Meta cancels its headset rival to Apple Vision Pro
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
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
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Meta were doomed the moment Apple entered the market.
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.
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.
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.
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.