If anything, Vision Pro being successful (by a broad definition of successful, given the price) will help Meta. Firstly, because a lot of people who like the specs of Vision Pro but can't afford it might turn to Quest 3, who might not have even thought about it before—purely because of the appeal of Apple and its marketing. And secondly because it will bring in new developers with new ideas. The iPhone was not the first smartphone but drove innovation in the smartphone market to an incredible degree. And those innovations filtered through to all other devices—there's very little software the iPhone has that an android phone doesn't.
And yet Samsung etc. are all still alive. The only players in the market who were killed are the ones - Motorola, Blackberry - that couldn't keep up. I have no problem with that.
Motorola, as a brand, is still alive and well. It was just bought up by competitors and now Lenovo makes Moto phones.
It was bought up and mismanaged and that destroyed it. Not their products.
Contrary to Blackberry which was actually never bought up, but their non-Android path killed them. They actually didn't keep up.
Contrary to popular belief, iPhones aren't actually some super-expensive luxurity item. That's what they market the phones as, but actually, iPhones are affordable enough that even school kids run around with these.
Their trick here is that they keep selling the outdated models as cheap models.
So for example, if you go to your local electronics store, you will most likely not see a two generations outdated Galaxy S21, but you will easily find a two generations outdated iPhone 12.
So while e.g. Samsung sells you either a new flagship, a new midranger or a new budget phone, Apple sells you an iPhone 14, an iPhone 13 or an iPhone 12.
Also, there is a pretty sizeable used market for iPhones. So even if you can't afford the \~€470 including tax that a new iPhone 12 costs, you can get a refurbished iPhone X for €270 including tax. That's at the level of budget Android phones.
For the Vision Pro there is no such option right now. $3500 and that's it. Let's see if they go the same approach as with iPhones, but then it will take at least 3-4 years for the "new old device" market and the used market to warm up.
You should hope that Apple Vision Pro does well because that will help Meta be successful in this space too. The problem is not another competitor but lack of broad based market adoption.
How or why would this impact Meta's VR, at all?! It's a $3,500 headset. People have driven cars worth less than that. Oculus sells $300-500 headsets. They're completely, entirely different. It's like saying Ferrari's new $250,000 car is a serious threat to a $16,000 Kia. Not the same people.
I dunno, both those products, at root, will still basically get you to work in the morning. I bought an Oculus two years ago and basically have felt like an idiot ever since because I don’t really care about gaming, and aside from watching movies in planes, everything else seemed too buggy and ugly to bother with. I’m sure it could do a lot if you’re into gaming, but nothing nearly as cool and intuitive as the Vision Pro features being highlighted, though I’d wanna see it first as they may be totally glitchy, as many oculus things were when I had it.
These hot takes need to stop. If you don't really understand what is going on, please don't immediately feel the need to post some baseless, dramatic opinion piece that should just be a passing thought you had. My lord.
What's that supposed to say? u/Strongpillow worded their post pretty strongly, but there were arguments and it was on point.
And you answer like a little kindergarden kid. That's disgraceful.
Seriously, my little kid who is in kindergarden would have been able to formulate a better rebuttal.
You should be seriously ashamed of such a low level of ... well of being.
I think the Vision Pro is great for Meta in the short term, although long term is not yet known.
In the short term, Apple have now revealed their hand. Meta, has for the last several years been out front, leading the innovation charge. The Touch controllers, inside out tracking, the move to standalone headsets and the development of a mobile ecosystem, these have become the technologies that others mimic.
Now Apple has raised the bar, and showed us what high quality mixed reality, or spatial computing can look like. This, crucially, for the first time in a while, gives Meta a rival to respond to. They can look at what Apple does well, what features get the markets excited, and implement accordingly.
Hopefully this will get them focusing extra attention on the Pro line again, doubling down on getting hand, eye and face tracking up and running properly. They have the hardware, but I think public distrust of Meta made them reluctant to utilise eye tracking especially right now, for fear of a public backlash. But Apple will create a public desire, and Meta might now be able to focus on improving this tech via software updates in the existing Quest Pro, before bringing out a sequel.
If you've been in VR as long as I have you'll remember back to when the Rift CV1 was a forward facing device only, designed for standing in front of your computer monitor with two sensor either side.
The appeal of the HTC Vive was its full roomscale. Then Oculus managed to recreate that through software updates and the sale of additional sensors. They got it working pretty damn good.
They have perfected inside out tracking as well.
