The Quest range. I’m sure that the passthrough isn’t as good quality as Apple’s (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it’s easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3.
Glass was just a heads-up display in the corner of vision, nothing like any sort of vr/ar/xr system. I don’t know why you would consider that comparable to any of the headsets.
Hololens and Magic Leap were augmented reality, but by not using camera passthrough they were limited filed-of view and could not do opacity.
Quest 3 is much more similar to the Vision Pro in terms of what it can do (aside from the outer display). For instance, it’s possible to place large browser windows around your room, and replace your monitor with a larger virtual version.
They can call it whatever they want, but as far as I’m concerned a VR headset with very good video passthrough is still a VR headset.
The big deal is that this is a mobile VR headset. I don’t know of another VR headset you can walk around in.
The Quest range. I’m sure that the passthrough isn’t as good quality as Apple’s (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it’s easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3.
Would you call Google glass or hololense a VR machine? No you wouldn’t. Apple fits right in there with them
Glass were glasses with a small HUD.
Vision Pro are goggles with a full opaque display and video passthrough. Like a Vive or Oculus device. Just higher quality passthrough.
It’s a VR headset.
Glass was just a heads-up display in the corner of vision, nothing like any sort of vr/ar/xr system. I don’t know why you would consider that comparable to any of the headsets. Hololens and Magic Leap were augmented reality, but by not using camera passthrough they were limited filed-of view and could not do opacity. Quest 3 is much more similar to the Vision Pro in terms of what it can do (aside from the outer display). For instance, it’s possible to place large browser windows around your room, and replace your monitor with a larger virtual version.