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
people always think that their kid is better than yours but they don't go around saying it out loud because they won't know until the kids grow up and they prove themselves in the real world...
one of the smartest guys I have ever worked for always said that the greatest products ever sold had a tie in to sex or they would never have taken off as they did... polaroid camera, home video tape players, home cam corders, dvd players, HBO, and so on...
I don't think you understand what XR is. XR isn't meant to be a sharing device.
Yes, but many articles say they are inferior to those shot on the AVP… not to mention the many other issues I mentioned. Also, I failed to mention that in 5 years, much less 50 ( as mentioned by the initial post I replied to) these 1920*1080 spatial videos will look archaic assuming they still play on something. The AVP records with a higher 2200*2200, but the cameras are inferior for sharpness and have more grain in less than perfect light ( not to mention all the other issues I already mentioned). This is version 1 of this tech, so it comes with a lot of flaws with little return thanks to them being isolated to a device very few own.
I would rather record 4K with the phone at this point. Apple Insider’s article on spatial video pretty much says record 4K and use spatial if you know you have all the shots you want. Seems you will need to wear the AVP and have a separate camera for 4K to insure you get both videos of the person blowing out candles… hopefully with the lights on to insure less blur and grain. Not ideal and I don’t see many people wearing socially awkward goggles to parties anyway. It will be very niche until a lot of the current issues are resolved… assuming 3D and Goggles ever become a thing. Right now, it’s all niche, so who knows where this goes in the future? People didn’t want to wear light glasses to watch a 3d movie, so this seems like a nut that will be tough to crack.
I get that it’s a fun novelty that makes the price of the AVP slightly easier to swallow at this point, though. I think it will make a little more sense when you can sit the goggles somewhere and record without wearing them.
why are you quoting so many articles? have you not tried any of this for yourself? But cool, I do agree from experience spatial video from my AVP beats the iPhone Pro Max, but thats to be expected given the physics of camera separation. still better than nothing in many cases. And while I agree AVP is version 1 with all that implies, I disagree that it offers little in returns. sounds good to say, but not true.
Photographers lean to live and create within the limits of their cameras. There have been gallery exhibits of polaroids lol. So yeah, not as good in low light, you have to move yourself to get the right angle (want a low angle, dare I say squat down?), and the resolution will be better in the future. No doubt. And remember those boring slide shows of peoples trips were you were forced to sit for an hour to watch maybe 2 minutes of novel content? no one wants to watch your hour long movie of a birthday party where you sit something down and forget about it. People like changing perspectives. and short. the AVP is fine for that.
A lot of Apple apologists and evangelists here.
MQ3 is the superior product today at a significantly lower cost, and it’s still a product in search of a problem to solve. Even Marques Brownlee on a recent podcast talked about how he hasn’t touched it in awhile and uses it less and less as there isn’t really a great use case.
Granted you can say that about the MQ3 as well, but at a lower barrier to entry and a healthy game App Store, it has the broader mainstream appeal that will still attract developers to keep it alive.
If anything, I suspect the launch of the AVP actually spurred sales of the MQ and Meta is smart to highlight that they are the obvious choice and highlighting that they have the superior product. It’s almost the reverse iPhone in that instead of revolutionizing a product category, Apple was late to market with an obscenely overpriced product and still got it wrong.
MQ3 is the superior product today at a significantly lower cost, and it’s still a product in search of a problem to solve. Even Marques Brownlee on a recent podcast talked about how he hasn’t touched it in awhile and uses it less and less as there isn’t really a great use case.
Granted you can say that about the MQ3 as well, but at a lower barrier to entry and a healthy game App Store, it has the broader mainstream appeal that will still attract developers to keep it alive.
If anything, I suspect the launch of the AVP actually spurred sales of the MQ and Meta is smart to highlight that they are the obvious choice and highlighting that they have the superior product. It’s almost the reverse iPhone in that instead of revolutionizing a product category, Apple was late to market with an obscenely overpriced product and still got it wrong.
Worse for Meta, Google has now seen the AVP (like they saw the iPhone) and they will quickly get some third parties to produce Apple-like hardware with an OS working as much like AVP as is legal, at the same price or cheaper than whatever Meta’s coming out with next. If their Metaverse had taken off, maybe they’d have a stronger low cost first mover advantage. As it is, the devs are going to go where the sales are and Google has the dollars to make sure devs turn their heads toward Android AR/XR.
Between 1984 and 1989, Apple had sold one million Macs.
AVP has sold around 200K already. We’ll see IF they can sell 800K over the next… 5 years.