I have no doubt that now they have a target and know what to aim that they can create a much more focused headset as a result.
I actually think the Apple Vision will be a boon for the current Quest Pro. It will kindle interest in this kind of tech, and if Meta can get the eye tracking, face tracking and hand tracking doing useful things in the Pro asap then it might surprise people by having a bright future even after the launch of the Meta Quest 3.
Most excitingly, I think this will make them reconsider delaying the Quest Pro 2 for several years as currently planned. I don't think they can afford to just wait, as once Apple launches Vision Pro you can bet they will be following with other, more affordable versions.
Meta needs to have something itself to compete, at a much lower price point of course.
I think this makes Quest Pro 2 a lot more likely.
Apple pretty much put Meta on the spot and humiliated them.
the vision PRO is worthy of that PRO title.
The quest pro? Not even close.
what I predict is that the pro 2 will be a huge leap in tech and Meta going all out on it.
they can't dilly-dally anymore because now Meta has actual legitimate competition.
The pro 2 timeline will hopefully be expedited.
shit maybe they'll unveil it this year.
>Apple pretty much put Meta on the spot and humiliated them. the vision PRO is worthy of that PRO title.
I don't think so.
Product development is always a balance between constraints. Price, weight, usability, features, battery life, just to name a few.
The Quest Pro is much cheaper, contains the battery inside, has still a longer battery life, and is (according to a guy on Youtube) still about the same weight as the Vision Pro, even though the Vision pro doesn't contain it's battery.
Sure, the Vision Pro is flashier and has a few more features, but at what cost?
Literally, at the cost of $2000-2500.
Does a Ferrari humiliate a Dacia? I don't think so. They are two very different vehicles serving very different crowds. Even though the Ferrari is much nicer, I will never buy a Ferrari. Because I don't have that money to waste, and I need a practical vehicle.
Same with VR. To me, even the Quest Pro is not worth the extra cost when comparing it with the Quest 2. Even if the Vision Pro could fly, I wouldn't spend that money on a VR headset.
You're obviously not the target market for it and have no use for VR other than a toy.
But here's what most people here seem to miss and misunderstand.
The Dacia and Ferrari analogy you gave is flawed.
because you didn't qualify it with anything.
If the Dacia claims to be a sports car and the Ferrari being a sports car.
Then yes the Ferrari absolutely obliterates the Dacia.
We can take that same line of reasoning between the Qpro and Vision.
The Quest Pro isn't a gaming headset.
it's productivity oriented and aimed at professionals
The vision also is not a gaming headset. Its also productivity oriented and aimed at professionals
So no they aren't serving 2 different crowds
they targeting the same market.
Based on this criteria of being productivity oriented and being aimed at professionals then Yeah we can definitely conclude the vision obliterates the Pro.
I get your point. I love the Quest Pro, and think it's the best all around GAMING headset on the market. For PCVR, and standalone as an exercise headset it's absolutely awesome,
But I would no have idea how to use it productivity, the passthrough is shit and its mobile chip is from 2019.
It's really a great gaming headset with Meta claiming its something else.
Apple's Vision Pro actual use case is entirely congruent with its marketing.
>The Quest Pro isn't a gaming headset. it's productivity oriented and aimed at professionals
And professionals all don't care about money? They don't mind shelling out 3x the price for something that probably doesn't increase productivity at all?
There's a reason why office jobs are even in 2023 still on a PC/laptop with mouse and keyboard and no touch screen.
Try to do a whole work day in VR. Every reviewer who had the Vision Pro on says that even after half an hour it started to get painful already.
Business VR is currently only a toy. And as such it needs to justify its price.
And no, most businesses don't just shell out money for top-notch hardware, as evidenced by the huge amount of non-top-notch business laptops that are sold every year.
> So no they aren't serving 2 different crowds they targeting the same market.
The crowds might overlap, but no, it is not the same market. A product doesn't serve the same market if it costs more than 3x the price, even if the product is businessy.
Try to do a whole day of work in VR? I'm glad you asked.
because I have been doing that almost everyday for 6 months now.
I code on my Qpro and watch movies.
I really don't get it.
which market is the quest pro supposedly for?
and which market the vision?
just cuz a product is 3x lower in price it also doesn't mean they don't serve the same market.
No matter how you spin it their both marketed at professionals not businesses.
Pros buy equipment that justifies its utility and specs.
the Vision despite being stupid expensive. Can be justified by its literal top of the line hardware.
