[ravst3s]

Although these devices will be compared to each other ceaselessly, I think they're targeting two distinct markets. Apple believes that Vision Pro is the future of personal computing. Meta keeps marketing the Quest as social-connected VR gaming device. The former market is far larger and anything that displaces the PC will be transcendental.

Although Meta will sell more units in the short-term due to Apple's pricing, I do think they will have a tough time catching Apple on the hardware. The eye-tracking, <12ms image processing and display, and the M2 are things that Meta is well behind on.

Zuck mentioned that activity and "doing things" are Meta advantages, but people don't want to exercise while gaming or consuming entertainment.

[ceejayoz]

> people don't want to exercise while gaming

Quite a few do. I use Beatsaber, Pistol Whip, and Superhot (more yoga-y than exercise) for this. Boredom during exercise is my primary issue with sustaining it; VR has removed that obstacle.

[ravst3s]

Sure, some people do, but the majority of people are not looking to exercise while gaming. It's a niche use case. The Wii lost its novelty pretty quickly.

If you're gaming for 3-4 hours, watching a movie, or using the device for productivity you're going to be seated or standing still.

Also, Vision Pro can be a mobile device, albeit for <2 hrs. Imo, Gaming will not be the primary use case for these devices.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Zuck mentioned that activity and "doing things" are Meta advantages, but people don't want to exercise while gaming or consuming entertainment.

A lot of people actually do. There is a whole community built around it.

[rpastuszak]

Yup, I think the main difference is the default use case:

- Oculus <=> content consumption

- Apple Vision <=> productivity