11 ms·

" By contrast, every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself." Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. Its a blindfold on

• baby 3y ago
  Why should they be in panic? They already iterated on 3 headsets, they definitely have the advantage (weren't people complaining that they spent too much $$ in VR? Now they should be terrified?)
  • Ireallyapart 3y ago
    of course they are terrified. Not being terrified is delusional. It's apple.
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    FB does not appear to be attracting young people. Apple appears to be a magnet for them. FWIW, Apple does PR and presentations a lot better ( I honestly can't remember FB VR rollout, but I was interested in Apple's toy ). If FB is not worried, their CEO may not be doing his job.
    • johnnykree 3y ago
      I'm a middle school teacher in Europe. None of my students use Facebook. They even don't use Whatsapp that much anymore. FB has a big problem.
      • homarp 3y ago
        but they are using instagram no?
        • Dah00n 3y ago
          More likely Snapchat.
        • johnnykree 3y ago
          The girls, the skaters and bikers. The others just use snapchat most of the time. One of my students was complaining about battery life on his new iPhone. I told him that snapchat just uses a lot of battery because all of the shenanigans. He didnt believe me till I showed him the battery function of the phone where you can see what app uses how much percentage. :)
      • Xenoamorphous 3y ago
        What do they use instead of Whatsapp?
        • ChuckNorris89 3y ago
          Snapchat. All teens are communicating on Snapchat. And sometimes Instagram which is also owned by FB.
          • johnnykree 3y ago
            yup. Instagram is more used by the sports guys to show of their stunts... I have a kid who jumps into public water fountains with his bike. And girls with beauty stuff which may be a cliche but as a language teacher we often talk about their weekends and their hobbies...
        • zeknife 3y ago
          Probably discord
        • johnnykree 3y ago
  • kumarvvr 3y ago
    Thats what I am saying. They had 3 iterations, yet, are technologically behind Apple. I mean, just pure technology wise, the screens, number of sensors, processing power itself is mind boggling. I am sure that all their hadware decisions regarding oculus were constrained by the compute hardware. Apple has the moat of world class custom silicon that means, the constraints on its designers are far less. And we are seeing just the first gen device.
    • taeric 3y ago
      Probably not technically behind. Were aiming lower for price, is more likely.
    • corndoge 3y ago
      One is priced at $300 and the other is more than 10x that. I don't understand why people keep comparing the two as if they were designed with the same objectives.
      • homarp 3y ago
        isn't the objective to capture and define the market? metaverse vs spatial computing? and whoever can make money for their respective business: sell ads or sell apps/integrate with rest of apple ecosystem?
      • manquer 3y ago
        Quest pro is $1,500 (albeit 8 months old ) Yes, Apple is priced quite premium but that is also their strength Apple can price at this level and still command enough sales , Meta or any other company cannot . Even at the same price point (HoloLens 2 costs the same) as Apple it is hard to imagine another headset competing. Also none of the concept headsets MZ has shown so far come close to this
        • mo_42 3y ago
          For Apple, I don’t think it’s about sales. It’s about introducing something new to the mass market. So they want to sell this to developers (price doesn’t really matter). And early adopters/fanboys (for them it matters a bit more). Apple is using these two groups for development of new software and for marketing. The fanboys will carry this thing around for a year or two and familiarize the general public.
• juunpp 3y ago
  The $3500 price tag and closed ecosystem is self-sabotaging, so MZ doesn't need to be worried at all. Carmack's vision was a cheap device that could hit mass market, and that's where the real game still is. Also, games.
  • teeray 3y ago
    You underestimate Apple fans throwing ungodly amounts of money at new products. The early-adopters always generate FOMO among the not-quite-so-early adopters and it snowballs from there.
  • Fezzik 3y ago
    The same was said of the iPad and Apple Watch… this may be their big miss, but based on the reviews I’ll keep betting on Apple.
    • microtonal 3y ago
      It seems that they nailed the hardware. Sure, the battery life can be improved, the price can be reduced through mass production. It is now mostly a question of people will accept/like carrying a head set. I am mildly optimistic, even the initial Vision Pro won't be much more expensive than a well-spec'ed MacBook Air plus 5k display. So at least I think Vision is attractive to pro Mac users as a very portable workstation with a lot off screen estate.
      • pzo 3y ago
        The only things missing for Pro users (especially Devs) are tools - ipad is useless for Software Dev as main machine. They can't force other companies to port Intellij or VSCode to iOS/iPadOS but you would expect they provided Xcode to iPad by now. Even if IDE is there then how about Python and Nodejs modules in such restricted environment. I Hope Meta will switch to Linus and Valve will stick with Linux where you can run any legacy software currently available including many Pro tools.