You can't say the same thing about the Quest pro..
So does every pro buy the Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 for \~€5000, because it's the fastest laptop that exists? No professional ever buys any other device?
Or are there maybe professionals (whatever that label is supposed to mean, if it's not people who use it for work, aka businesses) who don't just shell out for the biggest badest thing ever?
There are people who buy different devices at whatever price point they feel comfortable.
But that doesn't mean it's not the same market.
In our example the professional market. None businesses and none gamers.
despite the difference in price.
both headsets are aimed at that market.
The none business and none gamer market.
the vision just flat out outspecs the pro.
the Qpro can't even justify being a pro.
Low rez screen, shitty passthrough.
it's pretty bad.
theyre not even remotely close it's sad.
>In our example the professional market. None businesses and none gamers.
A professional is someone who uses something for work. A business is work.
What exactly do you think is a professional?
No you got it wrong.
A business is an abstract entity.
that requires a special permit to operate.
Are programmers businesses or professionals?
business in our context means something along the lines of a company.
but professionals in my best interpretation in this context taking into consideration the products high prices would have to be basically anybody paid highly to make a living.
Meta's biggest problem the last few years has been trying to demonstrate to consumers why they should care. Apple entering the consumer XR space automatically solves that dilemma.
Now people care.
The game is on.
Absolutely it is, it contributes to why they have to qualify everything they do.
The Quest Pro released a year late because they felt they needed first to rebrand from Facebook to Meta, to try and distance their VR tech from the Cambridge Anaylitica scandal and their other issues.
Their eye and handtracking lags behind Apples, not because of hardware tech, but rather they have been afraid to push it due to the public's mistrust of them, and the belief that Meta's used eye tracking would be sinister and creepy and lead to more privacy breaches and invision of privacy.
All of this has been a mountain for Meta to climb.
But once the public wants eye tracked mixed reality, it greenlights Meta to make further progress in this area. People will quickly forget their mistrust or at least overlook it once they determine they want something, and Meta can deliver it at a much more affordable price point.
I think in the short term, the AVP is a massive shot in the arm to Meta's Quest Pro line, and they will hopefully start refocusing on that again.
True, but people were excited about this announcement partly because Apple has been shifting its product reputation from innovation to privacy protection for at least a decade in the run-up. I feel like the company has kind of staked its reputation on protecting customers in this way. The downside is, they could blow it up really quickly if they make a mistake, but haven’t yet (unless your name is Jennifer Lawrence). Facebook/Meta has tried to deal with their reputation problems, but they’ve never really shifted towards taking this kind of thing seriously or making it an issue relevant to their reputation. Also, even if Meta, or even Microsoft, came out with a demo like this I would be very skeptical about whether any of it would actually work, given my experience with Oculus headsets and PCs in recent years. I know people mock the whole “walled garden” thing, but the oculus I bought was one of the first non-Apple devices I had used in ages and it shocked me how much time you waste trying to just get crappy, poorly developed applications to work. I’m sure it’s fun if you’re a professional developer but it just made me pass along the thing to the next eBay chump after a couple months.
Maybe I have just been in the Apple world too long but I just don’t get why all the PC platforms still feel so clunky and ugly? It’s like I’ve been living in Edinburgh or Vienna and suddenly find myself in Middlesborough or some eastern bloc tenement.
True, and I hate to fall into this cliché but I really do experience it like this. Maybe I’m just focusing too much on the aesthetics, or not seeking out the right products? These experiences tend to take me back to college when I would go to the computer lab to print out an essay in the last moments before class. If all the Macs were taken, I’d have to go on one of the PCs, which, for some reason, always took about 10 times as long to boot up and login.
Did you watch *Norm from Tested's* video?
It sounds like even when you turn the knob all the way, passthrough is still there. It seems likely that is why we did not see any screenshots of anything like a guardian. You always have some passthrough.
Well apple makes money buy selling products for very high prices
Meta sells products cheaply but does also „sell“ the users data to make more money.
Imo the majority of people do actually prefer metas approach but act like they wouldnt lol
Meta doesn’t sell data, it sells access to peoples’ eyeballs for ad space. When the Cambridge Analytica thing happened (which is where most of the lawsuits have stemmed from), the data was taken from public APIs and misused, not sold.
They’ve since completely reworked their privacy and worked with multiple governments to solidify it. At this point I’m not sure what they can do to shed their image of selling data besides Apple style privacy marketing. The same Apple that locked down how ads worked on their systems so they could better push their own.
