Meta cancels its headset rival to Apple Vision Pro

Posted:
in Apple Vision Pro edited August 24

Meta's chief technology officer has all but confirmed reports that the company is abandoning its plan to take on the Apple Vision Pro with a similarly powerful device.

Meta Quest Pro
Meta Quest Pro



Right before the announcement of the Apple Vision Pro, Meta "leaked" its four-year plan for virtual and mixed reality headsets. A key part of that plan was the development of what was known internally as La Jolla, but would perhaps have become known the world as Apple Vision Pro's closest rival.

As first spotted by The Information, Meta began development work in November 2023, but then cancelled the project around mid-August 2024. Reportedly, the decision was made at a product review meeting attended by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth, amongst others.

Following the report, Meta's CTO Andrew Bosworth responded with a message on Threads, although he did not directly acknowledge the publication.

"Just your regularly scheduled public service announcement: we have many prototypes in development at all times," he said. "But we don't bring all of them to production."

"We move forward with some, we pass on others," he continued. "Decisions like this happen all the time, and stories based on chatter about one individual decision will never give the real picture."

It's certainly true that Meta is continuing to work on different headsets. But it appears to have dropped its Apple Vision Pro competitor, codenamed La Jolla, and possibly because of cost issues.

There is the fact that the $3,500 Apple Vision Pro has yet to become a dramatic success. But reportedly Meta was focused on keeping the cost of the La Jolla headset under $1,000, and it simply was not possible.

It's believed that La Jolla would have used micro OLED displays, just like the Apple Vision Pro. While not specifically known, the cost of these alone is likely to have been a factor.

Two unspecified sources within Meta said that it was possible that the La Jolla headset could be revived. But also that technology developed for it, such as gaze tracking, would be used in other products.

Meta has not officially announced the cancellation of the project, but as demonstrated with the failed Meta Quest Pro, it tends not to.



Read on AppleInsider

dewme
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    CHECKMATE.
    danoxzeus423watto_cobraAfarstarAlex_V
  • Reply 2 of 31
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 3,041member
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  
    gatorguydecoderringDAalsethnubusbaconstang
  • Reply 3 of 31
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  
    Or... Meta realized they can't just slap together something in 6 months to compete with something that has almost 10 years of development behind it. The  only thing holding back the Vision Pro from becoming a blockbuster success is its price. When that comes down everybody will want one. Remember, the iPod was based on only one kind of media. When people start seeing their friends with one and they have a chance to try it out for themselves, Apple Vision For-The-Rest-of-Us will be huge.
    edited August 24 Fidonet127danoxpaisleydiscozeus423watto_cobraMacPropscooter63Alex_V
  • Reply 4 of 31
    XedXed Posts: 2,830member
    I can't prove it, but I'm sure it 1) cost considerably more than AVP,  2) still offered no profit for Meta despite their years of "cornering" the market, and 3) was still years away from being able to match AVP's SW capabilities.

    That isn't to say that Oculus does' have some great features that AVP could use — like pretty much anything interactive with other AVP users— but  were are still only a half a year since AVP was dropped onto our laps and it is inarguably best to create a solid foundation before you still building the skyscraper above it.
    williamlondonpaisleydiscowatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 31
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,712member
    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 
    I agree, as I would have bought one immediately if there was a Vision Pro version of either of my favourite games - Civ and Wow. 

    Blizzard has always been highly supportive of the Mac platform, so I can't ever be upset with them. Firaxis said this week that CIV VII releases in six months and will be available on every platform (including every console, so they say.) They probably don't mean to include Vision Pro in that statement, (or Apple TV) but who knows?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 31
    XedXed Posts: 2,830member
    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 
    I agree, as I would have bought one immediately if there was a Vision Pro version of either of my favourite games - Civ and Wow. 

    Blizzard has always been highly supportive of the Mac platform, so I can't ever be upset with them. Firaxis said this week that CIV VII releases in six months and will be available on every platform (including every console, so they say.) They probably don't mean to include Vision Pro in that statement, (or Apple TV) but who knows?
    Since it’s already just a game on a display can’t you just use one of the options to project the game on an AVP, like from you Mac?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 31
    thttht Posts: 5,623member
    Xed said:
    I can't prove it, but I'm sure it 1) cost considerably more than AVP,  2) still offered no profit for Meta despite their years of "cornering" the market, and 3) was still years away from being able to match AVP's SW capabilities.

