Apple has announced the Vision Pro, which it has been working on for a long time.
Thanks to the announcement of Apple's immersive headset, heated discussions are taking place among existing VR users, the MR community, and channels more than ever before.
While many people praise Apple for trying something new and Apple-like, there are no few criticisms from those who have existing VR experience or worked in related fields, such as 'packaging existing technology and talking about it,' 'it's just too expensive,' and 'Apple's immersive headset will fail.'
In the meantime, I was curious about Meta's response, which had been leading the immersive headset market with its VR headsets up until now.
Meta is said to have exceptionally had its representative, Mark Zuckerberg, directly address all employees after the Apple Vision Pro announcement. Usually, it is rare for a representative to directly mention or criticize a competitor's product when one is released.. If the released news is true, it appears to be an extremely unusual move.
Zuckerberg "Apple Vision Pro, 'Future of Computers'... Not Our 'Vision"
http://www.newsian.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=60938
Overall, Apple's Vision Pro is too expensive and lacks discussion on social features, meaning it is a device for personal use that is completely different from the 'metaverse' that Meta has led so far.
앞서 메타는 VR 업계에서 글로벌 히트를 친 퀘스트2의 후속작인 퀘스트3의 올 가을 출시를 발표했었는데, 퀘스트3의 판매가가 499달러, 한국 가격으로 약 73만원에 출시 예정인 것을 보면, 주커버그의 주장도 일리가 있어 보인다.
Looking at the immersive market built by Meta so far, Apple's Vision Pro is truly an expensive device. It is an incredibly expensive price, about 5 times that of the Quest 3, which hasn't been released yet.
Will there be any users among those enjoying existing VR content who will pay five times as much for Apple's device, which will likely launch in early next year at the earliest, when they can enjoy Meta's new VR device for just about 730,000 won this autumn?
Even Apple, in a situation where it hasn't even released content in the VR market and there is no clearly defined market, the argument that it is too expensive for personal content use alone, rather than for enjoying with others, seems quite reasonable.
However, from a personal perspective, this argument seems like something Zuckerberg—or Meta—should not be doing.
Indeed, Meta launched its first Pro lineup, the "Meta Quest Pro," under its own name last year for $1,999.
soonsoon
I thought Meta's Quest Pro, announced before launch, looked so cool that I pre-ordered it without hesitation for $1,999. I was a sucker who paid nearly 2.1 million won at the time.
Originally a Microsoft Mixed Reality MVP, I was looking forward to the successor to the HoloLens 2, but various circumstances suggested that Microsoft would not release a successor mass-market headset. The Quest Pro's price of $1,999 felt like a considerably reasonable price compared to the HoloLens series.
Furthermore, the enclosed mixed reality utilizing the passthrough mode, which Quest 2 had shown potential for, was like a ray of light for MR content professionals like me. And Meta, which is sincere about the metaverse and is the leader in VR headsets, released a product confidently bearing the name 'Pro'... even though it looked somewhat expensive, it seemed to have considerable value.
And, to start with the conclusion, my great expectations turned into a great wound.
The color passthrough that Meta confidently claimed was not a technology capable of being used as an MR environment, and in the case of the initial model, it gave the impression that they launched it without even finishing the UI/UX.
Overall, I really had the thought: is this product worthy of the name 'Pro'? It is definitely better in many ways compared to the Quest 2, but... I felt that this product, bearing the name 'Pro' and selling at this price, was not worthy of it.
Ultimately, not only for me but for market users as well, Meta had to implement a policy of lowering the price by a whopping $500 just five months after launch, as it was completely ignored. That is a depreciation of nearly 30%.
Since then, due to continuous updates and a price reduction to $999 instead of the existing $1,499, it has started to receive quite good reviews, and is now a device that receives quite good reviews from developers who use VR devices to enjoy content or develop.
So, what response was given to early buyers like me who trusted Meta's announcement and paid a high price from the start?
To sum it up, there was no guidance, apology, response, or compensation at the time of the price cut.
Of course, I was incredibly disappointed, but... I thought there was nothing to be done. First of all, I was foolish for believing in Meta's vision, and I felt I had made a huge mistake as a consumer by buying it without properly researching it. It's been less than a year since launch, and they lowered the price by 30%. What exactly is the problem with that.. I seriously thought about it, but within my limited common sense and legal knowledge, I couldn't figure out exactly what to compare it to.
Simply, I was greatly disappointed, and naturally, my interest and enthusiasm for MR headsets had significantly decreased.
Then came the Apple Vision Pro announcement, and I wondered if Meta would come up with some kind of countermeasure, so I searched for it.
And I was able to find a rather interesting article.
This is a post from Clien about an offer from Meta to compensate early buyers with about $100 in credits in March.
Source : https://www.clien.net/service/board/cm_vr/17963975
Oh? Really?
Where is 100 dollars?! I even logged into my Meta account and checked my inbox, but I couldn't find any instructions regarding this credit reward.
