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
My understanding is that Quest devices have something called "Oculus Link", so you can connect them to a PC using a cable and use them as normal VR gear. To play SteamVR games, for example.
The Apple thing, on the other hand, I have no idea what I'd do with it.
I don't need it to watch movies, I have an 83" OLED and an Atmos surround sound system.
I don't Facetime.
I can't work with it, I'm a software developer.
I don't like Apple Arcade. I'm more of a WoW/Doom/Diablo kind of player.
Literally no idea what this Apple product is for. If they gave it the option of connecting it to a PC and use SteamVR, I'd say, it's an overpriced but cool product. As it is, I have no clue.
Not for the first time, this guy doesn't see what is coming.. A fool.. and I am no apple zealot.
I remember a video with a user of the device being approached by another person to demonstrate that the device can accommodate human interaction outside the device.
thats the thing, I don’t think anyone actually even knows how Quest is using your data. I’m sure it’s completely unintentional given facebook‘s remarkable track record on privacy.
Last edited:
That may be cool and o.k. for geeks playing games and some pro uses, but for real mass adoption these need to be stand alone and so small that carrying one around is as much of a no brainer as carrying a smartphone is today.
-> not today, not next year, maybe next decade.....
I actually think this is the more interesting analysis. Apple has nailed the human interaction model. They have seemingly solved for a great number of the core problems with eye fatigue and motion sickness. The UI is supposedly just as crisp and responsive as advertised. Nobody should be surprised by Apple succeeding at that stuff.
The real question is what will this be useful for that can't be ably accomplished on any other Apple device. The Apple Vision Pro is not the next iPhone. It is probably something that will end up being like the iPad but first have to go through a phase where it more like the Apple Watch. It's going to take developers riffing on the technology and users voting with their habits while using it. Eventually it will become the Right Computer for a number of people.
haha true, but it did solve many problems at the time though!
Actually, the Apple Vision Pro doesn't require one to have an Apple account. BTW, I attended the WWDC 2023 Apple Keynote and State of the Union presentations on Monday at Apple Park. As a developer, I was able to only attend the hands-off areas but I was able to confirm with Apple employees in the hand-off area and several YouTube media people that attended the hands-on areas said that Apple doesn't require an Apple account. They went on to say it was a bit like setting up an iPhone. For example, scan the face, scan the left/right ears, complete the eye tracking exercise, and complete the hand tracking exercise, and you're good to go. Now, if you're wanting to connect to the forthcoming Vision Pro App Store to download apps, you can reuse your existing Apple ID. Finally, there are no hard and fast requirements to have an account like Meta.
Ideally Meta stays in the game and provides real competition, which would benefit everyone. A shame HoloLens and MagicLeap didn't survive long enough to compete. The difference in cost between MQ3 and AVP is interesting. The far less expensive Quest products have failed to find true mass appeal - perhaps trying to launch something groundbreaking but also cheap is simply self-defeating. Apple has never been first to market, nor have they ever offered the cheapest entry, and while not all of their product lines find success, all of their major platforms have...in time.
My brief encounters with Meta headsets have been fun, but where I think they continue to be misguided is this notion of a metaverse. Forcing the idea that to use a headset, one must partake in some sort of shared virtual realm is simply outdated scifi stuff. We want to choose our own realms, as evidenced by the countless video game worlds we have been immersing ourselves in for decades. Zuck's umbrella vision of a singular space for all is a power grab that so far hasn't even worked internally. Pairing headset with metaverse feels like an attempt to create a big unified vision, but it's actually just holding back the former from being something of real use.
AVP on the other hand is essentially offering a MacBook or iPad alternative. I'm especially encouraged that in this week's launch, Apple has seemingly not tried to dictate usage. If anything, they seemed to walk softly, showcasing the fundamental interface and how it interacts with one's personal space. In a lot of ways - the anti-metaverse.
My brief encounters with Meta headsets have been fun, but where I think they continue to be misguided is this notion of a metaverse. Forcing the idea that to use a headset, one must partake in some sort of shared virtual realm is simply outdated scifi stuff. We want to choose our own realms, as evidenced by the countless video game worlds we have been immersing ourselves in for decades. Zuck's umbrella vision of a singular space for all is a power grab that so far hasn't even worked internally. Pairing headset with metaverse feels like an attempt to create a big unified vision, but it's actually just holding back the former from being something of real use.
AVP on the other hand is essentially offering a MacBook or iPad alternative. I'm especially encouraged that in this week's launch, Apple has seemingly not tried to dictate usage. If anything, they seemed to walk softly, showcasing the fundamental interface and how it interacts with one's personal space. In a lot of ways - the anti-metaverse.
