6 ms·

Shades of Apple licensing the Mac OS to clone hardware vendors in 1995 - 1997. It seems like Meta will be controlling the software experience quite closely, jus

by pavlov 3y ago

Shades of Apple licensing the Mac OS to clone hardware vendors in 1995 - 1997. It seems like Meta will be controlling the software experience quite closely, just like Apple did back in the day. There’s an important difference though: Apple made all their money on Mac hardware margins which the nimble clone vendors could undercut. Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always been sold at breakeven or even as a loss leader (a few years ago they actually raised the price of the Quest 2 to cut further losses). So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either.

samspenc 3y ago
Like other comments have pointed out, I think of this as similar to how Google controls the Android OS. While theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of Android (Google services etc) require a license from Google along with their Play store, so Google makes revenue from there. Certainly more open (edited) than the Apple ecosystem, but still controlled by one (big) player, with a little bit of flexibility but not a whole lot.
- ec109685 3y ago
  You’re discounting the huge number of android devices that use it as a base OS. E.g. Amazon and Peloton use android without Google services for consumer devices.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    These are devices built with a specific use case in mind that need an operating system that is easy to develop for. Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones. Even Amazon's own phone flopped pretty hard.
    - indymike 3y ago
      Kindle tablets on the other hand have done well.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones You may have forgotten about China: Huawei smartphones are doing very well on an AOSP-based OS. Edit: Google was concerned about a Chinese fork of Android flourishing, they wrote to congress at the time the tech-transfer ban was being condidered
    - rchaud 3y ago
      The thing about Android is that a device doesn't have to make headway by selling 100 million units plus to continue being adapted to many different types of devices. In any case, the Play store can be sideloaded on every Android device even if it isn't officially supported.
    - kernal 3y ago
      >Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones. Even Amazon's own phone flopped pretty hard. Not much headway? Pretty much all Android phones used in China do not come with GMS.
- bsharper 3y ago
  Amazon used AOSP to create tons of their products. Even if most Android devices have the Play Store, there are successful variants that don't. And I'd even include Meta's Quest line here: every headset since the Go has the ability to sideload apks using standard Android tools.
  - hadlock 3y ago
    My quest (1) I bought on launch day got an OS update and now I have to find my old credentials to log in (and thus accept some (probably) draconian EULA, just to enable developer mode to side load apps on there. You can't just plug a USB stick in the side and copy paste them to "side_loaded_apps" dir it's still a ridiculous task of doing backflips through flaming hoops to use it as an open device. And it may yet again reset my login.
- talldayo 3y ago
  > A bit more open than the Apple ecosystem It is not "a bit more open" than iOS, it is a completely different approach to OS development that enables wildly different results. > While theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of Android That stuff is by no means necessary; I've run Android without Google services for years and it just feels like a normal tablet OS. Again, it is not "theoretically open" but in fact practically usable without any first-party services, unlike iOS.
  - throwaway21321 3y ago
    as an apple fan i can assure you this is exactly what I think, I just prefer the results that Apple's approach enables and wish legislators would let consumers choose it as opposed to forcing the results to look more like Android
    - talldayo 3y ago
      You can choose. If Apple services are all you intend to patronize, then legislation won't stop you; it does stop Apple from using their dominant position to enforce less competitive terms for their competition. If you depend on Apple's market abuse to use your iPhone, I'll just tell you now; it's time to find a new workflow. Have you ever used a Mac? It's a great example of what the iPhone will look like, in a few years. You boot it up, log in, and open up the App Store... and it's only junk. Freemium apps with monthly microtransactions, paid trial versions of professional software you have to buy from the web, iPhone games that are barely anything more than a casino with flashy graphics... these are the developers that choose to stay with Apple when they get the choice. They'll be your only bedfellows if you're dumb enough to use an iPhone that only Apple curates.
  - samspenc 3y ago
    :D Fair, I didn't want to be yelled at by the Apple fanbase that comes out in defense to comments like this, have edited my original post with a note.
bonton89 3y ago
> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. Why would I, as a potential hardware maker, wish to compete in a market where the existing main producer is a mega wealthy entity that is already dumping product below cost and is capable of doing so indefinitely?
- distortedsignal 3y ago
  The low end of the market is taken - but (from an outsider perspective) the high end appears free. The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people who want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially) the same parts. Let's say that, tomorrow, Gucci or Dolce and Gabanna (or however you spell that) want to make a VR headset (why? who knows?). They don't have the tech acumen to compete with Facebook on experience, but they have the brand to compete on "people who want to be seen in Gucci." Is there a market for that? I don't know. But this opens Facebook up to the possibility of making that deal.
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    I strongly disagree that the low end of the market is taken. XReal's Air/2 are awesome and Moore suggests we'll see awesome displays in that form factor, not even necessarily from XReal.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Or more like those Lamborghini and Porsche branded phones.
  - distortedsignal 3y ago
    Someone teach this man how to spell "Gabbana".
  - theptip 3y ago
    Don’t agree with this take. I’m sure Meta would be fine with other vendors taking over the low-end, if that meant there was a vibrant platform they controlled (ie the OS). They will lead with flagship models to push the boundaries of what the OS/tech can do. Why would they want to sell at/below cost forever? The reason they do this now is to make the platform viable. The only reason they are focusing on cheaper devices now is to build the platform and try to get more users, to in turn get more data on what the killer usecases will be. Think of this as a play like Android. Google doesn’t care what goes on in the commodified end of the spectrum, as long as there is one. Google does ship flagship phones (in competition with eg Samsung) and that is fine.
_giorgio_ 3y ago
Why should it be different than Google and Android? Google makes medium and high cost devices, but actually doesn't compete too much on margins. If the OS catches up, meta will do the same move, allowing other vendors to proliferate.
giuseppe_petri 3y ago
> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. How does Meta make its money? Advertising. Licensees bring actual eyeballs to the table and eat the hardware costs fighting amongst themselves selling commodity hardware and Meta re-position Quest as a 'premium' product that they might actually make a little money on.
nvy 3y ago
>Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always been sold at breakeven or even as a loss leader (a few years ago they actually raised the price of the Quest 2 to cut further losses). Indeed, and that means they'll seek a return on their investment from continued invasive surveillance, emotional manipulation, and cramming ads everywhere.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
The other important difference between Apple then and Meta now is that Apple wasn't in a position that subjected it to possible (government) regulation. Meta has to try to play nice. Perhaps few vendors bite? But when the regulation noise increases - and it will - Meta can say it tried.
hankchinaski 3y ago
They are not looking to make margins on the OS or the hardware. They want adoption and distribution. The money will be made later on extracting value from the ecosystem they are trying to build. Whether that is with a higher end product later on, monetising the OS/ecosystem later on with ads or app fees is not relevant at Thai stage. What they are trying to do is to build a new ecosystem that they are entrenched and that they control firmly. They are trying to build the android of VR to put it simply

