Meta has had years of customer feedback and has evolved their platform significantly, with frequent updates, new features, and major OS releases. It's no surprise that it's more mature and better than Apple's just released Vision Pro. Some of the hardware advantages that Quest 3 has over Vision Pro are more fact than option, such as brighter displays, higher refresh rates, greater field of view, lower weight, better hand tracking, etc. The real question will be how quickly does Vision Pro evolve to overtake the Quest line of headsets, how does the pricing evolve, etc.
Let's not forget that they bought Oculus and then rebranded it Meta. No shame in that, but it also means they bought an established product over developing in-house from scratch with just some component acquisitions to help build an original product for a debut release.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
The two situations are exactly the same insofar as they are both pushing their solutions.
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
The two situations are exactly the same insofar as they are both pushing their solutions.
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
They are very different scenarios and you know this.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
I shook my head when I read that. To claim that Zuck was somehow required to try AVP and then make a video defending the comparably low-grade HW as being better, even going so far to state that eye-tracking was coming back to to Quest in a future product release is just silly. Not only did Zuck not have to make that video, he shouldn't have made that video. Quest is going to do better now that AVP is in the market. Enjoy the sales and make sure that no other company will come in at the low-end market you current possess. As you state, when a question is asked on an investor call you answer it. At least Cook tends to stay on topic and answer within a lot of deflecting even if he doesn't give specific about an unreleased product.
No one said he was required to go out and buy the VP, although it would be strange if Meta didn't have a few to evaluate.
I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple evaluated all its nearest competitors and if Tim is the 'carrier' of the VP, I'm sure he even tried the Quest lines himself.
They are pushing their respective solutions and that is to be expected.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
The two situations are exactly the same insofar as they are both pushing their solutions.
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
They are very different scenarios and you know this.
The scenarios are different (and irrelevant) the situation (pushing their respective solutions) is identical.
You could even argue that Apple is pushing AI solutions that aren't even shipping yet.
But then again the VP announcement itself wasn't far off something similar.
It's their job to defend their interests. Where or how they do it is of no importance. It's what they say that counts. And of course the solutions that get shipped.
The main thing that struck me about Zucbug’s speech, was his total defensive attitude. He speaks like a child and clearly has a massive inferiority complex. ‘See you out there’ at the end - what the hell does that mean?
He should be rejoicing that Apple have joined the headset space as it will bring a lot more attention to this new category.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
The two situations are exactly the same insofar as they are both pushing their solutions.
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
They are very different scenarios and you know this.
The scenarios are different (and irrelevant) the situation (pushing their respective solutions) is identical.
You could even argue that Apple is pushing AI solutions that aren't even shipping yet.
But then again the VP announcement itself wasn't far off something similar.
It's their job to defend their interests. Where or how they do it is of no importance. It's what they say that counts. And of course the solutions that get shipped.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
I think I generally use a different definition of 'edge computing' to yours. I use it in an ICT context.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
avon b7 said: The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
"AI" isn't hard to do. That's why the market is being flooded with "AI" products.
AI ChatGPT hype is flooding the market with very few useful solutions (to the public) at this time. The cart is definitely in front of the horse.....
And it must be said again and again Apples is a on a different path than the path that Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Samsung are on.
If it were hype it would be dead by now. Obviously, people are finding all kinds of uses for it and it is progressing at breakneck speed. Natural language understanding/generation have seen continual improvement. Also, 'generative AI' is just part of the story.
LLMs are obviously key and now we have LvLMs where more can be done with images.
