Beyond the Hype: Is Apple Vision Pro the Next iPhone or a $3,500 Toy?

Do you remember over a year ago, when the Apple Vision Pro stunned the world with an almost science-fiction-like debut? The media exhausted its superlatives, and everyone who tried it was captivated by the immersive experience. In that moment, it felt like we were touching the future of computing platforms.

However, as we stand in the autumn of 2025, after the initial awe has subsided, a more critical and anxious question has emerged for investors and tech enthusiasts alike:

Once you look past the "cool" factor, what is the Vision Pro, really? Is it a revolutionary platform that will define an era, like the iPhone, or is it a technologically magical but ultimately niche product, like the Segway—history's most expensive tech toy?

To answer this, we need to momentarily set aside Apple's marketing and turn to a "wise shoulder" in the tech world: the renowned strategist Benedict Evans. He provides a sober and insightful framework for analyzing any new computing platform.

The Three Soul-Searching Questions for a New Platform

Benedict Evans argues that the rise of any successful computing platform—from the PC to the smartphone—is no accident. Their success hinges on answering three core questions. Let's use this rubric to measure the current state of spatial computing.

Question 1: What problem does it uniquely solve?

A new platform needs a killer use case, a reason for being that makes it indispensable.

• The PC's killer app was word processing and spreadsheets, which revolutionized business productivity.

• The smartphone's killer app was the "always-on mobile internet," allowing us to communicate and access information from anywhere.

So, what is the Vision Pro's killer app? To date, we've seen many "nice" applications: it offers an IMAX-like movie experience, allows for a multi-monitor setup in a virtual space, and lets designers preview 3D models. The question, however, is whether these experiences are 10x better than watching a movie on a top-tier OLED TV or working on a Mac Studio with multiple displays. If the answer is no, then it remains a "better option," not a "necessary one."

Question 2: Are the enabling factors ready?

A platform's success is inseparable from its supporting technologies and conditions, just as the automobile required a network of roads and gas stations.

• The iPhone succeeded not just because of the device itself, but because of the proliferation of 3G/4G networks and the App Store, an ecosystem where developers could profit.

What are the Vision Pro's enabling factors? Clearly, it needs lighter hardware, all-day battery life, and a lower price point. Beyond that, it requires a massive and vibrant developer ecosystem. But with the current user base, how many developers are willing to invest significant resources to build a potential killer app for a platform with too few users to ensure a return on investment? This creates a classic "chicken-and-egg" problem.

Question 3: Does it capture a generational shift?

Often, a new platform rises because it perfectly aligns with the behavioral habits of a new generation of users.

• The PC captured the rise of the office worker.

• The smartphone captured the wave of social networking and the youth's desire to be "always connected."

The Vision Pro seems to be betting on a future of remote collaboration and immersive digital life. But is this mode of interaction—partially isolating oneself from the real world—truly the mainstream lifestyle the next generation of users craves? Or is it more of an occasional "experience" rather than a daily "habit"? This question remains unanswered.

An Investor's View: From "Units Sold" to "What People Do With It"

From an investment standpoint, evaluating the Vision Pro based solely on sales forecasts would be a first-level thinking error. A more insightful, second-level analysis should focus on these qualitative indicators:

1. The Shift from "Wow" to "Workflow": The key metric is not how many people buy it out of curiosity, but how many people genuinely integrate it into their daily personal or professional workflows. Daily Active Users (DAU) is a far more meaningful metric than total unit sales.

2. Ecosystem Health: Are there breakout success stories of third-party developers making significant money in the visionOS App Store? Has a "non-Apple" app become a daily-use necessity for users? This is a critical signal of a platform's vitality.

3. The Meta Counterpoint: We cannot ignore Meta's strategy. With a more accessible price point and an open platform, it is pursuing the "Android of VR" playbook. Can Apple's premium strategy defend the high-end and ultimately lead the industry, or will Meta's volume-based approach erode the market from the bottom up? The outcome of this "value vs. volume" war will profoundly shape the future of spatial computing.

A Final Thought

After more than a year and a half on the market, the future of spatial computing appears more complex and uncertain than it did at launch. Benedict Evans' framework serves as a clear mirror, reflecting the three major hurdles before the Vision Pro: the lack of a killer app, immature enabling factors, and the uncertainty of user habits.

Apple is undoubtedly one of the few companies on Earth with the patience and capital to nurture a new platform. The iPhone wasn't an overnight success, and the Apple Watch took years to find its product-market fit. The story of the Vision Pro has only just begun.

But this leaves us with a question worth tracking closely:

After its initial test in the market, what do you think is the biggest obstacle for spatial computing? Is it the hardware's cost and comfort, the absence of a killer app, or the fact that we, as users, simply haven't found a truly compelling reason to use it? Will this "platform of the next decade" really need another decade to reach its tipping point?