Meta's AR glasses are three years behind Apple Vision Pro

AppleInsider

The latest setback to Facebook owner Meta's plans for an Apple Vision Pro style headset means a public release is now not expected until 2027.

Meta's Quest Pro headset

Meta tried stealing Apple's thunder by making a very early pre-announcement of a Meta Quest 3 headset days before the unveiling of the Vision Pro. It also, though, tried stealing some thunder in 2020 by ordering the entire output of augmented reality displays being made by Plessey.

According to The Information, that deal has soured as Plessey has been unable to develop bright enough displays for Meta. Reportedly, Meta abandoned the intended microLED technology from Plessey, and revert to proven and less costly older technology, liquid crystal on silicon (LCos).

While Meta has announced a four-year plan and says it will release an updated Meta Quest 3 before the end of 2023, that headset is a Virtual Reality (VR) one. An AR headset requires a user to be able to see both digital content created in the headset, and the real world around the user -- just as Apple Vision Pro does.

Meta still expects to have an internal-only demonstration AR headset, codenamed Orion, for use in 2024. But The Information says that version will continue to use Plessey's failed microLED displays because Meta is too far along to alter the design.

For Artemis, the public AR headset now expected in 2027, Meta has cut back on components including switching to glass instead of the much more expensive silicon carbide. But a glass headset will have a reduced field of view compared to Meta's earlier headsets.

Meta's silicon carbide headset designs would give users a 70-degree field of view, beating Microsoft's HoloLens and Magic Leap's headset, which offer 50 degrees. Under the new cost-saving plans, Meta's 2027 AR headset will also have a 50-degree field of view.

Apple Vision Pro's field of view is 120 degrees.

The list of compromises Meta has made in the last 12 months reportedly includes entirely cancelling a LiDAR feature, and a projector that would let multiple people see AR/VR objects at the same time.

While most of the report is about future headsets, The Information also has bad news for Meta's existing ones. It claims that Meta will now no longer order any new components for its latest Quest Pro headset, and will stop manufacturing them when current supplies run out.

Read on AppleInsider

tmay

Nobody saw that coming. /s

igorsky

Flashbacks of Google scrambling when the iPhone was revealed. 

badmonk

But this time it will be fatal for Meta; they just don’t have the chops to play catch-up.  And they don’t have the resources with WallStreet breathing down their neck to sustain the fight.

Though the AVP is expensive, Apple defined the technological standard to make the device halfway compelling.

As expected.

Maybe Meta should have concentrated on a business model that didn’t involve data-mining their customers.  

The Threads debut shows they haven’t learned their lesson yet…it appears to be a privacy nightmare.

graphicsguy

The more I think about and hear about the Vision Pro, the more I'm convinced it's going to be another massive hit. I was thinking about how back in 1994 when I bought a lowly Powerbook 520 for $2250. That's about $5K today. And I was just a 25 year old wanting this cool new thing -- a laptop. And I was just getting by waiting tables at the time, so that was a huge % of my money going to that purchase. It's laughable how much more the VP will be able to do for the money. They'll have no trouble selling them. 

twolf2919

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

twolf2919

graphicsguy said:

The more I think about and hear about the Vision Pro, the more I'm convinced it's going to be another massive hit. I was thinking about how back in 1994 when I bought a lowly Powerbook 520 for $2250. That's about $5K today. And I was just a 25 year old wanting this cool new thing -- a laptop. And I was just getting by waiting tables at the time, so that was a huge % of my money going to that purchase. It's laughable how much more the VP will be able to do for the money. They'll have no trouble selling them. 