        • 3y ago
• 14 3y ago
  No need to panic the oculus is doing well and is very easy to chat and connect with friends and new people. And with the quest 3 there is complete pass through so finding a controller should be easy even though I can tell you it already is. I’m not a Zuck fanboy but I have enjoyed the quest 2 thoroughly and plan to get the 3 when it releases. I do think the Apple vision pro looks amazing but the second I heard the price it was laughable. Obviously I am not the target audience. I’m not sure who is to be honest.
• NBJack 3y ago
  Pretty sure Mark was actually counting on it. It doesn't make it a good idea, but Apple tends to set the bar for status symbols. Smartphones existed before the iPhone. PC laptops existed before MacBooks. Portable digital music players existed before iPods. While not always successful, they actually add legitimacy to many of the markets they get into. Time will tell if it happens here; I'm not holding my breath.
  • mahkeiro 3y ago
    Of course these devices existed but every time Apple raised the bar. MP3 players existed before Ipod but with limited storage. The first Ipod was really usable with its HDD. Smartphone were a thing but touch interface is what made the Iphone something unique. Let see if Apple is really bringing something new here, the jury is still out.
    • kgwgk 3y ago
      Famously, the original iPod had "less space than a Nomad".
      • mahkeiro 3y ago
        The Nomad was the size of a CD player… The ipod was fitting in a pocket.
        • mightybyte 3y ago
          The Nomad also had an absurdly slow UI.
      • bdavbdav 3y ago
        Having had one, that Nomad was absolutely terrible, space or no. It was cheap though.
  • AmericanChopper 3y ago
    I don’t think smartphone adoption was held back by the lack of a sufficient status symbol. Apple didn’t bring a revolutionary status symbol to market to make smartphone adoption explode. It brought a really good product that was valued because of how useful it was. Apple’s headset will take off if it proves to be actually useful, otherwise it won’t.
• sudhirj 3y ago
  No, I actually think he has it spot on. While they're both headsets, I think the Vision is more a replacement for the Mac + Displays + maybe iPad line. Just like I have a PlayStation in the family+friends living room and a multi-monitor Mac setup in my study, I'm going to have an Oculus in the living room and a Vision Pro in the study. These are complementary things.
• chaostheory 3y ago
  > Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. As excited as I am about Apple Vision, Mark is right about this. Most of Apple’s demos don’t show the user being active, and the Vision’s price is anything but demographic even though it’s fair, given that it’s a miniaturized MacBook with magic powers On other hand, the Quest and its apps make you move. Most of the apps on Quest are low key cardio workouts, though it’s not initially apparent to most users when they’re fighting ninjas or dodging bullets. Do I think Apple Vision is incapable of what the Quest is capable of in terms of helping their users be active? Definitely not. Anything the Quest can do I’m sure Vision can do and then some. I’m also sure that future Apple Vision spots will highlight this. However, Apple is not showing anything at the moment. > Mark has got to be terrified. The power of Apple is the tight and efficient integration of hardware and software. I’m sure he is to a degree, but meta needed Apple to enter the market. It would be much worse for meta if Apple didn’t validate the often criticized and ridiculed AR VR industry. While meta has been able to make a revolutionary product at a great price point, it’s been hampered by 1. meta’s poor past reputation, 2. meta’s terrible marketing & messaging. The Super Bowl ad was nonsensical to normal people, 3. the intimidating form factor of most VR headsets including the Quest aka face buckets of isolation. Many normal adults refuse to put it on their faces without a lot of coaxing, and 4. not being able to market the Quest to children. They are the largest demographic who just intuitively understand VR AR. They also have the highest retention. (There is one old study that shows that it may be harmful to children, but many people have criticized its methodology.) Now that Apple has fixed the messaging for the industry, Apple can dominate the high end while Meta can take everything else. People who are buying Vision likely would not buy a Quest and vice versa Meta won’t have a real fight until Samsung & Google re-enter the space.
• the_gipsy 3y ago
  Facebook is not in panic, they're relieved that they're not the only fools betting on VR anymore. None of this will be relevant soon to consumers, except maybe games, and then it will be console makers who will push it and cash in. For Facebook and Apple it's just shareholder porn.
  • mrtksn 3y ago
    Apple’s implementation appears years ahead of anyone else. Just the way iPhone was when introduced. Back in the day Nokia, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm and Ericsson had smartphones that you could do everything that iPhone could do or even more. These were devices that only those who have to use it or those who are techno nerds used it. When Apple introduced their implementation of smartphone, those who were using the devices from the established companies dismissed the iPhone as gimmick or inferior. Fast forward, the regular people queued for iPhones and the other smartphone makers are all gone.
