There are many companies whose CEOs also want to be the mascot.
It seems to me that the intense, high-achieving traits of CEOs tend to make bad mascots.
A good PR team can spin some of these folks as "chaotic/troubled geniuses", but it seems like they don't even try.
Why don't they pay people to prevent things like this? Why don't they hire somebody unanimously likable to be the face of the company?
I think every company in the S&P500 needs to find 100 middle-schoolers and pay them to be a council of cringe. Cheap way to prevent gaffes like this.
EDIT: This video was a gaffe right? I'm assuming this link is notable because of how off-putting it is? Maybe I need to hire my own council of cringe haha
Mark has always wanted to be Steve Jobs. I’d argue many CEOs want to be like Steve, but Mark has tried from very early on to emulate him down to a penchant for turtle neck and dad jeans for many of his appearances.
Steve, for his many flaws, was seriously charismatic and highly influential as a businessman. I can see why other CEOs hope they could have his stage presence.
Unfortunately, very few have that same charisma. Mark definitely doesn’t. But it explains why he tries to be front and center
even when Steve Jobs was saying stuff like "you're holding it wrong" i felt like he was in on the joke (self aware) about how ridiculous it was to say. i don't get that same impression of self awareness from Mark Zuckerberg
Personally I thought it was interesting and a little insightful. This seems like exactly the sort of raw content that a PR team would otherwise filter down on until it was some bland, generic statement saying nothing at all.
Obviously mark is bias towards his own product, so I'd take it with a grain of salt, but the thought process is interesting to see.
Demo the Vision Pro and you will see the resolution gap is enormous and so is the visual stability and lack of warping. There are no weird laggy gaps in rendering. My Quest 3 crashed twice while trying to do basic things like play VRChat but my Vision Pro has not once crashed. My Quest 3 makes me nauseous in 15 minutes, but my Apple Vision Pro has never made me nauseous after many hours of use.
I felt I was watching an actual analysis at first. I thought Zuck was going to give Apple credit for some of the amazing work they've done. When he mentioned that "feature X" was better on the Quest that IMO wasn't better in Quest, I realized I was watching a bad marketing video. Admittedly, I couldn't watch the full video. It feels desperate.
my takeaways were, he has a nice living room, the video captured from the quest 3 looks good, where is the teleprompter hiding, and there was no need to make a video saying he thinks his product is better
the video aspect was undermined by switching to the second camera view, probably not captured on quest 3, and a reminder that there's a pro post-production team making this look good
the main point of this video "quest is better" means nothing coming from him because they're his competition
i appreciate his PR shift in the past few years to be more "down to earth" and public about his thoughts. it makes him more like-able to me but it doesn't make a difference to my opinion about his company or products.
My impression of Zuckerberg has never been great, and his public statements and appearances in the past haven’t done anything to improve that. My impression of him is basically as an overgrown frat boy that didn’t grow up when he should have.
His recent statements in front of Congress, Meta’s apparent strategy w/r/t AI, and now this video all seem to point to one of two things: either I was wrong about him all along, or he’s matured a great deal in recent years.
Whichever is the case, I came away from that video with more respect for the man.
What negative effects do you envision this having? This is a founder and CEO advocating for his product over a competitors in the marketplace.
Take his review with a grain of salt, sure, but am I supposed to believe Zuckerberg advocating for the Quest over Apple vision pro is some sort of blunder?
Honestly, I feel like he’s pretty disingenuous throughout this video.
Talking about passthrough with a steady held view, making sure nobody moves their hands to show their bad warping.
Saying Meta’s hand tracking is more accurate when it never even gets close to matching real world positions?
Acting like their browser windows are an equivalent to multitasking but then ignoring that the app examples he gave as advantages are available via Safari? No mention of any of the other number of apps missing on Quest.
Talking about virtual keyboard interaction as a negative, while citing physical keyboards as a solution but it’s one that AVP already supports?
Making the same “open” vs “closed” market argument when the oculus store is closed as well? Does he really consider leaving basic android side loading as a big differentiator when it hasn’t been in the mobile space?
Saying Quest passthrough is sharper when it’s lower resolution, higher noise and higher warping?
That he caps it off by saying people who like the Vision Pro must be fanboys is so incredibly classless as well.
Yes the Quest is a better console and great value (partly because it’s well known to be subsidized). I own both and IMHO Mark is talking out both sides of his mouth with this one.
It just really feels incredibly insecure that he had to make this video to begin with.
