4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,181
call "we" what you will, but every one of their devices for vast majority of the part gets adopted quick af. Even after it gets massive hate initially. That's all im stating.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Apple Vision Pro goes on sale in the US on February 2 for $3,499
- Thread starter polonyc2
- Start date
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
Fair. But all I was trying to say is it just depends on whose content you look up (or who you hang out with and who you listen to whether user generated or whatever). Obviously every platform that is Apple centric has been going bananas for Vision Pro or any v1 launch since inception whether it's worthy or not.
There will always be the lovers and the haters. Hard to find the people who put in the work to be as objective as possible and not give into the hate or the hype.
paradoxical
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 291
I hugely admire Apple for their business strategy and quality of products they put out. I own almost all of their high end devices (loaded MBP 14, Airpods Max, Airpods Pro, iPad Pro, Homepods, Apple TV, iPhone 15 Pro Max). In the eyes of some simpletons here, that makes me an Apple fanboy. At the same time, I use basically none of their peripherals or desktops. I am pretty firmly rooted in the "I buy the best tool for my needs," with the caveat that all of my computing needs outside of scientific workloads happen to match Apple's strengths pretty well.
After owning the Vision Pro for a few days, I am both extremely impressed and extremely disappointed by the device. I will be returning it, and I am pretty sure Apple will see unprecedented return rates on this product. I don't regret buying it to give it a try, and I will miss many aspects of the device. It truly is futuristic and gives you glimpses of a computing future that is completely impossible from any other company. But the edges are just too rough for most people, including me (and I bought a $7k MBP just to troll Dukenukemx so it's not a budget issue). People hyping up the productivity are pretty much lying or haven't used an ultrawide before - I can see how people used to a MBP screen might think it's mind blowing, but those of us with multi-monitor setups or high res ultrawides will be hugely let down.
There is no doubt in my mind I will buy a gen 2 or gen 3 of this, and so will millions of others. I am glad Apple gave us this preview of what the future will be. But to me, that's basically what this device is - a preview of an awesome future. With the flaws what they are, I don't see myself wearing it that often. And I can't imagine others will either.
After owning the Vision Pro for a few days, I am both extremely impressed and extremely disappointed by the device. I will be returning it, and I am pretty sure Apple will see unprecedented return rates on this product. I don't regret buying it to give it a try, and I will miss many aspects of the device. It truly is futuristic and gives you glimpses of a computing future that is completely impossible from any other company. But the edges are just too rough for most people, including me (and I bought a $7k MBP just to troll Dukenukemx so it's not a budget issue). People hyping up the productivity are pretty much lying or haven't used an ultrawide before - I can see how people used to a MBP screen might think it's mind blowing, but those of us with multi-monitor setups or high res ultrawides will be hugely let down.
There is no doubt in my mind I will buy a gen 2 or gen 3 of this, and so will millions of others. I am glad Apple gave us this preview of what the future will be. But to me, that's basically what this device is - a preview of an awesome future. With the flaws what they are, I don't see myself wearing it that often. And I can't imagine others will either.
Not necessarily. Apple has had a number of devices that sold big day one and then did for crap. The G4 Cube is probable the most dramatic I can think of. There's also been ones that haven't failed, but haven't set the world on fire. Apple TV is a good example. It has done fine, Apple makes money on it, but it hasn't really changed the world. Roku is still a way more popular device, and the streaming service is in 9th place, about 10% the users of Netflix.
So while the Vision certainly could be the start of something huge, just because it did well in the initial product run and made big news doesn't mean it will. It could completely fizzle, or could become something that isn't a failure, but is just a normal success not something that goes nuts.
