[cramjabsyn]

Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.

Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between the two devices. Maybe $500.

[FumblingBear]

Fundamentally though, that's just the nature of diminishing returns. Of course the value proposition for the Quest 3 is far better than the value prop of the Vision Pro.

It's no different than consumer GPU's. There will be enthusiasts who purchase the GTX 4090 for $2000 but the average consumer is far better off buying something like a 3060Ti for $340.

My favorite example of this is a site called Logical Increments [0] that clearly shows just how expensive pushing to the next tier of quality is as you scale up.

[0] - https://www.logicalincrements.com/

[hackeraccount]

It's always that last 20% of performance in any product that's creating a huge chunk of the cost.

[selectodude]

The cost for quality scales exponentially. Doubling the cost only gets you 50 percent better in my experience.

[GeekyBear]

> Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.

Users want to be able to do things like connect to their computer and be able to read small text on the virtual monitor.

Both headsets are not equal on the "readable text" metric.

[shinycode]

I can say the same thing between my car and a Ferrari, never having driven one…

[MrFantastic]

For a lot of people, $3500 is nothing especially if they are going to expense it to the company.

A lot of companies are going to buy it just to figure out what types of apps can be made for the platform.

[refulgentis]

You're being flippant to the point of absurdity, and past the point of being rude. "Yeah" when you don't mean it, and "you must be biased"

I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close. The display specs are way more than enough to be able to observe this.

[nvarsj]

Have you used VR much? Quest 3 FOV is much better. And FOV is kind of the holy grail for immersive VR and interactive experiences. So saying Vision Pro is strictly better (and at 7x the cost) makes little sense to me.

[refulgentis]

for sibling, as I'm over my post quota: https://imgur.com/a/l6nqhvX

Yeah, Vive -> Index -> Quest 2 -> Varjo Aero[^1] -> Quest 3 -> Vision Pro.

Yeah FOV is worse, yeah it costs more, virtually order of magnitude more.

People are responding to "The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.", i.e. dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.

I never, ever opted into watching video on any headset until now. Like, yeah, I tried it. I watched stuff. This is organic "I want to watch stuff, where's the VR headset?" instead of "here's a VR headset, I can watch stuff"

Something that escaped me until a week ago was a good visualization of the pixel density. I thought the Aero was amazing. It is/was.

I assumed Vision Pro was marginally more or less than the Aero.

Actually, Aero::Vision Pro is roughly Vive 1::Aero.

[^1] that one is important, that's real street cred, you know I care, invest, and know what I'm talking about

[wvenable]

> dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.

I think it depends on use case. Is having a bunch of high resolution floating screens the killer app or just a gimmick? For most current VR users, they're not going to see a significant benefit from higher resolution Beat Saber.

[nomel]

FOV/immersion is not the holy grail of XR usability. A virtual screen in the Quest 3/Pro isn't so great, and I've spent hundreds of hours reading text in the Quest Pro. For screen replacement, aka "spatial computing", Vision Pro is strictly better.

[zmmmmm]

> I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close

That in itself is a false question, no? Nobody says they are as good. I haven't seen even the most ardent Meta fan suggest such a thing.

It's not a question of whether they are as good but whether the difference matters enough. There is a curve with very sharply diminishing returns and a lot of threshold effects (once you get close to screen door effect going away, nobody cares that you made it 1% less noticeable any more etc).

[nomel]

I have a Quest 2, 3, and Pro, and have been doing spatial computing for years now, and the Quest 3 is nowhere near the point of diminishing returns for resolution. The Quest 3 is a relatively terrible monitor replacement, with a PPD of 25. The AVP has a PPD around 50. Around 56 is the point where diminishing returns happen (but with the edge detectors in your eyes mostly left dormant).

[zmmmmm]

I will just say that I think you're an outlier on the quality / perception spectrum.

It's definitely very personal, so this is completely normal, but I don't think you are even slightly representative of where the general public would fall. For reference, I myself and a number of people I know quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement. It's borderline - Quest Pro was not good enough - but Quest 3 is - for me.

[nomel]

> For reference, I myself and a number of people I know quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement.

If it's in Immersed, then I've probably talked to you. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it has around double the clarity. This is trivially perceived. I'm definitely not special here. You should really go look through an AVP at an Apple store. If you have a high res computer display, you can also somewhat emulate it.

[cramjabsyn]

Did you happen to buy an apple vision headset?

[dagmx]

You’re not arguing in good faith because you’ve already laid out your assumption that anyone who bought it is inherently biased. How do you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?