I didn’t read anything on the 30% for apps downloaded this way. Do you still have to offer IAP or is that optional if your app was downloaded from the web?
It only makes sense for businesses to pass on the cost of the platform tax to consumers. It isn't sustainable to take a 30% hit to your margin unless your business was solely built on that given platform from day 1.
So long as we, the consumer, allow this to happen businesses like Apple and Google will continue to do it.
Apple says the Vision's device weight is 600–650 grams and Meta says its Quest 3 is 515 grams. The Vision is between 85-135 grams heavier despite there not being a battery on the part that you wear.
Anecdotally and in my experience, there have been many complaints about fatigue for the Quest, and I wonder if Apple will be able to get away with more premium materials in the future versions. It seems like there will be a big tradeoff between adoption and the materials used.
Vision isn't out, but I am curious what V2 looks like and/or a version that optimizes to comfort.
The additional weight comes from the front display.
The reports regarding fatigue are consistently related to users wearing only the band, when they add the additional strap that goes directly over the head it's fine. Typical Apple leading with form over function. It ships with the additional strap at least so that should alleviate it for most people. Quest 3 has a similar additional band which helps as well.
I don’t know why people think an oled display is heavy. There’s a ton of other heavier components to the point where that front display is likely insignificant.
Things like active cooling, multiple camera arrays, motorized IPD adjustment.
I bet when iFixIt does a tear down, the front display will be shown to be negligible.
There is a clear problem, and a good idea here. (i.e. Right to Try) What needs to happen to make this move forward?
I am getting so mentally exhausted learning about a specific problem, and then experiencing the helplessness of not knowing how to push on driving towards some mutually agreeable resolution.
Add in the fact that there is no way to seemingly coordinate the push towards a resolution. Individuals taking action without coordination feels just the same as taking no action at all. Are there any tools to coordinate the push and keep track of progress?
What about the right to refuse? I don’t think there actually is a problem here, there’s no reason for this Pharma company to provide an expensive untested drug- only potential negatives
They are not exactly trimming 'fat'. This latest round had numerous people who were getting high marks and even AE. There is some meme going around that this was a performance based layoff and it absolutely was not.
Trimming the fat is about organizational fat. Some teams could be bloated, or unnecessary, etc.
I don’t know what went on in meta, but a few years ago I worked on a product team in a tech company. That team had a dedicated sub-team who reworked our AWS hosting every year. The company had a full Dev-Ops team to do it for us. Those 4-5 people were just making busy work and design docs in their name. While I’ve since quit and moved on, i hear that team experienced layoffs this spring. That’s “fat” which can be trimmed even if the engineers are very capable people.
AR/VR is inevitable. I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation. Today's VR (and even AR via Mobile Phones) is primitive, sure, but the same could be said about desktop computers before the transition to mobile ever was an idea?
I expect more comments on how to influence this technology versus dismissing it as not applicable for the human race.
AR/VR skepticism is an attempt to influence the tech landscape and imo the most compelling dismissals are not made on grounds of irrelevance or lack of application but principled judgements about how we want to interact with the world
is it particularly surprising that people who know what goes into the sausages might be skeptical about feeding them to everyone for every meal?
volumetric displays have a lot of room for improvement but "looking glass" has been shipping a pretty slick product for a couple years now, I hope they can keep innovating
Tough to believe in a company that can’t even get their animated headers to size correctly on mobile. I’d love to see what the product looks like.. but on an iPhone 13/chrome I have no idea what the thing does.
fair critique, I just linked to that to show its a real thing you can buy
here's a quick sizzle reel that shows the product - it's a stack of transparent displays that produces a very convincing depth hologram, I've seen them in person, they're really cool
What I care about is that people largely don't talk about them, even though they're at least as plausible as fully immerse VR, which looms large in the collective third eye.
The public imagination is bent toward the cyber-dystopian, whereas these two technologies represent other possible futures.
great point, I consider the zuckerverse a kind of target fixation, where we are doomed to hit the dystopia because we can't look away / imagine an alternative
I suspect Steve Ballmer's motives to trash the iPhone in 2010 were rather unlike those leading some of us to doubt the desirability of Meta's VR ambitions in 2022
I used to think so, it just sounds like it would be "the future", right?
But realistically, what exactly is the appeal of it? The Metaverse? I mean, if no one can figure out how to make a fun MMORPG these days, what makes you think the "Metaverse" will actually be something people will want to spend time in? And why would Facebook be the one who actually figure out how to build some super appealing virtual world, they have 0% experience in doing this. It's gonna be boring, in immersive VR, still boring. And who really wants to wear these headsets? They always gonna be somewhat bulky.
But even if you could make it super immersive, and super fun, and totally appealing, you always gonna be one thing that's holding you back: Your real body, yes unfortunately we are all tied to these meat bags, so our dream of moving into our self created Matrix is always gonna be somewhat limited.
I mean you gotta be realistic here, no matter what we do, life will always be best experienced without a VR headset on. It might have some cool fun uses, but that's about it.
I think you are just out of touch. Don’t kids already spend tons of time in Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite? Fortnite has concerts by artists like Travis Scott that are massively attended, fashion areas where you can shop virtual clothing, etc. You really think this trend will dissipate as the tech gets better?
