If Apple did not diversify from computers, it is quite likely they would either be completely irrelevant or dead... I remember people starting to be attracted back to Apple for devices because of the iPod (2001). At that time it had a Market Cap of $7 billion... now it is at $2991 billion...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How long until Meta mocks this then copies it?
- Thread starter Seanm87
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have been done before but not well enough to be called solved.
People have tried but they failed to deliver an experience that is compelling.
I don't see meta trying to copy the Vision Pro as their current approach is completely different. Maybe in a few years, if the Vision series takes off.
Meta: VR first (Put on the headset and your surroundings disappear and a virtual world appears), controllers as a primary input device (With support for hands), targeting primarily the "low end" with the Quest 2/3, while only dabbling in the former "high end" with the Quest Pro. Social interaction/gaming focus. Removes you completely from interactions with people in the same physical space.
Apple: AR first (Put on the headset and you just see your surroundings.), eyes/hands as the primary input device with direct interactions available, only super-high-end with $3500 cost. Productivity focus. Allows you to interact "normally" with people in the same physical space (Normally, but you'll be talking with your virtual eyes, so we'll see how that goes in reality.)
Basically they are approaching things from opposite ends of the spectrum. The future will probably be somewhere in the middle, but I'd say Apple's approach is the best one to get people to actually consistently use the device - because I spend 8 hours working a day, if I can use the headset and it improves my work setup, then I will use it nearly daily. I have a quest pro, and I use it every few days to play games, but that is basically it. Input on the Quest Pro is super fiddly, especially with hands as sometimes the laser pointer chooses the wrong "angle" and you have to awkwardly position your hands way above your head to select something right in front of you. I've also tried their new "direct touch" method in beta, and it is better, but the hand tracking just isn't reliable enough for it to feel seamless. You basically have to expect every attempt to input something will fail. IMO it seems Apple has fixed this, assuming their eye tracking is as accurate as people have experienced.
Meta: VR first (Put on the headset and your surroundings disappear and a virtual world appears), controllers as a primary input device (With support for hands), targeting primarily the "low end" with the Quest 2/3, while only dabbling in the former "high end" with the Quest Pro. Social interaction/gaming focus. Removes you completely from interactions with people in the same physical space.
Apple: AR first (Put on the headset and you just see your surroundings.), eyes/hands as the primary input device with direct interactions available, only super-high-end with $3500 cost. Productivity focus. Allows you to interact "normally" with people in the same physical space (Normally, but you'll be talking with your virtual eyes, so we'll see how that goes in reality.)
Basically they are approaching things from opposite ends of the spectrum. The future will probably be somewhere in the middle, but I'd say Apple's approach is the best one to get people to actually consistently use the device - because I spend 8 hours working a day, if I can use the headset and it improves my work setup, then I will use it nearly daily. I have a quest pro, and I use it every few days to play games, but that is basically it. Input on the Quest Pro is super fiddly, especially with hands as sometimes the laser pointer chooses the wrong "angle" and you have to awkwardly position your hands way above your head to select something right in front of you. I've also tried their new "direct touch" method in beta, and it is better, but the hand tracking just isn't reliable enough for it to feel seamless. You basically have to expect every attempt to input something will fail. IMO it seems Apple has fixed this, assuming their eye tracking is as accurate as people have experienced.
If you are the average user of the Meta Quest, then Facebook is in SERIOUS trouble. They did not buy Oculus just so that it could be used for games (IMHO), they bought it because they saw a way of using it to serve ads to in a Meta world type environment. i.e. running deficits in Reality Labs of $13 or $14 billion last year, another $4 billion in the first quarter of this year... is not so they can corner the game market.
It's pretty much guaranteed that Meta will sell more Quest 3 devices due to the Vision Pro.
It will be interesting where it goes from there as it's entirely possible there may be a Quest 4 by the time Apple launches a cheaper $1500 - $2000 headset of their own, which would still be way way too expensive for mass market.
It's going to be an interesting few years that's for sure.
It will be interesting where it goes from there as it's entirely possible there may be a Quest 4 by the time Apple launches a cheaper $1500 - $2000 headset of their own, which would still be way way too expensive for mass market.
It's going to be an interesting few years that's for sure.
The funny thing is Meta was already moving towards the path of the Vision Pro, just a lot slower. All the Quests have finger tracking and the Quest 3 and Pro have color passthrough.
Meta definitely didn't buy Oculus just for games, but currently that's clearly their focus. Maybe it's because the VR gaming market is more lucrative for the time being? Not sure.
In any case, the Quest 2/3 are clearly gaming devices first, everything else second. Just recently they launched Meta Quest+, a subscription service that gives you 2 games every month. Not productivity apps, or social media app perks, but games.
And if you look at the official Meta Quest Youtube channel, it's literally all games. The Quest line (with the exception of Quest Pro) looks more similar to a line of gaming consoles than it does a general computing device like the Vision Pro.
Compared to Apple's approach, you can see the huge difference in focus.
Meta needs to increase their efforts in areas other than gaming, otherwise Apple can easily dominate the general spatial computing market.
Meta was already on a path toward something like the Vision Pro. The‘ve spent so much money because they want to be a major player in the face computer industry, not because they want to be a video game console. They want to be the Windows or Android of VR (And maybe their hardware being the Samsung of VR)
But they’ve also been releasing VR hardware for over ten years now. And the original Quest will be about five years old when the Vision Pro is released. There’s not really any other approach they could have taken. Apple couldn’t have come out with a “spatial computer” five years earlier. It’s more about Meta releasing earlier on the timeline than having a different vision (pun not intended).
Last edited:
I don't know how profitable the VR gaming market is for Meta... losing around $17 billion in that department over the last 5 quarters... I have a sneaking suspicion that it is not all R&D -- if it is it would be one of the most inefficient R&D departments (Apple has an annual R&D budget of $26 billion - that includes, materials, display technologies, silicon, machine learning/AI, Apple Car technology, VR/AR, etc.)... it is most likely they lose money on each VR headset sale - which would explain it going up without much to show for it. Most VR games brought to devices are afterthoughts to the game producers of 2D games.