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.

Outlines

00:00

😄 Tech titans Meta and Apple offer different VR headsets

Paragraph 1 introduces the video topic about the competition between Meta's Quest 3 and Apple's Vision Pro virtual reality headsets. It describes Meta's focus on building the metaverse and providing a whole new virtual world. In contrast, Apple's vision is more focused on personal use cases that extend phone capabilities.

05:01

😎 Apple has advantages with better hardware, ecosystem, and supply chain

Paragraph 2 explains Apple's advantages over Meta including better hardware design, established ecosystem of Apple devices, and control over the supply chain. However, Apple's headset is much more expensive at $3500 versus Meta's $500 Quest 3. There are also issues with lack of key streaming apps at launch.

Keywords

💡Virtual reality headsets

Virtual reality (VR) headsets are wearable devices that immerse the user in a simulated virtual environment. The video compares the VR headsets made by two tech companies, Meta (formerly Facebook) and Apple. Meta's headset is called Meta Quest while Apple's is called Apple Vision. VR headsets transport users into digital worlds for gaming, socializing, working, etc. They exemplify the next frontier in computing platforms.

💡Metaverse

The metaverse is a virtual shared space accessed via VR/AR headsets where users can interact, work, play, socialize, etc. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions the metaverse as the future where we will live significant parts of our lives. He wants the Meta Quest headset to be the gateway to this metaverse. But the video notes challenges in getting mass adoption of something so immersive.

💡Augmented reality

Augmented reality (AR) overlays digital information/images onto the real world, as seen through a screen or headset. For example, Apple shows AR directions appearing on actual streets viewed through the headset. AR aims to enhance rather than replace reality. Apple positions their Vision headset as an AR platform, differentiating it from VR-focused Meta.

💡Immersive experiences

Both Meta and Apple emphasize the deeply immersive experiences enabled by their VR/AR headsets. The technology aims to make digital worlds feel real, with realistic graphics and a sense of presence. For example, work meetings where remote colleagues seem like they're in the same room.

💡Ecosystem

Apple has a strong ecosystem of interconnected devices and services like iPhones, iPads, Macs, Apple TV, App Store, etc. This gives it an advantage in rolling out a new product like the Vision headset, which can integrate with its existing ecosystem. Meta lacks this hardware/software ecosystem.

💡Consumer adoption

A key challenge facing VR/AR headsets is persuading consumers to adopt what is still an unfamiliar technology. Factors impacting consumer adoption include cost, ease of use, compelling use cases, social acceptance, etc. The video analyzes which company's vision may appeal more to mainstream consumers.

💡Developer support

To succeed, VR/AR platforms need developer support to build engaging apps and content. But some popular apps like YouTube and Netflix won't support Apple's headset at launch. Developers have issues with Apple's control and fees, hurting adoption.

💡Retail strategy

Apple's retail stores, where customers can try products, may aid adoption of its Vision headset. Meta lacks this retail presence. Hands-on demos may convince consumers about the technology's benefits and spur purchases.

💡Computing platforms

VR/AR headsets represent a potential major shift in computing platforms, just as PCs and smartphones were in the past. Apple and Meta aim to make their headsets the dominant platform and shape the future of technology and how we interact with information.

💡Early stage technology

While promising, VR/AR headsets are still an early stage technology with key improvements needed in areas like graphics, battery life, form factor, applications, etc. The video notes they are likely to evolve significantly, even if an initial product like Apple Vision doesn't take off.

