this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
51 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37705 readers
109 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why do I keep seeing this comparison over and over? Like cool, you compared it to the absolute cheapest headset out there, Meta loses money on every one of them they’ve sold. It’s also a VR experience only, with awful external cameras. The $1099 HTC Vive XR Elite would be a much fairer comparison as it also does AR and VR together.

It’s the same as all the articles comparing other devices not using an external battery pack. When those are using smartphone-tier ARM chips that can’t hold a candle to Apple’s M-series SoCs.

Like, I still think it’s overpriced as fuck but I’d really love to see some actually realistic comparisons.

[–] fer0n@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, if you’re comparing any two headsets, these make the most sense imo. They’re from the two biggest companies, the Q3 will presumably sell the most out of any headset and it‘s shifted to a lot more mixed reality.

They feel the most relevant, although there are certainly many differences. I think at the end of the day there isn’t really any headset that perfectly compares to VP, simply due to the fact that VP has a very heavy work focus and everything else is mostly game focused. Quest pro perhaps, but that headset is a joke.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They feel the most relevant, although there are certainly many differences.

Many differences? They are completely different products. This is like comparing a Switch to a laptop. Sure, they are both computers but the comparison ends there.

[–] fer0n@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, they are quite different. But it’s also the two products that most people will know or have heard of and they may look the same to many not familiar with AR/VR. At the very least for them it’s an interesting comparison.

[–] Limeaide@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude you’re just way off. They aren’t that dissimilar. They both are pass through vr headsets. Quality doesn’t change their function.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Louisoix@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Heeey, HTC one actually looks pretty cool!