Zuck is just trying to justify his device. I have the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro. While the Quest 3 is good, its nothing like the Vision Pro. The build quality and user experience of the Vision Pro is much more refined and just overall better and less glitchy. Zuck just got his ass kicked and is now trying to spin things the best he can.
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
"Lighter" and "better" almost certainly. Not sure about cheaper, at least not in the "Pro" category.
...... as you should be better than the AVP with a 4 year head-start right???🤨
🤨🤨
🤨🤨
One's a consumer grade toy, the other a business grade tool . . .
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg today compared the Apple Vision Pro to the $500 Meta Quest 3 in an Instagram video, and provided several reasons why he thinks Meta's headset is better than Apple's.
According to Zuckerberg, the Quest 3 is better "for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for," and here are some of the things he said about the Meta Quest 3:
Zuckerberg said that he was surprised at the "tradeoffs" that Apple had to make to provide a higher resolution screen than is offered by the Quest 3, sacrificing "comfort," "ergonomics," and more. He went on to explain that Apple is not always the leader in a new product category, and that he hopes Meta's devices will ultimately "win."The Meta Quest 3 launched back in October. It has two 2K LCD panels compared to the Apple Vision Pro's 4K microLED displays. It weighs 515 grams while the Vision Pro weighs 600 to 650 grams, and it does not have a separate battery pack. It uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, has 8GB RAM, and is equipped with Touch Plus controllers.
- It's 7x less expensive than Vision Pro.
- It does high-quality passthrough with big screens "just like Vision Pro."
- Quest is a lot more comfortable - it's 120 grams less.
- There are no wires that get in the way when you move around.
- The field of view is wider and the screen is brighter.
- Vision Pro has motion blur when you move around. Quest is a lot crisper.
- Precision controllers are available, as is hand tracking, and Quest's hand tracking is more accurate.
- Quest's immersive content library is a lot deeper.
- You can watch YouTube or play Xbox.
Meta has produced several headsets so far, including the Oculus Quest, the Oculus Quest 2, the Quest 3, and the Quest Pro. Apple plans to continue producing headsets, and rumors suggest that the next-generation version will be much more affordable. When explaining the price of the Vision Pro, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it was "tomorrow's technology today."
Article Link: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Says Quest 3 is Better Than Apple Vision Pro
The Meta Quest 3 launched back in October. It has two 2K LCD panels compared to the Apple Vision Pro's 4K microLED displays. It weighs 515 grams while the Vision Pro weighs 600 to 650 grams, and it does not have a separate battery pack. It uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, has 8GB RAM, and is equipped with Touch Plus controllers.
2k or marketing cause now we know that apple's 4k is just marketing and is OLEDoS, not microLED,
2k or marketing cause now we know that apple's 4k is just marketing and is OLEDoS, not microLED,
Great, but not interested in either products, cheers.
Better, or better value? Because those are two different things.
I own a Quest 2. I do not have plans to buy a Vision Pro. Why? Because I don't want to spend that much on a VR headset. Simple as that. If I were in the market currently, I'd get a Quest 3.
The ability to play PCVR games is a big plus and that doesn't appear to be a function of the Vision Pro (which is a bummer).
While all of that is true for me, none of it makes the Quest 3 even remotely better than the Vision Pro. The argument is like claiming a Chromebook is better than a MacBook Pro because it, too, can browse the web; and for significantly less money.
There's no doubt that the Vision Pro is the best headset on the market right now. But it's expensive. And it very very very much early stages. AND very much sounds just like previous Apple product launches.
The iMac was an excellent computer but there weren't really any USB peripherals yet so you either needed to be content with a handful of accessories or use a dongle. That turned out okay.
The iPhone was an expensive phone that did less than the other phones. Heck; I remembered when it launched. I had an HP iPaq PocketPC Phone. It was 2 or 3 years old when the iPhone launched. And I looked at the iPhone and thought "Gee, this 3 year old phone does more than that thing does." That also, it turns out, worked out just fine.
