Meta Opens Quest OS To Third Parties, Including ASUS and Lenovo

In a huge move for the mixed reality industry, Meta announced today that it's opening the Quest's operating system to third-party companies, allowing them to build headsets of their own. From a report: Think of it like moving the Quest's ecosystem from an Apple model, where one company builds both the hardware and software, to more of a hardware free-for-all like Android. The Quest OS is being rebranded to "Meta Horizon OS," and at this point it seems to have found two early adopters. ASUS's Republic of Gamers (ROG) brand is working on a new "performance gaming" headsets, while Lenovo is working on devices for "productivity, learning and entertainment." (Don't forget, Lenovo also built the poorly-received Oculus Rift S.)

As part of the news, Meta says it's also working on a limited-edition Xbox "inspired" Quest headset. (Microsoft and Meta also worked together recently to bring Xbox cloud gaming to the Quest.) Meta is also calling on Google to bring over the Google Play 2D app store to Meta Horizon OS. And, in an effort to bring more content to the Horizon ecosystem, software developed through the Quest App Lab will be featured in the Horizon Store. The company is also developing a new spatial framework to let mobile developers created mixed reality apps.

Can we stop calling distributions OSs?

[saloomy]

Chromium is not an OS, it is a linux distribution. Quest OS is the same thing. These are distributions, not OSs. They use the same Kernel, which is foundational to what defines an OS.

Re:

[FudRucker]

but google baked in spyware on android & chromium, i am sure facebook AKA meta did the same,

Re:

[christoban]

A distribution is an OS.

Re: Can we stop calling distributions OSs?

[FudRucker]

Here ya go, a meme just for you https://postimg.cc/hzwPyC9X [postimg.cc]

Re:

[christoban]

Aw, shucks! :D

Re:

[saloomy]

Thats awesome.

Re:

[saloomy]

A distribution is a set of packages and configurations bolted onto an OS. It is relevant. If they wrote an OS from scratch, then that is something entirely different than if they ran linux and bolted some UI onto it. It means the device is subject to the same bugs that ship in the kernel, that it can take advantage of the development done to improve the kernel and utilities. There is a big difference than if they wrote an "OS" from scratch, like Microsoft did for IBM with OS/2. Words matter.

Re:

[christoban]

And your words are strange and confusing to me. I really don't understand the distinction you're making, or why, if it's not operating systems, why does Linux Mint insist on calling itself one?

I mean, Linux is just a kernel, you understand that, right?

Re:

[backslashdot]

What's an OS? A kernel and a set of utilities that ship with it, right? The kernel is only one piece of it, like the engine is to a car. You have a set of components in it that enable software to run.

Re:

[dgatwood]

What's an OS? A kernel and a set of utilities that ship with it, right? The kernel is only one piece of it, like the engine is to a car. You have a set of components in it that enable software to run.

Early operating systems were basically just a bunch of code for starting a main executable, along with runtime libraries that got called synchronously from whatever program was running, which is a far cry from anything that we would call a kernel today. So I wouldn't even say that an OS necessarily contains a kernel, though modern OSes typically do.

Heck, there have even been attempts to do kernel-free OSes more recently [ucsb.edu].

Re:

[saloomy]

An OS is a kernel, its drivers that communicate to hardware, and handles the system calls (like store a file, or send this packet of information here or there). What the UI does and looks like is practically immaterial to OSs, since that is where the benefits and drawbacks, especially WRT security will come into play. An OS from the ground up will likely have decades of patching to go through, something Linux, Windows, MacOS, and most derivatives of Unix have done.

Re:

[thegarbz]

No one cares about the pedantry, and general consumers especially had their eyes glaze over before they managed to read the end of your first sentence. Saying ChromeOS, Linux, and the Quest have the same operating system helps no one.

So even less MR headsets

[Pinky's Brain]

Lenovo VRX was one of the last headsets allowing mixed reality development on a VR headset (ie. camera access) without having to beg for institutional access hidden behind NDAs. If they go to Quest that product will likely be ditched.

Lynx R1 last man standing, if they don't die.

Re:

[Wescotte]

Or this is what allows Meta to give access to the raw camera streams to devs because they can unload all privacy concerns/liability onto the hardware vendors. Meta could even keep their 1st party hardware locked down until it's "safe". ie Let devs figure out how to maek MR software that has a rael world use case worth the privacy concerns/risks on somebody else's hardware. Then when it's the customers demand it just flip the switch so they use it on your hardware too.

A good way to stay ahead of Apple is to

Jumping in on the Microsoft vacuum

[thegarbz]

This sounds like Meta is trying to jump in on a bit of a vacuum left by Microsoft's announcement that they are giving up on Windows Mixed Reality. This all but kills many of the PCVR headsets which have been released by hardware makers and relied on other people's software. Quite a clever move by them. Extending a kind hand to the poor hardware companies, twice mind you, no doubt one time to pick them up and a second time to receive payment.

Sidenote: How was the Rift S poorly received. The reviewer seems to

Re:

[Wescotte]

Yeah, the "poorly received" is objectively false.

It made it to the #1 spot on Steam's Hardware Survey by Sept 2020 [archive.org] having been on the market less than a year... It stayed at #1 until Quest 2 overtook it in March 2021 [archive.org] Even today [archive.org] it's still the 4th most popular headset on the Steam hardware survey despite being discontinued since like April 2021.

This Could Be Huge!

[StormReaver]

This could be the VR equivalent of the birth of the IBM PC compatible market. The Quest owns the VR market, making Facebook the Microsoft of VR. Opening up to competitors is a smart move in a number of ways I don't have the time to enumerate.

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Or more recently, a mimic of Android which this OS is a fork of. They're trying to be the Google of VR.

Re:

[StormReaver]

They're trying to be the Google of VR.

That is an excellent interpretation.

Stay away

[Anonymous Coward]

My child was reported in a game because someone didn't believe they were of age (or they were pissed off at losing in a game) and now we are forced to validate my child's age by submitting a scan of their identification information to Meta.

If we don't do this, they will delete the account and all purchases.

Fuck this platform.

Re: Stay away

[SuperDre]

That happens in all platforms where there is an age restriction. But then again, maybe your kid was rightfully reported. The system has an age restriction, and if he/she isn't old enough you shouldn't have created an account in their name, but in your own and had a family subaccount for the kid.

asdf

[Thaelon]

It's a trick, get an axe.

Ah, a great budgetary trick

[SeaFox]

If all VR headsets (under $3500) require me to have a Facebook account, I guess I wont be getting involved in VR at all.

Re: Ah, a great budgetary trick

[SuperDre]

Except even the quests don't require a facebook account.

Re:

[SeaFox]

They require an account with Meta. Big difference.