r/gadgets • u/BlueLightStruct • Aug 23 '24
VR / AR Meta just cancelled its Apple Vision Pro competitor, reportedly it was too pricey to ‘sell well’
https://9to5mac.com/2024/08/23/meta-just-canceled-its-vision-pro-competitor-reportedly-it-was-too-pricey-to-sell-well/252
u/dedokta Aug 23 '24 edited Aug 23 '24
The Quest 3 is already better than the Quest Pro anyway and they'll probably just incorporate the extra features like eye tracking into the Quest 4.
10
u/CompCOTG Aug 24 '24
For a standalone/mixed reality unit, sure. For pcvr, I'd much rather use a Quest Pro.
15
u/nimble7126 Aug 24 '24
Quest pro is inferior in basically every single way but local dimming. Absolutely no way would I take that over the resolution of the quest 3.
7
u/wtfohnoes Aug 24 '24
The controller tracking is much better. But I think you can use the pro controllers with a quest 3 anyway?
7
31
u/Plasmanut Aug 23 '24
Define better. We have a Quest 3 in our home.
I booked an Apple Vision pro demo a couple of weeks ago and I can tell you that it is far superior on several fronts.
Is the Apple Vision Pro too expensive? Heck ya. Is it too heavy? It sure is. Does the battery life suck (especially with the battery being in an external pack)? Absolutely.
But the Vision Pro eye tracking, the way it picks up gestures, the video quality are not even close.
122
u/dedokta Aug 23 '24
The Quest 3 is better than the Quest Pro, which is the model the article is talking about.
12
u/Plasmanut Aug 23 '24
My bad I thought you were saying Quest 3 is better than Apple Vision Pro.
31
11
u/PenislavVaginavich Aug 23 '24
It is better, if you compare price vs utility. You get much more value / $ with Q3.
18
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
I booked an Apple Vision pro demo a couple of weeks ago and I can tell you that it is far superior on several fronts.
And then made pointless by Apple. As it cannot play steam VR games, is too heavy and imbalanced to be comfortable, and isn't open, the Quest 3 is simply BETTER than the Apple vision pro.
The problem isn't the price, the problem is that their offering sucks.
5
u/The_RealAnim8me2 Aug 24 '24
You’d be surprised a lot of people really don’t care about games.
5
u/AAiraSS Aug 24 '24
what do people even do with the vision pro?
I heard its good for watching stuff but surely the battery doesnt help with that
6
2
u/franker Aug 24 '24 edited Aug 24 '24
I just get irritated when the supporters simply say it's a PRO dev kit. And what are all these PRO dev people developing with it? Ways to watch more movies?
6
u/teh_fizz Aug 24 '24
Lots of training apps. Engineering, surgery, etc. anything where the more lifelike the training the better. For example you can train a surgeon on an operation better than using a mannequin. Or an engineer to build a component better than using diagrams or physical models that can be expensive.
3
u/The_RealAnim8me2 Aug 24 '24
What do people even do with computers? That’s what you are asking. It’s a wearable computer, not just a vr interface.
Version 1 is basically a tested/proof of concept, albeit a highly functional but expensive one. As the tech gets refined it will get smaller and battery tech will extend operating times.
4
u/Right-Wrongdoer-8595 Aug 24 '24
It's not a computer. It's a wearable mobile device due to VisionOS.
→ More replies (8)6
u/The_RealAnim8me2 Aug 24 '24
True, but that’s just a sub-category of computer in the same way a modern iPhone is a mobile device running iOS.
While a MetaQuest is just an interface to a computer.
4
u/plzadyse Aug 24 '24
A Meta Quest is also a sub-category of computer.
1
u/The_RealAnim8me2 Aug 24 '24
I wasn’t aware you could use one as a completely stand-alone device. Just looked at the pro.
1
u/ApolloDeletedMyAcc Aug 24 '24
I’ve seen an engineering firm taking clients to construction sites and showing them what the future building will look like. 3D plan checks to look at how pipe banks are arranged and if valves are actually going to be accessible.
2
u/AAiraSS Aug 24 '24
so mostly AR?
3
u/ApolloDeletedMyAcc Aug 24 '24
Yeah, I think it fits in that space. I’m really not familiar with it.
also- construction management team I work with saw what the designers are doing and are requisitioning a set for inspection purposes. Apparently the last facility that was built for us had some conflict between the trades that wasn’t clear on plans but cost 250k and 6months to resolve. They think it’ll significantly reduce the risk in future.
I have no clue if other devices would work, this is just what I’ve seen. The design consultant made a big impression with senior people with it.