Highlights

Meta's vision is centered on the metaverse, while Apple sees headsets as a personal device and extension of the iPhone

Meta's graphics and experience have been criticized as ugly and lacking, while Apple's hardware and design is seen as far superior

Apple has tight integration with its existing ecosystem of devices, while Meta lacks this hardware advantage

Key streaming apps like YouTube and Spotify will not launch dedicated apps for Apple's headset at release

Apple's strict control over its platform causes issues for some developers and limits accessibility/affordability

The Vision Pro costs $3,500, 7 times more than Meta's $500 Quest 3 headset

Early VR/AR headsets are likely the first step in a transition to more personalized, tailored computing experiences

It's uncertain if consumers will embrace wearing headsets for extended periods as part of daily life

Apple and Meta have taken different approaches, but both could succeed by appealing to different markets

Another possibility is that neither approach succeeds and consumers reject headsets in favor of other formats

Apple and Meta are early movers in attempting a major platform shift, similar to early smartphones

Headsets are likely to improve over time and eventually resemble normal glasses

The big investor question is whether any company can turn niche AR/VR into a mainstream computing platform

Apple has tight supply chain control and a retail presence for customers to try headsets

Meta relies on Qualcomm chips and Google's Android OS instead of proprietary hardware/software

Transcripts

[Music]

two Tech Titans offering different price

points different specs and most

importantly different versions of the

future of virtual reality Quest 3 is

it's the most powerful headset that we

have ever shipped an entirely new AR

platform with a revolutionary new

product call them headsets ski goggles

face computers 2024 is turning out to be

the year of virtual reality with apple

and meta duking it out

[Music]