    That isn't to say that Oculus does' have some great features that AVP could use — like pretty much anything interactive with other AVP users— but  were are still only a half a year since AVP was dropped onto our laps and it is inarguably best to create a solid foundation before you still building the skyscraper above it.
    No way to prove 1 as nobody knows what was in this La Jolla headset. If the rumored BOM target of $1000 is correct, a rationale MSRP would be $3000. Since Meta couldn't get there, it more or less proves Apple's VP headset has no real margin in it. Apple has to de-feature and wait for component cost reductions to make a $2000 headset with microOLEDs. A Chinese microOLED component supplier, 2nd and 3rd suppliers, can't come soon enough.

    Meta is losing about $1000 to $1500 per Quest headset sold, depending on model. If they want to sell this Quest Pro 2 for say $1500, oy, that's probably taking a $2000 to $2500 loss per QP2 headset. Kind of hard to justify such a model when Meta Reality Labs has lost $50b over the last 4 years. Meta has a dug a hole so deep with its Reality Labs products that they will never make profit out it. All they have done is driven all the players into the edges of the market as nobody is willing to take the losses to compete. Apple does things their way for the most part.
    danoxdewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 31
    The VP is meeting Apple's expectations I'm sure, which means Apple will improve on it. 
    williamlondonpaisleydiscowatto_cobraAlex_V
  • Reply 9 of 31
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,086member
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  
    Hilarious. While you're singing the praises of Meta's focus on the supposed "killer app" of entertainment and Quest's "better product" for that use, you're clearly blissfully unaware of how your "killer app" and Meta hardware have been doing in the marketplace. Suggest you read a Meta quarterly report, where you'll learn that Reality Labs is and has been losing A BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH. And this doesn't even count however many countless billions Zuckerberg burned through in pursuing his vision of "the Metaverse." Remember when that was "the next big thing?" Fact is, Zuck has been wrong at every turn when it comes to VR (or whatever you want to call it) and Meta investors have had it with this black hole for money. 

    As for Vision Pro not being "a mass market thing" -- of course it isn't. The $3500 price tag makes that clear. Being a mass market thing was never a goal for v1 of this device, but this is classic straw man criticism of Apple: criticizing it for not meeting a goal that Apple has never set for itself. And in this case has made clear is NOT a goal VP 1.0, both in terms of its price tag and the production constraints due to manufacturing complexity. 

    Try this: the first 42" flat screen TV from Sony/Sharp cost $15,000... that's more than $29,000 in 2024 dollars. Should they have killed the flat screen because it wasn't "mass market?" Heck, it wasn't even "pro market" at that price -- it was only for niche use where price absolutely did not matter. But today you can buy a 40" flat screen TV at Best Buy for $158 and its performance will be superior to the original. That's $29,000 down to $158. 

    What's clear to me is that v1.0 of Vision Pro--and very possibly the next couple of versions to follow--are mainly a development lab for VisionOS and apps. That the hardware will get smaller/lighter/cheaper and become "mass market" is as inevitable as what happened with flat screen television and many other technologies. That part is not in doubt. But the success of VP will still be determined by its OS and app ecosystem. The goal of VP right now is to make sure those are fully ready for a more mass market transition when it comes. You and the rest of the VP peanut gallery are out there shouting that neither are fully ready now. No kidding. And so what? The only way to achieve that was to start somewhere and get several hundred thousand units of what is already an extraordinary v1.0 product considering its complexity out there in the wild and get people, especially developers, using it. In case you're unaware, Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash to easily support this kind of endeavor. I can't think of a better use for it. 
    edited August 24 XedwilliamlondonFidonet127baconstangpaisleydiscoauxiodewmewatto_cobraMacPropscooter63
  • Reply 10 of 31
    M68000M68000 Posts: 852member
    lotones said:
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  
    Or... Meta realized they can't just slap together something in 6 months to compete with something that has almost 10 years of development behind it. The  only thing holding back the Vision Pro from becoming a blockbuster success is its price. When that comes down everybody will want one. Remember, the iPod was based on only one kind of media. When people start seeing their friends with one and they have a chance to try it out for themselves, Apple Vision For-The-Rest-of-Us will be huge.
    No,  it goes beyond price.  One of the other questions is who wants to wear a helmet computer and appear anti social while doing it?  This form factor does not impress me for general purpose use.  If we’re talking about training simulator stuff,  that could be different. Further, forgetting about price, is so called spatial computing really better than regular computing?  If it is,  how about some proof? There does not seem to be much mainstream talk about it.
    edited August 24 williamlondondanoxbaconstang
  • Reply 11 of 31
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,307member
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    watto_cobraMacProAlex_V
  • Reply 12 of 31
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,307member

