I don’t understand either point, would appreciate elaboration if you find the time. Your first sentence says they’re the same thing, but then your second sentence discusses their differences? Maybe “ignoring for a moment” is just doing some real heavy lifting?
Re:strategy, I feel like there are many examples of companies who didn’t start with top-shelf products - I mean, we could start with the iPad and iPhone, which were expensive but I don’t think quite to this degree. But I’m assuming you know more about this - is Tesla the main counterexample?
They're both waiting for the same thing: good cheap, hardware. They both want to a retina headset for $500.
Apple started with retina and compromised on price; Facebook started with the price and compromised on quality. Moreover, the advances of one are likely to influence the rate of progress of the other. They're on the same track, they're just marching from opposite sides. Barring IP boundaries I don't understand, if one of them gets it the other can too. The phrasing implies they're pursuing separate lines; they're not–they're pursuing the same line from opposite directions.
Both need better apps. Apple seems to be betting on outside developers. They're corning the high end market and beckoning builders with those consumers' disposable dollars. Facebook is going straight for scale. That, however, means burning cash not only to absorb the devices' thin margins but also the in-house development of their software.
It's interesting seeing Apple playing a conventional industrial strategy, and Facebook playing the Vision Fund-esque blitzkrieg line. (HoloLens appears to be more focussed on gamers for the moment.)
Re:strategy, I feel like there are many examples of companies who didn’t start with top-shelf products - I mean, we could start with the iPad and iPhone, which were expensive but I don’t think quite to this degree. But I’m assuming you know more about this - is Tesla the main counterexample?