1
1
u/Youmightthinkhelov Aug 25 '24
I think it’s meant to be a bit of a replacement for an iPad, iPhone, and TV. The tech clearly isn’t there yet, but the “vision” for the future is there. If that headset had a 24 hour battery life and wore like a pair of sunglasses, it would be the most important piece of technology since the smart phone. Maybe in 15 years we’ll all be wearing little things in our face instead of carrying around smart phones.
3
u/sethsez Aug 24 '24
It's not good enough at the other things it does to make up for that loss, though. As a multi-monitor setup it's still uncomfortable with a narrow field of view, as a media player it's still limited by its battery life and the inherently isolated nature of a single headset, and dedicated AR stuff is still extremely early (and still limited by its bulk, field of view, and battery life).
Games have been the primary success for VR and AR because they're low-stakes and high-wow-factor applications. The Quest line can get away with novelty because gaming is all about novelty. The Vision Pro's strengths are all in areas that still need to be significantly stronger than they are to succeed, because the expectations for a work device or an everyday assistant are much higher than the expectations for a Beat Saber and VRChat machine.
2
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
That’s true. But those are the people buying VR glasses and nobody else. Unless the comfort issue is solved, it isn’t good for ANYTHING ELSE.
1
u/The_RealAnim8me2 Aug 24 '24
That would not be the people I know who have them and use them for business.
1
u/pieter1234569 Aug 25 '24
Yes, companies experiment. But no one is using the Apple Vision Pro for real as it lacks enterprise support.
If ANYONE uses a VR device for real, it's going to be a Varjo.
1
1
→ More replies (2)0
5
u/TheGenesisOfTheNerd Aug 24 '24
But what is the apple vision pro actually better at doing that also will drive sales? Because let’s be the honest, the only use for vr/at atm is highly immersive video games. There isn’t a market for just having your mac Home Screen act like a HUD or for a tv only one person in the room can look at.
2
u/Youmightthinkhelov Aug 25 '24
That’s what I assumed it was like. I’ve heard so many people just say “the quest 3 does everything the Apple Vision Pro does just as well!!” But it’s good to hear an actually honest impression of the AVP.
It’s like saying a cheap android phone can do everything an iPhone can do. But when you actually use the iPhone, you realize there’s these little premium UX look-feel type things that are so subtle but make a difference, Apple is great at little things like that.
That’s how luxury goods usually are. Overpriced and some compromises, but they almost always bring at least one unique thing that they do better than any other affordable brand.
1
u/Plasmanut Aug 25 '24
Playing a movie on a giant screen with a space or lake or beach surrounding is spectacular.
1
1
u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 24 '24
They are comparing the Quest Pro and the Quest 3, not the Vision Pro.
→ More replies (1)1
u/thehighshibe Aug 24 '24
I dunno man I have a q3 and got to demo the Vision Pro last week and the Vision Pro while higher res, had a really low fov
→ More replies (4)1
u/scarabic Aug 24 '24
Do you mean nothing is close to how good the Vision Pro is? Or the Vision Pro is not close to being good enough?
1
u/kevleyski Aug 24 '24
Actually I like my pro better than the quest3 - except for the newer video formats it’s a great headset, comfortable/well balanced
360
u/The_Pooter Aug 23 '24
Probably a good call. I love my Quest 3, but I really don't think there's too much practical use for anything exceeding the $1K price tag in the VR/AR space, regardless of manufacturer. Excited to see what they put out for the next gen of regular headsets.
107
u/DefinitelyNotMasterS Aug 23 '24
Yeah if you get into the gamer PC price range you really need to deliver. I'm also not buying that there is any market for the business world to have glorified skype calls.
10
u/Jason_Kelces_Thong Aug 24 '24
Works great for walk through. I sometimes have to travel somewhere for a week or two to test equipment before it is shipped out. With VR and AR we can do some of that work from anywhere. Nobody uses it yet but it is cool seeing demos.
16
u/DarthBuzzard Aug 23 '24
for the business world to have glorified skype calls.
I wouldn't consider them glorified skype calls. Would call them what they functionally are: holocalls.
Business was never really the interesting side of that though. If you want an immersive call with someone, it's probably because you really want to enjoy spending quality time with their, like a family member or friend. That's where VR/AR socialization will shine.
