The only part based on actual information is they aren't ordering new parts. They are still producing new headsets, and continuing to sell those based on the existing stock of parts. We don't know what stock they have, it's quite possible that given the reduced rate of sales after Quest 3 is released they fully expect to be able to satisfy production requirements for the full lifetime of the device. Which may actually be an indication they are pulling forward a successor as much as that they are stopping further development.
The "stops development of Quest Pro 2" is not new information, it is based on information from months ago that said they had decided to "skip" the Quest Pro's immediate successor in favor of focusing on the one that would come after it.
To cap it all off, Andrew Bosworth directly contradicted this information today.
I have a Quest Pro, after having had many of the predecessors - Vive, etc. I think that A/R needs to succeed before VR can really take off. And I think AR is going to really succeed.
By VR I mean being totally cutoff from the rest of the world into this new world. It's exhausting in a way and feels like you are at a disadvantage if other people are around.
The Pro has some limited AR and it's actually really exciting. Being in both worlds at the same time feels really really interesting.
Apple is so far ahead, conceptually, that it makes sense to me for Meta/quest to recalibrate here.
100% agree. I've said similar things before on HN and got dismissive replies. Have a really good AR integration is essential for long term VR use. I should be able to toggle in and out of VR experiences and go back to real life when needed, just with googles on. But also have a digital interface layered over (without a full VR fake room like a Quest but my living room).
That would make the experience far smoother and relaxing.
The most basic thing is good pass through, I used to box every night on my Quest 2 and having a drink from my shake bottle was challenging and annoying.
I really hope not. I get AR might work for some situation p, but the Quest is really good for I’m erosive situations where you just want slice some blocks apart with light sabers according to a nice song. Beat Saber is still the Quest’s killer app. How would AR improve on that experience?
I don’t see much point to the quest pro and eagerly await the quest 3.
Quest Pro supposedly being a pro device cannot replace my desktop screens. Resolution is just not there. With Apple Vision seems to be actually capable of doing this. I am looking forward to ditching my screens.
My napkin math and some googling (with the information I could find at the time of release, so probably inaccurate in multiple ways):
Quest 2= ~18PPD
Quest pro = ~20PPD
Quest 3 = ~25PPD
Apple Vision = ~36PPD
Real life vision 60-120PPD
1920x1080 27" screen from a "normal" distance is roughly 36PPD.
So I think Apple vision will feel like previous generation of screens (pre "retina"), and it makes sense why they pushed it so far. I wouldn't want to look at anything with worse quality (720p for example). And this is just talking about "pro" developers that use multiple screens.
Well sure. It's 10x the price of a Quest 2 and has a good spec bump for it, but is that a conceptual leap? It feels like it's just focusing on the high end of the market. Is it even a moat? Won't Meta have a similar device in a few years?
What Apple gets right are all the tiny details that make it feel like an AR pass-through device. Aside from the impressive spec differences that are required for usability, these are the things they focused on that really matter to me from a user perspective:
1. No noticeable lag due to very high refresh rate
2. The viewpoint and perspective of the cameras mimics your actual view almost exactly
3. AR-first, and user-friendly VR shows other people when they approach you
4. Quick, accurate eye tracking and comfortable gesture controls
We don't have hard numbers for them, but we do have everyone who tried the demo units being basically unanimous on those points, including people already familiar with existing VR devices.
But in a few years Apple will have new devices too. They’ll be cheaper for the “low end” due to better economies of scale and not using brand new cutting edge tech like the screens are today. The high end will be even better.
And they’ll have a few years more experience and refinement.
By then Meta’s similar device may not be enough, or even if the hardware is up there the lack of experience on high-end AR may end up showing.
This is speculation, Apple doesn’t generally produce cheaper-for-the-low-end, they wait for inflation and expectations to climb and make their high-end products “normal”.
"Spatial computing" is 95% just a marketing term. Understandably Apple wants to project the perception they are doing something new here. So they invented a new term. There are a few novel aspects to it, but it's honestly just VR/AR like everyone else has been doing in terms of all of its fundamental features. Which isn't to say I'm not curious about what novel things they will introduce. However what's visible so far is actually behind status quo in terms of true "spatial computing" eg: shared spatial anchors API [0] has been out for a while and lets multiple users collaborate in the same mixed reality space. So far Vision Pro doesn't seem to even support this fundamental use case that you would expect to see from a "spatial computing" device.