He's right in that the Quest 3 can actually be afforded by lots more people, but that doesn't make the product a better value. I think Apple wanted to play more of a long game by making an over-the-top statement up front. Sure they could have brought something years ago, but obviously they wanted push the product category, and make new ones. Over time prices, bulk, and lower cost models will arrive, but the Apple ecosystem will always be the pricier choice. Nothing new there. It appears to be a technology so far beyond anything we've seen that, I'll admit, it's almost scary. I'm certainly intrigued by it, but do I really want to immerse myself into yet even more technology? Hmmm …
I remember another CEO talking smart about a certain phone. I get him backing his product but not talking out of his behind about something he hasn't used.
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'
I love how companies always use the 'ours is cheaper' cover to not have to admit that they simply cannot make such a product - however they price it.
Like any other Apple device, it requires an Apple ID, which is your Apple account. Your device is more or less useless without it - no apps, no updates. A Mac could be used, with substantial effort, without an Apple ID, but for sure, this Vision Pro would be a very expensive paperweight without one.
That the Quest requires a Facebook account surely bothers me, but if I were to buy one - in an alternate universe - I'd just make a fake account with a disposable email address and an incognito browser window, then use SteamVR to play stuff, case closed.
I think gaming is the only use-case. None of this "social" stuff makes sense to me. Who wants it? Zuckerberg spent billions on it and it's a complete flop. It's not the implementation, it's a bad idea.
The iPhone was immediately, obviously useful. The iPad less so - and by the way, the iPad is my core Apple product, from the first to my current Pro; I could switch my phone to Android, no problem but I still want my iPad. But still, the iPad did have an obvious use, which is media consumption on the move.
Apple hasn't made any case for this Vision Pro. It's just an amazing tech demo, like a car whose wheels turn into propellers and it flies like a drone, for 5 minutes, and costs $1.5mil.
I think Zuckerberg is misguided in his beliefs. You don’t buy a device whose sole purpose is to isolate and replace (or augment) the environment around you with a virtual one to “socialize” and “be active”. If you want those things you go to a bar or for a jog. It’s like you buy an Office 365 subscription and expect to use it for socializing and being active. No that’s not what Excel is for so let’s not pretend otherwise here. Apple correctly leaned in on the fact that it’s primarily an individual experience where you want to sit back or lay down and fully immerse yourself in the magic. People will pay top dollar for this experience because it’s exactly what this type of device is for and exactly what people expect from it.
I think Meta may stick around and service the low end of the market, but I don’t know for how long — they’ve already been in it for many years and are still projected to lose $20B in that division this year. I’m guessing their losses will accelerate once Vision Pro becomes available.
„By contrast, every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself.“
Exactly what you do when playing with Meta Quest.
Exactly what you do when playing with Meta Quest.
Maybe.. I think one of the most popular critiques and comments ppl have made (and the first point my wife raised) has been Apple didn't show multiple Vision Pro users interacting with each other. I think there is a hope/dream out there that this tech will allow new experiences, like having a 3d FaceTime with a loved one on the other side of the world or country and It feeling like you are both in the same room.
Actually the tech probably just isn't there yet. The CG guy with the mouth that could never stop smiling while he talked was still pretty deep in the uncanny valley.. people are probably not gonna wanna 3d chat with off putting, Polar Express versions of their friends and family.. it sorta looks like you.
Last edited:
Completely disagree with Meta's CEO. Apple's vision is the only one I see working in the AR/VR space. Watching Mr. Cook and the AR/VR executives was the first time I ever thought to myself, "I could see myself using a headset for computing."
I'd call this a criticism:
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."
Realistically, how can you declare one of these products more "isolating" than the other? You're literally covering both eyes with screens, designed to immerse you in a virtual environment that doesn't really exist. If people start using their headset for Teams meetings, for example? Then it's a more social/less isolating use of the technology. If they only choose to use it to watch a movie on a virtual "big screen", then it's more isolating.
Considering over 25,000 developers work at Meta, I can guarantee, Mark will be buying a Vision Pro for everyone of them and they will Xerox Alto the hell out of it to build something similar. This is something I was thinking since the launch of Vision Pro, all the tech companies are gonna be buying up most of the Vision Pro's which should make Apple a tidy sum. Not to mention the employees buying for their spouses. Apple will easily sell million of these in 2024. Everyone else here on Macrumors is likely gonna have a hard time getting one.