9 ms·

It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab, shows off their latest adva

by zmmmmm 3y ago

It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab, shows off their latest advances in academia (including all the limitations and problems). Meanwhile Apple works for 10 years in secrecy and even after they publicly announce are making anybody with access to the device use it in SCIF-like environment with a draconian NDA. And then, Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.

hyperthesis 3y ago
More than that, Apple is targetting specific usage, for specific professionals - i.e. niche marketing. Literally Pro. At the same time, they are keeping the door open for mass-market over the long-term.
photonerd 3y ago
It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy. Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between. Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  > Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). Apple Maps. I still remember the hilarity. https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail.html https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....
  - photonerd 3y ago
    When did they use an incomplete, pre release, version of Apple Maps for tech journalism marketing? They didn’t. So not a counter example.
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      Isn't Apple known for demoing pre release versions of everything on stage? I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
      - threeseed 3y ago
        I wouldn't call that pre-release by the standard definition. The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
      - photonerd 3y ago
        That’s when they announce it, yes. That’s usually they only time they do that. Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
        sgift 3y ago
        No, it's not. It's different technologies each time that their research lab is working on at the moment.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    But that’s sort of what I mean: announced, never any mention again. Just cancelled. No additional “here’s that thing but it’s half built”, just… dropped And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
    - chaostheory 3y ago
      Yeah, I feel that this is why Apple announcements are exciting: they won’t show prototypes that may or may not be released to consumers. What they show they intend to ship within a year.
  - giobox 3y ago
    There was also the infamous white iPhone 4 debacle, they had almost shipped the next one the following year before anyone got a white handset. A white handset may not sound like a big deal, but people really wanted that thing. That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays). > https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-delay/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
    - photonerd 3y ago
      Yeah, that was a technical delay (or rather a quality delay with a technical process). Was a super interesting problem they ran into. Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
      - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        Can you fill me in without search? I somehow missed the whole thing.
- victor106 3y ago
  > Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Great insight
  - photonerd 3y ago
    The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.” They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem. It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      Related quote I like: ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
      - photonerd 3y ago
        Right, exactly. I feel design has really been pigeonholed into “visual design” by many.
      - goosedragons 3y ago
        Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works. The obvious Magic Mouse 2 charging port, their mices continued insistence that there be only one physical click button so it's literally impossible to right and left click at the same time despite games and other software occasionally needing that, being maybe the only monitor manufacturer in the world to still ship a monitor with a single input, the Mac Mini constantly being plagued by Bluetooth/Wifi issues because of its chassis design etc.
- namank 3y ago
  > Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. They are not competing goals. All companies have to show progress. Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version. Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    > They are not competing goals. They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”. I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features. The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    That’s true, though it was mostly only around the announce cycle part of that phase. Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho. (I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
  - dev_tty01 3y ago
    > The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact. > The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version). I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.
- starluz 3y ago
  Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability. It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback. Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  AirPower would like a word
  - photonerd 3y ago
    Reread what I wrote: follows the same pattern.
- langsoul-com 3y ago
  The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales. Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.
paulcole 3y ago
Meta has a god-awful reputation and needs to do whatever they can to build goodwill with journalists and the public. If they think showing off half-finished vaporware is the way to do that, good luck to them.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  > showing off half-finished vaporware They have videos of actual people using the actual built devices at the conference. They are letting conference attendees at SIGGRAPH put these on and try them out. I get the need to downplay anything good that Meta does, but stick to "reality" - this is very different from half finished vapor ware. Or to put it another way, if this is vaporware, so is Apple Vision Pro at this point.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Right. The prototypes work. It’s R&D. We have no idea when, or if, this will end up in a shipping product. If they were to imply it’s a real product (didn’t read that clearly) it’s vaporware. The Vision Pro was announced. Has a release date (within a quarter), a full public SDK & simulator. They have started the hands on labs for developers around the world this week. That’s not vaporware. If it is every movie that’s been announced + shot but not released is. The modern Apple (post Jobs return) had what, one product that was announced but didn’t come out? The AirPower. And that was a real product they were in the final stages of (best I understand) but hit insurmountable safety issues. Not “hey we’re thinking this will be a thing one day”, but a failed product launch that didn’t make it to market after multiple attempts to fix it in the final stages. Apple doesn’t announce vaporware.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      <vaporcomment>