In time the Vision Pro will probably gain a bunch of killer apps, and probably some cheaper variants. Maybe in 2 or 3 years the current Vision Pro will be re-launched as a "Vision Pro C" or something for $799 (I dunno, I'm making stuff up). While an M4 Pro equipped Vision Pro 3 releases for $3500. Excited to find out!
As an add: Apple seems to be interested in gaming-- kinda? Currently it appears the Vision Pro only supports a 2D Mac display. I don't expect it to support PCVR, Apple being Apple. But it would be really really cool if they supported VR games that are rendered on a Mac. This is absolutely being marketed as both a standalone machine AND an accessory for the Mac. And given the horsepower of current Macs, I think it would be really excellent if that was a possibility.
I own a Quest 2. I do not have plans to buy a Vision Pro. Why? Because I don't want to spend that much on a VR headset. Simple as that. If I were in the market currently, I'd get a Quest 3.
The ability to play PCVR games is a big plus and that doesn't appear to be a function of the Vision Pro (which is a bummer).
While all of that is true for me, none of it makes the Quest 3 even remotely better than the Vision Pro. The argument is like claiming a Chromebook is better than a MacBook Pro because it, too, can browse the web; and for significantly less money.
There's no doubt that the Vision Pro is the best headset on the market right now. But it's expensive. And it very very very much early stages. AND very much sounds just like previous Apple product launches.
The iMac was an excellent computer but there weren't really any USB peripherals yet so you either needed to be content with a handful of accessories or use a dongle. That turned out okay.
The iPhone was an expensive phone that did less than the other phones. Heck; I remembered when it launched. I had an HP iPaq PocketPC Phone. It was 2 or 3 years old when the iPhone launched. And I looked at the iPhone and thought "Gee, this 3 year old phone does more than that thing does." That also, it turns out, worked out just fine.
In time the Vision Pro will probably gain a bunch of killer apps, and probably some cheaper variants. Maybe in 2 or 3 years the current Vision Pro will be re-launched as a "Vision Pro C" or something for $799 (I dunno, I'm making stuff up). While an M4 Pro equipped Vision Pro 3 releases for $3500. Excited to find out!
As an add: Apple seems to be interested in gaming-- kinda? Currently it appears the Vision Pro only supports a 2D Mac display. I don't expect it to support PCVR, Apple being Apple. But it would be really really cool if they supported VR games that are rendered on a Mac. This is absolutely being marketed as both a standalone machine AND an accessory for the Mac. And given the horsepower of current Macs, I think it would be really excellent if that was a possibility.
Interesting thread.
I have had a Quest, Quest 2 which were okay and now Quest 3 and love it, it is a great little gadget and I like not having to pay loads of money for the little games in the same way I like the cheap, older games for my Steam Deck. That is a bonus for me as I don't spend a lot of time in VR or lengthy game sessions. Suits me at the moment.
To me, it is great seeing the progress made with the available tech and I am hoping that the next few generations of Quest will get to a point where the games are comparable to PC VR games. Of course, they will never be quite as good due to dedicated graphics cards on PCVR but here is hoping for some great progress in that direction. And by that time, who knows what the Apple Vision Pro will be capable of in comparison? There is only so much that these headsets can pack in before running out of useful technology.
I am a die-hard Apple user, for app development and pleasure, I am truly invested in the ecosystem and love it. For me, it is interesting to see how Apple has entered the headset market and although I am not so sure it is the second coming, which a lot of over-hyped reviewers are making it out to be, it looks great and I would like to try one out for myself. It sure is a great-looking piece of tech.
As a casual gamer, I would never play games on any of my Apple systems, it has never caught up with PC or consoles in this regard and I imagine Apple will always be more niche for gaming. I use my Apple stuff for productivity and they are amazing at what they do.
As a headset for productivity, I can see the Vision Pro being very useful, especially for precision stuff, which it looks suited to. Not so sure about games though.
Both of the headsets have their place in my opinion and are both excellent technology. Without defending either of them, nobody can be overly harsh about either manufacturer as they both have their faults.
