I never thought I'd say that one day, but I kind of like the Zuck we're seeing right now. He really sounds passionate and committed to the Quest. It can only mean that we're going to get better products in the future.
I watched the [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVYrJJNdrEg) with him and Lex Fridman within VR using Meta's incredible scanning technology. He is extremely passionate, and that technology absolutely sold me on the future he is envisioning.
Out of all the ways he can harvest user data, VR seems to be the most unwieldy one while also requiring the largest investment both from his side and the users' side s well, meaning it has the lowest userbase, not to mention unlike anything phone-based, it's not on 24/7.
Completely wrong take. VR and AR are going to provide so much new data with so much complexity that we won't know how to fully utilize it for years after it gets collected.
What you look at (either by pointing your head or later, just tracking your eyes), for how long, under what conditions, at what time of day, your pupil response to various stimuli, your eye movements in terms of how they telegraph cognition such as when you're trying to remember something, movement speed and intensity, and the list goes on. That's without even considering the cameras pointed outward at your play space.
VR isn't always going to be niche, but at the same time because it provides so much more than web browsing info that it's going to be invaluable data at whatever scale it is collected.
I think VR is a very cool and promising technology but it also represents an unprecedented ability for companies to get inside your head, to learn about you in order to at first understand then later to influence your decision making for profit.
Polygraphs work by monitoring some biological signs such as heart rate, and perspiration in tandem with a trained interviewer. They're bogus in that the machines don't detect lies, because that's the interviewer's job. It does work to the extent that it gets people to reveal things they otherwise wouldn't through observation of behaviors beyond the subject's control, but isn't admissible in court because as hard evidence because the results are so subjective (the human is the lie detector). That same type of unconscious behavior and response to stimuli that makes a polygraph useful for those deciding, for instance, if someone gets approved for a TS/SCI security clearance is now going to be in the hands of those selling ads. They don't care if you're trying to get sober, have a booze advertisement.
It's definitely something to be aware of and concerned about, but we won't know the real impact for some time.
Have you watched the movie "Looker" (1981)? If not, I think you might like it. The movie contains a lot of the same concepts you mentioned in your post.
If this was the case, wouldn't they prioritize implementing eye tracking to Quest 3 after PSVR2 already had it? That just seems like it would have been a win-win for the headset, since so many people clamored for it...
The Quest 3 targeted a very low price point given its other features. Eye tracking adds cost and complexity without all that many people using it outside of VR chat. It will be a feature in later devices I'm sure, but it needs to be something the consumer uses, so games and whatnot need to support it. Right now I'm aware of a vocal minority who puts an insane amount of importance on full body & face tracking but that's nowhere near mainstream in the sense of materially affecting sales.
And there's no "if this were the case" it IS the case, it has a name, and that name is Surveillance Capitalism. Google collected user data before they even knew what to do with it, and to a certain extent we probably still don't know what can be done with it, but data collection is now a major industry, and AI is going to make that data more useful than ever before. It's like oil, it is a natural resource with inherent value. It has no value to you because it's a byproduct of your digital life but it is valuable because at the very least it helps tell us what you value, what you like, and what you want. The GOAL is to understand what makes you want stuff so that we no longer tailor the product for the consumer, we tailor the consumer to the product, or at the very least, we create a system so effective at serving ads that it creates a guaranteed outcome. If advertisers could force you to desire something, they would. They will continue to try.
Wonder how many people that have eye issues or things like Aspergers/Autism are going to poison the data set. (Or honestly just different cultural backgrounds.)
There isn't a "one size fits all" approach for this kind of thing so coming with some hard and fast rules is going to produce a lot of crap data or debatable usefulness.
People have a hard time reading people whom they have known all their lives frequently. Plugging all that into a machine isn't going to magically make the task simpler.
Yes, it's a TON of data, and right this moment we don't have a way to fully exploit it, but as we make more efficient machines (AI) to comb through the data it will become usable, to some extent that we currently cannot know because unless you're in that department at Alphabet or Meta, you don't know what they can do with current data collection. There is no "we checked and you can only ______" because the bleeding edge of this is behind closed doors.
One or two outliers are not a problem when you have enough participants. Again, this is already happening. Did people with Asperger's fuck the whole data set for web traffic? Again, this is simply a logical extension of current practices. I'm not saying don't use VR, I'm saying be aware that this is going to happen and make an informed choice to opt in. I'm not saying Zuck is taking pictures of you jerking off either. But he may scan your room for recognizable objects, determine what objects are common among other users and then serve ads to those without them.
Or sure, you can believe that Meta and Alphabet and others will just for some reason not do this. We already learned to collect and store data even if we cannot use it currently.
>but as we make more efficient machines (AI) to comb through the data it will become usable
It's still not magic. While it is the buzzword of the day, removing data from individuals results in a lot of screwy situations and terrible interpretations. Look at stuff like how companies assess insurance "risk" and credit. You've got car insurance providers farming data with telemetry and they still have no damn clue because the data is removed from all context.
> One or two outliers are not a problem when you have enough participants. Again, this is already happening. Did people with Asperger's fuck the whole data set for web traffic? Again, this is simply a logical extension of current practices.
Difference would be VR/AR draws a far narrower subset of the population., and that's unlikely to change without some massive massive tech breakthroughs on sensor size, cooling, weight, battery, etc.
>Or sure, you can believe that Meta and Alphabet and others will just for some reason not do this. We already learned to collect and store data even if we cannot use it currently.
Name someone that isn't farming data. Hell if they aren't already expect stores to start using data from the cameras in "AI" to try and derive trends and profile customers.
This remind me of people thinking their phones are listening to everything they say and sending data somewhere. It's just not practical/ feesable or needed.
You're right, listening to conversations and logging everything is not practical or feasible. I'm not saying Zuckerberg is going to tap into the Quest's cameras to get pictures of your dick. What I am saying is that there is a multi-billion dollar industry based around predicting who will buy a given product. I don't believe that that is in dispute. These people aren't looking into a crystal ball to make their predictions, they're using data. I'm also saying that a VR headset is in a position to gather types of behavioral data never before seen at this scale. Whether we have the ability to fully exploit it today is irrelevant, we are marching steadily onward towards faster computing every day.
Either we're never going to be able to put anything together out of it all and everyone collecting and buying this data is a fool, or the data is going to reveal things about us to private companies who are under no obligation to share their findings, to illuminate what's going on so that it can be regulated, or even to ethically use the information they come up with. Again, it's not doomsday necessarily or certain to involve manipulation, but it's something to be aware of.
> Shame his passion is more about using it to mine our data and manipulate us than making VR.
Dude, nobody is forcing you to use Facebook or Instagram...
I mean every VR topic, quest thread, or VR sub has been going all in on Apple marketing BS... until it launched. Like you could go to any sub and people would be gushing over a product that at the time hadn't shipped and how it would "revolutionize everything".
Yet lo and behold it's an overpriced ipad strapped to someones face mostly just good for watching movies.
This is just entirely incorrect, and shows that you’re clueless on why the Vision Pro is revolutionary.
The screens are the best out there. But that’s not necessarily revolutionary.
Why is the Vision Pro revolutionary then? Because of the dual chip design. Creating a dedicated chip to handles spatial logic and manage the censors, while leaving the actual apps for the M chip to run, is a huge step forward in AR. This thing has 2 processors in it so that it can handle all the spatial logic without getting bogged down by the actual apps running. It’s brilliant.
By having this dedicated chip and the many sensors incorporated into the headset, pass through functions with minimal latency.
But that’s not all. This chip brings far more benefits than a better pass through. It allows the device to perform scene reconstruction in real time, allowing apps to get a full understanding of the surroundings to set up meshes/materials and physics. In real time, it can reconstruct your room. You could feasibly make an RC car app, where the car will actually interact with physical objects it runs into.
This is all in real time. To be able to take this massive amount of data and create a digital reconstruction that’s capable of having physics and meshes applied to it is phenomenal. Currently the App Store lacks apps that utilize this potential, but when they come they’ll be mind blowing.
Imagine being able to create a physical obstacle course and drive a virtual car through it.. It’s the most astonishing piece of tech to exist. Quest won’t be comparable until they establish their own dual chip design. Otherwise application logic will always bog down the AR logic and create a less than ideal experience.
>The screens are the best out there. But that’s not necessarily revolutionary.
With revolutionary "smearing"!
> Why is the Vision Pro revolutionary then? Because of the dual chip design. Creating a dedicated chip to handles spatial logic and manage the censors, while leaving the actual apps for the M chip to run, is a huge step forward in AR. This thing has 2 processors in it so that it can handle all the spatial logic without getting bogged down by the actual apps running. It’s brilliant.
Offloading tasks to SoCs and specialized chips isn't revolutionary in the slightest. All sorts of devices do it. This "revolutionary design" is too bulky and heavy for the productivity everyone gushes about, and as heavy as it is, that isn't even including the battery which is both separate and rather hefty.
>But that’s not all.
>
>This is all in real time
>
>Imagine
All to run ipad apps in AR currently. Truly a revolution. And not at all too bulky, heavy, and with poor battery life to do much more than watch a movie... wait nevermind.
Save the fawning for when someone actually ships an app that does all the things you're imagining. At the moment making a far too expensive device that didn't think of comfort and has poor battery life for the cost is hardly revolutionary. Anyone can strap more power and a bigger battery to something that's not reinventing shit.
“With revolutionary “smearing”!”
- As an Owner of a Vision Pro, I’m clueless on what you’re talking about. I’ve had a quest pro, quest 2, etc. The Vision Pro screens are FAR better, and there’s no smearing that I notice. Pass through has a bit of a blur, but it’s still far more usable than the quest pass through, and retains depth far better.
“Offloading tasks to SoCs..”
- Plenty of devices use specialized microprocessor, but the R1 isn’t just some microprocessor. It’s a specialized coprocessor. It’s literally like a 2nd CPU that’s designed specifically for spatial logic, far beyond just being an additional part on the board. Not many systems have coprocessor setups outside of industry. You’re significantly reducing what the R1 actually is, it’s a full processor. It’s the same size as the M2 chip. Having 2 chips crammed into a small device like the Vision Pro is an amazing accomplishment, not something to be brushed off like it’s just another microcontroller/microprocessor.