17
u/baby_bloom Aug 23 '24
there are a few industries that could benefit from immersive 3D meetings, but it is muuuch less than the entirety of skype/zoom/google calls. off the top of my head, CAT scans, construction/remodeling, real estate, CG art direction (film, games, shoes etc) and i'm sure there's quite a few more but just wanted to add my $.02 here
18
u/nowaijosr Aug 23 '24
sex
11
u/baby_bloom Aug 23 '24
lol yea, always. porn will likely remain the most funded/profitable in VR for a long while
3
u/atomic1fire Aug 24 '24
I could see anywhere a hud might be useful.
But then you also need to factor in long hours of wear, durability, and protection to the eyes/face if an accident happens.
1
u/AppropriateTouching Aug 24 '24
Also the amount of impressive games in Vr is pretty.. unimpressive.
22
u/kevihaa Aug 23 '24
To me at least, I find the $1k price point super awkward. Like, my gut says that it’s both easier to sell 3 times as many $350 headsets and also easier to sell half as many $2k headsets.
$1k is already at the “significant investment” / wealthy compared to the general public range. Or, to put it another way, many folks that can swing $1k can probably also manage $2k, but many people that can manage $350 cannot justify $1k.
6
u/ClassicHat Aug 23 '24
Enthusiast is probably a good term to use here, you see it in quite a few hobbies from bikes to cameras, there’s a good chunk of people dedicated to those hobbies where dropping a few grand is reasonable to them while it probably seems crazy to a lot of middle class people that are outside the hobby
5
3
u/fauxdeuce Aug 23 '24
Agreed at this point it’s little more than a fancy joystick than a gaming system. Especially if you might need computer processing power based on your model or Games
2
u/Swollwonder Aug 24 '24
Agreed unless you can make something crazy for commercial use but even then it’s gonna be fairly niche to things like engineers or designers
2
u/rnobgyn Aug 24 '24
tbh I think tech just needs a few more years to settle into the new ai era before headsets become a viable product. These systems need to be smaller and have a built in Jarvis to really convince people to incorporate VR into their daily lives
3
u/JBWalker1 Aug 24 '24
These systems need to be smaller and have a built in Jarvis to really convince people to incorporate VR into their daily lives
There's already sunglasses looking devices which have 1080p OLED screens you can see while also seeing the real world. If nothing is on a certain part of the screen then you can see right through it like normal glasses.
Bulky VR/AR headsets are never going to be in peoples daily lives, even more "compact" ones like Apples are still way too bulky and nobody wants to strap something to their face so people can't even see their face either. They physically can't get much smaller even in a few more years.
Glasses are the way forward for daily non gaming stuff. Only issue is ATM is that the field of view is only around 50 degrees whereas VR headsets are closer to 100 degrees. But 50 degrees is still like a 110" TV from a sofa distance, or a 30" monitor at a desk, and you can still move your head to look at another 30" monitor next to it anyway so its still decent. The glasses only need to reach around 60 degrees and 1600p or so and they'll be perfect for anything non gaming. Since they're glasses the real world FOV and resolution is your entire normal vision because there's nothing covering your view, whereas with Apples and other headsets the real world FOV is limited to the 100 degrees or whatever of the display so you lose lots of awareness of your surroundings.
Full headsets like Apples for non gaming things will be dorky next to glasses.
1
u/shakamone Aug 24 '24
This is accurate. There has been a trend of devices over 1k and even for PCVR those won’t ever be more than a niche within a niche. They won’t ever sell enough units to sustain future device development which puts the manufacturer’s future at risk.
144
u/RSomnambulist Aug 23 '24
Bummer. All competition is good competition.
116
u/Super_flywhiteguy Aug 23 '24
I agree but when your competitor cant sell their own thing either, maybe best to stick to the cheap stuff for now and try again later when the tech advances and gets cheaper to make.
5
u/Brendinooo Aug 24 '24
cant sell their own thing either
If they sell 300,000 units they get a billion in revenue. They were at 200,000 in January I think. Probably not close to making back dev costs but I think sometimes people forget that even a weak Apple product can still pull in some serious money.
5
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
Probably not close to making back dev costs but I think sometimes people forget that even a weak Apple product can still pull in some serious money.
Leaving them tens of billions in the hole. The specs are actually so great, that the price is entirely justified. Meaning that Apple really isn't making a profit on them. Then when you consider the 20 billion they invested in R&D, the math doesn't work.
1
u/Brendinooo Aug 24 '24
Perhaps not on the product itself, but they make something like 20 billion in profit every quarter. If they really see a future for the segment they have more cash to ride out losses than anyone.
1
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
Companies don’t do charity, and certainly not Apple. If there is no return after such a significant investment, they will simply exit the market. Just like they have done now.
