Hacker News Reader

Comment by loregate | Hacker News Reader

Why don't they just buy a Meta Quest 3?

Ultimately the Quest is designed as a VR game console and it does that well for an affordable price, but it’s the AR aspects of the Vision Pro that people are excited about.

Head to head the Meta Quest 3 has worse screens and cameras, only runs one app at a time, requires controllers, less comfortable while reclined etc. And while Meta removed the mandatory Facebook integration that really damaged people’s perception of the brand.

In the end more affordable products sell, but people still lust after supercars not daily drivers.

> mandatory Facebook

That was the reason I was never going to touch any future Oculus product but I didn’t realize they dropped that requirement until now.

> worse screens

Reviews that I've watched have pointed out the woeful FOV. Pixel density appears higher due to being spread over fewer arc-seconds. Further, inadequate FOV will ruin any advantages gained by superior panels. Apple really botched that one.

> less comfortable while reclined

Reclining is likely the only comfortable position for the behemoth.

The Quest loses out on some specific points, but wins holistically. It's the 3rd iteration of the HMD, Meta have learned which compromises matter.

Then there's the vast $1000 Valve-compatible ecosystem where consumers can pick and choose what compromises matter to them. Not caring about AR frees up a lot of room for other improvements, for example. Skipping the uncanny face sheds a lot of weight and fragility in terms of glass. Using plastic might feel less premium, but premium weight is the last thing you want hanging off the front of your head.

The Meta Quest 3 screen has 1/5 the number of pixels. (4.5 million vs 23 million) It’s still absolutely a better game console and that’s where FOV shines, but the general consensus is the Vision pro has much better screens for consuming content:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/meta-quest-3-vs-apple-vi...

“For playing movies, personal videos, or basically any video, Apple's Vision Pro is a revelation. If you can find a comfortable fit for the headset, its displays create a cinema-like experience. The Quest 3 can also play videos, but the experience is night and day. The Quest 3 display is acceptable for video, but worse than my phone or iPad. The Vision Pro, meanwhile, is better than my TV. Movies feel special. My own videos look good.”

Not what I'm hearing from people who can't stand the smearing if they even move their head slightly, and the bad flares or glares watching any dark movies makes it useless for a cinefile friend.

Ask your cinefile friend to watch a movie on a Quest 3 for comparison its issues are even worse by comparison.

Reviews have remarked on it but I don’t think anyone I’ve seen have complained that it’s a problem. Its other features make up for the FOV shortfall. And lord knows it has other issues too that are probably more important than the FOV

While there is some overlap in capabilities between the two, Quest 3 is essentially a game console while the Vision Pro is clearly targeted more at productivity.

My 12-year old son recently got a quest 2, and loves it. The killer feature is playing games with live audio with his friends. He comes out of the room sweaty and exhilerated.

I've been amazed by it. I had earlier headsets that required a cable to a PC and base stations mounted to the walls. Although beat saber was fun for a while, I pretty much gave up on it.

But the social aspect of the quest 2 seems really great for a 12 year old boy so far.

>But the social aspect of the quest 2 seems really great for a 12 year old boy so far.

Plus the health benefits of standing and moving around instead of gaming hunched over the controller from the couch/bed.

The Quest kind of made me give up on PC gaming and pick this up instead.

You're right that Vision Pro is clearly targeted at productivity.

But is that because it's good at productivity? Or is it just that Apple doesn't have any market share in (non-mobile) gaming, so they knew if they targeted gaming the product would be a guaranteed flop?

It's because apple can't get games or gamers so productivity is all that's left and productivity means office workers, half of whom wear makeup and spend time on their hair and aren't about to wear a strap-on dorkbox that weighs 1.5 pounds and destroys the effort they put in before going into the office.

But there's no one who does productivity today who's gonna trade their laptop for a VP and there won't be for decades because strap-on dorkboxes that mess up the hair and makeup of half the productivity population, something they put effort into before going in to the office, is a non starter for like 99% of them.

Requires having an account with Facebook.

Because the screens are shit, comparatively. Also the OS is years behind.

the smearing with any head movement on the AVP and the glares or flares or whatever those are have made it unsuitable for movie watching for my movie buff friend who got it because of the "better" screens. He's back to his Quest.

No Apple logo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com