      - MBCook 3y ago
        Wow. You pointed out the exact thing I discussed in my comment.
cududa 3y ago
You’re a bit biased if you think Meta is doing anything other than marketing here, just using a different tactic. Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now. This is simply a second degree demo to Wall Street investors. Their analysts will either attend, or read reports from reputable experts. They’ve sunk $40 Billion into this project with nothing to show. Apple has reportedly spent $20 Billion while underpinning it with healthy growth and profits. Facebook shipped Quest 2 dev kits to partners that were physically disguised as clothing irons. The narrative you’re spinning is nonsense. EDIT: You’re either Boz or a lieutenant judging by your comment history. You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Meta literally changed their name for this space, and Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product. This is clearly reactive "we have to show something" vaporware.
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    > Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product ??? Meta already shipped 20M headsets. Apple won't get more than 400k of these in the field until 2025, and even then they will be so expensive barely anybody can afford it. Quite literally, whatever mass market there is, Meta owns it now and for the foreseeable future.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      Oculus is capped at the gamer market size, which is in the 10M units range. Apple is targeting the wider compute market which is capped at Billions. They won't sell billions in 2025, or at the $3500 price point, but this is the market they are building towards capturing. Think of Palm Pilot vs iPhone. It's a decade-scale play. * edit: Let me just add that Apple TV hardware which is largely abandoned and afterthought product line considered unsuccessful, for example is a 13M/year item for Apple. 20M lifetime is not mass market.
steveBK123 3y ago
Another way of looking at it is - one company has a deep history of shipping successful and often innovative hardware products, and the other one doesn't. It's hard to argue that that the one that ships is taking the wrong approach.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you're arguing that Meta/Occulus wasn't innovative or their hardware isn't successful. The Quest Pro would perhaps be a failure, but then will the new Mac Pro be a wild success ?
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Meta acquired Occulus and so far have released only a single popular product. And no one other than yourself thinks that the Mac Pro is going to be a wild success. It's a highly niche product with the Mac Studio being the mainstream version.
    - xvector 3y ago
      Quest 2 outsold Xbox X/S. That's not bad for literally the only general consumer product they've released so far.
      - photonerd 3y ago
        It’s also a little more than half the price. It’s not bad, but it builds strongly on brand recognition as well. They were really the only major game in town. It’s a good sign for them but far from convincing
        tomnipotent 3y ago
        > It’s also a little more than half the price The Series S is the same price, and estimates put it at around half of units sold.
    - 3y ago
electric_mayhem 3y ago
Meta used exclusivity as a marketing tactic when it was contending with MySpace. Judging by the current relative market caps of facepalm and MySpace, seems like it worked out ok.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Will either of them let me tinker with the firmware as an unrestricted user?
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  Firmware, no unless you are ultra hard core. But above that layer there are pretty big distinctions. Meta is fully on the record that they are all in on making Quest completely use OpenXR as the primary API to the point of deprecating the old Oculus proprietary APIs. They also actively pushing forward the latest WebXR spec into the browser on the Quest, and sideloading of apps in general is straightforward (although you do need a developer account to do it which is unfortunate). Apple doesn't seem interested at all in open standards at the OS layer, so if you need to be happy with the fully walled garden and proprietary APIs to buy into that ecosystem. It's unclear if VisionPro will support WebXR in the browser it ships. So in terms of freedom, you will get a lot more from Quest, but its definitely sad that this whole area of computing could end up being the first that has literally no true open platform available.
  - rabf 3y ago
    The Lynx R1 is pretty open.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    Can you elaborate how they’re open when you need to open yourself up to adware tracking just to use the device?
    - zmmmmm 3y ago
      I just said above they aren't truly open ... so I'm not sure why you're premising your statement on me believing the opposite? But in terms of how they are are "more" open, you can side load any app you want, and the headset supports open standards at both the app level (OpenXR) and browser level (WebXR).
  - abecedarius 3y ago
    > you do need a developer account I guess this means "sideloading" is a privilege they can revoke at their whim, is that right? I hope I'm over-interpreting this (and not blaming you as the messenger).
iLoveOncall 3y ago
Software company VS hardware company. That's it. Meta needs as many people using their products to show ads and earn money, that's all there is to it.
- rabf 3y ago
  30% cut from app store sales can add up quite quickly.
- interpol_p 3y ago
  It’s interesting that you make this point. Because Meta’s video is _all about_ the hardware: here’s new lens design, here’s high density screen. Apple’s Vision Pro release has been all about the software: the interaction models, how to use SwiftUI to make immersive and windowed apps, the windowing model, accessibility, type readability, and every little detail related to UI I’d argue Apple is equally software and hardware
  - iLoveOncall 3y ago
