Mark Zuckerberg Says Apple Vision Pro Has No 'Magical Solutions'

[George Dawes]

This is the pro version , just wait for the mainstream one in about 18 months

Half the size , price and weight , probably sporting an m3 too..

 

[code-m]

And you seem to think everything people say on this forum is for you. Strange how that works, no?🤣🤣🤣

I don’t think you understand how a public forum works. 😝

 

[MacAddict1978]

I’m very curious what he honestly means by the concept of the apple device being isolating, is his intention for people to walk around outside wearing the Quest 3? At least the Apple device has the ability to emulate eye contact, has pass through of people when immersed, and has a realistic look for you in FaceTime.

The price I suppose is true, but on the other hand, barely anybody bought a Quest 2 for $300, why would they buy a Quest 3 for $500? And then you have the obvious text clarity issues that make this a bad productivity device, something I can personally confirm to you as a Quest 2 owner. It genuinely hurts to read.

All the reviews from people that tried it a WWDC raved about text being in many clases even clearer than outside of VR and still being able to read text on their phone with it on.

I wanted VR to have a movie theater viewing experience that it never really delivered through a screen door - I'd almost drop $3500 for that feature alone - but ---

it does need a killer app. The whole demo was AR focused as well - there wasn't really any VR experiences so I am curious to see how that unfolds.

 

[gaximus]

Exactly! To me, what Apple is doing isn’t really trying to create a new world/metaverse, but more like looking at new ways to interact in computing.

Yep, Apple is asking you to buy a $3,500 device for yourself, that will replace your desktop, multiple monitors, home theater, and much more, that can also do VR games And your can bring onto a plane, and be just as productive as having a huge office to yourself. Meta is asking you to buy a $1,500 device and convince your friends to also buy that device (or your device won’t have all advertised features) and try and start a new eco system that doesn’t exist yet, tough sell.

 

[msackey]

Yep, Apple is asking you to buy a $3,500 device for yourself, that will replace your desktop, multiple monitors, home theater, and much more, that can also do VR games And your can bring onto a plane, and be just as productive as having a huge office to yourself. Meta is asking you to buy a $1,500 device and convince your friends to also buy that device (or your device won’t have all advertised features) and try and start a new eco system that doesn’t exist yet, tough sell.

Well, I’m not sure that Apple is saying the device replaces desktop, multiple monitors, and home theatres. I think it’s saying it’s another way to interact in computing. It’s not a replacement, but it can supplement or it could be just a different form.

 

[djphat2000]

No reason you couldn't add users to this device within your house hold. They would need their own fit for the part that sits on your face. And if they have glasses. They would need another set of eye pieces for them.
So it's very possible you can buy just one of these and have those other users have the custom fit head/face piece to use it.

But, everyone is going to want their own. 😁

 

[rafark]

imo his only foresight was creating (and then acquiring) social networks that people end up getting addicted to and using for insanely toxic purposes

It’s not a bad think when you view it from an objective perspective. He built a good product. So good that people became addicted to it. Same thing with the iPhone. I mean, if that’s not the meaning of success I don’t know what it is.

Or in other words, if Facebook or the iPhone were subpar products people wouldn’t use them as much.

How are they toxic for wanting to create a perfect product, for having the ambition to deliver the best they can imagine? I think lazy companies that make average products for a quick buck or just to please investors are more toxic.

 

[phenste]

It’s not a bad think when you view it from an objective perspective. He built a good product. So good that people became addicted to it. Same thing with the iPhone. I mean, if that’s not the meaning of success I don’t know what it is.

Or in other words, if Facebook or the iPhone were subpar products people wouldn’t use them as much.

