This is an interesting move and feels like a response to complaints that Meta is hypocritical when complaining about closed platforms while running one themselves. But this isn't open source. I don't know why any OEMs would want to compete with Meta's hardware subsidized by app store revenue when they continue to own the store. Maybe there's an app revenue share involved?
Wait, at the end of the video he says "We're also as part of this going to be opening up our store to give you even more options to use whatever experiences you want. So whether they're on Steam, Xbox Cloud Gaming, our own App Lab, or even Google Play, if they're up for it." The blog post doesn't mention Steam or Google Play. It's not really clear what that means. Will they allow Steam to sell native Quest apps?
Edit: There's a better blog post that has more detail. https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/meta-horizon-os-open-hardwar... This one seems to suggest that being "open" to Steam just means allowing game streaming which they already do, while being "open" to Google Play means that they would allow Google to install the actual Play Store app on the headset, for 2D apps only. But Google doesn't want to. In any case it seems like they would specifically not be open to alternative app stores selling native 3D apps directly on the headset itself.
I think this is at least better than nothing for companies who want to build standalone headsets and not just headsets that are dependent on PCs. Up until now everyone's had to make their own OS and store and hope that people care enough to port over apps and games.
At the very least, this could lead to more high-end standalone headsets being available. Not every 3rd party headset has to be competing with the Quest line of headsets, so the lack of revenue from the store might not matter to some companies.
It seems to suggest they're limited to Qualcomm chipsets, and Qualcomm don't make a higher end VR chipset so it's hard to see where a high end headset would come from.
Displays and optics are a big one, lots of competing technologies there like OLED vs LED, pancake vs fresnel, movable optics, laser based displays, video pass through vs semitransparent or even HUD style for lower res overlays. They can also compete on audio quality for microphones and headphones, different battery solutions like hot swappable packs, corded or built in. Maybe different form factors that can distribute weight or higher quality head straps for comfort. Tracking options like more cameras for inside out or a different system for pairing with controllers or full body trackers. Even external dedicated compute that works with Air Link. If they’re making the hardware they can add whatever extra chips or sensors they want.
I don't think that's a given long term. Even already the chip in the Quest 3 is rated at the same GPU grunt as an nVidia 1060, the minimum supported chipset originally for PCVR. The next gen is already announced and is significantly more powerful again, able to power 4k displays. I would project in 3 years from now we have something that can actually be considered at least moderately high end in stand alone form factor from Qualcomm.
This seems kind of interesting to me, it's a shame it's from Meta so I'll likely never touch it because of the toxicity of their core products, but I'm glad to see this, as it seems like it could stimulate some competition.
The use-cases for AR are so awful. The last thing I want is to consume already a passive medium with my family wearing goggles. Such an anti-social platform.
I think the mention of Steam will be to do with the Steam Link app they released for Meta quest devices fairly recently that lets you stream your VR games from your desktop computer to the quest wirelessly https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/0E2C-406B-9135-38...
Yeah, if it was "we acknowledge that is bad for hardware to have one installation path" and they were allowing itch.io to have an indie VR store that might be cool but they are very much not.
Far enough down the line, it will all end up in EU regulation. Doesn't everything?
Or if Meta doesn't become strong enough to be considered a monopoly, you always have the choice to go with their competitors (as is currently the case). I can still install anything I want on my Pico 4.
Short video from Zuckerberg: https://twitter.com/NathieVR/status/1782436898654273981
This is an interesting move and feels like a response to complaints that Meta is hypocritical when complaining about closed platforms while running one themselves. But this isn't open source. I don't know why any OEMs would want to compete with Meta's hardware subsidized by app store revenue when they continue to own the store. Maybe there's an app revenue share involved?
Wait, at the end of the video he says "We're also as part of this going to be opening up our store to give you even more options to use whatever experiences you want. So whether they're on Steam, Xbox Cloud Gaming, our own App Lab, or even Google Play, if they're up for it." The blog post doesn't mention Steam or Google Play. It's not really clear what that means. Will they allow Steam to sell native Quest apps?
Edit: There's a better blog post that has more detail. https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/meta-horizon-os-open-hardwar... This one seems to suggest that being "open" to Steam just means allowing game streaming which they already do, while being "open" to Google Play means that they would allow Google to install the actual Play Store app on the headset, for 2D apps only. But Google doesn't want to. In any case it seems like they would specifically not be open to alternative app stores selling native 3D apps directly on the headset itself.