A $1k would break it in this market… The specs suggest a little lower end generally than Quest 3 hardware wise, or in the ballpark (comparable display and optics, lower quality cameras). The only notable improvement is including eye tracking, which is nice, but not $1k nice…
$500 should be a good target, some tradeoffs with Quest 3 (worse ‘AR’, better eye tracking and PC connectivity).
It’s a VR headset so no one really cares about the cameras. The only headset with cameras that are any good is on the Apple Pro which is ludicrously expensive. The quest 3s cameras are fine but you can’t really read a display while wearing it so they’re basically useless for AR stuff.
This is more thinking about material cost rather than relative value. If you save money on the passthrough and incur a few costs above the Quest 3 but nothing dramatic, then I’m just saying the pricing needs to be in the ballpark of Quest 3. Better value by making smarter choices that may not have a cost impact (e.g. using a maintstream high end SoC instead of a niche SoC, putting the battery at the back instead of making it front heavy).
Of course they may be hampered by different business needs. Meta affording to risk more money than Valve can risk might drive higher price point, but it would be unfortunate.
@echodot@feddit.uk I don’t think that’s the determining factor for whether something is useless for AR. AR can be useful even just because it lets you be aware of your surroundings. Then there’s the fun of combining real-world objects and structures with virtual ones. Quest 3 can be good for both to some extent.
My point is that no one really cares about the cameras because this is a VR headset, it isn’t trying to be everything to everyone. I also don’t really think anyone cares about apple’s “spatial computing” (AR), perhaps if they actually had more applications people would be interested, but they don’t.
@jj4211@lemmy.world the SoC is better than Quest 3 so that is also a notable improvement. Comfort seems likely to be significantly better than with Quest 3 and default strap. Wireless dongle is included in the price. Will have to wait for reviews to know how some other aspects compare.
The SoC may be better, but I don’t know that it would be more expensive. Meta went with a more niche SoC and Valve selected a more mainstream, newer SoC. Better specs, but also larger volumes so cost wise I think Valve should be fine. Comfort certainly seems like it should be better, but I don’t know that I see more cost as a factor versus just making better decisions.
The wireless dongle certainly can be a thing in it’s favor, just thinking that on balance there’s some things that should contribute to BOM price and some that should save on BOM price and it should, roughly, be in the ballpark of Quest 3 when all is said and done, not 2x the cost.
A $1k would break it in this market… The specs suggest a little lower end generally than Quest 3 hardware wise, or in the ballpark (comparable display and optics, lower quality cameras). The only notable improvement is including eye tracking, which is nice, but not $1k nice…
$500 should be a good target, some tradeoffs with Quest 3 (worse ‘AR’, better eye tracking and PC connectivity).
It’s a VR headset so no one really cares about the cameras. The only headset with cameras that are any good is on the Apple Pro which is ludicrously expensive. The quest 3s cameras are fine but you can’t really read a display while wearing it so they’re basically useless for AR stuff.
This is more thinking about material cost rather than relative value. If you save money on the passthrough and incur a few costs above the Quest 3 but nothing dramatic, then I’m just saying the pricing needs to be in the ballpark of Quest 3. Better value by making smarter choices that may not have a cost impact (e.g. using a maintstream high end SoC instead of a niche SoC, putting the battery at the back instead of making it front heavy).
Of course they may be hampered by different business needs. Meta affording to risk more money than Valve can risk might drive higher price point, but it would be unfortunate.
@echodot@feddit.uk I don’t think that’s the determining factor for whether something is useless for AR. AR can be useful even just because it lets you be aware of your surroundings. Then there’s the fun of combining real-world objects and structures with virtual ones. Quest 3 can be good for both to some extent.
My point is that no one really cares about the cameras because this is a VR headset, it isn’t trying to be everything to everyone. I also don’t really think anyone cares about apple’s “spatial computing” (AR), perhaps if they actually had more applications people would be interested, but they don’t.
@jj4211@lemmy.world the SoC is better than Quest 3 so that is also a notable improvement. Comfort seems likely to be significantly better than with Quest 3 and default strap. Wireless dongle is included in the price. Will have to wait for reviews to know how some other aspects compare.
The SoC may be better, but I don’t know that it would be more expensive. Meta went with a more niche SoC and Valve selected a more mainstream, newer SoC. Better specs, but also larger volumes so cost wise I think Valve should be fine. Comfort certainly seems like it should be better, but I don’t know that I see more cost as a factor versus just making better decisions.
The wireless dongle certainly can be a thing in it’s favor, just thinking that on balance there’s some things that should contribute to BOM price and some that should save on BOM price and it should, roughly, be in the ballpark of Quest 3 when all is said and done, not 2x the cost.