How are they toxic for wanting to create a perfect product, for having the ambition to deliver the best they can imagine? I think lazy companies that make average products for a quick buck or just to please investors are more toxic.

read my comment a lil more closely bro 🥴 I didn’t say he himself is toxic, I think the worst he’s guilty of is being an insanely awkward person (there’s also the whole Cambridge Analytica thing, but, whatever…)

no one (with basic standards of ethics/morality) is toxic for wanting to execute their idea of a groundbreaking product in a successful fashion—what I said is that the product has become toxic by way of how it’s been manipulated by a portion of the user base (paired with the algorithm evolving into something that, to the best of my knowledge, even Facebook devs don’t fully understand at this pont).

and even then, that’s what basically all social platforms eventually morph into, so…

at least with something like the iPhone, I can say it’s been a literal lifeline for me before, without going into specific detail. I can’t say the same for any product the Zuck has ever created.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Yeah, sure. Try being a novelist and writing a hundred-thousand-word novel with just a Vision Pro. See how far you get lol.

Not gonna happen because you won’t be able to thousand-yard stare out the window while thinking/pondering, as the AVP will make everything seem about 1.5m away from your eyes.

 

[webkit]

Sounds almost exactly like Steve Ballmer when the iPhone was announced. Meta will be absolutely buried by Vision Pro.

We saw a similar foolish comment from Steve Ballmer laughing at the price when the iPhone was first announced:

Ballmer was right to "laugh" at the price. As it turned out, the price of the iPhone was notably reduced in less than three months and reduced further the following year. The 8GB iPhone (with AT&T contract) went from $599 to just $199 in one year.

If a similar price reduction were to occur with the Vision Pro, it would go from $3,499 to $1,199 in one year.

 

[chucker23n1]

The difference is Ballmer was right to "laugh" at the price. As it turned out, the price of the iPhone was notably reduced in less than three months and reduced further the following year. The 8GB iPhone (with AT&T contract) went from $599 to just $199 in one year.

It went from $599 unsubsidized to $199 + $400 subsidized. The actual price you paid didn't change.

Besides, the average sales price of an iPhone is now around $800. So in the long run, Ballmer was way off.

 

[webkit]

It went from $599 unsubsidized to $199 + $400 subsidized. The actual price you paid didn't change.

Besides, the average sales price of an iPhone is now around $800. So in the long run, Ballmer was way off.

What customers paid did in fact drop significantly. At launch (with AT&T contract), the price of the 8GB iPhone was $599. Three months later it was reduced to $399 and because of the price reduction and all of the complaints from early adopters, Apple gave a $100 gift card to appease them.

When the next iPhone came out a year later, the price customers paid (again, with AT&T contract) was now just $199. The iPhone price customers paid (both with AT&T contracts) absolutely did change, going from $599 to $199 in one year.

Ballmer's comments were about pricing at launch in 2007, not what may be happening 16 years later.

 

[chucker23n1]

What customers paid did in fact drop significantly. At launch (with AT&T contract), the price of the 8GB iPhone was $599. Three months later it was reduced to $399 and because of the price reduction and all of the complaints from early adopters, Apple gave a $100 gift card to appease them.

Yup.

When the next iPhone came out a year later, the price customers paid (again, with AT&T contract) was now just $199. The iPhone price customers paid (both with AT&T contracts) absolutely did change, going from $599 to $199 in one year.

My recollection is that earlier contracts didn't include a subsidy, and the 3G one did.

Ballmer's comments were about pricing at launch in 2007, not what may be happening 16 years later.

Yeah, and he was technically correct, but clearly way off about the trajectory. He could've positioned Windows Mobile as a premium platform, and didn't. So instead, Google undercut him in price.

 

[jsalda]

Apple is great at creating “want” with its users, and the general public. People are going to see this and really want one, even if they can’t afford it. They are going to buy a Quest, thinking that it’s the same, just a cheaper version. When they find out it is not, they will return it and either a) not buy anything else or b) go ahead and pony up the $$$ to buy the Vision Pro. The Vision Pro may not be a big seller, but it is going to get the market primed for the lower cost Vision when it is released.

 

[webkit]

My recollection is that earlier contracts didn't include a subsidy, and the 3G one did.