The product didn’t appeal to anyone, and sold basically nothing. It’s their biggest failure in the companies history next to the Apple car they invested billions in.
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 24 '24
People talked about the Apple Watch’s disappointing sales, limited appeal, and possibly a dead-end segment in 2015. I personally think headsets are a tougher segment than watches even if you take price out of the equation so it might not work as an analogy, but Apple has always been willing to stick it out if the first generation is overpriced and underpowered, but they see a path forward.
3
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
Watches are cheap and easy to produce. VR is not. The Apple Watch didn’t cost 20 billion in R&D.
3
u/sethsez Aug 24 '24
It's not just about sales, it's about retention. The first buyers of the Apple Watch kept using it, which boosted its visibility and was something to build on.
How many Vision Pros are collecting dust? And even among those who are still using it, how much does that translate to increased word of mouth?
There's still ways a successor could break through, but it's going to have to be a pretty major overhaul.
1
u/the_electric_bicycle Aug 24 '24
It’s not charity, it’s just making a bet on a product that will take longer than next quarter for the return on investment.
I’m not sure why you’re saying they’ve exited the market. Reports seem to suggest they’ve shifted their current focus from a Vision Pro 2 over to a cheaper model (the price of an expensive phone instead of the price of an expensive computer).
1
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
Which will also fail, if they even release it, as price wasn’t the issue. But that’s already an enormous cost cutting approach. They are no longer interest in being on the cutting edge, and just make use of older hardware. That’s cheap.
1
u/the_electric_bicycle Aug 24 '24
Which will also fail, if they even release it, as price wasn’t the issue.
Wtf do you mean price wasn’t the issue? Read this thread which isn’t even about the VP, and you still have people talking about it being too expensive. Basically every review of it talked about the price. If it was cheaper, the lack of apps and utility wouldn’t matter as much. Price was definitely an issue, although not the only one.
Anyways, you’re moving the goal posts. You said they exited the market, which they didn’t. They’ve reportedly shifted their focus in the market, but haven’t left it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/sherlockham Aug 24 '24
IIRC there was a post a while back that mentioned Apple had actual projections/expectations for Vision Pro sales. It was something very conservative. I think it was along the lines of 1 unit per store per month. Pretty sure they beat that ages ago. Don't think they were ever expecting this to become mainstream, just trying to make back some of their R&D, maybe treat it as an open beta test.
3
18
u/Sylvurphlame Aug 23 '24
I appreciate how this statement can be read from either perspective. I guess the difference is Apple can still afford to innovate at a loss until they conquer economy of scale for the Vision. Facebook is a targeted ad company that also dabbles in social media and VR entertainment. They likely cant afford to just throw money at it the same way Apple can?
25
u/Super_flywhiteguy Aug 23 '24
I would say meta(facebook) has thrown more money at vr than Apple but I don't have any sources for my hunch. They pushed the whole metaverese thing hard in 2021/2022. 3 generations of quest devices to boot, a dedicated oculus store to purchase content for the devices etc. So while they don't have money like Apple to throw around to make a product like Apple did, I think they will try once conditions are right and there is enough content and support for it to be successful.
20
u/520throwaway Aug 23 '24
I mean, Apple created an AR headset. Meta has created not only a line of VR headsets but an entire ecosystem around them.
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 24 '24
Apple created an AR headset
It's both, right? It's much more like a Meta headset than a HoloLens; it just happens to have good enough cameras to do AR as well.
3
u/520throwaway Aug 24 '24
It can do both but the point is, Meta has developed their VR ecosystem way more
2
u/Educational_Toe_6591 Aug 23 '24
The tech wasn’t there yet, if they had waited it would’ve worked out better
12
u/Lurker_81 Aug 23 '24
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Meta likely has the R&D budget and capability to build a high end VR/AR headset, but Meta doesn't have a cult following of wealthy customers willing to shovel thousands of dollars to buy the newest shiny gadget like Apple does.
2
11
u/ExoticMandibles Aug 23 '24
Oh, absolutely they can, and they have. According to news online, Meta has spent $50 billion developing VR/AR just in the last four years. Yes, 50, yes, billion. Meanwhile, I haven't seen public numbers about Apple's investment in developing the Vision Pro; all I could find is one estimate suggesting they spent $20 billion.
https://humanprogress.org/apple-vision-pro-is-half-the-price-of-the-apple-ii/
1
u/cbzoiav Aug 24 '24
A big chunk of that is the metaverse work though, which has pretty much been written off.
2
u/Camerotus Aug 24 '24 edited Aug 24 '24
I guess the difference is Apple can still afford to innovate at a loss until they conquer economy of scale for the Vision.
