Blackberry was making their own hardware and OS to almost the same extent as Apple does today...are you arguing that Apple will be the next BlackBerry ?
I'm not the same poster (and hate the one-word answers with nothing to back them up), but I think BlackBerry's position could be called similar to Meta's. They were already established with lower-cost, lower-spec'd devices. However, BlackBerry couldn't conceive of how more would be transformative. They insisted that the iPhone would flop because it didn't have a keyboard and such.
When you said that the iPhone wasn't succeeding today based on delight, I'd argue that it's the only reason the iPhone succeeded. BlackBerry had an amazing brand and the ecosystem that you say it the reason the iPhone is successful today - including its own proprietary messenger service. The iPhone came along with delight and overthrew the established players.
If the Vision Pro offers users an experience that they like, it could make the Quest series look like BlackBerries: low-rent devices that were bought as toys for enthusiasts before real devices came along.
The thing about the iPhone is that people could instantly see what they'd enjoy it for. BlackBerries were a status symbol, had some business use cases, and were a nice toy for those who tried to buy distractions. When Apple introduced the iPhone, they showed real web browsing, useful maps (even before GPS), a better iPod than they'd ever seen, YouTube, and more.
With the Vision Pro, Apple is showing me something I could see myself using. I could wear it writing code and have more display space than 3 displays (and still use my keyboard). I could watch movies, I could browse the web, and I could play games. Apple is showing me how it could become an integral part of my usage rather than just a gadget that I'm likely to ignore.
I'm not an expert on the VR/AR space, but it sounds like the Quest devices don't really have the resolution for reading text comfortably which cuts out a lot of usage - just as the BlackBerry devices didn't have good web browsing and other stuff. That could leave the Quest series in the BlackBerry zone where they're trying to fill a similar niche, but they're limited in the things that bring users back to the device rather than it sitting in a corner unused. It also seems like the Vision Pro is likely to be a lot more responsive. Android tends to have a lot of input lag compared to iOS and Apple's M2 processor will run circles around the Qualcomm XR2 in the Quest Pro - plus Apple has a dedicated R1 processor for handling real-time sensor data. The XR2 has one performance core from 3 years ago compared to 4 performance cores in an M2.
Meta can't even buy themselves a CPU that's competitive. Apple's M2 will be 40-50% faster on single-core stuff and it has 4 performance cores instead of 1 performance core in the top-end Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. On multi-core, the M2 is twice as fast. Plus, it has its own dedicated processor for handling all the sensor data!
When BlackBerry saw the iPhone design, they assumed Apple couldn't pull it off. They thought practically the whole inside would have to be battery. They weren't wrong about that, but Apple did pull it off. Is Meta thinking that Apple won't be able to pull off a better experience than their devices? I don't think companies are underestimating Apple at the moment.
Sometimes with tech, it's about getting over a hump. Everyone had been trying to do handheld computers since the 80s - even Apple's Newton development started in the 80s. Apple was the one who finally got it over the hump where it was really useful. Likewise, it's not like headsets are new - Nintendo's Virtual Boy came out in 1995, 28 years ago. But the Virtual Boy didn't get over that hump just as the Newton didn't. With the Quest, if I have to strain to read text, maybe it hasn't gotten over the hump. Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but my point is that it's not just about better specs for the sake of better specs. It's about better specs that overcome a barrier to usefulness. Things like latency and display clarity matter a lot when we're talking about a headset device.
And if we want to attribute Apple's success to its ecosystem, the Vision Pro ties into that ecosystem. You can run apps on Vision Pro and use it as a display for your MacBook. I understand the things I can already do if I had a Vision Pro, not just as a gadget.
The Vision Pro might still be a flop. It's expensive and it might not offer that much more when in the real world. However, the keynote was really impressive to me. It seemed like something I'd get after it had been out for 4 years - kinda like the iPhone. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.
I'd personally compare BlackBerry to Kodak. They had a strong market position, brand and loyal customers. They also had a vision for what should come next, but little to no incentive in fully executing on it, probably didn't want to canibalise the existing sales, while also seeing too much value in their existing customers who only swear by their products.
That's also kinda where I see Apple to a lesser extent: they masterfully executed on the iPhone concept, tried to push further on the iPad, but ultimately see too much value in their current moat to risk losing it. That's where I see the HomePods, Apple TV, Apple Watch being fiercefully bound to the iPhone when they could have been independent products the same way the iPod was. Same way the iPad only got its OS in name and couldn't get much beyond being a gloridied iPhone in many respects.
Any of these products are successful in a vacuum, but given the size of the watch market for instance, the sales numbers for the Watch don't feel as successful as the iPod was.
I'm curious to see how the Vision Pro will work outside of the Apple ecosystem, as at this point it's touted as a display, and that should open the door for more than just being a macbook or apple TV accessory.
On why the iPhone succeeded...until the iPhone 4, it had miserable battery life and crashed all the time, you'd miss phone calls, "you're holding it wrong" was only funny because of how bad we had reception problems. But it did net browsing, photo handling, and emailing better than any device on the market (way better than BlackBerry for half of the world, in the sense that BB was stuck on the western market). So it was a powerful device with a unique proposition, but delightful? hell no. Better than android sure, but it took a long time for it to be smooth and stable IMHO.
On Meta...I have a Quest 2 and completely agree with all the point. It's not good, just "barely good enough" for the price it is. But I'd argue it's here, when the Vision Pro will be real next year, and who knows when we get the next iteration. While I don't see Meta successfuly pushing the field, the sailant point is that the Quest 2 and probably Quest 3 are PC VR compatible, where the Vision Pro has almost no chance to be. This means that the next Beat Saber or Supernatural could come to Steam VR, get tested, and be successfully enough to go to the Quest store, then perhaps the Apple VR store.
I base that on the observation that ML didn't come to Mac or iOS first, but went to the more open windows world first. I don't see new VR creators starting from a Vision Pro when next Christmas gift season will still probably be Quest headsets and perhaps Vive if they can get their price low enough. Perhaps Apple will have a shot at it in 3 years, but we can check back the situation when they arrive there (I'd love an ultra competitive landscape for the next 3 years)
I also find it super interesting that the main use case is as a macbook multi-monitor when macos isn't touch ready. It'd be super excited if they bring a big surprise in that area at the same time the Vision Pro hits.
My worst fear is still that Apple eats all the high resolution display factories of the space, the same way they litteraly consumed all the displays at the peak iOS times and competitors had the leftover, even as the display technology wasn't Apple's.