What may or may not have been going on "behind the scenes" isn't particularly relevant as the discussion is about customer market prices; and what customers paid dropped during that first year with an 8GB iPhone going from $599 to just $199 (each with AT&T contract). Given these notable reductions, Ballmer was correct to laugh at the high launch price.

Yeah, and he was technically correct, but clearly way off about the trajectory. He could've positioned Windows Mobile as a premium platform, and didn't. So instead, Google undercut him in price.

His pricing reaction was clearly regarding 2007 launch prices, not where pricing may go down the road with competition, technologies, larger sizes, inflation, etc. Given the notable iPhone price reductions in 2007 (just three months after launch) and again in 2008, Ballmer was right about the price.

 

[chucker23n1]

His pricing reaction was clearly regarding 2007 launch prices, not where pricing may go down the road with competition, technologies, larger sizes, inflation, etc.

Exactly. Which makes his reaction stupid (unless he externally reacted that way but internally had an 'oh ****' moment, which is possible, but doesn't appear to be the case, given how long they took to scrap Windows Mobile 7 in favor of Windows Phone 7), because he clearly didn't see the way the tide was shifting.

Given the notable iPhone price reductions in 2007 (just three months after launch) and again in 2008, Ballmer was right about the price.

He was right that the iPhone was more expensive than was usual for phones at the time. His apparent conclusion from that was wrong. The iPhone (and Android) not only killed the much cheaper non-smart cell phones and "feature phones"; it also killed every single existing smartphone platform. And on top of that established a higher price tag in the long run.

I don't think the $3499 Vision Pro is an indicator that future AR headsets will be around $3500, to be clear. But I also don't think they'll be at the Quest 3's $499. Instead, I think Apple is shooting for prices like Mac laptops: eventually, a Vision Air will start around $1299, and the Vision Pro around $1999, but configurable up to $2999.

And that's what Ballmer and Zuckerberg aren't getting: this is very likely the next generation of products, just like the iPhone was.

 

[webkit]

Which makes his reaction stupid (unless he externally reacted that way but internally had an 'oh ****' moment, which is possible, but doesn't appear to be the case, given how long they took to scrap Windows Mobile 7 in favor of Windows Phone 7), because he clearly didn't see the way the tide was shifting.

No, it made his price reaction reasonable and accurate. It would've been stupid for him to have a (public) reaction beyond the near term and as it turns out, he was correct to "laugh" at the too high iPhone launch price given how quickly (within as little as three months) and significantly they dropped. Had iPhone prices not been reduced as much as they were (again, showing Ballmer's initial price reaction was correct), things may not have turned out nearly as well for the iPhone.

He was right that the iPhone was more expensive than was usual for phones at the time. His apparent conclusion from that was wrong. The iPhone (and Android) not only killed the much cheaper non-smart cell phones and "feature phones"; it also killed every single existing smartphone platform. And on top of that established a higher price tag in the long run.

His conclusion about the prices was not wrong. Again, he was right that the iPhone launch prices in particular were too high as evidenced by the quick (within as little as three months) and significant price cuts that would come. He was not there to talk about where pricing would be 5 years, 10 years, 15+ years down the road nor would that have been relevant to what prices were in 2007. There would've been no way to know what sort of "deals" carriers would be providing, where inflation would go, and so on.

 

[djphat2000]

Ballmer was right on a few things. The price was expensive. It was the most expensive phone out there. But, like always people forget what you "get" for that price. Fairly sure Jobs pointed that out at some point. It was too high and the price was brought down. Yet over time, that price went right back up and now sits at about $1k for a new phone. People are clearly willing to pay for it.

Ballmer was correct that at the time, Apple had the market share for iPods and Microsoft had the market share for phones. What he was wrong about was M$ inability to actually compete with either product they made against Apple long term. He didn't see the business case for not having a physical keyboard and that it wouldn't' be adopted in the corp space. I think this is the case as they are competitors, so you can't view the others product as "good" let alone great. They have to protect their business in that regard. BUT, I think Ballmer really didn't believe Apple had a good enough product to out compete M$. Where as Zuck, I think he full well knows what is at stake here. And all it will take is for Apple to have a successful launch. AND for another competitor to step up their game. Say, Microsoft or even Google with a more "open" version. Either he creates a better device or is cartoon VR will go bye bye.

