Give it a couple iterations and you'll have something that costs $2k many will purchase in lieue of another Macbook. It will be lighter/more compact, with somewhat palatable battery life. There have been reports Apple is also working on a simpler version, so there could be an Air in a few years that starts just north of $1k.
If this platform is successful, that is. I have my doubts everyone will want to strap a device to their head a large chunk of the day, every day, no matter how incredible it is.
> Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem.
One way or another, that's the bet here.
1) Apple didn't mention the metaverse at all (as far as I can remember)
2) The user experience looked great, without those moments that would make someone who was neutral think "Err, ... that's a bit .... creepy"
- The isolation aspects of consuming TV/movies (Mark has a point here IMO)
- The whole taking 3d images/videos of your children with a headset on
- The uncanny valley Facetime avatars
- The external screen that gives a window to your eyes in AR mode
I was specifically speaking about the interface, which when meta introduced theirs had all these weird things "Why has nobody got legs? Why does it look like absolute arse? etc". It didn't have those. It looked slick, like you would expect from Apple.
That’s a strong statement. Same thing could’ve been said about the iPad and IMHO that would be a more reasonable claim. There isn’t any evidence still that you can do any work comfortably l in this thing regardless of the price point
wish I was kidding..
They really are not fundamentally different. Apple can bring to bear a lot more polish and synergy with the rest of their ecosystem but it's only as different as iOS and Android.
Being a grumpy naysayer is just as removed from reality as being an unreasonable Apple cultist. Thankfully we all have a choice when engaging our wallets.
Not a single person on this planet is forced to buy an Apple product but nonetheless, the flame wars keep raging since the dawn of the Internet.
It IS a VR and AR device. AKA mixed reality. The fact that they are promoting lots of floating 2d windows doesn't make that a new category of product. Other people have been doing that and calling it something like mixed reality.
It's just that people don't know about things like the Varjo that are ultra-high end and in a similar price bracket or category and so they decide to just pretend it was an entirely new thing.
If I was Apple I could improve my sex life just by telling Apple fans that instead of a penis I had "tremendous tensiler" or something.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that MR is new and that Apple is first to the market. People are claiming they appear to be the first to do it close enough to “right” to make it a compelling device.
- 2x OLED screens
- 2x lidar camera
- 2x truedepth camera module
- 2x4=8 RGB cameras with very high spec
- 2x A15 chip
- 2x accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, proxmity, ambient sensors
- 2x gps, wifi, bluetooth, nfc, uwb, 3g/4g/5g
- 2x flash led
- 2x batteries
- 2x stereo speakers
- 2x3=6 microphones
They already have crazy profit margin on iphones. I think if they would price it at $2500 this would make more sense.
If they would allow to run full MacOS on this thing and I could use it just as Mac Mini replacement and attach physical external display via hdmi out then I could easier stomach $3500 price.
Not quite the same ballpark, is it? iPhone 14 Pro resolution is 2556×1179 at 460ppi. Vision Pro is believed to have 3800x3000 at 3400ppi. That's almost an order of magnitude improvement in density over the iPhone screens (and 3x the density of the Quest Pro or the PSVR2.)
So then take the price of ipad pro 11. Even cheaper than iphone 14 pro and has most of those components I mentioned above (excluding 3g/4g/5g). 2x ipad pro 11 == 2x $800 = $1600. Does it really cost apple ~$1000 or even $500 per such 3400ppi screen to justify such price?
And regarding screen resolution very old Sony Experia 1 (from 2019) had 4k resolution (1644 x 3840 pixels at 650dpi):
I can easily imagine that for a relatively new technology with a ppi much higher than anything commercially available (as far as I can find through searching) that they are getting on for $1k each at the moment, yeah.
I am mildly optimistic, even the initial Vision Pro won't be much more expensive than a well-spec'ed MacBook Air plus 5k display. So at least I think Vision is attractive to pro Mac users as a very portable workstation with a lot off screen estate.
Even if IDE is there then how about Python and Nodejs modules in such restricted environment.
I Hope Meta will switch to Linus and Valve will stick with Linux where you can run any legacy software currently available including many Pro tools.
This is just slightly better than someone connecting ipad to external monitor and logging with remote desktop to cloud computer and pretending ipad is good for software development.
While not always successful, they actually add legitimacy to many of the markets they get into. Time will tell if it happens here; I'm not holding my breath.