I bought a Quest 3 to compare against Vision Pro and the resolution, warping, and nauseatingly laggy and slow tracking. It's not even a close comparison. I got nauseous within 15 minutes of using Quest 3 and have not yet once gotten nauseous with Apple Vision Pro despite spending 2-4 hours at a time with it.
I will wait for Meta to try again with Quest Pro 2 or Quest 4.
There's a compelling point to be made on price and function, but Mark has to let his marketing team make that point. I'm sure it's frustrating to him, but he has to know that he doesn't have the public persona to push it forward himself.
that's surprising to me but maybe it's just semantics. i haven't tried the Apple Vision Pro but from what i hear, the things it surpasses the quest 3 on are all what i consider technology features like display, tracking, passthrough, and interface. the things i like about my quest 3 over it are not what i consider difficult technology things, like the controllers, the games, and the integrated battery.
for me "better product" equates to something like "the better thing to buy" which includes cost, and for me the quest 3 is leading in category by a large margin.
"Better product" is mostly subjective, to a degree. I think future iterations of the AVP are going to bring more value per dollar to the public than Meta's Quest or Rayban lines.
The hardware, as I see it, is mostly going to be similar between the two companies (except for form factor, where I see Apple absolutely winning). The consumer market (Apple got people wearing this thing on the subway; I have no qualms giving me eye tracking data to Apple, but I do with Meta and have worked on their recommendation algorithms as well) and the software quality/ecosystem is going to be what makes Apple win this. Meta always positions themselves as the Android of the headset market, which I believe they will be.
My point still stands: I love that there's competition here. If I get to see the laptop and phone be 'legacy' devices in my lifetime, I will be happy to have seen such a transition in technology.
Of course the $3500 have better tech than the $399 thing.
We still have to see what sellable product Apple will throw at us.
Actually I’m pretty confident that Apple may be onto something and that it’s maybe the "next big thing". But they’ll need to cut the price by at least half if not more if they want to bootstrap the market enough to make it the next iPhone.
Of course they could just market it like a high end spatial monitor but I don’t believe they’ll do : they need mass adoption if they want developers to create applications to sell on the App Store.
The real question is: What is happening right now?
The $3500 dollar AVP has just created an entirely new interface for people to interact with computers. There are developers that are working as I type this to get first mover advantage on a new surface that could be as influential as the shift to mobile. Numbers are low now (I read 10,000 subscribers from... the Verge I think?), but that's now, when we're debating the usability of the entire platform.
What is the app that will make you buy Apple Vision Pro 3 in 2 years?
> What is the app that will make you buy Apple Vision Pro 3 in 2 years?
I don’t know and I think, neither Apple. But I do think that, like the GPS embedded in the smartphone 15 years ago, AR is full of potential to change the world but we’ll have to endure a first generation of "10m high shit emoji & VisionBeer & smart small games" before someone finds out.
Apple isn't confident on use cases and feature set, and will obviously evolve into an AVc value model at some point.
So if there exist some people who will pay AVP prices, why not put it out there in the market, sell a few, kickstart their AR/VR software ecosystem, figure out how their customers actually like using it.
And then try for the knockout blow with the AVc, informed by that.
Why does Quest 3 make me nauseous in passthrough within 15 minutes but Apple Vision Pro doesn't even after four or more hours in it? I think that is the bigger innovation. Vision Pro is the first headset I can hand my mom and not worry about it triggering vertigo.
I mentioned that I returned my Apple Vision Pro. I have had LASIK and am very sensitive in my eyes. I probably need another LASIK surgery or go onto glasses again. I did scan through almost every return post I could find on reddit to find similar issues.
The kicker? I didn't stumble upon any related to nausea. Having worked on Quest 2, this was a major concern at the time. I couldn't believe how few posts I saw[0].
I'm very happy to hear that your mom is using it! And without vertigo can be a very big step for these devices.
[0] - I'm sure there are posts. I just didn't see any when I was searching about how to return it.
No more LASIK for me. That's why I returned the AVP. What I'm doing is fine now, but the AVP triggered something in my eyes that I don't want to address just yet.
Yup. It may be totally anecdotal but from the last 3 people I know who did it, 1 is happy with the result, another is struggling with bad dry eyes, and another one have had his vision worsened on one eye without possible correction.
I know the operation is statistically safe but risks are pretty real.
To pile on the anecdotes, I corrected a -6.5 left eye and a -5.5 right eye with LASIK, had dry eyes the first year, and never had any issues afterward. Life changer.