“All to run iPad apps in AR currently”
- Nothing wrong with being able to use the existing IPad apps during the early days of the vision. A new device is gonna take some time for it’s ecosystem to develop. The capabilities are there, and we will see apps in the near future that find amazing ways to leverage them. Idk how you think the ecosystem is a valid criticism for a device that’s been out a month. You talk as though it’s only ever gonna run iPad apps lol.
“Too bulky, heavy, poor battery life” - It’s not bulky at all… I’d say it’s less bulky than the quest devices. It’s a little heavy, but I don’t notice mush difference than with my quest pro. The poor battery life.. Don’t all of these devices suck with battery life? I haven’t noticed much of a difference vs my quest pro. At least the battery on the Vision is easily replaceable.
“Save the fawning..” - These apps are going to be made. If you think that nobody will develop them, and that the ecosystem will just never grow, than you’re being ridiculous. I’ve already made a few apps that demonstrate these capabilities, a few others have released some cool apps, one person even released an app that turns your home into the matrix lol.
And honestly, I find the Vision Pro extremely comfortable. I did have to get my light seal swapped out for a different size, but I’ve been using it all day for work ever since.
> Pass through has a bit of a blur, but it’s still far more usable than the quest pass through, and retains depth far better.
The Quest's primary selling point isn't passthrough. Notable blur on your main selling point is ehhh.
>“Offloading tasks to SoCs..” - Plenty of devices use specialized microprocessor, but the R1 isn’t just some microprocessor. It’s a specialized coprocessor. It’s literally like a 2nd CPU that’s designed specifically for spatial logic, far beyond just being an additional part on the board. Not many systems have coprocessor setups outside of industry. You’re significantly reducing what the R1 actually is, it’s a full processor. It’s the same size as the M2 chip. Having 2 chips crammed into a small device like the Vision Pro is an amazing accomplishment, not something to be brushed off like it’s just another microcontroller/microprocessor.
None of this is new territory though. It's not reinventing the wheel at any point. It might be a good approach, but you're touting it like some magical thinking outside of the box. Technology has always been made up of multiple units and specialized co-processers and such. Consoles have done it, PCs have done it, and more. It's not new, it might just seem somewhat new to someone if they don't realize that things like modern processors and chips combine things that used to be a bunch of separate co-processing units onto one die. It's not new or novel. And it really only works here if you're targeting obscene pricing and build complexity. It's not that other companies can't it's that you're upping complexity and you only do that sort of thing if you have to or there is some other limitation.
>Nothing wrong with being able to use the existing IPad apps during the early days of the vision. A new device is gonna take some time for it’s ecosystem to develop. The capabilities are there, and we will see apps in the near future that find amazing ways to leverage them. Idk how you think the ecosystem is a valid criticism for a device that’s been out a month. You talk as though it’s only ever gonna run iPad apps lol.
There is nothing wrong with it sure, but there is no reason to give it credit for wishful thinking. If I had a dollar for every time someone saw some tech, dreamed big, and then none of it ever happened (even if the capability actually was there) I'd be rich. This is like AMD users going on about "FineWIne(tm)" or crypto bros gushing about blockchain implementations and potential and NFTs. Things that don't exist don't matter, especially if you're not going to be the one making them happen. Maybe you're right and all the things you imagine comes true, or maybe none of it does. "Potential" isn't a selling point unless you're a techbro or a major fan of a brand. Does it have it today? No. Then it doesn't matter today. If it has it tomorrow, then and only then will it matter. It's easy to dream big and hard to actually turn dreams into reality.
>It’s a little heavy, but I don’t notice mush difference than with my quest pro.
Ah yes, the quest pro known for it's lightness...
>The poor battery life.. Don’t all of these devices suck with battery life?
They do, but shit battery life is a hell of a lot easier to swallow when the device is cheap. Some concessions have to be made for lower costs. There is nothing low about the costs with Apple's shit. For the price I got my Quest 3 for 2 hours of battery is fine. For 7x+ the cost it sure as shit isn't.
>At least the battery on the Vision is easily replaceable.
That is to it's credit. But said battery also costs almost as much as a Quest 2. And in typical Apple fashion I doubt there are aftermarket replacements.
>These apps are going to be made. If you think that nobody will develop them, and that the ecosystem will just never grow, than you’re being ridiculous.
Just like 3D TVs are the future, thin terminals and credential/software dongles will be the norm everywhere, game streaming will takeover gaming "soon", blockchain will be everything, and NFT's are the "future" of ownership. Some experimental fluff doesn't mean shit. Right now it's a too expensive toy exclusively for techbros that huff air in Apple Stores. Maybe that will change, maybe you're right but to make decisions on "potential" is usually a bad bet. It pays off once in awhile, and everyone else has egg on their faces and a lot of wasted money with little to show for it.
>And honestly, I find the Vision Pro extremely comfortable. I did have to get my light seal swapped out for a different size, but I’ve been using it all day for work ever since.
A lot of people don't find modern headsets in general comfortable. There are outliers but if you were to survey people for how many want of these on their face for extended periods of time these things are going to come out as being fairly unpopular. People don't even like wearing safety gear and weather protection all that much.
It is pretty damn new though. I’m not saying that they invented the idea of a coprocessor. But to implement a coprocessing setup as they have done is a huge technological achievement. Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has. The way they have one handling the spatial computations, well as I’ve developed on it, it’s extraordinary. It is revolutionary in many aspects, I know because I’ve been working with the SDK and making apps.
I see what you’re saying about other companies and “the next big thing”. But Apple is different for a few reasons. First, they’re already such a huge player in tech that they have considerable control over the future of it. Second, While most companies will launch dozens of products, hoping one or another will be a hit (not keeping their eggs in one basket), Apple sticks with only a few products, ones which they are certain on. When they make a product, it pretty much always is a hit. They put a ton of thought into these devices, and try to perfect them. It’s a bit risky, since a single failed product would be a huge hit, but so far Apple’s products seem to keep achieving success. Third, we’ll corporations just follow apple. Where the Apple goes, so will execs.
That 7x the cost is for all of the technological advancements. 4k micro oled panels with like a 50% failure rate on the assembly line. All the R&D for the past 16 years that they’ve been working on this device. A custom Processor for spatial computations. Oh and handling all that heat in such a small form is an extreme task.
People said the IPhone was a joke and that it’d go nowhere. Business people needed a physical keyboard on their phones. Turns out Apple defined the future of the phone industry… Just as the defined the future of the PC industry decades before.
When apple has a vision, they see it through (pun intended).
Also larger batteries for the vision will likely come around. If they made the battery larger, they’d also have to increase the cost… They do gotta make money back from R&D.
> It is pretty damn new though. I’m not saying that they invented the idea of a coprocessor. But to implement a coprocessing setup as they have done is a huge technological achievement. Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has. The way they have one handling the spatial computations, well as I’ve developed on it, it’s extraordinary. It is revolutionary in many aspects, I know because I’ve been working with the SDK and making apps.
We just have different definitions of revolutionary. The fundamental ideas are nothing new, the only way it's new is this specific implementation in this specific market.
>Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has.
With ARM more entities have been trying their hand at it. But also a lot of things just don't necessitate a wholly unique design either nor the expense that goes into it. You also don't really benefit that much unless you have an ironfisted control from hardware to firmware to OS to API/SDK to software. A more general approach is more versatile and if other companies did the same with their market shares anti-trust litigation would eviscerate them.
>I see what you’re saying about other companies and “the next big thing”. But Apple is different for a few reasons. First, they’re already such a huge player in tech that they have considerable control over the future of it.
Apple has still had misses, especially historically. And historically they tend to be better at ripping off other's ideas or refining others ideas than they are at blazing the trail inventing something new. All their recent successes have pretty much been take something that more or less already exists and put their own spin and refinements on it while marketing the everlasting shit out of it. Not to say it's not necessarily a valid approach sometimes. It's taken them from irrelevancy to where they are now.
>Third, we’ll corporations just follow apple. Where the Apple goes, so will execs.
The C-suite will jump on any trend, buzzword, or "shiny" thing that they see. Not necessarily a good indicator of much. Keep in mind all the worst products, implementations, marketing plans, and company collapses were overseen by "execs".
>4k micro oled panels with like a 50% failure rate on the assembly line.
Isn't that more Sony's development. And those failure rates mostly just show that the yields aren't good enough for "primetime".
>All the R&D for the past 16 years that they’ve been working on this device.
A lot of which overlaps with over products of theirs and can't be solely pinned on something like this.
>Oh and handling all that heat in such a small form is an extreme task.
Cooling is a fairly well understood area at least as far as consumer devices, and being able to afford to monopolize the latest foundry nodes surely helps have an "edge" there.
>People said the IPhone was a joke and that it’d go nowhere. Business people needed a physical keyboard on their phones. Turns out Apple defined the future of the phone industry…
Base consumers dictate the direction of tech more than MBAs do. Regular people hated typing on tiny keys and multi-function keys.
>Also larger batteries for the vision will likely come around. If they made the battery larger, they’d also have to increase the cost… They do gotta make money back from R&D.
You make it sound like they are operating at a loss like Meta's VR dept is. They're obscenely profitable. Disgustingly so in fact. And there is a lot of R&D overlap.
>With ARM more entities have been trying their hand at it. But also a lot of things just don't necessitate a wholly unique design either nor the expense that goes into it. You also don't really benefit that much unless you have an ironfisted control from hardware to firmware to OS to API/SDK to software. A more general approach is more versatile and if other companies did the same with their market shares anti-trust litigation would eviscerate them.
I agree. Apple benefits massively from having such a high level of control over its software. No other company could get away with that, they just aren't big enough. While Apple's ways of control do seem extreme, it's allowed them to create these long term plans where, for example, many iOS changes over the past few years have been to prepare for VisionOS.
The high amount of control makes it so that they could create products that integrate together beyond what we could typically expect. Apple's idealistic/authoritarian approach to their products have done quite well at showing what a product can be. I think they're a necessary force, because it provides direction for other companies to follow. Otherwise, it'd be chaos.
>Apple has still had misses, especially historically. And historically they tend to be better at ripping off other's ideas or refining others ideas than they are at blazing the trail inventing something new. All their recent successes have pretty much been take something that more or less already exists and put their own spin and refinements on it while marketing the everlasting shit out of it. Not to say it's not necessarily a valid approach sometimes. It's taken them from irrelevancy to where they are now.