    In how they market yes, but not in how they make money.
baby 3y ago
I was approached by both Apple and Facebook back in the days, and decided to join Facebook instead of Apple. Why? I like to be able to post about the research I do, and I didn't like the secrecy approach of Apple. I'm guessing that this is a big factor for more than just me when choosing a company to join, especially when you do interesting things that you want to be able to share with the world. I remember reading that Mark Rober was at Apple (nobody knew about that!) and I just feel like that must have sucked massively for someone who loves making youtube videos to work in a place like that.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Thanks so much for choosing to "bring the world closer together".
  - baby 3y ago
    Rock on! Connecting the world truly is a great mission imo
- htormey 3y ago
  Yeah, on point observation. I worked at both companies. I left Apple to work at Facebook because I wanted to be able to participate in open source projects and talk about my work with my coworkers openly.
  - azemetre 3y ago
    You're banned from working on your own open source projects at Apple? Had no idea, disappointing if true. I could understand now talking about current work but if you have an open source project that's unrelated you can't publicly do anything?
catchnear4321 3y ago
meta is playing catch-up. with the brand. apple can get away with being less polite. what it delivers is enough to motivate a certain level of tolerance. apple is ecosystem. it is the front runner at the moment, and will be hard to beat. ffs this is facebook and mark zuckerberg. how does the joke go? their faces are next to the word unlikable in the dictionary? both meta and zuck are cultivating a rather incredible comeback story. for all the historical hateables, even with layoffs and rto, there are a lot of recent moves that are brilliant. second place in a martial arts tournament. threads. llama. this. both meta and zuck are starting to look downright likeable. this is no accident, and no small feat. tl;dr you seemed to have missed meta’s marketing tactic, possibly due to anti-apple bias.
- gizajob 3y ago
  Not likeable in my house
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    how would you judge zuck compared to musk? if that answer has flipped over the past few years, that isn’t just due to musk.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      One is the world's biggest voyeur, a creepy, dead-eyed non-human who has broken the concept and functioning of the entire internet too many times to even count, the other makes toy cars and space rockets.
      - catchnear4321 3y ago
        sounds like zuck still hasn’t won you over. it takes time to rehabilitate an image so tarnished. he can’t delete the congressional hearing recordings from reality.
simonsarris 3y ago
I used to call this the startup model vs the Apple model A startup begins a project often by announcing that it has almost succeed. Some open source projects and crowdfunded projects with a lot of pomp also take this approach. It is great(?) for fundraising. It is interesting that Meta chooses this since they are not looking for funding, but maybe they are looking to cultivate the same panache/ethos. A way to market to prospective employees, more than end customers. Apple denies that its even doing something until after it has succeeded. And even then it will announce it on its own terms. The Putin regime also follows this model (eg 2014 annexation of Crimea). It is great for denying competition time to catch up.
aalimov_ 3y ago
> It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab… And you believe that they are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
joshl32532 3y ago
"Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point" Wow, how naive can you be? Because Meta's forte is ads. The hardware is just the gateway to their ecosystem where they don't have to pay Apple/Google for access to users. Companies' engineering blogs are just carefully curated marketing pieces with highly distilled technical info. It's still marketing and some people eat it up.
troupo 3y ago
> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic. Apple literally ships millions of devices on day one (that is, on the exact day they announce they will ship it). Edit: with very few notable exceptions like the wireless charger
grumbel 3y ago
> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point Ahm, are we forgetting the QuestPro? Meta tried to build their "Apple headset", 5x the price of a Quest2 and loaded with all the R&D features they could find. And it was a colossal flop. The whole thing is getting shutdown little over six months after release. They forgot to include critical features like a depth sensor, they couldn't figure out what to do with the eye tracking in their software, face tracking wasn't a feature anybody wanted and reduced the battery dramatically when actually used, passthough cameras are a blurry mess, resolution is too low to work as actual desktop replacement, etc. The whole thing, despite 5x the price, was firmly stuck at just being a slightly better Quest2. Meta spend the last seven years building a portable Oculus Rift, and they succeeded at that, but despite billions in R&D they haven't really managed to advanced VR beyond that point.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  well, that's why I said "no real interest" They delivered a product, but it's clear they simply don't have the commitment required to actually see it through. Quest Pro is actually great for what it is, but they seem completely clueless about how to actually market something to business or professional users. The software on it is 100% identical to the Quest 2, designed entirely for gaming. Just the fact they couldn't be bothered even slightly differentiating the software shows they just don't even understand the distinctions b/w the spaces.
esskay 3y ago
I think the biggest difference is Meta is happy to put out an incomplete product and iterate. The standard Quest 2 for example leaves a lot to be desired on the software side, but instead of waiting for years to perfect it they shoved it out there with the expectation that people would understand and accept that its very much an evolving platform. Apples approach is that they wont release until its ready for use by the average joe. The expectation that you get it and it works out of the box without needing to be too technical is where they thrive. This isn't to say one approach is better or worse, just different.
seydor 3y ago
it's pretty much the approach of every company except apple

