Meta Connect again saw its usual torrent of announcements this year, this time including the official unveiling of Quest 3S, as well as its new prototype AR glasses, Orion. Notably missing however was company’s three partner headsets from Asus, Lenovo and Xbox. Where are they?

Back in April, Meta revealed plans to open its Android-based XR operating system Horizon OS to third-party manufacturers for the first time, signaling a monumental shift in the company’s role as the sole headset creator for its XR platform.

At the time, Meta said not only would the company continue to create Quest devices, but the move would be a first big step in becoming the “open model” as an ostensible foil to Vision Pro, vis-à-vis Apple’s patently closed device ecosystem.

Quest 2 (left), Quest 3S (middle) and Quest 3 (right) | Images courtesy Meta

While one of the biggest announcements at Connect this year included the unveiling of Quest 3S, a $300 mixed reality headset that the company hopes to bring mixed reality to the masses, Meta didn’t make any mention of those three devices, or when to expect them.

This largely makes sense from a marketing standpoint; Meta wants Quest 3S to have the spotlight right now, and likely also the best chances as the Holiday buying boom sure to come. After all, Quest 3S is now the company’s most affordable in the lineup, coming in a fair sight cheaper than the now discounted Quest 3 512GB model (now $500) and 128GB model ($430), the latter of which is being phased out.

SEE ALSO
Meta & Microsoft Partner to Bring Quest Automatic Pairing with Windows 11 PCs Soon, Just Like Vision Pro

And Meta hopes to appeal to new users and upgraders alike with Quest 3S, which mishmashes Quest 2’s lenses and display with Quest 3’s Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset and full-color mixed reality capabilities—notably allowing access to mixed reality games and upcoming Quest 3 games, such as Batman: Arkham Shadow and Alien: Rogue Incursion.

This could mean we’ll be waiting until next year to hear more about those partner headsets, provided the company wants to avoid muddying the waters with anything but its own lineup before Holiday season kicks off. When the company finally unveils them though, it will give us a better idea of how they’ll nestle into Meta’s core lineup, which only now includes Quest 3 and Quest 3S, as Quest 2 and Quest Pro have now been discontinued.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Star Centurion

    If the company's name is not:

    – Apple
    – Valve
    – Meta

    They don't care. Simple as that. History has shown that they'll enter the VR space when there's hype and exit just as quickly. Nobody wants to play the long game.

    It doesn't surprise me we still don't have concrete details from any partner headset. I frankly don't think any will exist, because nobody wants to put in the work to actually further the medium (unless it's one of the companies above).

    • ViRGiN

      Why you put Valve in there? Their last physical vr product was over 5 years ago. Digital nearly 5 years ago.

      • kakek

        To give you an occasion to shit on Valve. We know you will bring Valve up on any article, related or not. Sometime we throw you a bone by mentioning them just so you can come tell us how evil they are without having to do it out of the blue by yourself.

        • ViRGiN

          Wow, true gotcha! moment.

      • Star Centurion

        Same reason I put Apple there. Continued investment and R&D into VR and related technologies. Releasing the AVP and continuing to work on future iterations.

        Reportedly took Apple 10+ years to bring their first VR device to market.

        Valve has also been working in VR for 10+ years, and we know they're working on stuff as shown by datamining and where they're investing time, as evidenced by their list of games (both regular and VR games) that they're presumably booting up on ARM chips. Obviously helped release the Vive and then they did Index, but are still building out whatever their new headset is.

        Meta is well, Meta. Self explanatory. They're the ones at the forefront in any case, no doubt about it.

    • Precisely.
      Although I'm beginning to have my doubts about Big V ….
      If Deckard doesn't release next year,
      I'm gonna stop caring about it.
      []^ /

    • rabs

      I'd like a headset from Pine64. At least it would really be open…

  • Sofian

    Play for dream MR is the only exciting headset on the horizon.

    • LP

      It looks like scum , that won't come out

    • Arno van Wingerde

      I also find the non-existent sets better than those on the market. Funny… I wonder why?

  • Ondrej

    With the new strategy in compute devices that the ecosystem owner makes all the software profits it's less and less viable to make hardware when you don't own the ecosystem. I'm surprised the Android+Google Play model even works, but that just means Google isn't doing good enough job with their own phone.

    Meta doesn't even need hardware margins, but everyone else would need them. I think even Carmack said something how it doesn't make sense for OEMs as it would be ruthless for them to compete at price/value with Meta.