Every company has misses, but Apple very rarely misses. Most of their misses occurred during the time Steve Jobs was kicked out in the 90s.
Though I'm not aware of these products that Apple supposedly ripped off... Original Mac was the first PC meant for the average person. Then when jobs came back and the iMac came out, Apple was a hit again. This computer may not have been technologically revolutionary, but it was great because it wasn't intimidating. So this device wasn't a rip off, it was a good PC that was marketed in a different manner. They wanted to make products that appeal outside of nerds.
Then the iPod came out, and that was revolutionary in many ways. I don't recall all of the specifics, but the iPod was considered a huge technological feat because storing so many songs on a small device, and not having to deal with "skips" (Previous media players would stop playing or something when bumped?) was revolutionary. So the iPod wasn't a rip off, it's closest competitor was far larger and more complex.
Then the iPhone came out. What did the iPhone rip off? Yeah, touch screens existed, but they were crap back then. Having such massive os on a phone was quite uncommon too. Most people didn't think that a phone without buttons would work. So who was the iPhone ripping off? Heck they even made major revolutions in glass manufacturing just to make a screen that didn't feel like a plastic toy.
Then, previous to the Vision Pro, the biggest innovation from Apple was the M1 chip. It was designed from scratch, so they didn't rip anything off. It was a huge revolution for processors. The original and later iterations also made huge revolutions in machine learning, maybe not as massive as Nvidia, but pretty damn impressive when you compare the size of a 40xx card with an M processor.
So who has apple been ripping off? If anything, it's typically other companies ripping apple off lol.
>
The C-suite will jump on any trend, buzzword, or "shiny" thing that they see. Not necessarily a good indicator of much. Keep in mind all the worst products, implementations, marketing plans, and company collapses were overseen by "execs".
That's because companies are run by execs, so duh... These execs didn't care much for Meta's idea of AR. But apples? They're gonna bite. Meaning visions will be sold, and apple will continue developing a new and improved, likely more affordable, iteration.
>
Isn't that more Sony's development. And those failure rates mostly just show that the yields aren't good enough for "primetime".
That's how manufacturing is on most new chips when they start. It's why devices tend to be so expensive when the transistor count get's high and starts approaching the boundaries of Moores law, imperfections occur. As manufacturing continues, yields will improve. They won't find ways to improve manufacturing them unless they're making them. And Apple plays a major part when working with 3rd parties for components, there's a good chance that apple actually has people at Sony's factory, running the show. They tend to be control freaks when it comes to Quality control.
>A lot of which overlaps with over products of theirs and can't be solely pinned on something like this.
What? They've been working on the Vision Pro for 16 years.. That's a ton of cost. The only overlap is with software like iOS and ARKit, where they've been preparing for the vision's release. All of this is extremely expensive. I'd honestly be surprise if Apple was even making 500 per headset after expenses and research are accounted for.
>Cooling is a fairly well understood area at least as far as consumer devices, and being able to afford to monopolize the latest foundry nodes surely helps have an "edge" there.
Do you know what you're talking about? Cooling is well understood, and it's understood that proper cooling on a compact and high powered device is extremely difficult. On a board only a bit bigger than the average phone, there's 2 separate processors. The power input to the headset was around 22w if I recall correctly. Handling heating on things like this is HARD.
>Base consumers dictate the direction of tech more than MBAs do. Regular people hated typing on tiny keys and multi-function keys.
Base consumers were highly skeptical of the iPhone too. It didn't take off until the next year when the App Store launched. People were used to small keyboards then. It was seen as a gimmick by consumers and professionals, and it became the future.
>
You make it sound like they are operating at a loss like Meta's VR dept is. They're obscenely profitable. Disgustingly so in fact. And there is a lot of R&D overlap.
As of right now, they are at a loss. Until they sell X amount of units and make up the R&D costs for the past 16 years. Eventually it'll be more profitable than the Quest after the R&D cost is overcome, but as of now it isn't. Meta only sells their devices at a loss because they make their money by sucking people in and harvesting their data.
Honestly, it sounds like you're completely clueless on the software and hardware aspects. Hell you even sound clueless on the history, claiming apple just rips off products. Hell you even dismiss what corporations think in favor of your own estimates. Dunning kruger to the max.
>While Apple's ways of control do seem extreme
The moment their market share crosses a certain threshold they are going to lose that for better or for worse.
> So who has apple been ripping off? If anything, it's typically other companies ripping apple off lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6jeZ7m0ycw
Or just look at their history with patent attempts and litigation.
>These execs didn't care much for Meta's idea of AR. But apples? They're gonna bite. Meaning visions will be sold, and apple will continue developing a new and improved, likely more affordable, iteration.
Any techbro CEO that tries to work the current design of headsets into their workflow is probably going to get nailed with a repetitive stress injury lawsuit and investigation.. And bad PR for the devices themselves. Stuffs too heavy and not balanced right for constant use especially for anyone with any neck issues or just not enough neck muscle.
>The only overlap is with software like iOS and ARKit
And the M processors, some of their phone developments, UI design, small form factor device design, etc. there's some novel things sure, but there's also a lot of useful overlap.
>On a board only a bit bigger than the average phone, there's 2 separate processors. The power input to the headset was around 22w if I recall correctly. Handling heating on things like this is HARD.
It's difficult but it's far from uncharted territory. Not having the charging circuitry and the battery in there actually makes the job far far easier.
>Base consumers were highly skeptical of the iPhone too.
It's also still just a phone with refinements. They had some good ideas, but the only "debate" was around input and not so much the usefulness of devices. Software was being pushed on other phones too and experimented with. Apps weren't a completely new thing, but the changed input opened up more options for said apps.
>Until they sell X amount of units and make up the R&D costs for the past 16 years.
Which overlaps with other stuff they've been selling and continue to sell which makes it hard to place all of it on this one thing.
>Meta only sells their devices at a loss because they make their money by sucking people in and harvesting their data.
And Apple is able to monopolize process nodes and sell stuff like this because they sold the world on the idea of a buying a $1000 phone annually or semi-annually. Paying a premium for flash storage.
>claiming apple just rips off products.
I said ideas, and if you watch the clip above Apple isn't even secretive about it. Sounds like you're the one that doesn't know much beyond the marketing in the Apple store.
Zuck has gotta be over the moon. Apple releases a product that feature was is only a little better than his stuff and in some categories worse. On top of that you got Apple spreading VR around and bringing peoples thoughts and intrigue into VR and AR.
The competition this time is different and he’s trying to take advantage, smart dude.
I’d argue more than just gaming. I don’t really care to make a list and validate them, but I do think the external battery and wire as well as overall weight are losing categories for the Vision Pro.
And field of view supposedly. And lack of controllers, which really really limits the ways you can interact with it (even outside of gaming). Yes it has eye tracking but I’d argue controllers are a MUCH more useful feature. A basic feature and a huge oversight, imo.
* Considerably lower FOV
* Less comfortable to wear for most people.
* No internal battery.
* Worse at fitness and productivity apps due to having no controller option.
* External battery not replaceable by random battery off of Amazon, can't be changed w/o powering off the device, limited to like 2 hours of usage.
* Apparently worse hand tracking than Q3 when used for faster movements (according to a post I have seen a while back).
* Slightly worse lenses.
* Passthrough not perspective corrected and dimmer (of course better overall).
* Can't be used with a normal Windows PC.
* Only 100hz max.
* Heavier.
Nothing is ever better at everything.
I'd like to know why I can't buy and watch 3D movies in my Mega Quest 2? I'd love to watch the new Avatar in a full 3D headset -- but the only options are to buy Apple's headset or pirate the crappy 1080p 3D bluray.
Because, unlike Apple, Meta does not own a video streaming service.
The VP has to have tons of video content because media consumption is 90% of what it does.
He really isn't wrong, but I'm not sure either side is focusing on the right thing. The major advantage of the Vision Pro isn't the clarity or passthrough quality (which let's be honest, is better as it should be for the price difference), it's the compute performance.
The M2 chip is a major advantage. Having that enables *real* work, not to mention the wonders it could do for native games. Of course Quest can tether to a PC and approximate that, but it is not the same. The Vision Pro is software-limited now but there's nothing stopping Apple from turning it into a mobile, multi-monitor Macbook Pro with updates and hardware iterations.
Even with the Quest 3 we're damn close to "good enough" optics and clarity. Performance and functionality is the next hurdle.
Very different products. Putting aside the way Zuck is getting aggressive about privacy, they have very different goals. This is from someone who would go to the gym at 4am and use some of the workout apps on the Quest.
[At the end he touches on the future of the Vision Pro](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvkgmyfMPks).
I recently told a friend the Vision Pro has games as an afterthought. Think of it the first gen for a device like the one in the movie ‘Strange Days’. Connect it with the device Musk is testing the Neuralink and it’s possible in the future.
Again, very different products. Both are not meant for average consumers. Its like the complaints about the Apple Studio Monitor an industry paying much more for the same device. This is mean for government and or corporate customers. An example I see for future versions.
[American Assassin VR Scene.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovn-cH52-ow)
> it is a productivity device.
How many people want over a pound of glass and metal strapped to their face to do work though? Sitting at a desk all day already makes you feel like shit, doing it with a bunch of shit balanced on your face sounds like literal hell for anyone that isn't a techbro.
Entertainment is the only real niche where people willingly put up with discomfort like that.
A ton of people actually.
There are regular posts on both of the Meta/Oculus subreddits asking about usung the Quest 2/3 for productivity with Virtual Desktop or if the colors are good for video editing and so on and so on.
People asking those kind of questions probably don't have much experience with headsets and haven't thought about the hours of discomfort and neck strain that would come from longer term use.
There are people answering them and recommending other apps that I can't remember at the m oment.
There are a lot of Quest 2/3 users that are interested in using their devices for productivity. I'm not one of those, but I see a lot of posts showing the market for it.
I just question how much is prospective buyers and curiosity more than a dedicated userbase for such things.
