How can AppleInsider compare a Rolls-Royce to a Toyota?
Vision Pro and MQ3 are completely separate segments.
That's not entirely accurate. Their price points are disparate, but they do serve the consumer market with a great deal of overlap. I expect we'll see Meta come out with a much higher speced Quest at a higher price than their $1500 option to better compete with Vision Pro, and I expect Apple to bring the cost down over time, especially when the finally release the non-Pro Vision.
It's the $3500+ MS HoloLens that are mostly a different market over the $500 Meta Quest 3, and yet I've done a spec comparison to see how they compare since they both do have some of the same technologies in them.
I wonder if the Meta 3 will see a sales jump because of people who get interested in/excited by headset computing when looking at the Vision Pro but then aren’t ready to shell out $3k.
Well actually I bought a Quest 3 a couple months ago to test the waters. It perked my interest enough that I’ll be buying an Apple Vision Pro.
AVP is in a different universe compared to Meta Quest 3 Pro or whichever model. I had a look at the Meta Quest 3 Pro and simply considered it as a toy for kids that are hooked on games, on the other hand, I am seriously considering buying the AVP, as a side bonus, my kid would wet his pants with excitement. On a more serious note, QUEST is just a harvesting tool for your private information and habits, to sell on to the highest bidder, AVP is not. As to training apps, seriously? Working out with that on your head 😳 Apple are a bit more serious with caring about their consumers welfare, training with a headset on is just asking for an injury or worst still spinal issues! As for games, cloud gaming is or will be available very shortly on the AVP. Whatever anyone says now, the fact is AVP will do to Quest, what the iPhone did to Blackberry within 2/3 years
As you mentioned, horizontal resolution / fov is the naive calculation, sort of like how in Physics 1 they say earth's gravity is a flat 9.8, and you just kind-of ignore air resistance. The long answer is lens distortion and other factors matter. While I didn't check Andrew's math, the number lines up with this document https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/vr-display-optics-pancake-lenses-ppd/ from Meta, which does explain things in further detail, and yes it is the combo. I don't see where we made note of the PPD of the Vision pro though? We're also working from best-guess closest available parts resolution, since Apple won't "officially" say.
The article is making a comparison. PPD is one of the bigger metrics for comparison. It’s a big thing for a headset as it is a metric for how clear text is going to be. It is really some combination of PPI and FOV or PPD and FOV.
I do in fact try to make a comparison when reading these articles, with it’s given information. I can make the naive computation for PPD on both devices for the given information from the article. That’s valuable because I can compare apples to apples.
The 25 PPD for the Meta Quest is a contextless piece of information without determining what it is for the AVP using the same math. For all these comparisons, it’s really important to show the data in the same way, or at least the details.
It’s always frustrating to read these comparison articles because the features and specifications are not always listed in the same way. They need to have the same units. Aspect ratios need to be determined. Actual display resolutions need to be listed, not WUHD+ whatever code names. Hell, if some OEM says they have a OLED, you need to verify whether it is Pentile or RGB. Battery capacity in Watt-Hours, not mAH, should be listed.
Like the IPD. Meta and AVP are listed as having adjustable IPD:
“The Vision Pro's IPD adjustment ranges from 51mm to 75mm, accommodating a broad spectrum of users. In contrast, the Quest 3 features an almost exact IPD range of 53mm to 75mm, with a mechanical adjustment wheel for precise and comfortable lens spacing.“
Left unsaid is that AVP’s IPD adjustment is automatic with the display+lens assembly on rails, right?
Is that not an important detail to mention? It’s possibly more important than the IPD range itself as people will have not a fun time manually adjusting IPD.