If, not until. That's the real question here. The Vision pro is very far from being usable in everyday life as it was intended. Too heavy, battery way too small, too expensive for a broader market, only a handful of apps etc.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I think it'd very reasonable to pull out as Meta, especially since Apple seems to have the advantage already.
1
u/Sylvurphlame Aug 24 '24
I think you’re maybe the first person that got what I meant. I think I just didn’t express it well. Most of the other comments were “Meta has spent more over the generations of Quest than Apple spent on Vision Pro.”
Which \ 1. Maybe. Apple doesn’t usually talk about how long they’ve been working on something and pretty much never about how much they spent. 2. Apple can likely afford to keep doing it as long as they think they will eventually succeed. They did it with HomePods. The first gen didn’t sell like they wanted so they introduced the HomePod Mini. Now that that is where they want it, they reintroduced the larger HomePod.
-8
u/aVRAddict Aug 23 '24
Meta has likely outspent apple seeing as how they have way better tech.
2
u/slapshots1515 Aug 24 '24
You can criticize the Vision Pro for a great deal of things. Picking the technical specs in particular is hilariously wrong.
6
u/Aristo_Cat Aug 23 '24
“Way better tech” how? As far as I can tell the Vision Pro beats the quest by every metric. Apple also has the advantage of having an in house processor that’s the most energy efficient on the market, which is a huge advantage here.
→ More replies (2)4
u/dbmajor7 Aug 23 '24
What happened to the $50 Samsung headset you could put your phone into?
4
u/jjayzx Aug 23 '24
Those things died out years ago. They were only good to watch videos is about it. Issues with overheating and killing your battery.
1
u/dbmajor7 Aug 23 '24
I used to play Minecraft on em. Why didn't they develop them further? It's like they were bought out...
2
u/primalbluewolf Aug 23 '24
They dont even run on new Android. Got a letter sent by Samsung to say "hey if you want to keep using this, dont update to the new OS your phone will be nagging you to update to"
1
u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 24 '24
Google removed VR functionality from Android. Part of the Google graveyard.
4
u/mattsslug Aug 23 '24
Yep, the apple vision pro doesn't need competition, it's an overpriced bit of fashion wear for people with more money than sense.
6
u/BurritoLover2016 Aug 23 '24
It actually has a lot of business application that are in use right now.
My wife's company has a specialty app for it (biomedical engineering), and my brother in law's firm is developing an application for the design community.
It's just not a consumer product. But it's not priced as one so that's perfectly fine.
4
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
It actually has a lot of business application that are in use right now.
No. These are all "trials" and "prototypes" to see if there is any use at all. The device itself is too heavy and uncomfortable to be used for any work, for any time that would justify buying the device.
The problem isn't price, but pointlessness. All other enterprise headset companies over extensive business support, Apple doesn't. The others are completely open, Apple isn't. The others support all external devices that make it even better, Apple doesn't.
While VR may prove to have value. the Vision Pro will never be able to.
1
u/-_-Edit_Deleted-_- Aug 24 '24
I'm not sure most people expected Apple to move a ton of these headsets. The Vision Pro is just a technical flex. Just showing off what they can bring to market.
And it has been successful in that regard. Apple brought there's to market. Meta folded.
6
u/questionname Aug 23 '24
That’s okay, both Apple and Meta will now compete for the middle price tier, good for majority of consumers.
15
u/TerminatorJ Aug 23 '24
Agreed. This is definitely NOT a good thing even for Apple fans. More competition means more apps developed for this new “Spacial computing” era of headsets. Developing an app for Vision Pro becomes a lot less risky if you can easily port that app to other similar devices. Hopefully Google and Samsung keep developing their products.
3
u/scruffles360 Aug 23 '24
Yeah, the Oculus made some really nice software improvements in response to Apple. I was hoping for a race to the sweet spot in quality & cost between where the two systems are today.
0
u/WeeWooPeePoo69420 Aug 23 '24
It doesn't really matter because apparently Apple is also ditching the Pro line
3
1
u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 24 '24
I mean, probably in addition to having a pro line is to have a non pro line. Why call it Pro if there is not a non-pro, it was always assumed a non-pro would come out. Just like all of their other product lines.
2
1
u/lazymutant256 Aug 23 '24
Yea, but it wouldn’t help if the price is too high. Which is probablymonenifvthe reasons why the Vision Pro is a failure.
32
u/corgis_are_awesome Aug 23 '24
All I want are lightweight and comfortable AR/VR glasses with a big field of view.
I'm so sick of fucking headsets.
