5 ms·

When the Apple Lisa debuted in 1983 it cost $9,995 (equivalent to $29,400 in 2022). The Lisa wasn’t a success but the personal computer was - I think there are

When the Apple Lisa debuted in 1983 it cost $9,995 (equivalent to $29,400 in 2022). The Lisa wasn’t a success but the personal computer was - I think there are some parallels to draw here

seydor 3y ago
except quest 2 costs $300 and Q3 costs $500. And they already exist
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Because Apple is selling this for $3500, the Q4 will be $1500.
- haswell 3y ago
  It is not fair to compare the Quest devices, given what we know about the Vision Pro so far. The AR functionality on current-gen gaming headsets is terrible, and the screen door effect is glaringly obvious. What Apple is advertising blows the Oculus devices away. Whether the difference is worth the extra $3000 is a question that has yet to be answered, but it’s a category error to compare them directly.
  - seydor 3y ago
    Every functionality that i see in these videos already exists in Q3, but presumably in lower resolution. Is hardware going to be the differentiator that makes it so much more useful? It's also theoretical atm
    - piva00 3y ago
      During the first iPhone release nay-sayers also brought up that the Blackberries already did what the iPhone did, it didn't stop it. The iPad was just "a big iPhone" that no one was going to buy, the Apple Watch was just another smartwatch, the iPod was just another MP3 player, etc. Apple historically has been able to improve on current existing technology to deliver an experience that the rest of the industry had to catch up to, they aren't in the business of releasing completely new unseen product types since the 80s...
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        In fairness to the naysayers, nothing Apple has released yet is like this. The price is enormous even by Apple's standards, and the value proposition appears to be entirely unproven. Only time will tell where the market goes with this one. Just concluding off pricing alone though, I think it's ridiculous to expect Vision Pro to be remotely as successful as the iPad or even the Apple Watch. Cupertino has their work cut out for them on this one, that's for sure.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      Apple's device isn't tethered, so it's usefulness isn't constrained to a few feet from your computer.
      - seydor 3y ago
        q2 + q3 are wireless?
        Rudism 3y ago
        The Quest devices are all fully wireless and have a pretty decent existing library of Quest-specific games and apps that you can play even if you don't own a computer. You could also connect them to a PC wirelessly and play any PC VR games that your computer is capable of running. It used to be a little more cumbersome to set up, but Valve recently released a native SteamLink app on the Quest store that vastly simplifies the whole PC VR experience.
      - wan23 3y ago
        The Quest is fully cordless whereas the Vision Pro has a cord that goes to a battery pack that you wear on your waist. Though neither device requires you to be tethered to a computer.
        Clubber 3y ago
        Oh I didn't realize that. I thought all VR up to this point required a computer video card. I'm out of the loop.
        vel0city 3y ago
        Even the original Oculus Quest had an untethered mode, and didn't even require an external battery pack. That was released in May 2019.
    - haswell 3y ago