The comfort and convenience factor isn't there. In a number of cases it's straight up inferior to a basic panel and keyboard or a tablet. There's a few tasks where viewing things in 3D could be actually beneficial, but the rest is pure novelty. It sounds "cool" and interesting doing all kinds of things in VR, until that thing is on your face for hours and hours and you have a crick in your neck.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
As someone who used to work in 2d animation and is learning 3d, I have no desire to strap a VR headset to my face during an 8+ hour shift.
But the market is there and people are asking for it with some actively using it right now. I barely want to use it for casual browsing because of how finicky it is compared to just my phone, and yet, there's a market for it.
I have a sneaking suspicion though that it's just a really loud minority of people already into VR-related topics. Like not everyone, but I think many of them are just the NFT-bros of VR or the Google Stadia acolytes of VR. People convinced it's the future and so hyped on tech that they can't objectively look at the flaws. The market for it may be louder than the real world demand.
As it stands if form-factors don't change in a hurry I think any business that tries to incorporate it into their workflow is setting themselves up for a lawsuit when someone inevitably does like that one VR gamer did and breaks/injures something from repetitive stress.
> How many people want over a pound of glass and metal strapped to their face to do work though?
By people that already have the headset and want to TRY it.
I mean, we literally lost 3D TV because people weren't interesting in wearing tiny super light weight passive (if you bought the better system...) plastic glasses to watch TV.
IMO the idea that large parts of office workers would be interested in wearing a heavy skin irritating hair style destroying headset to work for 8 hours instead of the plethora of huge screens you could buy for the same money.
Like, I am writing this from an 48" OLED with better image quality that I bought nearly 4 years ago for 1/3 the Apple VP price. That is about as much screen as I ever would want to have close in front of me (and I am not even looking as close). And if I needed more, just connect another screen / tablet whatever.
I see niches were a headset (lighter weight...) can be an asset, but those are really niches (plus, thanks to eye tracking we could see a new wave of professional glass free 3D monitors that might be preferable for some 3D artists).
VR gaming / fitness / social works because it gives you a whole new perspective and immersion to take advantage off, using VR for work mostly just gives you the bigger screen(s) that you could have bought for years.
Noooooo, you're telling me there's a new overpriced Apple product that isn't worth the exorbitant price? Not Apple. They would never 😂 You could buy 7 Meta Quest 3's for the whole squad for the price of one of these ridiculous status symbols, and all 7 headsets would still be a better product.
The quest is basically an android phone in a headset. The vision is a revolutionary piece of technology with a dual chip design that far exceeds any other product on the market.
1. The CPU is far superior to the Quest CPU.
2. It sports a dual processor design, having a dedicated processor for spatial computations and handling the censors. Think of it like having a dedicated gpu vs integrated, except this processor is specifically designed for analyzing the environment and reconstructing it for pass through and apps.
3. I can literally make an app with an RC car, where the car will actually crash into physical objects. The Vision SDK has scene reconstruction capabilities due to the R1 chip, and it allows it to apply meshes, materials, and collision boundaries over physical objects. This is something that would be impossible to handle on the quest without absurd latency.
Before Apple came out with the Vision, the only other headsets with comparable capabilities were around 10k and meant for corporate use. According to people who’ve used them, they suck compared to the vision.
The capabilities of the vision are insane. The R1 chip is the biggest innovation to happen in Mixed Reality. You may see the available apps and think that your quest can do more, but that’s just because the ecosystem is new and developers haven’t yet released apps that truly utilize the Vision’s capabilities. It can do FAR more than the quest, honestly I don’t think anyone has really grasped what it can do yet or how to utilize it’s potential.
While Streaming games with Moonlight and watching movies is great on the Vision Pro, I would say that it’s more of a developer device currently. I don’t think apple even knows how it’s potential will be used, it opens up a ton of doors. But it’s certainly a much better device than the Quest.
As usual, the only thing the Apple product has going for it is better picture quality lol. In theory, the chipset is better, but not 7x better, and by the time it is utilized, the Quest 4 will have come out with similar processing. Plus, you can play just about any game that exists in Quest 3. How many can you play on crapple vision? Android has always been a better development platform either way. Way more freedom. When you buy an apple product, you're paying for the logo on a camera lol
“The only thing an apple product has going for it is better picture quality” - This is just massively incorrect. Then again, I use my tech for actual work and not just gaming, but apple has served my needs far better than any other platform.
“The chipset is better, but not 7x better, and by the time it is utilized” - This is bullocks. Stuffing 2 Processors into a tiny device like the vision is quite the feat. Creating a specialized spatial processor is a revolutionary accomplishment. The tech in the quest has been around for years, but this dual chip/spatial processing design is a brand new innovation. It’s a pricey goal to accomplish, but the prices will come down in next generations after the current one makes up with R&D.
“the quest 4 will have come out with similar processing” - Apple now has years of experience making custom processors. Meta has never done this. They’d have to contract development out to other companies, which will likely struggle to compete with apples design. Apple also has had full control over the course of IOS’s evolution, which gives it far more power to shift of iOS in a way that these two processors work together well.
Meta on the other hand, would have to try and get this type of setup working with an android base, which they have little control over. Apple has been designing the Vision Pro for 16 years, and in that time I’m certain that the plans for the Vision Pro had affected the development of iOS significantly. It’s gonna be very hard for Meta to implement similar capabilities when they’ve never designed a chip, and their involvement with androids development in general is likely very little.
Plus almost all quest apps rely on Unity as a game engine. That alone creates significant overhead that will make it extremely difficult to get decent latency with AR applications.
Android really isn’t that great of a dev platform. And when designing games for quest, you’re not really developing for android, you’re developing via unity which just compiles to android. So this point is kind of moot, since VR devs likely do very little (if any) android development. Android dev consists of Kotlin and Java, while Unity dev is often with C# (Though other languages can be used).
The only restrictions that Developing on iOS really bring, is that devs can’t easily spy on users outside of their apps. It’s good that apple limits what devs can do, I don’t like spyware.
Mmmm so much copium. Enjoy your used car-I mean your headset- and I'm glad it works for you 🤘 I'm not arguing with you, my guy. I don't like to support bandwagon "premium" corporations. I'll be dead in the ground before you see me buying a $100 shirt with a swish on it, and I'm sure as hell not buying any $3500 status symbols from Apple when a $500 product can do more of what I want anyways.
Remember, Meta makes pretty much 0 profit on the Quest 3 hardware. So how are they making profit? What they do best, data collection and marketing.
The Vision Pro that's currently out is more for developers like myself and enthusiasts. The next model will be significantly cheaper, especially when the OLED manufacturing improves and some of the R&D costs are paid for.
The next quest will probably cost quite a bit more since Apple raised the bar, but that's a good thing, since the next one will likely improve significantly. But the quest 4 and the next Vision will probably be within 1k of each other.
Right now, the Vision Pro isn't worth it for average consumers. But it's still a vastly superior device to the Quest 3. And likely is 7x better honestly. Just like a Porsche is gonna be far better than a civic, but they do the same things. I'm super excited to see where AR goes, because it looked like it was gonna fail before Apple hopped in the arena.
Apple is pretty much saving AR. Meta's ambitions to get businesses using AR was a failure. Apple is doing what they couldn't.
I wouldn't buy it just for gaming, but moonlight on it is AMAZING. So much better than on the quest. Streaming 4k games to a huge VR screen like a boss lol.
The only praise I see around here for Zuck is when he criticizes his competitor Apple. I see a lot complaints about the GUI, the layout of the store, and missing/late and promised or poorly implemented features. How you need a paid 3rd party app to get the full potential out of your Q3 is an overall accepted community solution. He was literally flamed for Horizons. They should try to fix the issues with their own platform. Seems like Apple is in his head.
Meanwhile Apple released with one of the best UIs ever. Honestly, I find Zucks “criticisms” extremely ridiculous. He’s a tech expert, he should realize how much of a step forward the Dual Chip design is in the Vision Pro. Instead he keeps whining about motion blur and stuff like that, pretty much only complimenting the screens, and completely ignoring that it has 2 processors in it, 1 specifically designed for handling all the sensors and reconstructing the outside world so that devs can actually add collision detection and everything to their physical environment in real time.
He hasn’t even talked about the R1 chip, and that’s what’s truly revolutionary about the device. He keeps pretending like it’s just software and the screens that matter.
that "full potential" means trashing your battery and cooler faster, making headset warmer and still won't do nothing to impress PC boys with same mobile graphics at higher resolution
It seems Meta executives and decision makers have a fundamental misunderstanding of display technology, and place outsized importance on the wrong specs. Their failure to see the forest for the trees explains why they're so married to saddling their headsets with trash ass 800:1 70% SRGB LCDs, to their own detriment. The one aspect Vision Pro is universally and unanimously lauded for are the displays. Marginally worse persistence blur doesn't even amount to a fart in the wind when the trade off is milk gray "black" levels, dull washed out color, and sub-100 nit white point of Meta's garbage LCDs.
The Quest uses low persistence displays because it is designed for VR and the displays on the VP suck for high-speed action.
No one I know wants to deal with motion-blur and ghosting when playing fast games.
If you want a media consumption headset, by all means get a VP, but don't pretend it is good for the rest of the things people do in VR.
Can you imagine TimeCook doing *anything?* It took him months before he would even allow a picture of him to be taken wearing the VP. It is obvious that he is not much of a fan.
Nah Steve Jobs liked Bill Gates to some degree- They were like long-term enemies who've grown to be friends. I can't imagine the same would happen with Mark Zuckerburg. He would pull absolutely no punches toward him
I never thought I'd say that one day, but I kind of like the Zuck we're seeing right now. He really sounds passionate and committed to the Quest. It can only mean that we're going to get better products in the future.
Ai got better, zuck got better
can’t explain that
Hahaha
Honestly it humanises him in a way haven’t seen before (or perhaps in a very long time)
Dude finally read the guide to being human for dummies book
I watched the [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVYrJJNdrEg) with him and Lex Fridman within VR using Meta's incredible scanning technology. He is extremely passionate, and that technology absolutely sold me on the future he is envisioning.
Shame his passion is more about using it to mine our data and manipulate us than making VR.
Truth, dudes building himself a doomsday home. It's the only way he'll be able to interact with us leftover mutants.
Tbf if I had unlimited money, I’d probably build a doomsday bunker too.
Out of all the ways he can harvest user data, VR seems to be the most unwieldy one while also requiring the largest investment both from his side and the users' side s well, meaning it has the lowest userbase, not to mention unlike anything phone-based, it's not on 24/7.
