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.
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.