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 Says Apple Vision Pro Has No 'Magical Solutions'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So a tiny number. Also, why would they buy this or any apple product making them at all relevant to this thread? Or was your intention to throw shade at apple for setting up an account and giving a free private email account to anyone who signs up to use their product?
I have to agree with Mark. Atleast he does have a purpose for his VR headset. Apple .... they have no vision for it.
Just like with the iPad, you will be stuck with mobile apps with the Vision "Pro".
$3500 and you cannot even use it for VR gaming on PC. Way too expensive with all it's limitation.
Maybe I will buy it as a "toy" when the 2nd generation launches though.
Just like with the Apple Watch, it is going to be used for something very small (the Apple Watch is basically a very bad fitness watch in the end for most people).
Just like with the iPad, you will be stuck with mobile apps with the Vision "Pro".
$3500 and you cannot even use it for VR gaming on PC. Way too expensive with all it's limitation.
Maybe I will buy it as a "toy" when the 2nd generation launches though.
Just like with the Apple Watch, it is going to be used for something very small (the Apple Watch is basically a very bad fitness watch in the end for most people).
Everything of vision pro is great except the price, so that's it, it won't sell well.
ROFLMAO 🤣😆😂💀💀👎🏿
In a companywide meeting with employees today, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded to Apple's announcement of the Vision Pro, according to The Verge's Alex Heath. Zuckerberg said the Vision Pro has no "magical solutions" that Meta has not thought of, and "costs seven times more" than its recently-announced Quest 3 headset.
Zuckerberg added that Apple's announcement "really showcases the difference in the values and the vision that our companies bring to this," noting that Meta's goal is to offer products that are "accessible and affordable to everyone." Vision Pro will be priced at $3,499, while the Quest 3 will be priced at $499 and the Quest Pro costs $999.
Meta's goal with the metaverse is "fundamentally social," whereas the Vision Pro appears to be more isolating, according to Zuckerberg. He admitted that Apple's approach "could be the vision of the future of computing," but is "not the one that I want."
Zuckerberg's full comments, as reported by The Verge:Just days before WWDC, Meta previewed the Quest 3, its next-generation mixed reality headset. Launching later this year, the headset features a 40% slimmer and more comfortable design, a higher-resolution display, and up to twice the graphics performance as the Quest 2. The headset will start at $499 with 128GB of storage, and the company plans to share more details about it at an event on September 27.
Apple said the Vision Pro will be available in the U.S. in early 2024.
Article Link: Mark Zuckerberg Says Apple Vision Pro Has No 'Magical Solutions'
Wow the hater REALLY putting it into overtime.
Suck-a-face is seriously hateful and fearful Apple will bring about a revolution and success where he failed!! And NOT cost them 50 Billion $$ + like he did which eventually led to employees being laid off because of HIS lack of vision and stupidity and his Meta-verse failed!
So who’s the betting man here waiting for Zuckerberg to switch the corporate name back to FaceBook before it becomes another RIM (Research In Motion) to BlackBerry. The similarities are hilarious here.
You'd be surprised how many posters on here think all these people with low disposable incomes will find a way to afford a £4K headset though. I agree with you, its priced far too high for mass appeal and I can't see the cheaper version ever being competitive either as we know Apple don't try and compete on price against the competition.
I won’t be surprised at how little this matters to the people buying a vision pro headset.
I would rather buy a VR with 4K resolution, immersive sound system and be able to enjoy movies, use it as a monitor replacement etc. People are so focused on only comparing prices, but yet the Vision Pro has 21 sensors and cameras for input and then complain about the price (which is probably at cost or under). The same was said when the iPhone came, too expensive compared to the other phones, until people realised it was just so much more than other phones!
The niche group that buy this know it’ll come with Apples usual limitations when trying to use it with anything other than Apple products and services I agree. It was why the HomePod ended up being less appealing in the end but those that bought it accepted the limitations.
