I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for a VR headset when the competition is selling their newest generation for $500.
I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an
attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for
a VR headset
With "computer" I think they're trying to emphasize the fact that it's standalone, not an add-on?
That may seem silly, but I have not paid much attention to VR/AR and I had assumed that headsets like the Meta Quest 2 were tethered to some other device. A quick search before this post showed me that is not the case, but I was actually ignorant about that fact. So apparently there are dopes like me who need to be told that these flagship headsets are standalone computing devices.
Honestly, it really doesn't seem different at all.
AR is also where other notable headset makers are betting, Quest has had hand controls for quite a while (which made the "clunky controllers" dig fall flat).
It definitely seems more refined, but then again, it's over 2x the cost of the competition, so that would have to be taken as read.
There is really no comparison between the Apple device and what Meta announced, the devices are quite different.
Even when Apple showed games, it was less full AR games or like VR experiences in AR, it was about putting a screen up and playing a standard game like this.
The Apple experience is full VR and using every space as a screen to access the things you already do. Meta is insisting on building the 'metaverse' it's a completely different concept that people making this argument seem to have completely missed.
And I say that as someone that uses a Q1 everyday for Fitness and will be purchasing a Q3, you saw Apple announce nothing like this, also I think the name is a give away 'vision pro' it's about visuals and virtual screens, not about creating another reality, which is likely why they moved away from the reality pro name that was rumoured.
It was all 2.5D apps and watching movies - this is the exact stuff that has already been tried. It's a really polished presentation of it with the shadow casting and stuff, but is that really the missing piece? Seems unlikely.
Fully 3D apps and content are definitely supported, just not emphasized a ton in the keynote. I expect third party devs to create tons of cool stuff for it beyond the basic 2D iPad apps!
What are they doing that can't be done with other VR headsets? Virtual desktop has been a thing for years, and VR pass-through and "pointing interfaces" are possible with the Meta Quest. While these features may be better on Apple's headset, they certainly aren't new.
I'm sorry, but have you tried the Quest Pro's pass-through?
I have, and it was an awful experience. They had color pass through but faked it and it felt like a grayscale video that someone shoddily tried to paint over it. There was significant warping and text (like a poster on my friend's wall) was barely readable.
It "exists", but was completely useless in terms of usability. If Apple can get pass-through to actually work well, I would call that "new" in the sense that it's a feature that's usable.
The cheapest android sells for $50, vs iPhone that starts at $900, yet it takes weeks to get an iPhone on launch. What's the point here.
The thing has its own more than capable chip, knowing Apple has seamless integrations and will absolutely start a new trend. Can't wait for Google's and Samsung's substandard implementation soon, like what they did with the watch.
It should have DisplayPort out so you can use it as a computer too. (There's probably some garbage patent already for using a VR computer as a computer, mercy patents are just such trash.)