And if this is a product to be used on your couch at home alone, who cares how it looks?
But some people imagine this being used by world travellers to translate signs in foreign languages, by laptop users in coffee shops to have a huge screen, by parents to take hands-free video of their kid's first steps, by mass transit passengers to watch movies, and so on.
If the product's success relies on being worn in public - people will have to want to be seen wearing it.
You make a good point and I'd like to add to it. What is interesting is that all modern phone design grew out of the designs of the original iPhone and all modern laptops grew out of the design of the original Powerbook. If you scroll down on the second link below you'll see that the Powerbook is the first one that looks like a modern laptop.
https://www.cultofmac.com/145083/what-phones-looked-like-bef...
Apple's core strength is the hardware/software vertical integration, but another strength is that they know how to partner with others, even competitors (Intel/MS/Google/Netflix/IBM/you name it) if it makes their product more cohesive in a way they couldn't do alone.
Just like I have a PlayStation in the family+friends living room and a multi-monitor Mac setup in my study, I'm going to have an Oculus in the living room and a Vision Pro in the study. These are complementary things.
I mean, just pure technology wise, the screens, number of sensors, processing power itself is mind boggling.
I am sure that all their hadware decisions regarding oculus were constrained by the compute hardware. Apple has the moat of world class custom silicon that means, the constraints on its designers are far less.
And we are seeing just the first gen device.
Yes, Apple is priced quite premium but that is also their strength Apple can price at this level and still command enough sales , Meta or any other company cannot .
Even at the same price point (HoloLens 2 costs the same) as Apple it is hard to imagine another headset competing.
Also none of the concept headsets MZ has shown so far come close to this
Apple is using these two groups for development of new software and for marketing. The fanboys will carry this thing around for a year or two and familiarize the general public.
metaverse vs spatial computing?
and whoever can make money for their respective business: sell ads or sell apps/integrate with rest of apple ecosystem?
I'm also going to call it on the dedicated floating eyes screen: it will be a joke once it hits market, and everyone will turn it off to eek out a few more minutes on the battery pack.
They're going for different markets. Meta is trying to be the VR kids get for Christmas and people buy for fun, Apple is aiming at...something else.
Apple has.
The “people with $3500 to spare” market knows that it’ll be polished and likely worth the price tag due to the “sparks joy” factor that Apple regularly delivers.
> "They’re constrained by price: they haven’t trained the market to accept a $3500 piece of hardware from Facebook. Apple has."
Can be justified by a lot of the Mac range costing >$3500, especially when you consider non-basic configurations.
They did this by delivering consistently on their “coupled with our ecosystem, this is the best one of these you can possibly get” promise.
I mean yes, Apple is the best hardware company in the world, and they've assembled/polished best in class hardware and most importantly, have been willing to commit to the volumes for production for bleeding edge parts (eg, companies like eMagin have been demoing 4K micro OLED display for years [1] but no one's ever committed for an $X billion order - already we're seeing the "Apple" effect though as suppliers now have customers to chase [2]).
Meta's FRL has been working on pinch-and-release click for years with a haptic EMG controller that while bulkier, I think would actually be a more satisfying experience: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2021/3/inside-faceboo... Meta has also been working on next-gen displays (focused on varifocal displays/fixing vergence acommodation conflict) for years. I still think that Doug Lanman's 2020 EIS Plenary presentation is one of the best technical talks of recent memory, and highly recommend watching it to anyone interested in displays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQwMAl9bGNY - Tested had a good demo video of what they have in the labs last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc and you can read about their DeepFocus work from back in 2018: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2018/12/introducing-d... or see their Half Dome prototypes going back the same time period: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2018/12/introducing-d...
You can go down anywhere down the stack, from spatial audio and custom HRTFs [3], haptics [4], avatars [5], FRL (or whatever it's called now) has done it all [6] but most of the cool stuff has only trickled into the market while Meta has focused on selling $300 consumer headsets and despite obstensibly being a "software" company has never figured out how to build a platform beyond a barely passable VR game launcher. Reading the visionOS docs [7] has been a breath of fresh air and is much more impressive to me than the hardware (which is great, but the biggest accomplishment on that end IMO was committing to launching such a high price-point to reach a baseline experience they were happy with; also their passthrough appears SoTA).
