Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Meta Hopes Apple Vision Pro Will 'Reinvigorate' Headset Space

krspkbl said:
Apple could dominate the headset market but we'll see. Price is a major issue and Vision OS is going to take a while to mature and Apple also need to stop working against developers if they want to build a good app store for the headset.
Click to expand...
Apple won’t dominate the market. But, I can almost guarantee they’ll dominate the PROFITS of the market. Mainly because they’re not trying to be “Headset for everybody” but “headset for those with money”. All current Meta developers have first mover advantage at making things folks have already shown they’ll buy for a cheaper headset. If they make something cool for Vision Pro, they’re making it for folks that have already spent $4,000 or so who very likely have a few bucks left to spend on a novel experience for around $4.99. Make a big enough splash, and that dev could find themselves on all of the “what to buy once you have a Vision Pro” lists. So, as Apple sells more, they sell more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mescagnus
jclardy said:
The opposite of Meta. Meta focused on gaming and full VR experiences. On Apple's side, mixed reality is the default - you are never pulled out of the experience around you (in the real world) into a black void like you constantly are in the Quest 3.

Traditional apps are at the forefront of the Vision Pro, and are rendered in a consistent UI framework. Apps on the Quest 3 are a hodgepodge of technologies, all have different interaction methods, some require controllers, others can use hands, some use old versions of hand tracking, others even use the direction your face is pointing as the cursor (Designed for the 3DOF Oculus Go.)

Apple Vision Pro is a mixed reality headset, that can do VR as well, if the user wants to do so. The Meta Quest is a VR headset, that has had MR hacked on in the months after meta learned what Apple's plans were. You can tell they rushed it out because there was just one MR title to play at launch, and the store didn't even have an MR category till a few weeks ago.

The Quest 3 is still a great headset - but it is a VR headset pretending to be MR, and Meta is banking on that marketing stunt. So when people see these great MR experiences from Apple, they will then look at the price and turn to meta...which I think unfortunately will be bad - because the quest experience is not going to be anywhere close to Apple's anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I think you're spot on.
 
Makosuke said:
Translation: "Maybe Apple will figure out a way to make the cyberspace thing we tried and failed to do not suck, then we can copy them! We can definitely sell the hardware cheaper, since we'll data-mine the crap out of users and rely on that for profit."

All this stuff is in its infancy so it's impossible to say anything beyond loose speculation, and every version of these things might end up being a solution desperately in search of a problem (see: 3D TV), but there seems to be a pretty fundamental difference between Zuck's silly Metaverse concept and what Apple seems to be trying to do with VisionOS.

In that:

In a theoretical, perfected, future version of Zuck's "The Metaverse®" following its apparent concept, you'd end up at the '80s-style Cyberpunk netrunning--you put on your gear, "jack in" to cyberspace, and jettison your meat-body back in your room to go fly about a completely virtual world living your disconnected from meatspace reality.

In a theoretical, perfected, future version of Apple Vision following its apparent concept, you'd end up with a pair of glasses that look exactly like the glasses you wear anyway, and would walk around in the real world doing the same stuff you do now, but with the added floating UI of Minority Report (or any far-future sci-fi of your choice that features floating screens and 3D holograms), except instead of the UI being somehow projected into space, it'll actually just be in your eyes.

(In anime terms, it's more or less Ghost in the Shell vs. Dennou Coil.)

These two things are vastly different, in that one wants to take you out of the real world as much as possible and put you somewhere else, and one wants to keep you in it as much as possible but replace and improve the UI of the computing tools we currently use.

Both of those ideas are things that sci-fi has played with for decades in exaggerated form. Both could be appealing to the right audience, and either could some day evolve into a thing a lot of people use. They could also both be stupid and fail catastrophically. I know which one I'd rather use, though, and it ain't Meta's version.

Perhaps not coincidentally, most of the sci-fi that features "endgame" versions of Meta's vision are dystopian dark future in which some subset of people spend their lives attached to the technology in question, while in most of the sci-fi that features "endgame" versions of Apple's vision (also Vision) it's just a neat, appealing tool used by the characters and not a lifestyle.
Click to expand...
That last paragraph is why I am viciously anti-"metaverse".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Marshall73 said:
I have a MQ3 and it's much better than the MQ2, primarily because it doesn't make me sick. It could do with a bit of work on the passthrough quality and processing. I can see myself jumping ship to Apple vision as soon as a more affordable headset releases (~£1500). Until then I'll stick to the MQ3.
Click to expand...
Same refresh rate, so it’s just that you’ve now got your VR legs, not in any difference between Quest 2 and 3.

