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.
If Cook didn't want to go into details he simply would have skirted the question. Something that happens on every call on future products.
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.
If Cook didn't want to go into details he simply would have skirted the question. Something that happens on every call on future products.
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.
Your BS is exhausting.
Really, you need to go back and read what I said. It was crystal clear.
They are both doing what you would expect of them.
Literally talking up their interests.
Does that surprise you?
If that is exhausting for you it's because you are looking to make more of a statement than what is actually in it.
What they say is important. Not where they say it.
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.
Your BS is exhausting.
Really, you need to go back and read what I said. It was crystal clear.
They are both doing what you would expect if them.
Literally talking up their interests.
Does that surprise you?
If that is exhausting for you it's because you are looking to make more of a statement than what is actually in it.
What they say is important. Not where they say it.
Little of what you post is "crystal clear", and Apple is going to leverage the skillset and technology advantage that it has, as if Meta's Quest is irrelevant as a competitor, which is what it looks like today.
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.
If Cook didn't want to go into details he simply would have skirted the question. Something that happens on every call on future products.
This time he didn't and most of us know why.
He didn’t go into detail.
In the last call Cook intentionally kept using the word AI for the reporters that are too stupid to understand that "Apple does work on AI, includes AI in their products and will continue to do so." as avon b7 mentioned.
This reminds me of when Steve Ballmer first commented on the original iPhone and said it was overpriced and didn't appeal to business customers because it lacked a keyboard. As we all know, he was extremely wrong in the end and his very product (Windows Mobile) that was on top of the smartphone market along with Blackberry were put out of business by Apple.
It will be interesting to see how AVP does in a couple of years once it's more mature. Will Zuck be eating his words just like Steve Ballmer had to?
As a side note, it still to this day boggles my mind how CEO's of companies where Apple enters their space they've occupied for years just try and brush Apple off as inferior. Very rarely does Apple ever enter a new market and doesn't make a significant dent in that market. It may not always rise to the top but these companies better be paying attention and better start taking Apple seriously. How many times do these companies need to get their asses kicked by Apple entering their space to learn to take them seriously? Apple has nearly unlimited talent, unlimited funding and resources to make their products right. So while Rev A may not be up to par in certain areas, you can bet your ass Apple will go back, take what its learned from both issues in that may have arose and customer feedback to make the next revision of their product better. They also have tech that just wasn't ready for Rev A for one reason or another that they'll implement into future versions of AVP that will also make this product even better.
Lastly, people will buy expensive products if they think they're worth the price. Apple has proved this time and time again with nearly its entire product line up. Apple has and never will compete on price. It just releases the best technology it can in the best package it can deliver. So if it's $3500 and the Quest is $350 well there's a reason why. Apple didn't just purposely jack up the price $3,000 more than the quest. Apple doesn't exactly seem to be having issues selling AVP.
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.
Your BS is exhausting.
Really, you need to go back and read what I said. It was crystal clear.
They are both doing what you would expect if them.
Literally talking up their interests.
Does that surprise you?
If that is exhausting for you it's because you are looking to make more of a statement than what is actually in it.
What they say is important. Not where they say it.
Little of what you post is "crystal clear", and Apple is going to leverage the skillset and technology advantage that it has, as if Meta's Quest is irrelevant as a competitor, which is what it looks like today.
Actually, I said so little and so clearly that you would have to deliberately want to misunderstand it. Thats how clear and simple it was.
The iPhone remains a minority, so I wouldn't say Quest will become irrelevant yet.
'Skillsets' aren't an Apple only thing either so others are equally capable of bringing equivalent (or improved) products to market but don't expect many to do that at 4,000€ a pop. That is a business consideration, not a technology consideration. The opposite is more likely. Trying to get the most bang for buck into an 'affordable' product.
There have already been rumours of Apple wanting to release a lower specced VP. I don't think that's out of the question but, like I said, other factors beyond anyone's control need to be resolved first.
I suppose the two approaches could meet in the middle as it were, and then we might have a reasonable comparison to make.
For me, the most important factor is that the products reach the market. The more the better and most importantly with common format for everyone.
Apple went in at the top end. Great! Options are everything.
I wouldn't trust Zuckerberg as far as I could throw him but I have a Quest. We stopped using it when a Facebook account become a requirement and that left a bad taste in the mouth.
We liked the Quest but the company was always a problem.
I'm still interested though and could be tempted down the road. One thing is for sure, many of the 'negatives' will be less negative by then. Price could remain an issue though.
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.
Your BS is exhausting.
Really, you need to go back and read what I said. It was crystal clear.
They are both doing what you would expect if them.
Literally talking up their interests.
Does that surprise you?
If that is exhausting for you it's because you are looking to make more of a statement than what is actually in it.
What they say is important. Not where they say it.
Little of what you post is "crystal clear", and Apple is going to leverage the skillset and technology advantage that it has, as if Meta's Quest is irrelevant as a competitor, which is what it looks like today.
