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.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Again Disparages Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think Zuck is channeling the spirit of another famous tech CEO whenever he criticizes new Apple products, specifically this guy:
You're not winning if you have to disparage your competitor. This isn't politics.
Rec Room is a game. First line on their website:
The other two are basically the same as hanging out in a 3D multiplayer game world, but not actively playing the game. And chat apps like that have gaming areas within them. I liked playing cards in an early (now defunct) VR chatting app.
Spot on. If he had confidence and a great product, there'd be no need to rag on Apple's device. Doing so only creates poor optics. I suspect he know's his device is sub-par and and that Meta doesn't have a robust roadmap to compete with Apple long term.
The Quest experience isn't a subset of the Vision Pro experience, so it doesn't really make sense to use a percentage.
I see the VP sort of like when Steve announced the iPhone. “Here’s what a mobile phone should look like and how it should interact with you.”
The VP is in its infancy whereas the Quest has a bigger head start. But again Apple is saying “this is what a device like this should do and how it should function” whereas Quest is trying to go after gaming and an online Metaverse. Apple wants to augment reality around you, not pull you into a different make believe reality altogether.
So I think it’s gonna come down to whether people like Apple’s take on it or Mark’s. Historically they dominate whatever market they enter so I think Meta will remain niche and the VP will be the winner … if such a thing can be achieved from a device worn on your face.
The VP is in its infancy whereas the Quest has a bigger head start. But again Apple is saying “this is what a device like this should do and how it should function” whereas Quest is trying to go after gaming and an online Metaverse. Apple wants to augment reality around you, not pull you into a different make believe reality altogether.
So I think it’s gonna come down to whether people like Apple’s take on it or Mark’s. Historically they dominate whatever market they enter so I think Meta will remain niche and the VP will be the winner … if such a thing can be achieved from a device worn on your face.
Honestly Zuckerberg makes valid points (painful to acknowledge). Apple needs to invest deeply and continually on the apps side of things and not expect it to take off from developer’s apps alone. The VP market will be small for quite some time, limiting the value vs. investment for developers unless they overcharge with expensive apps or requiring subscription.
Apple needs to bring AAA to the VisionPro themselves and include it all free with the device.
Apple needs to bring AAA to the VisionPro themselves and include it all free with the device.
It says it’s a *place* where you can play games together - it’s not a game itself…hm, sorta like a…rec room!
Last edited:
As said already, he’s really concerned about the VPro being the better device and more potential.
Besides, having to log into a Meta account
Besides, having to log into a Meta account
The immersive photo/video recording of the Vision Pro is absolutely a system seller. I've been recording baby birthday parties and people are amazed by it, and understand they're going to create incredible lifetime memories, something you'll love to experience back in 50 years.
It's like discovering photography all over again.
I feel sad for the tech bros that don't have these kinds of memories to record.
And, yes, it's exactly like the movie "Strange Days"
It's like discovering photography all over again.
I feel sad for the tech bros that don't have these kinds of memories to record.
And, yes, it's exactly like the movie "Strange Days"
I could justify the $3500 down the road when I replace my current MacBook Pro if it ran Mac apps natively. If horsepower is the issue, I am hoping they remedy that down the road or at least give us a USB-C/HDMI input for connecting directly to PCs. I use both PC and Mac.
It reminds me of the reason I no longer have an iMac in my main office system. It was too limited on inputs, so I couldn’t use my work PC with the display or choose to use the display with any HDMI Devices outside the Apple ecosystem. This would be even more frustrating with this expensive device being so limited. If I had to choose between this and the Meta device, I would go with Meta thanks to it being cross platform and lower price, but I am holding out for 4K glasses that will mainly just work as screens for other devices until some of the issues I mentioned are hopefully addressed. Also, I would rather wear glasses than goggles despite it not having quality onboard entertainment apps. In other words, one cable from pocketable glasses to a device would be more useful for my needs than huge cumbersome goggles with a cable to a battery pack...despite price differences.
As others mentioned, the AVP vs Meta really just depends on how you want to use these devices. I am not sure Apple wins this market at the $3500 price tag (if people are right and they never move down off this price).
I bought a Meta Quest 2 just because Verizon Up had a $70 coupon. But I have no doubt that the experience is like driving a Porsche vs a Honda. Nothing against Honda, they're old and reliable. But the Vision Pro hardware is pretty remarkable.
The more he disparages it, the more confirmation that he is worried. If you’re confident in your own product, you let it speak for itself. Foolish move. As CEO, he should know better.
I am not a fan of recording with goggles/glasses. I have a pair of video recording glasses I got for review purposes several years back and reviewed them and now they sit in a drawer. Those were fairly lightweight glasses without a cable to a battery pack, so that wasn’t my issue. The issue, compared to using a camera was the inability to put it on a tripod with a good view of the action and setting it and forgetting it. Even outside, because of the limited zoom lens choices, i couldn’t zoom in and if I was standing and the subject was sitting, you could tell. There was no option to flip up the screen and lower the camera below your own vision line. Personally, I would be happier with lens options, being able to lower or raise the camera in hand held situations, and also using a tripod with the appropriate lens for more stationary events. Also, enjoying the video now with other people is part of the joy.
I personally don‘t see the goggles as being a good option compared to recording with an iPhone, much less a traditional camera. It has some upsides compared to the glasses I used, but the downsides still outweigh the upsides for most of my use cases… not to mention the person that’s having the party and those attending will have the memory of me wearing goggles.
I am curious, can you record with the goggles if you aren’t wearing them? In other words, could you put them on a projection table (tripod with a table) and set them to record? The glasses could do that, but it was hard to get the framing right when you just wanted a selfie with another person.
Right before my bedtime I was happily scrolling through my favorite site MacRumors looking at what my Apple brothers and sisters have to say and suddenly you show me this.Every single one of the cameras on that device is for surveillance. Directly and indirectly. You couldn't pay me to have that thing in my home.
View attachment 2358155
He may be trying to get into the AVP discussion while the subject is hot. I never saw this much discussion of the Meta device until he made these remarks, so that part has definitely helped with marketing. Whether it actually sells more devices is another question, though.
Meta sucks. Their Quest sucks. The Quest is styled after some kind of heating appliance.
For Apple to get to a $999 price point, the chop would have to be down to maybe $300 in parts... to then accommodate Apple's fat margin and related costs of marketing, packaging, distribution, R&D, etc. $300 in parts is NOT going to buy anything remotely close to this Vpro... not even a Vision Monocle SE.
I think he meant to convey the “non”-Pro model, as Pro is indicative that there will be a non-pro model. Might take two years though, and I don’t think they will undercut the iPhones, or entry-level Macs. Seems more like $1,500 to me.
