Why Apple And Meta Are Living In Different Realities With Latest Initiative

Summary:

• Both Meta and Apple have announced new mixed reality headsets, with Meta’s Quest priced at $500 and Apple’s Vision Pro costing seven times more, targeting different markets and use cases.
• Apple’s Vision Pro is designed as a proof of concept, appealing to developers to create applications and evolve the technology, while Meta’s device focuses on gaming and entertainment.
• At its core, Apple’s product is more computer-like than a recreational device, whereas (for better or worse) Meta’s end goal has always been creating a new virtual social environment.
• Despite advancements in mixed reality technology, neither is likely to revolutionize the entertainment market or replace traditional models like theaters and live venues anytime soon.
• These devices can’t begin to challenge the traditional model until they are as small as a regular pair of glasses and have extensive battery life.

It’s been a busy few weeks in the world of mixed reality.

Meta (NASDAQ:META) announced the third iteration of its Quest line of units and then Apple (AAPL) dropped the first details for its inaugural Vision Pro device.

The comparison stories were instant.

I’ll save you the time… both are high level and both will blend virtual and mixed reality in ways no other headset on the market currently can achieve. The main difference is Meta’s costs $500 and Apple’s cost seven times more.

As I’ve said prior, overly expensive hardware is kind of Apple’s thing.

That’s not to say the Quest and Vision are mirror images beyond the cost – they aren’t – but the average consumer really wouldn’t notice the differences. If you want to play in the VR world a Quest would do the trick and you could even buy a Quest 2 for a soon-to-be reduced price and still get a superior experience.

But it is fun to play fortune teller (or oracle) and explore what these devices mean and don’t mean in the grander scheme – and most importantly why they aren’t about to change the world anytime soon.

First as always, some background.

We’ve been trained by pop culture to expect the future will be somewhere between The Jetsons and Ready Player One – and yet we aren’t even close to either (which is a good thing in the latter case). What is real though is the technology that powers both those worlds does exist in today’s space but the adoption of it has been clunky, costly and not well received.

Meta and Apple have seemingly tasked themselves with being the ones meant to drive mankind into this brave new world. Meta’s been trying for years while Apple’s finally ready to leave the starting line.

Both share a similar goal in advancing civilization through technology – but their approaches and strategies are nowhere close to each other. Meta overshot the runway by instead of just creating a new way to view our world, they tried to create a new “meta” one.

And that has had some problems.

The metaverse idea was not just overly complicated but it came without any guidelines, planning or actual proof of concept. It turned the promise of virtual reality into a punch line and set back a technological advancement that was already delayed.

It also opened the door for Apple to come in and basically pretend they were the first ones to sell this more pure type of product. Apple knows its wasn’t and so does the world, but it doesn’t matter because Apple came in with a unit that – yes is expensive – but isn’t meant to be the end-all solution from day one.

Apple built Vision Pro as an actual proof of concept.

You can’t understate that fact.

It’s meant to be expensive, it’s meant to a first pass and it’s meant to appeal to a specific group of people.

There’s a reason Apple debuted it during their World Wide Developer Conference – they first want developers to develop applications for it and for influencers to tout its innovation. They’ve made it clear this is what they think it can do and are saying “ok, now expand and advocate those abilities.”

Just as they’ve done for years with computers, phones and tablets, they’ve evolved the technology.

People have yet to grasp that while Meta is largely a gaming/entertainment device designed to increase social interaction virtually, Vision Pro is a computer.

The other difference here is that the “metaverse” talk undercut Meta’s credibility and Apple is coming right out and saying this is “version A,” but you can trust each version will have an achievable goal.

But again – let’s play what if – even with Meta and Apple both in this space and both building on it in significant ways, will this change anything significant?

No.

At least not for years and even then it’s an open question.

Remember, you have Apple’s “vision”, Meta’s vision and the reality of it all… all in, that is three different interpretations.

And why is that?

The most common application that people have looked towards with these devices it how they will impact pop culture. And they do that because it was through pop culture, we were first introduced to what VR was and could possibly do.

It’s a comparison that’s hard to escape.

The simple truth though is even VR’s capabilities and the integration of augmented/mixed reality, this is not going to revolutionize the market the same way streaming did over the past few years.

If you want proof – look at streaming.

Streaming was already on the uptick and then COVID boosted it to the maximum level. Then a funny thing happened – theaters re-opened and audiences came back.

The perfect example is the Warner Bros. tentpole Godzilla vs. Kong which over-indexed despite being available for free (with subscription) at the same time on (then) HBO Max.

Warner Bros. took a lot of grief for the hybrid model but I’ve always maintained the industry actually owes them a thank you because it provided a key learning to investors and analysts. The company proved even with COVID still at a high level and the ability to watch the same big releases for less money and from the comfort (and safety) of your own home – audiences were still excited to come back to theaters.

If COVID didn’t shutter the traditional model, VR/MR/AR doesn’t have any better odds.

The idea of virtually being in a movie theater environment with a large screen and immersive sound – but from your living room couch – is not anything new. It was around pre-pandemic but it came with a lot of flaws. Namely you were wearing a headset to watch something you could more comfortably watch on your own TV.

The main difference was when you had a Next VR type app that transported you courtside to a game which enhanced the experience – but you were still watching on a headset and after a while either you get tired of wearing it or the battery ran out.

And remember the Vision Pro doesn’t just have a small battery life, it’s designed for you to be tethered to a power source which limits your mobility. Again, another reason why Vision is a computer and not an entertainment machine.

You may have also noticed that you won’t find a picture anywhere of Apple CEO Tim Cook or any of his C-Suite team wearing the device. That’s on purpose – they know how it makes them look… something they learned from the endless memes that came from Mark Zuckerberg’s initial demos.

If Cook and his team don’t want to be seen wearing it – how game do you think the rest of the country is going to be to jump in and add it as part of their daily routines?

To its credit, the Vision device has an open front that goes transparent when someone else enters the room so you can have a conversation without taking off the headset. The new Quest does not… while cameras will let you see the real world in front of you, it is a fully enclosed headset.

The overall fact is you aren’t going to see these devices begin to challenge theaters or live venues until they are as small as a regular pair of glasses and we aren’t close to that level yet… oh and remember you can’t actually wear glasses with the Vision Pro, you have to buy a prescription insert.

But Vision Pro represents what the future could be and that matters because it is the first of its kind to have some type of visible window to the real world. And remember when I mentioned Next VR? Well Apple bought them and while it may not be something we see in the short run, eventually that type of experience will factor into a future model and experience.

And to be clear – Meta’s devices are not inferior in any way and likely the best choice for anybody looking to experience VR/AR/MR for themselves without breaking the bank.

Just as we’ve had in the past, here we have two competing brands in the same space but with different approaches and goal sets. And yet in either scenario, for the time being, if you want to watch the big game with your friends you are going to likely watch on a big-screen TV or if you opt to see the latest studio tentpole, you are likely going to watch in your local theater.

That’s a form of competition neither company can counter.

While these devices can attempt to mimic human interaction, the real thing will continue to (hopefully) win out.

---

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

---