I just know that nobody wants to actually do the Carlson dance in VR when they can instead push one button in Fortnight to do that emoji.
VR has some interesting games and interesting effects. Emulating reality is not it at all. We as a tech society are still trying to figure out what VR is good for.
--------
My best experiences in VR is and remains Beat Saber.
A few other games (Keep Talking and nobody Explodes, Super hot, the spaceship shooter game from the lab) are good and fun.
There is nothing like reality in these games. In fact, the closer things get to reality (ex: throwing objects in Superhot) the worse the experience gets.
In contrast, when you become a fantasy avatar who moves a spaceship around with your hand (space shooter from the Lab) and I can play that for hours.
The best experiences are honest about what VR does well and what doesn't work well. Real life experiences are best one in real life, not with expensive $1000+ goggles on a computer.
A synthetic reality would be amazing. People would figure out all kinds of killer apps in the first year. Wearing a monitor on your face though is not capable of creating a synthetic reality.
I always see people mention VR fitness. I would love a synthetic gym with every piece of gym gear ever made and then build our own new gear from there. The problem is there is no way to lift synthetic weights by just strapping a monitor to your face, obviously.
I'm with Carmack on this one, reality may be better than VR for you but there are a lot of people in the world where that may not be the case either all the time or for some of the time. A VR headset is cheaper and more attainable than moving to a new city/state/country. Meeting people in VR is easier than trying to make new friends offline. VR allows people to choose everything about their physical appearance, not just clothing but physical proportions and attributes, gender, etc. Is it escapism? To some degree yes but it does allow for real social interaction on a level not previously possible with a computer. That means a lot to people who aren't able to socialize with others offline for a whole host of reasons.
Look, if you can solve the latency on voice chat or video chat, you are a hell of a lot further on making virtual experiences feel more intimate than any VR headset.
We've been meeting up online since 2020 due to the pandemic. We all know the problems with online meetups, and it has nothing to do with the nonexistence of VRChat (which obviously exists)
Awkward pauses and slower conversations and a far less intimate feel occurs due to this latency. It's enough to hold a work meeting since most people talk one by one, but not good for say... an online prayer service where coordinating everyone's timing to the Our Father or Hail Mary prayers is completely impossible.
------
You literally can't sing or pray together online. It's a very dull experience.
I've experienced a lot of what you're talking about in video calls but a fairly minimal amount of it when talking in VR. I've never tried singing together in VR and I'm sure it wouldn't be good but conversation flows much more naturally than it does in a video call. I haven't checked but I think video calls have much higher latency because you are also encoding/decoding video streams. VR only transmits headset and controller/tracker positions so it doesn't have to deal with that overhead. Honestly though it doesn't detract from it much, I can't sing and I don't participate in prayer groups so those two things don't affect me. Personally, I'd much rather (and do) spend hours talking to people in VR rather than talking to people in video calls which I also have to do on a regular basis. An hour long video call makes me feel like I want to throw my computer out a window and go live in the woods, an hour long chat in VR doesn't seem quite long enough.
there is clearly a cultural schism developing, i've heard the phrase "terminally online" to describe people whose social circle exists entirely on twitter
so we will have a majority of people being totally dismissive of interacting with avatars through goggles (I hate the experience personally, feels like putting on a blindfold), and a growing minority that wouldn't have it any other way, divorced from anything going on IRL
I was privy to something while I still had a twitter account: a certain group of people, mostly anon or semi-anon accounts, having been brought into contact by some combination of algorithm, self-selection and serendipity, many of whom seemed to identify more with their emerging twitter ingroup than local circles, more than a few of whom self-described as very (if not terminally) online, self-organized a gathering IRL, which, while some seem to have had a good experience, quickly strained apparent bonds and revealed a number of fault lines
if this sort of thing is not unique to this particular group I could see it reinforcing the schism you describe, with online "communities" hesitant to talk to each other with goggles off lest it be discovered that a virtually established milieu may depend more on the avatars than the people behind them
I think VR and Twitter are far too different for this to fully apply. VR interaction involves real time voice communication along with a good deal of body language. Twitter has a forced limit on the number of characters you can use and is text and static image only. A fairer comparison might be video calls but I don't know of any online communities that use these exclusively so the closest would be Discord servers where a lot of people use voice chat.
There are quite a few people that have met up irl after building a relationship in apps like VR Chat, I think they've probably had the same success rate that people who met through chatrooms or dating sites have.
Good point. I imagine people will self-modify substantially in VR though. If we have high resolution VR it seems likely we'll be able to alter our voices and change our virtual bodies at will. And if video games and Twitter and even IRL cultural practices show anything it's that the typical human is a role-playing animal. When roles which previously floated free of any material basis come into contact IRL I wonder if this has the potential to create tension regardless of the immersiveness of the original virtual environment.
I suppose it might in some cases, especially if the relationship is a romantic one. If it were two friends meeting up for the first time I'd bet they'd be able to maintain the friendship even if there was a bit of a surprise about each other's appearance or actual voice. People do already use voice changers and a huge variety of avatars in VR Chat and other social VR apps so I'm sure this has happened quite a few times.