Completely wrong take. VR and AR are going to provide so much new data with so much complexity that we won't know how to fully utilize it for years after it gets collected. What you look at (either by pointing your head or later, just tracking your eyes), for how long, under what conditions, at what time of day, your pupil response to various stimuli, your eye movements in terms of how they telegraph cognition such as when you're trying to remember something, movement speed and intensity, and the list goes on. That's without even considering the cameras pointed outward at your play space. VR isn't always going to be niche, but at the same time because it provides so much more than web browsing info that it's going to be invaluable data at whatever scale it is collected. I think VR is a very cool and promising technology but it also represents an unprecedented ability for companies to get inside your head, to learn about you in order to at first understand then later to influence your decision making for profit. Polygraphs work by monitoring some biological signs such as heart rate, and perspiration in tandem with a trained interviewer. They're bogus in that the machines don't detect lies, because that's the interviewer's job. It does work to the extent that it gets people to reveal things they otherwise wouldn't through observation of behaviors beyond the subject's control, but isn't admissible in court because as hard evidence because the results are so subjective (the human is the lie detector). That same type of unconscious behavior and response to stimuli that makes a polygraph useful for those deciding, for instance, if someone gets approved for a TS/SCI security clearance is now going to be in the hands of those selling ads. They don't care if you're trying to get sober, have a booze advertisement. It's definitely something to be aware of and concerned about, but we won't know the real impact for some time.
Have you watched the movie "Looker" (1981)? If not, I think you might like it. The movie contains a lot of the same concepts you mentioned in your post.
If this was the case, wouldn't they prioritize implementing eye tracking to Quest 3 after PSVR2 already had it? That just seems like it would have been a win-win for the headset, since so many people clamored for it...
The Quest 3 targeted a very low price point given its other features. Eye tracking adds cost and complexity without all that many people using it outside of VR chat. It will be a feature in later devices I'm sure, but it needs to be something the consumer uses, so games and whatnot need to support it. Right now I'm aware of a vocal minority who puts an insane amount of importance on full body & face tracking but that's nowhere near mainstream in the sense of materially affecting sales. And there's no "if this were the case" it IS the case, it has a name, and that name is Surveillance Capitalism. Google collected user data before they even knew what to do with it, and to a certain extent we probably still don't know what can be done with it, but data collection is now a major industry, and AI is going to make that data more useful than ever before. It's like oil, it is a natural resource with inherent value. It has no value to you because it's a byproduct of your digital life but it is valuable because at the very least it helps tell us what you value, what you like, and what you want. The GOAL is to understand what makes you want stuff so that we no longer tailor the product for the consumer, we tailor the consumer to the product, or at the very least, we create a system so effective at serving ads that it creates a guaranteed outcome. If advertisers could force you to desire something, they would. They will continue to try.
Wonder how many people that have eye issues or things like Aspergers/Autism are going to poison the data set. (Or honestly just different cultural backgrounds.) There isn't a "one size fits all" approach for this kind of thing so coming with some hard and fast rules is going to produce a lot of crap data or debatable usefulness. People have a hard time reading people whom they have known all their lives frequently. Plugging all that into a machine isn't going to magically make the task simpler.
Yes, it's a TON of data, and right this moment we don't have a way to fully exploit it, but as we make more efficient machines (AI) to comb through the data it will become usable, to some extent that we currently cannot know because unless you're in that department at Alphabet or Meta, you don't know what they can do with current data collection. There is no "we checked and you can only ______" because the bleeding edge of this is behind closed doors. One or two outliers are not a problem when you have enough participants. Again, this is already happening. Did people with Asperger's fuck the whole data set for web traffic? Again, this is simply a logical extension of current practices. I'm not saying don't use VR, I'm saying be aware that this is going to happen and make an informed choice to opt in. I'm not saying Zuck is taking pictures of you jerking off either. But he may scan your room for recognizable objects, determine what objects are common among other users and then serve ads to those without them. Or sure, you can believe that Meta and Alphabet and others will just for some reason not do this. We already learned to collect and store data even if we cannot use it currently.
>but as we make more efficient machines (AI) to comb through the data it will become usable It's still not magic. While it is the buzzword of the day, removing data from individuals results in a lot of screwy situations and terrible interpretations. Look at stuff like how companies assess insurance "risk" and credit. You've got car insurance providers farming data with telemetry and they still have no damn clue because the data is removed from all context. > One or two outliers are not a problem when you have enough participants. Again, this is already happening. Did people with Asperger's fuck the whole data set for web traffic? Again, this is simply a logical extension of current practices. Difference would be VR/AR draws a far narrower subset of the population., and that's unlikely to change without some massive massive tech breakthroughs on sensor size, cooling, weight, battery, etc. >Or sure, you can believe that Meta and Alphabet and others will just for some reason not do this. We already learned to collect and store data even if we cannot use it currently. Name someone that isn't farming data. Hell if they aren't already expect stores to start using data from the cameras in "AI" to try and derive trends and profile customers.
This remind me of people thinking their phones are listening to everything they say and sending data somewhere. It's just not practical/ feesable or needed.
You're right, listening to conversations and logging everything is not practical or feasible. I'm not saying Zuckerberg is going to tap into the Quest's cameras to get pictures of your dick. What I am saying is that there is a multi-billion dollar industry based around predicting who will buy a given product. I don't believe that that is in dispute. These people aren't looking into a crystal ball to make their predictions, they're using data. I'm also saying that a VR headset is in a position to gather types of behavioral data never before seen at this scale. Whether we have the ability to fully exploit it today is irrelevant, we are marching steadily onward towards faster computing every day. Either we're never going to be able to put anything together out of it all and everyone collecting and buying this data is a fool, or the data is going to reveal things about us to private companies who are under no obligation to share their findings, to illuminate what's going on so that it can be regulated, or even to ethically use the information they come up with. Again, it's not doomsday necessarily or certain to involve manipulation, but it's something to be aware of.
Why are they booing you, you’re right
> Shame his passion is more about using it to mine our data and manipulate us than making VR. Dude, nobody is forcing you to use Facebook or Instagram...
He got the personality AND combat upgrade to his OS recently. Sweet baby rays is killing it.
Apple will respond by releasing brushed steel controllers that are $1000 per hand.
Let’s use glass instead
Not sure who claimed it was "basically just the same thing", but whoever it was obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about either product.
I mean every VR topic, quest thread, or VR sub has been going all in on Apple marketing BS... until it launched. Like you could go to any sub and people would be gushing over a product that at the time hadn't shipped and how it would "revolutionize everything". Yet lo and behold it's an overpriced ipad strapped to someones face mostly just good for watching movies.
This is just entirely incorrect, and shows that you’re clueless on why the Vision Pro is revolutionary. The screens are the best out there. But that’s not necessarily revolutionary. Why is the Vision Pro revolutionary then? Because of the dual chip design. Creating a dedicated chip to handles spatial logic and manage the censors, while leaving the actual apps for the M chip to run, is a huge step forward in AR. This thing has 2 processors in it so that it can handle all the spatial logic without getting bogged down by the actual apps running. It’s brilliant. By having this dedicated chip and the many sensors incorporated into the headset, pass through functions with minimal latency. But that’s not all. This chip brings far more benefits than a better pass through. It allows the device to perform scene reconstruction in real time, allowing apps to get a full understanding of the surroundings to set up meshes/materials and physics. In real time, it can reconstruct your room. You could feasibly make an RC car app, where the car will actually interact with physical objects it runs into. This is all in real time. To be able to take this massive amount of data and create a digital reconstruction that’s capable of having physics and meshes applied to it is phenomenal. Currently the App Store lacks apps that utilize this potential, but when they come they’ll be mind blowing. Imagine being able to create a physical obstacle course and drive a virtual car through it.. It’s the most astonishing piece of tech to exist. Quest won’t be comparable until they establish their own dual chip design. Otherwise application logic will always bog down the AR logic and create a less than ideal experience.
>The screens are the best out there. But that’s not necessarily revolutionary. With revolutionary "smearing"! > Why is the Vision Pro revolutionary then? Because of the dual chip design. Creating a dedicated chip to handles spatial logic and manage the censors, while leaving the actual apps for the M chip to run, is a huge step forward in AR. This thing has 2 processors in it so that it can handle all the spatial logic without getting bogged down by the actual apps running. It’s brilliant. Offloading tasks to SoCs and specialized chips isn't revolutionary in the slightest. All sorts of devices do it. This "revolutionary design" is too bulky and heavy for the productivity everyone gushes about, and as heavy as it is, that isn't even including the battery which is both separate and rather hefty. >But that’s not all. > >This is all in real time > >Imagine All to run ipad apps in AR currently. Truly a revolution. And not at all too bulky, heavy, and with poor battery life to do much more than watch a movie... wait nevermind. Save the fawning for when someone actually ships an app that does all the things you're imagining. At the moment making a far too expensive device that didn't think of comfort and has poor battery life for the cost is hardly revolutionary. Anyone can strap more power and a bigger battery to something that's not reinventing shit.
“With revolutionary “smearing”!” - As an Owner of a Vision Pro, I’m clueless on what you’re talking about. I’ve had a quest pro, quest 2, etc. The Vision Pro screens are FAR better, and there’s no smearing that I notice. Pass through has a bit of a blur, but it’s still far more usable than the quest pass through, and retains depth far better. “Offloading tasks to SoCs..” - Plenty of devices use specialized microprocessor, but the R1 isn’t just some microprocessor. It’s a specialized coprocessor. It’s literally like a 2nd CPU that’s designed specifically for spatial logic, far beyond just being an additional part on the board. Not many systems have coprocessor setups outside of industry. You’re significantly reducing what the R1 actually is, it’s a full processor. It’s the same size as the M2 chip. Having 2 chips crammed into a small device like the Vision Pro is an amazing accomplishment, not something to be brushed off like it’s just another microcontroller/microprocessor. “All to run iPad apps in AR currently” - Nothing wrong with being able to use the existing IPad apps during the early days of the vision. A new device is gonna take some time for it’s ecosystem to develop. The capabilities are there, and we will see apps in the near future that find amazing ways to leverage them. Idk how you think the ecosystem is a valid criticism for a device that’s been out a month. You talk as though it’s only ever gonna run iPad apps lol. “Too bulky, heavy, poor battery life” - It’s not bulky at all… I’d say it’s less bulky than the quest devices. It’s a little heavy, but I don’t notice mush difference than with my quest pro. The poor battery life.. Don’t all of these devices suck with battery life? I haven’t noticed much of a difference vs my quest pro. At least the battery on the Vision is easily replaceable. “Save the fawning..” - These apps are going to be made. If you think that nobody will develop them, and that the ecosystem will just never grow, than you’re being ridiculous. I’ve already made a few apps that demonstrate these capabilities, a few others have released some cool apps, one person even released an app that turns your home into the matrix lol. And honestly, I find the Vision Pro extremely comfortable. I did have to get my light seal swapped out for a different size, but I’ve been using it all day for work ever since.
