I think that in an already niche market, it is hard for the average consumer to even further differentiate them into their own niches.
Plus, they’re in the same market. I can’t see someone owning both because they have completely different use cases. If you buy one of them you basically already can do most of what the other one can.
It’s kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. Yeah they are different, but they are still cars and have a lot in common.
If you buy one of them you basically already can do most of what the other one can.
But that’s the point, they aren’t even remotely similar. The only similarity is that they are headsets, but they couldn’t be more different functionally.
It’s kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari.
More like comparing a Honda Civic to an airplane. Both have wheels, but that’s where the similarities end. They aren’t even in the same market.
The Vision Pro isn’t competing with the Quest, it’s competing with the MacBook Pro and iMac.
Typical techie way of looking at things. It’s not about the technology at all. It’s about what you can do with it. One is an AR headset, the other a spatial computing headset.
They both have AR and Spatial Computing capabilities at varying quality. They are both a set of lenses, a depth sensor, some cameras, and some screens, nothing more nothing less. Cars have wheels and planes have wings, that’s not an apt comparison.
Allowing you to “do AR” is very different than having AR that even 10% of the planet can use without vomiting. Nobody is actually going to actually use the quest for AR. It’s not remotely close to the bare minimum to actually function. People who try for more than 10 seconds at a time will vomit. Repeatedly.
And that’s before the fact that it doesn’t have the resolution for text, nullifying almost all of the utility the Vision Pro has.
I think that in an already niche market, it is hard for the average consumer to even further differentiate them into their own niches.
Plus, they’re in the same market. I can’t see someone owning both because they have completely different use cases. If you buy one of them you basically already can do most of what the other one can.
It’s kinda like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. Yeah they are different, but they are still cars and have a lot in common.
But that’s the point, they aren’t even remotely similar. The only similarity is that they are headsets, but they couldn’t be more different functionally.
More like comparing a Honda Civic to an airplane. Both have wheels, but that’s where the similarities end. They aren’t even in the same market.
The Vision Pro isn’t competing with the Quest, it’s competing with the MacBook Pro and iMac.
Dude you’re just way off. They aren’t that dissimilar. They both are pass through vr headsets. Quality doesn’t change their function.
Typical techie way of looking at things. It’s not about the technology at all. It’s about what you can do with it. One is an AR headset, the other a spatial computing headset.
They both have AR and Spatial Computing capabilities at varying quality. They are both a set of lenses, a depth sensor, some cameras, and some screens, nothing more nothing less. Cars have wheels and planes have wings, that’s not an apt comparison.
Allowing you to “do AR” is very different than having AR that even 10% of the planet can use without vomiting. Nobody is actually going to actually use the quest for AR. It’s not remotely close to the bare minimum to actually function. People who try for more than 10 seconds at a time will vomit. Repeatedly.
And that’s before the fact that it doesn’t have the resolution for text, nullifying almost all of the utility the Vision Pro has.