One thing the Vision Pro announcement has done is kick up some competition in the market. If the Apple Quest can get enough people excited about VR, we'll get better offerings from other companies for cheaper.
It's the sort of impact I wish Microsoft HoloLens had, but I suppose HoloLens was released too early for the technology to make sense.
It is the first version of the Vision Pro and I would expect it to fail due to its price.
The second or third version maybe something worthy of the consumer having a look at. This is directly competing against the Quest Pro, and the Vision Pro is still at prices like the HoloLens.
Apple will probably announce a 'Lite' version which will directly compete against Meta's cheaper Quest VR headsets.
> Facebook certainly has burnt billions in a similar space.
And their Quest VR headsets already outsold Xbox Series X/S. [0]
It makes sense for Apple to have put little focus on gaming for the launch of this product. They're betting on "spatial computing" as a new computing paradigm alongside desktop and mobile interfaces. I wouldn't even call it a "trade-off" as Zuck suggests—Apple just doesn't want to sell you on what other headsets are already doing. As of now, you can't compromise and just get something else instead of Apple Vision Pro (but if the paradigm takes off, I'm sure you will be able to).
That said, it's a given that VR games (and probably third-party controllers) will trickle into visionOS. I also agree with Zuck that Apple's entry will generate more interest in the VR space in general, indirectly benefiting Quest and the VR gaming industry.
As a developer who's worked with the HoloLens, it's not very good & is extremely underwhelming. The tech is cool but the viewport is so small and the hand tracking is extremely tiring. It could never work as a consumer product in it's current state.
The Vision Pro seems to be more focused on the end user experience, so hopefully that will help Apple get their foot in the door with consumers. However, I've never used it so I cant say for sure. The company I work at will most definitely be purchasing them as soon as we can though, very excited to either be extremely underwhelmed or extremely impressed.
Two possibilities, both can be true: 1. It's recognition that in a match up of "Pro v. Pro" products, Apple Vision Pro trounces Quest Pro and it's not feasible to make that gap up at this point; and
2. If Apple is going to mainstream the AR/VR market, it's not bad to position as the de facto low-cost alternative (see also Android/iPhone).
You assume Apple is entering the VR market. I already think this is the wrong take.
To me the market is still being discovered. There are many products whose business models are not what is apparent. We make category mistakes when we pigeonhole new products into known existing categories. Right off the bat for me the Vision Pro is a multi monitor replacement that you can travel with — that’s just the one thing that hits my gut.
This seems like a comment made wearing Apple-tinted glasses.
1. It's recognition that in a match up of "Pro v. Pro" products, Apple Vision Pro trounces Quest Pro
Uh, Vision Pro hasn't been released yet. Its definitely miles ahead in concept (and priced to match); and seems to have got a better idea of the high-end possibilities. Its clearly not a consumer product at that price though.
2. If Apple is going to mainstream the AR/VR market
This is silly. Apple is way behind here. Meta has sold millions of headsets - no way is Apple mainstreaming anything in comparison. We can review the situation in a few years, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
I'm very pro Apple's vision (ha) here, the Vision Pro is an exciting concept - but could really do without the framing that seems to not see that Apple is a laggard at the moment (possibly for sound strategic reasons though I suspect its a bit of both).
I don't expect Apple Vision Pro to be more than a niche product, at least not in its current form. It is simply too expensive.
It is more of a proof-of-concept thing, so that Apple can show off their "vision" of VR. If successful, it may lead to a mass market product in the future, but by that time, YouTube, Nexflix, Spotify, etc... may actually provide first party support.
True, but it seems more like it's placing a bet in the VR space like the first iPhone did. No one wanted iPhone v1 forever, and so I think the next few versions of the Vision Pro will be pretty interesting if this is the starting point. It also raises the bar of expectation for other VR/AR headsets. Seems like a net benefit for an area of tech that has been pretty stagnant for a while.
I guess Apple had to do Vision Pro to make investors shut up, but I have a feeling it will be the next Pippin or Lisa. Apple does exceedingly well when there already is a growing mass market and they can offer something "better". Home computers (Apple II), PCs (Macintosh), smartphones (iPhone), tablets (iPad). They don't always succeed, e.g. servers, gaming consoles. There isn't a growing mass market for heavy and expensive VR headsets. And as the review states, their AR may be best in class, but it is still lacking. Ultimately, I don't know what question/need does Apple Vision Pro answer? Anyone has an idea?
That’s seems disingenuous considering the Quest Pro is literally competing for the same market segment and there were numerous tech investments made to build out the workplace vision. I think Apple came out with a much more compelling product in that space (although it may be fair that the quest pro had less investment and focus because they believe low cost headsets are the real priority).