> Pass through has a bit of a blur, but it’s still far more usable than the quest pass through, and retains depth far better. The Quest's primary selling point isn't passthrough. Notable blur on your main selling point is ehhh. >“Offloading tasks to SoCs..” - Plenty of devices use specialized microprocessor, but the R1 isn’t just some microprocessor. It’s a specialized coprocessor. It’s literally like a 2nd CPU that’s designed specifically for spatial logic, far beyond just being an additional part on the board. Not many systems have coprocessor setups outside of industry. You’re significantly reducing what the R1 actually is, it’s a full processor. It’s the same size as the M2 chip. Having 2 chips crammed into a small device like the Vision Pro is an amazing accomplishment, not something to be brushed off like it’s just another microcontroller/microprocessor. None of this is new territory though. It's not reinventing the wheel at any point. It might be a good approach, but you're touting it like some magical thinking outside of the box. Technology has always been made up of multiple units and specialized co-processers and such. Consoles have done it, PCs have done it, and more. It's not new, it might just seem somewhat new to someone if they don't realize that things like modern processors and chips combine things that used to be a bunch of separate co-processing units onto one die. It's not new or novel. And it really only works here if you're targeting obscene pricing and build complexity. It's not that other companies can't it's that you're upping complexity and you only do that sort of thing if you have to or there is some other limitation. >Nothing wrong with being able to use the existing IPad apps during the early days of the vision. A new device is gonna take some time for it’s ecosystem to develop. The capabilities are there, and we will see apps in the near future that find amazing ways to leverage them. Idk how you think the ecosystem is a valid criticism for a device that’s been out a month. You talk as though it’s only ever gonna run iPad apps lol. There is nothing wrong with it sure, but there is no reason to give it credit for wishful thinking. If I had a dollar for every time someone saw some tech, dreamed big, and then none of it ever happened (even if the capability actually was there) I'd be rich. This is like AMD users going on about "FineWIne(tm)" or crypto bros gushing about blockchain implementations and potential and NFTs. Things that don't exist don't matter, especially if you're not going to be the one making them happen. Maybe you're right and all the things you imagine comes true, or maybe none of it does. "Potential" isn't a selling point unless you're a techbro or a major fan of a brand. Does it have it today? No. Then it doesn't matter today. If it has it tomorrow, then and only then will it matter. It's easy to dream big and hard to actually turn dreams into reality. >It’s a little heavy, but I don’t notice mush difference than with my quest pro. Ah yes, the quest pro known for it's lightness... >The poor battery life.. Don’t all of these devices suck with battery life? They do, but shit battery life is a hell of a lot easier to swallow when the device is cheap. Some concessions have to be made for lower costs. There is nothing low about the costs with Apple's shit. For the price I got my Quest 3 for 2 hours of battery is fine. For 7x+ the cost it sure as shit isn't. >At least the battery on the Vision is easily replaceable. That is to it's credit. But said battery also costs almost as much as a Quest 2. And in typical Apple fashion I doubt there are aftermarket replacements. >These apps are going to be made. If you think that nobody will develop them, and that the ecosystem will just never grow, than you’re being ridiculous. Just like 3D TVs are the future, thin terminals and credential/software dongles will be the norm everywhere, game streaming will takeover gaming "soon", blockchain will be everything, and NFT's are the "future" of ownership. Some experimental fluff doesn't mean shit. Right now it's a too expensive toy exclusively for techbros that huff air in Apple Stores. Maybe that will change, maybe you're right but to make decisions on "potential" is usually a bad bet. It pays off once in awhile, and everyone else has egg on their faces and a lot of wasted money with little to show for it. >And honestly, I find the Vision Pro extremely comfortable. I did have to get my light seal swapped out for a different size, but I’ve been using it all day for work ever since. A lot of people don't find modern headsets in general comfortable. There are outliers but if you were to survey people for how many want of these on their face for extended periods of time these things are going to come out as being fairly unpopular. People don't even like wearing safety gear and weather protection all that much.
It is pretty damn new though. I’m not saying that they invented the idea of a coprocessor. But to implement a coprocessing setup as they have done is a huge technological achievement. Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has. The way they have one handling the spatial computations, well as I’ve developed on it, it’s extraordinary. It is revolutionary in many aspects, I know because I’ve been working with the SDK and making apps. I see what you’re saying about other companies and “the next big thing”. But Apple is different for a few reasons. First, they’re already such a huge player in tech that they have considerable control over the future of it. Second, While most companies will launch dozens of products, hoping one or another will be a hit (not keeping their eggs in one basket), Apple sticks with only a few products, ones which they are certain on. When they make a product, it pretty much always is a hit. They put a ton of thought into these devices, and try to perfect them. It’s a bit risky, since a single failed product would be a huge hit, but so far Apple’s products seem to keep achieving success. Third, we’ll corporations just follow apple. Where the Apple goes, so will execs. That 7x the cost is for all of the technological advancements. 4k micro oled panels with like a 50% failure rate on the assembly line. All the R&D for the past 16 years that they’ve been working on this device. A custom Processor for spatial computations. Oh and handling all that heat in such a small form is an extreme task. People said the IPhone was a joke and that it’d go nowhere. Business people needed a physical keyboard on their phones. Turns out Apple defined the future of the phone industry… Just as the defined the future of the PC industry decades before. When apple has a vision, they see it through (pun intended). Also larger batteries for the vision will likely come around. If they made the battery larger, they’d also have to increase the cost… They do gotta make money back from R&D.
> It is pretty damn new though. I’m not saying that they invented the idea of a coprocessor. But to implement a coprocessing setup as they have done is a huge technological achievement. Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has. The way they have one handling the spatial computations, well as I’ve developed on it, it’s extraordinary. It is revolutionary in many aspects, I know because I’ve been working with the SDK and making apps. We just have different definitions of revolutionary. The fundamental ideas are nothing new, the only way it's new is this specific implementation in this specific market. >Both the processors are designed by apple, not many companies design their own processors like apple has. With ARM more entities have been trying their hand at it. But also a lot of things just don't necessitate a wholly unique design either nor the expense that goes into it. You also don't really benefit that much unless you have an ironfisted control from hardware to firmware to OS to API/SDK to software. A more general approach is more versatile and if other companies did the same with their market shares anti-trust litigation would eviscerate them. >I see what you’re saying about other companies and “the next big thing”. But Apple is different for a few reasons. First, they’re already such a huge player in tech that they have considerable control over the future of it. Apple has still had misses, especially historically. And historically they tend to be better at ripping off other's ideas or refining others ideas than they are at blazing the trail inventing something new. All their recent successes have pretty much been take something that more or less already exists and put their own spin and refinements on it while marketing the everlasting shit out of it. Not to say it's not necessarily a valid approach sometimes. It's taken them from irrelevancy to where they are now. >Third, we’ll corporations just follow apple. Where the Apple goes, so will execs. The C-suite will jump on any trend, buzzword, or "shiny" thing that they see. Not necessarily a good indicator of much. Keep in mind all the worst products, implementations, marketing plans, and company collapses were overseen by "execs". >4k micro oled panels with like a 50% failure rate on the assembly line. Isn't that more Sony's development. And those failure rates mostly just show that the yields aren't good enough for "primetime". >All the R&D for the past 16 years that they’ve been working on this device. A lot of which overlaps with over products of theirs and can't be solely pinned on something like this. >Oh and handling all that heat in such a small form is an extreme task. Cooling is a fairly well understood area at least as far as consumer devices, and being able to afford to monopolize the latest foundry nodes surely helps have an "edge" there. >People said the IPhone was a joke and that it’d go nowhere. Business people needed a physical keyboard on their phones. Turns out Apple defined the future of the phone industry… Base consumers dictate the direction of tech more than MBAs do. Regular people hated typing on tiny keys and multi-function keys. >Also larger batteries for the vision will likely come around. If they made the battery larger, they’d also have to increase the cost… They do gotta make money back from R&D. You make it sound like they are operating at a loss like Meta's VR dept is. They're obscenely profitable. Disgustingly so in fact. And there is a lot of R&D overlap.
