Meta has been flirting with retail for years now, however a Business Insider report maintains the company is finally looking to expand its retail footprint beyond its first and only brick-and-mortar location.

Citing an internal communication, the report maintains Meta is looking to hire retail staff and roll out more physical stores, which are thought to go beyond the sort of pop-up locations the company experimented with late last year.

It’s said the plans could mirror Apple’s retail strategy, although the communication seen by Business Insider is “not broadly known internally yet,” suggesting it’s still early days.

While Meta’s latest pop-up in Los Angeles garnered a fair amount of press late last year, since 2016 the company has actually launched numerous pop-up stores in addition to partnering with retailers like Best Buy to offer demo spaces for its line of XR headsets.

Inside Meta’s LA Pop-up Store | Image courtesy Meta

Beyond pop-ups, the company currently operates a single permanent Meta Store in Burlingame, California, which opened next to its Reality Labs campus in 2022. There, customers can demo Quest 3 and Quest 3S, as well as Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses.

The biggest driver for the retail rollout is thought to be Ray-Ban Meta Glasses however, which are built in partnership with French-Italian eyewear conglomerate EssilorLuxottica.

SEE ALSO
Meta Releases Quest Camera Access for Developers, Promising Even More Immersive MR Games

In 2024 alone, Meta sold more than 1 million units of its Ray-Ban Meta Glasses, making it what CEO Mark Zuckerberg called at the time “a great start.”

Earlier this year, EssilorLuxottica CEO Francesco Milleri said the company had plans to ramp up production capacity to 10 million annual units by the end of 2026.

Ray-Ban Meta Glasses, which pack in cameras for photos and video, as well as onboard Meta AI assistant and off-ear speakers, are already available in a number of styles and lens configurations, although that’s likely set to change.

Ray-Ban Meta Glasses, Image courtesy Meta, EssilorLuxottica

Notably, a report from Bloomberg in April alleged the company is aiming to introduce a number of new smart glasses, including a pair with built-in display and a sportier pair from EssilorLuxottica sub-brand Oakley.

And the segment is heating up. Google showed off its own pair of smart glasses on stage at Google I/O earlier this month, announcing it’s partnering with eyewear companies Warby Parker and Gentle Monster to release multiple versions of its Android XR Glasses in the near future.

Meanwhile, a report from earlier this month alleged Apple is also getting into the smart glasses segment too, as the Cupertino tech giant is reportedly now producing a smart glasses chip based on the low-energy processors used in Apple Watches, which is optimized for power efficiency and the ability to control multiple cameras.

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.
  • Retail Witch

    Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who the richest of them all. Bite me Apple [retail strategy]

  • Nevets

    They could, can and should work on the ergonomic comfort of their current faceclamp before seriously thinking that this product could go mainstream in any serious way. I've rigged up a counterweight system that helps enormously but I still feel physical relief when I take the Quest off my face. Current VR isn't ready for mainstream adoption for this reason alone, let alone Zuck's ludicrous assertion that his HMD can be used for productivity and full length meetings. Even with current tech, more can be done to make the product comfortable to wear. Zuck should innovate strongly in this area and release a Quest 3/s with a different physical weight distribution, puck option and first-in-class headstrap system. Until then, he's restricted firmly to enthusiasts (who like me will still have to limit their use due to comfort) or people who buy it and stick it on the shelf. Retail stores won't move the needle.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    Opening retail stores is a dangerous strategy that has failed before. Microsoft announced their own retail stores in 2009, following Apple's example in 2001, and basically came up with a blatant copy, down to the genius bar. But while Apple Stores generate more revenue per square meter than jewelers, most of the Microsoft stores have been closed, and reports about them often included the word "sad".

    What was new with the Apple Store in 2001 was the seemingly deliberate waste of space. The stores are usually located in very high rent locations, with obviously expensive architecture, and are basically a large room with a lot of very simple tables with Apple products on them. You can try anything unbothered, and if some approaches you asking whether you have any questions, and you say no, they'll just leave you alone. If you have a question, there are plenty of people to answer. If you have a serious question, even after purchase, there is the "genius bar" where they try to help and solve issues on location instead of sending everything to a repair center.

    And this was the main concept: not to advertise the products, promote features, have sales or get employees to make you buy more, instead just let the people experience them, and make the whole thing as effortless as possible. If you decide to buy something, they mostly pick it up from the back, there are no shelves full of boxes like in most retail stores that are crammed full with stuff in three dimensions to maximize the space use.

    Others have copied that, Tessa openly says their stores are "exactly like" Apple stores, and in Samsung stores the employees even wear the same blue shirts. But you need a matching product for this approach, something that is easy enough to understand (with some basic familiarity) so you can just try it yourself. That will be difficult with smart glasses, as very few people have ever tried anything similar, while most have used computers or phones many times before entering an Apple Store. It is outright dangerous with VR HMDs. And not only because people might trip and fall.

    I have given a number of public VR demonstrations on trade fairs to a non-technical audience, and these demos have to be closely nannied. Otherwise the person in VR, not familiar with the issues, will inevitable wander to the side and seriously hit some bystanders with a controller, as the bystanders are also not familiar with the issues and thereby don't pay enough attention to always keep their distance from the person with the blinding plastic box strapped to their face.

