> but didn't know there was stuff in-market which is meaningfully better than the Vision Pro (assuming you mean screens, tracking, pass through)? I know you're

> but didn't know there was stuff in-market which is meaningfully better than the Vision Pro (assuming you mean screens, tracking, pass through)? I know you're being facetious, but you owe yourself an investigation into how far they've come. Pimax 8k, PSVR, Quest Pro... Apple's headset isn't exactly pushing anything we haven't seen before. I was talking about the literal performance ceiling, a-la available compute. > So my bet would be that Apple -- a company which is preoccupied with trying to build products consumers genuinely love (or which builds products which people are brainwashed into loving, if you believe the HN conspiracy theorists) -- can figure out how to reduce the ASP of a Vision headset to $999 faster than Meta can figure out how to create a resonant user experience at their existing price point. That's a bet I would take you on, but it's full of moving goalposts (eg. "resonant user experience"). If the Vision Pro is Apple's new rough baseline for VR user experiences, it will take time and iteration to lower it to the sub-$1000 price point. Time for the processes to mature and yield better with cheaper costs, but also iteration on an already-expensive concept that needs enormous re-engineering efforts to have the same margins at $3500 as it does at $999. At Vision Pro margins this hypothetical headset would have a ~$400 BOM and likely diminished specs from Vision Pro. From the offset, M1/M2 is off the table - they're too expensive and unnecessary for the majority of baseline uses. They would need another SOC, more like a reworked iPhone/iPad chip with doubled GPU resources. The glass and aluminum design would need to get downgraded to cheaper materials, and the displays would need to be lower resolution to both accommodate a lower price point and a lower performance target. It's possible. It will just take a long time for suppliers to develop and for Apple to improve their own processes. In that time, Meta's goal is just to improve eye tracking, push higher resolutions and expand the current multitasking options. It doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, given the current state of Oculus software and how far the Quest Pro got as a $1500 headset. > Is there anything about the task of creating a compelling user experience with hardware/software and combining huge scale efficiencies and expertise in manufacturing and supply chain to lower cost over time which makes you think Meta has an advantage over Apple? Apparently none of that stuff has been a roadblock to producing 10 million+ of them at an affordable price. The software experience has been pretty great for me, almost "Switch-like" for the price. I think that has the potential to keep selling - I think Apple's idea will really only be popular among a smaller group of users. If they surpass Meta's install base before 2030, it will be a bona-fide miracle.