So while I’m general I do think some of the fascination with VR ubiquity is overhyped: this last weekend the Furality VR furry con was held in VRChat. It had over 5000 registered attendees and peak simultaneous players was over 4200, with most of the popular events/times still numbering in the 1000s of players.
And that’s with VR still very much in the gen 1 (maybe gen 2 if you want to be generous) phase of development. Within five or ten years tech like eye and mouth tracking and partial/full body haptics (which are all already a thing, just niche) will be typical offerings.
I don’t know to what extent it’ll displace existing tech. But the popularity of it today (especially in spaces where artists and developers can do whatever they want) is real and growing crazy fast.
That's a little like tracing computers back to ENIAC, sure it's the same concept and can do some of the same things but there are worlds of difference between it and a personal computer.
Even if you limit scope to only consumer grade VR there's still examples from the mid-nineties of strap-on headsets. The jump to wireless has also been a generational leap, despite its tradeoffs. So by my count this is the 3rd generation.
I'd be cautious of reading too much into that, because furries are also, these days, the main users of SecondLife. When everyone else bailed out of Metaverse 1.0 15 years ago, the furries stayed. It's arguably a community with very different requirements to the mainstream.
> And why would Facebook be the one who actually figure out how to build some super appealing virtual world
They don't need to build a super appealing virtual world, they just need to figure out how to get you coming back to something every day, even if you don't like it and/or think it adds negative value to your life.
With VR it’s not about the world you play in, it’s all about the people who are there. Most of what I do in VR is just hang out and talk to people but when I do game it’s anything with multiplayer. As long as the game includes grabbable objects and physics people will make their own fun. It’s a much lower bar than traditional games, just make sure your networking is on point and you almost can’t lose.
It's a fascinating phenomenon ... I call it "passionate dismissal". You can tell many of these people aren't 100% sincere from the mere fact they showed up to make a comment.
"This technology is boring and going nowhere ... so I read an article all about it and then took the time to make a comment about it ..."
I'm ready to predict that these people are radically wrong. The VR adoption curve is so sharp now in the 10-15 yr age bracket that people haven't caught up to the fact it is happening yet. I say that as someone with children in that age range and > 50% of their friends suddenly have and use VR routinely. These kids are all super acclimated to spending large amounts of time in VR. These kids are "primed" to become the next wave of tech users.
HN folks, get ready to feel really, really old in 5 years from now - probably how all our parents / grandparents felt when we showed up with smart phones.
Do you have any stats or other evidence that it’s taking off among kids? I know teachers in our affluent town and have not heard anything about it (though I haven’t asked).
no - for me it's anecdotal and I accept that is weak evidence by any reasonable measure. I guess you can cite things like the Oculus app being the most popular download on iOS last Christmas, etc.
But the way I see it rippling through that demographic is pretty crazy ... the kicker is that to join in with multiplayer you need a headset to play. So once a couple of them are doing it there is a pretty strong pull for the whole group to get on board. My theory is that this demographic is a bit "under the radar" and hence we are seeing less reporting on this than you would otherwise.
Well, no thank you. I have enough problems getting my teens - - especially my son -- to live the real world, to make friends, socialize, get outside, breath fresh air, and get off touch screens and games.
I won't let VR goggles enter my home. I'm not the only one. Maybe it's the future, but I'll hold it off as long as I can -- especially if it's Facebook, with all their ethical blindness and attention monopolizing -- that's pushing it.
The funny thing is that this tech is far more social than phones and computers ever were. When you hang out with a friend in VR, you actually can end up feeling like you hung out and had a silly fun time, like you had really gone out for a round of mini golf.
Thanks won’t claim that VR is better than being outside, but to me it seems a hell of a lot better than sitting on the couch with a phone.
I spent a lot of my teens on MUDs & MOOs (really, textual VR), so I understand the substance of what you're saying, but
Honestly, the full sensual immersion of VR is the last thing we need in our house at this point after 2 years of COVID. I need my kids to get more physical exercise and time outside this house, not less.
And I am not trying to convince you to buy in, just trying to correct some misconceptions about the tech. VR, depending on the app can be awesome exercise. The best games are very physical and while it may not be a gym workout, it is miles better than watching tv or playing console games.
Just a few examples, rhythm games like Beat Saber, Pistol Whip and Synth Riders are at least on the level of Zumba or other aerobic dance exercises. Thrill of the Fight is a boxing game that is seriously intense and one of the best stress busters I have ever seen. Even something like eleven table tennis is essentially identical to playing real table tennis so is also much better than being a couch potato. VR is part of my and many other people’s overall fitness regimen.
Of course you need to set some limits, but I actually look forward to going on adventures together with my son in VR. Why not embrace it? When I was young, my parents showed zero interest in my gaming interests. At one point I even bought a game specifically because I hoped it would be something my dad and I could enjoy together (based on his interests, not mine), and all I got was a shrug. They're great parents and I love them, but I wish they'd engaged a bit more. To them video games and PCs didn't really exist. I want to experience cool new worlds with my kids, if they'll let me.
We play games together and his interests are often sparked by mine. But the dark side to gaming in the 21st century is they can easily become all-encompassing at the expense of a lot of things that I mentioned above (outside interests, etc.) Much of the modern gaming stack is engineered for total immersion and focus stealing, and leaves little room for outside interests.