I do expect Apple to rapidly implement all this though and do everything better at the same time, so it's very exciting.
I think you’re right, but I’d rephrase it as Apple focusing on what can be a great experience right now (viewing any iPad or macOS app spatially, a massive improvement over using either platform currently) vs highlighting what can only be a mediocre or enthusiast experience at the moment (full VR environments, and 3D AR).
They’re smart to set a minimum bar for quality experience and work on future applications over time vs Meta and Google’s typical approach of developing beta products in public.
You know, they didn't put it in the marketing materials because it's a $7000 minimum feature but I think the AVP likely does support the existing iOS anchor API.
In the same way "retina display" is not fundamentally unique, the Quest line is just as capable of "spatial computing."
I'll argue that the one major difference in Apple's approach is they're going with multi-app support out of the gate. It positions the device as a low friction compute device instead of an engrossing entertainment device.
...but that's just software and I think it's within Meta's reach. It'll be interesting to see when Meta decides to make the pivot themselves and how much of Apple's custom stack will need to be replicated and how far ahead they actually are.
“Meta’s reach” from my perspective was to take an excellent Oculus, rename it, and put everything behind an annoying facebook account. Can’t wait to see their further “innovations” in this space.
Meta already have multi tasking on the Quest Pro. What they don’t have is a significant app ecosystem outside of games
Consider that the Vision Pro not only runs iOS and iPadOS apps without modification, but also the fact that you can modify those apps to progressively adopt visionOS features.
To me, the killer software differentiator is that the Vision Pro will likely let you do most things you want within the headset. The quest requires you to take it off to do non gaming things or use often subpar web interfaces instead.
The multitasking is really not the same. You can't have multiple spatial apps on the quest simultaneously in the same way the AVP was demoed, at least not yet.
In theory there's a play for Meta to lean into deeper Android app compatibility. The apps do currently run on the device. The issue is the lack of Google services and app store but perhaps Meta could make it work or make a deal.
I do think Meta still lags behind on the app store front, both from a consumer and dev perspective. They've focused on gaming and they've done well to bring up a very solid game console but it's not the same thing. Their biggest gap to catch up on is the app side of the store and they have to do it through jeers that they've abandoned gamers.
Hmm I thought meta had demoed multiple apps at once, but I also find they show a lot of simulated content that they don’t deliver on so I’m not surprised either. That’s actually one thing I admire from the Vision Pro announcement is that it was all real. I own a Quest but I honestly haven’t been interested by the Quest Pro as a result.
I agree with you that Meta could make a deal with Google. Though at the same time, they want to own their platform and I can see their desire for that get in the way of true Android app compatibility.
And yeah, I liken the Quest to a console whereas the Vision Pro seems like a computer. It’s a good console but Meta clearly want to make it more than that but I’m doubtful they can.
Vision Pro has at least grasped the idea that serious effort and specs need to be put into bringing AR to the world, and has made a valiant, priced-to-match first effort.
Quest Pro doesn't seem to know what it is; its an over-priced Quest tottering about in Professional Heels, showing a leg at the productivity types as they walk by scratching their heads.
I’m still pretty convinced that the only compelling use case for VR in the short-to-medium term is gaming despite both Apple & Meta apparently trying their hardest to pretend otherwise!
Having said that, perhaps this move indicates that Meta are finally acknowledging that’s where they should have been focusing their efforts all along?
I don't think you're right about this. In fact, I think the killer AR/VR apps will be utility apps.
My friends and I watch a movie in VR every week and it's the highlight of my week. It's all I use my Quest 2 for. Just sitting in a fake theater, not moving, talking over movies in spatial audio.
There is a problem with VR games. They eventually make you feel sick if you move around. They can make you sweat. Most people sit on their couch to watch T.V. to relax because they don't want to move around or sweat. VR/AR gaming is gimmicky as hell.
AR is going to kick start a revolution as soon as people discover they no longer need to go to a movie theater, deal with Ticket Master's fees, or buy a TV again. As soon as they realize they never need to buy another monitor -- or multiple monitors.