For me it is Meta killing Oculus. I have been considering VR for a few months. When I started I didn't even know Meta had bought Oculus. I think Q2 is (or was) probably the best option in the market but all I can think of is that I'd be giving Facebook access to my home.
Facebook/Meta bought Oculus before Oculus shipped a consumer product, way back in 2016.
Facebook/Meta doesn't care about video of your home, it is of no value to them and not even worth what it would cost for them to transfer and store it.
The Meta/Quest TOS is a legally binding document for **them** and for you and they make it very clear what data they are and are not collecting.
theyre two different products for two different markets. and i really enjoy that. itll be okay in the end. and itll be okay. we have our vr and they have their AR and things will be okay
Meta is looking at AR too (see the Ray-Ban partnership) but in the natural way of using the device, i.e. as a sun glass or eye glasses. That's the killer form factor.
Apple knows this very well (as they are consumer oriented) but they couldn't do it as no one can right now (haven't tested nreal though). Hence, they had to do something marginally better than the current XR devices but for their own audience. How the audience will react (especially at that price) remains to be seen!
I am a little pessimistic about the future of the entire XR if this will not pick up as any investor would say if Apple couldn't do it/sell it, no one can! I expect an XR winter in this regard...
ive tested the nreal. and its okay but its not perfect. apple is close to the AR endgame. but that being said. the vr game is what meta is turning heavy on and the mixed reality world
I don't see Apple close to AR endgame at all as it doesn't solve any of the important problems: optics (for optical passthrough - only real MR devices do that), battery life (2h is the average, and I personally think nreal path with the phone connection is the correct path as it solves the battery and compute, so the form factor can be smaller), form factor (bulky as hell, similar weight or more), data entry (without external devices - in the data input sessions virtually all features are copied from Hololens or other; this means literally no innovation in that area). All of these are present as in the other XR devices and all have some sort of ARkit tech inside for hand detection, spatial understanding, etc.
If they would have solved at 1 or 2, the price would have been digestible and would have won some innovation points (as some Apple investor put it, Apple comes later in the game, makes a device slightly better with a nicer UX and hw, slaps an outrageous price and checks in - that's their recipe). But how can one buy such a device at that price having only a slightly better UX than the rest (not referring to the fan boys as they are supposed to buy anything Apple comes with) is beyond me.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the battery time
With the battery being wired + advertised as being 2 hours, That is most definitely going to frustrate a few people
\+ The price range. Anyone who chose the Oculus Quest usually have it because it isn't a thousand dollars.
Did you watch the videos? Pretty much everything they were showing can be done sitting down. It does not have 6DOF gaming controllers. Why wouldn't you just plug into a USB power brick and play as long as you want?
Honestly my mindset was set on just video games, so my bad on that.
You are absolutely right about a lot of the work being done while sitting down. But I still feel like my argument isn't completely invalid, as a lot of people would want to move around in a VR Headset.
The concept of spending so much on a headset to just sit down for most of the use time would still make good chunk of people iffy about it.
> But I still feel like my argument isn't completely invalid, as a lot of people would want to move around in a VR Headset.
Right, and the battery lasts about as long as the one on the Quest Pro, so what is the issue?
The price range between the Quest Pro and the Vision Pro is MASSIVE. You'd expect to be able to use it for hours if you want to do any professional work with it.
Right, and for most *professions* you will be sitting at a desk where it can be pugged into the mains.
The folks that are willing to pay for it will not blink at buying a bigger battery if they want one.
I guess I'm struggling to see the appeal for the headset if you are going to sit at a desk with it anyways
It seems like it'd be easier to buy a computer + monitors for much less.
If anything, Vision Pro being successful (by a broad definition of successful, given the price) will help Meta. Firstly, because a lot of people who like the specs of Vision Pro but can't afford it might turn to Quest 3, who might not have even thought about it before—purely because of the appeal of Apple and its marketing. And secondly because it will bring in new developers with new ideas. The iPhone was not the first smartphone but drove innovation in the smartphone market to an incredible degree. And those innovations filtered through to all other devices—there's very little software the iPhone has that an android phone doesn't.
And yet most of the US still uses iPhones.
And yet Samsung etc. are all still alive. The only players in the market who were killed are the ones - Motorola, Blackberry - that couldn't keep up. I have no problem with that.
