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