On another note, this space is so new and these headsets are still too heavy and uncomfortable, the refresh rates too low and the FOV too restrictive. Moreover, there’s almost no way to improve that coming anytime soon since processors are just not there yet. Maybe in 3-4 years.
 
krspkbl said:
Fair enough but I am super excited for headsets and really want them to take off. The tech still has a long way to go but if they can stick around and get time to improve then they will be amazing.

Every headset out right now is way too big, heavy, and requires too much power to the point you're getting a few hours battery life or have to plug yourself into a wall or PC. I'm thinking more about 10 years from now. Look at how chunky the OG iPhone was compared to something like iPhone 6. That's about when the iPhone slimmed down. The Vision Pro looks huge but in 5+ years it might become a lot slimmer and lighter. I don't know so much about power/efficiency as it seems we're about to hit a wall within that time.

The biggest issue are price and support. Apple will need to release cheaper models and make sure they can keep developers on their side.

Headsets could replace smartphones for majority of people and offer way more functionality.
Click to expand...
I can't see headsets replacing smartphones for even a 10th of regular users. Perhaps if they were something far less invasive like a pair of glasses, but as long as you have to wear them on and around your head, there's just no comparison between the two devices. At best, I could see them being a more enjoyable way of watching TV, and in that sense they could replace an Apple TV setup the way nice headphones can stand in for even great speakers (and I'm still thinking of average users here).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Warped9 and Surf Monkey
Simmias said:
Companies and analysts always get this wrong. There is no “headset space”, only a bunch of failed product ideas. And soon there will be a bunch of Vision Pro imitators if Apple succceeds in creating a new market here. It’s exactly analogous to other Apple products where people try to come up with a generic category name for what Apple is selling and pretend that there is a viable market for generic versions:

-There is no “headset market”, only an Apple Vision Pro market. What other successful mainstream headsets can we name?
-There is no “tablet market”, only an iPad market. What other successful mainstream tablets can we name?
-There is no ”smart watch” market, only an Apple Watch market. What other successful mainstream smart watches can we name?
Click to expand...

Amazon sells a boat load of their Fire tablets and Microsoft has a lot of success with Surface. And the Apple watch isn't really a mass-market hit - it's certainly popular in fitness but it's not particularly useful outside of that, so I think the smart watch market is just small in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Warped9 said:
I have absolutely ZERO interest in this tech or hardware. We all have a kid within us that gets excited about something, but this doesn’t do a thing for me.

It could have practical applications in some manner, but otherwise it’s just another elaborate toy to play with. Just like an Apple Watch, and I have zero interest in getting one of those either.
Click to expand...
With you. hard zero interest
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
I don't see myself ever using AR/VR goggles for meetings or any video charting. The avatar they make seems creepy. I don't see working with goggles on all day either. I really can't see a reason besides gaming and I don't game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
G5isAlive said:
Proof of any of this? Apple has been working on this for over a decade. It's the obvious evolution of all this tech we carry around. You might have a point that Apple chose this moment in time to enter the market partially because of meta, but they were going to enter it, meta or not.
Click to expand...
Meta bought Oculus in 2014? This place starting to feel like early Christianity with the devotion, it's okay - Apple will succeed in the space. It's not about being first
 
I have yet to see a reason why I would need a Vision Pro. I already have a need for PSVR2 and perhaps a future Quest model since I game. I don’t need an alternative computer strapped to my face.
 
A rising tide lifts all boats, The Meta Quest will absolutely see a bump in sales as a result of the release of the Apple Vision Pro and with prices between $250 and $1000 the Meta quest is certainly more affordable.
 
BTW...I've seen several reports that suggest that Meta has been selling Quest at a loss since the beginning. Why this matters is that many of you have been consistently saying that Apple needs to price the AVP near the price of the Quest, and that if Apple wanted to, they could put out a version that would compete on price with the Quest. But Apple will not build a machine to sell it at a loss; that's just counter to their business model. And, Quest has skewed the perception of these products as inexpensive toys, even when Quest is taking a loss to hit that price point.

What Apple is doing for Meta is reshaping the market, adjusting the public's perception of cost in the space. This will allow Meta to begin to increase the cost of the Quest.
 
Warped9 said:
I have absolutely ZERO interest in this tech or hardware. We all have a kid within us that gets excited about something, but this doesn’t do a thing for me.

It could have practical applications in some manner, but otherwise it’s just another elaborate toy to play with. Just like an Apple Watch, and I have zero interest in getting one of those either.
Click to expand...
Then the rest of us can't wait to finally see this space start go somewhere. If Apple can't make XR work, then no one is going to pull it off.
 
I bet Meta is copying the Apple Vision Pro for the Meta 4! Why do they not even have Instagram and Facebook Apps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back