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.
Zuckerberg: Apple 'Charges As Much As It Can' for Hardware, But Meta Is Willing to Sell at a Loss to Grow the Metaverse
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course they'll sell it at a loss because they know you'll be forced to see an ad every third thing you look at.
Meta doesn't make anything let alone anything anyone would want to buy. They exist solely on advertising revenue. The only reason they're pouring money into VR is so they can pipe more advertising into your eyeballs. Picture Los Angeles a la Blade Runner.
Meta doesn't make anything let alone anything anyone would want to buy. They exist solely on advertising revenue. The only reason they're pouring money into VR is so they can pipe more advertising into your eyeballs. Picture Los Angeles a la Blade Runner.
Both Apple and Meta charge "as much as possible." For Meta, that amount is lower because their reputation is lower, and I expect their product quality will be too.
All Zuckerberg is saying is that Meta's pricing flexibility is significantly lower than a well-regarded and -resourced company like Apple.
All Zuckerberg is saying is that Meta's pricing flexibility is significantly lower than a well-regarded and -resourced company like Apple.
“… because you are the product.”
I think F, I, etc are potentially good services, but not with scumbags at the helm.
Seriously, F this guy.
I think F, I, etc are potentially good services, but not with scumbags at the helm.
Seriously, F this guy.
You can't sustain a business on a loss indefinitely. One way or another they will cover the costs somewhere else.
TV streaming hardware and smart speakers are both low cost markets that are subsidized by content subscriptions or data harvesting or both. Apple has little interest in those things and they also don't want to sell any hardware at break even cost so they can only hope to create better products that customers are willing to pay a little more for. That plan doesn't always work but I would say it's worked out very well overall for the $2.5 trillion company.
Apple makes a profit selling hardware and software. Meta makes a profit selling you.
Ya know, I’m not so sure they have lost these markets. They play a longer game because they have the capital to do so. They don’t have to sell at a loss, just produce something better that is only a bit more expensive.
I have had a Google home mini array and my ex had an Alexa setup including the Sonos gear. Both of these were inferior products to the HomePod mini I have in terms of voice recognition, audio playback and utility.
And as usual with Apple the integration with their other devices is the big winner. If you’ve set up another apple device with Siri the HomePod just adds itself in with all your settings ready to go. Hard to beat that.
And Apple had something Facebook does not in this game. They have all the processing power of the iPhone that can be put behind that headset. If they make the headset more of an accessory like the watch they might very well be able to sell it cheaper while being a better form factor.
all I can think of is Microsoft selling the original Xbox at an extreme loss—thing is, they actually had a killer app, this little game called Halo (incidentally a Mac product in early dev!). this product’s “killer app” is so bad that even Meta’s own employees won’t use it.
daringfireball.net
Facebook’s VR Platform ‘Horizon’ Sucks
Link to: https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/6/23391895/meta-facebook-horizon-worlds-vr-social-network-too-buggy-leaked-memo
daringfireball.net
I love that he thinks this is a virtue or point of pride. It's called a loss leader and is a standard sales tactic to get people roped into an ecosystem. Zucks comments read like someone just explained this to him and he ran to the press with this great revelation and realizing how this is completely pedestrian.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has criticized Apple's pricing strategy by claiming that the tech giant typically "charges as much as it can" for hardware, whereas Meta will take a different approach by selling products like its new $1500 AR/VR headset at a "break even" price point, or in some cases even a loss (via Business Insider).
In a podcast interview following the launch of Meta's new "Quest Pro" headset, Zuckerberg said it's natural for hardware companies to want to make a profit on product sales, but that Apple seeks to charge customers as much as possible. In contrast, Zuckerberg said Meta will take a different route with its portfolio of hardware products, and claimed his company may make no profit from some of its sales and will instead rely on revenue generated by software and services offered in the metaverse.
This week, Meta announced the Quest Pro, its latest AR/VR headset for the so-called "metaverse." At $1500, the Quest Pro is the high-end successor model to the Meta Quest and boasts a more comfortable design, more advanced display technology, and sensors that can read a user's emotions and facial movements, according to Meta. Apple's AR/VR headset is rumored to be announced in January, and you can learn more about it by checking out our AR/VR roundup.
Article Link: Zuckerberg: Apple 'Charges As Much As It Can' for Hardware, But Meta Is Willing to Sell at a Loss to Grow the Metaverse
If company gives away a product(sells at cost), it should make you think "Why would they do this" and if the answer isn't obviously 'to make money on services or licensing the content', then they are probably making money off of your data.
This dude is clueless. No one trust you Zuck. Yes Apple products are more expensIve, but we also trust they’re not selling our souls out the backdoor.
Funny thing is: he might be right.
Now, historically (last 10 years especially) Apple has had a very financially successful business model. But then again, so has Facebook/Meta.
Personally, I think both companies are going to continue to make money - LOTS of money.
But really, both companies are at least 5 years from taking VR/AR to the masses in their own way. Everything sold before then will basically be early-adopters (people who are already fans of the brands.)
A lot can change in 5 years, and really, we won't know the results of this arguement until 2029 or 2030. Everything until then is basically speculation based on our own personal preferences.
Now, historically (last 10 years especially) Apple has had a very financially successful business model. But then again, so has Facebook/Meta.
Personally, I think both companies are going to continue to make money - LOTS of money.
But really, both companies are at least 5 years from taking VR/AR to the masses in their own way. Everything sold before then will basically be early-adopters (people who are already fans of the brands.)
A lot can change in 5 years, and really, we won't know the results of this arguement until 2029 or 2030. Everything until then is basically speculation based on our own personal preferences.
Yeah.
The reality is that Zuck could give all his hardware products away for free and still end up with huge profits per unit “sold”.
The various hyper invasive reports and consumer leads he sells are making him many thousands of dollars per sold Quest Pro.
Apple is obviously overpriced if you look at the dollar amount you’re paying upfront.
Considering how an iPhone buyer can, potentially, use the product without ever generating data that Apple can sell or buy any Apple services, the total price the consumer pays over the lifetime of a device has to be vastly lower than what Meta (indirectly) charges.
But regardless of who charges the most, I think it should be illegal for companies to not give consumers unrestricted insight into what profits their interactions with an app or a device generates a company like Meta.
If the users agrees to be Meta’s “product” in return for cheap devices and “free” services like Facebook and Metaverse, then signing that user agreement should at a minimum allow the user to see what profits they have generated for Meta.
Can't wait and see this meta nonsense burn and burn and burn... Haven't touched FB for 8 years.
Creating unique AR experiences at a concert, shopping mall, restaurant, exhibition, convention, theme park, etc., could lead to high profits for both the AR headset makers and the businesses involved since it will combine real needs that people have a genuine need for, like going out to eat, with unique, digital experiences.
VR tech is nowhere near the stage where you can touch, taste or feel virtual objects, so it’s hard to find a genuine reason as a consumer to invest money and time into VR.
Thanks for the announcement Zuck, but some of us are able to have the best of both worlds... not dabble into Facebook/Meta, while still generally avoiding Apple products 
I can relate to this. I don't care about VR at all at this time, even more so if I have to pay hundreds or thousands to try it. Provide a trial period and I'm open minded enough to give it a try. As long as it works with my Apple hardware, that is. I'm not open minded enough to buy even more hardware to power a VR experience