Actually, I said so little and so clearly that you would have to deliberately want to misunderstand it. Thats how clear and simple it was.
The iPhone remains a minority, so I wouldn't say Quest will become irrelevant yet.
'Skillsets' aren't an Apple only thing either so others are equally capable of bringing equivalent (or improved) products to market but don't expect many to do that at 4,000€ a pop. That is a business consideration, not a technology consideration. The opposite is more likely. Trying to get the most bang for buck into an 'affordable' product.
There have already been rumours of Apple wanting to release a lower specced VP. I don't think that's out of the question but, like I said, other factors beyond anyone's control need to be resolved first.
I suppose the two approaches could meet in the middle as it were, and then we might have a reasonable comparison to make.
For me, the most important factor is that the products reach the market. The more the better and most importantly with common format for everyone.
Apple went in at the top end. Great! Options are everything.
I wouldn't trust Zuckerberg as far as I could throw him but I have a Quest. We stopped using it when a Facebook account become a requirement and that left a bad taste in the mouth.
We liked the Quest but the company was always a problem.
I'm still interested though and could be tempted down the road. One thing is for sure, many of the 'negatives' will be less negative by then. Price could remain an issue though.
Look, I actually don't disagree with Mark Zuckerberg's overall stance here. Meta's Quest, as it stands right now on February 13, 2024 is a better overall product than Apple's Vision Pro. The Quest is also 11 years old.1 The Vision Pro is 11 days old.
I mean, you better hope your decade-old product is a more complete product than a brand new one in its infancy. Or you have a much larger issue as it relates to product development and roadmaps and yes, vision.
Just to be clear, there’s no question that the Meta Quest 3 is a better option for some people, especially people who want to stick their toe in the mixed-reality pool without committing $3500+tax+applecare+tax to a 1.0 product.
Light duty/mostly fun stuff type headset buyers are probably smart to go with the Meta Quest, at least for now — if they don’t mind the data Meta collects and sells about your use of it.
The AVP is for the more serious buyer who sees it, yes, as an entertainment tool, but ALSO a productivity/workflow tool. That’s the part that justifies the price.
What he did screams of desperation. Can you imagine any other CEO taking to social media to talk about a competing product and why they don’t like it?
This is why he is worried — users can spend $3500 on a device they use everyday or $500 on a device they use very little. You might be spending $3000 more for a device, but you are getting much more value out of it.
I'm seeing a bunch of stories this morning about "Apple Fans Returning Their Vision Pro" and "AVP: Nope." I'm sorta wondering exactly what prevents people from simply doing this to try the experience, with no intention of spending the $3500...maybe over and over...and maybe just when they have a flight/ vacation. And Shirley this means we will be seeing refurbed AVPs in Apple Store soon, right?
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.
Apples target is AI on the edge, most of the world doesn't have the necessary over the air bandwidth, after all how's that work when you are not under a cell tower? Google, Meta, and Microsoft want a cloud based scenario I wonder why? Data collection?
The AVP is a low end disruption device. It does fewer things than the Quest, but it does those things EXTREMELY well. And a lot of the things the AVP does not do right now are clearly going to be available via software updates - the processing power on this thing exceeds that of an iPad Pro, where several such features already exist.
Just like with the iPhone, Apple wants to be sure it has nailed the interaction model and can build on a solid foundation so it can scale to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of users.
As for Zack's comments about the mobile space being 'closed' because of what Apple did... (a) there's a company called Google, you may have heard they have a mobile OS; (b) despite the protestations of several developers there is still money to be made in mobile; (c) a significant number of customers prefer Apple's approach; and (d) Facebook is charging a larger platform fee for the Quest than Apple does for iOS.
The AVP is a low end disruption device. It does fewer things than the Quest, but it does those things EXTREMELY well. And a lot of the things the AVP does not do right now are clearly going to be available via software updates - the processing power on this thing exceeds that of an iPad Pro, where several such features already exist.
Just like with the iPhone, Apple wants to be sure it has nailed the interaction model and can build on a solid foundation so it can scale to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of users.
As for Zack's comments about the mobile space being 'closed' because of what Apple did... (a) there's a company called Google, you may have heard they have a mobile OS; (b) despite the protestations of several developers there is still money to be made in mobile; (c) a significant number of customers prefer Apple's approach; and (d) Facebook is charging a larger platform fee for the Quest than Apple does for iOS.
Does the Meta Quest have a proper OS under the hood? I don't think it does didn't Meta try to build something and then gave up? Long term this lack of basic hardware/software fundamentals due to simply not having the undercarriage built in from the ground up will be Meta's downfall. Android tablets/ChromeBooks also have the same fatal flaw.
The AVP is a low end disruption device. It does fewer things than the Quest, but it does those things EXTREMELY well. And a lot of the things the AVP does not do right now are clearly going to be available via software updates - the processing power on this thing exceeds that of an iPad Pro, where several such features already exist.
