IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .
Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement they would do a lot better
The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
Exactly ! The social stuff requires a network effect... hilarious that the makers of Facebook bet their chips on the same bet as their existing products. Apple knows it doesn't need groups of people to use this together, just enough early adopters to help pay for (and more importantly help guide) the user research and material advancement.
1. The avatar and face scanning for video chat
2. Screen quality, pixels shouldn’t be viewable.
Meta could copy both with time but the 2nd just requires more expensive hardware. I never liked the meta avatars and it looks like the apple ones could work with any chat app?
Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement they would do a lot better
The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte