By now, you must have heard about the latest headset Vision Pro that Apple introduced on Monday. The consensus so far has nothing but praise for the gadget. Vision Pro is jam-packed with new technologies and as a tech enthusiast, I am excited about the new toy. What is equally interesting is the price which starts at, not a typo, $3,499.

Selling expensive hardware for a niche clientele is nothing new to Apple. Think Mac Pro or the top end of Macbook Pro. Vision Pro will be the same. It’s not for everyone. Heck, as expensive as it is, Vision Pro is NOT even for most people.

There are super fans out there willing to splurge money on this headset. These early adopters will either consider Vision Pro a replacement of the computer-monitor combination or just love to experience this new gadget. In its current form, though, I think Vision Pro has three weaknesses hindering adoption:

• It has to be plugged in for a long use as the battery only lasts two hours
• Users will feel combobulated after using the device for too long
• Are we ready to accept folks with this kind of headset on in a public setting?

In addition to Apple super users, I do believe other first adopters of Vision Pro will use it mainly for work.

The gadget can assist teachers in articulating difficult subjects like biology or archaeology. Rather than look at photos of organs in a textbook, students can see 3D images of a human body. How cool would that be? Executives who need to review reports or dashboards can put on the device, instead of going back and forth between monitors. Scientists who need to do research and examine samples can also benefit from this new headset, too.

My line of thinking is backed by two observations. The first is that given how Vision Pro is positioned and priced, only institutional or affluent customers can afford to buy it and have enough utility to justify such purchase. The second is the announcement on Monday that Apple already bought Mira, an AR startup which produces headsets for other companies and the US military.

For this target audience, Vision Pro also has challenges. The device must convince developers to build work/productivity apps that meet the standard set by Apple. Moreover, how can Apple convince companies to use its devices at work? My company heavily favors Window-based computers. If our CEO wanted to see internal reports and dashboards on Vision Pro, he would have to set up access to our servers on a non-Windows device. The task is doable, but presents friction to adoption.

In short, even though Vision Pro won’t sell as much as the iPhone, I believe that there is a market for it. Even in the most bearish scenario, the device will find its way in the hands of super fans and professional customers like mentioned above. The bullish case will see Apple iterate on the first version of the headset to make it more accessible and convince the mass audience that it’s worth paying big money for a headset. Heck, they did it before with iPhone, Apple Watch, Mac, iPad and other pricy products of theirs. If anyone can do it, it’s Apple.

Apple vs Facebook

A key debate since the introduction of Vision Pro is which one between Apple and Facebook gets the concept of AR/VR headset right.

In my opinion, they both can be. Vision Pro tries to marry the virtual world and the reality as much as possible while Quest means to push the reality through the digital world. In other words, Apple wants to make reality better whereas Facebook strives to render everything digital. I don’t see any reason why both concepts can’t have its own audience.

Regardless of how much Apple argues that Vision Pro is worth paying $3,500 for, such a high price presents barrier to adoption. There will be some customers out there who love the new headset, but can’t pay for one and they will be content with the trade off.

And of course, there will be anti-Apple folks to whom Vision Pro is not even an option.

It’s hard to compare Quest and Vision Pro. The two products differ in philosophy, target audience and pricing. It’s like comparing Target and Aldi or Toyota and Ferrari. At least that’s how it looks to me with the public information I gather. Technology can change dramatically in a few years’ time. These tech giants can do incredible things given the virtually endless resources at their disposal. I may be completely wrong five years from now.