Comment by ripvanwinkle
3 years ago
IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .
Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement they would do a lot better
The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
Meta just isn't very good at building software that users want. They've been optimizing for advertisers and stockholders instead for the past decade.
Really a shame that Oculus got acquired by them.
The Oculus has had virtual video exactly like what was shown for a long time. Showing a VR video is not new or unique.
The innovation that apple has brought is from their holistic OS and UX design. If meta has a problem, it's that they focused heavily on full immersive experiences and let the concept of multitasking languish.
I don't personality think they focused too heavily on social at all... But I do think they failed to imagine (or at least position) their system as a proper personal computing platform.
> or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .
There are a bunch of apps for Quest that do just this. Perhaps Meta's marketing is just terrible...
I have a hard time imagining either company creating a good ecosystem here.
There will be some stunning experiences on both, absolutely (Disney/Marvel has entered the chat) but they'll be narrow niches. Neither company WI be anywhere near creating a more platform where experiences across systems work well.
Or maybe possibly one can. Apple only added widgets a couple years ago, & they're doing a great job across their platforms with widget like things (stacks on watch). The new iOS always-on Standby mode is starting to really leverage this, in a way Google is nowhere near doing (widgets on Android are so often ill maintained afterthoughts).
Metaverse requires a couple interesting features. Prepackaged monoliths just won't cut it, aren't dynamic enough. The space has to be a host not just to users but to a sea of mini experiences, sharing the space together, that users can seamlessly move across & interwork. Neither company has the genetics here to actually tackle these computing challenges: both are authoritarian in nature & unlikely to plant the right seeds for success.
Yeah, I haven't bought/used any AR/VR devices before, but I'm excited about a device that will offer seamless interaction with the rest of my Apple devices.
> pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment
100%. I'm not into playing video games or watching TV, so their focus on real world things really appealed to me.
It's a huuuge price tag, but I'm psyched.
This was maybe my biggest complaint about the Quest 2. I would get a text message or notification on my phone. I could feel it vibrate in my pocket or on my wrist, but I couldn't actually see it unless I took the headset off.
On the other hand, Meta are very very good at acquiring key companies for their ambitions. My Quest 2 is a Beat Saber machine and everything else that comes with it is icing on the cake.
I think you are absolutely right. The Vision Pro presentation was the first time that I could consider watching a movie or sports in VR. Making that screen really big but also embedding you into an environment focused on the show was great to see. Dimming the room or giving it a Star Wars theme is very nice.
It shows that they really considered what you can do with the device more than all the others.