How Right Is Mark Zuckerberg in His Analysis of the Apple Vision Pro?

Meta versus Apple: A Civil War Amongst VR Giants?

It's hard to browse any media outlet or social platform without encountering the Apple Vision Pro (AVP) plastered across a user’s feed—and for good reason. The Apple Vision Pro is truly impressive.

Perhaps more importantly, Apple has achieved something Meta has struggled to accomplish: capturing global attention and integrating Spatial Computing (VR) into the cultural zeitgeist. An influx of mainstream celebrities, thought leaders, entrepreneurs, and YouTubers have shared their thoughts, signaling it as the most novel and groundbreaking technology in recent memory.

Within as little as a week, it appeared Apple was stealing the show from the one company that had bet everything on making VR a reality—Meta.

For a quick historical background, modern consumer VR made its first appearance in 2013 when Palmer Luckey built and shipped the Oculus DK1. Funded by Kickstarter and VR enthusiasts, the DK1 introduced the idea that consumer VR was possible. It was in 2014 that Meta (then Facebook) bought into the vision by acquiring Oculus for $2 billion.

Since then, Meta, through its Reality Labs department, has introduced many devices that have made the industry both consumer and venture-viable—from the PC-only enabled Oculus Rift (driving the first real wave of consumer VR) to now controlling a majority of the market share with the standalone Quest headsets. Meta’s headset growth has been objectively positive, selling over 25 million units, a remarkably high number compared to other manufacturers.

Zuckerberg Strikes Back

Until the release of the Apple Vision Pro (AVP), Meta’s products were viewed as esoteric and cringe-worthy, a result of poor marketing and a disconnect between Meta’s corporate-safe—may I say bland—branding compared to the young and edgy audience it needs to appeal to.

After a week of standing in the shadow of the AVP, Zuckerberg released an unexpected video comparing the Apple Vision Pro to his latest Quest3 headset.

The video has left viewers divided—primarily because of Mark's tone, which can be summarized as "factual, but defensive."

Being a neutral third party that has invested ~$15m into the virtual reality industry in the last 2 years, let’s dissect some of Zuckerberg’s points.

“Quest isn’t just a better value, but a better product, period.” - Mark Zuckerberg

Quest is undeniably a better value. With a 7x price increase from the Quest 3 to the AVP, the difference is so significant that it's challenging to argue otherwise. However, there is some nuance to this point—the two brands are targeting different customer bases. The AVP appeals to buyers already part of the Apple Ecosystem—49% of Americans have iPhones, and 64% own an Apple Product. Already two weeks after launch, we're seeing consumers in the Apple walled garden become intrigued by VR tech solely as a consequence of Apple joining the ecosystem, irrespective of the growth of Meta or other VR companies.

To take an opposing stance to Zuckerberg’s seemingly zero-sum view: Apple’s innovation is manifest destiny to expand the VR TAM and not a civil war for current market share.

“Quest is better for the vast majority of what people use Mixed Reality for” & “We’ve designed it for many different things: Moving around playing games, socializing with friends, working out and more” - Mark Zuckerberg

In comparison to immersive virtual reality, mixed reality via head-mounted displays is more nascent with fewer total applications built. While passthrough for mixed reality has been on headsets for a few years, it wasn’t until the Quest Pro’s (launched in late '22) color pass-through made it viable and enjoyable. In 2023, there was a tailwind for mixed reality development, with color passthrough launched on the Quest 3. The claim that mixed reality apps are better on Quest is debatable, as Apple’s approach for XR design thus far is oriented toward productivity (more skeuomorphic design akin to monitors) and passive consumption (movies). Meta’s vast number of apps on the other hand tend to focus on use-cases within gaming, more effectively enabled by their controller-based navigation.

“Apple’s eye-tracking is really nice, but not good for all tasks, like typing” - Mark Zuckerberg

Eye tracking is the next logical step in UI and software control—following the pattern of reducing friction between intent and action. Apple’s design and implementation are second-to-none, and more importantly, instantly intuitive for users who have never put on a VR headset. The Quest Pro had eye-tracking, but unfortunately, the feature was dropped in the Quest 3. Meta sees the mistake in not adding it and will implement it again. However, the looming cost of eye-tracking is that it is oriented toward consumption, not production. To have a productive work session, a Bluetooth keyboard is required. As for most games, hand tracking isn’t quite feasible either.

“Quest’s Immersive Library is a lot deeper” - Mark Zuckerberg

Apple’s silence and relatively close-to-launch announcement for the AVP left its App Store feeling barren and desolate, with only 600 apps. Meta’s library of Apps, across its main store, App Lab, and WebXR, greatly exceeds the total number of experiences available on the AVP.

“In this next generation, Meta is going to be the open model, and I want to make sure the open model wins again” - Mark Zuckerberg

The implication Zuckerberg had made here was that open tech ecosystems (akin to 90s-00s Microsoft home computer dominance) would return over the closed ecosystem of Apple that won on mobile for the last decade. Open source and cross-device interoperability are great—but it isn’t self-evident that Meta is building that ecosystem. While it runs on AndroidOS and supports WebXR, Meta’s app marketplace is notoriously difficult to get onto, needing a series of approvals to get on App Lab (Beta Apps) and even more approval to get to the main store. The ability to AirLink and sideload are behaviors more inclusive of an open ecosystem.

The Takeaway

Mark’s words were generally correct. The Quest 3 is a better value. The Quest 3 has more total use cases. Meta has a deeper library of content. However, Mark's need to assert something (without acknowledging any of the novel features of the AVP) seems like a reassertion of control that was lost with the entrance of Apple into the market.

As for Meta's significant oversight in not having a headset that anyone could put on and have an intuitive understanding of—the hallmark of Apple UX—the Quest still presents too much friction for mainstream use. But this is likely to change over the coming months as Meta takes inspiration from the AVP’s best design choices.

Neither camp should be underestimated in bringing VR to the masses, as Apple commands around 2 billion devices around the world that become enhanced by the Vision Pro, while Meta boasts 3.6 billion monthly active users across its platforms that can be guided towards its Quest line.