So, I contacted Meta through their official inquiry channel and was able to receive a reply in just one day, faster than I expected.
But... But...
It was shocking news that the compensation had already ended as of May 1.
No, when did this start, and why is it ending from May 1st.. I couldn't understand it at first. So, raising the issue of fairness, I inquired again about exactly where the news could be seen and through which channel the guidance was provided.
And the answer that came back.
In summary
“There is no such thing.”
Ugh.. seriously… if they had just said from the start that no one was getting one, I would have just bought it and blamed myself for being stupid.. but since some people are getting them and others aren't, Meta just looks even more annoying and repulsive..
It feels like they're running this place like some hole-in-the-wall convenience store.
With the thought that the staff member guiding us hasn't done anything wrong, I gave up on any further protest (?).
It seems that the "secret" payment was not given to the users who protested due to the sudden price discount, but rather to them. And to users like me who quietly blamed themselves like a fool, did they just quietly.. say nothing and guide nothing and move on?
I didn't know Meta's internal situation, and I really didn't know what Meta was thinking, but after seeing Zuckerberg's internal presentation, I was able to get a glimpse (or was it an illusion based on my own anger?) of Meta's thinking.
From my perspective, the Quest “Pro” was a device that was not worthy of the “Pro” name.
Therefore, it seems the Vision Pro faced strong resistance from market evaluations, with “price” being the most vulnerable target and the only alternative that could be quickly modified. In response to market demands, Meta's management swiftly implemented a measure to lower “price” by a significant 30%, resulting in relatively better evaluations compared to before. Consequently, the Quest Pro is being re-evaluated as a “usable” device.
There, Meta's management or Zuckerberg must have gotten a hint about the path Meta should take in the future. It was the conviction that they must create products with better "cost-performance" rather than innovation based on technology or challenges to new markets.
Of course, I think Meta's choice was not wrong in many aspects. In fact, I think Quest 2 received tremendous praise after its release because it was accompanied by excellent quality that didn't fit its low price and Meta employees' tremendous efforts to update it weekly.
However, thinking about it again, I'm not sure if the word "Pro" really goes well with the keyword "cost-performance".
Aside from Apple, it seems there are no companies that can set their own standards for hardware, OS, chipsets, customer base, and more, to match exactly what they want.
Actually, I had heard a rumor that Meta Quest Pro came out looking like this (?) because Qualcomm's next-gen chipset was released too late... I think this rumor fits quite well with stories that it was supposed to come out a year earlier. Qualcomm's XR2+ chipset was released about a year later than expected, and as a result, devices with somewhat lower specs compared to the technological flow were released, and due to the extended development period, the device price itself became more expensive, according to rumors...
Apple Vision Pro hasn't hit the market yet, and I haven't actually used it, but.. if it runs as Apple claims, Apple will be fulfilling the "Pro" name by realizing the vision they want to achieve, while Meta is already failing and is trying to gain market acceptance through a "cost-performance" policy by lowering prices by 30% to concretize the "Pro".
Anyway, the definition of "PRO" for Apple Vision "Pro" and Meta Quest "Pro" seems to be quite different.
Is it not that Zuckerberg unusually gathered former employees to talk about Apple's Vision Pro because he is worried that Apple might do well in this regard, and is trying to get a head start?
”It’s not that we didn’t implement it! We took a different approach to make it cheaper so we could supply more people to the market! “
Well, if they refunded the $500 I paid in advance now and offered some additional compensation for the apology, I would accept Zuckerberg's claims. Actually, if that happened, the Quest Pro would likely become a device with quite good cost-performance compared to the Apple Vision Pro.
So, looking ahead, I wonder if the company Meta Quest will have to face off against “Apple” in the market, or perhaps become a Chinese immersive headset manufacturer known for making good hardware and offering similar cost-performance.
It seems Meta has little intention of targeting users like me, who would be willing to spend nearly 2 million won just by looking at Zuckerberg's presentation.
Actually, I seriously considered whether to buy the Vision Pro given its price, but after receiving an email notification from Meta, I became convinced that I should buy the Apple Vision Pro. (Apple doesn't really consider the consumer's wallet situation.)
From the perspective of a gullible user who has been paying Apple for over a decade, I believe that up until now, while Apple has emptied my pockets, I have always purchased products that guaranteed their value. (Of course, there were products I wanted to stuff in a box like the Magsafe battery pack and AirTag...)
Ironically, among similar products of the same era, buying the expensive Apple product has resulted in the perception that it is ultimately the true cost-performance. This is because realizing that value with other devices would often require significantly more money and cost.
Is a 2.79 million won laptop considered 'good value'?…How good does a 'MacBook Pro' have to be [Baeng Seong-su's Dada IT Line]
https://v.daum.net/v/20230318194401020
Anyway, my short thoughts, and my personal thoughts after buying the Quest Pro like a fool and letting my brain rage about it are
Meta, or rather Mark Zuckerberg, seems envious of Apple.