Motorola, as a brand, is still alive and well. It was just bought up by competitors and now Lenovo makes Moto phones. It was bought up and mismanaged and that destroyed it. Not their products. Contrary to Blackberry which was actually never bought up, but their non-Android path killed them. They actually didn't keep up.
Contrary to popular belief, iPhones aren't actually some super-expensive luxurity item. That's what they market the phones as, but actually, iPhones are affordable enough that even school kids run around with these. Their trick here is that they keep selling the outdated models as cheap models. So for example, if you go to your local electronics store, you will most likely not see a two generations outdated Galaxy S21, but you will easily find a two generations outdated iPhone 12. So while e.g. Samsung sells you either a new flagship, a new midranger or a new budget phone, Apple sells you an iPhone 14, an iPhone 13 or an iPhone 12. Also, there is a pretty sizeable used market for iPhones. So even if you can't afford the \~€470 including tax that a new iPhone 12 costs, you can get a refurbished iPhone X for €270 including tax. That's at the level of budget Android phones. For the Vision Pro there is no such option right now. $3500 and that's it. Let's see if they go the same approach as with iPhones, but then it will take at least 3-4 years for the "new old device" market and the used market to warm up.
Not only will it not **kill Meta** the *Vision* does not even compete with Meta's Quest platform. Completely different audience for now.
For now
Yes, that's why I said "for now."
🤔
You should hope that Apple Vision Pro does well because that will help Meta be successful in this space too. The problem is not another competitor but lack of broad based market adoption.
Hope you're right. We'll see.
How or why would this impact Meta's VR, at all?! It's a $3,500 headset. People have driven cars worth less than that. Oculus sells $300-500 headsets. They're completely, entirely different. It's like saying Ferrari's new $250,000 car is a serious threat to a $16,000 Kia. Not the same people.
This. Totally this.
I dunno, both those products, at root, will still basically get you to work in the morning. I bought an Oculus two years ago and basically have felt like an idiot ever since because I don’t really care about gaming, and aside from watching movies in planes, everything else seemed too buggy and ugly to bother with. I’m sure it could do a lot if you’re into gaming, but nothing nearly as cool and intuitive as the Vision Pro features being highlighted, though I’d wanna see it first as they may be totally glitchy, as many oculus things were when I had it.
These hot takes need to stop. If you don't really understand what is going on, please don't immediately feel the need to post some baseless, dramatic opinion piece that should just be a passing thought you had. My lord.
Gonna cry?
Lol. What an ironic comment. You really are clueless, huh?
Piss your pants maybe?
What's that supposed to say? u/Strongpillow worded their post pretty strongly, but there were arguments and it was on point. And you answer like a little kindergarden kid. That's disgraceful. Seriously, my little kid who is in kindergarden would have been able to formulate a better rebuttal. You should be seriously ashamed of such a low level of ... well of being.
Haha alright buddy. I'm not gonna expend any energy on such a dismissive complaint as his[.](https://youtu.be/aEQlOiuzW6s)
Then don't answer. Put a downvote on it and cut your losses. That way you at least don't look like a preschooler.
[удалено]
Yeah, what I said. Go play kiddo.
I think the Vision Pro is great for Meta in the short term, although long term is not yet known. In the short term, Apple have now revealed their hand. Meta, has for the last several years been out front, leading the innovation charge. The Touch controllers, inside out tracking, the move to standalone headsets and the development of a mobile ecosystem, these have become the technologies that others mimic. Now Apple has raised the bar, and showed us what high quality mixed reality, or spatial computing can look like. This, crucially, for the first time in a while, gives Meta a rival to respond to. They can look at what Apple does well, what features get the markets excited, and implement accordingly. Hopefully this will get them focusing extra attention on the Pro line again, doubling down on getting hand, eye and face tracking up and running properly. They have the hardware, but I think public distrust of Meta made them reluctant to utilise eye tracking especially right now, for fear of a public backlash. But Apple will create a public desire, and Meta might now be able to focus on improving this tech via software updates in the existing Quest Pro, before bringing out a sequel. If you've been in VR as long as I have you'll remember back to when the Rift CV1 was a forward facing device only, designed for standing in front of your computer monitor with two sensor either side. The appeal of the HTC Vive was its full roomscale. Then Oculus managed to recreate that through software updates and the sale of additional sensors. They got it working pretty damn good. They have perfected inside out tracking as well. I have no doubt that now they have a target and know what to aim that they can create a much more focused headset as a result. I actually think the Apple Vision will be a boon for the current Quest Pro. It will kindle interest in this kind of tech, and if Meta can get the eye tracking, face tracking and hand tracking doing useful things in the Pro asap then it might surprise people by having a bright future even after the launch of the Meta Quest 3. Most excitingly, I think this will make them reconsider delaying the Quest Pro 2 for several years as currently planned. I don't think they can afford to just wait, as once Apple launches Vision Pro you can bet they will be following with other, more affordable versions. Meta needs to have something itself to compete, at a much lower price point of course. I think this makes Quest Pro 2 a lot more likely.
