> This is usually how Apple enters/creates a new market. They start with a very high end version that highlights their strengths and the product's potential

iPad, AirPods, Apple Watch - none of those fit your criteria, and they’re the biggest launches apple has done post iPhone (which arguably also wasn’t high-priced, it just lacked carrier subsidies at launch).

I think you might be misreading the word "high end"?

By "high end", the person you're replying to was (probably?) not referring to "luxury", but rather the "high end" of the affordability spectrum. i.e. technology that is cutting edge and hasn't yet reached economies of scale. The first iterations of each of those product lines were expensive to procure, which meant their initial margins were thinner and their initial prices were higher.

The "mass market" version of each of those products was not created until the second, third, or arguably fourth generation. Those generations are the ones where the price of components has come down, to the point where you start to see truly affordable options (iPhone SE, Airpods 2, Watch SE).

Apple's insight is that the R&D work required to produce "pro" versions of their hardware (as well as the work required to produce v1) of each product line improves the performance and cost structure of all the "lesser" versions.

They famously derive R&D budgets for gen X+1 as a function of projected profits from gen X and X-1. This connection to the "market" is a strong explanatory variable for the success of their R&D fly wheel since the iPhone. It's a major contrast against how their competitors have historically operated (cough Meta).

I remember all of those products seeming really expensive at launch, though I see your point. They've all gone down a bit in price since but not significantly. Maybe what has changed though is my perception of what a reasonable cost should be. Spending $150 on AirPods to replace my cheap earbuds used to seem absurd but now it feels more defensible. If AR is a huge success the price will certainly come down, but perhaps only 30%-50% and spending the equivalent of a new Macbook on a headset starts to feel more reasonable.

While those items are expensive for market, they were still affordable for a large market segment. I purchased iphone, ipad, airpod, airpods pro, ipod all in the first year of them debuting. I doubt I would do that for a $3k VR set and I have spent over 400hrs in VR. I will need to let others prove the value on this system before I can jump in.

I've never been all that interested in early VR, but for a truly seamless VR headset I think 3K would be perfectly reasonable. For example, being able to take a laptop onto any train and have the equivalent of a 360º monitor with me seems already worth that. If apple launched a VR headset, I'd assume they've got it to that kind of point where it's a device you carry with you all the time.

The iPhone was more expensive than most phones even without the subsidy.

They certainly have the cash to subsidize a new market creation...