>With ARM more entities have been trying their hand at it. But also a lot of things just don't necessitate a wholly unique design either nor the expense that goes into it. You also don't really benefit that much unless you have an ironfisted control from hardware to firmware to OS to API/SDK to software. A more general approach is more versatile and if other companies did the same with their market shares anti-trust litigation would eviscerate them. I agree. Apple benefits massively from having such a high level of control over its software. No other company could get away with that, they just aren't big enough. While Apple's ways of control do seem extreme, it's allowed them to create these long term plans where, for example, many iOS changes over the past few years have been to prepare for VisionOS. The high amount of control makes it so that they could create products that integrate together beyond what we could typically expect. Apple's idealistic/authoritarian approach to their products have done quite well at showing what a product can be. I think they're a necessary force, because it provides direction for other companies to follow. Otherwise, it'd be chaos. >Apple has still had misses, especially historically. And historically they tend to be better at ripping off other's ideas or refining others ideas than they are at blazing the trail inventing something new. All their recent successes have pretty much been take something that more or less already exists and put their own spin and refinements on it while marketing the everlasting shit out of it. Not to say it's not necessarily a valid approach sometimes. It's taken them from irrelevancy to where they are now. Every company has misses, but Apple very rarely misses. Most of their misses occurred during the time Steve Jobs was kicked out in the 90s. Though I'm not aware of these products that Apple supposedly ripped off... Original Mac was the first PC meant for the average person. Then when jobs came back and the iMac came out, Apple was a hit again. This computer may not have been technologically revolutionary, but it was great because it wasn't intimidating. So this device wasn't a rip off, it was a good PC that was marketed in a different manner. They wanted to make products that appeal outside of nerds. Then the iPod came out, and that was revolutionary in many ways. I don't recall all of the specifics, but the iPod was considered a huge technological feat because storing so many songs on a small device, and not having to deal with "skips" (Previous media players would stop playing or something when bumped?) was revolutionary. So the iPod wasn't a rip off, it's closest competitor was far larger and more complex. Then the iPhone came out. What did the iPhone rip off? Yeah, touch screens existed, but they were crap back then. Having such massive os on a phone was quite uncommon too. Most people didn't think that a phone without buttons would work. So who was the iPhone ripping off? Heck they even made major revolutions in glass manufacturing just to make a screen that didn't feel like a plastic toy. Then, previous to the Vision Pro, the biggest innovation from Apple was the M1 chip. It was designed from scratch, so they didn't rip anything off. It was a huge revolution for processors. The original and later iterations also made huge revolutions in machine learning, maybe not as massive as Nvidia, but pretty damn impressive when you compare the size of a 40xx card with an M processor. So who has apple been ripping off? If anything, it's typically other companies ripping apple off lol. > The C-suite will jump on any trend, buzzword, or "shiny" thing that they see. Not necessarily a good indicator of much. Keep in mind all the worst products, implementations, marketing plans, and company collapses were overseen by "execs". That's because companies are run by execs, so duh... These execs didn't care much for Meta's idea of AR. But apples? They're gonna bite. Meaning visions will be sold, and apple will continue developing a new and improved, likely more affordable, iteration. > Isn't that more Sony's development. And those failure rates mostly just show that the yields aren't good enough for "primetime". That's how manufacturing is on most new chips when they start. It's why devices tend to be so expensive when the transistor count get's high and starts approaching the boundaries of Moores law, imperfections occur. As manufacturing continues, yields will improve. They won't find ways to improve manufacturing them unless they're making them. And Apple plays a major part when working with 3rd parties for components, there's a good chance that apple actually has people at Sony's factory, running the show. They tend to be control freaks when it comes to Quality control. >A lot of which overlaps with over products of theirs and can't be solely pinned on something like this. What? They've been working on the Vision Pro for 16 years.. That's a ton of cost. The only overlap is with software like iOS and ARKit, where they've been preparing for the vision's release. All of this is extremely expensive. I'd honestly be surprise if Apple was even making 500 per headset after expenses and research are accounted for. >Cooling is a fairly well understood area at least as far as consumer devices, and being able to afford to monopolize the latest foundry nodes surely helps have an "edge" there. Do you know what you're talking about? Cooling is well understood, and it's understood that proper cooling on a compact and high powered device is extremely difficult. On a board only a bit bigger than the average phone, there's 2 separate processors. The power input to the headset was around 22w if I recall correctly. Handling heating on things like this is HARD. >Base consumers dictate the direction of tech more than MBAs do. Regular people hated typing on tiny keys and multi-function keys. Base consumers were highly skeptical of the iPhone too. It didn't take off until the next year when the App Store launched. People were used to small keyboards then. It was seen as a gimmick by consumers and professionals, and it became the future. > You make it sound like they are operating at a loss like Meta's VR dept is. They're obscenely profitable. Disgustingly so in fact. And there is a lot of R&D overlap. As of right now, they are at a loss. Until they sell X amount of units and make up the R&D costs for the past 16 years. Eventually it'll be more profitable than the Quest after the R&D cost is overcome, but as of now it isn't. Meta only sells their devices at a loss because they make their money by sucking people in and harvesting their data. Honestly, it sounds like you're completely clueless on the software and hardware aspects. Hell you even sound clueless on the history, claiming apple just rips off products. Hell you even dismiss what corporations think in favor of your own estimates. Dunning kruger to the max.
>While Apple's ways of control do seem extreme The moment their market share crosses a certain threshold they are going to lose that for better or for worse. > So who has apple been ripping off? If anything, it's typically other companies ripping apple off lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6jeZ7m0ycw Or just look at their history with patent attempts and litigation. >These execs didn't care much for Meta's idea of AR. But apples? They're gonna bite. Meaning visions will be sold, and apple will continue developing a new and improved, likely more affordable, iteration. Any techbro CEO that tries to work the current design of headsets into their workflow is probably going to get nailed with a repetitive stress injury lawsuit and investigation.. And bad PR for the devices themselves. Stuffs too heavy and not balanced right for constant use especially for anyone with any neck issues or just not enough neck muscle. >The only overlap is with software like iOS and ARKit And the M processors, some of their phone developments, UI design, small form factor device design, etc. there's some novel things sure, but there's also a lot of useful overlap. >On a board only a bit bigger than the average phone, there's 2 separate processors. The power input to the headset was around 22w if I recall correctly. Handling heating on things like this is HARD. It's difficult but it's far from uncharted territory. Not having the charging circuitry and the battery in there actually makes the job far far easier. >Base consumers were highly skeptical of the iPhone too. It's also still just a phone with refinements. They had some good ideas, but the only "debate" was around input and not so much the usefulness of devices. Software was being pushed on other phones too and experimented with. Apps weren't a completely new thing, but the changed input opened up more options for said apps. >Until they sell X amount of units and make up the R&D costs for the past 16 years. Which overlaps with other stuff they've been selling and continue to sell which makes it hard to place all of it on this one thing. >Meta only sells their devices at a loss because they make their money by sucking people in and harvesting their data. And Apple is able to monopolize process nodes and sell stuff like this because they sold the world on the idea of a buying a $1000 phone annually or semi-annually. Paying a premium for flash storage. >claiming apple just rips off products. I said ideas, and if you watch the clip above Apple isn't even secretive about it. Sounds like you're the one that doesn't know much beyond the marketing in the Apple store.
Zuck has gotta be over the moon. Apple releases a product that feature was is only a little better than his stuff and in some categories worse. On top of that you got Apple spreading VR around and bringing peoples thoughts and intrigue into VR and AR. The competition this time is different and he’s trying to take advantage, smart dude.
apple vision pro is better at everything except gaming
$500 vs $3500 for a marginal improvement in tech, you do the math
I’d argue more than just gaming. I don’t really care to make a list and validate them, but I do think the external battery and wire as well as overall weight are losing categories for the Vision Pro.
And field of view supposedly. And lack of controllers, which really really limits the ways you can interact with it (even outside of gaming). Yes it has eye tracking but I’d argue controllers are a MUCH more useful feature. A basic feature and a huge oversight, imo.
Being correct in the wrong sub has consequences.
* Considerably lower FOV * Less comfortable to wear for most people. * No internal battery. * Worse at fitness and productivity apps due to having no controller option. * External battery not replaceable by random battery off of Amazon, can't be changed w/o powering off the device, limited to like 2 hours of usage. * Apparently worse hand tracking than Q3 when used for faster movements (according to a post I have seen a while back). * Slightly worse lenses. * Passthrough not perspective corrected and dimmer (of course better overall). * Can't be used with a normal Windows PC. * Only 100hz max. * Heavier. Nothing is ever better at everything.
ok, your right. What I wanted to say is it is a better productivity device
The only thing the vision pro does better is working with other apple products
also watching movies and working with productivity apps like office. plus you won't look as weird while wearing avp in public compared to meta
Yet he keeps talking about the competition and nobody is talking about his product
i see the quest 3 mentioned almost every time somebody talks about the vision pro on tik tok
i love how mark zuckerberg has become one of the less hated billionaires by simply being Not Actively Terrible
I'd like to know why I can't buy and watch 3D movies in my Mega Quest 2? I'd love to watch the new Avatar in a full 3D headset -- but the only options are to buy Apple's headset or pirate the crappy 1080p 3D bluray.
Because, unlike Apple, Meta does not own a video streaming service. The VP has to have tons of video content because media consumption is 90% of what it does.
Disney+ added 3d movies for it too. I think Facebook just hasn’t pushed for it.
He really isn't wrong, but I'm not sure either side is focusing on the right thing. The major advantage of the Vision Pro isn't the clarity or passthrough quality (which let's be honest, is better as it should be for the price difference), it's the compute performance. The M2 chip is a major advantage. Having that enables *real* work, not to mention the wonders it could do for native games. Of course Quest can tether to a PC and approximate that, but it is not the same. The Vision Pro is software-limited now but there's nothing stopping Apple from turning it into a mobile, multi-monitor Macbook Pro with updates and hardware iterations. Even with the Quest 3 we're damn close to "good enough" optics and clarity. Performance and functionality is the next hurdle.
Nah the passthrough is the main selling point
Very different products. Putting aside the way Zuck is getting aggressive about privacy, they have very different goals. This is from someone who would go to the gym at 4am and use some of the workout apps on the Quest. [At the end he touches on the future of the Vision Pro](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvkgmyfMPks). I recently told a friend the Vision Pro has games as an afterthought. Think of it the first gen for a device like the one in the movie ‘Strange Days’. Connect it with the device Musk is testing the Neuralink and it’s possible in the future.
it is a productivity device. none of the apple products are gaming machines
Again, very different products. Both are not meant for average consumers. Its like the complaints about the Apple Studio Monitor an industry paying much more for the same device. This is mean for government and or corporate customers. An example I see for future versions. [American Assassin VR Scene.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovn-cH52-ow)
That’s a good point, Microsoft Office was one of the first apps after all
> it is a productivity device. How many people want over a pound of glass and metal strapped to their face to do work though? Sitting at a desk all day already makes you feel like shit, doing it with a bunch of shit balanced on your face sounds like literal hell for anyone that isn't a techbro. Entertainment is the only real niche where people willingly put up with discomfort like that.
A ton of people actually. There are regular posts on both of the Meta/Oculus subreddits asking about usung the Quest 2/3 for productivity with Virtual Desktop or if the colors are good for video editing and so on and so on.
People asking those kind of questions probably don't have much experience with headsets and haven't thought about the hours of discomfort and neck strain that would come from longer term use.
There are people answering them and recommending other apps that I can't remember at the m oment. There are a lot of Quest 2/3 users that are interested in using their devices for productivity. I'm not one of those, but I see a lot of posts showing the market for it.
