AVP vs Quest

I think I've tried writing this post a few times now. Couldn't arrive on an angle that I actually wanted to tackle it from. Until now.

This is just my opinion. And I am neither a Meta, nor an Apple fanboy. I hate both companies in more or less equal measure. Quest 3 is the better value and, at present, the better product. I say "at present" because AVP has better hardware and a much more ravenous following. The gap will likely close, and quickly reducing it to just the case that Quest 3 is the better value.

For those who question the value argument, here are my thoughts. Apple's products doesn't offer anything which Meta's device is objectively incapable of. So, while the hardware is objectively better, we must subjectively rate the relative experiences. In my opinion, this is at best a multiple of 2x-3x in favor of Apple. Since, the cost multiple is much higher than that, Quest remains a better value. Period. 

I also struggle a bit with how this could be controversial. Meta's margins are much smaller if not non-existent, whereas Apple is aiming for similar margins as it does elsewhere (%40+). If Meta had factored in similar margins on the hardware side, I suspect that the value and cost scaling would be much more comparable. Value doesn't care about the reasons, it only cares about what you get compared to what you paid for it. 

All of this being said; I'm happy Apple released the Vision Pro. It has re-invigorated the XR landscape. And that can't be a bad thing. It has kicked Meta in the nuts and provoked them into promising UI improvements. Would they have improved the UI over time? Probably. Now it is more of a guarantee and they have a tangible competitor to pit their ideas against. It is hard to gauge alternative realities, but it is likely that we will get improvements faster and that they will be better than if Apple did not enter the arena.

Now, before anyone explodes in rage, I'll toss some fuel on that fire. Neither of these products, as far as I'm concerned is fully baked enough to be a true end consumer electronics device. This is one of the reasons why I'm happy for competition in this sphere. For their cost, they are too fragile and with little to no repairability and very little concern for comfort. Apple does better by providing multiple head straps. They also provide a cover. This cover however, does not protect the lenses. And like Quest, scratch the lenses and it is game over for the headset. Many devices will die at the hands of a negligent family member or friend. Disproportionately more than other such devices.

One last note is that I appreciate Apple jumping in because it allows experimentation. Apple screws things up all of the time, but people just accept it. I still hate camera cutouts in phone screens and to this day disagree with the decision. And in the case of headsets... the external battery pack is another one of these moves. It should not exist. It is a mistake. But, it is a mistake of a rather interesting type.

I understand WHY Apple did it. Their headset is already heavier than the Quest 3 even without the battery. And, arguably, most Quest users add an external battery to extend life. It is usually mounted to a headset and helps balance and distribute weight... but, objectively, not much different. In this case however, Apple is inadvertently paving the way for other things to moved out of the headset, further decreasing the weight.

If people can learn to be satisfied with tethered batteries, then why not tethered SoCs and GPUs as well? Imagine how thin and light the headset could be then.

I won't be buying the Vision Pro. I may not agree that it is worth the money. But, that doesn't matter. It is still good that this product exists.