The headset wars: Why it's Apple's to lose

Summary

Apple and Meta (formerly Facebook) offer contrasting visions for the future of virtual reality headsets. Meta bets on an immersive 'metaverse' where users can live and work via avatars. But critics pan the poor graphics and expectation that friends/colleagues also buy in. Apple offers a more personal, incremental vision building on existing devices. Though far pricier, its headset boasts superior hardware and polish. Yet it faces hurdles - no key streaming apps at launch, and the same developer gripes as Macs v PCs. As headsets evolve, it's unclear if either tech titan's bet will pay off or if consumers will embrace wearing screens on their faces.

Takeaways

• 😊 Meta's vision for VR focuses on an immersive metaverse for social interactions, work, entertainment, etc.
• 😕 But the metaverse vision relies on widespread consumer adoption and compatible hardware, which are still major challenges.
• 🤔 Apple has a different, more incremental vision for VR as an extension of existing personal computing.
• 👍🏻 Apple VR offers crisper visuals and tighter integration with Apple devices due to custom hardware and software.
• 💰 But Apple's VR headset costs far more than Meta's - $3,500 vs $500.
• 🤨 It's unclear if consumers want/will adopt wearing headsets regularly, so neither metaverse vision is guaranteed to win out.
• 😡 Major platforms like YouTube, Netflix & Spotify won't offer dedicated Apple VR apps at launch due to disputes over App Store policies.
• 😎 While flawed, Apple & Meta's headsets represent important early movers in a potential next platform shift - like early smartphones.
• 😮 Key improvements needed for mass adoption: lower cost, longer battery, lighter/normal looking design.
• ❓ The big outstanding question is whether VR/AR headsets become the next dominant personal computing platform over time.

Q & A

What are the key differences between Meta's and Apple's visions for VR headsets?

Meta envisions the metaverse for social interactions, work, and entertainment. Apple sees VR headsets as a personal device for media consumption and productivity tools. Meta focuses on shared virtual spaces while Apple promotes individual use cases.

Why does Apple have an advantage in hardware and supply chain?

Apple has decades of hardware experience and strong supplier relationships. It owns proprietary chips and software. Meta relies on Qualcomm and Google's Android. Apple's vertical integration gives it an edge.

How do the Meta Quest 3 and Apple Vision Pro compare in terms of quality and price?

The Vision Pro has superior quality but costs $3,500, 7x more than the $500 Quest 3. Reviewers say the Vision Pro is a big leap ahead in quality, but not quite 7x better. The price gap could limit adoption for Apple.

Why don't some streaming apps support the Vision Pro at launch?

Apps like YouTube, Netflix and Spotify won't offer dedicated Vision Pro apps due to Apple's 30% cut on in-app purchases. This could limit the headset's appeal.

Could developers' issues with Apple's control hurt the Vision Pro?

Developers have complained about Apple's strict app standards and control. This could restrict apps and creativity on the headset if not addressed.

What are the key limitations of current VR headsets?

Early headsets are bulky, expensive, have short battery life, and comfort issues for long-term wear. But these are expected to improve over time.

What is a possible alternative outcome to VR headsets?

Neither meta nor Apple wins. Consumers may prefer other wearables like smart glasses or rely more on phones. VR may remain a niche market.

How does the current VR market compare to early smartphones?

Like bulky, expensive early phones, VR headsets are early in development. As the technology matures, comfort, price and capabilities will likely improve.

Could Meta and Apple both succeed with different approaches?

Yes, like Microsoft and Apple both succeeded by appealing to different markets in PCs. The market is likely big enough for both companies.

What developments are needed for VR headsets to gain mainstream adoption?

Lower prices, better comfort for long-term wear, compelling use cases beyond gaming/metaverse, and a critical mass of user adoption.