The pricing won’t matter because if Apple sells a bunch it won’t matter how much the Quest costs because the developers will be prioritizing the Vision headset and its modalities which is the key thing that will matter. It’s like what happened with Android - they were about to release when Apple showcased multitouch at which point they scrapped their existing stuff and retooled to make Android multi touch because they knew that would become the dominant modality to make it easy for developers to write apps for both / make it easy for customers to compare and contrast. More importantly, Apple seems to be seeding with an existing massive App Store for non-augmented apps that Quest doesn’t have in any meaningful way iirc and they’ll need to spend money trying to attract existing Android developers to publish to their store or sign a deal with Google to provide access to the Play store (which will never happen).
Expect to see a massive strategy shift from Facebook if Q4 numbers indicate the vision pro is a hit and likely competitor “me too” products from Google, Microsoft, and Samsung if it at ask looks like Apple has reinvigorated this market.
Again, for those complaining about price - the current (and far less capable) Microsoft HoloLens is also $3500. I've personally used and interacted with the HoloLens and was thoroughly impressed, however the leaps in optics & tracking Apple has pulled off make the Vision Pro quite compelling.
Well, Mark is mistakenly positioning the Vision Pro in the same braket of his Quest. The Vision is going after Microsoft's HoloLens and it's a closed case already (if anything because Microsoft dropped the towel long ago).
Nope, according to rumor Apple has another device in the pipeline and that should make Mark lose some sleep: you see, now that Apple announced it, the VP is in feature freeze and they can switch full-on on finalizing the cheaper consumer class device that will likely go for 1k.
But he knows that... it's just pandering for the shareholders.
Yeah, maybe for other non-VR. But at $3500,the Vision Pro is DOA for the most consumers. At $3500, it's going to take several iteration before they can price one that your average consumer that's normally willing to spends $500-1500 for a ipad/iphone/MBP would be willing to buy. I wonder what they'll leave out to get to that price.
My gut feeling is Quest 3 will be more than good enough for most people/use cases, and people will be more than happy to pay 7x less for what is - at the end of the day - basically the same experience.
Vision Pro looks like a better version of HoloLens of yesteryear. Doesn’t really seem all that groundbreaking to me, just more refined.
I don't think you sufficiently refuted it. There might be a more disruptive angle to take if Vision Pro was cheaper than good work equipment, but... it's not. It doesn't really replace the need for those things either, you'll be needing somewhere to use your Vision Pro when working or plugged in, after all.
Me and you are actually somewhat alike in that we both own (and like) the Oculus Quest. I get the appeal of well-packaged VR; when there's a selling point. As you admit in the article, the Vision Pro doesn't really have that kind of direction. As you say, it is the 'iPad moment' of VR, where we get Yet Another iPhone Form Factor. For the majority of Apple customers, there is more value in buying an Oculus Quest than spending $3,500 for a new way to use iMessage.
So? Everything did less back than. The Vision Pro needs to compete in a world filled with smartphones, tablets, laptops, monitors, computers with multiple monitors, docking stations, televisions, etc. Most of what the Vision Pro offers is also offered by those existing technologies. And they can do a lot of it much better because they do not need to work within the same constraints as VR devices do.
It's interesting that HN seems so divided on Vision Pro. Lots of skepticism, and also lots of acknowledgement that Apple has a habit of shutting down its doubters.
Personally, I'm still skeptical. They announced 2 hours of battery life, which basically means this needs to always be plugged in. And while this is much more useful and technologically superior to everything that came before, it suffers in other ways. It looks goofier and more dystopian than Google Glass (though maybe Apple's brand status can carry it through this), and is heavier and has a weaker exclusive value prop than Meta's Quest headsets.
For all the hate it gets, Meta at least has a core use case for its Quest headsets - VR gaming. If you want to play VR games, get a Quest. If you want to ??? get a Vision Pro. Still not sure what belongs there. Watch a movie in VR instead of on your TV? See your monitors in VR instead of on your desk? Record precious memories that you want to relive over and over with a huge chunk of tech strapped over your face instead of living and enjoying the moment with those around you?
I guess it's the HomePod strategy on steroids - release an ultra-premium device, then release the mass market version later, once you figure out what people actually want from it.
Either way, there's only so much that speculation can cover. Right now, no one can speak to very basic factors like comfort over extended periods of time, which can make or break this product.
Although these devices will be compared to each other ceaselessly, I think they're targeting two distinct markets. Apple believes that Vision Pro is the future of personal computing. Meta keeps marketing the Quest as social-connected VR gaming device. The former market is far larger and anything that displaces the PC will be transcendental.
Although Meta will sell more units in the short-term due to Apple's pricing, I do think they will have a tough time catching Apple on the hardware. The eye-tracking, <12ms image processing and display, and the M2 are things that Meta is well behind on.
Zuck mentioned that activity and "doing things" are Meta advantages, but people don't want to exercise while gaming or consuming entertainment.
It's the sort of impact I wish Microsoft HoloLens had, but I suppose HoloLens was released too early for the technology to make sense.
reply