by pavlov 3y ago

samspenc 3y ago

Like other comments have pointed out, I think of this as similar to how Google controls the Android OS. While theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of Android (Google services etc) require a license from Google along with their Play store, so Google makes revenue from there. Certainly more open (edited) than the Apple ecosystem, but still controlled by one (big) player, with a little bit of flexibility but not a whole lot.

ec109685 3y ago
You’re discounting the huge number of android devices that use it as a base OS. E.g. Amazon and Peloton use android without Google services for consumer devices.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  These are devices built with a specific use case in mind that need an operating system that is easy to develop for. Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones. Even Amazon's own phone flopped pretty hard.
  - indymike 3y ago
    Kindle tablets on the other hand have done well.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones You may have forgotten about China: Huawei smartphones are doing very well on an AOSP-based OS. Edit: Google was concerned about a Chinese fork of Android flourishing, they wrote to congress at the time the tech-transfer ban was being condidered
  - rchaud 3y ago
    The thing about Android is that a device doesn't have to make headway by selling 100 million units plus to continue being adapted to many different types of devices. In any case, the Play store can be sideloaded on every Android device even if it isn't officially supported.
  - kernal 3y ago
    >Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much headway in markets like smartphones. Even Amazon's own phone flopped pretty hard. Not much headway? Pretty much all Android phones used in China do not come with GMS.
bsharper 3y ago
Amazon used AOSP to create tons of their products. Even if most Android devices have the Play Store, there are successful variants that don't. And I'd even include Meta's Quest line here: every headset since the Go has the ability to sideload apks using standard Android tools.
- hadlock 3y ago
  My quest (1) I bought on launch day got an OS update and now I have to find my old credentials to log in (and thus accept some (probably) draconian EULA, just to enable developer mode to side load apps on there. You can't just plug a USB stick in the side and copy paste them to "side_loaded_apps" dir it's still a ridiculous task of doing backflips through flaming hoops to use it as an open device. And it may yet again reset my login.
talldayo 3y ago
> A bit more open than the Apple ecosystem It is not "a bit more open" than iOS, it is a completely different approach to OS development that enables wildly different results. > While theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of Android That stuff is by no means necessary; I've run Android without Google services for years and it just feels like a normal tablet OS. Again, it is not "theoretically open" but in fact practically usable without any first-party services, unlike iOS.
- throwaway21321 3y ago
  as an apple fan i can assure you this is exactly what I think, I just prefer the results that Apple's approach enables and wish legislators would let consumers choose it as opposed to forcing the results to look more like Android
  - talldayo 3y ago
    You can choose. If Apple services are all you intend to patronize, then legislation won't stop you; it does stop Apple from using their dominant position to enforce less competitive terms for their competition. If you depend on Apple's market abuse to use your iPhone, I'll just tell you now; it's time to find a new workflow. Have you ever used a Mac? It's a great example of what the iPhone will look like, in a few years. You boot it up, log in, and open up the App Store... and it's only junk. Freemium apps with monthly microtransactions, paid trial versions of professional software you have to buy from the web, iPhone games that are barely anything more than a casino with flashy graphics... these are the developers that choose to stay with Apple when they get the choice. They'll be your only bedfellows if you're dumb enough to use an iPhone that only Apple curates.
- samspenc 3y ago
  :D Fair, I didn't want to be yelled at by the Apple fanbase that comes out in defense to comments like this, have edited my original post with a note.

