[kj99]

Of course he thinks it’s the better product, but weirdly nobody else takes that seriously.

It is far better for people who want to play games, but far worse for anything else.

He’s straight up lying when he tries to pass off Quest’s passthrough and software as comparable.

Seems like he’s worried.

[impulser_]

Have you tried both? I have and they are definitely comparable if you factor in one being 7x the cost of the other.

You can pretty much do everything you can with the Quest 3 that you can with the Vision Pro with limitations but again one is 7x more than the other.

An example is the video quality is very similar between them, but the limitation with the Quest 3 is you can only have a certain amount of screens open and you don't have as much freedom to move them around.

I wouldn't be worried one bit if I was Mark, because his target market is massive compared to the current market of the Vision Pro and the next Quest will probably be on closer on par with the Vision Pro for way cheaper.

He also working on the end game form factor for these products which are glasses.

[mark_l_watson]

Thanks for your post. I have purchased the Go, Quest, and the Quest 2, but not the Quest 3. I didn’t think I needed the newest model, but I would like to try the AR support in Quest 3.

I have never been a fan or Facebook/Meta, but I love what they have done in VR. I co-founded the SAIC VR Lab and a year later worked on a VR project for Disney - this was in the late 1990s. I always dreamed of good commodity VR gear, not having to use a quarter of a million dollar SGI Reality Engine. Very happy Meta VR customer. BTW, I work a lot with open LLM models, so thanks also to Meta for releasing open weight models!

[kj99]

I have tried them side by side. It’s complete and utter bullshit to say that the video quality is comparable. Price doesn’t change the fact that the quality is a lot lower.

If you want to say Quest is better for most people because it’s cheap enough to still be worth it, I won’t argue with that.

But that’s not what Mark said, and he’s flat out lying.

[smoldesu]

> It is far better for people who want to play games, but far worse for anything else.

Isn't that more of an indictment of VR as a whole right now, rather than just the Quest or Vision Pro?

[kj99]

To some extent yes. The hardware has simply not been good enough. What’s changed is that Vision Pro crosses the threshold.

Vision Pro is obviously too expensive for anyone who isn’t an early adopter, but it’s the first consumer headset that is good enough to even consider for anything other than games, and frankly even then it is only just good enough.

[smoldesu]

Well, here's to the crazy ones. I haven't tried the Vision Pro yet, but I think the whole "target more affluent customers" shtick is what usually kills VR. It's what killed Windows Mixed Reality, it's what killed Magic Leap, and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes for Apple's headset too.

Then again, it's Apple we're talking about. They could release a commemorative hole-punch and it would sell out before the price was announced. It'll be a while before we see the lasting impact of this thing.

[kj99]

Well they obviously don’t expect to sell it to everyone at the current price. For what it’s worth, it costs about the same as the MacBook Air with SSD did when introduced without even factoring in inflation. Today that product is the world’s best selling laptop.