No, my code is shit. And in a product everyone's forgotten.
Apple Vision Pro has better hand tracking and eye tracking IMO. Quest has better shared experiences and experience diversity. SLAM feels the same between Quest 3 and AVP. AVP hardware is better, but not significantly.
Being able to iMessage while watching full screen Netflix on Safari while lying in my bed was a game changer (product side). Who cares about the keyboard (as zuck states in the video)? I can either use the magic keyboard from Apple or just use dictate (another thing Siri does surprisingly better than Meta).
"We designed [the Quest 3] to weigh 120 grams less" implies that the AVP is the benchmark by which other headsets are measured. It's funny to say you "designed it to weigh less" than a product that wasn't even unveiled yet.
Don't forget they ousted the Q-anon Maga lunatic founder (Palmer Luckey) and then later the other left when he saw just how poorly Meta operated as a company (John Carmack).
To pile onto my own argument, John Carmack was employed at Bethesda for a decade. If he could stomach that for twice as long as Meta, you know Meta is a steaming piece of shit.
In 1 generation Apple solved the hand tracking UI problem better than anything Facebook has done.
The quest looks like android in 3d, and is unremarkable when compared to the 2015 era oculus v1. It is faster and better in everyway. But fundamentally still the same product.
I have the quest 2. I like it. But Facebook as a company is incapable on innovating in product.
Reels was stolen. Stories was stolen. Threads is stolen. Instagram and whatsapp were acquired. Facebook is almost dead. Marketplace is Android UI on top of Craigslist.
FAIR is genuinely groundbreaking, but that's pure research. Their open-source tooling for devs is amazing, but that's pure backend.
Facebook's product org (whether intentionally or not) is incapable of true innovation.
"Solved" is doing some heavy lifting there. From what I hear, misclicks abound and trying to delete text using the on screen keyboard is extremely broken because none of the ux designers realized that humans tend to look at what's being deleted instead of the delete key.
The text you’re editing appears above the keyboard and if you’re looking at that text it operates as a backspace button. It’s more intuitive than it sounds since you’ll naturally glance at it whilst backspacing.
Misclicks happen quite a bit when manipulating objects with your hands. Like a cup or a vape or eating skittles. A layer of “is this hand occupied?” For the click detection would probably fix this and I’d be surprised if they don’t already have something and it’s just not released.
It's not bizarre at all unless Meta stops developing any future hardware and software for "mixed reality". We will see which features they change and add and also how they promote their devices going forward. I'm sure we will see similarities and people will declare in a few years that this is just how these devices work, totally forgetting how they used to work before Apple came along. It has happened now several times. It seems possible it will happen here again.
It's obviously a CEO selling his own product so not much to comment on. There is definitely a place for both headsets. The main part I laugh at though is him complaining about a slight motion blur in Vision Pro when moving your head quickly when the quest 3 has the most insane picture warping ever in passthrough mode around the hands and edges of the screen.
Both of these products won't change the world, and will probably wither on the vine. Most people can't afford this stuff and it doesn't actually solve a problem. It more tickles a desire for novelty. I'm not saying they won't sell a lot of this stuff, I just don't see it being a mainstream item ever.
I could be wrong, but Zuck is just trying to save his ~billions he's wasted on the metaverse.
I still write with pens and pencils, I am confident that typing will hang onto keyboards and laptops will be more powerful, but pretty similar to what they are now.
The iPad solves a lot of very obvious problems. For drawing it’s one of the best value products around, for PoS and restaurant ordering software it’s the best option, and for media consumption it’s a pretty good option.
The first question would be: do you have a VR headset with 10 games / programs in it?
If not then you are not doubter. You can have doubts, express them, but if you do not tried VR headset for several days I would say such opinion would not be worth much.
I use quest often just to work out. I am lazy and I do not want to go to the gym. I start pistol whip and after a few minutes I feel much better. It can be a demanding game for my spine.
Experiences in VR are not experiences that could be observed on a flat screen. It is different to move a player in a game, and to climb a nearly lifelike skyscraper. It is different to play a diablo, and be surprised when skeleton attacks you from behind.
You could say the same thing about any activity, including eating good food. Being uninterested is different from being a "doubter", the latter implies your belief that there's no market for it.
Headsets need to slim down, investments need to be made to produce more high quality virtual experiences, and developers need to learn how to utilize the new medium to its fullest extent. Most of them are still designing VR experiences like they're flat screen games instead of truly taking advantage of interactive worlds. Displaying a floating 2D interface inside a 3D world ought to be a sin.
