Resolves yes if the most affordable option of Vision Pro 2 is originally priced at less than $3499. If Apple releases a smaller, "budget" or otherwise less advanced headset (eg. Macbook Air vs Macbook Pro), it will not count as yes. The storage also needs to be at least 256 GB.
1,000People are also trading
@makoyass It's the next generation of the Apple Vision Pro, it is the second, even if not named as such. I believe it satisfies the spirit of the market.
@makoyass There has never been a hardware product line at Apple with minor and major version number changes. Apple doesn't explicitly number most of its product lines, with the iPhone and Apple Watch being the exceptions.
This is the Vision Pro 2. You can call it Vision Pro (2nd generation), or Vision Pro (M5 Chip). But there will never be anything more "Vision Pro 2" than this. The next (3rd) iteration will also be called simply "Vision Pro".
@PlainBG I believe this should resolve NO on today's news about the 2nd generation Vision Pro. They seem to have decided not to number this product line, but if they did it would more than qualify as a "2". Just look at the difference between the Apple Watch Ultra 1, 2, and 3.
@HenriThunberg "If Apple releases a smaller, "budget" or otherwise less advanced headset (eg. Macbook Air vs Macbook Pro), it will not count as yes." implies that an upgraded version of the original Apple Vision, i.e. what has been announced, would count and resolve the market. The newest version is not "2" in name only. It is an upgrade and it is the second version of that product.
@HenriThunberg Apple doesn’t slap a big “2” on the end of their products anymore, this update jumped three processor generations.
Current iPad pro is just “iPad Pro (M5)”, iPad air is just “iPad Air (M3)”, and iPad is just “iPad (A16)”
Likewise, the new Vision Pro is just Vision Pro (M5)
Compare the iPhone 6 to the 6s to the 7 to the 8 to the SE (2nd gen) to the SE (3rd gen)
They all had less significant changes than whatever added 150 grams to the new vision pro
@SkyVelleity I think recently dropped Airpods Pro 3 are a good counterexample to what you're saying.
Anyway, I won't be disappointed or annoying if I end up overruled here, I've slightly come around to the "this is Vision Pro 2" position.
@HenriThunberg we could wait, if they eventually do release a housing revision (iPad 2, iPhone 3gs, AirPods 3), and they call it the “Vision Pro 2” (or maybe “Vision Pro (with M8)” or “Vision Pro (3rd gen)” then we’ll have a better idea.
I could argue AirPods 2 were also just a spec bump, but if we have to wait until there’s a hardware revision, that’s fine too. I’m also happy with this going either way
Could Apple Watch be a precedent in the gen 2 being cheaper than the first?
Let’s look at the history of the Apple Watch’s pricing through the aluminum models, which are the basic, and most popular models. The first model – called Apple Watch (1st generation), but generally called “Series 0,” debuted at $349 and $399. (I’ll give pairs of prices, for the two sizes, 38mm and 42mm, and, for this year’s model, 40mm and 44mm.) The following model, Series 1, had a base price of $269 and $299. Apple had realized that the device was popular, and could lower the price.
The Series 2 added GPS, and the price increased a lot: this model cost $369 and $399. And the Series 3, with GPS only, dropped that price to $329 and $359. If you wanted cellular access on your watch, that cost $399 and $429, or $70 extra.
@PlainBG I guess, but I’d imagine Apple thinks they’re currently in a market of one. They’re likely to lower the price in response to a cheaper competitor.
If there’s not a serious one in the next year, I don’t see Apple budgeting off their established price point. But I guess we’ll see.