> There is no hint that Apple intends to do anything with the Vision Pro, and they've already been scooped by Meta.
I expect that's exactly what they have in mind. If they're successful, Meta's project will be to Apple's what early MP3 players were to the original iPod.
It's more likely than not that they will, in my opinion. As an owner of both an AVP and Quest 2, the former is a lot nicer to use than the latter with the exception of VR games, and my hunch is that Valve is going to eat Meta's lunch for gaming with Deckard (which will be at least as good as the Quest 3, but much more open, paired with a vastly more populated and popular marketplace, probably won't treat PCVR as an afterthought, and won't be saddled with the Quest's somewhat painful sideloading experience).
The main hurdle Apple faces is bringing costs down and improving the AVP's form factor, both of which are well within their capabilities.
Having experienced the Quest Pro I can say that Apple has absolutely no clue what the focus should be on.
Hint: being able to grab a well balanced headset that is so easy to put on as a cap. This makes you not think if you are going to watch or play in VR, you just do it.
I think Apple knows exactly what they're doing, but was forced to choose between making the product more about demonstrating their tech and end goals or being mass market mediocre and chose the former. Nobody would've cared about what amounted to a Quest wrapped in a Cupertino design with similar performance, specs, etc. It's very much in line with the original iPod and iPhone, both of which took a few iterations before becoming category-defining hits. It'll probably be the second or third-gen Vision device that'll fix the AVP's nits while also keeping or improving upon its strong points.
Of course the AVP is much nicer than the Quest 2. For more than 10 times the price it had better be.
It doesn't really describe the companies' different abilities but the design goals. The quest 2 was clearly 'make it as cheap as possible so lots of people can buy it' and the AVP's was 'make it as good as it can be, price is not a factor'
Still though, both products eventually get stuck at the same point: a killer usecase. Neither has a compelling reason to actually want to put it on. There's very few things that are better in VR and the ones that are are really niche. I personally love VR gaming and stimulations. I love VR for it and I use it a ton. But those are pretty niche.
But socialising in VR is not really a great user experience despite most of meta's focus going there. And Apple? They don't really have any usecase that shines. Maybe watching movies but even that works better on an actual TV as you can share the experience with others.
My take on VR/AR socialization is that it can work, but only if it's as low-friction as picking up a phone and doing a video call is today, which isn't achievable so long as we're still stuck on headsets as the primary form factor.
That's why they bought up Luxotica shares. Because scuba gear is for scuba diving. Even if it's white, it's still scuba gear. Remember the PDAs with resitive screens and styluses? They were a lot more convenient than scuba gear.
I expect that's exactly what they have in mind. If they're successful, Meta's project will be to Apple's what early MP3 players were to the original iPod.
The jury is out on whether Cook can pull it off.