So the answer you want, will be about some piece of hardware, or a software feature, but I'm not giving you that. If you want my answer to this, go watch Casey Neistat's latest YouTube video on the AVP.
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 Says Quest 3 is Better Than Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To me, it feels like many people are attempting to lump both products together, even though they appear to be fundamentally very different devices, in part because they each made very different design decisions and tradeoffs. The vision pro is attempting to validate the concept of a computer on the face, while the Quest still seems pretty much geared towards gaming.
I personally don't think there is much room for Apple to bring the price of the Vision Pro down, at least for the near foreseeable future, especially if features like high resolution displays and sub-12ms passthrough are considered "non-negotiable).
My understanding is that the Quest has a lower resolution screen and the passthrough isn't as good, though it's still debatable how much this will actually matter to the end user.
From the videos I have seen online, the Quest's eye tracking isn't as good as the Vision Pro, though it does come with controllers. So it depends on whether you see yourself relying more on physical controllers (which would be more cumbersome to bring around with you outdoors) or you are comfortable with Apple's decision to not have to rely on physical controllers as much as possible. Kinda like using a wireless mouse with a windows laptop vs using a MacBook with their famous trackpad.
The metaverse assumes a critical mass of people using it. The Vision Pro appears to be more of a standalone device which can interact equally well with other people who don't own one.
I guess my point is that the success of each will ultimately come down to their respective business models. The vision pro will bank on margins and maybe subscriptions (seeing how heavily it leverages streaming services). How exactly does Meta expect to turn a profit from their Quest headset, given the rate at which they are burning cash on the platform again?
I personally don't think there is much room for Apple to bring the price of the Vision Pro down, at least for the near foreseeable future, especially if features like high resolution displays and sub-12ms passthrough are considered "non-negotiable).
My understanding is that the Quest has a lower resolution screen and the passthrough isn't as good, though it's still debatable how much this will actually matter to the end user.
From the videos I have seen online, the Quest's eye tracking isn't as good as the Vision Pro, though it does come with controllers. So it depends on whether you see yourself relying more on physical controllers (which would be more cumbersome to bring around with you outdoors) or you are comfortable with Apple's decision to not have to rely on physical controllers as much as possible. Kinda like using a wireless mouse with a windows laptop vs using a MacBook with their famous trackpad.
The metaverse assumes a critical mass of people using it. The Vision Pro appears to be more of a standalone device which can interact equally well with other people who don't own one.
I guess my point is that the success of each will ultimately come down to their respective business models. The vision pro will bank on margins and maybe subscriptions (seeing how heavily it leverages streaming services). How exactly does Meta expect to turn a profit from their Quest headset, given the rate at which they are burning cash on the platform again?
Uuuuuugh I hate that Zuckerberg gets to be the one promoting the open model.
The open model is why Facebook exists. It’s also why a lot of things that aren’t horrible blights on humanity exist. Tough call.
I’m under no illusions that he actually believes this, though. If/when he is in the position of power he is going to make sure Facebook captures all the value just as much as or more than Apple.
The open model is why Facebook exists. It’s also why a lot of things that aren’t horrible blights on humanity exist. Tough call.
I’m under no illusions that he actually believes this, though. If/when he is in the position of power he is going to make sure Facebook captures all the value just as much as or more than Apple.
Blackberry killed itself. I still remember the Storm it released that was a disaster. Palm released webos and the pre which was the worst quality smartphone I ever owned (but still fun to use). And Google mopped them all up.
Apple did lead the way and forced all these companies to rethink things. Blackberry, Nokia, palm couldn’t compete with Google.
And that’s who meta should be looking out for. Enter the avp and its focus on apps, movies, spatial computing, etc. Meta has some rethinking to do and not long to do it with Google looming.
I don’t mind getting a quest now for what it does now. But they were the only game in town. You held your nose knowing it was Facebook but the quest was decent. This will change. I don’t see a bright future for meta/facebook. I don’t use it.
Same way they always have, by monetizing the users. But this has a lot more capital investment required than a social networking site, apparently.
Meta really wants you to think their headset is good for something besides games. They even ran a series of unconvincing commercials saying exactly that.
I think Apple needs to lean more in to the quality aspect and get the field of view up and the weight down.
I think they are both putting carts ahead of horses. They need to get the fundamentals right before they start talking about metaverses and the future of computing.
Whole-heartedly agree. Not suggesting we strive for it, but we “connect” with others through these social networks only to become more disconnected from reality.
Clearly RPO is set in the future. My post never suggests we are at that moment now with this tech. I simply suggested that’s the direction we are going.
The only one of Zach comments I would strongly disagree with is "high quality passthrough". Yes, it has passthrough but it certainly would not be considered "High quality". But the rest are spot on. It would be interesting to have Tim Cook list the positives of the AVP over the Quest 3.
Here’s Cooks positives. .
1. The sale of an avp generates profit. Along with accessories.
2. Apple makes money off the App Store.
3. They’ll make a profit.
With Zach it’s more how can we lessen the loss this year. What do we do? Oh look there’s avp. But we tried 3d movies and what not. It didn’t work. How are they? What the? Maybe we should look into that again?
