8 ms·

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 wh

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 2y 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 2y ago
Or more like those Lamborghini and Porsche branded phones.
distortedsignal 2y ago
Someone teach this man how to spell "Gabbana".
theptip 2y 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.
- distortedsignal 2y ago
  My point is that there is more to "VR Headset Market" than just "low end" - low end is one part of the market, but (right now) Facebook has that part locked up. It may be that there are more places to compete in the VR Headset Market that people on HN don't know about. Like you said, this is probably something like an Android play. Everyone was talking about the Apple Vision Pro as the VR Market's "iPhone moment" when it came out - maybe Meta Vision OS (or whatever they're calling it) is Facebook's Android moment. And yeah, Facebook would probably be ok with others taking the low end of the market if they do it well. Right now, Facebook is the only company willing to take a loss on their own platform. So they do.
  - asrael_io 2y ago
    Not really sure if the Vision Pro could be called the iPhone of VR. It's not nearly as popular and its demand has ground to a halt.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      It is a wonderful indispensable device for a very special market. Particular Mac users who happen to particularly like the physical and mental ergonomics, and locational and furniture freedom, of arrangeable virtual screens and a beautiful visual isolation chamber on demand. (And in my case, who have dramatically customized the light shield and straps to be super comfortable for long periods. I would buy the next version at twice the price if it came out tomorrow. And give up a lot to do it. But that is a VERY niche market. There are only three of us happy campers, after the return wave. It is definitely not an iPhone - yet. Personally, I think they should lean into it as a MacBook Pro killer. Make it a first class pro computing device. That is a good rationale for keeping around a high end spec, high priced version. Then have Air versions when it becomes possible to ship a cheap enough iOS-computing level version for the masses.
      - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
        And that's why Meta will fail. The company doesn't have the branding or the technical imagination to create either a mass-appeal or a high-end prestige product. Apple has both, and its best VR effort appeals to a few thousand people. As long as VR is limited to facehuggers the market will remain niche. VR glasses are a good few years (decades?) off. In the meantime Apple will eat the high end and probably some of the low end. So where does that leave Meta? It doesn't help that Meta is more of an annoyance than brand. I'm not sure anyone actually likes Meta or Meta's products. While they're tolerated to some extent, they're perceived as fundamentally boring or irritating in a way that is deadly for brands.
potatolicious 2y ago
It feels less like low vs. high-end and more like specialized vs. general hardware. For example, if you're selling VR headsets for the purposes of industrial training, you may not want the consumer-grade hardware Meta is selling. You may need weather-sealing to allow outdoor operation. You may need vastly higher-resolution screens for industrial applications. The list of specializations goes on. The specialized businesses tend to have wider moats and bigger margins. The TAM is smaller - too small for a mega-cap company like Meta to care about, but nonetheless can contribute to the health of the ecosystem. This play gives influence over these niche, specialized uses of AR/VR without having to commit the entire company to it. For example think of a medical instruments company that trains on VR headsets. Their choices right now are to use consumer-grade hardware which may not hit all of their needs, or become a full-on AR/VR company with all the requisite R&D that involves. This allows these companies to exist in the middle ground - having the core R&D being done by another party, but having sufficient control to ship specialized hardware.
mdasen 2y ago
I feel like this is a bit off. There have been things like Porsche phones, but those are so niche that I don't think they're really worth considering. They happened, but they haven't been a long-standing product. They were a cash grab where they licensed a brand. Now, Hondas and Acuras are different products. You can say "oh, they're essentially the same" and if you truly believe that, I'll sell you a Core i3 processor for the price of a Core i7. Yea, they're essentially the same, but it's the differences that make one better than the other. The point is that the high end isn't about branding. The high end is about capability. Apple has shown that their iPhone will outsell any luxury-branded Android phone to rich people because some things are about capability, not a logo. Samsung's flagships will way outsell some luxury logo smartphone too. The high end here is really about devices with better capabilities and it allows companies with good hardware businesses (like ASUS and Lenovo) to build something in the Meta VR ecosystem. It's also possibly a way for Meta to stop dumping Quest devices. They'd rather just own the ecosystem rather than doing the hardware. If they can get ASUS, Lenovo, and others to do the low-margin hardware work and pick up the tab for a lot of the marketing, that's a win for Meta. Maybe Meta simply backs out of hardware over the next 5 years if a nice third party hardware ecosystem arises. But I think this is going to be tough with VR. When you're trying to make an immersive experience, you need a baseline of hardware. It's also easier when you know the hardware you're trying to target. Android development can be frustrating because there's so much variance in speed and capabilities. One of the reason gaming consoles exist is that targeting a small set of hardware/capabilities makes things easier. That's not to say that PC gaming doesn't exist, but it can be hard because gamers need to spend a lot of money on hardware and there's a variance in capabilities that you need to account for - and who you might simply exclude. With a phone, it's less of an immersive experience for most apps which are just displaying something. They might display it slower, the UX might be laggier, etc. but it works. VR can't be laggy. In some ways, it feels like Meta is trying to become a game console company without having to subsidize the console. That would be big if they can pull it off. I guess in many ways this is what Steam pulled off on the PC - taking a 30% cut without having to subsidize any hardware. We'll see if Meta can do the same for VR.
- zztop44 2y ago
  I don’t disagree with your core point, but branding is about a lot more than a logo. I think iPhones do sell to rich people because of branding, because iPhone’s brand basically is “the best possible phone you can get, plus it integrates seamlessly with your other Apple devices”. And Samsung flagships’ brand is “the best Android phone”. Porsche, or whatever, have a great and meaningful brand when it comes to cars, but that doesn’t translate to smartphones. So when you see a phone with the Porsche logo the brand isn’t really gonna do much for you.
s0rce 2y ago
Reminds me of the Vertu cell phone, which the iPhone basically killed.
stronglikedan 2y ago
> 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. Nit, but as an Acura driver (chooser), I can tell you that they are definitely not essentially the same parts. The irrelevant parts are the same, but everything that matters to the driver (suspension/drivetrain, interior materials, technology, etc.) all all different and better in the Acura. I get what you're trying to say, but that was not a good metaphor.
- joking 2y ago
  when you say something it's better, you should add better in what angle, because Acura suspension can be better for high speed cornering in a circuit, but suck if you leave in a place with bad road surface, and the honda suspension can be both softer and cheaper to replace. Anyway, I also get what you're trying to say.
- haiku2077 2y ago
  This depends on the model. I have an Acura project car and most of my performance relevant parts are Honda part numbers. Interior is the main exception. Heck, I've got a Civic intake manifold in the room with me to replace the Acura one, haha. (The generation of K series after mine has better airflow and it's an easy enough swap.) The Acura brand doesn't even exist outside of the US- if a car is sold in Europe or Japan the parts are Honda.
0x457 2y ago
Yes, but also there are currently so few components to pick from. SoC is definitely some kind of variation of Snapdragon XR2 unless you're Apple. Can't go into high-end because for a device to make sense either an existing ecosystem around it or high confidence in one appearing. If you tell me that I can buy a 3k dollar vr headset that can run current quest library, I would pretend you're joking. Mid-end is where we're at right now has/had very small margins because despite it being mid-end - you still have to use high-end components due to lack of options. I can see someone like Porsche Design making a "high-end" headset (in terms of price, components would be the same). The only option for low-end is to use components previously used in mid-end that would need to compete with used previous gens since they would be nearly identical on the hardware level.
v01d4lph4 2y ago
I think their RayBay Meta Glasses is a great example of a product like that!
barfingclouds 2y ago
Wouldn’t we call the Apple Vision Pro the high end?