Lots of issues to be dealt with at all levels (ethical, moral, technical...) but we're beyond hype when you look at what is already out there.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
I think I generally use a different definition of 'edge computing' to yours. I use it in an ICT context.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
Your assumption that 5.5G would be pervasive enough for consumers in the U.S. or even the EU, is misplaced, and China is undergoing an economic dislocation, so I wouldn't count on widespread 5.5G in China anytime soon either. More to the point, I doubt that Meta is counting on massive Quest sales in China, nor would there be much benefit. Please note that China has edicts in place to reduce gaming by children and teens.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-issues-draft-rules-online-game-management-2023-12-22/
I wouldn't even expect pervasive 5.5G prior to Apple's 3rd generation VP arrival, sometime in the next 5 years, and even in that case, the VP will not be reliant on cloud computing anyway.
avon b7 said: The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
"AI" isn't hard to do. That's why the market is being flooded with "AI" products.
AI ChatGPT hype is flooding the market with very few useful solutions (to the public) at this time. The cart is definitely in front of the horse.....
And it must be said again and again Apples is a on a different path than the path that Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Samsung are on.
If it were hype it would be dead by now. Obviously, people are finding all kinds of uses for it and it is progressing at breakneck speed. Natural language understanding/generation have seen continual improvement. Also, 'generative AI' is just part of the story.
LLMs are obviously key and now we have LvLMs where more can be done with images.
Lots of issues to be dealt with at all levels (ethical, moral, technical...) but we're beyond hype when you look at what is already out there.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
I think I generally use a different definition of 'edge computing' to yours. I use it in an ICT context.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
Your assumption that 5.5G would be pervasive enough for consumers in the U.S. or even the EU, is misplaced, and China is undergoing an economic dislocation, so I wouldn't count on widespread 5.5G in China anytime soon either. More to the point, I doubt that Meta is counting on massive Quest sales in China, nor would there be much benefit. Please note that China has edicts in place to reduce gaming by children and teens.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-issues-draft-rules-online-game-management-2023-12-22/
I wouldn't even expect pervasive 5.5G prior to Apple's 3rd generation VP arrival, sometime in the next 5 years, and even in that case, the VP will not be reliant on cloud computing anyway.
5.5G is still expected beginning 2025. That includes the EU. The US might be a different story but we're talking about Industry progression here.
As with 5G, the availability of technologies will determine what gets released and when.
As I've said repeatedly, what is holding XR back on one level is the backbone required to make it universal. Without that, it will remain a 'local' affair.
Then you have the storage capacity needs which are well known and being expanded constantly as we approach the yottabyte era.
Remember that the point here was on how to reduce size/weight/compute demands.
Even with 5.5G, some companies could well decide to keep everything 'onboard' and at a higher price to consumers.
One of the classic use cases for cloud computing has always been the idea of that when half the world is sleeping, the other half is awake. Energy and compute efficiencies have long been a consideration in that scenario with the ability to scale to meet needs in real-time and theoretically at lower cost.
There are issues and we aren't there just yet. Expect to see some action on that front at MWC2024.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
I think I generally use a different definition of 'edge computing' to yours. I use it in an ICT context.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
Your assumption that 5.5G would be pervasive enough for consumers in the U.S. or even the EU, is misplaced, and China is undergoing an economic dislocation, so I wouldn't count on widespread 5.5G in China anytime soon either. More to the point, I doubt that Meta is counting on massive Quest sales in China, nor would there be much benefit. Please note that China has edicts in place to reduce gaming by children and teens.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-issues-draft-rules-online-game-management-2023-12-22/
I wouldn't even expect pervasive 5.5G prior to Apple's 3rd generation VP arrival, sometime in the next 5 years, and even in that case, the VP will not be reliant on cloud computing anyway.
5.5G is still expected beginning 2025. That includes the EU. The US might be a different story but we're talking about Industry progression here.
As with 5G, the availability of technologies will determine what gets released and when.
As I've said repeatedly, what is holding XR back on one level is the backbone required to make it universal. Without that, it will remain a 'local' affair.
Then you have the storage capacity needs which are well known and being expanded constantly as we approach the yottabyte era.
Remember that the point here was on how to reduce size/weight/compute demands.
Even with 5.5G, some companies could well decide to keep everything 'onboard' and at a higher price to consumers.