what don't look down don't look

down now this is an office this is

incredible this week on Tech check why

the headset battle is apples to

lose apple and meta see their headsets

as having way different functions in

society meta's big bet is on the

metaverse even changing its name to

reflect that back in 2021 I am proud to

announce that starting today our company

is now meta mark zuer ber envisions a

whole new world one where we could live

our entire lives in the metaverse you'll

probably have a photorealistic avatar

for work a stylized one for hanging out

and maybe even a fantasy one for gaming

you're going to be able to bring things

from the physical world into the

metamers almost any type of media that

can be represented digitally photos

videos art music movies books games you

name it so that's really where he

centered his virtual reality headset The

Meta Quest and maybe because this was

during Co he also tried to pitch it as a

substitute for inperson interactions the

feeling of presence this is the defining

quality of the metaverse you're going to

really feel like you're there with other

people you'll see their facial

expressions you'll see their body

language after party

passes yes you'd put one on to watch a

concert with friends play

pingpong like a shop workout even his

vision of work was about being in a

virtual office imagine if you could be

at the office without the commute and

when you're ready to share what you've

been working on you can present it as if

you're right there with the team but

that kind of lifestyle change is a huge

ask for consumers especially when being

in the metaverse it still isn't actually

that great he's getting dragged on the

internet for how ugly the graphics of

this game are Fortune calling it an

international laughing stock slate

labeling the look so stupid and Forbes

asking does Mark Zuckerberg not

understand how bad his metaverse is and

wearing the headsets for long periods

might even make you feel sick that was

so much time in Avatar meetings my eyes

hurt and my head hurts plus the

metaverse only works if your network of

friends and co-workers also Buys in so

if you want to play poker with your

friends in virtual reality all of them

also need meta headsets so that's meta

pitch let's compare it to Apples they

show someone sitting alone in a room

looking at photos watching watching a

movie meditating a much more personal

Vision that is essentially an extension

of things that you already do on your

phone Apple's vision of the future of

work it's just a higher resolution

laptop with more screens the web comes

to life at Fantastic scale text is crisp

and easy to read social interactions

they also seem to have less friction you

can FaceTime with someone who joins on

their phone hi hey hi could you rece

instead of needing another headset

someone start talking to you you can

look at them and they'll kind of just

fade into view so that was also

something that was just kind of

unbelievable easier integration into a

normal routine versus A Whole New World

in the metaverse Apple also knows that

it's introducing a technology that is in

its first iterations that consumers are

just getting used to and that difference

in messaging is being felt by consumers

also I thought it was pretty cool where

they showed the lady on the on the on

the plane who put these on and put the

the earphones in and and right and I

said well you can already do that on on

The Meta thing and I said well the meta

sucks because they don't Market this the

right way if you can actually do that

Apple has two other important advantages

over meta the first is its ecosystem

even connect your Mac simply by looking

at it turning a 13-in

screen into a giant display most people

who buy the vision Pro they will already

own Apple devices adding another just

lets all of them work together meta

doesn't have that same Hardware Edge

second Apple owns its supply chain The

Vision Pro uses Apple's proprietary

software in custom silicon whereas meta

relies on Google's Android system and

Qualcomm chips Apple has spent a lot of

time you know finessing the hardware the

semiconductors the the entire like

physical device looks much more polished

and elevated compared to what meta has

put out in the Market Apple has been in

hardware for decades it's built up

crucial relationships with manufacturers

up and down the supply chain and it has

a retail footprint of more than 500

stores for users to actually try out the

headset for themselves but perhaps the

most telling most reviewers who have

tried both they say apple is Leaps and

Bounds ahead by far this is the best

virtual or augmented reality headset out

there this is something that has not

been seen in in headsets that I've used

and I've used all of them it was unlike

anything I had experienced inside of any

type of VR AR headset because it's like

just the apple

way of course that all comes with a huge

caveat The Vision Pro is seven times

more expensive than the latest meta

headset $3,500 compared to just 500 for

the quest 3 so is it seven times better

you can buy an iPhone an iPad and a a

laptop for that 3500 some say no the

camera quality is obviously not at the

level of reality but it wasn't with the

Apple Pro either if reality is a 10 out

of 10 The Vision Pro is an 8.5 out of 10

and The Meta Quest is a 7 out of 10 it's

amazingly good there's another big

hurdle for Apple that has become clear

for a device that is all about media

consumption The Vision Pro will not have

some of the most popular streaming apps

when it launches YouTube and Spotify are

joining Netflix saying they will not

offer dedicated apps for Apple's Vision

Pro headset and instead are directing

customers to use their websites instead

Apple has long had a fraught

relationship with some developers who

take issue with a 30% cut that Apple

takes on inapp transactions the reason

this is coming out or at least getting

announced so early but it's not coming

out till next year is to give this

window for developers to start

developing their own apps and making

cool things for this headset to do that

are way more interesting and way more

functional at a time when users are

still deciding whether to Shell out for

such an expensive device the lack of key

app that could spell trouble especially

if it's YouTube and Netflix but

developers issues with apple goes even

deeper than App Store policies an

age-old tug-of war between Macs versus

PCS hello I'm a Mac and I'm a PC iOS

versus Android the gatekeeper issue

Apple likes to have total control over

the apps that are allowed on their

systems with strict standards and

guidelines for users that might mean

using an iPhone or an iPad is simple

clean and intuitive but for for

developers it's been called a set of

handcuffs that limits creativity and

learning potential when critic asks of

the Vision Pro how great would it be for

this to fail one Bloomberg columnist

puts it this way it feels like the Mac

versus PC battles of the 1990s and the

2000s Steve Jobs offered Sleek hardware

and software but it was Bill Gates who

taught the world how to use a computer

by making it accessible and

affordable so if we're comparing Steve

Jobs and apple to Bill Gates and

Microsoft who won well the question

answers itself both did they're the two

most valuable companies in the world

both worth more than $3 trillion they

just appeal to different markets so

could the same fate be true for these

headsets could both meta and apple win

but another possible outcome here

neither win what if consumers never get

used to wearing something on their face

all the time instead the age of AI gives

way to pocket sized devices with the

syst like the Humane pin rabbit R1 or

just an app on your phone what is

undeniably true though apple and meta

are some of the first movers attempting

this next platform shift when the first

smartphone came out it weighed 2 and 1

12 lbs it was 8 in long it cost

$4,000 and it took 10 hours to charge

for 30 minutes of talk time and we see

how that evolve they're all part of this

transition to a more personalized you

know computing

experience which is tailored for us

headsets are likely to get lighter

cheaper have longer battery life and

maybe look more like normal glasses the

big question for investors is the

investment worth it is Apple meta or

some other company able to turn this

Niche quirky product into the next

Computing

[Music]

platform

[Music]