Zuckerberg outright said that the Quest 3 is better than the Vision Pro, but is that fair?

Zuckerberg outright said that the Quest 3 is better than the Vision Pro, but why?
Like it or not, Meta is the current king of the VR space. Regardless of the things that we’ve come to associate with the company, we can’t deny that it has produced some of the best VR headsets on the market, including the Quest 3, which is currently reigning supreme.

And then, Apple’s Vision Pro released. And I can totally see why a lot of people would expect some form of competition between Apple’s spatial computer and Meta’s XR headsets, but in reality — not virtual, but the real world — these are completely different products for totally different users.

Still, people keep comparing them, because it’s not only a perfectly human thing to do, but something that’s genetically engraved in us as a means of survival. And while I can’t even begin to imagine a day when Tim Cook would go live on social media to throw shade at the Quest 3, here we’ve got Zuckerberg doing something similar in this reel.

Video Thumbnail

This guided tour is a perfect example of who Apple is targeting with the Vision Pro. Warning: severe lack of gaming detected.

To answer your immediate question: is the reel worth watching? For sure. In the video, Zuck explains what he thinks of Apple’s Vision Pro after finally having tried it. To quote:

After saying that, Meta’s CEO moves on to highlight some of the ways in which he thinks the Quest 3 is superior or equal to the Vision Pro, such as:

  • Having high quality passthrough
  • Being better suited for playing games and socializing
  • Granting access to a bigger content library
  • Offering improved ergonomics
  • Being lighter

Which is a respectable number of qualities to offer for sure: no quarrel there. But, as someone who is neither a Meta-hater or an Apple-fanboy — I’m a ‘droid fan, remember? — in the spirit of fairness, I’d like to offer a few add ons about the Vision Pro:

  • It has displays with a higher resolution and of better quality
  • Has never been marketed as a gaming device and by design, that’s not its purpose
  • Doesn’t need to compete with Meta’s library of VR apps, because it isn’t an entertainment-first device
  • May be imperfect in terms of ergonomics, but so is the Quest 3 with multiple users online complaining about how uncomfortable it is, which we backed up in our review

And then, I’ll hand it to Zuckerberg: the Quest 3 is significantly lighter and that’s praise worthy for sure. And don’t get me wrong: practically everything here is praise-worthy. Both of these devices are amazing in their own right and we’re so lucky to be able to experience them.

But with their goals and target audiences being so different, I don’t find it fair to compare them in such a way. There’s this specific quote by Zuckerberg, again taken from the same reel, that just rubs me the wrong way:

But what would happen if I added a “today” at the end there? Because Zuck is, ultimately, absolutely right: the Quest 3 is better at these things. But these things are gaming and entertainment, which is what VR has come to be primarily associated with.

And Apple? I think that it’s trying to change that with the Vision Pro. Not only because it isn’t healthy for the entire XR industry, but because MR is super-cool and everyone — non-gamers included — should be able to take advantage of it to improve their day to day lives.

So while I appreciate Zuckerberg’s transparency, I can’t help but think that the picture he paints feels incomplete. After all, when talking about how successful a product is, we don't talk about if it pleased the "vast majority of the overall audience", but if it managed to cover the needs of the target audience. 

I mean, the Quest 3 has been a hit with gamers. But is it fair for us to talk about the Vision Pro as if it were meant for them? 

Food for thought.
Loading Comments...
FCC OKs Cingular\'s purchase of AT&T Wireless