56
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
56 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37573 readers
286 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Varjo headsets. Apple actually used Varjo's headsets to test out the software for the Vision Pro while developing it. There isn't any software specifically for the Varjo headsets since its just business focused.
Apple's headset is much cheaper than Varjo's, somehow, despite having similar tech.
Yeah see, this is the exact comparison I’ve been dying to read. If Apple managed to pull off cost-reducing that grade of hardware then they’ll probably carve out a nice niche for themselves. They never designed it for mass-market adoption.
It was the same with everyone complaining about the cost of the XDR display. Not a single one of them were in the target market for it. People that were, were all talking about them pulling off matching the specs of an $8-10k reference monitor for $5k.
Also, Varjo charges a €1495/year subscription for their high end XR headset that already costs €6495. If the VP truly is close too or as good as it, then Apple are definitely going to sell a lot to professionals and creatives.
No One is going to be using a bloody Meta Quest for creative or professional work.
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.
Yes, they are quite different. But it’s also the two products that most people will know or have heard of and they may look the same to many not familiar with AR/VR. At the very least for them it’s an interesting comparison.
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.
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.
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.
Dude you’re just way off. They aren’t that dissimilar. They both are pass through vr headsets. Quality doesn’t change their function.
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.
Idk people on YouTube says it’s functional AR. Heck I can read text on my Oculus 2. You’re just pedantic.
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.
This is all just, like, your opinion bro