A setup video discovered inside the Quest firmware appears to reveal Meta’s long-rumored thin and lightweight VR headset, which has circulated under several internal codenames over the past few years. The deliberately low-quality footage was captured in full by a user and has been circulating since late July, ahead of Meta Connect in September.<\/p>\n
The device\u2014internally referred to at different times as Puffin<\/strong>, Loma<\/strong>, and now Phoenix<\/strong>\u2014features an ultra-thin, glasses-like profile with adjustable lens spacing and interchangeable nose pads designed to fit different face shapes. It includes both hand tracking and eye tracking. Its most distinctive feature, however, is an external compute puck connected by cable. By moving the processor and other heat-generating components into a separate module\u2014intended to be carried in a pocket or clipped to a belt\u2014the headset itself remains significantly lighter and more comfortable to wear.<\/p>\n According to those who shared the leak, the images closely match a previously circulated render based on industry reports. The fact that Meta has already embedded dedicated setup assets for the device within the public Quest firmware strongly suggests that an official announcement is approaching, likely during Meta Connect<\/strong>, scheduled for September 23\u201324, 2026<\/strong>.<\/p>\n A Wall Street Journal<\/em> report published last year suggested that Meta’s internal goal was to keep Phoenix priced below $1,000<\/strong>. Since then, however, the cost of RAM, storage, and Qualcomm chipsets has increased considerably. There is still no official pricing, and available reports simply point to rising component costs across the entire XR hardware industry\u2014not just for Meta.<\/p>\n According to current reports, Meta is developing two distinct products in parallel: Phoenix<\/strong>, aimed at professionals and prosumer users, and a potential Quest 4<\/strong>, positioned as a more affordable headset for the mainstream consumer market. This would mirror the strategy Meta attempted with Quest Pro<\/strong> in 2022. Originally launched at $1,500<\/strong>, Quest Pro was later reduced to $1,000<\/strong> after disappointing sales, while many of its features\u2014excluding eye tracking\u2014eventually made their way into the much less expensive Quest 3.<\/p>\n In other words, this strategy is neither new nor risk-free. Separating a premium headset from a mass-market product has already resulted in a commercial setback that Meta ultimately had to correct.<\/p>\n For a studio like DIVE, which develops immersive experiences for public institutions, museums, and professional training organizations, the most interesting aspect of this news is not the launch rumor itself but the headset’s architecture. A lightweight headset paired with an external compute puck addresses a very practical issue in professional deployments: weight and heat on the user’s head during extended sessions.<\/p>\n In technical training, museum installations with continuous visitor turnover, or scientific experiences designed to last longer than fifteen minutes, physical comfort has a direct impact on the perceived quality of the experience. It is not simply an industrial design concern.<\/p>\n If Meta positions Phoenix as a prosumer device, it could become particularly attractive for public-sector deployments and professional training. Integrated eye tracking combined with a substantially lighter front section may significantly reduce fatigue in repeated training scenarios, where the same operator wears the headset multiple times throughout the day. These are precisely the kinds of use cases where, in our projects\u2014from technical training to museum experiences\u2014ergonomics often matter more than raw graphics performance.<\/p>\n That said, rising component costs are an important consideration for anyone planning medium-term XR investments. If the final price of a premium headset such as Phoenix exceeds early expectations, organizations purchasing fleets of headsets for permanent installations or training programs should not assume that XR hardware prices will continue falling at the pace seen between the first and second Quest generations. For that reason, we believe immersive experiences should be designed to remain portable across multiple headset platforms rather than being tightly coupled to a single device. From a technical standpoint, this approach protects the client’s investment regardless of how Meta ultimately positions Phoenix.<\/p>\n Finally, there is a broader strategic consideration. If Meta does indeed separate its product lineup into a productivity-focused headset and a consumer-focused headset, it could further slow the development of mass-market XR content\u2014a trend that several industry observers already believe is underway. For organizations working with public institutions or cultural heritage, this is not necessarily a major concern. Our projects rarely depend on a mature consumer ecosystem. However, it is still worth monitoring, because a weaker consumer market generally means lower overall investment in XR hardware, reducing competitive pressure on pricing for professional devices over the medium term.<\/p>\nThe pricing question<\/h2>\n
A two-product strategy<\/h2>\n
What this means for immersive experience developers<\/h2>\n
Sources<\/h3>\n