    • Lewton 3y ago
      except, you know, there's a massive market for non-iphone smartphones now. Facebook would not weep if it was android to the iphone
      • mrtksn 3y ago
        I don't think that Zuckerberg would be excited for making money from VR some time in far future, he is already very rich.
        • gen220 3y ago
          It's less about making marginally more money, and it's more about retaining Meta's grip on attention as it shifts from one medium (mobile/web) to the next (AR/VR/SC). He's probably not going to make more money by having a bulkhead in the new personal computing paradigm (unless the ads are 10x as valuable, IDK). He's more importantly aiming to defend the current "proportion of attention spent on personal computing". If other cos shift consumer attention to mediums where Meta has no presence or is excluded from, there goes his market cap.
• jayd16 3y ago
  Oculus already has hand tracking and it's plenty good enough to manage pausing a video.
• quenix 3y ago
  > Regarding battery power, I woukd not rule out versions that stream the video and outsource the computing to a mac or a standalone box, like Apple TV. I imagine wireless latency would be too high here. I think they mentioned a 12 ms number to avoid motion sickness.
• anjc 3y ago
  > " By contrast, every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself." > Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. I never use my Quest sitting down. I use it as a roomscale device for, e.g., boxing, or playing table tennis or golf with family in other countries. The Apple device looks great, but if it was the same price as a Quest 3 and I could only buy one, I'd choose the Quest 3, no questions.
• spaceman_2020 3y ago
  FB should absolutely be in panic mode. They bet everything on VR because they wanted to own an entire ecosystem and not be reliant on Google/Apple. No matter how good Oculus is, Apple will be the VR experience everyone will want to have. Apple will sell it vastly better and make it far more desirable than anything Meta can manage. If I have to strap on an invasive device to my face, what company am I going to trust more - the one that has been hammering in its “privacy” credentials for years, or the one that incites riots and whose founder is memed to be a humanoid?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • rob74 3y ago
    Yeah... Meta is now at risk of going the way of other "first movers" when Apple chose to enter their market. Companies like Rio and other makers of MP3 players before Apple came around with the iPod. Or companies like Blackberry, Nokia etc. that built smartphones long before the iPhone. Or companies like Pebble who introduced the first smartwatches. The list goes on and on...
  • dgellow 3y ago
    Maybe the Vision will be what everybody want, but there is always space for “almost what you want but cheaper”. Mid range android phones are very popular worldwide. Mid range laptops too. I’m skeptical of VR promises, but if the industry grows Apple is likely to be the high end expensive option, but there will be great opportunities for other companies in the space. And oculus can offer very compelling products for a seventh of the price. Not that I want to see Facebook succeed in their goals. I personally find a cheaper option like the quest more interesting than the vision, at least on paper, but won’t ever use a product that forces me to have a Facebook account.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • 411111111111111 3y ago
      Have you ever used a VR headset? I doubt there is ever going to be a budget headset with mass market appeal because they'd be incredibly nausea inducing. The Oculus quest is a perfect example. It's basically manufactured e-waste which is only getting bought because of the fantasy it ultimately doesn't live to.
• quitit 3y ago
  A lot of good points in there. I think Apple are much better at UX and platform building than Meta, this weeks WWDC visionOS videos(1) show impressive depth in their research and thinking for all types of users of spatial-based computing. Regardless of the differences in how these 3D platforms are approached, apple's commitment to their platforms along with iterative improvement is the secret sauce to giving 3rd parties the confidence they need to invest time and money developing apps. On the other hand I keep hearing that enthusiasm for the Metaverse is waning amongst Meta staff, that's usually my sign to not get involved, or have all of my efforts/revenue suddenly vanquished should Zuckerberg change his mind. On the topic of battery power: While I think that the battery power of "up to 2 hours" is not a long time in comparison to how long I use my computing devices, I also think this gen 1 device isn't really a mobile device where that matters, also we've seen apple take laptops from a few hours of charge to 20+ hours. (1) https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc2023/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc2023/
• rib3ye 3y ago
  Why isn’t anyone pointing out that there were many demos of people walking around, and some of them, in an office with other people? It’s almost like, after spending $10B on the space, he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about /s
• aqme28 3y ago
  > " By contrast, every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself." > Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. Its a blindfold on your face, and it doesnt matter if they are alone or in a crowd. I found this hilarious too. The HTC Vive was the "walking around your virtual space" headset, and Meta deliberately marketed the Oculus as couch-based, because they didn't think people actually wanted more than that.