      > Is hardware going to be the differentiator that makes it so much more useful? The tech journalists who got an early look seem to think so. Obviously time will tell if this holds up under real world conditions. I was a VR early adopter and have used the best consumer units available. The thing that always held it back for me was the obvious screen door effect and the isolation of these headsets. Apple seems to have focused on both of these issues, which makes the device intriguing. Being able to immediately interact with the room in high fidelity will make a huge difference. The AR mode on the Valve Index is awful, but also really cool. If Apple delivers on half of the room AR, it’s a huge step forward. And a lack of screen door effect makes it viable for real productivity use cases.
    - curioussavage 3y ago
      Quest 3 screens are lower res, just barely enough to make text somewhat workable for me. It is also missing the eye tracking. Latency with hand tracking is not as good I hear and the passthrough is also lower res. Also the software is much more restrictive. Barely any “flat” apps and doesn’t support the hybrid 2d apps with depth. Also can’t pin apps around a physical space. Some of that is coming but it’s clearly way behind in terms of software features. Which I’ll add lower latency streaming from other devices to as well
      - bm-rf 3y ago
        Passthrough also is pretty poor quality, enough to navigate a room but too blurry to read text and the cameras don't handle phone screens that well. Definitely usable but you'll notice you're still wearing a headset.
- elicash 3y ago
  And in 1983, some retailers sold the Commodore 64 for as little as $199 (which would be $614 in today's dollars). I don't think their point was to suggest there are no less expensive alternatives.
- dagmx 3y ago
  People always make the mistake, year after year, product after product, of doing simple paper comparisons of features and drawing similarity conclusions between different products. They miss that implementation and ecosystem are things that you don’t see on paper. The Quest 3 offers many of the same technical points on paper, but it’s also not capable of many of the things the Vision Pro can deliver. Whether that’s multitasking, or having a massive media+App Library, or having a warp free passthrough. The products aren’t comparable anymore than comparing a budget/subsidized Android phone with a high end Android/iOS phone. They do the same thing, but the details matter.
  - Miraste 3y ago
    People saying the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro both support AR reminds me of the feature comparison checklists back in the day between iPhones and Windows Mobile. Yeah, they both have a "browser." They both have "apps." Turns out there's a difference.
    - seec 3y ago
      Expect there were extremely large differences both in software (how you could use your device, with just a finger instead of stylus) and hardware (glass and better overall display). And they did that at the same price the high-end phones were at the time. The Vision Pro is nothing like this, in hardware it is a noticeable improvement to what already exists (but not that big compared to the latest gear in the premium segment) and the software is largely a copy of what already exists with no clear use case. You could say the eye/hand tracking is the killer feature but it has to been seen how reliable it actually is in practice and it doesn't enable any particular application. In fact, it seems obvious that for many things done in VR people will quickly need to associate some controller. All that at 3 times (at least) the price of the closest competitors. The iPhone worked not because it was a magical innovation, but because it was the recipe that had all the right ingredients in the good proportions following the right cooking process; at a palatable price. Pretending otherwise is history bending. But you can always wish and dream, I'll give you that much.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- drcongo 3y ago
  You'd need to pay me a LOT more than that to use cameras and microphones on something connected to Facebook.
- rkuykendall-com 3y ago
  And at a lower price point, you get Wifi and more storage with the Nomad.