by zmmmmm 3y ago

hyperthesis 3y ago

More than that, Apple is targetting specific usage, for specific professionals - i.e. niche marketing. Literally Pro. At the same time, they are keeping the door open for mass-market over the long-term.

photonerd 3y ago

It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy. Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between. Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). Apple Maps. I still remember the hilarity. https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail.html https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....
- photonerd 3y ago
  When did they use an incomplete, pre release, version of Apple Maps for tech journalism marketing? They didn’t. So not a counter example.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Isn't Apple known for demoing pre release versions of everything on stage? I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
    - threeseed 3y ago
      I wouldn't call that pre-release by the standard definition. The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
    - photonerd 3y ago
      That’s when they announce it, yes. That’s usually they only time they do that. Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
      - sgift 3y ago
        No, it's not. It's different technologies each time that their research lab is working on at the moment.
SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.
- photonerd 3y ago
  But that’s sort of what I mean: announced, never any mention again. Just cancelled. No additional “here’s that thing but it’s half built”, just… dropped And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    Yeah, I feel that this is why Apple announcements are exciting: they won’t show prototypes that may or may not be released to consumers. What they show they intend to ship within a year.
- giobox 3y ago
  There was also the infamous white iPhone 4 debacle, they had almost shipped the next one the following year before anyone got a white handset. A white handset may not sound like a big deal, but people really wanted that thing. That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays). > https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-delay/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
  - photonerd 3y ago
    Yeah, that was a technical delay (or rather a quality delay with a technical process). Was a super interesting problem they ran into. Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
    - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Can you fill me in without search? I somehow missed the whole thing.
victor106 3y ago
> Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Great insight
- photonerd 3y ago
  The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.” They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem. It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    Related quote I like: ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
    - photonerd 3y ago
      Right, exactly. I feel design has really been pigeonholed into “visual design” by many.
    - goosedragons 3y ago
      Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works. The obvious Magic Mouse 2 charging port, their mices continued insistence that there be only one physical click button so it's literally impossible to right and left click at the same time despite games and other software occasionally needing that, being maybe the only monitor manufacturer in the world to still ship a monitor with a single input, the Mac Mini constantly being plagued by Bluetooth/Wifi issues because of its chassis design etc.
namank 3y ago
> Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. They are not competing goals. All companies have to show progress. Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version. Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.
- photonerd 3y ago
  > They are not competing goals. They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”. I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.
sangnoir 3y ago
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features. The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.
- photonerd 3y ago
  That’s true, though it was mostly only around the announce cycle part of that phase. Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho. (I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
- dev_tty01 3y ago
  > The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact. > The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version). I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.
starluz 3y ago
Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability. It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback. Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)
anonymouse008 3y ago
AirPower would like a word
- photonerd 3y ago
  Reread what I wrote: follows the same pattern.
langsoul-com 3y ago
The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales. Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.

