Apple Reportedly Accelerating R&D Of Its Second-Generation Affordable Headset, Display Cost Could Reduce By A Whopping 50 Percent

The affordable variant of the Apple Vision Pro is not expected until 2025, but that does not mean that the company is not aggressively pursuing its launch through some consistent R&D. According to one report, one objective of this launch is reducing the cost of the display, with recent estimates claiming that the component price can drop by as much as 50 percent.

To help reach a more minor price point for the AR headset display, Apple may add more suppliers to its list

An earlier ‘Bill of Materials’ for the Apple Vision Pro revealed that it costs around $1,542 to make each unit, and that excludes logistics, R&D, marketing, and other expenses. Out of the $1,542, the two 4K micro-OLED panels take up the bulk of that cost, thanks to their $456 price. Naturally, to make the low-cost model significantly cheaper than the $3,499 amount that Apple charges for its first iteration, there needs to be immense differences in how the company approaches this problem.

Related Story Apple Has Terminated Epic Games Developer Account, Calling it “Verifiably Untrustworthy” to Follow App Store Guidelines

For instance, one report states that there were discussions about using an inferior display and an iPhone chipset instead of a Mac one, to bring down the price. Another strategy is adding more suppliers to the list. Currently, the Apple Vision Pro only has one micro-OLED supplier, which is Sony, and since it is likely working at maximum capacity to fulfill Apple’s shipment orders, the technology giant can only make a limited number of these annually.

The information published on The Elec and spotted by Revegnus mentions that Apple is currently evaluating companies such as SeeYa and BOE, likely intending to add them as display suppliers next to Sony as leverage to bring down the cost of next-generation micro-OLED screens. The Cupertino firm was previously reported to be testing out both of the companies mentioned above, but at that time, the company had not given a verdict.

Assuming the