Still, I'm most excited that this will give the "courage" to others to launch high-end consumer experiences. Let's see true retina-resolution (60PPD+) varifocal HDR displays and actually seamless passthrough.
(Funny note, looking through old notes, back in 2015, I expected 4K/eye displays to be in an HMD by 2020, which was far too optimistic. [8])
[1] https://www.uploadvr.com/emagin-4k-oled-microdisplay-steambo...
[2] https://www.oled-info.com/tags/oled-microdisplays
[3] https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/facebook-reality-labs-rese...
[4] https://www.xrtoday.com/mixed-reality/what-is-meta-doing-wit...
[5] https://theinnerdetail.com/meta-will-soon-let-you-to-make-ph...
[6] https://research.facebook.com/research-area/augmented-realit...
[7] https://developer.apple.com/visionos/learn/
[8] https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k08jnu4t4qwerd0ln10w8/Virtual...
If FB is not worried, their CEO may not be doing his job.
I’m not a Zuck fanboy but I have enjoyed the quest 2 thoroughly and plan to get the 3 when it releases.
I do think the Apple vision pro looks amazing but the second I heard the price it was laughable. Obviously I am not the target audience. I’m not sure who is to be honest.
As excited as I am about Apple Vision, Mark is right about this. Most of Apple’s demos don’t show the user being active, and the Vision’s price is anything but demographic even though it’s fair, given that it’s a miniaturized MacBook with magic powers
On other hand, the Quest and its apps make you move. Most of the apps on Quest are low key cardio workouts, though it’s not initially apparent to most users when they’re fighting ninjas or dodging bullets.
Do I think Apple Vision is incapable of what the Quest is capable of in terms of helping their users be active? Definitely not. Anything the Quest can do I’m sure Vision can do and then some. I’m also sure that future Apple Vision spots will highlight this. However, Apple is not showing anything at the moment.
> Mark has got to be terrified. The power of Apple is the tight and efficient integration of hardware and software.
I’m sure he is to a degree, but meta needed Apple to enter the market. It would be much worse for meta if Apple didn’t validate the often criticized and ridiculed AR VR industry.
While meta has been able to make a revolutionary product at a great price point, it’s been hampered by
1. meta’s poor past reputation,
2. meta’s terrible marketing & messaging. The Super Bowl ad was nonsensical to normal people,
3. the intimidating form factor of most VR headsets including the Quest aka face buckets of isolation. Many normal adults refuse to put it on their faces without a lot of coaxing, and
4. not being able to market the Quest to children. They are the largest demographic who just intuitively understand VR AR. They also have the highest retention. (There is one old study that shows that it may be harmful to children, but many people have criticized its methodology.)
Now that Apple has fixed the messaging for the industry, Apple can dominate the high end while Meta can take everything else. People who are buying Vision likely would not buy a Quest and vice versa
Meta won’t have a real fight until Samsung & Google re-enter the space.
None of this will be relevant soon to consumers, except maybe games, and then it will be console makers who will push it and cash in. For Facebook and Apple it's just shareholder porn.
Back in the day Nokia, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm and Ericsson had smartphones that you could do everything that iPhone could do or even more.
These were devices that only those who have use it or those who are techno nerds used it.
When Apple introduced their implementation of smartphone, those who were using the devices from the established companies dismissed the iPhone as gimmick or inferior. Fast forward, the regular people queued for iPhones and the other smartphone makers are all gone.
Maybe I'll change my mind when I see people working or joining meetings in one of these but at least for now it looks like this is a product searching for a mass market.
On the contrary, this is the first time that non techies are actually interested in it and debating its implications on the society.
And about the price tag, a quick search tells me that %18 of the American individuals and %34 of the households are making over 100K and there are over 5 million millionaires and 770 billionaires in the USA.
Even if pricey, it is within the reach of so many people's income levels which means if it is good enough and people will buy it.
The price anchoring effects are strong but Apple is capable of creating its own anchors. Consider the iPhone, the iPhone 14 pro costs less than %25 of the monthly pay check of an average American and you say it's expensive. In the other extreme - Turkey, the iPhone 14 Pro costs about 5x the average salary(iPhone 14 pro is 2350$ today is less than 500usd) and people still buy it. It was never THIS bad, but even in the good times an iPhone would cost more than the average salary and everyone bought one and the Apple's market share is over %20.