 

[webkit]

Ballmer was right on a few things. The price was expensive. It was the most expensive phone out there. But, like always people forget what you "get" for that price. Fairly sure Jobs pointed that out at some point. It was too high and the price was brought down. Yet over time, that price went right back up and now sits at about $1k for a new phone. People are clearly willing to pay for it.

Yes, and apparently what you got with the early iPhones wasn't necessarily enough to justify the high prices, hence the quick and notable price reductions.

When you consider inflation and factor in that those early iPhone prices were with 2 year AT&T contracts, even by today's standards (much better and more capable phones) those launch prices were high. $499 (4GB) or $599 (8GB) would be around $735 or $880 in today’s dollars. You can get a better and larger 64GB iPhone SE for just $429 or a much better and much larger 128GB iPhone 14 for $829, both without any carrier contract requirements. Throw in today’s various carrier "deals" (and commitments) and net prices can go down a lot from there.

Ballmer was correct that at the time, Apple had the market share for iPods and Microsoft had the market share for phones. What he was wrong about was M$ inability to actually compete with either product they made against Apple long term. He didn't see the business case for not having a physical keyboard and that it wouldn't' be adopted in the corp space. I think this is the case as they are competitors, so you can't view the others product as "good" let alone great. They have to protect their business in that regard. BUT, I think Ballmer really didn't believe Apple had a good enough product to out compete M$. Where as Zuck, I think he full well knows what is at stake here. And all it will take is for Apple to have a successful launch. AND for another competitor to step up their game. Say, Microsoft or even Google with a more "open" version. Either he creates a better device or is cartoon VR will go bye bye.

Ballmer's poor handling of Microsoft's phone business, including the purchase of Nokia's device business, was a major contributor to his exit in 2014.

 

[JamesHolden]

I have several groups on there that I need to participate in. Facebook will happily host your group message board for "free" because the value they get from interest clustering for targeting ads.

I appreciate that people have all sorts of reasons for having Facebook accounts. That said, if one uses Facebook, one enriches Facebook --- no matter how or why one uses it. Period. People who oppose how Facebook operates and/or complain about their business model and business practices, yet still use Facebook, are being hypocritical.

I got rid of Facebook and Instagram many years ago because I believe social media is one of the worst things to happen to civilized society, and especially youth, in my lifetime. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is despite the fact that I know I'm missing out on certain things that Facebook makes possible.

Thats why Zuck wants Oculus to be a social platform so much - because then people will have a brutal time leaving the ecosystem.

No different than the way Apple locks people into their ecosystem. Every company is trying to turn its customers into a dependent these days with lock-in business models and subscriptions for everything.

I dunno, I'm someone who has done hardware and software development up and down the full stack. So my definition of magic is I imagine the same as a professional magician's definition. If he sees someone else perform and can't figure out even what approaches might fully accomplish their illusion, it is indeed magic.

Fair enough. Although there's still nothing magical about it. It just means that magician (or coder) is smarter than the rest. That's all.

I interpret Zuck as saying he thinks his teams could accomplish the same (hardware) things, and that Apple hasn't found a way around hardware limitations (other than throwing more, higher quality components at the problem)

Agreed. And Zuck is right. Zuck is also interested in getting hardware into the hands of as many people as possible in order to grow his Metaverse vision. Facebook might be able to build a device that competes more directly with the Vision Pro, feature for feature, but they certainly can't do it at the Quest's price point.