One of the classic use cases for cloud computing has always been the idea of that when half the world is sleeping, the other half is awake. Energy and compute efficiencies have long been a consideration in that scenario with the ability to scale to meet needs in real-time and theoretically at lower cost.
There are issues and we aren't there just yet. Expect to see some action on that front at MWC2024.
Apple isn't interested in the path that you outlined, and if 5.5G was pervasive, which almost certainly would take years, Apple would have access to it.
In the meantime, Apple has the skillset to design the hardware to reduce weight, and cost, and I don't doubt that Apple is more capable than Meta for hardware design. The only question is whether either party can have a profitable business in the AR niche that they are in.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Open formats would definitely be preferably for content like AR etc.
The industry knows where it's going. I haven't seen any changes in direction in years.
It's waiting on various technological advances to reach objectives and fighting on price. Some playing to the lower end (with obvious trade offs) and others to the higher end (where cost is a key factor.
The industry will converge somewhere in the middle at some point but reducing the 'visor' element is obviously a major goal.
Compute can be largely off loaded to the cloud in the near term and that will help with the physical constraints and maybe initial cost. Charging and battery considerations will improve greatly in short order too.
Interestingly enough, Apple continues its notable advantage in edge computing, minimizing or eliminating the need for cloud computing. The penalty Apple pays for that is the weight, and mass imbalance, of the VP, and of course, the battery pack.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
I think I generally use a different definition of 'edge computing' to yours. I use it in an ICT context.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
Your assumption that 5.5G would be pervasive enough for consumers in the U.S. or even the EU, is misplaced, and China is undergoing an economic dislocation, so I wouldn't count on widespread 5.5G in China anytime soon either. More to the point, I doubt that Meta is counting on massive Quest sales in China, nor would there be much benefit. Please note that China has edicts in place to reduce gaming by children and teens.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-issues-draft-rules-online-game-management-2023-12-22/
I wouldn't even expect pervasive 5.5G prior to Apple's 3rd generation VP arrival, sometime in the next 5 years, and even in that case, the VP will not be reliant on cloud computing anyway.
5.5G is still expected beginning 2025. That includes the EU. The US might be a different story but we're talking about Industry progression here.
As with 5G, the availability of technologies will determine what gets released and when.
As I've said repeatedly, what is holding XR back on one level is the backbone required to make it universal. Without that, it will remain a 'local' affair.
Then you have the storage capacity needs which are well known and being expanded constantly as we approach the yottabyte era.
Remember that the point here was on how to reduce size/weight/compute demands.
Even with 5.5G, some companies could well decide to keep everything 'onboard' and at a higher price to consumers.
One of the classic use cases for cloud computing has always been the idea of that when half the world is sleeping, the other half is awake. Energy and compute efficiencies have long been a consideration in that scenario with the ability to scale to meet needs in real-time and theoretically at lower cost.
There are issues and we aren't there just yet. Expect to see some action on that front at MWC2024.
Apple isn't interested in the path that you outlined, and if 5.5G was pervasive, which almost certainly would take years, Apple would have access to it.
In the meantime, Apple has the the skillset to design the hardware to reduce weight, and cost, and I don't doubt that Apple is more capable than Meta for hardware design. The only question is whether either party can have a profitable business in the AR niche that they are in.
Definitely possible that Apple won't go down that route but others might. But then again, Apple might too.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way here. It is what makes more sense for your business model.
What we can say is that right now, we aren't in a position to put things into practice. Things will converge soon though.
Today, all VR is 'better' as a local experience, even with cloud options available.
But when 5.5G hits, the real attraction might be multi-user experiences (or maybe not). It will all depend on the market, but the more the external connection becomes essential, the less important onboard compute becomes.
I know the potential options (they've been around since 2015) but it's impossible to know which way things might swing.
He's doing what he has to do so I wouldn't expect anything less.
The same applies to Tim Cook with, for example, the AI references.
