This is why you can't really compare Quest and Vision because they are meant for completely different markets. Meta could build something similar but they don't want to sell a 3500$ headset. Meta rather build a cheaper product where more people can use it. Hence why they don't package their headset will expensive components.
The Quest 3 will outsell Vision Pro by 10x because of this.
I doubt it. If any of them will ever sell well it's because of an application that people care about. None of them will succeed if all they can offer is just Beat Saber in higher resolution and existing apps in 3D. I am sure it would be cool to have screens floating around, but virtual desktops do the job as well and to me the difference doesn't seem worth it.
I don't think the price is the main problem. Phones with folding displays aren't exactly a bargain either, and yet those are popular enough that Samsung is about to launch their fifth iteration. The difference is that those folding phones have benefits obvious to anyone who ever used a smartphone and a tablet.
You can't compare VR/AR to Phones. Phones are used by almost everyone in the world on a daily basis. VR/AR is still completely new to the vast majority of people in the world. Phones have been around for decades even before the iPhone they had calling, messaging and internet. iPhone just made the interface better. The Vision Pro doesn't have this luxury. It has to be sold to people that have no experience with the technology and most probably don't have a favorably opinion about it.
IMO Quest marketing it better because it aimed towards a demographic that has the most experience with VR, gamers.
Because the Vision Pro is mainly a dev kit and has zero third-party apps right now. Apple would never say "this won't sell" about a product they deem finished and ready for the consumer market.
> VR/AR is still completely new to the vast majority of people in the world.
Because the tech has been completely uninteresting aside from a small gaming niche and shortlived tech demos, which makes it a pure luxury product for people who already have high-end gaming hardware able to drive it.
> Quest marketing it better because it aimed towards a demographic that has the most experience with VR, gamers.
Sony's PSVR has been targeting gamers for 6+ years and aside from that one horror game I don't think it ever got decent content. It does not matter who you target if your product has nothing that interests people in the long term. Name one big feature of the Quest 3 that's more interesting than anything possible with the original Oculus Rift a decade ago.
Which is perfectly fine and why Apple will eventually win - they don't need to sell a ton of units right now.
Apple is going about it the right way, the same way that Tesla did with their electric cars. Eventually there will be a model 3 of the vision pro - and all that R&D they put into making it the best will pay dividends down the line. Meta simply won't have that experience because they just did the cheap thing targeted a small market.
Betting against a veteran hardware company like Apple and in favor of Meta seems ludicrous to me.
Don't you see how Toyota succeeded? There are some ways to succeeding.
Eventually, both headsets will be shrunken down into the glasses form-factor, and Meta will be the Android of XR headsets and glasses or in second place overall if users want a cheaper alternative to the Apple Vision product line. Just like what Google had with Android phones, Microsoft had with Windows PCs.
Meta with their Quest headsets will win in quantity and price since there are more Android devices out numbering iOS devices regardless.
> Meta simply won't have that experience because they just did the cheap thing targeted a small market.
They have the money to acquire companies specialised in VR and AR just like what Apple has done recently.
> Betting against a veteran hardware company like Apple and in favor of Meta seems ludicrous to me.
Both will succeed. Apple will have the ecosystem lock-in advantage for those who can afford the best experience and Meta will win in quantity and make it much more accessible. Zuck's 7 - 8 year bet on Oculus seemed to be the right move all against lots of naysayers and the exaggerations of Meta's stock collapse which recovered against the news.
It has always been Apple vs Meta in XR.
> They have the money to acquire companies specialised in VR and AR just like what Apple has done recently.
Apple builds its own chips, has been designing OSes for decades, building smashing success consumer hardware for decades. They're almost completely vertically integrated. Facebook was an adtech business. Acquiring fledgling startups won't help here.
> Both will succeed. Apple will have the ecosystem lock-in advantage for those who can afford the best experience and Meta will win in quantity and make it much more accessible. Zuck's 7 - 8 year bet on Oculus seemed to be the right move all against lots of naysayers and the exaggerations of Meta's stock collapse which recovered against the news.
It's already at quantity pricing and it hasn't succeeded now - what makes you think it will in the future? Meta's stock collapse didn't happen because its fundamental business is still strong - not because of their VR moonshot.
- spatial audio
- the front screen for your eyes (who the hell needs that anyway)
- only need rudimentary hand tracking since you will be mouse and keyboard
- potentially cheaper processor