If those things happen, I believe the masses will jump on board. It has the potential to be a complete paradigm shift for gaming and entertainment from merely observing an experience (and interacting with it in a limited fashion through a controller), to actively participating in a virtual environment using your entire body and most of your senses.
It's one thing to watch a video of someone playing VR games and a whole another thing to put the headset on and see the virtual world for yourself with life-like depth perception and intuitive interaction. Racing games are naturally suited to this with a headset, steering wheel, and pedals.
Not thinking a device is even worth trying, let alone buying itself plus 10 games is worth quite a lot in supporting the argument that these devices won't have mass appeal or success, how could it not be?
It's sort of comical that people "completely rejecting the device out of hand" is not "worth much" and somehow a point in your favor. The more that feel this way, the less the device will be successful obviously.
My point was, the more people that don't even have a desire to try VR, the less likely that VR will succeed. Pre-release demand for iPhone was huge. Let's say 100% of people don't even try VR because they have no interest, while in this hypothetical the product is amazing and 100% of people would like if they tried it. The product would still fail.
The point here is "not wanting to try the product" is not a bad argument against it, rather it's more of a proxy for "this is a product solving a problem people don't have" i.e. it reflects low demand. All things being equal, low interest/demand to try it is worse than if there was high demand to try it.
>out of touch
Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.
> The point here is "not wanting to try the product" is not a bad argument against it, rather it's more of a proxy for "this is a product solving a problem people don't have" i.e. it reflects low demand.
Now that is a non-sequitur. I agree, but that has nothing to do with my point.
Your lack of interest is a useful data point, but you're just not qualified to comment about the product's mass market appeal. VR is already selling million of headsets annually while it's still in its infancy. That's within an order of magnitude of game consoles like Xbox and Playstation.
> Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.
VR is already moderately successful and with a giant like Apple entering the arena, they will most likely jump start the cycle of ever increasing investment.
If you were following the VR space at all, you'd know that one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play. On the other end, game studios can't afford to invest too much into development because the market isn't large enough to sustain the investment required.
Do you really not see how this could easily be resolved when you have a company like Apple entering the space?
They'll create high quality experiences which will lead to more headset sales, which will make outside investment more economical, which will attract new headset sales and so on.
Your outright dismissal of VR's existing success and lack of understanding of problems that are currently holding back the VR market is why I said that you're out of touch. Apple has more than enough resources to make all of this happen.
I don't think there's been much success at least in comparison to prior computing device forms.
This[0][1] is going to constrain the demand and popularity for sometime, and has so far, along with the price given the physical discomfort (paying a lot to be uncomfortable), with a worse productivity UX compared to keyboards, mice and hiDPI monitors.
>one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play
I could have written these exact words as argument against the entire product class. This self-serving way to frame it sound similar to stating that customers, by their actions, are saying: "There are not enough compelling reasons for me to buy this product". Whether from lack of games or any other feature.
But it hand-waves this fact (that the product does not have enough usable features/content/compelling use cases for produce demand) by assuming game companies or device makes could make these things but have just chosen not to. They should just do it then, since it would sell according to you. Perhaps they have more insight than you? i.e. they're doing what they can, which isn't much. And the market says no thanks.
It's quite obviously possible that the form factor itself is not conducive to producing high quality games that customers are satisfied with or demand in numbers close to other gaming form factors, for the exorbitant cost (both to the device makers and end user).
"It’s uncomfortable for me
In the end, this is what ended up killing it above everything else for me. I can’t wear this thing for extended periods of time.
This renders every other consideration moot, because if I can’t put it on my face I can’t use it."
It’s a shame he isn’t in a position to speak honestly. Seems like the Vision Pro is a massively better product, but the price tag reflects it.
Though being a semi open platform is probably a huge benefit for the quest. If you want to play games, the video pro is pretty useless and probably always will be given apples track record with gaming.
I think I have legitimate say in this topic since I use Quest 3 for mostly productive reason, Quest 3 is shockingly good as a way to have multiple monitor. Yeah, it won't be as good as G9 57in Odyssey screen, it is very functional.
Everytime I wear it, I genuinely marvel how well it fits on the face and light it is. All that R&D Meta has put into this is definitely shown.
Feels a little dishonest, he would have scored some points giving Apple credit where they deserve it, especially the hand and eye tracking I think Apple has done a great job.