rokkitmensch 2y 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 2y ago

Or more like those Lamborghini and Porsche branded phones.

distortedsignal 2y ago

Someone teach this man how to spell "Gabbana".

theptip 2y 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.

distortedsignal 2y ago
My point is that there is more to "VR Headset Market" than just "low end" - low end is one part of the market, but (right now) Facebook has that part locked up. It may be that there are more places to compete in the VR Headset Market that people on HN don't know about. Like you said, this is probably something like an Android play. Everyone was talking about the Apple Vision Pro as the VR Market's "iPhone moment" when it came out - maybe Meta Vision OS (or whatever they're calling it) is Facebook's Android moment. And yeah, Facebook would probably be ok with others taking the low end of the market if they do it well. Right now, Facebook is the only company willing to take a loss on their own platform. So they do.
- asrael_io 2y ago
  Not really sure if the Vision Pro could be called the iPhone of VR. It's not nearly as popular and its demand has ground to a halt.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    It is a wonderful indispensable device for a very special market. Particular Mac users who happen to particularly like the physical and mental ergonomics, and locational and furniture freedom, of arrangeable virtual screens and a beautiful visual isolation chamber on demand. (And in my case, who have dramatically customized the light shield and straps to be super comfortable for long periods. I would buy the next version at twice the price if it came out tomorrow. And give up a lot to do it. But that is a VERY niche market. There are only three of us happy campers, after the return wave. It is definitely not an iPhone - yet. Personally, I think they should lean into it as a MacBook Pro killer. Make it a first class pro computing device. That is a good rationale for keeping around a high end spec, high priced version. Then have Air versions when it becomes possible to ship a cheap enough iOS-computing level version for the masses.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      And that's why Meta will fail. The company doesn't have the branding or the technical imagination to create either a mass-appeal or a high-end prestige product. Apple has both, and its best VR effort appeals to a few thousand people. As long as VR is limited to facehuggers the market will remain niche. VR glasses are a good few years (decades?) off. In the meantime Apple will eat the high end and probably some of the low end. So where does that leave Meta? It doesn't help that Meta is more of an annoyance than brand. I'm not sure anyone actually likes Meta or Meta's products. While they're tolerated to some extent, they're perceived as fundamentally boring or irritating in a way that is deadly for brands.