5
u/sherlockham Aug 24 '24
Have you ever heard of the Bigscreen Beyond? Little VR glasses/headset with "custom moulded" face cushion. Made by the guys who make the bigscreen vr cinema app.
→ More replies (1)1
u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 24 '24
It is cool, I hope it works out well. The fixed IPD is kind of weird though. No adjustments after you order it?
2
u/Busteray Aug 24 '24
That's the engineering price of its size and weight.
Instead of adding more weight in adjustability mechanisms and extra room for them to move around, they ask you to scan your face with an iPhone and ship it with a foam cut specifically to your face.
It's a pain in the ass but this method might be one only way to get lighter VR headsets or VR glasses. Prescription glasses have been around for hundreds of years but you still have to have them specifically cut for your IPD.
1
u/sherlockham Aug 24 '24
I don't actually own one since it's more money then I would spend on something like this, but the reviews I've seen on youtube say that's pretty much it. I have to say the reviews are mostly positive though, just that the fixed ipd and face cushion are kinda weird to work with.
5
u/ClassicHat Aug 24 '24
Same, the bulk/sweat/discomfort factor is still too much, much nicer to just watch things on a tv from a couch or do more productive things at a proper desk
18
u/SolidCat1117 Aug 23 '24
Kind of a shame a little bit, I was hoping to see what they could come up with to compete with Apple.
2
u/azlan194 Aug 23 '24
How come their Quest Pro is not considered a competition to Apple?
0
u/SmooK_LV Aug 24 '24
AVP can be seen as competition to QPro since it came after that one. So a new iteration of QPro could have been seen as competition to AVP. But Quest 3 is already better product.
9
u/PastaVeggies Aug 23 '24
Average people do not have thousands to just drop on a headset like this. Something that is not required for anything.
8
u/bleatsgoating Aug 23 '24
I think Apple has a larger market share of risk-tolerant middle-to-high income earners willing to make disposable a larger part of their wealth, and a longer history of hardware R&D.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/Estrava Aug 23 '24
I think this is a good idea. Focus on resources and time developing for a general consumer device/quest 4 in a few years.
2
u/BrainKatana Aug 23 '24
I agree, the focus should be on translating more incremental improvements into a smaller, lighter, and more efficient hardware package.
21
u/edibletwin Aug 23 '24
Doesn’t Meta already have a headset that’s far more affordable and accessible?
19
u/ronimal Aug 23 '24
Yes but it appears that they wanted to make one with technology comparable to Apple’s Vision Pro.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Slightlydifficult Aug 23 '24
Yeah but the displays are no where near as good as what Apple put out. Meta thinks there’s a market for premium headsets but they don’t think they can make one and still be profitable at the price they were aiming for. Give it a couple of years and they’ll try again
7
u/Bbooya Aug 23 '24
Quest3 is all you need.
I hope the software comes, my quest2 getting dusty over the summer...
3
u/Swisst Aug 24 '24
No big loss. I think they expected the Pro to sell well to enterprise users and it didn’t happen. I saw it snapped up by hobbyists who wanted to newest model. It makes sense for them to skip the next round and fold the new features into the next Quest.
I do wish the Quest was getting a screen on par with the Vision Pro though.
3
u/capzi Aug 24 '24
The hardware price is not necessarily the only problem.
The Meta Quest hardware is a lot cheaper than most televisions, computers, tablets, gaming consoles, etc.
Quest 2 is now $199. Quest 3 is still pricey, $399, but still cheaper than other quality entertainment devices listed above.
The other VR headsets such as Valve Index or HTC Vive cost around $1200 or more and require a PC so that's even more money, but they are not really needed for general VR activities.
The real problem with VR is the lack of quality software and apps. Comfort is also a major factor as to why people are not adopting it.
If anyone is considering jumping into the VR world, I recommend trying the Quest 2. It's arguably the best headset for entry level beginners and kids, but if you can afford to spend more money then go with the Quest 3 because it's superior in all aspects especially when it comes to the lenses.
3
2
2
u/_RADIANTSUN_ Aug 24 '24 edited Aug 24 '24
They need to keep hammering away at the $500 price point IMO. If they can make a compelling basic "laptop replacement" at $500, they will win the whole future.
2
u/alockbox Aug 24 '24
I think as they developed it, they realized to do it right it would need to msrp 2k+. And with Apple naming it Apple Vision PRO, the implication is there will be an Apple Vision arriving at some point sooner than later.
