The vast majority of people don’t care about trackpad quality when it comes to shopping.
They do care when they *use* it but they either take it for granted when it works well, or it’s too small a papercut to trade in their device and buy/research a new one.
but it all combines together to make a smoother experience when using it, and it can convert people as a part of a whole.
This is why people balk at the price of Apple Vision even though Apple managed to miniaturize a Macbook into a visor and added LiDAR, two 4K screens, a separate depth sensor, several other cameras, and even a 3D camera to it
That said, Mark’s devices aren’t bad for the price. They’ve been the best overall VR headsets for the past 2-3 years.
Most of the time they don't notice at all unless its truly atrocious or truly mind blowing (and whilst I can firmly say the macbook trackpad is the best I've ever used, lets be honest its not mind blowing). They might notice things don't feel as smooth as it did on their macbook (assuming they even had one last, if not how can you tell something is worse if its all you've ever had), but they're unlikely to narrow this down to the trackpad.
Few months back I’ve seen anecdotal posts somewhere that new generations of managers are trying to shift computing to phones and tablets because they’re “better than laptops”. No one enforces a delightfulness standard for Windows laptops, and it is creating a skewed perception.
I used to be a die hard Android and Windows/Linux power user. All the stuff I’d scoff at the stuff people would mention on iOS/macOS because “well I can do that too if I do this and that”. But then I switched back to iOS/macOS for a project and a lot of the papercuts being solved out of the box was actually such a huge gain.
That’s not to say Apple is perfect. They can improve a ton too (give me a proper path bar in finder please!), but (and I say this often) the products they make are more than the sum of their parts.
but of course none of that is something that is evident when you’re shopping for a product.
Plus, the question one would ask is: “can this do this banal task?” not “which one does this banal task better”. So I see why it’s not prioritized on other platforms.
Most people are just shopping for capability and specs. The delightfulness is too ephemeral to consider until you encounter it yourself.
But the uni student with a budget that only buys half a macbook doesn't get to care about trackpad quality.
Normal people don't say things like "The trackpad is unresponsive and the wifi drivers unreliable" They say "I just don't like it" "It feels kinda crap"
More extensive touch support, like having touch support on the laptop display alleviates a lot of the trackpad needs. It's still nice when it smooth and responsive, but looking at the the Surface devices for instance, it's nice enough.
The worst by far I've ever used was on a circa-2007 HP convertible laptop that ran Vista. Despite it costing more than some models of MacBook at the time, the thing was built with that cheap creaky "fake metal" glossy plastic, and that included its trackpad. The trackpad would've been bad enough just like that with the smooth plastic gripping at your fingertips, but to make it worse its surface had inverse dimples, and because its touch sensitivity wasn't all that sensitive you had to apply more pressure when using it which pressed your fingers down into the dimples and made them stick even worse. Oh and of course, as was customary for non-Apple laptops at that point it was also tiny.
It's almost as if it was someone's job to make that thing's trackpad terrible to use. Just mind boggling.
It has been a quarter century since high DPI CRTs were affordable, and 20+ years since LCDs were.
However, Windows wasn’t compatible with such things until at least 2010, so here we are a quarter century later, and laptop lines still often only offer meh-for-the-late-90’s displays.
A more recent example is suspend resume. I’m not sure of the details, but I am sure that intel will never do better than S3 sleep from ten years ago, and Microsoft pushed them to change how sleep works.
"These rounded corners in the UI really make me not care about the touch pad"
"I wish I could care about touchpads, my ssd won't replace itself without a soldering iron though!"
"They have touchpads? I use a mouse"
Great. Apple touchpads are next generation compared to most other laptops.
Apple has a huge advantage with its vertical integration and nearly complete control of the entire stack. Android being a janky/buggy/glitchy mess is the icing on the cake.
imo it is a technological marvel but the size of the demographic willing to spend $4k on a headset with no proven long term value is quite small.
Is Microsoft today in a fundamentally problematic position ?
Apple has the spotlight and a higher evaluation, but I'm not sure Google or Microsoft "haven't ended well".
> A personal device like these headsets needs to be delightful.
The number of people willing to pay for "delightful" is pretty small though. Even as today, the iPhone isn't winning on delight, it's primarily on the ecosystem, green bubbles, game payments etc., as we've heard in the numerous trials and hearings from Apple execs.
I mean… pretty obviously yes?
Windows is rotting on the vine, Azure is nowhere near the market share of other players, and while they still have a large installed base of users they’ve done nothing particularly noteworthy in like a decade at this point.
If there’s anyone on the path to being the next IBM it’s them.
Almost every large company is already a Microsoft customer, and MS does a great job upselling Azure to many of them.
(recent estimates are AWS ~33%, Azure 23%, GC 10%)
When you said that the iPhone wasn't succeeding today based on delight, I'd argue that it's the only reason the iPhone succeeded. BlackBerry had an amazing brand and the ecosystem that you say it the reason the iPhone is successful today - including its own proprietary messenger service. The iPhone came along with delight and overthrew the established players.
If the Vision Pro offers users an experience that they like, it could make the Quest series look like BlackBerries: low-rent devices that were bought as toys for enthusiasts before real devices came along.