potatolicious 2y ago

It feels less like low vs. high-end and more like specialized vs. general hardware. For example, if you're selling VR headsets for the purposes of industrial training, you may not want the consumer-grade hardware Meta is selling. You may need weather-sealing to allow outdoor operation. You may need vastly higher-resolution screens for industrial applications. The list of specializations goes on. The specialized businesses tend to have wider moats and bigger margins. The TAM is smaller - too small for a mega-cap company like Meta to care about, but nonetheless can contribute to the health of the ecosystem. This play gives influence over these niche, specialized uses of AR/VR without having to commit the entire company to it. For example think of a medical instruments company that trains on VR headsets. Their choices right now are to use consumer-grade hardware which may not hit all of their needs, or become a full-on AR/VR company with all the requisite R&D that involves. This allows these companies to exist in the middle ground - having the core R&D being done by another party, but having sufficient control to ship specialized hardware.

mdasen 2y ago

I feel like this is a bit off. There have been things like Porsche phones, but those are so niche that I don't think they're really worth considering. They happened, but they haven't been a long-standing product. They were a cash grab where they licensed a brand. Now, Hondas and Acuras are different products. You can say "oh, they're essentially the same" and if you truly believe that, I'll sell you a Core i3 processor for the price of a Core i7. Yea, they're essentially the same, but it's the differences that make one better than the other. The point is that the high end isn't about branding. The high end is about capability. Apple has shown that their iPhone will outsell any luxury-branded Android phone to rich people because some things are about capability, not a logo. Samsung's flagships will way outsell some luxury logo smartphone too. The high end here is really about devices with better capabilities and it allows companies with good hardware businesses (like ASUS and Lenovo) to build something in the Meta VR ecosystem. It's also possibly a way for Meta to stop dumping Quest devices. They'd rather just own the ecosystem rather than doing the hardware. If they can get ASUS, Lenovo, and others to do the low-margin hardware work and pick up the tab for a lot of the marketing, that's a win for Meta. Maybe Meta simply backs out of hardware over the next 5 years if a nice third party hardware ecosystem arises. But I think this is going to be tough with VR. When you're trying to make an immersive experience, you need a baseline of hardware. It's also easier when you know the hardware you're trying to target. Android development can be frustrating because there's so much variance in speed and capabilities. One of the reason gaming consoles exist is that targeting a small set of hardware/capabilities makes things easier. That's not to say that PC gaming doesn't exist, but it can be hard because gamers need to spend a lot of money on hardware and there's a variance in capabilities that you need to account for - and who you might simply exclude. With a phone, it's less of an immersive experience for most apps which are just displaying something. They might display it slower, the UX might be laggier, etc. but it works. VR can't be laggy. In some ways, it feels like Meta is trying to become a game console company without having to subsidize the console. That would be big if they can pull it off. I guess in many ways this is what Steam pulled off on the PC - taking a 30% cut without having to subsidize any hardware. We'll see if Meta can do the same for VR.

zztop44 2y ago
I don’t disagree with your core point, but branding is about a lot more than a logo. I think iPhones do sell to rich people because of branding, because iPhone’s brand basically is “the best possible phone you can get, plus it integrates seamlessly with your other Apple devices”. And Samsung flagships’ brand is “the best Android phone”. Porsche, or whatever, have a great and meaningful brand when it comes to cars, but that doesn’t translate to smartphones. So when you see a phone with the Porsche logo the brand isn’t really gonna do much for you.

s0rce 2y ago

Reminds me of the Vertu cell phone, which the iPhone basically killed.

stronglikedan 2y ago

> 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. Nit, but as an Acura driver (chooser), I can tell you that they are definitely not essentially the same parts. The irrelevant parts are the same, but everything that matters to the driver (suspension/drivetrain, interior materials, technology, etc.) all all different and better in the Acura. I get what you're trying to say, but that was not a good metaphor.

joking 2y ago
when you say something it's better, you should add better in what angle, because Acura suspension can be better for high speed cornering in a circuit, but suck if you leave in a place with bad road surface, and the honda suspension can be both softer and cheaper to replace. Anyway, I also get what you're trying to say.
haiku2077 2y ago
This depends on the model. I have an Acura project car and most of my performance relevant parts are Honda part numbers. Interior is the main exception. Heck, I've got a Civic intake manifold in the room with me to replace the Acura one, haha. (The generation of K series after mine has better airflow and it's an easy enough swap.) The Acura brand doesn't even exist outside of the US- if a car is sold in Europe or Japan the parts are Honda.

0x457 2y ago

Yes, but also there are currently so few components to pick from. SoC is definitely some kind of variation of Snapdragon XR2 unless you're Apple. Can't go into high-end because for a device to make sense either an existing ecosystem around it or high confidence in one appearing. If you tell me that I can buy a 3k dollar vr headset that can run current quest library, I would pretend you're joking. Mid-end is where we're at right now has/had very small margins because despite it being mid-end - you still have to use high-end components due to lack of options. I can see someone like Porsche Design making a "high-end" headset (in terms of price, components would be the same). The only option for low-end is to use components previously used in mid-end that would need to compete with used previous gens since they would be nearly identical on the hardware level.

v01d4lph4 2y ago

I think their RayBay Meta Glasses is a great example of a product like that!

barfingclouds 2y ago

Wouldn’t we call the Apple Vision Pro the high end?