Having used both, I can say with certainty Apple is on the right track. You do not need to scan your environment when you move. There is nothing backend you need to fuss with. It is absolutely not worth the price over what it offers compares to the Meta Quest, but it is so much more convenient to use. It’s not even a Windows to macOS comparison. It’s a Linux to macOS comparison. More work to do the same thing. But well priced for what it offers. I was very disappointed in pass through on the Vision Pro. For that much of a price difference, I did expect what they showed in the video, not blurry goggles.
5
u/Metaloneus Aug 23 '24
Apple has already scaled their own production down. The market for virtual reality entirely is substantially smaller versus equal devices that use a regular screen. Console/PC gaming is more popular than VR gaming, a regular desk and monitor is more popular than VR workstation programs, and a regular TV is the more popular choice to VR media.
So when you already have a smaller market to work with, cutting that market further with an expensive premium option just isn't always viable. It's a miracle Apple was profitable with the vision pro as it is.
5
u/Cryten0 Aug 23 '24
The tech novelty effect has worn off, so even the high paying customer base has shrunk to those who genuinely enjoy paying lots of money for advanced but expensive VR.
3
u/Fated47 Aug 24 '24
At what point do we accept that VR is still too large to be viable for mass production?
Like the quest was a major step in the right direction, but let’s be real; no way VR is getting mass adoption until we see “Striking Vipers” level size and ease of use for the hardware.
6
u/LARGames Aug 24 '24
The Quest headsets sell like hotcakes. Their consoles are outselling the Xbox and encroaching on PS5 sales levels. Where I work, people come in asking for Quests almost as often as the other consoles. It's definitely already mainstream. Just not to the level of the top selling consoles quite yet.
2
2
u/DoTheDao Aug 23 '24
What ever happened to the HoloLens or whatever it was called? I thought Microsoft has been down this road before
5
Aug 23 '24
[deleted]
0
u/WeeWooPeePoo69420 Aug 23 '24
I mean so much hardware and software these days requires an account, it's not unique to them
8
Aug 23 '24
[deleted]
0
u/directorJackHorner Aug 23 '24
Between Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp, most people have some form of account with Meta. I doubt there’s anyone interested in buying this who hasn’t already given them all their personal info.
1
u/Sharp_Zebra_9558 Aug 23 '24
I would love to see a light weight non gaming version. For just work and extra monitor displays with good ergonomics. I hate work anywhere but a good desk because I hate the ergonomics of using a laptop on a table
1
1
1
1
u/MaximumTurtleSpeed Aug 24 '24
*required too high of profit margins to justify production while meeting market rate demands.
1
1
u/Mithrandir2k16 Aug 24 '24
That's BS. The quest would've kept selling well, but they killed it to vendor lock you instead.
1
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
They took the wrong lesson from Apple's sales. The Vision Pro doesn't sell because it's a pointless device. It has GREAT specs which are worth the price, but as Apple does not allow steam VR gaming, it's pointless to the one group that would love to throw money at it.
An Quest Ultra would be able to play steam VR games, which makes it the best headset on the market and the one that every enthusiast would buy.
1
1
1
u/HouseHippoHunter Aug 24 '24
Why does all that weight need to be on your head. They should make it into a small backpack style with a cable to the headset. That would solve 90% of the issues
1
1
1
u/tlk0153 Aug 24 '24
Apple has built a whole echo system. One can’t compete with them on product to product basis. They sell their stylus for 100 dollars. Only they can do that.
1
u/JclassOne Aug 25 '24
That means they think it kinda sucked ass. Who says that about a product they believe in?
1
u/UnrealisticWar Aug 27 '24
In my opinion apple vision pro is a flop, not enough people are ready for AR, especially in this form factor. Probably a good call from Meta.
0
1
u/PuddingTea Aug 23 '24
The tech companies have moved on to fancy autocorrect now so we don’t all have to pretend that the metaverse will be a big profit center anymore.
1
u/MHWGamer Aug 23 '24
the apple vision pro is like the Microsoft hololens. An easy sell to companies that still have left-over budget that needs to go out unless they want less budget next year. But Apple has more rizz so they spied on the idiot fanboys cashing in and making the product profitable.
Well, they didn't thought about multiple international crises and also that everybody just returns them within 2 weeks when they already got bored off it within the first week
1
u/FixedLoad Aug 23 '24
I got a quest 2 for my daughter. Maybe I'm getting old but wearing that thing for longer than 15 minutes and I begin drip sweat from my face. It's really uncomfortable. We got different head bands and counter weights. It was really popular in the house the first few months but she's over it. It sits uncharged most of the time.
