apple vision pro
Apple just did something it almost never does. The tech giant that brought us the iPhone, the iPad, and basically redefined what “premium” means in consumer tech, is quietly backing away from one of its biggest bets in years.
According to recent market research from IDC’s Worldwide AR/VR Headset Tracker, Apple’s Chinese manufacturer Luxshare halted production of the Vision Pro early last year. We’re talking about a complete production shutdown for a device that was supposed to revolutionize how we interact with technology. And here’s the kicker—Apple has slashed digital advertising spending for the headset by over 95% in markets like the U.S. and the U.K. this year.
When a company that literally invented the modern smartphone pulls back this hard on marketing, you know something’s up. Read more tech insights at Nethok.
The Numbers Don’t Lie—And They’re Pretty Rough
Let me paint you the picture of what’s really happening with Vision Pro sales, because the data tells a story Apple probably wishes stayed quiet.
IDC projects that the tech giant shipped only 45,000 units in the fourth quarter of 2025 during the crucial Christmas shopping season. Now, before you think “45,000 sounds okay,” consider this: Apple sells millions—yes, millions—of iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks every single quarter. We’re talking about a device that costs more than most people’s monthly rent, and it moved fewer units during the holiday season than a moderately successful indie game.
The full-year numbers aren’t much better. Apple sold 390,000 Vision Pro units in 2024, the year the new device was launched. For comparison, Meta ships that many Quest headsets in about two months. It’s like showing up to a marathon and realizing everyone else is in a Formula 1 car.
But here’s where it gets interesting—and by interesting, I mean “makes you wonder what Apple was thinking.” Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote in a blog post that Apple initially anticipated shipping between 700,000 and 800,000 units in 2024, but then revised that expectation down to between 400,000 and 450,000 units. They didn’t even hit their revised, lowered expectations. That’s like planning to run a 5K, then deciding to walk it, and still not finishing.
Breaking Down The Production Halt
The manufacturing shutdown isn’t just about slow sales—it’s about Apple making a calculated business decision that speaks volumes about where they see this product going.
Manufacturing partner Luxshare didn’t just slow down production; they completely stopped making new Vision Pro headsets. Think about what that means logistically. Apple doesn’t make these decisions lightly. This is a company that plans product pipelines years in advance, that coordinates supply chains across continents, that has more cash on hand than some countries’ GDP.
Yet they looked at the Vision Pro production line and said, “Yeah, we’re good.” That’s not a pause. That’s not a seasonal adjustment. That’s a full stop.
Why The $3,499 Price Tag Killed The Dream
Here’s something I’ve learned covering tech for years: price isn’t everything, but it’s also kind of everything. Apple has always commanded premium pricing—it’s literally their brand identity. But there’s premium, and then there’s “I could buy a used car for that” premium.
The Vision Pro starts at $3,499. Let me put that in perspective for you. For the same money, you could buy:
- A top-spec MacBook Pro that’ll last you five years
- An iPhone 17 Pro Max and an iPad Pro with money left over
- Meta Quest 3 and still have $3,000 burning a hole in your pocket
- A really nice vacation to somewhere that doesn’t require wearing a headset
The Vision Pro is a massive financial ask for consumers at $3,499, and in an economy where people are thinking twice about $50 subscriptions, asking them to drop the equivalent of three months’ rent on a face computer is… bold. Maybe too bold. Check out our tech reviews at Nethok.
Morgan Stanley analyst Erik Woodring didn’t mince words in his research note: “We can say the cost, form factor and the lack of VisionOS native apps are the reasons why the Vision Pro never sold broadly.” Translation: it’s too expensive, too heavy, and there’s not enough stuff to actually do with it. Ouch.
The Comfort Factor Nobody Talks About
I’m going to be real with you about something reviewers don’t always emphasize enough: wearing the Vision Pro for more than 20 minutes feels like strapping a small dumbbell to your face.
The Vision Pro has been criticized for being heavy, supporting too few apps, and having a relatively low battery life. These aren’t minor inconveniences. These are fundamental usability issues that no amount of marketing can overcome.
You know what’s worse than an expensive gadget? An expensive gadget that hurts to use. The weight distribution causes neck strain. The battery life barely gets you through a movie. And the external battery pack means you’re essentially tethered anyway, which defeats half the purpose of “spatial computing.”
