People already own the Mac, you can plug it in, and app selection grows every day.
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
Apple is selling the AR/VR experience Meta wants to reach in 3-5 years.
The Quest is selling at the price Apple wants to reach in 3-5 years.
In other words, the companies are starting at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Debating "which is better" is a solid waste of time which Zuck seems to be more than happy to engage in.
The Quest is selling at the price Apple wants to reach in 3-5 years.
In other words, the companies are starting at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Debating "which is better" is a solid waste of time which Zuck seems to be more than happy to engage in.
Last edited:
But the point is that AVP is not a mac. It is not a replacement for a mac. You still need a mac to use it as a $3,500 monitor that only a single person can see, and a second monitor to share it in 720P with other people.
It is less convenient than using a regular monitor/laptop/iPad. The one determining factor in whether technology gets adopted is convenience. Convenience trumps quality. Until this thing is nothing more than a pair of sunglasses, it's never going to get mainstream traction. But at that point it's no longer the AVP, it's something else entirely.
I don’t think Apple’s inspiration is to sell at a low price, today or in 5 years. All their products Mac, iPhone etc are premium priced; Vision Pro or Vision non-Pro, Apple is going to be expensive compared to the competition.
The problem with Quest, isn’t Quest… it’s Meta. No one trusts them - at least for anything more than entertainment.
Last edited:
VR Chat, Horizon Worlds and Recroom are all video games. The device is great and can run good non-game experiences, however the economics of selling hardware at a loss preclude them from embracing that direction. Thats a big plus for Vision Pro.
Vision Pro does have pretty bad motion blur, but it’s because the frames don’t strobe like quest. This gives a lot more brightness, which I think is a decent trade. Zuck could mention that the quest has much better object persistence. Hopefully VP can address that in software.
Vision Pro does have pretty bad motion blur, but it’s because the frames don’t strobe like quest. This gives a lot more brightness, which I think is a decent trade. Zuck could mention that the quest has much better object persistence. Hopefully VP can address that in software.
The MQ3 is a smoke screen. Zuck is many things but not stupid. He knows Apple is never going to ship a sub $1000 VR Vision headset.
No. Zuck is pissed because he correctly knows that within 12-24 months, Apple is going to entirely own the $1000+ premium headset market. You know… the juicy market where the margins can be made and customers aren’t as price sensitive. And that boils Zuck’s blood. End of the day he’s going to be competing with a $500 PlayStation 5 where there’s zip money to be made on hardware because Sony makes it on $79 AAA games that MQ3 doesn’t get.
And Apple can market a $1500 Vision Air to upper middle class buyers that would never consider a Meta Quest Pro.
Apple has taken over a premium market segment before. And Zuck correctly understands they’re doing it again. A $3500 Vision Pro is a harbinger. He’s looking ahead to a $1500-2000 Vision Air eating Meta’s lunch.
Zuck has 1-2 years tops before if someone asks “what $1000ish headset should I get?” the answer is “Apple Vision Air, of course.”
No. Zuck is pissed because he correctly knows that within 12-24 months, Apple is going to entirely own the $1000+ premium headset market. You know… the juicy market where the margins can be made and customers aren’t as price sensitive. And that boils Zuck’s blood. End of the day he’s going to be competing with a $500 PlayStation 5 where there’s zip money to be made on hardware because Sony makes it on $79 AAA games that MQ3 doesn’t get.
And Apple can market a $1500 Vision Air to upper middle class buyers that would never consider a Meta Quest Pro.
Apple has taken over a premium market segment before. And Zuck correctly understands they’re doing it again. A $3500 Vision Pro is a harbinger. He’s looking ahead to a $1500-2000 Vision Air eating Meta’s lunch.
Zuck has 1-2 years tops before if someone asks “what $1000ish headset should I get?” the answer is “Apple Vision Air, of course.”
Last edited:
Karl’s conclusions are totally dependent on his ability to properly position and focus his detector (canon camera) to the same point and position as one’s eyes. As my AVP actually focuses to where it perceives I am looking, the ability of the AVP to focus an image is not static, but the meta quest is. As Karl gives zero indication how he compensates for this I have no idea if what he is measuring is true or not. Any good scientist explains his methodology, and Karl goes into great detail on his test images, I have to be concerned about what he doesn’t mention. All I know is text is extremely sharp in areas I am looking, not so much where I am not. This is called foveated rendering, and again guttag doesn’t mention how he corrects for that.
The Meta version is cheaper, so it wins for many based on that alone. I have no interest in head computers personally, so wouldn't buy either.
Zack says pricing aside, the Quest is the best experience right now. I would agree with him.
What do you see the Vision Air providing for $1000 that the Zuck isn’t providing for $500 now?
By that time, an app ecosystem that answers that question better than I can in a forum post.
At $3500, it’s an obvious niche. At $1000-1500, it’s a more viable ecosystem developers can’t ignore.
In terms of where it obviously goes for Apple? The 3D movie/immersive video industry is one Meta can’t meet. Apple is already negotiating with professional leagues and has a content studio that Meta does not.
Imagine buying a $199 “season pass” of floor seat immersive video to every game your NBA or MLB team plays that season? Suddenly you’re sitting courtside next to Jack Nicholson (or front row at a Taylor Swift concert), but from your couch. That’s an area Meta has no answers for.
Then there’s the Mac angle. Future Vision headsets could integrate an entire Mac mini inside it — so no wireless connection to an existing Mac is required, it’s just an “app” onboard your headset and all you need is trackpad and keyboard.