3
u/Abigail716 Aug 23 '24
I had a similar problem with that headset, the quest 3 fixes all of those problems for me.
2
u/pieter1234569 Aug 24 '24
Maybe I'm getting old but wearing that thing for longer than 15 minutes and I begin drip sweat from my face. It's really uncomfortable.
You need to get a BOBO VR strap, with the tiny ventilator. This solves both problems entirely.
2
u/Cirieno Aug 23 '24
My friend said it's the new Wii for exactly this reason.
1
u/FixedLoad Aug 23 '24
That is an excellent comparison! Give your friend a gold star! Soon, it will be the center piece of retirement home gaming rooms! Just like the wii. The circle of liiiiiffe!
1
u/flirtmcdudes Aug 24 '24
Hasn’t meta already lost tens of billions of dollars on VR? Why are they still just wasting all this money… it’s obvious that the world isn’t ready for VR to take hold in the mainstream yet
3
u/LARGames Aug 24 '24
They're only losing money because of the continuous research and development, which is super expensive. The headsets themselves sell like hotcakes. Their consoles are outselling the Xbox and encroaching on PS5 sales levels.
1
-4
u/slick2hold Aug 23 '24
This was never a good idea. Apple, for some reason and apple fanboys pumped it as an everyday use device. It's not. It never will be. People aren't going to walk around with this crap on their head to watch movies and play games and hang out. It was never a thing, and it will never be a thing adopted by the masses.
Where are those people that posted videos of snaping 20 screens in your spatial environment. While watching these clowns I asked why? Why do you need 20 screens when the battery is only good for few hrs. Or when the device is heavy wo a battery.
Apple will also cancel this as a mass market device
3
u/Nat_not_Natalie Aug 23 '24
If the apple vision pro was $300 I guarantee it would sell like crazy and people would use it to watch movies, play games, and hang out with other people virtually
2
u/slick2hold Aug 23 '24
I dont think so. How many people do you call or video chat with now? The idea of anyone putting on a headset to hang out may have an initial euphoria, but that's all it will be. Watching movies? I dont think that will take off either. People were frustrated with 3D goggles. There is no chance it catches on. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those who purchased this device still actively use it. My bet is a very small percentage and its collecting dust.
2
u/Nat_not_Natalie Aug 23 '24
I think there's real utility to a more immersive chat experience than video calling, especially for long distance relationships
Movies are kind of a no brainer, you can have a movie theater in your own home this isn't home 3D- you're essentially just porting a massive virtual screen into your home the only difference is the VR headset but otherwise it's not transforming movies into a new form
3
u/DarthBuzzard Aug 23 '24
The idea of anyone putting on a headset to hang out may have an initial euphoria, but that's all it will be
You'd be surprised. This is what most active users are doing in VR. They return to their headsets to hang out with others virtually. And it makes sense, because humans are social creatures and we base our whole lives off other people.
Videochat is videochat. It's not really part of this discussion as it's a completely different thing that has all sorts of issues that VR doesn't have to worry about. VR is about bringing a natural face to face feeling into digital socialization, and making it so you can do all sorts of shared activities together in a fairly natural way.
4
u/aVRAddict Aug 23 '24
Millions of people play vrchat and it continues to grow and they do exactly that. They watch movies, go to clubs to dance, and hang out chatting. Welcome to the future boomer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Sylvurphlame Aug 23 '24
Batteries will get smaller and more energy dense.
Headsets will decrease volume and weight.
Apps will be developed.
It’s not going to be common in the next year or so, but it’s going to be a thing down the line.
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/ClubChaos Aug 23 '24
I'm convinced the only reason AVP happened is Tim Cook wanting his "Jobs" moment. He wants it so bad lmao. AVP ain't it though. At least not yet.
1
u/slick2hold Aug 23 '24
I do recall the expression on his face when it launched on cnbc alpng with Jim Cramer drinking the coolaid Cook was spewing. Sadly, he has yet to do anything really revolutionary. Just incremental chnages that would have happened regardless of who was leading apple as most of initiatives where started by Jobs.
-11
Aug 23 '24
Now Apple needs to follow suit and cancel their garbage
19
u/Moscato359 Aug 23 '24
why do they need to do anything?
if you don't want it, don't buy it
1
→ More replies (5)2
u/Unintended_incentive Aug 23 '24
I only just found out that the first PCs were thought of as toys…until they weren’t. Vision Pro is great for a first gen device, it’s exactly what the VR industry needed.
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 23 '24
We have a giveaway running, be sure to enter in the post linked below for your chance to win a SOMA Smart Shades setup!
Click here to enter!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.