When the Apple Lisa debuted in 1983 it cost $9,995 (equivalent to $29,400 in 2022). The Lisa wasn’t a success but the personal computer was - I think there are some parallels to draw here

seydor 3y ago

except quest 2 costs $300 and Q3 costs $500. And they already exist

HumblyTossed 3y ago
Because Apple is selling this for $3500, the Q4 will be $1500.
haswell 3y ago
It is not fair to compare the Quest devices, given what we know about the Vision Pro so far. The AR functionality on current-gen gaming headsets is terrible, and the screen door effect is glaringly obvious. What Apple is advertising blows the Oculus devices away. Whether the difference is worth the extra $3000 is a question that has yet to be answered, but it’s a category error to compare them directly.
- seydor 3y ago
  Every functionality that i see in these videos already exists in Q3, but presumably in lower resolution. Is hardware going to be the differentiator that makes it so much more useful? It's also theoretical atm
  - piva00 3y ago
    During the first iPhone release nay-sayers also brought up that the Blackberries already did what the iPhone did, it didn't stop it. The iPad was just "a big iPhone" that no one was going to buy, the Apple Watch was just another smartwatch, the iPod was just another MP3 player, etc. Apple historically has been able to improve on current existing technology to deliver an experience that the rest of the industry had to catch up to, they aren't in the business of releasing completely new unseen product types since the 80s...
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      In fairness to the naysayers, nothing Apple has released yet is like this. The price is enormous even by Apple's standards, and the value proposition appears to be entirely unproven. Only time will tell where the market goes with this one. Just concluding off pricing alone though, I think it's ridiculous to expect Vision Pro to be remotely as successful as the iPad or even the Apple Watch. Cupertino has their work cut out for them on this one, that's for sure.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Apple's device isn't tethered, so it's usefulness isn't constrained to a few feet from your computer.
    - seydor 3y ago
      q2 + q3 are wireless?
      - Rudism 3y ago
        The Quest devices are all fully wireless and have a pretty decent existing library of Quest-specific games and apps that you can play even if you don't own a computer. You could also connect them to a PC wirelessly and play any PC VR games that your computer is capable of running. It used to be a little more cumbersome to set up, but Valve recently released a native SteamLink app on the Quest store that vastly simplifies the whole PC VR experience.
    - wan23 3y ago
      The Quest is fully cordless whereas the Vision Pro has a cord that goes to a battery pack that you wear on your waist. Though neither device requires you to be tethered to a computer.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        Oh I didn't realize that. I thought all VR up to this point required a computer video card. I'm out of the loop.
        vel0city 3y ago
        Even the original Oculus Quest had an untethered mode, and didn't even require an external battery pack. That was released in May 2019.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > Is hardware going to be the differentiator that makes it so much more useful? The tech journalists who got an early look seem to think so. Obviously time will tell if this holds up under real world conditions. I was a VR early adopter and have used the best consumer units available. The thing that always held it back for me was the obvious screen door effect and the isolation of these headsets. Apple seems to have focused on both of these issues, which makes the device intriguing. Being able to immediately interact with the room in high fidelity will make a huge difference. The AR mode on the Valve Index is awful, but also really cool. If Apple delivers on half of the room AR, it’s a huge step forward. And a lack of screen door effect makes it viable for real productivity use cases.
  - curioussavage 3y ago
    Quest 3 screens are lower res, just barely enough to make text somewhat workable for me. It is also missing the eye tracking. Latency with hand tracking is not as good I hear and the passthrough is also lower res. Also the software is much more restrictive. Barely any “flat” apps and doesn’t support the hybrid 2d apps with depth. Also can’t pin apps around a physical space. Some of that is coming but it’s clearly way behind in terms of software features. Which I’ll add lower latency streaming from other devices to as well
    - bm-rf 3y ago
      Passthrough also is pretty poor quality, enough to navigate a room but too blurry to read text and the cameras don't handle phone screens that well. Definitely usable but you'll notice you're still wearing a headset.
elicash 3y ago
And in 1983, some retailers sold the Commodore 64 for as little as $199 (which would be $614 in today's dollars). I don't think their point was to suggest there are no less expensive alternatives.
dagmx 3y ago
People always make the mistake, year after year, product after product, of doing simple paper comparisons of features and drawing similarity conclusions between different products. They miss that implementation and ecosystem are things that you don’t see on paper. The Quest 3 offers many of the same technical points on paper, but it’s also not capable of many of the things the Vision Pro can deliver. Whether that’s multitasking, or having a massive media+App Library, or having a warp free passthrough. The products aren’t comparable anymore than comparing a budget/subsidized Android phone with a high end Android/iOS phone. They do the same thing, but the details matter.
- Miraste 3y ago
  People saying the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro both support AR reminds me of the feature comparison checklists back in the day between iPhones and Windows Mobile. Yeah, they both have a "browser." They both have "apps." Turns out there's a difference.
  - seec 3y ago
    Expect there were extremely large differences both in software (how you could use your device, with just a finger instead of stylus) and hardware (glass and better overall display). And they did that at the same price the high-end phones were at the time. The Vision Pro is nothing like this, in hardware it is a noticeable improvement to what already exists (but not that big compared to the latest gear in the premium segment) and the software is largely a copy of what already exists with no clear use case. You could say the eye/hand tracking is the killer feature but it has to been seen how reliable it actually is in practice and it doesn't enable any particular application. In fact, it seems obvious that for many things done in VR people will quickly need to associate some controller. All that at 3 times (at least) the price of the closest competitors. The iPhone worked not because it was a magical innovation, but because it was the recipe that had all the right ingredients in the good proportions following the right cooking process; at a palatable price. Pretending otherwise is history bending. But you can always wish and dream, I'll give you that much.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
drcongo 3y ago
You'd need to pay me a LOT more than that to use cameras and microphones on something connected to Facebook.
rkuykendall-com 3y ago
And at a lower price point, you get Wifi and more storage with the Nomad.