Interesting, considering Apple is seemingly going out of its way to not have VP compared to Meta Quest.
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.
Mark Zuckerberg gives his thoughts on Vision Pro
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be honest it is significantly cheaper, it is lighter and doesn't need an external battery
He isn't wrong there
He isn't wrong there
Crappier hand tracking with no eye tracking = trying to do brain surgery with oven mitts on your feet.
If he swallowed his spit anymore during his poop-himself-spin he would have swallowed his own head.
If he swallowed his spit anymore during his poop-himself-spin he would have swallowed his own head.
In the video he basically says he’s tried it, said the screens were nice, but Meta does everything and more for $3k cheaper. This is actually the most excited I can think I’ve actually seen Zuck, and the most human too lol. But yeah nothing surprising here.
... OLED, EyeSight, fitted light seals.
Each of these is huge. I get you might balk at the price but downplaying these differences doesn't do you any favors.
Wow, I haven’t seen so much copium from a CEO since Steve Ballmer responded to the iPhone.
Reference:
Reference:
I'd take a higher FOV over OLED, EyeSight is magical yes and the Fitted light seal sucked. I had a ton of light leak on AVP
I desperately wanted to love it, didn't care about the money if it wowed me but I actually disliked too much about AVP to justify it.
Sounds like an obvious fitting issue.
Your comments on the display and FOV belie a misunderstanding of the underlying technology.
First one's obvious, there are no LCD displays with the AVP's pixel density.
But, more importantly, a higher FOV on the AVP would have resulted in a lower PPD which Apple was not comfortable with. They chose this FOV to give the device a minimum viable resolution with the highest density displays that can currently be sourced.
For me, it all comes back to your light seal fit. It needs to be as close to your face as possible (e.g. 21W where the second number denotes the depth). And then you obviously also need to have chosen the right curve and width. A fitted light seal is a unique strength but also means users and Apple Store employees can mess it up if they are not tenacious in getting it right.
The closer the device to your face, the higher the FOV. For an added bonus, you can then increase the IPD slightly for a higher horizontal FOV without visual detriment.
Doing all that, I got an FOV comparable to the Q3.
Don't get me wrong, I returned the device - but for unrelated reasons. There are still valid and invalid criticisms.
Last edited:
Ive been looking for somewhere to post on this... and here is this thread. Perfect.
Look, I really dont like Meta as a company... and I really dont like Zuckerberg.....
However, I DO own a Quest 3 and it's a really great device. It really is.
Sure, it's made down to a price point.. but that price point is something that the majority of consumers can afford and for certain the Apple Vision Pro is not. I would suggest very few people have a spare $3,500 to spend on tech like this.
But, this video has of course stirred up a lot of interest with 'apple fans' jumping all over it and ridiculing the notion that the Q3 is 'better' than the VP....
However, objectively, I hate to say but a fair few points raised by Zuckerberg are actually perfectly reasonable.
It helps that the entire video was filmed using the Q3 - showcasing the quality of its passthrough vs VP - sure its not 'as good' but its very serviceable AND people who are not familiar with VR who bought a VP were disappointed at the low light performance of the VP passthrough - although it seemed obvious to me that neither work well in low light.
Although this video is a little cringe, and seemingly a little desperate - again he makes some good points.
The objective reality is that the Q3 IS *much* more affordable than the VP. The Q3 *does* many things that the VP does... and in some ways better and in some ways worse (but never thousands of dollars worse!). The Q3 does things the VP doesnt... and the VP does things the Q3 doesnt.
However a LOT of the tentpole features of the VP are happily replicated on the Q3.
The Q3 has passthrough, AR, Hand Tracking and gesture control, Multi window Web Browsing, The ability to view 3D pictures and movies taken on an iPhone15 to name a few.
The Q3 also has things the VP does not - a lot of VR games, and custom controllers that the VP simply is not geared up for at all.
And for balance the VP is more of a spacial multi-app based environment where you can multitask with various different apps which the Q3 does not do.
The VP is definitely appealing to a slightly different user in that its a 'computer' in the same way the iPad is... so if you want a face mounted computer to do actual work on... then the VP is for you. The Q3 is not quite the same thing but more geared towards gaming and content consumption.
Whats interesting is... for a prospective VP buyer - what elements of the experience are you looking forward to having.... and does the Q3 do it anyway for a fraction of the price?
Look, I really dont like Meta as a company... and I really dont like Zuckerberg.....
However, I DO own a Quest 3 and it's a really great device. It really is.
Sure, it's made down to a price point.. but that price point is something that the majority of consumers can afford and for certain the Apple Vision Pro is not. I would suggest very few people have a spare $3,500 to spend on tech like this.
But, this video has of course stirred up a lot of interest with 'apple fans' jumping all over it and ridiculing the notion that the Q3 is 'better' than the VP....
However, objectively, I hate to say but a fair few points raised by Zuckerberg are actually perfectly reasonable.
It helps that the entire video was filmed using the Q3 - showcasing the quality of its passthrough vs VP - sure its not 'as good' but its very serviceable AND people who are not familiar with VR who bought a VP were disappointed at the low light performance of the VP passthrough - although it seemed obvious to me that neither work well in low light.
Although this video is a little cringe, and seemingly a little desperate - again he makes some good points.
The objective reality is that the Q3 IS *much* more affordable than the VP. The Q3 *does* many things that the VP does... and in some ways better and in some ways worse (but never thousands of dollars worse!). The Q3 does things the VP doesnt... and the VP does things the Q3 doesnt.
However a LOT of the tentpole features of the VP are happily replicated on the Q3.
The Q3 has passthrough, AR, Hand Tracking and gesture control, Multi window Web Browsing, The ability to view 3D pictures and movies taken on an iPhone15 to name a few.
The Q3 also has things the VP does not - a lot of VR games, and custom controllers that the VP simply is not geared up for at all.
And for balance the VP is more of a spacial multi-app based environment where you can multitask with various different apps which the Q3 does not do.
The VP is definitely appealing to a slightly different user in that its a 'computer' in the same way the iPad is... so if you want a face mounted computer to do actual work on... then the VP is for you. The Q3 is not quite the same thing but more geared towards gaming and content consumption.
Whats interesting is... for a prospective VP buyer - what elements of the experience are you looking forward to having.... and does the Q3 do it anyway for a fraction of the price?
Last edited:
Did you use the Q3? It's been stressed several times when it came out that the screen recordings look much better than what the user actually gets to see inside the headset. Add to that that Q3 warp correction and occlusion tracking virtually don't take place. It makes for a grainier and disorienting passthrough experience.
My second paragraph states I own a Q3.
Theres no need to be so defensive of Apple here - im trying to be objective in what im saying.
Is Q3's passthrough as good as VP's? No. No it's not. but it DOES have a greater field of vision.
The point is it works well enough and is certainly NOT 7 times cheaper bad.....
Do both systems suffer in low light conditions? Yes they do.
There is an important point that seems to get glossed over when comparing prices between the Quest 3 and the Apple Vision Pro.
The Quest 3 is being sold at a loss.
The Quest 3 is being sold at a loss.
