Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. When tossing up a vr purchase it's Vision pro, quest 3 or big screen beyond. Price points all vary but they are literally all the same shiz just served on a different shovel. Each have their pros, each have their cons (well the mvp has mostly cons being the worst of the 3 but hey its having a crack).
Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two, even if they were "the same shiz" spec-wise, Id still not comment on Vision Pro over Quest - the reason being I have Macook Air. Spec-wise, that laptop is almost identical to any other laptop, but the level of refinement is on another planet. Its tousands little things that make using Air a joy, while dealing with my work HP Zbook is a pain in every way.…
Post-M series I hear this from time to time and always ask people to show me something in the same weight class with equivalent battery life, performance, and screen quality.
Has the market finally caught up to the point where your statement is true? (Not asking you to research, just curious if any spring to mind from any pre-purchase research you did.)
> Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two
I think this is far too charitable.
1. We are a largely technical audience.
2. We are discussing a product category where, per the last ten years of discussion about early hardware drawbacks (and the critical consensus on Vision Pro), the screen inescapably defines the experience.
Anyone on HN describing Vision Pro's screen as "the same shiz" as Quest 3 must either be a troll or operating with a knowledge gap so vast as to make meaningful discussion very, very difficult.
Like, if you don't understand the math, read the reviews and trust that this is not a global cabal of Apple apologists making shit up. Occam's Razor: this is a $3500 device where 35% of the BOM is the screens ($550-ish), compared to a $500 device where ~19% of the BOM is screens ($80). Of course they aren't in the same league.