2 ms·

>The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. Both of which are complete dealbre

>The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. Both of which are complete dealbreakers. AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish. You're right, both probably won't reach mass-market appeal, but the two certainly aren't comparable in any metric other than reach.

dougmwne 3y ago
Could be? If Quest 3 can deliver a nausea free experience then it may hit the same use cases as the Vision Pro. The controllers are also extremely precise, so Apple would need to pull off a nice trick to get hand tracking to that same level.
MPSimmons 3y ago
Interesting. You see the inclusion of controllers as a bad thing?
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish. Not for me. I had loads of fun gaming on the Quest 2 in the pandemic lockdowns, and the controllers really help with gaming by providing accurate controls for weapons' triggers and haptics to feel weapons firing and when the tension in the bow before you fire arrow. Good luck feeling all that via waving your empty hands in the air. I feel like HN simply loves to hate certain things without understanding them or using them, like the Quest while never actually using it for games and expecting it to be an early Apple Vision PRO. It's not, it was designed to be a games console, and for that it works quite well.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  It also feels like there's a Paretto principle of VR experiences that people seem eager to avoid; the last '20%' of experiences offered by PCVR or Vision Pro might not be worth it. Even as a tech nerd, I don't really find myself pining for an upgrade to my original Quest. It offers the '80%' of the experience I'd actually want a headset for. I can watch 3D movies in bed, play immersive games or browse the internet surrounded by tabs. Adding iMessage to that equation will probably not be worth $3,000 for the average consumer. Given the direction digital markets are headed (and the open precedent of VR), I think Meta is right to bet on that '80%'. It's much easier to pitch a console like the Quest than an overly-ambitious lockdown-helmet that costs as much as 2 used cars. Until Apple announces a better Vision lineup, it's going to be a bloodbath in terms of unit shipments.

dougmwne 3y ago

Could be? If Quest 3 can deliver a nausea free experience then it may hit the same use cases as the Vision Pro. The controllers are also extremely precise, so Apple would need to pull off a nice trick to get hand tracking to that same level.

MPSimmons 3y ago

Interesting. You see the inclusion of controllers as a bad thing?

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish. Not for me. I had loads of fun gaming on the Quest 2 in the pandemic lockdowns, and the controllers really help with gaming by providing accurate controls for weapons' triggers and haptics to feel weapons firing and when the tension in the bow before you fire arrow. Good luck feeling all that via waving your empty hands in the air. I feel like HN simply loves to hate certain things without understanding them or using them, like the Quest while never actually using it for games and expecting it to be an early Apple Vision PRO. It's not, it was designed to be a games console, and for that it works quite well.

smoldesu 3y ago
It also feels like there's a Paretto principle of VR experiences that people seem eager to avoid; the last '20%' of experiences offered by PCVR or Vision Pro might not be worth it. Even as a tech nerd, I don't really find myself pining for an upgrade to my original Quest. It offers the '80%' of the experience I'd actually want a headset for. I can watch 3D movies in bed, play immersive games or browse the internet surrounded by tabs. Adding iMessage to that equation will probably not be worth $3,000 for the average consumer. Given the direction digital markets are headed (and the open precedent of VR), I think Meta is right to bet on that '80%'. It's much easier to pitch a console like the Quest than an overly-ambitious lockdown-helmet that costs as much as 2 used cars. Until Apple announces a better Vision lineup, it's going to be a bloodbath in terms of unit shipments.