I happened to be at Best Buy on the launch day of the Quest 3. I was walking around the store and in the back was a Meta rep doing nothing. It seemingly did not launch with much fanfare. I tried it and was blown away by how natural and ergonomic drawing in 3D space was with Gravity Sketch was.
I think that at $500 its a great value. Even at $700 for the Elite Strap with a battery.
Ultimately, XR headsets will be segmented into ecosystems similar to phones. We already have Android Wear, Android TV, and Android Auto. So why not Android XR. The Quest is already based on Android.
The Apple ecosystem has started with a bang. In a year or two I would not be surprised to see an entire line-up at various price points like the iPad. I suspect we will see a Vision sans "pro" to capture the Q3 price point.
The Q3 has largely replaced my smart TV and iPad. I can now browse the web on a large screen from the comfort of my sofa. I've sideloaded many Android productivity apps like Outlook, Obsidian, Chromium, and 1Password.
What Meta/Reality Labs should focus on next IMO is:
1. Provide an actual store for purchasing/renting TV shows and movies in particular 3D content,
2. Remove the limit of only 3 app windows visible at a time, and allow apps to be pinned in 3d space,
3. Enable running Android apps without the need for sideloading via a PC,
4. Deliver a VR chatting app with photorealistic avatars (as was demoed back in Sept. 2023) perhaps using the WhatsApp infra.
5. Better separation in Horizon Worlds between adults and kids.
People are trying to decide which one is the best product or if Zuckerberg is being honest. I don’t think either matters so much right now.
The truth is that those are two very well-funded companies with incredible engineers who are now facing very clear competition. Progress is going to be sharp. Remember when the Google Pixel came out, putting some fire under the Apple iPhone monopoly? The decade of innovation after that is what we should be looking forward to.
tbh if you're interested in the 'bleeding edge' or 'future of computing' (which I've seen many people use to justify their Vision Pro purchase) then you should be buying both Vision Pro and Quest 3.
The gaming content is besides the point; the fitness apps are where Quest 3, with its controllers, are far and away ahead. A table tennis or boxing app in Quest is just as mindblowing imo as watching a spatial video app on Vision Pro.
Fitness and health is supposed to be a core focus for Apple yet the Vision Pro is not unsuited for that.
How is Meta's model open like PCs? Do they allow you to modify the hard and software? Do they allow other hardware manufacturers to also use their store?
All AR/VR headsets needs to improve on reducing nauseous if they want to get close to mainstream.
For Apple, reduce the weight, for Quest, increase resolution.
83 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadIt seems to me that the intense, high-achieving traits of CEOs tend to make bad mascots.
A good PR team can spin some of these folks as "chaotic/troubled geniuses", but it seems like they don't even try.
Why don't they pay people to prevent things like this? Why don't they hire somebody unanimously likable to be the face of the company?
I think every company in the S&P500 needs to find 100 middle-schoolers and pay them to be a council of cringe. Cheap way to prevent gaffes like this.
EDIT: This video was a gaffe right? I'm assuming this link is notable because of how off-putting it is? Maybe I need to hire my own council of cringe haha
Steve, for his many flaws, was seriously charismatic and highly influential as a businessman. I can see why other CEOs hope they could have his stage presence.
Unfortunately, very few have that same charisma. Mark definitely doesn’t. But it explains why he tries to be front and center
The press event for that issue was specifically him saying that
1. They weren’t alone in having signal drop off
2. That you could hold it differently or get a case to avoid the issue.
The “You’re holding it wrong” was actually a wired article take on that deflection in the first point
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
If you watch the actual press conference, it’s very much more “Mea Culpa”
https://youtu.be/Q-UgUnMt6Ds?si=D5yyGvSq4n9sOof7
Obviously mark is bias towards his own product, so I'd take it with a grain of salt, but the thought process is interesting to see.
the video aspect was undermined by switching to the second camera view, probably not captured on quest 3, and a reminder that there's a pro post-production team making this look good
the main point of this video "quest is better" means nothing coming from him because they're his competition
i appreciate his PR shift in the past few years to be more "down to earth" and public about his thoughts. it makes him more like-able to me but it doesn't make a difference to my opinion about his company or products.
Actually, I found it to be the exact opposite.
My impression of Zuckerberg has never been great, and his public statements and appearances in the past haven’t done anything to improve that. My impression of him is basically as an overgrown frat boy that didn’t grow up when he should have.
His recent statements in front of Congress, Meta’s apparent strategy w/r/t AI, and now this video all seem to point to one of two things: either I was wrong about him all along, or he’s matured a great deal in recent years.