It's DOA. At $3500 it literally can not sell enough units to not end up orphan and dead after a year. After the Apple fan "just buy it" wave subsides there won't be any more buyers with that kind of money. People act like anyone can buy anything if they adjust their priorities accordingly... well, this price tag is well beyond that. And if VR was going to have had a next level explosion in popularity over the last year it would have already with Valve's offerings and the new Quest. I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm not saying the features aren't polished and decent. I am saying that other than being a blessed Apple product none of the specs are new or special, many are less than cutting edge against other headsets, and this can not succeed at this price, even as an Apple product. And especially not in this economy. It can't become an ultimate productivity tool unless you can make it ubiquitous in that environment and this device can't at this price. Ever.
The
price
is
absurd
for
what
it
is.
Full stop.
The
price
is
absurd
for
what
it
is.
Full stop.
I'm sure a lot of people bought it specifically with the intention of returning it beforehand...they just wanted to try out the new toy and were never going to keep it for $3500
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,967
That's funny, because everywhere I look it's being made fun of. Lots of people returning them, once they're done playing with them. Despite having an M2, it doesn't run MacOS and apps are limited. Typing is cumbersome, and it's more of a consumption device than for productivity. No Netflix no YouTube. Which is terrible since it only lasts for 2 hours on battery.
View: https://youtu.be/6dHBs08vdrg?si=Zdfbh0_EIKtZSYbz
View: https://youtu.be/ywSZFmvo19Y?si=qmiwfzW5313MQyc5
View: https://youtu.be/__MJrOg3L64?si=1MJ06ddSG0DJOL_9
paradoxical
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 291
This is not really the case, as flawed as the device is. I am telling you right now if the lenses didn't have glare it would be the most revolutionary video watching device in the last 20 years. $3500 by TV standards isn't even that expensive and it's downright cheap for a high end projector. The picture quality annihilates even high end projectors. Yes, I understand it doesn't work for families, but a LOT of people watch TV alone and can easily afford something like a 75in Sony A95 OLED - which costs more than the Vision Pro and would be an inferior experience if it wasn't for the damn glare.
There is a robust, large market for entertainment devices in the $3500 range. The vision Pro just isn't quite there yet, but it will be eventually.
Airbrushkid
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,431
They say no YouTube. amm So they cannot make money from YouTube. HAHAHA
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,967
Except for one problem, in that nobody else can see what you see which is usually the point of buying such a large 65" TV. Also, $3500 for just a virtual screen vs a GPU which can actually process things is a weird comparison. Meta Quest 3 is only $500 and does pretty much everything the Vision Pro does.
there are a lot of people that watch TV by themselves...you don't need to have other people around to enjoy a large display
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,562
While I think this is a stupid product on the consumer side - It isn't on the pro side. Apple is really making this to re-capture lost market share on the pro-VR side that is a double-whammy because they were loosing Mac sales on top of it.
I think VR is a dead-end as a mass-consumer device though. It's a physical form factor issue more than anything else.
Anyone who bought this as a consumer device is a complete knob for sure, and I suspect most of these initial sales are just going to be collecting dust doing absolutely nothing once the newness wears off.
Last edited:
And I can agree with that idea, but has anyone seen any videos or articles of actual named companies adopting this device? Did Apple work with any software or commercial corporations pre launch to get this device working at least in beta with their workflow before launch so they would have something tangible in real world use to show the professional community?
Disney is, they are using them in a lot of places.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,967
If you watch TV by yourself then you're not buying a $3,500 TV. You certainly won't buy a $3,500 Vision Pro to wear something on your head that gets uncomfortable within 10 minutes of use. You can't even watch Avengers End Game since it's a 3 hour long movie, because the battery would have died at 2 hours.
I noticed SAP and other clients in the App Store.
Agreed.
Sorry it didn’t work out for you. I do see that glare as well, and I can’t help but wonder how much better this would be with say another 15 degrees of FOV. That said, the pipeline and software is the killer differentiator here, like multitouch on the first iPhone, and like the iPhone gen 2/3 are going to be insane. I am happy being able to live with and preview this tech a few years ahead of others. No regrets.
paradoxical
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 291
It's the other way around my friend. My girlfriend sure as shit doesn't care about picture quality (or audio quality, it drives me nuts). If I was just buying a TV to share with others I'd just get the biggest and cheapest one out there since the people that actually care about quality are so few and far between it'd be a waste.