I understand the criticism, and agree to an extent, but this also feels pretty damned if we do damned if we don't to me. Had we used your method of calculating the PPD for the Quest 3 we'd be wrong (as evidenced by the document linked and agreed upon consensus online), and If we had stated the PPD of the Vision pro using just that same basic formula, we'd also be wrong on that. Not just because the formula is too simplistic, but because we're using unconfirmed numbers to begin with (is Vision Pro 102deg like Mike measured in his quick tests, or closer to 108deg like Reddit may tell you, or is it closer to the 100deg Apple said in a developer talk?) Either way somebody would be in the comments telling us that our numbers are wrong, and they'd be right.
I do agree that the PPD is an important number, but there's also a reason it's not in the data table. I think the rest of the text makes it clear that these two headsets are not comparable in terms of visual quality. A number 90% of the audience doesn't understand probably won't help make that more clear. Could we have omitted the Quest 3 number in lieu of not having the exact apples-to-apples number for the Vision Pro? Sure. But we have an official number from Meta on that, and I don't see the problem using it if we have it. I understand that you see that as some kind of logical fallacy because we don't directly compare it, but I think it's probably still additive to the text. Had we not mentioned it at all would this be a "PPD is really what matters, I don't know why they didn't include it" comment? Probably.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't 🤷
Could we or should we normalize battery stuff? Yeah. Maybe. I will have a talk with Mike about doing that going forward. Wattage does matter, and the Vision Pro is ... weird. But again, more important is whether or not we communicate to the reader what those numbers mean -- how many hours are they going to get out of it under normal use, how long does it take to charge, etc. While I understand you may be the guy who looks at these as a spec sheet, that is not how 90% of the audience consumes or understands the content. There's no breakdown in here about pixel arrangements either, because that's just outside of the scope of the article to explain. Had we just added it into the table without explaining it, it would have little value to the reader and the same exact criticism you raised about PPD could be leveled against it.
As far as IPD goes, i'm actually not sure I agree? It's a pain to crank the Quest manually, but it's really not that big of a deal and you really only do it once unless you're passing the thing around. The range matters a lot more for people who for whatever reason find themselves out either side of that spectrum. Again, it's about communicating the information someone may need. A motorized unit is a nice addition, but excepting extreme circumstances it's probably not changing whether or not someone can use the device.
We constantly have to remind people (and you can see it on comments in this exact article and the accompanying YT video where people say "why would you even compare these things"), that not all the content we produce is aimed at you. Sometimes you are going to be smarter or more informed than the audience we're trying to target. It's one of the reasons why we turned off comments on tips for so long. Got real old real quick when every first comment was "I have known how do this since i was 3, why are you wasting your time writing this." Apple isn't just for tech people anymore, the iPhone is basically an appliance at this point. That's always a tough balance for us to try and strike, and we're constantly trying to update where we put the needle on the record, so to speak.
That was kinda long winded, but I hope that helps a bit?
P.S. If you want to write technical documents for us, we're basically perpetually looking for more contract writers 😄
Karl Guttag made the measurement and estimated the overlap PPD on the AVP to be 44 PPD. He says it yielded a clarity equivalent to about 20/30 vision, though I'm not sure this is meaningful. I find saying it will be like looking at a 100 PPI monitor at 25 inches more relatable. Pre-retina days.
The Quest 3 at 25 PPD at the peak or the center will be like a 100 PPI monitor at 15 inches or a 60 PPI monitor at 25 inches. Its distortion makes its pass-through more troublesome for people to use though. And, the stability of the text rendering will be hugely important too, and I'm unsure how stable the Q3 renders UI elements.
The naive PPD estimate, or average, for the AVP is about 36. The average PPD for the Quest 3 is about 20. The increase in effective PPD from overlap of the eyes is 44/36 = 1.22x and 25/20 = 1.25x, respectively. Close enough for you to just take the average PPD (PPI/FOV) and multiply by 1.25 to get the peak PPD with two eyes for most of these headsets. I wouldn't be worried about not knowing the AVP's FOV within 5 to 10%. Just use the number in the middle. There's a lot of biology with people's eyes and the differences in fit for headsets such that people's text clarity experiences with it will be a rather wide range, bigger than 5%, 10%.