 

[lysingur]

I don’t think you understand how a public forum works. 😝

I don’t think you know how free speech works. 😚

 

[lysingur]

imo his only foresight was creating (and then acquiring) social networks that people end up getting addicted to and using for insanely toxic purposes—I’ll go ahead and show some self-awareness in that I brought up in another thread the fact (or opinion, I suppose) that how people use a product or service boils down to the person themselves, not the service as a whole—though Facebook has become nothing short of a cesspool for misinformation, and Instagram has become a cesspool for vanity. (speaking from a younger demographic as far as Insta goes, at least, ironically the misinformation seems to oft go awry on Facebook with older demographics who are less social-media/modern-Internet-literate)

So I guess you think it never the fault of the person that she or he is obese either. Facebook is just a tool. It’s the people that are spreading misinformation.

 

[dwaite]

I appreciate that people have all sorts of reasons for having Facebook accounts. That said, if one uses Facebook, one enriches Facebook --- no matter how or why one uses it. Period. People who oppose how Facebook operates and/or complain about their business model and business practices, yet still use Facebook, are being hypocritical.

I think the medical system in the United States is broken at nearly every level. If I'm feeling sick, I'll still go to the doctor. If I'm feeling really bad, I'll still go to a hospital. And even if I'm feeling fine, I'll get a physical.

It's not hypocritical if it is your only reasonable choice.

I got rid of Facebook and Instagram many years ago because I believe social media is one of the worst things to happen to civilized society, and especially youth, in my lifetime. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is despite the fact that I know I'm missing out on certain things that Facebook makes possible.

Cool that you have the flexibility to do that.

Agreed. And Zuck is right. Zuck is also interested in getting hardware into the hands of as many people as possible in order to grow his Metaverse vision. Facebook might be able to build a device that competes more directly with the Vision Pro, feature for feature, but they certainly can't do it at the Quest's price point.

They have multiple Quest price points. However, Quest software is designed for the limitations of the base model, not the Quest Pro. They can only scale up the pro end so far above the base model until the cracks begin to show.

Quest is a VR headset with a desire for more AR features in the future. AVP is an AR headset which can run a few VR experiences. I suspect while they will have more overlap in the future, neither is going to flip its primary purpose.

 

[MyOwnDrummer]

I am not in the market for either one… just came here to say little Marky Mark‘s vision is owning the space in which you connect, while Apple’s vision is giving you control.

 

[robbietop]

Wow, you must REALLY hate paperback books! People sit around reading those for hours...

(Hey, do the other Amish know you're using a computer right now?)



Someone's taken a few intro philosophy courses! Good jorb. By the way that's "René", not "Renee".



I hereby hand you an award for "most willful missing of the point" in this entire thread (which is quite an accomplishment given how many pages long it is now).

And for an explanation of the point, I refer you to my earlier comment:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mark-zuckerberg-says-apple-vision-pro-has-no-magical-solutions.2392271/post-32235258

Thanks for the autocorrect correction.

Do you not understand the difference between solipsism and basic existence?

A Book is the true form of human expression, passing knowledge using arbitrary language. It can also be easily set down and walked away from. The average human has used books for pleasure for about a century now, and humanity as a whole has used them for over 2 thousand years, given literacy didn't approach 25% until the late 1800s.

A VR goggle is essentially a hybrid, as indicated by being virtual reality. Akin to the brain in the vat theorem, the Matrix is not human. It appears human, and falsifies human experience through sensual manipulation, which these goggles do. AR is also not human. It is also a hybrid, manipulating senses to falsify human experience. We use nicer terms than falsify such as Augment and Virtual.

But PTSD is stil Shell Shock.

Just because you can manipulate reality does not mean it is a new reality. It's means you have manipulated reality to achieve a favored outcome. The outcome favored here is monetary gain by soldering all the features of more efficient and convenient HID into a closed off virtual space only able to be experienced by one individual at a time.

Although everyone could wear one of these contraptions and thus complete the circuit, the problem is convincing everyone to buy one. Which, this device is not necessary to the every day lives, the persuasion is lost.

And then you look at the price tag and wonder why they even bothered, given competitors at lower price points have struggled with any real sustainable market growth.