    M68000 said:
    lotones said:
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  
    Or... Meta realized they can't just slap together something in 6 months to compete with something that has almost 10 years of development behind it. The  only thing holding back the Vision Pro from becoming a blockbuster success is its price. When that comes down everybody will want one. Remember, the iPod was based on only one kind of media. When people start seeing their friends with one and they have a chance to try it out for themselves, Apple Vision For-The-Rest-of-Us will be huge.
    No,  it goes beyond price.  One of the other questions is who wants to wear a helmet computer and appear anti social while doing it?  This form factor does not impress me for general purpose use.  If we’re talking about training simulator stuff,  that could be different. Further, forgetting about price, is so called spatial computing really better than regular computing?  If it is,  how about some proof? There does not seem to be much mainstream talk about it.
    Headsets are coming. It’s just a question of time and iteration a webpage company is not qualified to bring such an experience to the public it takes a company able to create whole new ecosystems combining hardware and software.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 31
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,307member

    tht said:
    Xed said:
    I can't prove it, but I'm sure it 1) cost considerably more than AVP,  2) still offered no profit for Meta despite their years of "cornering" the market, and 3) was still years away from being able to match AVP's SW capabilities.

    That isn't to say that Oculus does' have some great features that AVP could use — like pretty much anything interactive with other AVP users— but  were are still only a half a year since AVP was dropped onto our laps and it is inarguably best to create a solid foundation before you still building the skyscraper above it.
    No way to prove 1 as nobody knows what was in this La Jolla headset. If the rumored BOM target of $1000 is correct, a rationale MSRP would be $3000. Since Meta couldn't get there, it more or less proves Apple's VP headset has no real margin in it. Apple has to de-feature and wait for component cost reductions to make a $2000 headset with microOLEDs. A Chinese microOLED component supplier, 2nd and 3rd suppliers, can't come soon enough.

    Meta is losing about $1000 to $1500 per Quest headset sold, depending on model. If they want to sell this Quest Pro 2 for say $1500, oy, that's probably taking a $2000 to $2500 loss per QP2 headset. Kind of hard to justify such a model when Meta Reality Labs has lost $50b over the last 4 years. Meta has a dug a hole so deep with its Reality Labs products that they will never make profit out it. All they have done is driven all the players into the edges of the market as nobody is willing to take the losses to compete. Apple does things their way for the most part.
    Meta were doomed the moment Apple entered the market.
    watto_cobraMacProAlex_V
  • Reply 14 of 31
    PemaPema Posts: 122member
    Creating a Vision Pro lookalike @ $3500 is totally insane. Following Apple down that path is tantamount to tying an anchor to your foot and jumping in the deep water. 

    The few billions that Meta would have wasted on this absurdity is better spent on creating money making products and services. 

    Perhaps Apple can drive their car to Meta's HQ and park it in Zuckerberg's bay. 

    On that subject perhaps Apple can reap and benefit from the junky Samsung foldable, bendable rubbish that is languishing on the shelves and not waste money manufacturing something along those lines that nobody is interested in. It's called market research. In other research what consumers want. 

    Better spend money on a tech think tank coming up with future products and stop milking the iPhone to death. 

     


  • Reply 15 of 31
    PemaPema Posts: 122member

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    I don't know about that. Meta is smart enough not to build a headset at $3500 US that is total failure. 
    So far as competing with Apple? They are not in the same space. Check out Microsoft's Azure it puts iClod (yes, clod, not cloud) to shame not to mention Google's search engine which Apple has nothing to even come close. 

    Apple needs to come up with a tech game changer since Jobs passing and stop milking the iPhone to death. Either that or they will be peddling accessories and services going forward. 


  • Reply 16 of 31
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,307member
    Pema said:

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    I don't know about that. Meta is smart enough not to build a headset at $3500 US that is total failure. 
    So far as competing with Apple? They are not in the same space. Check out Microsoft's Azure it puts iClod (yes, clod, not cloud) to shame not to mention Google's search engine which Apple has nothing to even come close. 

    Apple needs to come up with a tech game changer since Jobs passing and stop milking the iPhone to death. Either that or they will be peddling accessories and services going forward. 


