wait and see what happens when consumers actually get their hands and heads on an actual Vision Pro, to discern what they really want.

Discuss over the weekend!

Comments

[Adeon Writer]

If you've tried a smartphone, and don't really like it, I don't think you're barred from saying you don't want someone else's smartphone, either.

If you've tried a VR headset, you've tried a VR headset. Apple insisting no one call it a VR headset doesn't change that.

[Martin K.]

> Apple has made fundamental choices for years in order to create a new category of device that is meant to replace the computer.

Recently, I wondered why I'm not going to replace my Mac computer with a Vision Pro. Maybe the most telling reason comes from no one less than Apple:

> Developing for visionOS requires a Mac with Apple silicon.

Yes, that's right: if you want to develop native apps for Vision Pro, you have to have a Mac computer. A Vision Pro alone is not good enough.

Does anyone believe that the first non-Pro version is good enough to develop native Vision apps? Neither do I.

[Matthew Ball]

FWIW, I don't agree with this at all: "Zuck is trying to build the next social network, and Apple the next general computing device."

I believe Zuck has been very clear he is trying to build the latter. Since 2015, he has stated XR devices will replace the smartphone and all of its use cases. The company's national advertisements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzfrlt2Ipk) are also as expansive (and similar to) those of Apple, and with $60B in life-to-date investment and no plans to slow down, the answer cannot just be social. I see no reason to believe they are not playing for the same TAM as Apple and trying to come in first place.

One might deem their approach to be social network-focused (I wouldn't, but one could), but if so, that would be sensible. Companies tend to target new markets from the perspective of their existing strengths, cultures, and POVs

[Nadeja]

I also remember the iPhone critics comparing it to the contemporary devices with similar functionalities (even the PDA/phone hybrids) or dismissing it by telling it was nothing new, but in fact the iPhone was more handy and offered a better user experience.

The Vision Pro specs are comparable to an iPad Pro and the plethora of sensors, the OS, the novel interactivity and usability could again make a difference. I'd surely like a secondary portable computer with an AR screen; even though not for that price.

On the other hand, by looking at the first reviews, the virtual keyboard doesn't seem as usable as a touch keyboard, even less an actual keyboard. There is a voice input too, but I won't use it on a train or an airplane (also, unless it's widespread, I won't feel so comfortable to be the weirdo in the room whit it on my head and moving my hands around). And I suspect that pulling out a phone or a tablet out of my bag for just a moment and putting it back is quicker an more practical than having to strap something to my face.
But, as a woman, weight aside, there is another thing I've noticed: in the promo videos everyone either has short hair (one is even a bald guy) or a pony-tail or similar haircuts and styles. That's a long time issue that any headset has: they are problematic to put on with certain hair styles and you don't want to go to the hairdresser to just mess up your hair shortly after.

Of course everything has pro and cons, though. Ideally I'd like actual AR glasses, but I can also see a device like the Vision Pro having some use.
Time will tell if it will be another iPhone or another Apple Newton (that was considered innovative, at its debut, but pricey and with the handwriting input resulting not so good at the time).

[Luther Weymann]

Why would anyone equate a highly physically restrictive device you wear strapped onto your face with a device you hold in your hand, put in your pocket or purse, sit on a table, pick it up, and then call your mom all the while shopping at the market? That is not any comparison about motivations to purchase.

[Nadeja]

Why would anyone twist that to make such a straw man argument? When a novel device or concept is proposed, you would evaluate its purpose, what's for *and* not, in its pro *and* cons, limitations *and* advantages. You can't just cherry-pick one side of the argument (the restriction and cons), pretend that there are no other sides/nuances and pretend the argument is something else.
The Vision Pro is wearable and it is marketed as computer (more precisely a "spatial computer"), therefore it makes sense to (a) compare (not equate) and see the differences with the use cases of laptop, tablet computers and other mobile devices *AND* (b) also consider what else new and different it offers. As a computer, it clearly has *cons* and limitations in certain use-cases, but the AR screen and the interaction mode has *pros* elsewhere. Therefore there might be: (a) a possible new use, different than the previous devices, and (b) a similar bias to the one that occurred at the iPhone introduction (the topic of this post). Also it doesn't means it will surely be a new iPhone (in the sense of a new paradigm), but there is a potential (also of a flop).