Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro.
If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.
The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going.
That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it.
The focus of the week is on Meta's new "VR Glasses" that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec.
Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say "no."
But of course, in light of Meta's "yes" with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down).
I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, it seems they forget exactly who they are talking about.
Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones.
That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory.
But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement.
These are likely three of dozens of prototypes being conceptualized at Apple Park. What is interesting is that instead of fast-tracking one of the other potential designs in the 28-month interval between the M2 model's reveal and the M5 model's launch, Apple stuck with what it had.
Meta VR Glasses are an example of what a compromised product might look like. Lower resolution, lower fidelity, lower field of view — clearly Apple didn't want this even if it could build it.
What's interesting is the "failure" narrative about Apple Vision Pro assumes a lot that we don't know. No one outside of Apple knows the success metric for the product or if Apple is meeting that.
Capturing a quarter of Meta's VR headset revenue in a single holiday quarter in spite of an entrenched market doesn't sound like a failure to me.
Also, CEO John Ternus is apparently supposed to dislike the whole project and has reportedly "put it on ice." Meanwhile, his press tours have revealed only positive talk of the product, insisting that unique use cases like surgeons using the product are why Apple is in this business.
However, the reports want us to view this as a reason to dislike Apple Vision Pro.
Life-changing medical procedures aren't enough, no. We need this thing to sell in the tens of millions to matter.
Even with the Apple Vision Pro team reportedly "on ice" they are busy developing a "revamped" N224 that could be the true successor to Apple Vision Pro. There are about four prototypes being tested, and one that even uses an external compute block like Meta VR Glasses.
Apple didn't pivot, it doubled down on its hardware and spec combination until technology caught up
That's how Meta apparently "beat" Apple to market with a device that doesn't launch until spring at $1,299. Early reports suggest it works fine, but the lack of light shields and more limited field of view and fidelity make it a worse experience.
But of course, Meta apparently "demonstrated" that Apple's execution was the problem all along with the Apple Vision Pro. Yes, that's definitely it, as long as you ignore the successes of the headset, how it has influenced the market, and how Apple Vision Pro was a clear template for Meta's latest hardware.
It wasn't enough that Meta basically cloned visionOS for its Meta Quest line and mixed reality prototypes. Nope, the company even hired former Apple design chief Alan Dye to help nail down that Apple look and feel.
But I'm confused. I thought we were all meant to dislike the guy for Liquid Glass, but now it's apparently Meta's victory for poaching him.
I guess as long as it's a failure for Apple, reporting will choose whatever narrative best fits that mold.
The inconsistent reporting around Apple Vision Pro has been incredible. It's dead, it's not, it's dead again, development is halted, it's going again but on life support.
Apple Vision Pro is the template spatial computing is being built on, but that's still a 'failure' apparently
Analysts and pundits need Apple Vision Pro to fail for whatever reason. That's why every product even close to AR/VR/MR has been deemed an "Apple Vision Pro killer."