Or get a iPhone 15 pro or a 3d Camera and pay back the file on meta quest. Super easy! I’m doing that now with my pro max and meta quest 3
Not sure why Mark is so hung up on this... Both headsets can perfectly co-exist.... The consumer pool buying a VP is not the same consumer pool buying the Meta... These headsets are not in competition really....Sure someone might decide to save money after seeing the VP and buy a Meta..... But I doubt someone in the market for the Meta would step up to the VP... that would be rare..... People shopping around for Hondas, Mazda's, Toyota's are not going to pivot and buy a Porsche..... There's no need for Mark to feel threatened here.
It's a good thing I don't make my VR headset decision based on looks! Agreed the VP looks better, but I returned it as there was nothing useful to use it for. Whereas when I returned it and bought a Quest 3, I've used it virtually every day since. Was the VP a higher resolution and better passthrough? No doubt. Do I care? Nope, I had nothing to use it for. Will that change over time? Probably/maybe.
Wake me up when I can play Dungeons of Eternity on my VP with good controls.
That said, if I had not already invested in a home office setup with multiple monitors and space, I'd probably have a different opinion on the VP and consider it for a work device.
Since you asked. The reason I occasionally quote articles is because I would not spend $3500-$4000 on this device but I am curious about the current state and where the improvements need to be had to make it a more viable consumer product… though, I admit if it came from any other company I would have near zero interest interest in it ( never read one article on Meta‘s device until AVP was released).
The one thing home videos can’t compete with is photos...even Polaroid. The tactile feeling, the ability to shuffle through an album at the speed you prefer, quit when you like, etc. Hanging photos are also viewed quite often. Even digital photos in digital frames are more interesting because they can be put anywhere and don't require anything of your guests. They can look and comment or not. I have a few small 30 second clips mixed in with digital photos and the photos still get the most comments. Personally, outside of a “live“ photos, most home videos will only be viewed a few times, if that.
My dad recorded a bunch of Christmas/birthday parties over the years… both handheld and on tripod and most I have yet to see. They just don’t come up. However, the photo albums under their coffee table have been picked up hundreds of times and reviewed. It is just a more convenient medium that puts your memory to work and requests nothing of the viewer. Having to pass around goggles doesn’t come close to that or even compared to showing a 4k video (short or long) on the AppleTV, so they have to find a way to bust it out of that isolated box. Home videos are never going to compete with photos, but thats okay. It’s a medium you like to have when people or pets pass, so it’s nice to have when you want to experience their voice, bark and/or laugh again, so I am not knocking it, I just don’t think Spartial is the format I would currently use with that in mind.
Let's think about that. If Apple sold even a million of them over 5 years, that would amount to $3.5 billion dollars.
In January 1989, Apple's market capitalization was $3,778,654,062.40. The new for 1986 Mac Plus sold for $$2,600. That would represent about $2 billion in sales from 1984 (128K Macs, Fat Macs included slightly less costly).
Mac sales would represent roughly 60% of Apple's market cap.
Now examine today's Apple market cap: $2.67 Trillion. $3.5 billion worth of the VisionPro would represent roughly .0013% of the current market cap.
For comparison, Apple sold 235 million iPhones in 2023, roughly $200 billion worth, in fact. That would be roughly 7.5% of the market cap.
Niche.
To be fair, the Vision Pro is estimated to cost a little over $1500 to make. Yes, still a high markup. But you have to consider it's a first gen product, there's a lot of risk. First gen iPhone, iPod, Macintosh were all a lot more expensive. Even the iPad and Apple Watch, they released more affordable models later on.
Apple aren’t making a vision air for $1,500 not a chance.
The Vision Pro at $3,500 is not going to be successful as not everyone has that cash down a sofa
I keep hearing "AR/VR is the future," but what about today? We still have bugs in our phones to fix, hardware issues with our computers to iron out, and we can't even decide what kind of engine we want in our cars (i.e. electric or gas). I think we should put all this consumer AR/VR business on hold and focus on right now.
It does but it's just blurry. The lens was designed for it.Likely not. Canon says the technology doesn't exist today.
Canon: No Currently Available Camera is High-Res Enough for Apple Vision Pro
"But what if up close, moving content was desired? What if making a whole immersive landscape featuring multiple elements like animals, people, and more was the goal? That would require one heck of a camera system to appear true to life. That is, at least, what Canon believes. "In order to...forums.macrumors.com
The iPhone 15 pro can't do 3d video. It has some weak pseudo 2-D video that's a lot worse than Vison Pro camera.
That's not really a useful comparison. We had bugs and hardware issues in our computers to iron out when the iPhone came out.
If AR/VR makes any sense in the future, we will still have issues on computers, phones, and cars. It's a new product segment with different use cases that don't always have comparable analogs on another device.