I played games as a boy and young man as well. But I also wrote BASIC and 6502 assembly, or built forts in the woods, looked at neat plants, soldered projects for my VIC-20 or Atari ST, read ElfQuest graphic novels and acted them out with my friends, explored the local RadioShack, rode my bike, etc. The nature of my son's gaming obsessions has actually made it hard to get him to diversify.
Parenting is not easy. Defining limits is hard, but if you don't things can go
sideways really badly and we have learned this the hard way.
That is something I'm definitely worried about. I don't let my 4-year old play on tablets and phones, but I do let him use the PC as I feel mastering it could lead to more creative uses of technology. But the fact is that games have come a long way since the 90s when I played (not even online at that point), so if it was consuming then it must be much more so today. I'm not sure how to deal with that. On the one hand I'm glad my parents didn't really limit my use of the PC as it let me explore freely, but doing so today may not be an option.
Regarding VR specifically, I feel like limiting it comes more naturally _because_ it is so all-encompassing. It should be regarded as a special activity that you do for short bursts of time, en preferably as a social activity. It also helps that it's quite physical compared to other types of games. But in the end I guess we'll have to introduce these things slowly and watch how our kids handle it. If they show addictive tendencies it might be time to limit it.
while i appreciate what you want for your sun, jumping to "I won't let VR goggles into my home" doesn't seem like a reasonable response either.
Will you also ban game consoles and televisions? Will you limit his internet usage to wikipedia, and only non sexual articles?
There is a lot of room between 'I don't support meta's endeavours' and 'BAN VR', and you've jumped directly on the extreme end of a scale for seemingly no reason.
Maybe eventually. I agree that it's very fun as a toy. Some of the games are an absolute blast. Most are trash tbh, but that'll change / improve.
However, the weird mEtAVeRsE wet dream zuck is pushing is total BS. NOBODY wants to live/work in VR. It's a fun thing to do for short periods of time for entertainment, and AR/VR is a cool tool for certain tasks (e.g. interior design).
The idea that we're gonna be flying through cyber space like some kinda Hackers (the movie) scene is just nonsense. It's honestly bad UX that people have been trying to push forever. Windows 95 had this goofy virtual world thing where you were in a room and all your software was on bookshelves and other silly shit that was a fun gimmick, but infinitely less efficient than buttons, menus, and sorted lists.
Also, unless headsets get MUCH lighter (and less sweaty) while simultaneously getting much better battery life they aren't going to be a thing people wear for long periods of time any time soon.
How will the headsets not get lighter and better battery life? That'd be the easy part to bet on, don't you think? Computing devices have shrunk dramatically over the years. I'm surprised people are so impatient about how this is developing.
And while I don't use Facebook and feel uncomfortable about Meta owning the dominant virtual space, I absolutely think it will happen and prove very popular. Have you seen how much time people currently spend scrolling their phones with the little interfaces and small viewports? Lying on the couch with goggles between dinner and bedtime will be the norm soon enough, IMO - watching TV/movies, experiencing spaces, browsing content, socialising, learning, etc.
A more comfortable strap helps a lot. The quest 2 with a standard strap is just horrible. The quest 1's strap was really great. The 'elite' one for the Q2 is somewhere in the middle..
I fully agree that nobody wants to strap a big set of googles, but I'm also willing to bet that more and more of our lives will take place in "cyberspace".
I'm willing to bet in the distant future almost all our lives will be virtual because it is simply so much cheaper than physical things.
Our video games will become more immersive, I would not be surprised if a generation or two a family holiday could be a week inside a video game.
Our work conference calls are becoming more and more immersive. I would not be surprised if work from home and work in the office eventually meet in the middle where you are physically at home but with a virtual representation sitting in a vertical office, where communication and collaboration are easy.
That doesn't change the fact that the input problem for AR/VR is not solved. Some VR is trying to solve this by integrating back in the mouse/keyboard. Others, like Elon, are trying to leapfrog to human-brain interface.
Neither of those efforts change the fact that for current AR/VR your input is lower bandwidth than a smartphone which is already lower bandwidth than mouse/keyboard.
This input bandwidth limit means that the applications for the tech are currently very minimal and means that any product being sold today is unlikely to do well.
I honestly don't see VR ever really taking off before we manage to solve the "output" problems either. Every sense except vision and hearing gets ignored. Walking is a complete mess, because real life furniture tends to get in the way. Smell and taste are usually completely ignored. Touch tends to fail completely as soon as you "push through" the haptic feedback.
VR is just not very "real", and I don't think we can ever make it real enough with the tech path it is on. Human brain interfaces seem like the best bet, but they are so far away that I don't think they'll be commercially available in my lifetime.
Yeah. AR/VR being future heavyweights seems obvious.
Currently though? They're all kinda shit. And there doesn't seem to be a clear incremental step from "current" to "good enough" for a GIGANTIC range of scenarios, so it seems reasonable to claim "it's not coming any time soon".
And I say all this as an enthusiast. When resolution and compute power increases a bit, I'll probably make a real effort to use VR (AR seems further away) to replace my desk/monitor(s)/etc for work. But without a ton of effort and severe tradeoffs, it's not really currently feasible.