Mark Zuckerberg is actively posting a defense of his product on social media.
Tim Cook answered questions he was asked during an investor call.
The two situations aren’t comparable. One is incredibly defensive and the other is run of the mill business.
The two situations are exactly the same insofar as they are both pushing their solutions.
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
On the contrary, making a scripted video defending your product and answering a reporter’s question are not the same. The big difference is that Cook would not have mentioned AI if he weren’t asked about it and Zuckerberg made a point of making the video.
And Cook didn’t “push a solution”. He reiterated what we all knew. Apple does work on AI, includes AI in their products and will continue to do so. That’s not a solution or even claiming their implementation was better. He simply stated the obvious.
Your attempt to compare the two is a weirdly desperate as Zuckerberg’s video.
Comments
The vehicle they choose to do it with is irrelevant here.
I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple evaluated all its nearest competitors and if Tim is the 'carrier' of the VP, I'm sure he even tried the Quest lines himself.
They are pushing their respective solutions and that is to be expected.
The flood you refer to is probably about products that run off the work of the big solutions.
Of course, in spite of it 'not being hard', Apple has yet to set out its stall (hence all the talk instead of an actual solution).
Now research and solutions are looking at the issues involved with LvLMs and further ahead at things like embodied AI.
You could even argue that Apple is pushing AI solutions that aren't even shipping yet.
But then again the VP announcement itself wasn't far off something similar.
It's their job to defend their interests. Where or how they do it is of no importance. It's what they say that counts. And of course the solutions that get shipped.
But Apple's VP hardware architecture does provide a very low latency solution, that cloud computing cannot.
Meta and Apple chose different paths, with Apple choosing the more difficult path of technological leadership. Both are evolving their solutions as we speak.
Who wins is to be determined, but I wouldn't bet on Meta, a company that hasn't been able to create much of a user base for all of its efforts.
And it must be said again and again Apples is a on a different path than the path that Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Samsung are on.
To clarify, I'm not referring to cloud usage today. I'm talking about what is scheduled for 5.5G where latencies could be far below what Apple is achieving today. That is being rolled out in a testbed operation in a part of China today and due to begin shipping in 2025.
There were demos of the technologies during the last few MWCs (pending standardisation).
The other cloud related problem is bandwidth and storage capacity (also to be resolved with the arrival of 5.5G).
LLMs are obviously key and now we have LvLMs where more can be done with images.
Lots of issues to be dealt with at all levels (ethical, moral, technical...) but we're beyond hype when you look at what is already out there.
As with 5G, the availability of technologies will determine what gets released and when.
As I've said repeatedly, what is holding XR back on one level is the backbone required to make it universal. Without that, it will remain a 'local' affair.
Then you have the storage capacity needs which are well known and being expanded constantly as we approach the yottabyte era.
Remember that the point here was on how to reduce size/weight/compute demands.
Even with 5.5G, some companies could well decide to keep everything 'onboard' and at a higher price to consumers.
One of the classic use cases for cloud computing has always been the idea of that when half the world is sleeping, the other half is awake. Energy and compute efficiencies have long been a consideration in that scenario with the ability to scale to meet needs in real-time and theoretically at lower cost.
There are issues and we aren't there just yet. Expect to see some action on that front at MWC2024.
In the meantime, Apple has the skillset to design the hardware to reduce weight, and cost, and I don't doubt that Apple is more capable than Meta for hardware design. The only question is whether either party can have a profitable business in the AR niche that they are in.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way here. It is what makes more sense for your business model.
What we can say is that right now, we aren't in a position to put things into practice. Things will converge soon though.
Today, all VR is 'better' as a local experience, even with cloud options available.
But when 5.5G hits, the real attraction might be multi-user experiences (or maybe not). It will all depend on the market, but the more the external connection becomes essential, the less important onboard compute becomes.
I know the potential options (they've been around since 2015) but it's impossible to know which way things might swing.