Whichever is the case, I came away from that video with more respect for the man.
Take his review with a grain of salt, sure, but am I supposed to believe Zuckerberg advocating for the Quest over Apple vision pro is some sort of blunder?
Talking about passthrough with a steady held view, making sure nobody moves their hands to show their bad warping.
Saying Meta’s hand tracking is more accurate when it never even gets close to matching real world positions?
Acting like their browser windows are an equivalent to multitasking but then ignoring that the app examples he gave as advantages are available via Safari? No mention of any of the other number of apps missing on Quest.
Talking about virtual keyboard interaction as a negative, while citing physical keyboards as a solution but it’s one that AVP already supports?
Making the same “open” vs “closed” market argument when the oculus store is closed as well? Does he really consider leaving basic android side loading as a big differentiator when it hasn’t been in the mobile space?
Saying Quest passthrough is sharper when it’s lower resolution, higher noise and higher warping?
That he caps it off by saying people who like the Vision Pro must be fanboys is so incredibly classless as well.
Yes the Quest is a better console and great value (partly because it’s well known to be subsidized). I own both and IMHO Mark is talking out both sides of his mouth with this one.
It just really feels incredibly insecure that he had to make this video to begin with.
I will wait for Meta to try again with Quest Pro 2 or Quest 4.
https://youtu.be/hOi8s2wkX4A
I think Quest is better tech right now, but I think the Apple Vision Pro is the better product. I'm excited to see the competition here, either way.
for me "better product" equates to something like "the better thing to buy" which includes cost, and for me the quest 3 is leading in category by a large margin.
The hardware, as I see it, is mostly going to be similar between the two companies (except for form factor, where I see Apple absolutely winning). The consumer market (Apple got people wearing this thing on the subway; I have no qualms giving me eye tracking data to Apple, but I do with Meta and have worked on their recommendation algorithms as well) and the software quality/ecosystem is going to be what makes Apple win this. Meta always positions themselves as the Android of the headset market, which I believe they will be.
My point still stands: I love that there's competition here. If I get to see the laptop and phone be 'legacy' devices in my lifetime, I will be happy to have seen such a transition in technology.
We still have to see what sellable product Apple will throw at us.
Actually I’m pretty confident that Apple may be onto something and that it’s maybe the "next big thing". But they’ll need to cut the price by at least half if not more if they want to bootstrap the market enough to make it the next iPhone.
Of course they could just market it like a high end spatial monitor but I don’t believe they’ll do : they need mass adoption if they want developers to create applications to sell on the App Store.
The $3500 dollar AVP has just created an entirely new interface for people to interact with computers. There are developers that are working as I type this to get first mover advantage on a new surface that could be as influential as the shift to mobile. Numbers are low now (I read 10,000 subscribers from... the Verge I think?), but that's now, when we're debating the usability of the entire platform.
What is the app that will make you buy Apple Vision Pro 3 in 2 years?
I don’t know and I think, neither Apple. But I do think that, like the GPS embedded in the smartphone 15 years ago, AR is full of potential to change the world but we’ll have to endure a first generation of "10m high shit emoji & VisionBeer & smart small games" before someone finds out.
This is one reason halo pricing makes sense.
Apple isn't confident on use cases and feature set, and will obviously evolve into an AVc value model at some point.
So if there exist some people who will pay AVP prices, why not put it out there in the market, sell a few, kickstart their AR/VR software ecosystem, figure out how their customers actually like using it.
And then try for the knockout blow with the AVc, informed by that.
I’d be bery interested to hear an educated view on this topic.
The kicker? I didn't stumble upon any related to nausea. Having worked on Quest 2, this was a major concern at the time. I couldn't believe how few posts I saw[0].
I'm very happy to hear that your mom is using it! And without vertigo can be a very big step for these devices.
[0] - I'm sure there are posts. I just didn't see any when I was searching about how to return it.
No more LASIK for me. That's why I returned the AVP. What I'm doing is fine now, but the AVP triggered something in my eyes that I don't want to address just yet.
I know the operation is statistically safe but risks are pretty real.
To pile on the anecdotes, I corrected a -6.5 left eye and a -5.5 right eye with LASIK, had dry eyes the first year, and never had any issues afterward. Life changer.
Sure, and that'w why my doctor don't want to operate me on lasik because of amblyopia.
I don't know anyone who has said that the Quest has better tech.
Better ergonomics, product market fit, ecosystem etc. but not tech.