The thing about the iPhone is that people could instantly see what they'd enjoy it for. BlackBerries were a status symbol, had some business use cases, and were a nice toy for those who tried to buy distractions. When Apple introduced the iPhone, they showed real web browsing, useful maps (even before GPS), a better iPod than they'd ever seen, YouTube, and more.
With the Vision Pro, Apple is showing me something I could see myself using. I could wear it writing code and have more display space than 3 displays (and still use my keyboard). I could watch movies, I could browse the web, and I could play games. Apple is showing me how it could become an integral part of my usage rather than just a gadget that I'm likely to ignore.
I'm not an expert on the VR/AR space, but it sounds like the Quest devices don't really have the resolution for reading text comfortably which cuts out a lot of usage - just as the BlackBerry devices didn't have good web browsing and other stuff. That could leave the Quest series in the BlackBerry zone where they're trying to fill a similar niche, but they're limited in the things that bring users back to the device rather than it sitting in a corner unused. It also seems like the Vision Pro is likely to be a lot more responsive. Android tends to have a lot of input lag compared to iOS and Apple's M2 processor will run circles around the Qualcomm XR2 in the Quest Pro - plus Apple has a dedicated R1 processor for handling real-time sensor data. The XR2 has one performance core from 3 years ago compared to 4 performance cores in an M2.
Meta can't even buy themselves a CPU that's competitive. Apple's M2 will be 40-50% faster on single-core stuff and it has 4 performance cores instead of 1 performance core in the top-end Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. On multi-core, the M2 is twice as fast. Plus, it has its own dedicated processor for handling all the sensor data!
When BlackBerry saw the iPhone design, they assumed Apple couldn't pull it off. They thought practically the whole inside would have to be battery. They weren't wrong about that, but Apple did pull it off. Is Meta thinking that Apple won't be able to pull off a better experience than their devices? I don't think companies are underestimating Apple at the moment.
Sometimes with tech, it's about getting over a hump. Everyone had been trying to do handheld computers since the 80s - even Apple's Newton development started in the 80s. Apple was the one who finally got it over the hump where it was really useful. Likewise, it's not like headsets are new - Nintendo's Virtual Boy came out in 1995, 28 years ago. But the Virtual Boy didn't get over that hump just as the Newton didn't. With the Quest, if I have to strain to read text, maybe it hasn't gotten over the hump. Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but my point is that it's not just about better specs for the sake of better specs. It's about better specs that overcome a barrier to usefulness. Things like latency and display clarity matter a lot when we're talking about a headset device.
And if we want to attribute Apple's success to its ecosystem, the Vision Pro ties into that ecosystem. You can run apps on Vision Pro and use it as a display for your MacBook. I understand the things I can already do if I had a Vision Pro, not just as a gadget.
The Vision Pro might still be a flop. It's expensive and it might not offer that much more when in the real world. However, the keynote was really impressive to me. It seemed like something I'd get after it had been out for 4 years - kinda like the iPhone. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.
I'd personally compare BlackBerry to Kodak. They had a strong market position, brand and loyal customers. They also had a vision for what should come next, but little to no incentive in fully executing on it, probably didn't want to canibalise the existing sales, while also seeing too much value in their existing customers who only swear by their products.
That's also kinda where I see Apple to a lesser extent: they masterfully executed on the iPhone concept, tried to push further on the iPad, but ultimately see too much value in their current moat to risk losing it. That's where I see the HomePods, Apple TV, Apple Watch being fiercefully bound to the iPhone when they could have been independent products the same way the iPod was. Same way the iPad only got its OS in name and couldn't get much beyond being a gloridied iPhone in many respects.
Any of these products are successful in a vacuum, but given the size of the watch market for instance, the sales numbers for the Watch don't feel as successful as the iPod was.
I'm curious to see how the Vision Pro will work outside of the Apple ecosystem, as at this point it's touted as a display, and that should open the door for more than just being a macbook or apple TV accessory.
On why the iPhone succeeded...until the iPhone 4, it had miserable battery life and crashed all the time, you'd miss phone calls, "you're holding it wrong" was only funny because of how bad we had reception problems. But it did net browsing, photo handling, and emailing better than any device on the market (way better than BlackBerry for half of the world, in the sense that BB was stuck on the western market). So it was a powerful device with a unique proposition, but delightful? hell no. Better than android sure, but it took a long time for it to be smooth and stable IMHO.
On Meta...I have a Quest 2 and completely agree with all the point. It's not good, just "barely good enough" for the price it is. But I'd argue it's here, when the Vision Pro will be real next year, and who knows when we get the next iteration. While I don't see Meta successfuly pushing the field, the sailant point is that the Quest 2 and probably Quest 3 are PC VR compatible, where the Vision Pro has almost no chance to be. This means that the next Beat Saber or Supernatural could come to Steam VR, get tested, and be successfully enough to go to the Quest store, then perhaps the Apple VR store.