Will be interesting to see what Valve brings out next!
I have had a Quest, Quest 2 which were okay and now Quest 3 and love it, it is a great little gadget and I like not having to pay loads of money for the little games in the same way I like the cheap, older games for my Steam Deck. That is a bonus for me as I don't spend a lot of time in VR or lengthy game sessions. Suits me at the moment.
To me, it is great seeing the progress made with the available tech and I am hoping that the next few generations of Quest will get to a point where the games are comparable to PC VR games. Of course, they will never be quite as good due to dedicated graphics cards on PCVR but here is hoping for some great progress in that direction. And by that time, who knows what the Apple Vision Pro will be capable of in comparison? There is only so much that these headsets can pack in before running out of useful technology.
I am a die-hard Apple user, for app development and pleasure, I am truly invested in the ecosystem and love it. For me, it is interesting to see how Apple has entered the headset market and although I am not so sure it is the second coming, which a lot of over-hyped reviewers are making it out to be, it looks great and I would like to try one out for myself. It sure is a great-looking piece of tech.
As a casual gamer, I would never play games on any of my Apple systems, it has never caught up with PC or consoles in this regard and I imagine Apple will always be more niche for gaming. I use my Apple stuff for productivity and they are amazing at what they do.
As a headset for productivity, I can see the Vision Pro being very useful, especially for precision stuff, which it looks suited to. Not so sure about games though.
Both of the headsets have their place in my opinion and are both excellent technology. Without defending either of them, nobody can be overly harsh about either manufacturer as they both have their faults.
Will be interesting to see what Valve brings out next!
I have both units and it sounds like we live in two different universes.
There is no way the Q3 is a million percent “better” (what does that even mean? By what measurement? Magic?)
The AVP has a 3x higher resolution and far better contrast. That makes doing actual work - like I do - Photo editing, video editing - actually usable. Movie watching and content consumption is in two different leagues. All quest has is what - big screen?
Is the VP perhaps overpriced and very limited by software and lack of controllers right now? Yes. Does quest have a more robust software library? Absolutely. Is Quest 3 noticeably and significantly inferior compared to AVP for real productivity or movie watching? Yep.
It’s just physics.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t have a lot of physical space to install a massive entertainment system in my condo. When I’m flying or out and about I can’t set up a massive screen to work on. With AVP this becomes possible.
To me - this makes it worth it because even with a 40” 5k display I can’t effectively see my art displayed as it would look on a wall or in a theater. But I can do that with AVP at a resolution that isn’t pixelated.
Quest 3 is a gaming machine. And it’s wonderful at that - especially for PCVR. But if you want a close to real life viewing experience and/or want to do real work in small physical spaces?
They aren’t even close. Come on.
You quickly forget about it, not a big deal... It's called rationalizing. I get it.
Apple’s will get
Functions mainly … like smartphone has been reinvented with iPhone and everything else followed the path …
lmao, "open", as if you don't have to jump through a thousand hoops in order to enable sideloading...
Looks like Zuck is celebrating in France !
The Sagrada Familia is in Barcelona, which is currently still in Spain. Now I reckon the Eiffel Tower would be easier to move than the SF, so I'd say he's in Barcelona. I reckon the Catalonians have stolen the ET and are holding it hostage to force France to support their independence movement.
Either way, Facebook's bland, soulless cartoony avatar design is far better than Apple's terrible, creepy Personas.
Even mice?
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg today compared the Apple Vision Pro to the $500 Meta Quest 3 in an Instagram video, and provided several reasons why he thinks Meta's headset is better than Apple's.
According to Zuckerberg, the Quest 3 is better "for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for," and here are some of the things he said about the Meta Quest 3:
Zuckerberg said that he was surprised at the "tradeoffs" that Apple had to make to provide a higher resolution screen than is offered by the Quest 3, sacrificing "comfort," "ergonomics," and more. He went on to explain that Apple is not always the leader in a new product category, and that he hopes Meta's devices will ultimately "win."The Meta Quest 3 launched back in October. It has two 2K LCD panels compared to the Apple Vision Pro's 4K microLED displays. It weighs 515 grams while the Vision Pro weighs 600 to 650 grams, and it does not have a separate battery pack. It uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, has 8GB RAM, and is equipped with Touch Plus controllers.
