Zuck is in complete denial mode. Apple has blown them out of the water from a technological perspective and it’ll be hard for them to ever catch up.
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
What does Mr. Zuckerberg want?
Rule the world, make it his own, fire up wars, hate and control brains of the mass?
Rule the world, make it his own, fire up wars, hate and control brains of the mass?
True, I think Apple tried to stay away from a metaverse type pitch. However Apple will have more developer buy in than Meta ever will and they will bring alot of that immersive virtual side. Apple were emphasiszing the spacial computing, which wouldn’t be 3D
Let's suppose you put on a headset when there are people around. With Apple's Vision Pro its implementation allows people to be detected and you can talk and see each other while wearing the headset.
Comparably if you try using the quest 2 you really don't know who is around you when you have it on. So which is more adaptable to real life cohabitation?
So is socializing virtually better then socializing around people Mark Zuckerberg? I only see one product that can do both, and Meta's ain't it.
Apple and every big tech is doing it.
This is what Blackberry said to the iPhone. This is what a man who has lost says.
And if we get right down to the bone and gristle -- he's right. If you look at the hardware, there is no magic in it. It's all screens, sensors and sand. It's heavy and if we're honest, it doesn't solve the problems the Quest solves as well as the Quest series does.
The magic, as it always is, is in the integration. Software, OS and hardware providing a purposefully designed experience will allow the components come together to solve problems the Quest cannot be used for. If you can't see that, you've lost. If you're focused on what you can sell for cheap, rather than charging the lowest possible price for something that is good and useful -- again, you've lost. And if you're waiting to sell the good stuff until the price is sufficiently low, you're going to get Magic Leaped (e.g. work for decades and then just kind of peter out).
I don't think the Vision Pro is going to make a lot of friends, but I think the friends it does make are going to be rabid. And it's much easier to sell a scaled down version of something popular and good, than to go up market with a product that nobody really cares about.
And if we get right down to the bone and gristle -- he's right. If you look at the hardware, there is no magic in it. It's all screens, sensors and sand. It's heavy and if we're honest, it doesn't solve the problems the Quest solves as well as the Quest series does.
The magic, as it always is, is in the integration. Software, OS and hardware providing a purposefully designed experience will allow the components come together to solve problems the Quest cannot be used for. If you can't see that, you've lost. If you're focused on what you can sell for cheap, rather than charging the lowest possible price for something that is good and useful -- again, you've lost. And if you're waiting to sell the good stuff until the price is sufficiently low, you're going to get Magic Leaped (e.g. work for decades and then just kind of peter out).
I don't think the Vision Pro is going to make a lot of friends, but I think the friends it does make are going to be rabid. And it's much easier to sell a scaled down version of something popular and good, than to go up market with a product that nobody really cares about.
Hmm...well, I don't think Apple is saying it's solving any urgent problem, did it? A product doesn't have to be made to necessarily solve a problem. What I think Apple is usually good as is iterations or iterating on existing things or combining existing concepts and practices to iterate on something a lot more polished and comes with some new things. That's all fine.
And it's fine to offer products that are niche (so long as they're not denying it's niche!
)
I don't like Meta but he's absolutely correct; objectively. People are itching to dunk on Zuck (as I've done many times in the past lol) but if you actually read what he's saying it's totally reasonable.
There were no novel UX elements introduced with Vision Pro, only Apple have crafted a more refined experience vs. Meta but then again, as Zuck says, Apple's device costs 7x as much. I like Apple's product more based on what we've seen but make no mistake: there's absolutely nothing about it that Meta and others have not already come up with, irrespective of the 'quality' of those experiences.
I would even go as far as saying Zuck deserves more praise for his vision of AR/VR than Apple because his company embraced it early and have been experimenting with it for years. Plus his version is actually attainable today by the average person.
Apple will 'win' the AR war in 2024 because they have the insane advantage of positioning visionOS as just another build target for your universal apps that already run on macOS, iPadOS, iOS, watchOS, etc -- in other words, Vision Pro is a new method of doing the same thing you already do on your favorite Apple devices right now (why do you think Apple avoided any VR heavy demos and instead focused on floating iPadOS style windows? They're steering clear of putting themselves in the category of VR). Meta meanwhile have to position their platform as something brand new and they cannot figure out what VR is meant to be (is it metaverse? is it a virtual computing environment? is it for games? is it for socializing?).
