6 ms·

I have a Quest Pro, after having had many of the predecessors - Vive, etc. I think that A/R needs to succeed before VR can really take off. And I think AR is

I have a Quest Pro, after having had many of the predecessors - Vive, etc. I think that A/R needs to succeed before VR can really take off. And I think AR is going to really succeed. By VR I mean being totally cutoff from the rest of the world into this new world. It's exhausting in a way and feels like you are at a disadvantage if other people are around. The Pro has some limited AR and it's actually really exciting. Being in both worlds at the same time feels really really interesting. Apple is so far ahead, conceptually, that it makes sense to me for Meta/quest to recalibrate here.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I really hope not. I get AR might work for some situation p, but the Quest is really good for I’m erosive situations where you just want slice some blocks apart with light sabers according to a nice song. Beat Saber is still the Quest’s killer app. How would AR improve on that experience? I don’t see much point to the quest pro and eagerly await the quest 3.
jayd16 3y ago
> Apple is so far ahead, conceptually I'm curious what you mean by this.
- jsemrau 3y ago
  I suppose Apple's product is not a VR product but "Spatial Computing" Quote "Vision Pro, on the other hand, is primarily an AR device that just happens to have a few VR features" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-vision-pro-this-is-not-a-vr-headset/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-...
  - jayd16 3y ago
    In the same way "retina display" is not fundamentally unique, the Quest line is just as capable of "spatial computing." I'll argue that the one major difference in Apple's approach is they're going with multi-app support out of the gate. It positions the device as a low friction compute device instead of an engrossing entertainment device. ...but that's just software and I think it's within Meta's reach. It'll be interesting to see when Meta decides to make the pivot themselves and how much of Apple's custom stack will need to be replicated and how far ahead they actually are.
    - VincentEvans 3y ago
      “Meta’s reach” from my perspective was to take an excellent Oculus, rename it, and put everything behind an annoying facebook account. Can’t wait to see their further “innovations” in this space.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Meta already have multi tasking on the Quest Pro. What they don’t have is a significant app ecosystem outside of games Consider that the Vision Pro not only runs iOS and iPadOS apps without modification, but also the fact that you can modify those apps to progressively adopt visionOS features. To me, the killer software differentiator is that the Vision Pro will likely let you do most things you want within the headset. The quest requires you to take it off to do non gaming things or use often subpar web interfaces instead.
      - jayd16 3y ago
        The multitasking is really not the same. You can't have multiple spatial apps on the quest simultaneously in the same way the AVP was demoed, at least not yet. In theory there's a play for Meta to lean into deeper Android app compatibility. The apps do currently run on the device. The issue is the lack of Google services and app store but perhaps Meta could make it work or make a deal. I do think Meta still lags behind on the app store front, both from a consumer and dev perspective. They've focused on gaming and they've done well to bring up a very solid game console but it's not the same thing. Their biggest gap to catch up on is the app side of the store and they have to do it through jeers that they've abandoned gamers.
        dagmx 3y ago
        Hmm I thought meta had demoed multiple apps at once, but I also find they show a lot of simulated content that they don’t deliver on so I’m not surprised either. That’s actually one thing I admire from the Vision Pro announcement is that it was all real. I own a Quest but I honestly haven’t been interested by the Quest Pro as a result. I agree with you that Meta could make a deal with Google. Though at the same time, they want to own their platform and I can see their desire for that get in the way of true Android app compatibility. And yeah, I liken the Quest to a console whereas the Vision Pro seems like a computer. It’s a good console but Meta clearly want to make it more than that but I’m doubtful they can.