Nobody on AVSforum is buying a $5k TV or a $30k projector so their kids can watch spongebob in higher quality. They're buying them for themselves, to watch their own content on - often alone.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
This is all under the assumption that this is for general consumers. It isn't.
In terms of hardware, I would say you're spending all your time looking at "specs" when Apple has done things that aren't necessarily easily quantifable by specs (such as simply listing processor speed or quantity of RAM). Other than making statements about total visual latency which is 12ms. In terms of AR processing there is nothing else on the market that gets close to competing with Vision Pro. Including the eye and hand tracking. The quality of the image. The level of responsiveness. The ability to lock things into AR space with zero fluctuation. Etc. All of these things go into making a much better device to use, which are significantly more difficult to do than simply sticking in a "faster processor" or "more RAM". If it's not apparent, the issues revolving around AR/VR are far less about computing power and much more about how the actual device is to use. Vision Pro targets all of those usability issues.
This is far greater than the sum of its parts. Though you don't care to admit it, this is not remotely equivalent to "Valve's offerings" or the "Quest". And whether you're watching Apple Fanboi's or not, the reaction to people using Vision Pro, even amongst those who have used a lot of HMDs tells that story. MKBHD is a good example of someone who has literally used every HMD and says that the Vision Pro is far ahead of all of them. Believe him or don't, but it's not cut and dry like you're proclaiming.
In order to make that assessment, there has to be some level of comparison to other entrants in the market. If we talked about any other industry you probably wouldn't say the same thing even if you recognized that the majority could not/can not afford it.
eg: it's not really relevant that normal people can't afford a Bugatti. Or perhaps a better way to say this is it's not really relevant that people can't afford an Audi R8, but eventually the tech will come down to a Volkswagen Jetta.
The same as any other Apple device. Usually Apple themselves simply takes it back no questions asked. You're talking like $3500 is the most expensive thing Apple sells. They have a $7000 (base) Mac Pro that also exists. And the Mac Studio (base) also costs $4000. It's not hard to make a Macbook Pro exceed $4000 either (if you put in a M3 Max and 128GB of RAM). The Pro Display XDR with stand is also famously $6,000, $7,000 if you also want the nano-texture glass. They take returns on "expensive" tech hardware all the time.
Google themselves say it's coming. They just didn't have an app together at launch. It's not as if you can't watch YouTube on Vision Pro, it works just fine through a browser window.
When I see statements like this I feel like it's almost a requirement to mention that Vision Pro is quite literally a full Mac attached to your head. There is no function a Mac can do that a Vision Pro cannot. "Apps" to do things on the web aren't "necessary".
I mostly agree. But I also think eventually like AR, VR devices will be significantly smaller. The big issue with the depiction of VR even in movies like Ready Player One, is they didn't have the creativity to "see" that all of these early devices wouldn't be how it is in the future.
It's like watching Back to the Future Part II and seeing all the "retro future" tech. The best vision they had for the future was that the fax machine would still be relevant and no concept of the internet or better communications technologies. VR is nowhere close to its final form.
I say all that to say: it's hard to know if and when a VR "killer app" will come. It certainly doesn't exist yet. However if AR/VR "glasses" ever become a thing, something that can blackout the displays when desired to run VR instead of AR, then there is a world where as AR becomes the future of computing, VR becomes the future of gaming and or perhaps design. Still too early to tell though.
For that I think it's mostly going to be dependent on whether or not there is a killer app that keeps people coming back. For certain people that want to be able to manage a bunch of desktops in AR space, I think there is a certain amount of value there for productivity. Worth it for $3500? That's harder to quantify, but if you're someone who already dropped the duckets on it, then you might be an individual more willing to find use cases. That and has been discussed just being a nice experience for watching movies.