I don't see the analogy.  In 1994, when you spent the equivalent of $5k today, you purchased something that immediately made your day-to-day life more productive by letting you do word processing, spreadsheets, gaming, maybe even surf the nascent World Wide Web.  The Vision Pro doesn't do that.  Yes, it'll make some narrow set of activities more pleasurable - e.g. having a more immersive movie experience - but in no way will it make your day-to-day life more productive.  At least not initially.

retrogusto

I’d be surprised if Meta were able to catch up in three years, or even get to where Apple appears to be now. One reason that Android phones were able to progress as quickly as they did following the announcement of the iPhone is that the best competitors in the hardware and software sectors were all taking aim, focusing on what they did best: Google/Android with the software, Samsung, HTC and many others with the hardware, some more successfully than others. It still took quite a while to get close to the polish of iPhone, if they ever did, even if they have excelled in some specific areas, of course. Meta obviously has expertise in this area and has been spending a fortune, but few would say they are among the top mobile hardware companies (on par with Apple?), and I’m skeptical that their software chops are so much better than Apple’s that it will make up the difference, despite their experience and R&D budget. And Apple has plenty of resources to keep up the development and innovation if they remain interested. 

robin huber

Maybe corporations ARE people. They certainly share the human proclivity for dishonesty and prevarication. 

robin huber

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

I doubt that price is the most relevant variable. Like the iPhone, it will ultimately be utility. It’s “better” mousetrap, not “cheaper” one. 

twolf2919

robin huber said:

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

I doubt that price is the most relevant variable. Like the iPhone, it will ultimately be utility. It’s “better” mousetrap, not “cheaper” one. 

Ultimately, maybe not, but we don't know what its future functions - or price - will be.  I'm just going by what the Vision Pro is right now - a $3500 niche item of limited utility.  Nobody (in a mass market sense) will buy it for that price.  They may for under $1k.
Comparisons to iPhone are really not appropriate: the iPhone had immediate, easy to see utility for day-to-day life as soon as it came out.  It combined a phone and a web browser, both functions that were already important in people's lives - but in a better package than anyone else.  The Vision Pro has no immediate important function as of now - yet it costs three times more than the original iPhone did in today's dollars.

kiltedgreen

twolf2919 said:

graphicsguy said:

The more I think about and hear about the Vision Pro, the more I'm convinced it's going to be another massive hit. I was thinking about how back in 1994 when I bought a lowly Powerbook 520 for $2250. That's about $5K today. And I was just a 25 year old wanting this cool new thing -- a laptop. And I was just getting by waiting tables at the time, so that was a huge % of my money going to that purchase. It's laughable how much more the VP will be able to do for the money. They'll have no trouble selling them. SionPro

I don't see the analogy.  In 1994, when you spent the equivalent of $5k today, you purchased something that immediately made your day-to-day life more productive by letting you do word processing, spreadsheets, gaming, maybe even surf the nascent World Wide Web.  The Vision Pro doesn't do that.  Yes, it'll make some narrow set of activities more pleasurable - e.g. having a more immersive movie experience - but in no way will it make your day-to-day life more productive.  At least not initially.

I have never bought a new car in my life and I’ve owned about 9. My last was the most expensive ever at £1,200 or so. I cannot understand why a) So many people buy new cars (2nd hand are so plentiful and SO much cheaper) b) How so many people can afford to buy new cars (I mean a perfectly average car - Ford Focus, say - costs £23,000! Yep, £23,000! I mean I could buy my current 2nd hand car for £1200, as I did, and still be able to afford about 7 pairs of VisionPro headsets with the change) and c) Why would people buy a top end Mercedes A-class at about £60,000? It won’t get them to work or shops much quicker than a Ford Focus that can break the speed limit for less than half the price.

This continual analysis of the pricing of the Vision Pro and deciding that few will buy it at that price shows that Apple understands their customers way better than you do. Why is “productivity” the deciding factor for purchasing? Why not an experience that nobody else can offer? Why not your own superb quality huge private cinema screen when travelling on the train? Why not travelling around an amazing landscape or outer space at home? Why not some amazing game that is like nothing else? Why is “productivity” the litmus test? Are all those people buying maxed-out, neon-lit, overclocked, 6 fan gaming PCs trying to be more “productive”?