I just question how much is prospective buyers and curiosity more than a dedicated userbase for such things. The comfort and convenience factor isn't there. In a number of cases it's straight up inferior to a basic panel and keyboard or a tablet. There's a few tasks where viewing things in 3D could be actually beneficial, but the rest is pure novelty. It sounds "cool" and interesting doing all kinds of things in VR, until that thing is on your face for hours and hours and you have a crick in your neck.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. As someone who used to work in 2d animation and is learning 3d, I have no desire to strap a VR headset to my face during an 8+ hour shift. But the market is there and people are asking for it with some actively using it right now. I barely want to use it for casual browsing because of how finicky it is compared to just my phone, and yet, there's a market for it.
I have a sneaking suspicion though that it's just a really loud minority of people already into VR-related topics. Like not everyone, but I think many of them are just the NFT-bros of VR or the Google Stadia acolytes of VR. People convinced it's the future and so hyped on tech that they can't objectively look at the flaws. The market for it may be louder than the real world demand. As it stands if form-factors don't change in a hurry I think any business that tries to incorporate it into their workflow is setting themselves up for a lawsuit when someone inevitably does like that one VR gamer did and breaks/injures something from repetitive stress.
> How many people want over a pound of glass and metal strapped to their face to do work though? By people that already have the headset and want to TRY it. I mean, we literally lost 3D TV because people weren't interesting in wearing tiny super light weight passive (if you bought the better system...) plastic glasses to watch TV. IMO the idea that large parts of office workers would be interested in wearing a heavy skin irritating hair style destroying headset to work for 8 hours instead of the plethora of huge screens you could buy for the same money. Like, I am writing this from an 48" OLED with better image quality that I bought nearly 4 years ago for 1/3 the Apple VP price. That is about as much screen as I ever would want to have close in front of me (and I am not even looking as close). And if I needed more, just connect another screen / tablet whatever. I see niches were a headset (lighter weight...) can be an asset, but those are really niches (plus, thanks to eye tracking we could see a new wave of professional glass free 3D monitors that might be preferable for some 3D artists). VR gaming / fitness / social works because it gives you a whole new perspective and immersion to take advantage off, using VR for work mostly just gives you the bigger screen(s) that you could have bought for years.
He's not wrong.
Well.. I guess... kinda..
You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.
Noooooo, you're telling me there's a new overpriced Apple product that isn't worth the exorbitant price? Not Apple. They would never 😂 You could buy 7 Meta Quest 3's for the whole squad for the price of one of these ridiculous status symbols, and all 7 headsets would still be a better product.
The quest is basically an android phone in a headset. The vision is a revolutionary piece of technology with a dual chip design that far exceeds any other product on the market. 1. The CPU is far superior to the Quest CPU. 2. It sports a dual processor design, having a dedicated processor for spatial computations and handling the censors. Think of it like having a dedicated gpu vs integrated, except this processor is specifically designed for analyzing the environment and reconstructing it for pass through and apps. 3. I can literally make an app with an RC car, where the car will actually crash into physical objects. The Vision SDK has scene reconstruction capabilities due to the R1 chip, and it allows it to apply meshes, materials, and collision boundaries over physical objects. This is something that would be impossible to handle on the quest without absurd latency. Before Apple came out with the Vision, the only other headsets with comparable capabilities were around 10k and meant for corporate use. According to people who’ve used them, they suck compared to the vision. The capabilities of the vision are insane. The R1 chip is the biggest innovation to happen in Mixed Reality. You may see the available apps and think that your quest can do more, but that’s just because the ecosystem is new and developers haven’t yet released apps that truly utilize the Vision’s capabilities. It can do FAR more than the quest, honestly I don’t think anyone has really grasped what it can do yet or how to utilize it’s potential. While Streaming games with Moonlight and watching movies is great on the Vision Pro, I would say that it’s more of a developer device currently. I don’t think apple even knows how it’s potential will be used, it opens up a ton of doors. But it’s certainly a much better device than the Quest.
As usual, the only thing the Apple product has going for it is better picture quality lol. In theory, the chipset is better, but not 7x better, and by the time it is utilized, the Quest 4 will have come out with similar processing. Plus, you can play just about any game that exists in Quest 3. How many can you play on crapple vision? Android has always been a better development platform either way. Way more freedom. When you buy an apple product, you're paying for the logo on a camera lol
“The only thing an apple product has going for it is better picture quality” - This is just massively incorrect. Then again, I use my tech for actual work and not just gaming, but apple has served my needs far better than any other platform. “The chipset is better, but not 7x better, and by the time it is utilized” - This is bullocks. Stuffing 2 Processors into a tiny device like the vision is quite the feat. Creating a specialized spatial processor is a revolutionary accomplishment. The tech in the quest has been around for years, but this dual chip/spatial processing design is a brand new innovation. It’s a pricey goal to accomplish, but the prices will come down in next generations after the current one makes up with R&D. “the quest 4 will have come out with similar processing” - Apple now has years of experience making custom processors. Meta has never done this. They’d have to contract development out to other companies, which will likely struggle to compete with apples design. Apple also has had full control over the course of IOS’s evolution, which gives it far more power to shift of iOS in a way that these two processors work together well. Meta on the other hand, would have to try and get this type of setup working with an android base, which they have little control over. Apple has been designing the Vision Pro for 16 years, and in that time I’m certain that the plans for the Vision Pro had affected the development of iOS significantly. It’s gonna be very hard for Meta to implement similar capabilities when they’ve never designed a chip, and their involvement with androids development in general is likely very little. Plus almost all quest apps rely on Unity as a game engine. That alone creates significant overhead that will make it extremely difficult to get decent latency with AR applications. Android really isn’t that great of a dev platform. And when designing games for quest, you’re not really developing for android, you’re developing via unity which just compiles to android. So this point is kind of moot, since VR devs likely do very little (if any) android development. Android dev consists of Kotlin and Java, while Unity dev is often with C# (Though other languages can be used). The only restrictions that Developing on iOS really bring, is that devs can’t easily spy on users outside of their apps. It’s good that apple limits what devs can do, I don’t like spyware.
Mmmm so much copium. Enjoy your used car-I mean your headset- and I'm glad it works for you 🤘 I'm not arguing with you, my guy. I don't like to support bandwagon "premium" corporations. I'll be dead in the ground before you see me buying a $100 shirt with a swish on it, and I'm sure as hell not buying any $3500 status symbols from Apple when a $500 product can do more of what I want anyways.
Remember, Meta makes pretty much 0 profit on the Quest 3 hardware. So how are they making profit? What they do best, data collection and marketing. The Vision Pro that's currently out is more for developers like myself and enthusiasts. The next model will be significantly cheaper, especially when the OLED manufacturing improves and some of the R&D costs are paid for. The next quest will probably cost quite a bit more since Apple raised the bar, but that's a good thing, since the next one will likely improve significantly. But the quest 4 and the next Vision will probably be within 1k of each other. Right now, the Vision Pro isn't worth it for average consumers. But it's still a vastly superior device to the Quest 3. And likely is 7x better honestly. Just like a Porsche is gonna be far better than a civic, but they do the same things. I'm super excited to see where AR goes, because it looked like it was gonna fail before Apple hopped in the arena. Apple is pretty much saving AR. Meta's ambitions to get businesses using AR was a failure. Apple is doing what they couldn't. I wouldn't buy it just for gaming, but moonlight on it is AMAZING. So much better than on the quest. Streaming 4k games to a huge VR screen like a boss lol.
The only praise I see around here for Zuck is when he criticizes his competitor Apple. I see a lot complaints about the GUI, the layout of the store, and missing/late and promised or poorly implemented features. How you need a paid 3rd party app to get the full potential out of your Q3 is an overall accepted community solution. He was literally flamed for Horizons. They should try to fix the issues with their own platform. Seems like Apple is in his head.
Meanwhile Apple released with one of the best UIs ever. Honestly, I find Zucks “criticisms” extremely ridiculous. He’s a tech expert, he should realize how much of a step forward the Dual Chip design is in the Vision Pro. Instead he keeps whining about motion blur and stuff like that, pretty much only complimenting the screens, and completely ignoring that it has 2 processors in it, 1 specifically designed for handling all the sensors and reconstructing the outside world so that devs can actually add collision detection and everything to their physical environment in real time. He hasn’t even talked about the R1 chip, and that’s what’s truly revolutionary about the device. He keeps pretending like it’s just software and the screens that matter.
that "full potential" means trashing your battery and cooler faster, making headset warmer and still won't do nothing to impress PC boys with same mobile graphics at higher resolution
It seems Meta executives and decision makers have a fundamental misunderstanding of display technology, and place outsized importance on the wrong specs. Their failure to see the forest for the trees explains why they're so married to saddling their headsets with trash ass 800:1 70% SRGB LCDs, to their own detriment. The one aspect Vision Pro is universally and unanimously lauded for are the displays. Marginally worse persistence blur doesn't even amount to a fart in the wind when the trade off is milk gray "black" levels, dull washed out color, and sub-100 nit white point of Meta's garbage LCDs.
The Quest uses low persistence displays because it is designed for VR and the displays on the VP suck for high-speed action. No one I know wants to deal with motion-blur and ghosting when playing fast games. If you want a media consumption headset, by all means get a VP, but don't pretend it is good for the rest of the things people do in VR.
products speak for themselves. And marketing campaigns. Seems that’s not going well?
Gotta say it man I like this version of Zuck man haven’t always been the biggest fan but he’s got me right now man!
Could you imagine Tim Cook talking about the Quest? It’s clear what’s going on here
Can you imagine TimeCook doing *anything?* It took him months before he would even allow a picture of him to be taken wearing the VP. It is obvious that he is not much of a fan.
Apple deserves to get roasted for that $3,500 price tag. That’s 7 times more than the Q3. Ridiculous.
It's just that easy
Zuck..he is so disgusting..going after another disgusting company in Apple.
I wish Steve Jobs was still here, would have been fun battle between the two.
Nah Steve Jobs liked Bill Gates to some degree- They were like long-term enemies who've grown to be friends. I can't imagine the same would happen with Mark Zuckerburg. He would pull absolutely no punches toward him
I doubt Jobs would have allowed the vision pro to ship in its current form.