You are right though that in general more will have to be given to make it viable for normal people. However I think we both agree that future iterations will remove a lot of the cost and size objections to this early device.
Last edited:
TangledThornz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 975
Please read or watch the reviews before posting. The Vision Pro can be plugged into a wall outlet for continuous power. It can also be plugged into a separate battery pack if an outlet isn't available too.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,967
You know what else can be plugged into the wall? EVRYTING!
You know what else can be extended through a battery pack? Literally everything. I think you're missing the point I'm making in that if you wanted this perceived betterness with the Vision Pro, you need to make sacrifices. Meta Quest 3 did all this, and for $500 and you don't see people using these to watch movies over their TVs, at least not the sane people. It's heavy and will be on your head for the length of a movie, and now you have a wire to tether yourself to a wall, so when you do get up you'll inevitably get the wire caught on something and knock something over... for a movie. The Vision Pro is also not a traditional VR Headset, which means you can't use it for something like VR Chat or other VR games like Half-Life Alyx. Which means if you want to use a Vision Pro as a VR Headset, then you'll still need something like a Meta Quest or HTC Vive. What's the point of buying a Vision Pro?
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,997
So I watched that guy who's "challenge" was to wear this for 50 hours straight without ever taking it off, and at the end of the video there was a touching moment about wasting life by not really experiencing life through videos of what you did and I kind of felt the same way, that I wasted 20 minutes of my life watching a guy who wasted 50 hours of his life for nothing more than content for his channel that inexplicably has millions of subscribers so at the end of the day he's probably not really paying for the $3500 AR ski goggles.
A prominent industry analyst claims that the Vision Pro could take four generations of upgrades for the headset to reach its 'ideal form'...Mark Gurman states in his latest Power On newsletter that the Apple team who worked on the Vision Pro believes that the headset requires a lot of work before it can become a mainstream product for the average user...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...set-will-eventually-replace-the-ipad-lshk59z1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...set-will-eventually-replace-the-ipad-lshk59z1
That's not surprising, and likely what Apple has expected for a while. It's a different approach for the company. The company normally likes to enjoy success relatively quickly. While it sounds like Vision Pro is doing relatively well, it's also clear this is a long-term bet. Apple wants to get into a still-rough category now so that it has the experience and momentum if/when the segment really takes off.
Mixed reality takes massive amounts of investment; just look at how long it has taken Meta to get to where it is today. If AR/VR becomes truly hot, other companies may find themselves scrambling to catch up simply because they haven't poured resources into solving some of the bigger problems. I can't help but wonder what Google is going to do given how its previous AR and VR efforts have fizzled out.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
Well said. I also tend to think that Gurman in this case is off. As much as I’d like to say that only 4 gens/10 years will be enough to make a consumer level device, I honestly don’t think that’s the case. I think “the bet” is even longer than that.
The only way it’s not, is if there are just loads of experimental techs getting worked on that have never been leaked or discussed by any tech company.
At minimum a total novel display type (clear OLED could be interim, but I don’t think it’s ideal), advancements in optics for both the lensing and cameras, materials science, manufacturing, updates to many forms of sensor tech, would all at minimum have to exist to make an idealized product.
There also would have to be a huge leap in battery performance. Just that one aspect alone may be longer than 10 years. While it’s “amazing” the Vision Pro can operate for 2-4 hours on its battery, it’s still a relatively large brick that has to be carried to use the device. It has to be some combination of greater power density and/or greater power efficiency of the chips driving Vision Pro. Both of which is a tough ask, considering that the M2 is already very power efficient (this chip is getting 20+ hours of battery life in laptops, with a laptop display!)
In short: I just don’t see them getting a significantly smaller and easier to use product in 10 years. Let alone an idealized version.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,562
Agreed - And it's why I don't think the technology fundamentally exists for this stuff to ever have mass consumer appeal. Now, it could be true in 4-6 that may be the case. For all we know, Apple may be in on some ground breaking technology that could make goggle-less VR a reality, but who knows. I still question Apple's decision to release this right now. This is like the Apple Newton before the iPhone could become a reality.
