It is far better for people who want to play games, but far worse for anything else.
He’s straight up lying when he tries to pass off Quest’s passthrough and software as comparable.
Seems like he’s worried.
You can pretty much do everything you can with the Quest 3 that you can with the Vision Pro with limitations but again one is 7x more than the other.
An example is the video quality is very similar between them, but the limitation with the Quest 3 is you can only have a certain amount of screens open and you don't have as much freedom to move them around.
I wouldn't be worried one bit if I was Mark, because his target market is massive compared to the current market of the Vision Pro and the next Quest will probably be on closer on par with the Vision Pro for way cheaper.
He also working on the end game form factor for these products which are glasses.
I have never been a fan or Facebook/Meta, but I love what they have done in VR. I co-founded the SAIC VR Lab and a year later worked on a VR project for Disney - this was in the late 1990s. I always dreamed of good commodity VR gear, not having to use a quarter of a million dollar SGI Reality Engine. Very happy Meta VR customer. BTW, I work a lot with open LLM models, so thanks also to Meta for releasing open weight models!
If you want to say Quest is better for most people because it’s cheap enough to still be worth it, I won’t argue with that.
But that’s not what Mark said, and he’s flat out lying.
Isn't that more of an indictment of VR as a whole right now, rather than just the Quest or Vision Pro?
Vision Pro is obviously too expensive for anyone who isn’t an early adopter, but it’s the first consumer headset that is good enough to even consider for anything other than games, and frankly even then it is only just good enough.
Then again, it's Apple we're talking about. They could release a commemorative hole-punch and it would sell out before the price was announced. It'll be a while before we see the lasting impact of this thing.