I think integrating existing devices and new ones is the way to go. With high resolution, color passthrough you can easily use a keyboard and mouse. Even better will be adding tracking to devices that you can use in VR. This already exists for a small selection of keyboards when using the Quest but could be expanded as needed either with purely visual tracking or base stations ala Vive or even using inertial tracking (like the IMU in your phone). For some applications using the VR controller as a laser pointer is more natural and faster than using a mouse, I'm sure the hardware and UI design will evolve to maximize this utility.
For some the "VR is inevitable" predictions clash with past experience about the coming VR wave, virtual words, and failed 3D hardware (Google Glass, 3D TV, etc.). For those who invested time and money into these earlier attempts, it's difficult to believe that this will be any different despite some undeniably cool demos and compelling niche use cases.
I think you are right based on the media coverage, but I’m bewildered that anyone who has tried these can equate them. My personal experience trying all of these when they came out
1. Google Glass: This is the most underwhelming and lamest thing ever. Tried for 20 seconds and never thought about it again.
2. 3DTV: meh, I’dr rather watch 2D.
3. Magic Leap / HoloLens: this is way less cool than the commercials, tiny field of view, incredibly far way from something actually usable.
That’s not to say VR is perfect. In fact, it’s far enough away from perfect I currently never use it. But it is so much more impressive and close to being amazing than these other categories.
This is close to my position. I was completely unimpressed by 3D TV but VR made me stop what I was doing and learn Unity. It seems strange to lump them in the same category. There was no grass roots passion for 3D TV. There's still tons for VR/AR.
Don’t remember the model, but I used a very early Oculus VR headset and came away thinking it was like looking at a blurry image through a screen door.
> I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation.
You're creating a false dichotomy - probably unintentionally, but I find it's important to point it out. As one of these naysayers, I'm not against VR because I'm somehow skeptical of futuristic/modern technology (nuclear fusion when?), it's because I am specifically against VR/AR in the hands of a megacorp like Facebook. If all this development was happening in the open, like for example the web developed, I would be jumping on this yesterday. As someone who's dreamed of the Star Trek holodeck since I was a child, the thought of becoming an Oculus dev to pursue this dream does not excite me one bit.
For some use cases, AR/VR is already here! There's nothing to be skeptical about. But I think it's healthy to be skeptical of the idea that AR/VR can be shoved into every aspect of our lives and it will make sense. Phones/tablets didn't replace regular computers for productivity. Will VR do it? Who knows, but I kind of doubt it. Will every genre of game make sense in VR? Probably not.
Then there's also the history of each recent step forward in technology coming along with increased top-down control and surveillance. Here, it's especially important to be skeptical of Meta's influence on VR specifically. I think Meta's goal is to create a fully walled garden where they can surveil their users freely to sell ads. An App Store for VR, but with even more monitoring and advertising. This is not a future I want, regardless of the benefits of the technology itself.
I'm simultaneously a huge advocate of VR/AR as an amazing new medium and at the same time sceptical about it's chance of short or medium term mass adoption.
Can't it just be a niche/enthusiast product for another decade or so? There's enough people that care and it to keep our afloat. It doesn't have to shift a billion units
It's not though; it's a gimmick. The scenarios aren't there. In fact, I think the scenarios won't be there for a general purpose AR/VR device even if they make them as thin as glasses. Sure, navigation on a bike is nice, and maybe hololens-like scenarios for manufacturing or high-end industrial support, but that's it.
I have an Oculus 2, and before that I've had a couple of Windows VR headsets when Microsoft was doing their push; they're all gathering dust in a box now...
It doesn’t just have to be on bike. I would say walking directions are far more valuable.
Let’s take what I say is the Peak AR Device:
Glasses with Shuttered Camera + LIDAR, Bone Conducting Audio, Haptic Feedback, High Quality Microphones, & Smart Assistant.
Often when I’m out in the city and finding a new place I would rely on my phone. Often the GPS on my phone would be screwed since I was underground and I would have to look at the streets on the map to see where I am relative to where I need to face and go. On the newer models of the iPhone I can use it’s LIDAR feature to tell it exactly where I am , but it’s cumbersome to wave your phone back and forth. An AR glasses would already be scanning around, know exactly what direction your facing , and give you visual indicators of where to go the whole trip.
Let’s say someone who speaks a different language ask’s you a question like say directions , an often enough encounter where I’m from. With the strides Apple are making in their Translate technology (with much more to go), the translated speech can appear as text right in front on your screen. Let’s say the show you a piece of paper enter in a different language. That same translate technology can show you a translated page. AR , if we get there, will be amazing and all of the technology I said above already exist in mobile form.
It my mind is was flyer for an event but I can also be on a phone!
As someone who gets lost often to ability to have directions to everywhere is a killer feature to me. I can also see LIDAR based glasses being a huge accessibility device for the blind.
I have headsets also gathering dust, but the scenarios are there. The odd night spent doing Pavlov gun games with rando 13 year olds, having a deep fireside chat in Horizons with a guy who built the virtual cabin, and watching old Bond movies with an Israeli guy are core VR memories for me.
It's a pain to set up and get on, it has issues, but those experiences will continue to be attractive as the technology eventually fades into the background.