    Pema said:

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    I don't know about that. Meta is smart enough not to build a headset at $3500 US that is total failure. 
    So far as competing with Apple? They are not in the same space. Check out Microsoft's Azure it puts iClod (yes, clod, not cloud) to shame not to mention Google's search engine which Apple has nothing to even come close. 

    Apple needs to come up with a tech game changer since Jobs passing and stop milking the iPhone to death. Either that or they will be peddling accessories and services going forward. 


    Microsoft is currently confused about AI and seem to be confused about the fact that the only way forward for Windows on Arm is to actually be ported over natively to Arm processors, in addition Microsoft needs to get rid of those third parties out of the OS kernel something that Apple did over 10 years ago priority number one if you don’t want CloudStrike again. 

    The Microsoft Azure server kingdom is low hanging fruit Microsoft dominance is mainly due to market inertia it isn’t because they’re exactly the most competent CloudStrike and blaming the EU for their trouble proves that.

    Apple is far beyond Meta, Google, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, at this time in terms of execution, software, hardware and Qualcomm can only stand behind their government granted monopoly (Frand) in modems at this time.

    The new era of AI agents upon us and it will severely cut into Google dominance of search after all why do you need Google if you can assign your own AI agent to search for what you need, dozens of new companies are chomping at the bit to offer services personally for the end user and Google won’t be able to stop the floodgates, have you seen Googles introduction of the new Pixel the Tensor processor is five years behind Apple now and Apple hasn’t even released the next version of their phone which will put the Tensor another year behind Apple. 

    I remember not too long ago according to the tech analysts and the financial analysts Apple was supposed to be behind in AI. but I don’t think they are they appear just arriving right on time for another master class.

    And last but not least another Apple competitor in tech has blown $50 billion dollars down the drain, Apple would be considered doomed if they had wasted so much money. (largest Apple acquisition to date $3 billion dollars). Apple game changers, Apple Silicon and Apple OS.

    edited August 24 paisleydiscowatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 31
    nubusnubus Posts: 580member
    danox said:
    Headsets are coming. It’s just a question of time and iteration a webpage company is not qualified to bring such an experience to the public it takes a company able to create whole new ecosystems combining hardware and software.
    VR visors have been around for +30 years. They are like 3D TV, smell-o-vision / AromaRama something that sounds like a great idea without being so.

    You don't see news or movies in 3D at home. You want to talk to the family, eat, and do 2nd screening without wearing 3D glasses or a headset. At work... Apple HQ is designed to create interactions and Apple demand employees to work from office. Apple is also investing in stores - to create real and tactile interactions. VR visors go against this. Knowledge workers need to interact. We collaborate, go to meetings, meet at the coffee machine, and drink too much coffee.

    Games? Sony pulled the plug in June on their new $549 Sony PS VR2 headset. Office? MS is removing all support for HoloLens/Windows Mixed Reality this year. And Meta now dropping their future high-end device. There are use cases in defence. Northrop-Apple?
     
    I still believe AR glasses and cyborg like features could be in our future. But VR visors... that is one gadget too far.
    muthuk_vanalingambaconstang
  • Reply 18 of 31
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,977member
    danox said:
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    Meta can do software. It can do headsets too and has far more knowhow in the headset field than Apple. Meta also does a lot of stuff that Apple doesn't. 

    Does Apple have its own undersea communications cabling for example?
     
    Meta's cloud infrastructure is also very good.

    The company itself might have dubious goals and very shady practices but no one can say it doesn't have knowhow and that even includes AI. 

    Apple didn't give a 'masterclass' in anything. Apple's AI efforts aren't even shipping and are unlikely to see a full roll out until long into next year.

    Apple’s VR efforts are not bringing anything new to the table either in terms of ideas. 

    Any major tech company could produce a VP. The question is at what price? 

    Meta seems to have acknowledged that it can't bring such a product to market at the price it would like to. That is reasonable. Apple couldn't either. 

    Apple, on the other hand, deliberately chose to max out the specs and run with a product that was only ever going to reach a fragment of the market. 

    Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

    Far better to have options in the knowledge that the VP will come down in price at some point and companies like Meta will improve specs over time. No doubt everyone will win when price/specs meet somewhere in the middle. 

    The plus for Apple is that it will gain knowhow along the way. 

