The price, while steep, is not outrageous compared to something like an iPhone. But I still haven't seen a "killer app" for VR so it's not a "daily driver" like a phone would be. The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
Agreed. Whether you agree with how Meta does things or not (I don't), they have made it very clear that they see the Quest as a locked down, Meta-controlled ecosystem.
I happen to use an iPhone, which arguably pioneered this sort of thing, but I feel like Meta are taking it to the next level. They have much higher rev-shares, (I think it's 40-60%), they have tighter control, require a Facebook account to use it (quite different to an Apple account to access cloud features), and while an iPhone is quite functional without the AppStore and iCloud with the web and built-in functionality, I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup.
All that lock-in worries me.
People tend to conflate FAANGs with each other. One bad Apple ruins the bunch.
only if you value your time at $0. the amount of time to keep sidequest working and fight official updates breaking it is not trivial.
You just need the bog standard android adb shell program.
>adb install-multiple one.apk two.apk three.apk
Done.
> They have much higher rev-shares
The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much* lower than Apple.
> they have tighter control
Than the iPhone? The Quest can be used in SteamVR like any other headset. Third-party apps can be sideloaded, and the bootloader is (semi) unlocked. Not sure how they're even comparable.
> require a Facebook account to use it
A Meta account now, disconnected from the social network. How is this different than an Apple account?
> I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup
Do you have a Quest? I've used mine entirely as a PCVR setup, I don't think I've used a FB service in years besides the store.
* EDIT: Discussed below, "much" is maybe a bit too far. Seems like the final split is roughly the same, though AppLab doesn't take a cut of IAP.
How is that much lower than Apple? If you do under a million a year on the App Store or in the second year of an iOS subscription it's 85/15, else it's 70/30 (unless you have a better backroom deal).
I say much because (afaik) the majority of developer income comes from recurring payments, which AppLab doesn't take any of.
From what I know, Apple takes 30% of paid app sales in the app store. In-app purchases, though, drop to a 15% take after the first year (or that's my read from the article).
Contrast this with AppLab, which takes 30% of paid app sales, but doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases.
I'll retract the "much" lower point since I assume this results in roughly the same final take. Games on non-mobile have a higher initial cost, which probably balances the lack of post-sale revenue.
Regardless, I don't think this makes the Oculus more locked down than an iPhone, since you can always bypass their store and sideload or run apps directly from your PC, which Apple isn't offering.