Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
A former Oculus executive’s deep dive into Apple’s Vision Pro triggers a wide-ranging critique of VR’s current state, contrasting Apple’s polished hardware, UI, and long‑term “spatial computing” vision with Meta’s game‑centric, fragmented software stack. Commenters broadly agree the Vision Pro is an over‑engineered, expensive “dev kit” with impressive displays, passthrough, and eye‑tracking but no mainstream killer app, while Meta’s cheaper Quest line wins on practicality and content—especially for gaming. Many see this generation of headsets as an important but niche step toward eventual AR glasses and new work and media paradigms, with lingering doubts about comfort, privacy, and whether ordinary users really want computers strapped to their faces.
Device positioning and price
- Many see Vision Pro (AVP) as an over‑engineered “devkit” or beta: technically impressive, not yet a mass‑market product.
- High price is debated: some argue even wealthy buyers “can’t justify” $3.5–4k for a “tech toy”; others say frugality and applying a “normal consumer” lens is deliberate.
- Some think Apple is intentionally seeding the market, expecting cheaper, lighter versions; others note we’ve said this about VR for a decade.
Hardware, comfort, and UX
- Hardware is widely praised: very high‑res displays, excellent passthrough for a consumer device, strong spatial audio.
- Still has classic VR problems: heavy, front‑loaded weight, face pressure, warmth, limited field of view, motion blur in passthrough, and eye strain for some.
- Gaze‑and‑pinch input is called a major UI breakthrough by some; others find it fatiguing, imprecise, and bad for fast/multitasking work, preferring controllers or mouse/keyboard.
Software, platform, and Meta comparisons
- Strong consensus that Meta’s Quest software feels janky, fragmented, and game‑console‑like (store‑first, weak productivity, messy account flow).
- Several argue Apple’s real advantage is a coherent spatial OS that integrates 3D windows, ARKit, Mac/iPad apps, and system‑level gaze/hand tracking, vs Meta’s “app launcher on Android + Unity/Unreal”.
- Others counter that without a large installed base and must‑have apps, the platform advantage may not matter; devs may focus on Quest due to volume and looser policies.
Use cases and “killer apps”
- Many say VR/AR still lacks a compelling everyday use; novelty wears off. Common current uses:
- Gaming (Beat Saber, Superhot, Half‑Life: Alyx, sims).
- Exercise (rhythm and boxing apps).
- Large virtual monitors for coding/knowledge work; a minority report working many hours/day in AVP and preferring it to physical displays.
- Media: solo movie watching, 3D/immersive video, live sports potential; co‑presence watching is seen as technically easy but socially unproven.
- Porn is mentioned as historically important for formats; VR porn today seen as a niche novelty, not a mass driver.
Social, privacy, and cultural issues
- Many dislike the idea of blocking their main sense and being further isolated; AR glasses or HUD‑style overlays seem more acceptable than big goggles.
- Some note norms have already shifted (phones, earbuds) and might shift again for AR.
- Meta/Facebook distrust is a recurring reason to avoid Quest; Apple is seen as better on privacy but criticized for lock‑in and control.
- Strong skepticism remains that VR/AR will reach iPhone‑ or internet‑scale impact; others argue AVP is the “North Star” that will accelerate the entire category.