Chris_B
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
- Messages
- 5,361
Yeah, think I'll pass on paying $3500 to look like 1980's Randy Savage.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
To not rehash too much, I don’t think there will be a mass consumer adoption of any VR or device in 10 years, period. And by mass adoption, I’m talking about the difference between enthusiasts buying tech, and ubiquity. Where “normies” that don’t know how to use/build a computer all have cellphones or iPads. And that is ultimately Apple’s goal with this. I think we’re a super long way away from that. 4-6 years maybe to get to the place where enthusiasts adopt the device more. Maybe. But I still don’t think it will be anywhere close to “ideal”.
Internally, my understanding is that there was a disagreement between Tim Cook and engineering. Engineers didn’t want to release, Tim Cook pushed it. People debate on whether Jobs would’ve done this or not. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t have. Now that said, the reason to launch then? Simply economics. Releasing a product has allowed Apple to offset R&D costs. Even after manufacturing and etc, I would conservatively say that Vision Pro has given a net $200 million. R&D over 5 years has been estimated at $1 billion plus. Getting back 1/5th (again, that number is conservative net not revenue, Revenue is something like $650 million) is helpful to keep going on development.
Tim Cook’s decision was basically about either pooping or getting off the pot. And while a lot of engineers may have felt like this wasn’t “the best time”, there is something to be said that there likely would never have been an ideal time, other than waiting another 10-20 years. Which would’ve just been more billions flushed without an end product. Personally the way I see it is that some line somewhere had to be drawn. And we could debate “where that line is” but like I say, at some point you just have to launch something and it was simply his call, right or wrong.
The other benefit of this is that this really does become a beta test and dev tool. On the latest Broken Silicon, MLID they did an analysis about Vision Pro, I didn’t agree with everything they said but anyway: one thing they did say that I do agree with is that Vision Pro has revealed problems that no one knew were problems. That information is invaluable for future product development. And the second half, as a dev tool - it does allow the starting of devs to start building things for Vision Pro that couldn’t otherwise happen until some kind of launch eventually happened. That software development will be important as a foundation for any future consumer facing device.
Last edited:
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,562
Tim Apple is an idiot. I'll just leave it at that without writing a wall of text. Keep in mind that Jobs & Apple internal was sitting on the general concept of the iPhone for years. Like since the late 90's Jobs and certain key engineers at Apple knew the iPhone was eventually going to be a thing. However, they waited until the technology was there to do it properly. As soon as it was - That's when Jobs pushed the original iPhone team hard, because THAT was the shit or get off the pot moment. He knew as soon as the technology was there, that rushing that thing out of the door would give Apple a 2-3 year lead - And it did.
The Vision Pro? Again, it's not that at all, and Tim Cook is a complete idiot pushing for this to be the next 'big Apple thing'. I worry by Apple doing this, they're actually not going to have the right head-space to be prototyping game changing AR/VR hardware instead that would be the real iPhone like moment.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. Certainly there will always be a play between development time, development cost, and launch. There are financial realties that exist there.
And comparing all Apple launches to iPhone also is a bit unfair. Because even Jobs didn’t achieve that level of success with every product launch. Apple Watches and wearables were not that way, neither was the iPad.
And while Watch and iPad are successful as being category leading, neither of them broke the proverbial internet. Expecting that sort of launch out of Vision Pro for a device that’s not even targeting consumers seems a bit unbalanced.
Fundamentally though all we’re saying again is that you would’ve drawn the line differently and would’ve done nothing in the present to stem the financial bleeding. However we’re operating with imperfect knowledge, Tim also is, but at least he also has internal Apple knowledge that factors in.
This is definitely not true. I think people have forgotten iPhone with its pokey performance and 2g radio. Was it an amazing peek into the future and sign of things to come? Yes. Was it ideal out of the box? Not a chance.