paulcole 3y ago

Meta has a god-awful reputation and needs to do whatever they can to build goodwill with journalists and the public. If they think showing off half-finished vaporware is the way to do that, good luck to them.

zmmmmm 3y ago
> showing off half-finished vaporware They have videos of actual people using the actual built devices at the conference. They are letting conference attendees at SIGGRAPH put these on and try them out. I get the need to downplay anything good that Meta does, but stick to "reality" - this is very different from half finished vapor ware. Or to put it another way, if this is vaporware, so is Apple Vision Pro at this point.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Right. The prototypes work. It’s R&D. We have no idea when, or if, this will end up in a shipping product. If they were to imply it’s a real product (didn’t read that clearly) it’s vaporware. The Vision Pro was announced. Has a release date (within a quarter), a full public SDK & simulator. They have started the hands on labs for developers around the world this week. That’s not vaporware. If it is every movie that’s been announced + shot but not released is. The modern Apple (post Jobs return) had what, one product that was announced but didn’t come out? The AirPower. And that was a real product they were in the final stages of (best I understand) but hit insurmountable safety issues. Not “hey we’re thinking this will be a thing one day”, but a failed product launch that didn’t make it to market after multiple attempts to fix it in the final stages. Apple doesn’t announce vaporware.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    <vaporcomment>
    - MBCook 3y ago
      Wow. You pointed out the exact thing I discussed in my comment.

cududa 3y ago

You’re a bit biased if you think Meta is doing anything other than marketing here, just using a different tactic. Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now. This is simply a second degree demo to Wall Street investors. Their analysts will either attend, or read reports from reputable experts. They’ve sunk $40 Billion into this project with nothing to show. Apple has reportedly spent $20 Billion while underpinning it with healthy growth and profits. Facebook shipped Quest 2 dev kits to partners that were physically disguised as clothing irons. The narrative you’re spinning is nonsense. EDIT: You’re either Boz or a lieutenant judging by your comment history. You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422

steveBK123 3y ago
Meta literally changed their name for this space, and Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product. This is clearly reactive "we have to show something" vaporware.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  > Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product ??? Meta already shipped 20M headsets. Apple won't get more than 400k of these in the field until 2025, and even then they will be so expensive barely anybody can afford it. Quite literally, whatever mass market there is, Meta owns it now and for the foreseeable future.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Oculus is capped at the gamer market size, which is in the 10M units range. Apple is targeting the wider compute market which is capped at Billions. They won't sell billions in 2025, or at the $3500 price point, but this is the market they are building towards capturing. Think of Palm Pilot vs iPhone. It's a decade-scale play. * edit: Let me just add that Apple TV hardware which is largely abandoned and afterthought product line considered unsuccessful, for example is a 13M/year item for Apple. 20M lifetime is not mass market.

steveBK123 3y ago

Another way of looking at it is - one company has a deep history of shipping successful and often innovative hardware products, and the other one doesn't. It's hard to argue that that the one that ships is taking the wrong approach.