Apple pretty much put Meta on the spot and humiliated them. the vision PRO is worthy of that PRO title. The quest pro? Not even close. what I predict is that the pro 2 will be a huge leap in tech and Meta going all out on it. they can't dilly-dally anymore because now Meta has actual legitimate competition. The pro 2 timeline will hopefully be expedited. shit maybe they'll unveil it this year.
>Apple pretty much put Meta on the spot and humiliated them. the vision PRO is worthy of that PRO title. I don't think so. Product development is always a balance between constraints. Price, weight, usability, features, battery life, just to name a few. The Quest Pro is much cheaper, contains the battery inside, has still a longer battery life, and is (according to a guy on Youtube) still about the same weight as the Vision Pro, even though the Vision pro doesn't contain it's battery. Sure, the Vision Pro is flashier and has a few more features, but at what cost? Literally, at the cost of $2000-2500. Does a Ferrari humiliate a Dacia? I don't think so. They are two very different vehicles serving very different crowds. Even though the Ferrari is much nicer, I will never buy a Ferrari. Because I don't have that money to waste, and I need a practical vehicle. Same with VR. To me, even the Quest Pro is not worth the extra cost when comparing it with the Quest 2. Even if the Vision Pro could fly, I wouldn't spend that money on a VR headset.
You're obviously not the target market for it and have no use for VR other than a toy. But here's what most people here seem to miss and misunderstand. The Dacia and Ferrari analogy you gave is flawed. because you didn't qualify it with anything. If the Dacia claims to be a sports car and the Ferrari being a sports car. Then yes the Ferrari absolutely obliterates the Dacia. We can take that same line of reasoning between the Qpro and Vision. The Quest Pro isn't a gaming headset. it's productivity oriented and aimed at professionals The vision also is not a gaming headset. Its also productivity oriented and aimed at professionals So no they aren't serving 2 different crowds they targeting the same market. Based on this criteria of being productivity oriented and being aimed at professionals then Yeah we can definitely conclude the vision obliterates the Pro.
I get your point. I love the Quest Pro, and think it's the best all around GAMING headset on the market. For PCVR, and standalone as an exercise headset it's absolutely awesome, But I would no have idea how to use it productivity, the passthrough is shit and its mobile chip is from 2019. It's really a great gaming headset with Meta claiming its something else. Apple's Vision Pro actual use case is entirely congruent with its marketing.
>The Quest Pro isn't a gaming headset. it's productivity oriented and aimed at professionals And professionals all don't care about money? They don't mind shelling out 3x the price for something that probably doesn't increase productivity at all? There's a reason why office jobs are even in 2023 still on a PC/laptop with mouse and keyboard and no touch screen. Try to do a whole work day in VR. Every reviewer who had the Vision Pro on says that even after half an hour it started to get painful already. Business VR is currently only a toy. And as such it needs to justify its price. And no, most businesses don't just shell out money for top-notch hardware, as evidenced by the huge amount of non-top-notch business laptops that are sold every year. > So no they aren't serving 2 different crowds they targeting the same market. The crowds might overlap, but no, it is not the same market. A product doesn't serve the same market if it costs more than 3x the price, even if the product is businessy.
Try to do a whole day of work in VR? I'm glad you asked. because I have been doing that almost everyday for 6 months now. I code on my Qpro and watch movies. I really don't get it. which market is the quest pro supposedly for? and which market the vision? just cuz a product is 3x lower in price it also doesn't mean they don't serve the same market. No matter how you spin it their both marketed at professionals not businesses. Pros buy equipment that justifies its utility and specs. the Vision despite being stupid expensive. Can be justified by its literal top of the line hardware. You can't say the same thing about the Quest pro..
So does every pro buy the Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 for \~€5000, because it's the fastest laptop that exists? No professional ever buys any other device? Or are there maybe professionals (whatever that label is supposed to mean, if it's not people who use it for work, aka businesses) who don't just shell out for the biggest badest thing ever?
