[cramjabsyn]

Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.

Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between the two devices. Maybe $500.

[FumblingBear]

Fundamentally though, that's just the nature of diminishing returns. Of course the value proposition for the Quest 3 is far better than the value prop of the Vision Pro.

It's no different than consumer GPU's. There will be enthusiasts who purchase the GTX 4090 for $2000 but the average consumer is far better off buying something like a 3060Ti for $340.

My favorite example of this is a site called Logical Increments [0] that clearly shows just how expensive pushing to the next tier of quality is as you scale up.

[0] - https://www.logicalincrements.com/

[hackeraccount]

It's always that last 20% of performance in any product that's creating a huge chunk of the cost.

[GeekyBear]

> Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.

Users want to be able to do things like connect to their computer and be able to read small text on the virtual monitor.

Both headsets are not equal on the "readable text" metric.

[shinycode]

I can say the same thing between my car and a Ferrari, never having driven one…

[MrFantastic]

For a lot of people, $3500 is nothing especially if they are going to expense it to the company.

A lot of companies are going to buy it just to figure out what types of apps can be made for the platform.

[refulgentis]

You're being flippant to the point of absurdity, and past the point of being rude. "Yeah" when you don't mean it, and "you must be biased"

I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close. The display specs are way more than enough to be able to observe this.

[nvarsj]

Have you used VR much? Quest 3 FOV is much better. And FOV is kind of the holy grail for immersive VR and interactive experiences. So saying Vision Pro is strictly better (and at 7x the cost) makes little sense to me.

[zmmmmm]

> I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close

That in itself is a false question, no? Nobody says they are as good. I haven't seen even the most ardent Meta fan suggest such a thing.

It's not a question of whether they are as good but whether the difference matters enough. There is a curve with very sharply diminishing returns and a lot of threshold effects (once you get close to screen door effect going away, nobody cares that you made it 1% less noticeable any more etc).

[cramjabsyn]

Did you happen to buy an apple vision headset?