this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
188 points (76.9% liked)

Technology

59091 readers
5373 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Up to 30% of Apple Vision Pro Returns Are Because Users Don't Get It, Analyst Says::While Vision Pro returns were uncommon, many came down to owners not figuring out its spatial computing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Tech bros were vocal with stories about why they were returning their Apple Vision Pros earlier in February.

However, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo found that nearly a third of returns were because users couldn’t figure out how to set up the $3,500 newfangled technology.

“It is noteworthy that about 20–30% of users who return their products do so because they do not know how to set up Vision Pro,” said Kuo in a translated analyst note on Wednesday.

Kuo’s investigation finds that just 1% of Vision Pro owners returned their headsets, which is fairly standard, and less frequent than lengthy essays on social media would have you believe.

Apple’s products are renowned for their intuitive user interfaces, like the iPhone and Mac, but it seems the Vision Pro might be missing the mark in this respect.

Apple is expected to sell more Vision Pros this year than the company original forecasted, according to Kuo, though it still appears to be a niche market.


The original article contains 409 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!