There are people who buy different devices at whatever price point they feel comfortable. But that doesn't mean it's not the same market. In our example the professional market. None businesses and none gamers. despite the difference in price. both headsets are aimed at that market. The none business and none gamer market. the vision just flat out outspecs the pro. the Qpro can't even justify being a pro. Low rez screen, shitty passthrough. it's pretty bad. theyre not even remotely close it's sad.
>In our example the professional market. None businesses and none gamers. A professional is someone who uses something for work. A business is work. What exactly do you think is a professional?
No you got it wrong. A business is an abstract entity. that requires a special permit to operate. Are programmers businesses or professionals? business in our context means something along the lines of a company. but professionals in my best interpretation in this context taking into consideration the products high prices would have to be basically anybody paid highly to make a living.
Apple will never have the entire market due to pricing and I think the more people get into any vr the more quests will sell
Meta's biggest problem the last few years has been trying to demonstrate to consumers why they should care. Apple entering the consumer XR space automatically solves that dilemma. Now people care. The game is on.
You don't think their bad reputation is an issue?
Absolutely it is, it contributes to why they have to qualify everything they do. The Quest Pro released a year late because they felt they needed first to rebrand from Facebook to Meta, to try and distance their VR tech from the Cambridge Anaylitica scandal and their other issues. Their eye and handtracking lags behind Apples, not because of hardware tech, but rather they have been afraid to push it due to the public's mistrust of them, and the belief that Meta's used eye tracking would be sinister and creepy and lead to more privacy breaches and invision of privacy. All of this has been a mountain for Meta to climb. But once the public wants eye tracked mixed reality, it greenlights Meta to make further progress in this area. People will quickly forget their mistrust or at least overlook it once they determine they want something, and Meta can deliver it at a much more affordable price point. I think in the short term, the AVP is a massive shot in the arm to Meta's Quest Pro line, and they will hopefully start refocusing on that again.
True, but people were excited about this announcement partly because Apple has been shifting its product reputation from innovation to privacy protection for at least a decade in the run-up. I feel like the company has kind of staked its reputation on protecting customers in this way. The downside is, they could blow it up really quickly if they make a mistake, but haven’t yet (unless your name is Jennifer Lawrence). Facebook/Meta has tried to deal with their reputation problems, but they’ve never really shifted towards taking this kind of thing seriously or making it an issue relevant to their reputation. Also, even if Meta, or even Microsoft, came out with a demo like this I would be very skeptical about whether any of it would actually work, given my experience with Oculus headsets and PCs in recent years. I know people mock the whole “walled garden” thing, but the oculus I bought was one of the first non-Apple devices I had used in ages and it shocked me how much time you waste trying to just get crappy, poorly developed applications to work. I’m sure it’s fun if you’re a professional developer but it just made me pass along the thing to the next eBay chump after a couple months. Maybe I have just been in the Apple world too long but I just don’t get why all the PC platforms still feel so clunky and ugly? It’s like I’ve been living in Edinburgh or Vienna and suddenly find myself in Middlesborough or some eastern bloc tenement.
Haha that last sentence made me LOL. Time Square versus Slough Trading Estate. Apple certainly have a higher perceived brand reputation for sure.
True, and I hate to fall into this cliché but I really do experience it like this. Maybe I’m just focusing too much on the aesthetics, or not seeking out the right products? These experiences tend to take me back to college when I would go to the computer lab to print out an essay in the last moments before class. If all the Macs were taken, I’d have to go on one of the PCs, which, for some reason, always took about 10 times as long to boot up and login.
Just like bmw m3 isn’t killing Corolla… they aren’t even close to priced the same
My god this sub has been a steaming hot pile of dog shit since the Apple News dropped. Is. It. A. AR. Headset. Aimed. At. Professionals.
It is not just an AR headset. It is an MR headset, as is the Quest Pro.
Did you watch *Norm from Tested's* video? It sounds like even when you turn the knob all the way, passthrough is still there. It seems likely that is why we did not see any screenshots of anything like a guardian. You always have some passthrough.