I guarantee you that in regards to gaming, Apple will encourage app developers to stuff the Vision Pro’s store FULL of ’free’ games tracking all your data like the iPhone, with endless in app purchases just like on iPhone and iPad. An App Store like iPhone and iPad where you literally cheer and celebrate if a good game is made premium buy once. Thus the quality will be no where near PC or console VR games, no Half Alice Alyx that’s for sure.
And Apple will be taking that sweet 30% from every in app purchase.
Well In my honest opinion 99% of VR headsets are being used for VR Porn, so Apple Vision Pro with way better resolution wins 😅, period.
Just a note, Apple is the main driver of high prices on mass produced none premium handsets (iPhone is not premium, doesn’t come made of gold or encrusted with diamonds like others do). They are the only ones who took the market to 999 priced devices and then beyond too. Obviously people pay that or more yearly, but what makes you think Apple will want the price of its VR equipment to come down? I mean they did just replace the Mac Pro, made it half as upgradable AND put the price up on it even though they make the chips themselves thus cutting costs.
It's pretty astounding how many are still missing the point.
Apple introduced a 1st gen device that heralds the era of spatial computing. All other offerings are merely "VR Headsets"
But that's exactly the point. The fact that today's headset suck - be it for hardware limitations or software ones - is precisely the reason AR/VR hasn't taken off yet.
Motte and bailey.
Sure, RIM got it wrong, and so did Nokia. They paid for it.
But not everybody got it wrong. Google didn't, and most importantly, the users didn't. The users recognized (me included) the immediate advantage of having this type of touch interface which let you have an all-screen phone, which was great. They jumped on the bandwagon, with iPhone or the Android phones, immediately.
No such thing happened with VR with the notable exception of the Valve Index. Even Meta, who's got the most popular product in the segment, cannot say it really flies off the shelves and it remains at niche adoption. At this stage, it's obvious that Meta's social-VR bet is a really expensive flop. There's no reason to think that people really want immersive social media.
This new Vision Pro device that you're sure will handsomely succeed cannot do the core function of VR, which has always been gaming. From a high-end device I'd expect a high-end gaming experience. Yeah, I get it, it's not VR, it's something else. Like what? A super high end photo viewer? Is that what the market wants?
Then many people are mistaken on the price. The original iPhone was $599, the Nexus One was $530. This wasn't out of the ordinary, compared to high end handsets at the time. Before the iPhone I had an Ericsson R380 which was a lot more expensive, followed by a Nokia E71 for which I paid about $700. When the iPhone came out, I didn't go "whooa this is way too expensive". It just wasn't.
But one will need quite a bit of disposable income to spend $3500 on a thing that's very slick and otherwise not sure.
At least the HomePod, which is technologically a very good product that was rendered nearly useless by the lack of connectivity and interoperability and thus was a big flop, isn't ridiculously overpriced.
What? Mark Zucky has been working with VR earlier than practically anyone in the business. Oculus was his ticket in and working with John Carmack has given him so much of a headstart. Of course, he is going to buy one. That is how competitors learn from each other.
Come on.
You are comparing one platform's software with another hardware? Great way to make a horrible point.
By the time the iPhone was released cellphones could go for a week on one charge. Overnight charging was and remains a huge downgrade on battery life. And don't get me started on watches before the Apple Watch. 😵
On the contrary, VR/AR are dead. This non-market is only large enough for one fantasy product. Vision Pro will completely dominate whatever this technology will become with no competition whatsoever. The market will be tiny, but other than iPod and iPad it will be 99% Apple, with 1% military and business use cases.
That’s kind of what this whole conversation is, right. Zuckerberg was doing exactly that.
Interestingly every single person who demoed this preproduction model, even the skeptics were blown away and put it light years ahead of current competitors. I’ve watched several group interviews where technologists who own and use those devices often were unable to put into words what they had just experienced. It was a “mind blowing experience” that could not be compared.
It doesn’t need a Mac or any device to function. It far more than a gaming toy. It is a spacial computer that changes paradigm for computing in much the same way that Lisa and the Mac did with object based UIs and a mouse to manipulate it.