We have a 27” monitor which is connected to our Apple TV - that is it. Some people, though prefer to pay a lot more money for a 50” monitor for £650 or so. It’s the same picture and the sound is no better than on our 27” screen but people are buying them in droves. People see different value in different things. I see a 50” screen as a waste of hundreds of pounds. I’ve bought a bottle of wine, decades back, that cost £125 whereas most people consider spending more than about £6 to be a waste of money.

I think we will all find out next year that Apple know exactly what they are doing.

danox

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

Many people don’t know Apple very well, or much about the pricing of various devices Apple currently sells (iPad Pro, 13” MacBook Pro), the Apple Vision Pro isn’t going to be $1000 any time soon if ever, over the years, analysts, tech experts and users are wrong when they suggest Apple should drop the price, Apple particularly in the last 25 years usually raises the bar techwise not lower it. Making it cheaper or going for mass marketshare isn’t Apples goal but building the best they can is.

What will happen next year when Apple when releases the Apple Vision Pro to the public, and more importantly, when people can go to the Apple store and try it out for themselves, there will be a recalibration (the bar will be raised) on the actual worth of the Apple Vision Pro by the public, some of the tech analysts, financial wizards, and even some stubborn people in the public will still cry about the price, but it won’t matter, and it didn’t matter with the iMac, OS X, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPods, Studio, and Display, Pro Display XDR, Apple Silicon, etc. etc.

coolfactor

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

That's over-simplifying the situation. You're thinking about average consumers. What about hospitals, engineers, scientists, educators where buying equipment is a company expense, not a personal expense?

The Apple Vision Pro takes an existing industry — spatial computing — that has been moving along at a snail's pace and leap-frogs it, making it mainstream for everyone. Apple's device sets the bar so high, now the industry will be reaching for it, just like what iPhone did for mobile computing.

Just one example --- 120° field of view, which is double what existing offerings feature.
Another example --- crystal-clear views, not fuzzy "good enough" views.
And another --- eye-tracking that is "perfect", based on many reviewers' comments.

Sure, it may sound expensive — for consumers — but there are many, many other uses for this technology where this is a super cheap price for what is provided.

mr_me450

‘Three years behind’ with a more than three times lower price seems about right really.

tht

While Meta has announced a four-year plan and says it will release an updated Meta Quest 3 before the end of 2023, that headset is a Virtual Reality (VR) one. An AR headset requires a user to be able to see both digital content created in the headset, and the real world around the user -- just as Apple Vision Pro does.

Meta still expects to have an internal-only demonstration AR headset, codenamed Orion, for use in 2024. But The Information says that version will continue to use Plessey's failed microLED displays because Meta is too far along to alter the design.

For Artemis, the public AR headset now expected in 2027, Meta has cut back on components including switching to glass instead of the much more expensive silicon carbide. But a glass headset will have a reduced field of view compared to Meta's earlier headsets.

You know what they say about war plans. No plans survive first contact. Meta had a plan. A new and monied entrant entered the field. I don't think any of their plans from before June will stay the course. They are going to change the design of their goggles. The glasses? Who knows. That's so far out, it's not worth talking about for a while.

I think Apple's VP has demonstrated that pass-through VR can work as an AR device as well as being a VR device, and it will be the way AR will be done until or if see-through glasses can be made. The VP is also meant to be worn all day at your desk as a work a device, or a few hours while mobile. Not sure if all-day is doable given the weight, but "meant to" here is more like "ideally" rather than being doable for everyone. The quoted 2 hour limit can easily be changed to 4 or 8 hours if Apple so chooses, which really means, if users demand it.

The UI with the eye+hand tracking looks fundamentally solid, much in the same way that multi-touch on capacitive touch screens were on the iPhone. It looks so good that the technology should be used for Macs, iPads, and maybe even iPhones. For some VisionOS revision, a user will be able to pull a macOS app out of the macOS virtual display inside the VP and have lots and lots of macOS windows and VP apps spread across a person's field of view, along with VP apps spread across all over the room and house. That really means driving users to wear it all day, like putting on work clothes is meant to be worn all day.