bonton89 3y ago

> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. Why would I, as a potential hardware maker, wish to compete in a market where the existing main producer is a mega wealthy entity that is already dumping product below cost and is capable of doing so indefinitely?

distortedsignal 3y ago
The low end of the market is taken - but (from an outsider perspective) the high end appears free. The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people who want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially) the same parts. Let's say that, tomorrow, Gucci or Dolce and Gabanna (or however you spell that) want to make a VR headset (why? who knows?). They don't have the tech acumen to compete with Facebook on experience, but they have the brand to compete on "people who want to be seen in Gucci." Is there a market for that? I don't know. But this opens Facebook up to the possibility of making that deal.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  I strongly disagree that the low end of the market is taken. XReal's Air/2 are awesome and Moore suggests we'll see awesome displays in that form factor, not even necessarily from XReal.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Or more like those Lamborghini and Porsche branded phones.
- distortedsignal 3y ago
  Someone teach this man how to spell "Gabbana".
- theptip 3y ago
  Don’t agree with this take. I’m sure Meta would be fine with other vendors taking over the low-end, if that meant there was a vibrant platform they controlled (ie the OS). They will lead with flagship models to push the boundaries of what the OS/tech can do. Why would they want to sell at/below cost forever? The reason they do this now is to make the platform viable. The only reason they are focusing on cheaper devices now is to build the platform and try to get more users, to in turn get more data on what the killer usecases will be. Think of this as a play like Android. Google doesn’t care what goes on in the commodified end of the spectrum, as long as there is one. Google does ship flagship phones (in competition with eg Samsung) and that is fine.

_giorgio_ 3y ago

Why should it be different than Google and Android? Google makes medium and high cost devices, but actually doesn't compete too much on margins. If the OS catches up, meta will do the same move, allowing other vendors to proliferate.

giuseppe_petri 3y ago

> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. How does Meta make its money? Advertising. Licensees bring actual eyeballs to the table and eat the hardware costs fighting amongst themselves selling commodity hardware and Meta re-position Quest as a 'premium' product that they might actually make a little money on.

nvy 3y ago

>Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always been sold at breakeven or even as a loss leader (a few years ago they actually raised the price of the Quest 2 to cut further losses). Indeed, and that means they'll seek a return on their investment from continued invasive surveillance, emotional manipulation, and cramming ads everywhere.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

The other important difference between Apple then and Meta now is that Apple wasn't in a position that subjected it to possible (government) regulation. Meta has to try to play nice. Perhaps few vendors bite? But when the regulation noise increases - and it will - Meta can say it tried.

hankchinaski 3y ago

They are not looking to make margins on the OS or the hardware. They want adoption and distribution. The money will be made later on extracting value from the ecosystem they are trying to build. Whether that is with a higher end product later on, monetising the OS/ecosystem later on with ads or app fees is not relevant at Thai stage. What they are trying to do is to build a new ecosystem that they are entrenched and that they control firmly. They are trying to build the android of VR to put it simply