This argument is a classic template for enthusiasts when faced with skeptical push back. Comparing your pet-technology with the nascent version of something that went on to be incredibly successful is a very common fallacy that doesn't help your argument.
It's more like Meta trying to lead the revolution seems dystopic at best. Purchasing virtual property to live in? I already deal with that in real life, why would I want to deal with that in a virtual world where the possibilities should be limitless and not tied to real life?
Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR? I think this was just a headline that uninformed people ran with because it was so provocative. There may be a VR equivalent to domain squatting, but probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage.
>Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR?
because its already a thing in virtual spaces.
> probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage.
oh so now you expect it, but you think its not a lot of money. Seems like you're in agreement with him about purchasing virtual spaces, you just think its worth the money.
Probably because I am old and it has been inevitable at this point for nearly my entire life.
The fundamental flaw IMO is that VR always over promises and under delivers.
Meta will make VR indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean smell as part of reality.
Indistinguishable from reality but of course we are not talking about going under water, feeling water as being wet and feeling like you are floating in water.
Indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean a virtual massage parlor that someone could touch your back and it feels like your back is being touch.
We mean we are going to make the tech equivalent jump from a 15 inch CRT monitor to a 27 inch nice LCD monitor and pretend VR is now indistinguishable from reality because that is what the Emperor wants and the Emperor signs my checks.
To me, you either need a full body suit, disregard smell and then stand on an underwater treadmill with a motorcycle helmet on or it is all a waste of time until we have a good brain computer interface.
What is inevitable VR? Is it ready player one? Because that's what companies keep explaining it as. But that's never going to happen. Is it treadmills? Is it just what we have now but with better glasses? The discussion is swamped with people who saw a dumb movie once and don't understand how anything works.
Virtual world is easy. Virtual world where you are immersed beyond having the camera on your head is pretty much impossible. We don't have an idea for what tech would be required for that. There's a large gap between moving your character with a control stick and "being" in the game like in the movie implied.
We don't have the tech to do massive enormous orders of magnitude larger than typical MMO servers.
And of course the movie was some sort of dystopian web3 nightmare without considering the evil tech CEO. It showed the characters having fun going to doom world for PVP with real money and permadeath at stake. The main characters father loses everything because he dies in the game. But it was fine because the main characters were talented so it looked fun. This isn't a requirement for a virtual world of course, but the concept of the VR economy implies the game needs to be a lot less game and a lot more business. Not a spunky playground where you, a non pro gamer, will be able to do anything noteworthy.
I was wowed the first time I put on a VR headset, and I continue to be wowed every time I try it. But lots of regular people aren't sufficiently wowed to pay console-level prices for the experience, which to me indicates that the culprit isn't just immature technology.
> AR/VR is inevitable.
Calling a given technology "inevitable" shuts down criticism.
There's nothing inevitable about a technology that takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing) at once. I think that counts as sensory deprivation to a lot of people.
> takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing)
A quibble with this - the next gen is all about full color high res passthrough and many headsets like the Quest have open ear headphones so you still hear your surroundings. I think it's going to be much less isolating than the "VR is an isolating dystopia" people think.
Yeah, the folks who sank piles of money into it last time all thought that too. Turns out that "inevitable" might mean "tomorrow" or it might mean "thirty years from now". Pointing that out _is_ an attempt to "influence this technology" by reminding people that thinking gigantic problems will just magically be solved Because This Is The Future is a recipe for disappointment.
I wonder if the reason this community embraced innovation in the early days is because only those who embrace new things are going to be attracted to a site in its early days. In other words, even the act of using Hacker News was an embracement of the new, which filtered out anyone who didn't embrace the new -- so you were only going to find people embracing the new in the comments.
Now that the site is established, it moreso attracts people who are interested in the established, and less-so attracts people who are interested in new things. This problem tends to amplify itself, as a community that rejects new things is also going to drive away people who are interested in new things.
Now that Hacker News is established, it's just not "it" anymore. "It" is somewhere else.
But this is all just a theory. The counter to this argument is that many people on Hacker News in 2007 expressed serious reservations to Dropbox/cloud storage when it was first revealed -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863. So perhaps what we're seeing is that problem-solvers (developers) also tend to be problem-finders.
It's not inevitable for the masses until the only way to do it is a headset. It will be only a tech for specialized markets and in controlled environments. Gamers, engineers, doctors. You're not going to do AR/VR while walking or when killing some time waiting at the restaurant. One reason is that not many people will carry a cumbersome headset with them. A phone is a better device for those scenarios.
Glasses or contact lenses could change that. I can't wear contact lenses anymore but I wear glasses all the time. Light glasses, not heavy ones.
It is inevitable that the technology will mature. It is not inevitable that it will play the role people think it will play.
I think I'd be more enthusiastic if:
- VR headsets weren't still so bad. Merely good VR devices is still a long way off.
- the existing VR experiences weren't still so bad
- the market wasn't completely fragmented and any purchase you make now is very short term
- any meaningful degree interoperability is still way off in the future
- the dominant player wants a walled garden where you are a powerless guest - at best
Headsets will get better, but it'll be a slow, expensive and frustrating journey I'd be happy to let someone else get frustrated with. I've followed VR for about 30 years and if you look at it in that perspective, astonishingly little has been accomplished in terms of building something that even rises to where it isn't a frustrating, nauseating, sad experience.