makeitdouble 3y ago
I'm not sure if you're arguing that Meta/Occulus wasn't innovative or their hardware isn't successful. The Quest Pro would perhaps be a failure, but then will the new Mac Pro be a wild success ?
- threeseed 3y ago
  Meta acquired Occulus and so far have released only a single popular product. And no one other than yourself thinks that the Mac Pro is going to be a wild success. It's a highly niche product with the Mac Studio being the mainstream version.
  - xvector 3y ago
    Quest 2 outsold Xbox X/S. That's not bad for literally the only general consumer product they've released so far.
    - photonerd 3y ago
      It’s also a little more than half the price. It’s not bad, but it builds strongly on brand recognition as well. They were really the only major game in town. It’s a good sign for them but far from convincing
      - tomnipotent 3y ago
        > It’s also a little more than half the price The Series S is the same price, and estimates put it at around half of units sold.
  - 3y ago

electric_mayhem 3y ago

Meta used exclusivity as a marketing tactic when it was contending with MySpace. Judging by the current relative market caps of facepalm and MySpace, seems like it worked out ok.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

Will either of them let me tinker with the firmware as an unrestricted user?

zmmmmm 3y ago
Firmware, no unless you are ultra hard core. But above that layer there are pretty big distinctions. Meta is fully on the record that they are all in on making Quest completely use OpenXR as the primary API to the point of deprecating the old Oculus proprietary APIs. They also actively pushing forward the latest WebXR spec into the browser on the Quest, and sideloading of apps in general is straightforward (although you do need a developer account to do it which is unfortunate). Apple doesn't seem interested at all in open standards at the OS layer, so if you need to be happy with the fully walled garden and proprietary APIs to buy into that ecosystem. It's unclear if VisionPro will support WebXR in the browser it ships. So in terms of freedom, you will get a lot more from Quest, but its definitely sad that this whole area of computing could end up being the first that has literally no true open platform available.
- rabf 3y ago
  The Lynx R1 is pretty open.
- mlindner 3y ago
  Can you elaborate how they’re open when you need to open yourself up to adware tracking just to use the device?
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    I just said above they aren't truly open ... so I'm not sure why you're premising your statement on me believing the opposite? But in terms of how they are are "more" open, you can side load any app you want, and the headset supports open standards at both the app level (OpenXR) and browser level (WebXR).
- abecedarius 3y ago
  > you do need a developer account I guess this means "sideloading" is a privilege they can revoke at their whim, is that right? I hope I'm over-interpreting this (and not blaming you as the messenger).

iLoveOncall 3y ago

Software company VS hardware company. That's it. Meta needs as many people using their products to show ads and earn money, that's all there is to it.

rabf 3y ago
30% cut from app store sales can add up quite quickly.
interpol_p 3y ago
It’s interesting that you make this point. Because Meta’s video is _all about_ the hardware: here’s new lens design, here’s high density screen. Apple’s Vision Pro release has been all about the software: the interaction models, how to use SwiftUI to make immersive and windowed apps, the windowing model, accessibility, type readability, and every little detail related to UI I’d argue Apple is equally software and hardware
- iLoveOncall 3y ago
  In how they market yes, but not in how they make money.

baby 3y ago

I was approached by both Apple and Facebook back in the days, and decided to join Facebook instead of Apple. Why? I like to be able to post about the research I do, and I didn't like the secrecy approach of Apple. I'm guessing that this is a big factor for more than just me when choosing a company to join, especially when you do interesting things that you want to be able to share with the world. I remember reading that Mark Rober was at Apple (nobody knew about that!) and I just feel like that must have sucked massively for someone who loves making youtube videos to work in a place like that.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Thanks so much for choosing to "bring the world closer together".
- baby 3y ago
  Rock on! Connecting the world truly is a great mission imo
htormey 3y ago
Yeah, on point observation. I worked at both companies. I left Apple to work at Facebook because I wanted to be able to participate in open source projects and talk about my work with my coworkers openly.
- azemetre 3y ago
  You're banned from working on your own open source projects at Apple? Had no idea, disappointing if true. I could understand now talking about current work but if you have an open source project that's unrelated you can't publicly do anything?