Apple Vision Pro has better hand tracking and eye tracking IMO. Quest has better shared experiences and experience diversity. SLAM feels the same between Quest 3 and AVP. AVP hardware is better, but not significantly.
Being able to iMessage while watching full screen Netflix on Safari while lying in my bed was a game changer (product side). Who cares about the keyboard (as zuck states in the video)? I can either use the magic keyboard from Apple or just use dictate (another thing Siri does surprisingly better than Meta).
He had a 10 year head start and is already adopting the marketing language of a second place product.
If you've ever used a VR headset you'll know the weight is extremely important when it comes to comfort. This isn't just a random marketing metric.
The quest looks like android in 3d, and is unremarkable when compared to the 2015 era oculus v1. It is faster and better in everyway. But fundamentally still the same product.
I have the quest 2. I like it. But Facebook as a company is incapable on innovating in product.
Reels was stolen. Stories was stolen. Threads is stolen. Instagram and whatsapp were acquired. Facebook is almost dead. Marketplace is Android UI on top of Craigslist.
FAIR is genuinely groundbreaking, but that's pure research. Their open-source tooling for devs is amazing, but that's pure backend.
Facebook's product org (whether intentionally or not) is incapable of true innovation.
"Solved" is doing some heavy lifting there. From what I hear, misclicks abound and trying to delete text using the on screen keyboard is extremely broken because none of the ux designers realized that humans tend to look at what's being deleted instead of the delete key.
Misclicks happen quite a bit when manipulating objects with your hands. Like a cup or a vape or eating skittles. A layer of “is this hand occupied?” For the click detection would probably fix this and I’d be surprised if they don’t already have something and it’s just not released.
Both of these products won't change the world, and will probably wither on the vine. Most people can't afford this stuff and it doesn't actually solve a problem. It more tickles a desire for novelty. I'm not saying they won't sell a lot of this stuff, I just don't see it being a mainstream item ever.
I could be wrong, but Zuck is just trying to save his ~billions he's wasted on the metaverse.
Do not think that everybody still uses pens and pencils that often.
For a device that even now many people would question what problem it solves.
If not then you are not doubter. You can have doubts, express them, but if you do not tried VR headset for several days I would say such opinion would not be worth much.
I use quest often just to work out. I am lazy and I do not want to go to the gym. I start pistol whip and after a few minutes I feel much better. It can be a demanding game for my spine.
Experiences in VR are not experiences that could be observed on a flat screen. It is different to move a player in a game, and to climb a nearly lifelike skyscraper. It is different to play a diablo, and be surprised when skeleton attacks you from behind.
Many people simply have no desire for such thing. An 10 games? Who has time for that?
Headsets need to slim down, investments need to be made to produce more high quality virtual experiences, and developers need to learn how to utilize the new medium to its fullest extent. Most of them are still designing VR experiences like they're flat screen games instead of truly taking advantage of interactive worlds. Displaying a floating 2D interface inside a 3D world ought to be a sin.
If those things happen, I believe the masses will jump on board. It has the potential to be a complete paradigm shift for gaming and entertainment from merely observing an experience (and interacting with it in a limited fashion through a controller), to actively participating in a virtual environment using your entire body and most of your senses.
It's one thing to watch a video of someone playing VR games and a whole another thing to put the headset on and see the virtual world for yourself with life-like depth perception and intuitive interaction. Racing games are naturally suited to this with a headset, steering wheel, and pedals.
Is this linkedin? Who doesnt have time for that? We are talking <10 hours.
Not thinking a device is even worth trying, let alone buying itself plus 10 games is worth quite a lot in supporting the argument that these devices won't have mass appeal or success, how could it not be?
It's sort of comical that people "completely rejecting the device out of hand" is not "worth much" and somehow a point in your favor. The more that feel this way, the less the device will be successful obviously.
You're out of touch and confidently betting against Apple -- what's the last product they launched that didn't end up gaining mass market popularity?
Steve Ballmer laughed at the iPhone, too. Not so much these days :)
My point was, the more people that don't even have a desire to try VR, the less likely that VR will succeed. Pre-release demand for iPhone was huge. Let's say 100% of people don't even try VR because they have no interest, while in this hypothetical the product is amazing and 100% of people would like if they tried it. The product would still fail.
The point here is "not wanting to try the product" is not a bad argument against it, rather it's more of a proxy for "this is a product solving a problem people don't have" i.e. it reflects low demand. All things being equal, low interest/demand to try it is worse than if there was high demand to try it.