- It's 7x less expensive than Vision Pro.
- It does high-quality passthrough with big screens "just like Vision Pro."
- Quest is a lot more comfortable - it's 120 grams less.
- There are no wires that get in the way when you move around.
- The field of view is wider and the screen is brighter.
- Vision Pro has motion blur when you move around. Quest is a lot crisper.
- Precision controllers are available, as is hand tracking, and Quest's hand tracking is more accurate.
- Quest's immersive content library is a lot deeper.
- You can watch YouTube or play Xbox.
Meta has produced several headsets so far, including the Oculus Quest, the Oculus Quest 2, the Quest 3, and the Quest Pro. Apple plans to continue producing headsets, and rumors suggest that the next-generation version will be much more affordable. When explaining the price of the Vision Pro, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it was "tomorrow's technology today."
Article Link: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Says Quest 3 is Better Than Apple Vision Pro
Like, what else did you think he was gonna say?
Literally apples and well..oranges although he should be welcoming Apple with open arms into this space .....
Vision is not about "better value" like a Ferrari is not about "better value" - If you are considering the "better value" aspect these are not for you.
Yes, if someone's experience is different from yours, it must be a cognitive bias. How smart and superior you are. Internet discourse is so amazing.
Because it triggers the sheep, there is no place on the internet where a story like this would trigger so many people.
With a Quest and PCVR you can do so many things that the VP wishes it could do. Simple example, Real world blueprint walkaround and real time rendering of environments. If you think PCVR is just for gaming you don't understand it... If you are looking for productivity why did you not get a hololens2, industrial VR that costs the same as a VP... My point was that for slightly better displays you are paying 7x. And the sacrifices are too large for displays. Inferior battery, inferior field of view, inferior weight, no built in battery. I don't know how anyone can justify missing these basic needs when using a headset...
I haven't tried either of these but even I understand that the delta between the differences is large enough that these two products are not competing for customers and should not be compared. The one upside that Zuckerberg failed to mention is that any comparisons, reasonable or not only helps all VR especially Meta's VR.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg today compared the Apple Vision Pro to the $500 Meta Quest 3 in an Instagram video, and provided several reasons why he thinks Meta's headset is better than Apple's.
According to Zuckerberg, the Quest 3 is better "for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for," and here are some of the things he said about the Meta Quest 3:
Zuckerberg said that he was surprised at the "tradeoffs" that Apple had to make to provide a higher resolution screen than is offered by the Quest 3, sacrificing "comfort," "ergonomics," and more. He went on to explain that Apple is not always the leader in a new product category, and that he hopes Meta's devices will ultimately "win."The Meta Quest 3 launched back in October. It has two 2K LCD panels compared to the Apple Vision Pro's 4K microLED displays. It weighs 515 grams while the Vision Pro weighs 600 to 650 grams, and it does not have a separate battery pack. It uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, has 8GB RAM, and is equipped with Touch Plus controllers.
- It's 7x less expensive than Vision Pro.
- It does high-quality passthrough with big screens "just like Vision Pro."
- Quest is a lot more comfortable - it's 120 grams less.
- There are no wires that get in the way when you move around.
- The field of view is wider and the screen is brighter.
- Vision Pro has motion blur when you move around. Quest is a lot crisper.
- Precision controllers are available, as is hand tracking, and Quest's hand tracking is more accurate.
- Quest's immersive content library is a lot deeper.
- You can watch YouTube or play Xbox.
Meta has produced several headsets so far, including the Oculus Quest, the Oculus Quest 2, the Quest 3, and the Quest Pro. Apple plans to continue producing headsets, and rumors suggest that the next-generation version will be much more affordable. When explaining the price of the Vision Pro, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it was "tomorrow's technology today."
Article Link: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Says Quest 3 is Better Than Apple Vision Pro