Apple tried to address this with the M5 model update, introducing what they call the “Dual Knit Band”—basically a better head strap. But putting a nicer strap on a brick doesn’t make it not a brick. Learn more about Vision Pro features.
Meta Is Eating Apple’s Lunch (For Way Less Money)
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room—or should I say, the Quest in the room. While Apple is pulling back, Meta captured 74.6% market share in the reporting period according to IDC’s AR/VR tracker.
How is Meta crushing it while Apple retreats? Three words: price, content, and accessibility.
The Meta Quest 3 starts at $499. The Quest 3S? $249. That’s the price of a nice dinner for two in a major city, not a second mortgage. And here’s the thing—the Quest 3S delivers genuinely good VR experiences. Is it as technically impressive as the Vision Pro? No. Does anyone care when they’re having fun playing Beat Saber for a tenth of the price? Also no.
Meta’s strategy is straightforward: get headsets on as many faces as possible, build the ecosystem, let the network effects take over. Apple’s strategy seems to be: build the most technically impressive device possible, charge accordingly, hope people come. Guess which one’s working better?
The Content Gap That Nobody Can Fix
Here’s a truth bomb for you: hardware is only as good as the software that runs on it. And right now, Vision Pro’s software situation is… rough.
The visionOS app store is like walking into a mall where half the stores haven’t opened yet. Sure, you can watch movies in a virtual theater (cool for about 20 minutes), do some work with Mac Virtual Display (genuinely useful), and experience a handful of spatial apps. But where are the games? Where are the productivity apps that justify the price? Where’s the killer app that makes you think, “I absolutely need this”?
Meta has spent a decade building its VR content ecosystem. They’ve paid developers, subsidized game development, and built a library that actually gives people reasons to put on a headset. Apple showed up with cutting-edge hardware and basically said, “If you build it, they will come.”
Spoiler alert: they didn’t really come.
The M5 Update That Nobody Bought
In October 2025, Apple dropped an updated Vision Pro with the M5 chip. Better performance, improved display rendering, extended battery life, and that new Dual Knit Band I mentioned. On paper, it addressed several criticisms of the original model.
It’s also disappointing from the perspective that Apple upgraded the Vision Pro in October with a faster M5 chip, better battery life, and an improved headset, none of which moved the sales needle.
Think about that for a second. Apple released a meaningful hardware update—not just a spec bump, but actual improvements to things people complained about—and it didn’t matter. Sales didn’t jump. Interest didn’t spike. The Vision Pro M5 launched with all the fanfare of a firmware update.
When hardware improvements can’t save your product, you don’t have a hardware problem. You have a fundamental product-market fit problem.
What The M5 Actually Improved (And Why It Wasn’t Enough)
To be fair to Apple, the M5 update wasn’t nothing. With M5, Apple Vision Pro renders 10 percent more pixels on the custom micro-OLED displays compared to the previous generation, resulting in a sharper image with crisper text and more detailed visuals.
The new chip brought a 10-core CPU and GPU, hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and the ability to push the refresh rate up to 120Hz. For tech specs nerds (and I say this with love, being one myself), this stuff is genuinely impressive.
But here’s the disconnect: nobody who wasn’t buying a Vision Pro at $3,499 suddenly decided to buy one because it now renders 10% more pixels. The improvements made a good product slightly better. They didn’t make an expensive product affordable, a heavy product comfortable, or a content-starved platform compelling.
The VR Market Is Actually Shrinking (Yes, Really)
Here’s a plot twist you might not have seen coming: the entire VR headset market is struggling, not just Apple. Global VR headset sales reached 930,000 units in Q3 2025, marking a 21% year-over-year decrease.
We’re not talking about Apple failing in a growing market. We’re talking about Apple joining everyone else in a market that’s actively contracting. The full-year 2025 forecast for VR sales has been revised down to 5 million units, with this downward trend expected to continue through Q3 2026.
Even Meta, despite its dominant market share, is seeing headset sales decline. The difference is Meta can absorb those losses as part of a broader AR/VR/metaverse strategy. Apple? Apple’s used to products that either dominate their categories or get quietly discontinued. The Vision Pro is currently doing neither.