catchnear4321 3y ago

meta is playing catch-up. with the brand. apple can get away with being less polite. what it delivers is enough to motivate a certain level of tolerance. apple is ecosystem. it is the front runner at the moment, and will be hard to beat. ffs this is facebook and mark zuckerberg. how does the joke go? their faces are next to the word unlikable in the dictionary? both meta and zuck are cultivating a rather incredible comeback story. for all the historical hateables, even with layoffs and rto, there are a lot of recent moves that are brilliant. second place in a martial arts tournament. threads. llama. this. both meta and zuck are starting to look downright likeable. this is no accident, and no small feat. tl;dr you seemed to have missed meta’s marketing tactic, possibly due to anti-apple bias.

gizajob 3y ago
Not likeable in my house
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  how would you judge zuck compared to musk? if that answer has flipped over the past few years, that isn’t just due to musk.
  - gizajob 3y ago
    One is the world's biggest voyeur, a creepy, dead-eyed non-human who has broken the concept and functioning of the entire internet too many times to even count, the other makes toy cars and space rockets.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      sounds like zuck still hasn’t won you over. it takes time to rehabilitate an image so tarnished. he can’t delete the congressional hearing recordings from reality.

simonsarris 3y ago

I used to call this the startup model vs the Apple model A startup begins a project often by announcing that it has almost succeed. Some open source projects and crowdfunded projects with a lot of pomp also take this approach. It is great(?) for fundraising. It is interesting that Meta chooses this since they are not looking for funding, but maybe they are looking to cultivate the same panache/ethos. A way to market to prospective employees, more than end customers. Apple denies that its even doing something until after it has succeeded. And even then it will announce it on its own terms. The Putin regime also follows this model (eg 2014 annexation of Crimea). It is great for denying competition time to catch up.

aalimov_ 3y ago

> It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab… And you believe that they are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?

joshl32532 3y ago

"Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point" Wow, how naive can you be? Because Meta's forte is ads. The hardware is just the gateway to their ecosystem where they don't have to pay Apple/Google for access to users. Companies' engineering blogs are just carefully curated marketing pieces with highly distilled technical info. It's still marketing and some people eat it up.

troupo 3y ago

> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic. Apple literally ships millions of devices on day one (that is, on the exact day they announce they will ship it). Edit: with very few notable exceptions like the wireless charger

grumbel 3y ago

> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point Ahm, are we forgetting the QuestPro? Meta tried to build their "Apple headset", 5x the price of a Quest2 and loaded with all the R&D features they could find. And it was a colossal flop. The whole thing is getting shutdown little over six months after release. They forgot to include critical features like a depth sensor, they couldn't figure out what to do with the eye tracking in their software, face tracking wasn't a feature anybody wanted and reduced the battery dramatically when actually used, passthough cameras are a blurry mess, resolution is too low to work as actual desktop replacement, etc. The whole thing, despite 5x the price, was firmly stuck at just being a slightly better Quest2. Meta spend the last seven years building a portable Oculus Rift, and they succeeded at that, but despite billions in R&D they haven't really managed to advanced VR beyond that point.

zmmmmm 3y ago
well, that's why I said "no real interest" They delivered a product, but it's clear they simply don't have the commitment required to actually see it through. Quest Pro is actually great for what it is, but they seem completely clueless about how to actually market something to business or professional users. The software on it is 100% identical to the Quest 2, designed entirely for gaming. Just the fact they couldn't be bothered even slightly differentiating the software shows they just don't even understand the distinctions b/w the spaces.

esskay 3y ago

I think the biggest difference is Meta is happy to put out an incomplete product and iterate. The standard Quest 2 for example leaves a lot to be desired on the software side, but instead of waiting for years to perfect it they shoved it out there with the expectation that people would understand and accept that its very much an evolving platform. Apples approach is that they wont release until its ready for use by the average joe. The expectation that you get it and it works out of the box without needing to be too technical is where they thrive. This isn't to say one approach is better or worse, just different.

seydor 3y ago

it's pretty much the approach of every company except apple