Why do I keep seeing this comparison over and over? Like cool, you compared it to the absolute cheapest headset out there, Meta loses money on every one of them they’ve sold. It’s also a VR experience only, with awful external cameras. The $1099 HTC Vive XR Elite would be a much fairer comparison as it also does AR and VR together.
It’s the same as all the articles comparing other devices not using an external battery pack. When those are using smartphone-tier ARM chips that can’t hold a candle to Apple’s M-series SoCs.
Like, I still think it’s overpriced as fuck but I’d really love to see some actually realistic comparisons.
Honestly, if you’re comparing any two headsets, these make the most sense imo. They’re from the two biggest companies, the Q3 will presumably sell the most out of any headset and it‘s shifted to a lot more mixed reality.
They feel the most relevant, although there are certainly many differences. I think at the end of the day there isn’t really any headset that perfectly compares to VP, simply due to the fact that VP has a very heavy work focus and everything else is mostly game focused. Quest pro perhaps, but that headset is a joke.
They feel the most relevant, although there are certainly many differences.
Many differences? They are completely different products. This is like comparing a Switch to a laptop. Sure, they are both computers but the comparison ends there.
I think that in an already niche market, it is hard for the average consumer to even further differentiate them into their own niches.
Plus, they’re in the same market. I can’t see someone owning both because they have completely different use cases. If you buy one of them you basically already can do most of what the other one can.
It’s kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. Yeah they are different, but they are still cars and have a lot in common.
If you buy one of them you basically already can do most of what the other one can.
But that’s the point, they aren’t even remotely similar. The only similarity is that they are headsets, but they couldn’t be more different functionally.
It’s kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari.
More like comparing a Honda Civic to an airplane. Both have wheels, but that’s where the similarities end. They aren’t even in the same market.
The Vision Pro isn’t competing with the Quest, it’s competing with the MacBook Pro and iMac.
Typical techie way of looking at things. It’s not about the technology at all. It’s about what you can do with it. One is an AR headset, the other a spatial computing headset.
They both have AR and Spatial Computing capabilities at varying quality. They are both a set of lenses, a depth sensor, some cameras, and some screens, nothing more nothing less. Cars have wheels and planes have wings, that’s not an apt comparison.
Allowing you to "do AR" is very different than having AR that even 10% of the planet can use without vomiting. Nobody is actually going to actually use the quest for AR. It's not remotely close to the bare minimum to actually function. People who try for more than 10 seconds at a time will vomit. Repeatedly.
And that's before the fact that it doesn't have the resolution for text, nullifying almost all of the utility the Vision Pro has.
With extremely low quality, high latency passthrough? They shouldn't even be allowed to call it AR without criminal charges for fraud. It's not remotely close.
You can read giant text on your Oculus 2. You can't read a virtual monitor placed among other windows in 3D space. The resolution for that to be possible does not exist. Most of the things that aren't straight video feeds or gaming that people are talking about using the Vision Pro for aren't "lower quality" on the Quest. They're straight up impossible because there are absolute bare minimum thresholds for display quality and the Quest 3 is way too low. It's gaming, maybe (though given the fact that Facebook is absolute dogshit at getting content, probably actually not) media consumption, and nothing else.
Add comment