And if Zuck's walled garden is where the action is going to be at, I might sit it out entirely. Why would I invest my time being part of a community where I have absolutely no rights? That would be a really poor choice.
There are legitimate reasons why people aren't as enthusiastic as you. And it doesn't make them naysayers.
Yes, I also find it quite astonishing. I bought a Quest 2 so that I could explore if this was a gimmick or the real deal. It’s absolutely the real deal and in my mind, the unquestionable future of computing. And if Facebook ends up owning the whole thing, it’ll be specifically because others in the tech industry had lost the plot and were too busy dismissing it to chase for a piece of the prize.
An example of this is in game development. The app library is currently so that that it has opened up a huge opportunity for solo indie developers to build simple games and end up at the top of the sales charts. And we’re talking about something that has outsold the new Xbox.
Tech people like to wax on about how concerned they are about Facebook, but these comments usually are just a chance for them to take a few swings at a favorite corporate punching bag, not because they have any particular interest in VR.
I think in many ways the HN community is going through a deep skepticism cycle where everything new is dismissed. After Zuckerberg’s huge gamble pays off and creates a bigger gold rush than mobile, this same community is going to be posting guides on how to custom program hand tracking gestures and detailed breakdowns on how the distortion correction works.
"[Thing A] was bad once, and now everyone uses it, thus everyone will use [Thing B], because Thing B is currently bad", is not, generally, a great argument. For instance, take 3D TVs; those were _not_ good (though they were far more mature than current VR stuff) or, as it turned out, of particular interest to the general public, and now they're gone.
While I can't predict the future, I tend to think that VR is more of a 3D TV situation than a smartphone situation; an industry which is hitting market scaling issues ("Argh! Everyone in the world has a HD TV/Facebook account!") is pushing a new thing, to expand its market, and it's not particularly clear that consumers want it. This all feels very top-down; giant companies deciding what consumers will want next, and telling consumers they want it. This works less often than you'd think.
Now, this eventually worked for the TV industry with 4K and particularly HDR, but those were both less jarringly different from what people were used to, and had more creative support (your average film director was much more excited about HDR than 3D...)
My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. AR/VR is just UI. It doesn't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect headset will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a phone and much less convenient for a lot of others.
My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. Smartphones are just UI. They don't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect smartphone will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a laptop and much less convenient for a lot of others.
Smartphones make loads of things possible that weren't possible before. They are extremely portable, have excellent displays for text, can connect to mobile data networks and contain an array of sensors that benefit from mobility.
You can connect usb GSM adapters to have the mobile network on a laptop (same for all the other sensors). It is just a lot more "convenient" to have a smartphone in your pocket rather than carry a giant laptop with you everywhere. Which is the point I was trying to make. Yes, technically all thinks VR does is possible with a smartphone but it is a lot more "convenient" to have google maps directions overlayed on top of real world rather than looking at it through a smartphone.
I'm not sure it is more convenient. Google Glass did heads up directions years ago and nobody cared. I don't get lost so quickly that I can't just peak at my phone every minute or two. I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing. The current pinnacle of AR adoption is still Pokemon Go and that was 5 years ago. And it was really just a gimmick.
> I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing.
Obviously this was just one example to demonstrate the convenience of VR/AR over smart phones. You would not be using VR/AR for "just that one thing". The applications are numerous:
* Ability to have virtual workspaces with multiple high-resolution simulated monitors (and that's just the low-hanging fruit of simulating existing workspaces at a lower cost and more portability, it is entirely possible that VR will lead to completely new workspaces. But let's be a pessimist and assume simulating existing workspaces is the best we can do.). I mean if VR can deliver this one thing and nothing else, I would say it will be a huge success.
* Ability to read/work on commute without getting a headache from vibrations (since the image will be stable)
* Lifelike interaction with friends and family in a moment's notice and no air pollution
* Videogames
And these are some of the easier and less speculative uses of VR.
How are you actually defining "new" here? Have you considered that you are defining "new" in an amorphous way that allows you to reject everything new that VR/AR offer?
AR allows one to create virtual objects with actual position and shape in the real world. We can see these objects in their location in the world, and interact with them. That is the abstracted case of what is truly new -- the thing that simply does not exist without AR.
From this abstract case, we can give concrete examples. When buying products online, one can discover what furniture will look like in their house, or what clothing will look like on their body -- they can better see it from every angle and the form it will take. In terms of "adult entertainment", one can literally experience a virtual person up in your face and on your body, something that is just not offered by any existing form. Shit, we can attach a virtual note to a physical object (that only select people get to see!), we can use a ping pong table without needing to own a ball, we can see "subtitles" next to a person who is talking, we can see a label next to our friend in a crowded place without having to constantly cross-reference a map on a phone screen... honestly. Have some imagination.
If you can see this list of things and say "none of that is new", then I seriously challenge you to define "new" for me, because I'm willing to bet you are not applying the same rigorous definition to smartphones.