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    "Spatial computing" is 95% just a marketing term. Understandably Apple wants to project the perception they are doing something new here. So they invented a new term. There are a few novel aspects to it, but it's honestly just VR/AR like everyone else has been doing in terms of all of its fundamental features. Which isn't to say I'm not curious about what novel things they will introduce. However what's visible so far is actually behind status quo in terms of true "spatial computing" eg: shared spatial anchors API [0] has been out for a while and lets multiple users collaborate in the same mixed reality space. So far Vision Pro doesn't seem to even support this fundamental use case that you would expect to see from a "spatial computing" device. I do expect Apple to rapidly implement all this though and do everything better at the same time, so it's very exciting. [0] https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-shared-spatial-anchors/ https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-share...
    - jayd16 3y ago
      You know, they didn't put it in the marketing materials because it's a $7000 minimum feature but I think the AVP likely does support the existing iOS anchor API.
    - krrrh 3y ago
      I think you’re right, but I’d rephrase it as Apple focusing on what can be a great experience right now (viewing any iPad or macOS app spatially, a massive improvement over using either platform currently) vs highlighting what can only be a mediocre or enthusiast experience at the moment (full VR environments, and 3D AR). They’re smart to set a minimum bar for quality experience and work on future applications over time vs Meta and Google’s typical approach of developing beta products in public.
- ponyous 3y ago
  Quest Pro supposedly being a pro device cannot replace my desktop screens. Resolution is just not there. With Apple Vision seems to be actually capable of doing this. I am looking forward to ditching my screens. My napkin math and some googling (with the information I could find at the time of release, so probably inaccurate in multiple ways): Quest 2= ~18PPD Quest pro = ~20PPD Quest 3 = ~25PPD Apple Vision = ~36PPD Real life vision 60-120PPD 1920x1080 27" screen from a "normal" distance is roughly 36PPD. So I think Apple vision will feel like previous generation of screens (pre "retina"), and it makes sense why they pushed it so far. I wouldn't want to look at anything with worse quality (720p for example). And this is just talking about "pro" developers that use multiple screens.
  - jayd16 3y ago
    Well sure. It's 10x the price of a Quest 2 and has a good spec bump for it, but is that a conceptual leap? It feels like it's just focusing on the high end of the market. Is it even a moat? Won't Meta have a similar device in a few years?
    - mjamesaustin 3y ago
      What Apple gets right are all the tiny details that make it feel like an AR pass-through device. Aside from the impressive spec differences that are required for usability, these are the things they focused on that really matter to me from a user perspective: 1. No noticeable lag due to very high refresh rate 2. The viewpoint and perspective of the cameras mimics your actual view almost exactly 3. AR-first, and user-friendly VR shows other people when they approach you 4. Quick, accurate eye tracking and comfortable gesture controls
      - bliteben 3y ago
        Also hiding the cord for like 99% of the marketing
      - dnissley 3y ago
        1, 2, and 4 are basically speculation at this point, no?
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Vision Pro has at least grasped the idea that serious effort and specs need to be put into bringing AR to the world, and has made a valiant, priced-to-match first effort. Quest Pro doesn't seem to know what it is; its an over-priced Quest tottering about in Professional Heels, showing a leg at the productivity types as they walk by scratching their heads.
dmix 3y ago
100% agree. I've said similar things before on HN and got dismissive replies. Have a really good AR integration is essential for long term VR use. I should be able to toggle in and out of VR experiences and go back to real life when needed, just with googles on. But also have a digital interface layered over (without a full VR fake room like a Quest but my living room). That would make the experience far smoother and relaxing. The most basic thing is good pass through, I used to box every night on my Quest 2 and having a drink from my shake bottle was challenging and annoying.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

