Hacker News Reader

Comment by dougmwne | Hacker News Reader

This seems like on paper it is quite close to the Apple Vision Pro. The performance per watt of the chips is probably not far off and both devices deal with the same basic design constraints of needing to fit comfortably on your head. The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers.

I’ll be curious how these two devices stack up to each other and exactly how different the user experiences end up being. The MR experience seems like it may be close. The VR gaming experience seems more emphasized on the Quest, but hand tracking has come a long way so I wouldn’t rule out the Vision Pro here either.

Overall I’m doubtful either device will hit mass market appeal.

View on HN

I'm sorry, but what about the Quest 3 on paper seems to you to be close to the Vision Pro?

Device with focus on mixed reality and productivity sporting the latest in mobile chips and hand tracking. It also does VR but MR is the new feature being brought to the table.

Vision pro is all about mixed reality. So is the quest 3. As far as I can tell most of the difference between 2 and 3 is the vastly improved mixed reality. Basically this device is positioning itself to be the consumer version of the vision pro.

You can buy between 7 and a dozen quest 3s for the price of one vision pro. I don’t understand why people are even attempting to compare the two.

they don't seem super similar to me:

Snapdragon vs M2 Vision Pro's resolution seems about 80% higher than the quest 3. To me, this is the most important factor to me in making augmented reality work.

Performance per watt is not far off? The processor is half the speed of the M2.

These devices need to fit in a very specific power and heat envelope. Is the performance per watt 2x better at the TDP they both run at? We’ll need benchmarks to find out.

It's also not premium looking / really ugly compared to the vision Pro, looks like a really nerdy toy that isolates you from reality even more than usual tech, which is something us tech people maybe don't value enough, but which Apple knows is very important for mass appeal (see, phones, computers), & is an obstacle for adoption.

There's a reason why Apple put a screen with eyes and the associated cameras inside, it's to make it look less stupid. That's really important for mass adoption.

> quite close

The difference in PPD is pretty significant when it comes to both actual mixed reality use around other people (assuming people can get over the dork factor in general) and anything at all related to virtual screens (whether productivity or just 'personal theater' usage).

>The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers.

Both of which are complete dealbreakers.

AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish.

You're right, both probably won't reach mass-market appeal, but the two certainly aren't comparable in any metric other than reach.

Interesting. You see the inclusion of controllers as a bad thing?

Could be? If Quest 3 can deliver a nausea free experience then it may hit the same use cases as the Vision Pro. The controllers are also extremely precise, so Apple would need to pull off a nice trick to get hand tracking to that same level.

>AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish.

Not for me. I had loads of fun gaming on the Quest 2 in the pandemic lockdowns, and the controllers really help with gaming by providing accurate controls for weapons' triggers and haptics to feel weapons firing and when the tension in the bow before you fire arrow. Good luck feeling all that via waving your empty hands in the air.

I feel like HN simply loves to hate certain things without understanding them or using them, like the Quest while never actually using it for games and expecting it to be an early Apple Vision PRO. It's not, it was designed to be a games console, and for that it works quite well.

It also feels like there's a Paretto principle of VR experiences that people seem eager to avoid; the last '20%' of experiences offered by PCVR or Vision Pro might not be worth it. Even as a tech nerd, I don't really find myself pining for an upgrade to my original Quest. It offers the '80%' of the experience I'd actually want a headset for. I can watch 3D movies in bed, play immersive games or browse the internet surrounded by tabs. Adding iMessage to that equation will probably not be worth $3,000 for the average consumer.

Given the direction digital markets are headed (and the open precedent of VR), I think Meta is right to bet on that '80%'. It's much easier to pitch a console like the Quest than an overly-ambitious lockdown-helmet that costs as much as 2 used cars. Until Apple announces a better Vision lineup, it's going to be a bloodbath in terms of unit shipments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com