4 ms·

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

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.
- mtrovo 3y ago
  Is it really the same though? I can see how this is proposing a different approach on how to present VR but apart from tech folks nobody seems to care. Where on iPhone case from day 1 one could tell it was actually really really useful. And you also have to consider the price tag as well, I can think about many things that I would spend money on first even if I had those 3500 dollars. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see people working or joining meetings in one of these but at least for now it looks like this is a product searching for a mass market.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    >apart from tech folks nobody seems to care On the contrary, this is the first time that non techies are actually interested in it and debating its implications on the society. And about the price tag, a quick search tells me that %18 of the American individuals and %34 of the households are making over 100K and there are over 5 million millionaires and 770 billionaires in the USA. Even if pricey, it is within the reach of so many people's income levels which means if it is good enough and people will buy it. The price anchoring effects are strong but Apple is capable of creating its own anchors. Consider the iPhone, the iPhone 14 pro costs less than %25 of the monthly pay check of an average American and you say it's expensive. In the other extreme - Turkey, the iPhone 14 Pro costs about 5x the average salary(iPhone 14 pro is 2350$ today and the average salary is less than 500usd) and people still buy it. It was never THIS bad, but even in the good times an iPhone would cost more than the average salary and everyone bought one and the Apple's market share is over %20. Moral of the story, if you make something that people want badly they will find a way to get it.
    - the_gipsy 3y ago
      Apply these kind of comments to Facebook VR or Google Glass. Everybody is just grasping the "but it's Apple!" straw.
      - leadingthenet 3y ago
        It's a completely valid sentiment given their track record.
- o1y32 3y ago
  Typical tech nerd way of thinking things. "Implementation appears year ahead" does not mean anything. What matters is whether the product can gain enough attraction to be a successful business, which we don't know yet.
qwertox 3y ago
But it doesn't look like Apple is betting on a Metaverse where you have your little virtual houses and objects, but rather putting monitors right in front of your eyes with an entire ecosystem where work and entertainment is the main focus, with the ability to include communicating with others. Apple just skipped the 3D world-thing which is what Meta is focusing on and being pathetic at it. To me this reads as if Mark is scared of what his employees are thinking of him, where what they have been working on is this toy, while Apple now presents a real device with some sensible use cases. Also Apple's is see-through AR to blocking VR, while Meta's is blocking VR. His statement about the couch doesn't make sense at all. He seems to be ashamed that they are not the leader in this space by a long shot, since this is what his company is supposed to be about.
- badkitty99 3y ago
  [dead]
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The oculus products have the same "AR but it's actually VR" thing going on. It just sucks on the quest 2 and seems half baked on the pro. They claim that a better version of passthrough will be the biggest upgrade on the quest 3, but of course remains to be seen if they can pull it off for $500 a pop.
  - qwertox 3y ago
    I see, and it appears that Apple's is also only see-through by overlaying the VR onto a camera stream. I thought it was like the Hololens, which btw is also in the 3.5k-range.

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.
mtrovo 3y ago
Is it really the same though? I can see how this is proposing a different approach on how to present VR but apart from tech folks nobody seems to care. Where on iPhone case from day 1 one could tell it was actually really really useful. And you also have to consider the price tag as well, I can think about many things that I would spend money on first even if I had those 3500 dollars. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see people working or joining meetings in one of these but at least for now it looks like this is a product searching for a mass market.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  >apart from tech folks nobody seems to care On the contrary, this is the first time that non techies are actually interested in it and debating its implications on the society. And about the price tag, a quick search tells me that %18 of the American individuals and %34 of the households are making over 100K and there are over 5 million millionaires and 770 billionaires in the USA. Even if pricey, it is within the reach of so many people's income levels which means if it is good enough and people will buy it. The price anchoring effects are strong but Apple is capable of creating its own anchors. Consider the iPhone, the iPhone 14 pro costs less than %25 of the monthly pay check of an average American and you say it's expensive. In the other extreme - Turkey, the iPhone 14 Pro costs about 5x the average salary(iPhone 14 pro is 2350$ today and the average salary is less than 500usd) and people still buy it. It was never THIS bad, but even in the good times an iPhone would cost more than the average salary and everyone bought one and the Apple's market share is over %20. Moral of the story, if you make something that people want badly they will find a way to get it.
  - the_gipsy 3y ago
    Apply these kind of comments to Facebook VR or Google Glass. Everybody is just grasping the "but it's Apple!" straw.
    - leadingthenet 3y ago
      It's a completely valid sentiment given their track record.
o1y32 3y ago
Typical tech nerd way of thinking things. "Implementation appears year ahead" does not mean anything. What matters is whether the product can gain enough attraction to be a successful business, which we don't know yet.

qwertox 3y ago

But it doesn't look like Apple is betting on a Metaverse where you have your little virtual houses and objects, but rather putting monitors right in front of your eyes with an entire ecosystem where work and entertainment is the main focus, with the ability to include communicating with others. Apple just skipped the 3D world-thing which is what Meta is focusing on and being pathetic at it. To me this reads as if Mark is scared of what his employees are thinking of him, where what they have been working on is this toy, while Apple now presents a real device with some sensible use cases. Also Apple's is see-through AR to blocking VR, while Meta's is blocking VR. His statement about the couch doesn't make sense at all. He seems to be ashamed that they are not the leader in this space by a long shot, since this is what his company is supposed to be about.

badkitty99 3y ago
[dead]
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The oculus products have the same "AR but it's actually VR" thing going on. It just sucks on the quest 2 and seems half baked on the pro. They claim that a better version of passthrough will be the biggest upgrade on the quest 3, but of course remains to be seen if they can pull it off for $500 a pop.
- qwertox 3y ago
  I see, and it appears that Apple's is also only see-through by overlaying the VR onto a camera stream. I thought it was like the Hololens, which btw is also in the 3.5k-range.