Just like with the iPhone, Apple wants to be sure it has nailed the interaction model and can build on a solid foundation so it can scale to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of users.
As for Zack's comments about the mobile space being 'closed' because of what Apple did... (a) there's a company called Google, you may have heard they have a mobile OS; (b) despite the protestations of several developers there is still money to be made in mobile; (c) a significant number of customers prefer Apple's approach; and (d) Facebook is charging a larger platform fee for the Quest than Apple does for iOS.
Does the Meta Quest have a proper OS under the hood? I don't think it does didn't Meta try to build something and then gave up? Long term this lack of basic hardware/software fundamentals due to simply not having the undercarriage built in from the ground up will be Meta's downfall. Android tablets/ChromeBooks also have the same fatal flaw.
It has Android. And, yes, they reportedly have given up on their own OS. That will forever be a problem for anyone trying to compete with Apple, along with the lack vertical integration of HW components.
Comments
This time he didn't and most of us know why.
They are both doing what you would expect of them.
Literally talking up their interests.
Does that surprise you?
If that is exhausting for you it's because you are looking to make more of a statement than what is actually in it.
What they say is important. Not where they say it.
It will be interesting to see how AVP does in a couple of years once it's more mature. Will Zuck be eating his words just like Steve Ballmer had to?
As a side note, it still to this day boggles my mind how CEO's of companies where Apple enters their space they've occupied for years just try and brush Apple off as inferior. Very rarely does Apple ever enter a new market and doesn't make a significant dent in that market. It may not always rise to the top but these companies better be paying attention and better start taking Apple seriously. How many times do these companies need to get their asses kicked by Apple entering their space to learn to take them seriously? Apple has nearly unlimited talent, unlimited funding and resources to make their products right. So while Rev A may not be up to par in certain areas, you can bet your ass Apple will go back, take what its learned from both issues in that may have arose and customer feedback to make the next revision of their product better. They also have tech that just wasn't ready for Rev A for one reason or another that they'll implement into future versions of AVP that will also make this product even better.
Lastly, people will buy expensive products if they think they're worth the price. Apple has proved this time and time again with nearly its entire product line up. Apple has and never will compete on price. It just releases the best technology it can in the best package it can deliver. So if it's $3500 and the Quest is $350 well there's a reason why. Apple didn't just purposely jack up the price $3,000 more than the quest. Apple doesn't exactly seem to be having issues selling AVP.
Steve did have valid points, but by the time the 3GS came out those points all but evaporated and it was game over.
The Vision Pro is not going to storm the market as a version one product. It is too expensive, it does need an external power pack, etc.
But you’d better believe that by Vision Pro version 3 it will steamroll the likes of Meta.
The iPhone remains a minority, so I wouldn't say Quest will become irrelevant yet.
'Skillsets' aren't an Apple only thing either so others are equally capable of bringing equivalent (or improved) products to market but don't expect many to do that at 4,000€ a pop. That is a business consideration, not a technology consideration. The opposite is more likely. Trying to get the most bang for buck into an 'affordable' product.
There have already been rumours of Apple wanting to release a lower specced VP. I don't think that's out of the question but, like I said, other factors beyond anyone's control need to be resolved first.
I suppose the two approaches could meet in the middle as it were, and then we might have a reasonable comparison to make.
For me, the most important factor is that the products reach the market. The more the better and most importantly with common format for everyone.
Apple went in at the top end. Great! Options are everything.
I wouldn't trust Zuckerberg as far as I could throw him but I have a Quest. We stopped using it when a Facebook account become a requirement and that left a bad taste in the mouth.
We liked the Quest but the company was always a problem.
I'm still interested though and could be tempted down the road. One thing is for sure, many of the 'negatives' will be less negative by then. Price could remain an issue though.
https://twitter.com/counternotions/status/1757903857139470563/photo/1
and yet another detailed response to Zuckerberg;
https://spyglass.org/apple-vision-pro-versus-meta-quest/
This is why he is worried — users can spend $3500 on a device they use everyday or $500 on a device they use very little. You might be spending $3000 more for a device, but you are getting much more value out of it.
Apples target is AI on the edge, most of the world doesn't have the necessary over the air bandwidth, after all how's that work when you are not under a cell tower? Google, Meta, and Microsoft want a cloud based scenario I wonder why? Data collection?
Just like with the iPhone, Apple wants to be sure it has nailed the interaction model and can build on a solid foundation so it can scale to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of users.
As for Zack's comments about the mobile space being 'closed' because of what Apple did... (a) there's a company called Google, you may have heard they have a mobile OS; (b) despite the protestations of several developers there is still money to be made in mobile; (c) a significant number of customers prefer Apple's approach; and (d) Facebook is charging a larger platform fee for the Quest than Apple does for iOS.
https://www.androidcentral.com/new-oculus-quest-os-canceled