Conversely, VR gaming is excellent workout. I normally hate most sports and fitness, but there's no shortage of stuff on the Quest that keeps me engaged enough to push myself into getting a good exercise.
OTOH if you just want to sit and watch a movie, a modern decently large 4K TV offers much better visuals. The only reason I see for doing that in VR is when you don't have room for a large TV - say, when travelling - but even then you don't really need a full-fledged VR for that, you just need a simple headset that can work as a secondary display (and I have such a device that connects to my phone using USB-C).
i still want use-anywhere sunglasses that plug into my laptop and give me monitors at an ergonomic height to use in libraries/cafes/parks. Like sightful without the weird computer
Xreal come close but for this use case not ready yet but if they ever release v2 with 4k resolution per eye + programmatically dimmable shades + better software then that would be better then vision pro or oculus for this use case
Those are already available from several brands (XReal the most well-known at the moment), though probably still in alpha mode as regards what people will actually buy and feel happy with.
If there is one, single redeeming really cool feature of the Quest Pro (possibly the 2 as well, I haven't tried this), it's using your controller "upside down" as a virtual dry erase marker in Workrooms.
I just wished that was available in other apps too.
This is a sensible strategy. Apple finally revealed their cards after 5+ years of rumours surrounding the Apple Vision Pro. Meta doesn't have the brand strength to launch a true high-end XR headset that can compete with the Vision Pro. Instead, they're trying to capture the lower end of the market.
Eh, I may eat my words later, but unless they are hiding some really big features somewhere, I don't think there's much to worry about with the Vision Pro. It is stylish and neat, but it seems to be shockingly limited both in VR and AR. If anything it seems like just an accessory for an iPhone or a Mac.
Apple definitely has brand strength here, and I think Meta is even counting on it, but the utility of their device is underwhelming.
I find myself having thoughts that I usually look very down on: What a waste X is because we could've done Y instead (think space exploration vs fixing famine type arguments). But honestly, what a huge waste of talent, including Carmack's, VR at Meta was.
It's been over a decade, with three out of five the FAANG letters trying their luck with VR/AR and honestly I still havent seen a use case that would justify pumping in billions in the tech.
Thank god for that, VR is one of the only spaces people are having fun developing in. Once it goes full corporate it will be just like everything else in software.
quest 2 is the most interesting gadget i got the past decade. honestly space rockets are ok at current tech , but too much work just to see the blue planet from above, everything else looks pretty much the same as a clear night sky
I agree (for quest 2 being the most interesting gadget in this space), quest 2 sold 10s of millions of devices and arguably came closest to making VR mainstream although they have much more ground to cover. Would be interesting to see the sales figures for their upcoming quest 3 , if it can sell as much or more units than quest 2 , I think there is a chance all this investment would be worth it. Ofcourse a cheaper consumer apple vision headset could easily come in and eat metas lunch.
I think Meta is still taking a loss on Quest device sales. So even if the sell a bunch of Q3s it might not be profitable for them (though I, hoping otherwise because I like the product and want to see it keep developing). The trick for Quest is to someday make meta money via a healthy market.
I’m not really helpful here: I buy the hardware but only use a couple of apps (FirXR and BestSaber), I use them a lot, but I haven’t found anything else that I really want to buy into yet (I’ve bought other apps but they just sit unused). Whatever loss they are taking on hardware for me they aren’t making back. (But At least FitXR is a subscription now)
I have a Quest 2 and...I'm just glad I got it from my aunt for free who didn't think much of it. The games that let you play Matrix shooting are good and...that's literally just about it.
It feels like there should be better applications for it, and the reason there isn't is because the FAANGs are somehow sucking the fun out.
I mean, keep it real -- the fact that the biggest public push we saw on VR was for people doing labor in a fake office is literally beyond hilarious; it's something you wouldn't write for an SNL skit because it's so on the nose and not funny enough.
Very similar experience here. I have a Quest 2, handed down by my mother who bought it and never used it. I initially used it to run three screens via Immersed, but after a month or two, I only turn it on to check for updates. shrug
I even went ahead and got sidequest going. It's a weirdly stale place and I can't figure out why; I say this as somewhat of an old-timer who remembers like "freeware" and "shareware" games. There was always something interesting there, but not here?