At least they released an affordable product that more or less do the same as the Vision Pro. Is Vision Pro superior? Yes, in some technical parameters and software integration. Seven times superior? I don't really think so. When you value a consumer product, you can't just ignore its price. Currently, the Vision Pro does not offer any unique and extraordinary capabilities that justifies its price tag. Some neat tricks and cool features, but definitely not sufficient to justify 3,500$ expenditure. Quest 3 may not be so advanced as Vision Pro but for 500$ it is definitely a steal, especially if you compare it with Vision Pro. The hype created by Vision Pro would definitely have a positive effect over Quest 3 sales. Many people would start googling about VR headset and when they find out about Quest 3, how it compares to Vision Pro, and how much it costs, it will suddenly become the obvious choice. Apple did a great favor to Meta releasing the Vision Pro, and they soon may regret.
It must be annoying to spend years banging about something, doing acquisitions, changing your company name for your grand vision, launch the product and ... nobody freaking cares.
Then someones launches a ridiculously more expensive somewhat similar device and everyone takes notice.
Life is hard as a tech bro.
Then someones launches a ridiculously more expensive somewhat similar device and everyone takes notice.
Life is hard as a tech bro.
How will $1000-$1500 profitable for Apple? Do you also expect Meta to go into a coma in the meanwhile?
While the two have obvious overlap, MQ3 is ahead for games, and AVP might be ahead for apps. It doesn't seem like Meta Quest Pro was a success in any way. I get the impression that Meta doesn't have the expertise or inclination for an "application OS"-like unified UX, with interface guidelines and all. In contrast, Apple is strong in that regard.
In the same way a $1500 MacBook Air is profitable to Apple. They’re logistics experts and have the most buying power in Asia of any other company. The cost of those 4K eyeball displays will drop precipitously, and Apple will own virtually all the production capacity for X amount of years.
I have watched Meta closely and their progress has been there, but slow. Vision Pro has actually put some fire under their @$$ to hopefully make a more premium option with less emphasis on VR games, in that their hardware is fairly impressive at $500 but the Meta software story is a bunch of games and there’s zero productivity story thus far.
There’s also the anecdotal fact I got nauseous within minutes of using my Meta Quest 3 (gave it to my nephew) and that has yet to happen on Vision Pro demos. The lag of 50-60ms on the MQ3 as compared to 10-15ms on AVP is something meta has to overcome.
You really gotta ask the executives at Pebble and Fitbit and Creative and a myriad of other “we used to make that kind of product” how it felt when a heavyweight like Apple (or Amazon or Google or Microsoft) enters their market. It’s “oh crap” time.
As I said, Zuck has about a two year head start. But it’s very hard for Zuck to sell an MQP at $1200 if Apple offers a Vision Air at $1699. Apple has an existing market, a huge one, of customers used to shelling out $1000-2000 for their toys. Meta has… free services like Facebook and insta and WhatsApp where people are used to paying $0.
I don’t think either of these products are the future of anything and wouldn’t own one. Just need to get that out of the way.
What makes him sound worried? He was responding to a Threads post from Benedict Evans who was essentially saying there’s no comparison between VP and Quest (VP is better).
If anything I think pro-Apple analysts and some people here are incredibly defensive about VP.
Apple will naturally be looking to cuts costs of the VP so it can be affordable to more mac users and thus Apple being able to sell many many more VP's but Apple already pointed out that the screens in the VP are very very expensive but it is the screens that seems to be the one thing that VP owners and reviewers rave about. I've already seen on a number of social media video's owners of the VP complaining about it's weight because it is putting to much down weight pressure on the bridge of the nose and thus after a long time of usage the persons nose bridge and surrounding area becomes painful. Another complaint from the owners videos is that the hand/finger motion detection is not always reliable and they are having to move their hands closer in front of them for the VP to detect them which then brings them up asking about wanting hand controllers like the Quest has.
Remember, the Apple VP is a premium product that is commanding a premium price and for that Mark is right to point out some of it's flaws when compared to the Quest 3. Would I be happy with having persistent pain on and around my noise due to VP's weight and intermittent hand control detection for the price of $3,200? hell no. Would I accept those flaws if it was $500? hell yes.
If you take Marks point's logically and then compare them side by side with the Quest 3, he does have valid points. The only reason why his points are not being taken seriously is because in my opinion far to many people just don't like the guy and will therefore dismiss and distrust whatever he says even if he is right.
Remember, the Apple VP is a premium product that is commanding a premium price and for that Mark is right to point out some of it's flaws when compared to the Quest 3. Would I be happy with having persistent pain on and around my noise due to VP's weight and intermittent hand control detection for the price of $3,200? hell no. Would I accept those flaws if it was $500? hell yes.
If you take Marks point's logically and then compare them side by side with the Quest 3, he does have valid points. The only reason why his points are not being taken seriously is because in my opinion far to many people just don't like the guy and will therefore dismiss and distrust whatever he says even if he is right.
Tim Cook doesn't become a wannabe MKBHD when Google or Microsoft or Amazon enters a market segment Apple plays in.
The Youtube video, "here's why my product is comparable or better" tells us everything. That's a CEO crapping his pants worried that Apple is going to own the $1000+ VR market Meta was counting on, and he's right to be worried about Apple.
I think you're right.
"Hey Zuck. Show me where in the Metaverse the Vision Pro touched you again".
VR headsets are just another example of tech firms trying to force a new market because current ones are becoming stale. Seen loads of reviews on youtube of people amazed at the fantastic VP then a few weeks later admitting they barely touch it. VR is doomed, like 3d movies/tv's and NFT's - don't believe the made up hype
I don’t blame him to do his job and on some level I don’t disagree. They were better roads to take the spatial path for Apple than the VPro …