Moral of the story, if you make something that people want badly they will find a way to get it.
Everybody is just grasping the "but it's Apple!" straw.
This was exactly the same when the iPhone was introduced. Only tech folks could tell it was actually really really useful. Other people were just like "So browsing the internet o a phone is better now. But why would I need to browse the internet one a phone?"
He's probably not going to make more money by having a bulkhead in the new personal computing paradigm (unless the ads are 10x as valuable, IDK). He's more importantly aiming to defend the current "proportion of attention spent on personal computing".
If other cos shift consumer attention to mediums where Meta has no presence or is excluded from, there goes his market cap.
"Implementation appears year ahead" does not mean anything. What matters is whether the product can gain enough attraction to be a successful business, which we don't know yet.
Apple just skipped the 3D world-thing which is what Meta is focusing on and being pathetic at it.
To me this reads as if Mark is scared of what his employees are thinking of him, where what they have been working on is this toy, while Apple now presents a real device with some sensible use cases.
Also Apple's is see-through AR to blocking VR, while Meta's is blocking VR. His statement about the couch doesn't make sense at all.
He seems to be ashamed that they are not the leader in this space by a long shot, since this is what his company is supposed to be about.
I thought it was like the Hololens, which btw is also in the 3.5k-range.
I imagine wireless latency would be too high here. I think they mentioned a 12 ms number to avoid motion sickness.
I never use my Quest sitting down. I use it as a roomscale device for, e.g., boxing, or playing table tennis or golf with family in other countries.
The Apple device looks great, but if it was the same price as a Quest 3 and I could only buy one, I'd choose the Quest 3, no questions.
No matter how good Oculus is, Apple will be the VR experience everyone will want to have. Apple will sell it vastly better and make it far more desirable than anything Meta can manage.
If I have to strap on an invasive device to my face, what company am I going to trust more - the one that has been hammering in its “privacy” credentials for years, or the one that incites riots and whose founder is memed to be a humanoid?
Not that I want to see Facebook succeed in their goals. I personally find a cheaper option like the quest more interesting than the vision, at least on paper, but won’t ever use a product that forces me to have a Facebook account.
I doubt there is ever going to be a budget headset with mass market appeal because they'd be incredibly nausea inducing.
The Oculus quest is a perfect example. It's basically manufactured e-waste which is only getting bought because of the fantasy it ultimately doesn't live to.
What will be or won't be will only time show, Apple had made flops too but managed to correct their mistakes. Now we have 0 concrete evidence. Let's compare real devices and their usefulness when they are on market, shall we?
The analogy for this product is less the iPhone than the Apple Watch (if they only release Edition on first run).
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8162455/apple-watch-price-... [1] https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/android-vs-apple-market-shar...
I think Apple are much better at UX and platform building than Meta, this weeks WWDC visionOS videos(1) show impressive depth in their research and thinking for all types of users of spatial-based computing.
Regardless of the differences in how these 3D platforms are approached, apple's commitment to their platforms along with iterative improvement is the secret sauce to giving 3rd parties the confidence they need to invest time and money developing apps.
On the other hand I keep hearing that enthusiasm for the Metaverse is waning amongst Meta staff, that's usually my sign to not get involved, or have all of my efforts/revenue suddenly vanquished should Zuckerberg change his mind.
On the topic of battery power: While I think that the battery power of "up to 2 hours" is not a long time in comparison to how long I use my computing devices, I also think this gen 1 device isn't really a mobile device where that matters, also we've seen apple take laptops from a few hours of charge to 20+ hours.
It’s almost like, after spending $10B on the space, he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about /s
I found this hilarious too. The HTC Vive was the "walking around your virtual space" headset, and Meta deliberately marketed the Oculus as couch-based, because they didn't think people actually wanted more than that.
Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. Its a blindfold on your face, and it doesnt matter if they are alone or in a crowd.
Mark has got to be terrified. The power of Apple is the tight and efficient integration of hardware and software.
Regarding battery power, I woukd not rule out versions that stream the video and outsource the computing to a mac or a standalone box, like Apple TV.
Regarding the experience, Apples seem to be far more coherent and natural rather than Oculususs. Imagine watching a movie, and mid way, trying to fumble around to get and orient the controllers. Absurd.
FB should be in panic mode. The 10 billion over 10 years is now a high risk spend.