Two possibilities, both can be true: 1. It's recognition that in a match up of "Pro v. Pro" products, Apple Vision Pro trounces Quest Pro and it's not feasible to make that gap up at this point; and
2. If Apple is going to mainstream the AR/VR market, it's not bad to position as the de facto low-cost alternative (see also Android/iPhone).
Or, that they cannot deliver the required product to make Pro VR a thing without burning billions more in capital.
Apple controls the full stack. Processor, operating system, optical system and user facing software.
Meta doesn’t really control much. They’re bound by Qualcomm so can’t optimize the firmware and signal handling, wasting CPU cycles on things that Apple can offload to custom silicon.
They’re bound by Android which doesn’t have a progressive app system like Apple does. So apps are bespoke at the moment or run in a window with hacks. You can’t really do a hybrid app.
They don’t have the ecosystem of apps that keep a user in the headset once the game session is over.
So even though Apple is newer to the field, they can leapfrog metas capabilities for a pro device.
The other aspect is that this market segment has fewer cost considerations. So they’re fighting an uphill battle for a segment that doesn’t care about the only thing they really win on: cost.
To be fair, the Quest Pro has been in market for almost a year, and I'm betting it's another year before Apple Vision Pro hits the market. So a 2 year gap makes a bunch of sense that Apple's design would be far ahead.
The fairer comparison would be Quest 3 (~$500) to AVP (~$3500). Let's see how those two stack up when they are both available.
This seems like a comment made wearing Apple-tinted glasses.
1. It's recognition that in a match up of "Pro v. Pro" products, Apple Vision Pro trounces Quest Pro
Uh, Vision Pro hasn't been released yet. Its definitely miles ahead in concept (and priced to match); and seems to have got a better idea of the high-end possibilities. Its clearly not a consumer product at that price though.
2. If Apple is going to mainstream the AR/VR market
This is silly. Apple is way behind here. Meta has sold millions of headsets - no way is Apple mainstreaming anything in comparison. We can review the situation in a few years, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
I'm very pro Apple's vision (ha) here, the Vision Pro is an exciting concept - but could really do without the framing that seems to not see that Apple is a laggard at the moment (possibly for sound strategic reasons though I suspect its a bit of both).
Why would FB give up to an unreleased, unproven product? Apple goes for their ecosystem anyway. It s more likely there is a shortage of cheap components and they are focusing on what's most likely to sell
The Quest Pro uses the same chipset as Quest 2, with better cooling, allowing a bit better performance, but also has higher resolution than the 2, requiring more performance. There's not a significant difference between Quest Pro and Quest 2 performance.
Quest 3 has a next gen chipset that is rumored to outperform the Quest 2/Pro significantly.
These are primarily standalone devices, and graphics quality is important. The graphics quality is fairly abysmal for the vast majority of games available right now. I have a Quest 2 and Quest Pro.
I had an occulus rift back in the day. Collecting dust and obsolete now. I've experimented with HoloLens 2 and found the dev env to be crap. Likely going to grab a quest 3 when it comes out. Anyone hacking software for it give their opinion for how the tooling is? On the rift, it felt the tooling was unity or unreal, which sucked for me. I'd rather write python or c++ code, but something not too low level (OpenGL, Vulkan seem too low level) I don't want to work at shader level but at a level where I can position and compose meshes into objects. Does that exist yet? Or is it fundamentally too hard to be expressed without high level tools like Unity?
The only part based on actual information is they aren't ordering new parts. They are still producing new headsets, and continuing to sell those based on the existing stock of parts. We don't know what stock they have, it's quite possible that given the reduced rate of sales after Quest 3 is released they fully expect to be able to satisfy production requirements for the full lifetime of the device. Which may actually be an indication they are pulling forward a successor as much as that they are stopping further development.
The "stops development of Quest Pro 2" is not new information, it is based on information from months ago that said they had decided to "skip" the Quest Pro's immediate successor in favor of focusing on the one that would come after it.
To cap it all off, Andrew Bosworth directly contradicted this information today.