On the contrary, they might expand Meta's market by giving "legitimacy" to AR/VR headsets. Not everyone will want to buy a $3500 Apple headset, but might try out a cheaper Meta Quest.

While everyone might benefit from it, as many have from tablets or smart watches, the Meta play to be the first of owning groundbreaking hardware has failed.

Probably. But I don’t think many were expecting Meta to dominate this space because it was always obvious that they don’t have a multi-device ecosystem like Apple does.

they have almost 50% marketshare on steam... they did not fail at VR accessibility https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

Or it could be the public really isn't interested in VR/AR.

I get we're no longer allowed to be critical of the tech now that Apple has directly entered the market, but some tech never takes off despite repeated attempts and I'm convinced this is one such situation.

Meta has consistently tried to drive the price of their headsets down compared to the competition. They weren't looking to build the expensive high end groundbreaking hardware, they are looking to make cheap ubiquitous AR/VR so that people can access the "metaverse" which is the real platform and product that meta wants to control.

So no, meta's play was never "groundbreaking hardware", it was making the hardware better while keeping the price accessible to normal people. Apple hasn't even entered the competition there.

Can you elaborate on "this"? How is this better than Meta's product line?

nah they're not competing for the same customers.

Metas headsets are affordable enough that people buy them for their kids. Apple's headset isn't competing with that.

It's like saying "That bugatti obsoleted all the affordable cars" - not really.

I see it more as tackling the core product they're trying to deliver. Meta is trying to deliver "Virtual Reality." Apple is delivering "Augmented Reality." Meta will be able to pivot quite well, but Apple's execution here has disrupted 10 years of vision and development furthered towards creating a virtual reality rather than augmenting it

meta has consistently been releasing affordable products only. They've been on a mission to drive the price of VR down to widen potential audience, because for them the VR metaworld is the actual platform they want to own and sell.

Apple showed a headset that does what most headsets do, but better, with a lot of nonsense features ("it shows your eyes!") and a stable of mobile ios apps for launch, at a price thats unreachable to most buyers.

People buy quests for their kids, they aren't going to be doing that with apple vision anytime soon.

So its actually not that apple disrupted 10 years of vision at all. Apple's vision is totally different from metas, and meta continues. You have an imaginary view of what meta is trying to accomplish because meta isn't interested in $3500 unicorn headsets.

If meta could figure out $100 headsets that gave a decent experience theyd be doing that. This apple vision isn't related to meta's vision at all, and hasn't disrupted it. Meta wants to run the metaworld to control what you see. If they could get there without VR headsets they'd do that first.

Meta is also investing for AR

EDIT: Please delete this comment

But both these and Bugattis are Veblen goods.

I don't think Meta is worried with the price tag of Vision Pro. Meta will be happy to be the Android of AR/VR. The Quest 3 will probably out sell this by over 10x.

Doesn't seem that way to me. I'm generally not opposed to jumping on the latest and greatest toy from Cupertino the second it comes out. And I'm a big fan of VR: I own two headsets now, but I was waiting for this announcement before deciding whether or not to buy a Quest 3.

I've decided to buy a Quest 3.

I could elaborate on why, but to each their own. I just don't see this thing fitting any use case for me. I know people who like to watch videos in VR. I hate it. I'm aware that accessing your computer screen through "virtual desktops" is a moderately popular application. Can't stand it. I have never used FaceTime, and certainly wouldn't have anybody with another one of these to call.

We live in a world where forum comments have to be either "this is stupid and anyone who likes it is stupid" or "this is the greatest thing ever and anyone who doesn't like it is stupid". I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying this is not for me, and furthermore, now that I know that, it has unlocked the purchase of a competing product.

I'm sure there are people who do see their use cases in this product, and also can afford it or its non-pro successor. But my take on it is that the real market will continue to be in games, not putting on a helmet so you can virtually type on a computer.

Seems outlandish ... a $3500 product can't obsolete a $299 one. It doesn't look like Apple has any intention of attacking the low end here.

I'd almost say that Apple is doing Meta a favour because they are doing a much better job at making the case for devices like the Quest Pro and Quest 3 than Meta seems to be able to do. A lot of people will turn to these when they find they want in on the hype but they can't afford the Apple version.