    HTC tried being just that for Valve with Vive 1, because of their dire situation, but they quickly wanted to get out and started their own ecosystem.
    Valve originally expected Oculus to be those "fools" for them. Then Valve realized it's not sustainable approach hence Index and Deck made internally.

    • Michael Speth

      You are just stuck into Meta thinking where hardware vendors sell at a loss. That is not the case with mobile phones or laptops or desktops or with any non-meta VR headset. How can Samsung make profits every year? By charging you for the hardware at profit.

      How is Meta losing billions per month? Selling garbage hardware at a loss. And then not selling software to keep up with the loss of their garbage hardware.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Agreed, but there are possibilities: say an ultra cheap model for India, headsets for China, OLED version for $ 1000 or so.

  • To me the real surprise was that there was no mention of Augments

    • Star Centurion

      Word on the street is that Augments are dead. They couldn't get them performant enough on top of the OS.

    • Steve R

      Isn't the Spatial SDK kind of the new Augments?

  • flynnstigator

    It’s true that we won’t get a price-equivalent competitor for the Q3 through this program, but a DisplayPort-enabled premium device that can play all the Quest games would still be a compelling option that we’ve never had before. I’m picturing something like a Pimax Crystal with Meta’s inside out tracking and ecosystem. We’ll see if anyone offers something like that.

  • ZarathustraDK

    1. Meta slapping "open" on anything makes me retch. In the end, it's always a drain, or a support of a drain, that funnels userdata towards Meta's servers for them to sell somehow.
    2. There is zero incentive for partners to use the OS. You can be sure anything getting installed through the OS is directed through Meta's app shop; and with the heavily subsidized prize they're selling Quest 3 at there's no chance for third parties at competing on hardware either.
    3. If you want to make a VR OS it needs to be truly open for partners to implement their own solutions on and focus first and foremost on implementing open standards that anyone can pick up and throw their hardware and drivers at without a company putting down red tape (which may incidentally be exactly what Valve is doing with Arch linux on ARM).

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Well, a Horizon partner could decide to release an HMD focused on privacy with improved specs like more RAM, flash and a higher resolution using a proper halo strap with the battery at the back for counterbalance, and sell it at a significantly higher price. Or reintroduce the eye tracking from Quest Pro. There is probably a market for such an HMD, even though a much smaller one than for Quest, but also one willing to pay higher prices that actually make HMD sales profitable.

      So there are certain niches not yet covered by Meta's HMDs where releasing 3rd party HMDs would make sense for user, Meta and the partners. Users would get more options Meta doesn't cover, Meta can focus on the mass market while still serving special needs with Horizon OS on partner HMDs, and the partners can make a profit from a higher end Horizon HMD they'd otherwise not be able to sell due to lacking app support.

      But overall I agree that Horizon OS doesn't provide a model for a sustainable partner hardware market due to subsidizing prices and monopolizing software sales. Android only worked with Google effectively taking all sales because their own phones are sold at competitive prices towards the higher end, leaving lots of space for others, and they will try something similar with AndroidXR.

      And while Valve could and probably will provide a truly open VR OS based on Arch, it will be focused on use with x86 AMD APUs, leveraging their Steam Deck experience and gigantic PCVR library all based on x86. All the readily available components for mobile HMDs are based on ARM though, so most vendors will go with ARM and an OS based on Android. That's fine for Samsung who are focused on selling hardware, but not for HTC or Pico, who have software stores like Quest with Vive Wave and the Pico store to make money from apps. Just like Horizon OS, their OS is based on AOSP, the FOSS version of Android lacking Google's play services that would bind them to Google's PlayStore. The same won't work with AndroidXR, which is a non-free extension to Android only available to those again funneling all software sales to Google.

      So with both Meta and Google offering partners their XR OS only for app store exclusivity, the more likely source for a truly "free" VR OS is HTC, Pico, Qualcomm or all of them together releasing a FOSS XR layer on top of AOSP similar to the extras Horizon OS and AndroidXR offer. The motivation would be to grow a separate XR platform large enough to compete with Meta/Google by attracting lots of hardware partners with their liberal license, and by that way attract users and developers. All three already have their own XR OS based on AOSP and could release the add-ons for free themselves, but it would make more sense for them to cooperate and provide one well supported, free solution instead of fragmenting the market, as none alone could compete with the XR heavyweights.