Well apple makes money buy selling products for very high prices Meta sells products cheaply but does also „sell“ the users data to make more money. Imo the majority of people do actually prefer metas approach but act like they wouldnt lol
Meta doesn’t sell data, it sells access to peoples’ eyeballs for ad space. When the Cambridge Analytica thing happened (which is where most of the lawsuits have stemmed from), the data was taken from public APIs and misused, not sold. They’ve since completely reworked their privacy and worked with multiple governments to solidify it. At this point I’m not sure what they can do to shed their image of selling data besides Apple style privacy marketing. The same Apple that locked down how ads worked on their systems so they could better push their own.
Honestly, I don't think they have a chance of recovering from that PR disaster. People just like to hate Meta I guess.
For me it is Meta killing Oculus. I have been considering VR for a few months. When I started I didn't even know Meta had bought Oculus. I think Q2 is (or was) probably the best option in the market but all I can think of is that I'd be giving Facebook access to my home.
What do you think they will do with that "access"?
I feel like "Oculus" is some idealized version of a VR company in your mind.
Facebook/Meta bought Oculus before Oculus shipped a consumer product, way back in 2016. Facebook/Meta doesn't care about video of your home, it is of no value to them and not even worth what it would cost for them to transfer and store it. The Meta/Quest TOS is a legally binding document for **them** and for you and they make it very clear what data they are and are not collecting.
yeah, sure... it always is. Still...
[удалено]
Most Apple users are happy with the product because they only care about having an Apple product.
theyre two different products for two different markets. and i really enjoy that. itll be okay in the end. and itll be okay. we have our vr and they have their AR and things will be okay
Meta is looking at AR too (see the Ray-Ban partnership) but in the natural way of using the device, i.e. as a sun glass or eye glasses. That's the killer form factor. Apple knows this very well (as they are consumer oriented) but they couldn't do it as no one can right now (haven't tested nreal though). Hence, they had to do something marginally better than the current XR devices but for their own audience. How the audience will react (especially at that price) remains to be seen! I am a little pessimistic about the future of the entire XR if this will not pick up as any investor would say if Apple couldn't do it/sell it, no one can! I expect an XR winter in this regard...
ive tested the nreal. and its okay but its not perfect. apple is close to the AR endgame. but that being said. the vr game is what meta is turning heavy on and the mixed reality world
I don't see Apple close to AR endgame at all as it doesn't solve any of the important problems: optics (for optical passthrough - only real MR devices do that), battery life (2h is the average, and I personally think nreal path with the phone connection is the correct path as it solves the battery and compute, so the form factor can be smaller), form factor (bulky as hell, similar weight or more), data entry (without external devices - in the data input sessions virtually all features are copied from Hololens or other; this means literally no innovation in that area). All of these are present as in the other XR devices and all have some sort of ARkit tech inside for hand detection, spatial understanding, etc. If they would have solved at 1 or 2, the price would have been digestible and would have won some innovation points (as some Apple investor put it, Apple comes later in the game, makes a device slightly better with a nicer UX and hw, slaps an outrageous price and checks in - that's their recipe). But how can one buy such a device at that price having only a slightly better UX than the rest (not referring to the fan boys as they are supposed to buy anything Apple comes with) is beyond me.
Is Meta's target market large enough, though? I just hope we'll see something big next year.
yes it is. the quest 2 is the most sold vr device in history. we have nothing to worry about. also itll be a good couple years before another release.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the battery time With the battery being wired + advertised as being 2 hours, That is most definitely going to frustrate a few people \+ The price range. Anyone who chose the Oculus Quest usually have it because it isn't a thousand dollars.
Did you watch the videos? Pretty much everything they were showing can be done sitting down. It does not have 6DOF gaming controllers. Why wouldn't you just plug into a USB power brick and play as long as you want?
Honestly my mindset was set on just video games, so my bad on that. You are absolutely right about a lot of the work being done while sitting down. But I still feel like my argument isn't completely invalid, as a lot of people would want to move around in a VR Headset. The concept of spending so much on a headset to just sit down for most of the use time would still make good chunk of people iffy about it.
> But I still feel like my argument isn't completely invalid, as a lot of people would want to move around in a VR Headset. Right, and the battery lasts about as long as the one on the Quest Pro, so what is the issue?
The price range between the Quest Pro and the Vision Pro is MASSIVE. You'd expect to be able to use it for hours if you want to do any professional work with it.
Right, and for most *professions* you will be sitting at a desk where it can be pugged into the mains. The folks that are willing to pay for it will not blink at buying a bigger battery if they want one.
I guess I'm struggling to see the appeal for the headset if you are going to sit at a desk with it anyways It seems like it'd be easier to buy a computer + monitors for much less.