That is Apple's unmentioned software strategy "It does NOT have work right or be usable, it just has to look good.".
But unlike a car, the AVP will be unsupported and useless in 3 years.
Which Apple product has gotten cheaper with future iterations? 🤔
I could buy a Quest for each of my family (5 people) and 2 spares for guests for the price of one Vision Pro, which I am led to understand is set up for single person use, and is not particularly easy to share.
I could buy a Vision Pro for each of my family for the price of a new car...
Clearly the Quest wins, even if the Vision Pro is technically better.
I could buy a Vision Pro for each of my family for the price of a new car...
Clearly the Quest wins, even if the Vision Pro is technically better.
I am interested to know how many people that are bashing the Q3 have used both VP and Q3. I have had extensive time with a Q3 and have a review unit of the VP from work. I can tell you as much as I hate to admit it the Quest is 1000000% time better at everything. The lack of a controller if wanted is a big miss and the weight is noticeable in extended ware. Also the lack of PCVR support on a $4k headset is silly and a really bad business decision.
The original quest the oculus was not priced nearly as high as the VP in comparison. I don't think we will ever see a VP under $1k whereas the Oculus was $1500 when launches.
What does the VP do better than the Quest 3 and the answer is nothing. You could buy a top spec Ipad Pro and a Quest 3 and still be less than a VP and do way more things.
The uses case does not exist at this time for a VP, if they can get the price to $1,500 it would be a gold mine but cannibalize Ipad pro sales. I see the VP as a Ipad replacement at some point and that time is not today. Maybe in 4 years but that means that apple needs to sell enough to justify the BC.
The original quest the oculus was not priced nearly as high as the VP in comparison. I don't think we will ever see a VP under $1k whereas the Oculus was $1500 when launches.
What does the VP do better than the Quest 3 and the answer is nothing. You could buy a top spec Ipad Pro and a Quest 3 and still be less than a VP and do way more things.
The uses case does not exist at this time for a VP, if they can get the price to $1,500 it would be a gold mine but cannibalize Ipad pro sales. I see the VP as a Ipad replacement at some point and that time is not today. Maybe in 4 years but that means that apple needs to sell enough to justify the BC.
The only thing He got it right is Quest 3 way cheaper! Other than that, Vision Pro wins it all.
I have a Quest and the pass through and clarity of app windows are nowhere close to as good as the Vision Pro. Quest does do gaming much better though and has an extensive App Library. I believe AVP will get there one day though.
Oh course he's going to say that.
Still not buying either of those products: solutions looking for a problem
Still not buying either of those products: solutions looking for a problem
I can’t compare since I don’t have a vision pro but I’ve been happy with my quest 3 for the most part. One thing that I’m not a huge fan is with media consumption.
Games are great and I’m loving Golf+ but the default browser is not great. I’d love to be able to watch Hulu or other streaming services through the browser since there isn’t a native app (except youtube or netflix) and it just doesn’t cut it. Currently I can’t get Hulu to work at all since after I give permission for location it just sits on a loading screen no matter what I do and even when it worked you could only watch in the browser window with the address bar and tabs showing or if you went full screen they curved the view which I don’t like.
I know there are other browsers out there mostly in app lab that can’t access location or are just not fully fleshed out. When I see videos of people watching movies or video on the vision pro it makes me want that experience even more.
Games are great and I’m loving Golf+ but the default browser is not great. I’d love to be able to watch Hulu or other streaming services through the browser since there isn’t a native app (except youtube or netflix) and it just doesn’t cut it. Currently I can’t get Hulu to work at all since after I give permission for location it just sits on a loading screen no matter what I do and even when it worked you could only watch in the browser window with the address bar and tabs showing or if you went full screen they curved the view which I don’t like.
I know there are other browsers out there mostly in app lab that can’t access location or are just not fully fleshed out. When I see videos of people watching movies or video on the vision pro it makes me want that experience even more.
In its fourth-quarter earnings report Thursday, Meta said its Reality Labs unit recorded an operating loss in the period of $4.65 billion. Analysts were expecting a loss of $4.26 billion, according to StreetAccount.
The metaverse division has now lost more than $42 billion since the end of 2020
That’s not winning. But it also doesn’t mean Apple is winning with this either. Could just be a road to nowhere for both.
Zuck needs to stand down... it's clear that the Vision Pro is going to be so much better than the Quest 3 in four more generations.
Apple’s interaction model is so much better, Meta rushed to implement it. In the future, every headset is going to be some variant of VisionOS, they’ll just change where the close ‘x’ goes.
Just like every smartphone is essentially iPhone with a skin and every computer is macOS with interface elements moved around.
I don't love that design choice. But having used the AVP a while, you quickly forget about it. With the battery in your pocket it's not a big deal. Palmer Luckey suggested recently that the reason Apple did this is to get us used to the idea having a facial interface tethered to a puck with processing/battery, which seems the only way to get something truly capable in a more glasses-like form factor on our faces in the foreseeable future. I don't know if that was really Apple's reasoning with this design choice, but it makes some sense.