I base that on the observation that ML didn't come to Mac or iOS first, but went to the more open windows world first. I don't see new VR creators starting from a Vision Pro when next Christmas gift season will still probably be Quest headsets and perhaps Vive if they can get their price low enough. Perhaps Apple will have a shot at it in 3 years, but we can check back the situation when they arrive there (I'd love an ultra competitive landscape for the next 3 years)
I also find it super interesting that the main use case is as a macbook multi-monitor when macos isn't touch ready. It'd be super excited if they bring a big surprise in that area at the same time the Vision Pro hits.
My worst fear is still that Apple eats all the high resolution display factories of the space, the same way they litteraly consumed all the displays at the peak iOS times and competitors had the leftover, even as the display technology wasn't Apple's.
Microsoft lost an entire platform, and yes, that was a problem (they’ve since recovered with other bets).
Otherwise, I forgot about TabletPC, hut given they have the Surface line now, is it a failure ?
Random protocols aren’t products.
Surface is a strategic failure because it didn’t define the tablet market a decade ago, and iPad / Chromebook is what every grade school kid uses. Now it gets to cannibalize sales from their PC partners, who I’m sure are thrilled to be competing with their OS supplier.
> Random protocols
I didn't understand this bit.
> Surface
It's not taking the world by storm, but is a solid product line that is well received, has its loyal community, and continues to ship new products for 9 generations now. And the windows tablet market itself expanded around it, when it just didn't exist 10 years ago. I'd compare it to Google's Pixel line, it's not going to take half of the market, but it's alive, keeps fullfilling its role, get recognition and user satisfaction, so I wouldn't call it a failure.
On iPad/Chromebook, they're a different device category. The same way Chromebooks and Macbooks aren't the same category.
Isn't this what Android did? They seem like they're doing fine enough
I think you must know this, so I’m not sure what the angle is you’re playing.
And paid apps are slowly going away and are less relevant - it's been many years since mobile app peaked. Top apps these days in play store and app store are free.
I don't think Meta's aspirations are to be Android. They were first movers in this space, spent billions and billions, only to be the less profitable, less coveted platform?
As outsiders, this is already how we're looking at it when Apple stepped in, which is unfortunate, and why Mark's refusal to acknowledge reality isn't a great look.
I dont know man. Historically who has been in Mark's position with 10 Billion+ $$ to spend on any one thing?
I think Zuckerberg would be elated if it plays out like iPhone vs Android.
Zuckerberg is in a tough spot. Especially if Google uses its control of Android to push forward a VR version of it.
> We've seen this story before and it hasn't ended well for the folks in Mark's position.
market share of android vs iOS in 2023:
> Android 71.63
> iOS 27.71
That's not business, that's a struggle for survival.
https://www.statista.com/chart/29925/apples-share-of-the-glo...
Apple is amazing at business. Hands down they are a phenomenal business. Destroying all other smartphone makers hands down.
Objectively from the perspective of capitalism, LVHM is a better business if it makes more money.
That doesn't mean you have to like LVHM products more than Uniqlo. That is personal preference and different from a business perspective.
Meta doesn't need to dominate the market. Being the Android to Apple's iOS or the Windows to Apple's macOS is way more than fine for Meta's business. iPhone's did $250b in revenue in 2022. Meta as a whole did $117b.
They aren't looking to replace Apple, they are just trying to find a way to get their revenue growing again. It's a huge win in their eye's if Quest3 contributes reasonably well to bringing their 2023 revenue to about $130b.
If there was a genuine third company competing with Meta then that would be a problem for them. Valve and Pico are roughly 0% the size of Meta and Apple. They just won't have the resources to actually compete. Google has been rumored to be working on a headset. If that's the case and they didn't fire that entire org then that would be Meta's only real competition for second place.
Thats like "they arent trying to be the best, they are just trying to be a little better.
Ofc they are trying to beat apple, and everyone else. Or you are saing that if they were magically given the opportunity to become most valued company, theyd simply pass with "no thanks, thats more than we want" attitude?
Every major corporation is trying their absolute hardest to grow.
Apple's initial use cases are around work, entertainment, and meetings. It's ridiculous to think they won't expand this and compete in every use case once they get market shares and a developer eco-system. They are not different products. That's like saying a MacBook Pro and a HP laptop are different products. No, one is a high-end, more expensive, more coveted product, and the other isn't.
This is such an odd sentiment.
Meta was first in this segment, they've spent billions and billions, harmed their reputation as a company on Wall Street, etc. etc.. Apple comes in after them, with, from what we can tell, a superior product. This rationalization that this was all part of Meta's master plan all along is a little ridiculous. They're going to lose and get the crumbs, just like Android device makers get 30% of the profit (70% of it goes to Apple) but hold 80% of market shares. This wasn't Meta's aspirations and is a blunder.
Apple is making an integrated headset: their own lenses, processor, ..., down to the operating system.
The Quest uses an Android based operating system and a lot of off the shelf components.
We've seen this story before and it hasn't ended well for the folks in Mark's position.
A personal device like these headsets needs to be delightful. It has to be responsive. It has to have the little touches. It's much more difficult to do that when you're constrained by off the shelf components.
Apple had the best touchpads for a decade because of those integrated properties, for example.