It was two generations later with the 3GS, with a faster modem and processor that it evolved from early adopter toy into a must have, and one more generation later with the 4’s display that there was no turning back.
As someone who owned the original iPhone, Vision Pro is actually about the exact same level of maturity and market readiness as a product category.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,562
Entirely disagree.
Everyone wanted an iPhone at launch. Everyone. Even die-hard apple haters for the most part.
I don't know a single person that wants a Vision Pro, let alone bought one, and these are the same people (myself included) who all bent over to have Cingular fuck us so we could get an iPhone.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
I think it depends on what circles you ran in. I didn't feel like the iPhone even merited a response when it came out.
I was using a Blackberry 8830 World phone at the time I was also entrenched in the idea that physical keyboards on phones was the way forward. People with a heavy emphasis on business would be using a RIM device before another 5+ years before iPhone finally eroded away their email advantage.
I didn't see any reason to go towards iPhone or that it had features that made it a front runner until the iPhone 4. I was also heavily paying attention to Google with Android. And at the time Google was "a lot less evil" and I was considering any number of phones that direction as well.
The iPhone 2G and 3G were both mocked as either not being tech feature forward, or finally with the 3G, getting to the party late.
Also at that time, even Jobs himself as well as Apple didn't know whether "Apps" as we know them today were the way forward. The 2.5g only had what Apple gave you a fairly limited set of capabilities.
It did several things really well: look slick, have better UI design than competitors, and had a touch screen that actually worked/dual-touch (which was a big deal in comparison with devices like the Treo).
But it also lacked capabilities that "feature phones" like T-Mobile Sidekick, etc had. The jokes about even being able to cut and paste early on were 'legendary'. It was definitely "interesting", but it was far from being "the best at everything in every way shape and form". To follow up on myself and that story, I didn't even get an iPhone until the 4S, when Apple clearly had become a front runner and the device was significantly more mature.
It's a totally different class of device. How many of your friends own a Mac Pro or a Pro Display XDR? Heck, how many of your friends lined up to buy a $3500 laptop or a Hololens? Apple has clearly made Vision Pro a "not consumer facing device" so holding it to the standards of being one when they've only intentionally limited it to 180,000 of them is a bit cynical.
(I also refused to move from Verizon at the time "just to get a phone").
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,967
The problem with VR adoption is cost, and Apple decided that $500 was chump change and shot the price up to $3,500. Probably because they did pour a lot of resources into making it, and it's not even good enough to be used for VR games. How well it does in sales is yet to be seen, but right now the Meta Quest 3 does everything the Vision Pro does, plus play VR games. They also can't play YouTube and Netflix.
I think it is just no native app, via safari-browser it should work, the device has a full browser available and should not need app
Does it support hand gesture, eye tracking, any close to the sensor-camera level to capture the world, body motion capture, seem if a company want to make something for a factory, training module, etc... it is not true that the quest will do evreything the vision hardware can.
Apple project over a billion US in sales the first year of launch and over 1.5 millions units before the second version launch from analyst.
Mark Zuckerberg tried the Apple Vision Pro and compared it to the Meta Quest 3:
https://twitter.com/gregisenberg/status/1757583652416856534
https://twitter.com/gregisenberg/status/1757583652416856534
The Quest 3 can do all that except eye tracking.
And a billion in sales over a year is just over 285000 headsets sold. Which is a very small number.
For Apple maybe, for a prototype for a new form of computing it is giant.
According to a quick google: Meta's new technology can track the entire upper body, but Meta hasn't been able to figure out a good way to use cameras to track legs just yet. Dec 19, 2023
I have not tried both, but apparently it is a different tier in ability to capture the world and render it versus the previous alternative.
If you guarantee after trying and developing on both that the Quest 3 could do everything the Apple vision can do for someone that want to have augmented reality for factory floor worker or training program, would have to take your word for it, but that not what I heard.