Where The Growth Actually Is
While VR stumbles, AR glasses are having their moment. Global AR glasses sales surged by 180% year-over-year in Q3 2025, reaching 302,000 units.
This is fascinating because it suggests people want augmented reality—just not the way Apple’s currently delivering it. They want lightweight smart glasses that enhance their real-world experience, not immersive headsets that replace it. They want something they can wear on a walk, not something they have to sit down and commit to using.
Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses are reportedly selling well. Why? Because they look like regular glasses, they’re actually comfortable, and they add useful features without demanding you disconnect from the physical world.
Apple’s Pivot: The Cheaper Vision That Might Save Everything
So what’s Apple doing about all this? Well, they’re not giving up—they’re pivoting. Apple plans to launch its second-generation Vision Pro headset and a more affordable (rumored to be around $2,000) model by 2026.
Two grand is still a lot of money. Like, “that’s a solid used car” money. But it’s also less than a top-spec iPhone and MacBook combined, which is apparently Apple’s new mental calculation. Apple anticipates that the new, budget-friendly Vision will sell at least twice as many units compared to the Vision Pro.
The budget model will make compromises. It would allegedly use a less-powerful chip and lower-resolution screens than the higher-end model. It’ll probably use an A-series iPhone chip instead of the M-series chip. It might ditch the EyeSight feature (the creepy external display that shows your eyes—good riddance, honestly). It’ll use more plastic and less premium materials.
The Compromise That Could Actually Work
Here’s my hot take: a $2,000 Vision headset with smart compromises might actually succeed where the $3,500 one failed.
Not because $2,000 is “cheap”—it’s not. But because it hits a psychological price point where early adopters and enthusiasts might actually pull the trigger. It’s impulse-buy territory for tech professionals. It’s gift-to-yourself territory for people who got a big bonus. It’s “I can kinda justify this” territory instead of “I would need to have a serious conversation with my partner” territory.
The key is making sure those compromises don’t kill the experience. A slightly less sharp display? Most people won’t notice. Plastic instead of aluminum? If it’s lighter, that’s actually better. An A-series chip instead of M5? As long as apps run smoothly, who cares?
What they cannot compromise on: comfort, battery life, and having actual things to do with the headset. Get those right at $2,000, and you might have something.
What This Means For The Future Of Spatial Computing
Let’s zoom out for a second and talk about what Apple’s Vision Pro struggles mean for the broader industry.
First, it proves that even Apple—a company with essentially infinite resources, unmatched design talent, and a customer base that’ll line up to buy anything with an Apple logo—can’t force a new product category into existence through sheer will and marketing spend.
Second, it shows that the “spatial computing” future everyone’s been predicting might be further away than we thought. Learn more about spatial computing trends at CNET. Or it might look completely different than these first-generation headsets. Maybe it’s AR glasses. Maybe it’s neural interfaces. Maybe it’s something we haven’t even imagined yet.
Third, it demonstrates that price, comfort, and content matter more than technical superiority. The Vision Pro is objectively the most technically impressive headset you can buy. It has better displays than anything else. It has more powerful processors. It has incredible hand and eye tracking. None of that mattered because it was too expensive, too heavy, and too limited in what you could actually do with it.
The Enterprise Play That Might Actually Work
Here’s something interesting that’s been flying under the radar: while consumer sales tanked, many going to enterprise customers according to recent reports.
Hospitals are using Vision Pro for medical imaging and training. Design firms are using it for 3D modeling. Companies are experimenting with it for remote collaboration. These are use cases where a $3,500 price tag makes sense because it’s replacing much more expensive equipment or enabling new capabilities that directly impact the bottom line.
Maybe the Vision Pro’s real future isn’t as a consumer device at all. Maybe it’s a professional tool that occasionally crosses over into enthusiast territory, like the Mac Pro or iPhone Pro Max. There’s no shame in that—there’s a healthy market for professional tools with premium pricing.
The Marketing Massacre Nobody Saw Coming
Apple drastically reduces Vision Pro production, marketing slashed over 95%. When I first saw this stat, I had to double-check it. Ninety-five percent. That’s not trimming the budget. That’s basically giving up.
For context, Apple is a company that spent years marketing the iPad as a laptop replacement, the Apple Watch as a fitness device, and AirPods as a fashion statement. They never give up on marketing. They outlast criticism through sheer advertising persistence.
