The initial target is developers who think they can build successful AR software for when the price comes down. You will not have significant numbers of users without compelling applications. $3k is a pittance in the scheme of creating a ground breaking application in an unexplored space.

$3k keeps the limited units out of drawers and in the hands of people that will be making something with them.

This device has a lot of cameras and scanners in it. After they work out what is actually required and used the consumer model may have fewer to control cost.

Apple will deliver an app or two to set the user experience quality bar, it sounds like VR conferencing is one of those, but that doesn't mean they think that is what the device is for. It is just that they need to give an example of what the user experience should be or you will have developers delivering poorly performing, battery eating, usability disasters and customers will think that is inherent to the device.

I think this is going to be a benchmark device first and foremost, designed to make every other XR device on the market look inadequate. Meta, Valve and the rest will be forced to spec up to match Apple, this will drive the costs down as suppliers start to manufacture better displays, lenses, batteries and XR chipsets in large quantities. Apple Headset 2 will then cost $1.5k.

As I said in other comments, don't underestimate video calls in AR. This could be an instant killer app that will change the industry.

How many people can afford at least 2 AR headsets? Not many, but also not too few. Engineers who flock to the Bay Area and leave their parents/families in other countries can afford that, and will - if AR calls will offer an immersive experience.

I agree, can’t see this either, but all major tech companies and quite a few smaller companies are working on this. And they all did their research so these things are coming.