There were no novel UX elements introduced with Vision Pro, only Apple have crafted a more refined experience vs. Meta but then again, as Zuck says, Apple's device costs 7x as much. I like Apple's product more based on what we've seen but make no mistake: there's absolutely nothing about it that Meta and others have not already come up with, irrespective of the 'quality' of those experiences.
I would even go as far as saying Zuck deserves more praise for his vision of AR/VR than Apple because his company embraced it early and have been experimenting with it for years. Plus his version is actually attainable today by the average person.
Apple will 'win' the AR war in 2024 because they have the insane advantage of positioning visionOS as just another build target for your universal apps that already run on macOS, iPadOS, iOS, watchOS, etc -- in other words, Vision Pro is a new method of doing the same thing you already do on your favorite Apple devices right now (why do you think Apple avoided any VR heavy demos and instead focused on floating iPadOS style windows? They're steering clear of putting themselves in the category of VR). Meta meanwhile have to position their platform as something brand new and they cannot figure out what VR is meant to be (is it metaverse? is it a virtual computing environment? is it for games? is it for socializing?).
Last edited:
This is Mark’s “Ballmer” moment — that didn’t take long. Talk about delusional. Sounds like he is doubling down on his ridiculous “metaverse” idea, and he seems clueless as to how badly he is going to get stomped in this market. Mark, it’s over.
This is exactly what I thought of when I read the post. Its ok to be wrong about something, but to blast it as a CEO in official announcement, is another thing all together.
Are you really defending MetaMark and their Quest? 😳 Do you really trust that those cameras are 100% private when you are wearing it?
He's right about this bit. It really struck me about Apples demo aswell.
There’s an easy workaround for this for headsets without visual passthrough. You use your voices. And Meta devices do have passthrough, so it probably wouldn’t be all that hard to add a mode where you can see people when they enter your space. It may not look as sharp. But if I’m wearing a headset and want to talk to someone outside the headset for more than a couple seconds, I’ll simply move the headset so it rests on my forehead or take it off for a bit.Let's suppose you put on a headset when there are people around. With Apple's Vision Pro its implementation allows people to be detected and you can talk and see each other while wearing the headset. While if you try using the quest 2 you really don't know who is around you when you have it on. So which is more adaptable to real life cohabitation?
So is socializing virtually better then socializing around people Mark Zuckerberg? I only see one product that can do both, and Meta's ain't it.
UI is one of the greatest examples of something being more than the sum of its parts. If apple does everything UI wise a little better than Facebook, then it will be a ridiculously better product. And considering reactions, it seems like they did. Software is a really big issue on these headsets right now.
To be fair, I just bought one. Partly because some colleagues have been so enthusiastic about some of the games, but quite a lot because it is a reasonably priced way to try out VR in general first. I am excited for the Vision Pro but hopefully the Quest will give me more confidence that I will like the overall experience before I shell out many UK £££££
Actually that I would pay to see with 🍿 at the ready. Could be entertaining?
Why would he be scared? Apple will help make VR/MR/AR headsets more popular. Apple's headset should only help Meta's efforts because it shows Meta what could be and can be done.
Meta has a different vision than Apple about headsets, at least for now, but competition will help everyone, including Meta. Or maybe they won't adapt and will get left behind. That's okay too.
Last edited:
He contradicts himself. First he says they've sold "millions of units" (of Quest), but then he says this...
Going to succeed? Which is it? Are millions of units not a success? Are you admitting that the Quest is not yet a success, Mark? 😜
I don't care about Zuckerberg, he's a weirdo who once had a good money-making idea. I hate his company. I don't have a Facebook account. I'd never buy his Quest products or anything else.
Having said that, I think his Quest 3 is useful and will be a market success, while the Apple Vision Pro - undeniably cool with amazing tech - is largely useless and will flop, because not that many people can pay 3.5k for something cool and useless.
Having said that, I think his Quest 3 is useful and will be a market success, while the Apple Vision Pro - undeniably cool with amazing tech - is largely useless and will flop, because not that many people can pay 3.5k for something cool and useless.
I think Apple was very smart in initially NOT aiming at avatars with anymore than what's just an acceptably photorealistic head/face with hands/arms.
Yes, it doesn't look amazing. Especially not when moving and talking (which explains the glow/blur effect that Apple is utilizing on their avatars?).
But starting slowly, with more simple models and inching their ways towards realism is the way to go when considering where we're actually at with realtime CGI.
Doing doing full bodied, cartoony 3D characters walking around in "cyberspace" when you can't pull it off convincingly just scares everyone away.
I also don’t want the future of computing to look like what was reported on in the Wall Street Journal yesterday regarding Instagram and pedophiles