Except apparently not with the Vision Pro.
What does a 95% marketing cut mean in practice? It means no more TV commercials. No more billboard campaigns. No more YouTube pre-rolls. It means Apple has looked at the marketing ROI and decided that spending money to convince people to buy a Vision Pro is money they’d rather spend elsewhere.
It’s the corporate equivalent of “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” Except they tried everything, spent millions, and it still didn’t work.
The Quiet Part Nobody’s Saying Out Loud
Here’s what nobody at Apple will officially admit but everyone knows: the Vision Pro might be the company’s first major product flop in over a decade.
Not a minor stumble like the HomePod (which they eventually fixed with the HomePod mini). Not a niche product that found its audience like the Mac Pro. An actual, honest-to-goodness expensive failure that sold way below expectations despite massive investment.
For a company that’s used to setting trends and dominating categories, this has to sting. The iPhone redefined phones. The iPad created a new category. The Apple Watch became the dominant smartwatch. AirPods changed how we think about wireless earbuds. Stay updated on Apple products at MacRumors.
The Vision Pro? The Vision Pro is teaching Apple humility.
The Competition Isn’t Sleeping
While Apple figures out its next move, the competition is getting stronger. Meta isn’t just dominating the current VR market—it’s building for the future. According to IDC’s AR/VR tracker, Meta captured 74.6% market share, and they’re showing no signs of slowing down.
Samsung and Google are collaborating on their own XR platform. Valve is working on new VR hardware. Even Sony, despite its own challenges with PSVR 2, is still in the game.
But here’s the thing: nobody else is trying to sell a $3,500 headset. They learned from Apple’s mistake without having to make it themselves. The next wave of VR headsets will be affordable, comfortable, and content-rich—all the things Vision Pro isn’t.
What Meta Gets That Apple Doesn’t (Yet)
Meta understands something fundamental about new technology adoption: you can’t charge people to be your beta testers. You need to subsidize early adoption, build the ecosystem, and then make money on content and services.
The Quest 3 sells at or near cost. Meta doesn’t make money on hardware—they make it on game sales, in-app purchases, and data (let’s be honest). They’re playing the long game. Discover more VR insights at Nethok.
Apple tried to make money on everything immediately: expensive hardware, premium pricing, App Store cuts. It’s the same strategy that works for iPhones and iPads. But this isn’t an iPhone—it’s a brand new product category that people aren’t sure they need yet.
Frequently Asked Questions About The Vision Pro Production Cuts
Why did Apple stop making the Vision Pro?
Apple didn’t completely stop—they halted production at Luxshare in China because they’d built up enough inventory and sales weren’t meeting expectations. With only 45,000 units expected to ship in Q4 2025 during the holiday season, continuing mass production didn’t make financial sense.
How many Vision Pro units did Apple actually sell?
Apple sold approximately 390,000 Vision Pro units in 2024, well below their initial projections of 700,000-800,000 units. For Q4 2025, IDC estimates only 45,000 units shipped during the crucial Christmas shopping period.
Is the Apple Vision Pro a failure?
By Apple’s usual standards, yes. The company expected significantly higher sales and has since cut marketing spend by 95% and halted production. However, the device generated over $157 million in Q4 2025 revenue and found some success in enterprise markets.
Will there be a cheaper Apple Vision headset?
Yes, Apple is reportedly working on a more affordable model priced around $2,000, expected to launch in 2026. It will use less expensive materials, a lower-powered chip (likely A-series instead of M-series), and omit features like EyeSight to reduce costs.
What went wrong with the Vision Pro?
Three main factors: the $3,499 price tag, the heavy and uncomfortable design causing neck strain during extended use, and a lack of compelling native apps and content to justify the cost. Even hardware upgrades with the M5 chip couldn’t overcome these fundamental issues.
How does the Vision Pro compare to Meta Quest 3?
The Vision Pro has superior displays, more powerful processors, and better build quality, but costs seven times more than the Quest 3 ($3,499 vs $499). Meta Quest 3 has a much larger content library, weighs less, and has established itself as the market leader with 74.6% market share.
Is Apple giving up on AR/VR?
No, but they’re pivoting their strategy. Apple is working on a cheaper Vision model for 2026, continuing development on a Vision Pro 2, and exploring lightweight AR glasses. They’re also finding success in enterprise markets even as consumer sales struggle.