I think Meta sees this, and are changing their plans to compete. So, their plans are indeed changing. They should not be sticking to the old plan. It's really a 2 to 4 year time frame. Apple will be so supply constrained in the first two years that I don't think they are putting a dent into other VR companies. Other than, perhaps, freezing purchasing plans.

There are questions on how long Meta is going to keep at though. They've spent something like $35b to earn about $5b over the last 5 years, with the profit corner not even in sight. Zuckerberg may be a true believer, but racking up billions in losses every year has a way of changing a person's mind.

tht

designr said:

tht said:

While Meta has announced a four-year plan and says it will release an updated Meta Quest 3 before the end of 2023, that headset is a Virtual Reality (VR) one. An AR headset requires a user to be able to see both digital content created in the headset, and the real world around the user -- just as Apple Vision Pro does.

Meta still expects to have an internal-only demonstration AR headset, codenamed Orion, for use in 2024. But The Information says that version will continue to use Plessey's failed microLED displays because Meta is too far along to alter the design.

For Artemis, the public AR headset now expected in 2027, Meta has cut back on components including switching to glass instead of the much more expensive silicon carbide. But a glass headset will have a reduced field of view compared to Meta's earlier headsets.

...

... The VP is also meant to be worn all day at your desk as a work a device, or a few hours while mobile. ... 

... That really means driving users to wear it all day, like putting on work clothes is meant to be worn all day.

To be perfectly honest, that sounds quite horrible, dystopian even.

Why? What's dystopian about it?

Apple put in a lenticular front display, with something like 20 display angles, and are realtime simulating what your eyes are doing. You blink, the display shows you blinking. Your eyeballs are looking at one direction, the displays shows you looking at that direction. You don't do that if the device is only to be worn 1 to 2 hours a day while alone at your desk. It's meant to be worn all day, like a computer is used all day, in various environments where you will be interacting with people, eye-to-eye.

At least, that's what I think they are trying to do.

StrangeDays

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

And yet the original Macintosh did, despite being twice the price of the AVP when corrected for inflation (over seven grand!)

StrangeDays

twolf2919 said:

graphicsguy said:

The more I think about and hear about the Vision Pro, the more I'm convinced it's going to be another massive hit. I was thinking about how back in 1994 when I bought a lowly Powerbook 520 for $2250. That's about $5K today. And I was just a 25 year old wanting this cool new thing -- a laptop. And I was just getting by waiting tables at the time, so that was a huge % of my money going to that purchase. It's laughable how much more the VP will be able to do for the money. They'll have no trouble selling them. 

I don't see the analogy.  In 1994, when you spent the equivalent of $5k today, you purchased something that immediately made your day-to-day life more productive by letting you do word processing, spreadsheets, gaming, maybe even surf the nascent World Wide Web.  The Vision Pro doesn't do that.  Yes, it'll make some narrow set of activities more pleasurable - e.g. having a more immersive movie experience - but in no way will it make your day-to-day life more productive.  At least not initially.

And yet, you’ve never even used one. Amazing insight into a product you’ve never seen! The YouTubers who did actually see it and use it, were impressed. 

danox

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

More like 13 years behind…….No in house OS, M2 processor or R1 co-processor, price can’t make up for that and that doesn’t include an army of Apple developers.

danox

designr said:

coolfactor said:

twolf2919 said:

They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.

That's over-simplifying the situation. You're thinking about average consumers. What about hospitals, engineers, scientists, educators where buying equipment is a company expense, not a personal expense?

I've heard this from multiple people. It may play out this way. That said, Apple has always been a consumer company, not an enterprise company. These are very different worlds. If Apple makes this a foray into the various verticals and enterprise spaces like you've listed, great. But it's not been Apple's past nor, I would say, its strength.

Apple wasn’t a smartphone, tablet, watch, or CPU company until they were, getting into and disrupting the old guard in those areas is something a vertical company like Apple, can do at any time, and that is what makes them a great company to invest in.