>out of touch
Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.
Now that is a non-sequitur. I agree, but that has nothing to do with my point.
Your lack of interest is a useful data point, but you're just not qualified to comment about the product's mass market appeal. VR is already selling million of headsets annually while it's still in its infancy. That's within an order of magnitude of game consoles like Xbox and Playstation.
> Apple can make the best version of VR, better than everyone else, but that's no guarantee of success or that the product class itself will have mass appeal. It's not Apple's fault if there's no there there.
VR is already moderately successful and with a giant like Apple entering the arena, they will most likely jump start the cycle of ever increasing investment.
If you were following the VR space at all, you'd know that one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play. On the other end, game studios can't afford to invest too much into development because the market isn't large enough to sustain the investment required.
Do you really not see how this could easily be resolved when you have a company like Apple entering the space?
They'll create high quality experiences which will lead to more headset sales, which will make outside investment more economical, which will attract new headset sales and so on.
Your outright dismissal of VR's existing success and lack of understanding of problems that are currently holding back the VR market is why I said that you're out of touch. Apple has more than enough resources to make all of this happen.
This[0][1] is going to constrain the demand and popularity for sometime, and has so far, along with the price given the physical discomfort (paying a lot to be uncomfortable), with a worse productivity UX compared to keyboards, mice and hiDPI monitors.
>one of the most common complaints that people have is that there simply aren't enough high quality games to play
I could have written these exact words as argument against the entire product class. This self-serving way to frame it sound similar to stating that customers, by their actions, are saying: "There are not enough compelling reasons for me to buy this product". Whether from lack of games or any other feature.
But it hand-waves this fact (that the product does not have enough usable features/content/compelling use cases for produce demand) by assuming game companies or device makes could make these things but have just chosen not to. They should just do it then, since it would sell according to you. Perhaps they have more insight than you? i.e. they're doing what they can, which isn't much. And the market says no thanks.
It's quite obviously possible that the form factor itself is not conducive to producing high quality games that customers are satisfied with or demand in numbers close to other gaming form factors, for the exorbitant cost (both to the device makers and end user).
[0] https://www.the-sun.com/tech/10400743/apple-vision-pro-retur...
[1] https://www.jorgeherskovic.net/apple-vision-nope/
Though being a semi open platform is probably a huge benefit for the quest. If you want to play games, the video pro is pretty useless and probably always will be given apples track record with gaming.
Everytime I wear it, I genuinely marvel how well it fits on the face and light it is. All that R&D Meta has put into this is definitely shown.
For folks in tech, genuinely give a try.
The prediction is that a standard Vision headset will launch in late 2025.
I think that at $500 its a great value. Even at $700 for the Elite Strap with a battery.
Ultimately, XR headsets will be segmented into ecosystems similar to phones. We already have Android Wear, Android TV, and Android Auto. So why not Android XR. The Quest is already based on Android.
The Apple ecosystem has started with a bang. In a year or two I would not be surprised to see an entire line-up at various price points like the iPad. I suspect we will see a Vision sans "pro" to capture the Q3 price point.
The Q3 has largely replaced my smart TV and iPad. I can now browse the web on a large screen from the comfort of my sofa. I've sideloaded many Android productivity apps like Outlook, Obsidian, Chromium, and 1Password.
What Meta/Reality Labs should focus on next IMO is:
1. Provide an actual store for purchasing/renting TV shows and movies in particular 3D content,
2. Remove the limit of only 3 app windows visible at a time, and allow apps to be pinned in 3d space,
3. Enable running Android apps without the need for sideloading via a PC,
4. Deliver a VR chatting app with photorealistic avatars (as was demoed back in Sept. 2023) perhaps using the WhatsApp infra.
5. Better separation in Horizon Worlds between adults and kids.
The truth is that those are two very well-funded companies with incredible engineers who are now facing very clear competition. Progress is going to be sharp. Remember when the Google Pixel came out, putting some fire under the Apple iPhone monopoly? The decade of innovation after that is what we should be looking forward to.
tbh if you're interested in the 'bleeding edge' or 'future of computing' (which I've seen many people use to justify their Vision Pro purchase) then you should be buying both Vision Pro and Quest 3.
The gaming content is besides the point; the fitness apps are where Quest 3, with its controllers, are far and away ahead. A table tennis or boxing app in Quest is just as mindblowing imo as watching a spatial video app on Vision Pro.
Fitness and health is supposed to be a core focus for Apple yet the Vision Pro is not unsuited for that.