Can I still buy an Apple Vision Pro?
Yes, the Vision Pro with M5 chip remains available for purchase at $3,499 for the 256GB model. It’s sold in Apple stores across 13 countries including the US, UK, Canada, and Japan, though no new market expansions are planned.
What’s the Vision Pro’s battery life actually like?
2.5 hours for general use and up to 3 hours of video playback on a single charge. The external battery pack connects via a proprietary connector and adds weight to the overall setup, limiting portability.
Is the VR market dying?
The VR market is contracting, with a 21% year-over-year decrease in Q3 2025 and three consecutive years of declines. However, AR glasses are surging with 180% growth, suggesting the future might be lighter-weight augmented reality rather than immersive VR headsets.
What Happens Next? The 2026 Roadmap
So where does all this leave us? Apple’s not abandoning spatial computing—they’re recalibrating. The roadmap for 2026 looks something like this:
A cheaper Vision model at around $2,000 that makes compromises most people won’t care about. A potential Vision Pro 2 with the latest M6 or M7 chip for the true believers and enterprise customers. Continued development on lightweight AR glasses that look and feel like normal eyewear. More focus on enterprise applications where the value proposition actually makes sense.
Will this work? Maybe. Apple has bounced back from misses before. The first Apple Watch was critically panned, and now it’s the most popular smartwatch in the world. The HomePod failed initially but found its place with the mini version.
But here’s the difference: those products were stepping into existing markets. The Vision Pro is trying to create a new one. That’s exponentially harder, especially at premium prices.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Spatial Computing
Here’s what I think is really going on, and I’ll probably get hate for saying this: most people don’t actually want spatial computing. Not yet, anyway.
We don’t want to strap screens to our faces for hours at a time. We don’t want to gesture in the air like we’re conducting an orchestra visible only to us. We don’t want to disconnect from the physical world around us, even if the virtual world is technically impressive.
What we want is technology that augments our lives without consuming them. That’s why smartphones won—they’re tools we control, not environments we enter. That’s why AR glasses might succeed where VR headsets failed.
The Vision Pro is an incredible piece of technology solving a problem most people don’t have. And until Apple figures out either how to make the problem more universal or the solution more accessible, production cuts are going to be the least of their worries.
The Path Forward Is Through Price, Not Performance
If I were running Apple’s Vision division (and thank god I’m not, because that job looks stressful as hell right now), here’s what I’d focus on:
Get the price to $1,500 or less, even if it means major compromises. Partner with content creators to build exclusive experiences people actually want. Make the headset so comfortable you forget you’re wearing it within five minutes. Build a killer enterprise offering and lean into that market without shame. Accept that this is a marathon, not a sprint—Meta has a decade head start.
The technology will get better. Displays will get sharper, chips will get faster, batteries will last longer. That’s inevitable. But technology alone won’t save the Vision Pro. What’ll save it is making people want to use it, and right now, at $3,500 and weighing over a pound, that’s a tough sell.
The Bottom Line: What These Production Cuts Really Mean
Apple cutting Vision Pro production and slashing marketing spend isn’t just about one product struggling. It’s a statement about where spatial computing actually is versus where we thought it would be.
We’re not ready for face computers. We might never be ready for face computers, at least not in this form. And that’s okay. Not every technological path leads somewhere. Sometimes the future looks different than we expected.
For Apple, this is a rare moment of public recalibration. They bet big, missed, and are now adjusting. The question isn’t whether the Vision Pro “failed”—by most measures, it did. The question is what Apple learns from it and whether they can turn that education into products people actually want.
The cheaper Vision model in 2026 will be telling. If it succeeds, we’ll say Apple found the right price point. If it fails, we might be looking at the end of Apple’s VR ambitions altogether.
Either way, one thing’s clear: the future of spatial computing won’t be settled by the company with the best technology. It’ll be settled by the company that gives people compelling reasons to put screens on their faces. And right now, nobody’s quite figured that out yet.
I’m watching this space closely, because when tech giants stumble this publicly, what comes next is usually fascinating—one way or another.
For more coverage on Apple products, emerging tech, and brutally honest takes on where the industry is heading, check out more articles at nethok.com.
About the Author