You get criticism, or damned, because you should try to always make apples to apples comparisons, and basically every comparison article has some part of it that fails to do it. You had the data to compute the naive PPD, or the average PPD, for both headsets. No need to use Meta's two-eye overlap PPD value, unless, you perform the same math for both devices. There's no need to use this or that company's branding terms either. Those terms are selected to not reveal any information, but to impart feelings.
The essence of these comparison articles is to provide information through a spec bakeoff. It behooves the reader to then have apples to apples comparisons of the specs. The subject of text clarity of the AVP has been frustrating for a while. It still kind of is. It's really the single most important thing that can drive the productivity usage of the AVP, and users have a hard time describing it. Some users say it is clear, others say it is not quite there yet. I would have to go for a demo to really see.
Mathematically, it is like a 100 PPI monitor. That is obviously fine as the vast majority PC users in the market basically use 100 to 130 PPI monitors. If the text rendering is good, it would be fine for me too. They can't use the current macOS text rendering engine, but they are apparently using a visionOS specific one.
Comments
It's the $3500+ MS HoloLens that are mostly a different market over the $500 Meta Quest 3, and yet I've done a spec comparison to see how they compare since they both do have some of the same technologies in them.
I had a look at the Meta Quest 3 Pro and simply considered it as a toy for kids that are hooked on games, on the other hand, I am seriously considering buying the AVP, as a side bonus, my kid would wet his pants with excitement.
On a more serious note, QUEST is just a harvesting tool for your private information and habits, to sell on to the highest bidder, AVP is not.
As to training apps, seriously? Working out with that on your head 😳
Apple are a bit more serious with caring about their consumers welfare, training with a headset on is just asking for an injury or worst still spinal issues!
As for games, cloud gaming is or will be available very shortly on the AVP.
Whatever anyone says now, the fact is AVP will do to Quest, what the iPhone did to Blackberry within 2/3 years
The Quest 3 at 25 PPD at the peak or the center will be like a 100 PPI monitor at 15 inches or a 60 PPI monitor at 25 inches. Its distortion makes its pass-through more troublesome for people to use though. And, the stability of the text rendering will be hugely important too, and I'm unsure how stable the Q3 renders UI elements.
The naive PPD estimate, or average, for the AVP is about 36. The average PPD for the Quest 3 is about 20. The increase in effective PPD from overlap of the eyes is 44/36 = 1.22x and 25/20 = 1.25x, respectively. Close enough for you to just take the average PPD (PPI/FOV) and multiply by 1.25 to get the peak PPD with two eyes for most of these headsets. I wouldn't be worried about not knowing the AVP's FOV within 5 to 10%. Just use the number in the middle. There's a lot of biology with people's eyes and the differences in fit for headsets such that people's text clarity experiences with it will be a rather wide range, bigger than 5%, 10%.
You get criticism, or damned, because you should try to always make apples to apples comparisons, and basically every comparison article has some part of it that fails to do it. You had the data to compute the naive PPD, or the average PPD, for both headsets. No need to use Meta's two-eye overlap PPD value, unless, you perform the same math for both devices. There's no need to use this or that company's branding terms either. Those terms are selected to not reveal any information, but to impart feelings.
The essence of these comparison articles is to provide information through a spec bakeoff. It behooves the reader to then have apples to apples comparisons of the specs. The subject of text clarity of the AVP has been frustrating for a while. It still kind of is. It's really the single most important thing that can drive the productivity usage of the AVP, and users have a hard time describing it. Some users say it is clear, others say it is not quite there yet. I would have to go for a demo to really see.
Mathematically, it is like a 100 PPI monitor. That is obviously fine as the vast majority PC users in the market basically use 100 to 130 PPI monitors. If the text rendering is good, it would be fine for me too. They can't use the current macOS text rendering engine, but they are apparently using a visionOS specific one.