I really hope not. I get AR might work for some situation p, but the Quest is really good for I’m erosive situations where you just want slice some blocks apart with light sabers according to a nice song. Beat Saber is still the Quest’s killer app. How would AR improve on that experience? I don’t see much point to the quest pro and eagerly await the quest 3.

jayd16 3y ago

> Apple is so far ahead, conceptually I'm curious what you mean by this.

jsemrau 3y ago
I suppose Apple's product is not a VR product but "Spatial Computing" Quote "Vision Pro, on the other hand, is primarily an AR device that just happens to have a few VR features" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-vision-pro-this-is-not-a-vr-headset/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-...
- jayd16 3y ago
  In the same way "retina display" is not fundamentally unique, the Quest line is just as capable of "spatial computing." I'll argue that the one major difference in Apple's approach is they're going with multi-app support out of the gate. It positions the device as a low friction compute device instead of an engrossing entertainment device. ...but that's just software and I think it's within Meta's reach. It'll be interesting to see when Meta decides to make the pivot themselves and how much of Apple's custom stack will need to be replicated and how far ahead they actually are.
  - VincentEvans 3y ago
    “Meta’s reach” from my perspective was to take an excellent Oculus, rename it, and put everything behind an annoying facebook account. Can’t wait to see their further “innovations” in this space.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Meta already have multi tasking on the Quest Pro. What they don’t have is a significant app ecosystem outside of games Consider that the Vision Pro not only runs iOS and iPadOS apps without modification, but also the fact that you can modify those apps to progressively adopt visionOS features. To me, the killer software differentiator is that the Vision Pro will likely let you do most things you want within the headset. The quest requires you to take it off to do non gaming things or use often subpar web interfaces instead.
    - jayd16 3y ago
      The multitasking is really not the same. You can't have multiple spatial apps on the quest simultaneously in the same way the AVP was demoed, at least not yet. In theory there's a play for Meta to lean into deeper Android app compatibility. The apps do currently run on the device. The issue is the lack of Google services and app store but perhaps Meta could make it work or make a deal. I do think Meta still lags behind on the app store front, both from a consumer and dev perspective. They've focused on gaming and they've done well to bring up a very solid game console but it's not the same thing. Their biggest gap to catch up on is the app side of the store and they have to do it through jeers that they've abandoned gamers.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        Hmm I thought meta had demoed multiple apps at once, but I also find they show a lot of simulated content that they don’t deliver on so I’m not surprised either. That’s actually one thing I admire from the Vision Pro announcement is that it was all real. I own a Quest but I honestly haven’t been interested by the Quest Pro as a result. I agree with you that Meta could make a deal with Google. Though at the same time, they want to own their platform and I can see their desire for that get in the way of true Android app compatibility. And yeah, I liken the Quest to a console whereas the Vision Pro seems like a computer. It’s a good console but Meta clearly want to make it more than that but I’m doubtful they can.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  "Spatial computing" is 95% just a marketing term. Understandably Apple wants to project the perception they are doing something new here. So they invented a new term. There are a few novel aspects to it, but it's honestly just VR/AR like everyone else has been doing in terms of all of its fundamental features. Which isn't to say I'm not curious about what novel things they will introduce. However what's visible so far is actually behind status quo in terms of true "spatial computing" eg: shared spatial anchors API [0] has been out for a while and lets multiple users collaborate in the same mixed reality space. So far Vision Pro doesn't seem to even support this fundamental use case that you would expect to see from a "spatial computing" device. I do expect Apple to rapidly implement all this though and do everything better at the same time, so it's very exciting. [0] https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-shared-spatial-anchors/ https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-share...
  - jayd16 3y ago
    You know, they didn't put it in the marketing materials because it's a $7000 minimum feature but I think the AVP likely does support the existing iOS anchor API.
  - krrrh 3y ago
    I think you’re right, but I’d rephrase it as Apple focusing on what can be a great experience right now (viewing any iPad or macOS app spatially, a massive improvement over using either platform currently) vs highlighting what can only be a mediocre or enthusiast experience at the moment (full VR environments, and 3D AR). They’re smart to set a minimum bar for quality experience and work on future applications over time vs Meta and Google’s typical approach of developing beta products in public.
ponyous 3y ago
Quest Pro supposedly being a pro device cannot replace my desktop screens. Resolution is just not there. With Apple Vision seems to be actually capable of doing this. I am looking forward to ditching my screens. My napkin math and some googling (with the information I could find at the time of release, so probably inaccurate in multiple ways): Quest 2= ~18PPD Quest pro = ~20PPD Quest 3 = ~25PPD Apple Vision = ~36PPD Real life vision 60-120PPD 1920x1080 27" screen from a "normal" distance is roughly 36PPD. So I think Apple vision will feel like previous generation of screens (pre "retina"), and it makes sense why they pushed it so far. I wouldn't want to look at anything with worse quality (720p for example). And this is just talking about "pro" developers that use multiple screens.
- jayd16 3y ago
  Well sure. It's 10x the price of a Quest 2 and has a good spec bump for it, but is that a conceptual leap? It feels like it's just focusing on the high end of the market. Is it even a moat? Won't Meta have a similar device in a few years?
  - mjamesaustin 3y ago
    What Apple gets right are all the tiny details that make it feel like an AR pass-through device. Aside from the impressive spec differences that are required for usability, these are the things they focused on that really matter to me from a user perspective: 1. No noticeable lag due to very high refresh rate 2. The viewpoint and perspective of the cameras mimics your actual view almost exactly 3. AR-first, and user-friendly VR shows other people when they approach you 4. Quick, accurate eye tracking and comfortable gesture controls
    - bliteben 3y ago
      Also hiding the cord for like 99% of the marketing
    - dnissley 3y ago
      1, 2, and 4 are basically speculation at this point, no?
mellosouls 3y ago
Vision Pro has at least grasped the idea that serious effort and specs need to be put into bringing AR to the world, and has made a valiant, priced-to-match first effort. Quest Pro doesn't seem to know what it is; its an over-priced Quest tottering about in Professional Heels, showing a leg at the productivity types as they walk by scratching their heads.

dmix 3y ago

100% agree. I've said similar things before on HN and got dismissive replies. Have a really good AR integration is essential for long term VR use. I should be able to toggle in and out of VR experiences and go back to real life when needed, just with googles on. But also have a digital interface layered over (without a full VR fake room like a Quest but my living room). That would make the experience far smoother and relaxing. The most basic thing is good pass through, I used to box every night on my Quest 2 and having a drink from my shake bottle was challenging and annoying.