    Everyone wins. 




    nubussphericmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 19 of 31
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,307member
    avon b7 said:
    danox said:
    No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

    The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

    In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

    Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

    But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

    The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

    While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

    Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

    When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

    But headsets just suck. 

    One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  

    Meta sucks the idea of a headset coming from them is laughable, and there will be a very good headsets in the future whether that’s made by Apple or somebody else, did you really think a webpage company called Meta could compete with Apple and that includes Google and Microsoft none of them can do software, and hardware together as one without fumbling and bumbling check out Google‘s or Microsoft presentation before and after WWDC 2024 by Apple they had no clue as to what to do with AI. 

    Apple had to teach them in that master class at WWDC 2024, look at what Apple‘s doing with Apple Intelligence they have a coherent plan and they’ve put a lot of thought into it. Their competition has not. They just threw things together hoping something will stick, whatever device comes in VR/AR it’s gonna take iteration years of iteration no different than replacing Intel CPU’s after 13 years, if that Apple modem gets finished it’s gonna take years (5-6 years in now) to do, so how many companies are willing and able to do that? How many times must Apple prove that they can iterate over a period of time in comparison to their competition. Qualcomm will be out because there because there are future next generation devices Apple wants to build and they don’t want them in their devices, AMD and Nvidia also suffered the same fate.
    Meta can do software. It can do headsets too and has far more knowhow in the headset field than Apple. Meta also does a lot of stuff that Apple doesn't. 

    Does Apple have its own undersea communications cabling for example?
     
    Meta's cloud infrastructure is also very good.

    The company itself might have dubious goals and very shady practices but no one can say it doesn't have knowhow and that even includes AI. 

    Apple didn't give a 'masterclass' in anything. Apple's AI efforts aren't even shipping and are unlikely to see a full roll out until long into next year.

    Apple’s VR efforts are not bringing anything new to the table either in terms of ideas. 

    Any major tech company could produce a VP. The question is at what price? 

    Meta seems to have acknowledged that it can't bring such a product to market at the price it would like to. That is reasonable. Apple couldn't either. 

    Apple, on the other hand, deliberately chose to max out the specs and run with a product that was only ever going to reach a fragment of the market. 

    Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

    Far better to have options in the knowledge that the VP will come down in price at some point and companies like Meta will improve specs over time. No doubt everyone will win when price/specs meet somewhere in the middle. 

    The plus for Apple is that it will gain knowhow along the way. 

    Everyone wins. 



    Meta can’t do any software worth owning (buying isn’t everything free?), and certainly in the United States the trust just isn’t there on any level when you would prefer to use Google instead of Meta that says it all they are an Ad company who finally realize after 50 billion dollars that they are in over their heads.

    Any company cannot do VR/AR right no in house OS no can do, putting together a Chromebook clone OS isn’t good enough ala Meta, on the other hand, Microsoft is currently having nothing but trouble with their new Surface line of computers, OS trouble, and SOC trouble, and if Microsoft is having trouble, what do you think Meta is going to do with their headset? It is in over their head, remember when Amazon and Facebook a few years ago, tried to make a smart phone the same cluster f—- happened.

    I agree the price will come down for the Vision Pro, but it’s never gonna be cheaper than a mid range MacBook Pro, when you look at the Vision Pro Apple has solved most of the computer problems VisionOS along with continued iteration on Apple Silicon with an M4 M5 or M6 processor along with an R2 or R3 is already coming in the future, the opticals and the overall front of the Vision Pro is where most of the work is going to be done in getting it smaller than the first generation and once again, those two things are far beyond Meta, Microsoft or Googles pay-grade none of those companies will sweat the details. The only thing these tech companies can do is wait until Apple is finished copy and try to use Apples new supply chain with Sony optical which might be hard because Samsung is part of the Google group.

    What Apple is bringing to the table is an attention to detail with an in-house OS and Apple Silicon that, same attention is what they brought to Apple Intelligence. They actually spent time and actually thought about what they were going to implement the competition just threw stuff at the wall, all you need do is look at Googles and Microsoft attempts at me-too hardware all up until this point has been dismal failures profit wise the Pixel phone the Surface or the Xbox all are money losers long term lost leaders.

    edited August 25 williamlondonbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 31
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,086member
    Pema said:

    I don't know about that. Meta is smart enough not to build a headset at $3500 US that is total failure. 


    Total failure? Facts please. FACTS, not opinions. Even one. I'll wait... 
    sphericwilliamlondonwatto_cobraMacPro
Sign In or Register to comment.