    I've also seen a number of Meta's pop-up shops inside of large electronics retailers, and again the dominant word is "sad". They never allow you to just try the HMD, there always has to be a person supervising the experience and setting things up, which takes away the main benefit of the Apple Store, just being able to try things without having to deal with sales persons. And a lot of times there simply was nobody available to supervise a demo, so the whole thing was just a large, apparently abandoned space, not exactly something that made VR look attractive.

    So I have a real problem imagining how a Meta store showing Quest is supposed to work: like a trade fair booth with lots of stalls, each with its own Meta employee watching over someone getting a 10min demo? That will again look very sad and uninviting when most of the stalls are unused, as the nannies wouldn't have anything else to do besides standing around in a store that only sells Quest and Ray-Ban smart-glasses.

    • Anonymous

      TBF unassisted try-ons don't really work for VR, at least not in its current form. It might work for AR or just smartglasses tho which is likely the main focus of these stores.

      For VR some curated experience is needed to prevent new customer selecting inappropriate contents, whether it is age, or nauseating ones that may drive them off immediately. Even with the AVP Apple have no guts to just let customer try freely and requires booking.

    • Rogue Transfer

      These aren't for showing the Quest – that ship has sailed. These are Meta's new focus: Assistant glasses. Something that talks to the user and that can guide them in their use, itself(potentially).

      However, how it actually works out is anyone's guess and you may end up right about these Meta stores failing.

      Interestingly, Nintendo's Switch 2 recent pre-launch demos are exactly like you describe – lots of stalls, each with its own Nintendo employee watching over someone getting a 10 min demo. They appear to have been a success, but then again, Nintendo really didn't need to convince much anyone to buy a Switch 2, after the success of the first device. They were bound to be a success, due to their strong IP and reputation.

      Meta's not got that, though.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Pretty sure the Nintendo employees watching people were not there to protect the players or explain how a Switch (2) works, and more to stop the invited media people from "misbehaving", launching other games, trying to break them etc. within the 10min play time they got. So it was probably more about protecting Nintendo's reputation/Switch 2 launch.

        But apparently Japanese YouTuber/speedrunner Ikaboze managed to beat Breath of the Wild on Switch 2, seeing the credits within those 10min thanks to access to some save files. So either Nintendo was fine with some shenanigans, or were simply not prepared for someone trying to speedrun BotW during the very short demo.

        It's an interesting difference to Valve inviting the press to the Steam Deck preview. Linus from Linus Tech Tips showed up with tons of stuff like a thermal camera, different mice, equipment to test screen latency, and was mostly left alone to do whatever he wanted to do, including changing all settings, plugging in random hardware and directly comparing it to other handhelds he brough. When he asked whether they could install CS:GO to test the time between clicking the mouse and the muzzle flash appearing, they immediately called the devs to get their permission for the not yet Deck optimized game. Valve also allowed him to connect the Deck to a 4K USB-C display, stating it would probably work. It was. The result was a very hectic video with LTT trying to squeeze everything out of the 90min they had, and casually suggesting improvements for the vent design to the Valve engineers based on the thermal images they took. youtu_be/SElZABp5M3U

        So where Nintendo's approach is to watch over the players, and the Apple store's approach is to let people just try the displayed devices as they are, Valve's approach is more "do whatever you want". As there were questions regarding upgradability, they shortly after released a video on how to disassemble the Steam Deck, stating that you really shouldn't do that even though you could as it is your device, followed immediately by detailed instructions how to do it nontheless. youtu_be/Dxnr2FAADAs Maybe to compensate for drawing the line when Linus asked whether he could disassemble one of the few existing preview units.

  • Rogue Transfer

    The copycat strategy worked great for PC Compatibles – totally decimated IBM PCs who were first to market.

    Same for the copycats of the Sony Walkman(portable cassette player). Also for VHS over BETAMAX.

    Similarly, for smartphones – it was the copycat strategy that got the most worldwide users, not the original.

    Originals often fail to be retained and usually become a footnote in history. Copycats nearly always take over every market. It's just the way of competition. It's hard for a single company to retain its place when there are a hundred trying to do the same, but usually for cheaper and sometimes end up better(because they're typically less restrictive/controlling).

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      With smartphones, it often wasn't just copying, but necessary spreading of setup costs over multiple customers. Apple uses a lot of contractors and often supports them financially with setting up production facilities to produce new components. But working for Apple comes with the risk of them switching suppliers or, more often, switching components with a new iPhone generation, so that all of a sudden one very specialized production line is no longer required.

      As Apple needs parts in large quantities, this left suppliers in an unsustainable dependency on Apple's very secret product policy. So Apple made deals with them that allowed components from previously Apple specific production lines to be sold to others, allowing the manufacturers to use/amortize them even after Apple stopped ordering parts.

      These manufacturers started selling the same/very similar components to other phone manufacturers, unavoidably leading to similar designs, simply this was a more cost efficient solution than creating new components. Many cheaper Chinese brands could over much better prices mostly because they were relying on components that became freely available after some large company like Apple or Samsung no longer needed them.

      So it's often not really copying, but intentional reuse that benefits all: Apple with getting manufacturers to offer parts at a lower price because they can spread the setup costs, other phone brands because they don't have to pay for the initial high costs to get new production lines up and running, and customers because they can choose between high price phones with the latest tech, or cheaper phones using lots of parts that were high end a few years ago.