Sure, but that's still all just UI. You can build all of those things on a 2D screen. If you build a Unity 3D app, you get to choose to build for whatever platform if it's Windows or Android or VR rig. In fact, I have done the 3d furniture simulator thing for a furniture retailer but it was all just done on screens. I've also done a load of work in AR with both handheld and headset devices. We had clients who desperately wanted a cool AR experience and we spent many weeks and months brainstorming things we could do and really just came up with fluff. We looked at everything in the market, talked to manufacturers, did some experiments with users. Nobody came up with anything compelling. We built some cool novelty experiences, but nothing anyone would pay money for. I can believe that a massive (and it has to be like 10X current gen) improvement in resolution and refresh rate will make the experience smooth enough to be a complimentary technology for some niches.
A smartphone is merely a dumbphone with better UI. Look how transformative that was.
None of these things are achievable in the same way with a 2D screen because by definition a 2D screen lacks the ability to literally display along the Z axis. Our minds perceive in 3D, not 2D. A 2D screen literally provides less information about distance and location to the senses. Moreover, a 2D screen has a complete inability to create the feeling of presence, something that is new to AR/VR.
Actually, to act as if the feeling of presence is not new, despite you apparently having used a headset, seems bizarre to the point of incomprehensibility. Use VR porn and tell me that’s not a completely new, compelling experience. I’m addicted to it — it’s like I’m literally having sex. Honestly, your rejection of presence as revolutionary means I don’t actually think it’s possible to get anywhere with this discussion.
Lastly, your difficulties developing something compelling with AR is not a sufficient argument that nothing compelling can ever be achieved with it.
I'll add to this that having subtitles next to the person one is speaking to is completely transformative for hearing-impaired people. The only way you could replicate this with a 2D screen is by having them either (a) avert eye contact to look down at a phone, which prevents them from being engaged with the person, or (b) hold up a phone camera to someone's face, which is obviously significantly more cumbersome and socially awkward than wearing some glasses (and please try to imagine the future of AR headsets that are becoming increasingly compact like sunglasses, not a bulky existing Hololens headset).
So, take that idea. It's not a novelty experience. It's not fluff. It significantly improves the lives of hearing-impaired people.
Did you even come up with this idea? If so, why were you not able to create it? Have you considered that perhaps it was due to the fact that something like this is extremely difficult to develop and can't be done by a regular team over a period of 'months'? Have you considered that AR/VR isn't just going to be made transformative within a <1 year time period of you getting your hands on it?
On the other hand, if you didn't even come up with such a practically beneficial idea as this (or were unable to see how life-changingly useful it'd be for the hearing-impaired), then the issue with all of your ideas being "fluff" was not due to the technology at hand.
This even sparks my imagination further. Right now, if someone yells at a hearing-impaired person from behind, they have no immediate way of knowing (any phone-based solution is not going to give quick information about the direction of the yell when it's in-pocket). On the other hand, an AR headset will be able to immediately inform that person that a loud voice has come from exactly the direction it is pointing to, because it can literally show an arrow in their visual sight. That is so goddamn exciting and useful. And I simply can't comprehend how you cannot see it.
Believe it or not, overlayed closed captions was one the first things I came up with. It's also not that hard to do with commodity voice and face recognition. We did a POC just on a 2d phone screen in like a week. Trying to capture multiple people speaking at once is way beyond the capability of any retail headset and would require an elaborate 3d microphone array and noise filtering to pinpoint where a voice is coming from. Ours worked pretty well sitting across a table, but would struggle mightily trying to hear something across any distance in a noisy room.
Is it though? Technology is progressing, sure. And it will find its use, but what are the datapoints or other clues that predicts that AR/VR will become mainstream? Not saying it will not, but what makes it, in your opinion, "inevitable"
I think that is exactly the point of the comment you are replying to here. HN is a place where you would think people can see the use case opportunities and extrapolate them into the future based on the featured article's assertions (like getting access to a PPD of 55) and what that all means in the long term.
Spatial computing will bring about a fundamental UI/UX design refactoring of established 2D applications we just take for granted as fully baked. It won't replace them, like screens didn't replace books, but it will allow for enhanced functions we didn't know we were missing until they were in front of us and it will be offered in a more delightful human centric experience at the same time. HN dogs can bark but the caravan is rolling.
I doubt it. Navigation in 3D space is far more awkward than 2D. Depth is hard to get accurate, and you now have to deal with things closer to you obscuring things behind them. It's slow and awkward.
Improving this space isn't dependent on new technology either. We don't need more fps for them to solve the UX problems, they could've been solved for 3D navigation on a 2D screen - but they haven't, it has always been easier, faster and more accurate to navigate a 2D space.
These kind of tweets are just weird. He portrays himself as such a technical science based guy, but then makes random comments like this that are bound to create controversy. It's like he doesn't realize that millions of people read his tweets.
It's stuff like this that really make me question his tactical and leadership abilities. I would think to build the kind of companies that he has built, one would need to be an excellent taction, know when you speak and when not to and know where to devote energy.
Maybe he is just playing at a level I don't understand.
But there is a huge difference. When you have millions of people listening, at some point you have to realize that everything you say publicly has the potential to create big problems.
Of course they do. But do people in major leadership positions with worldwide reach bear any responsibility for what they say?
Humans are social creatures. I'm willing to bet most of the things you do or say are heavily influenced by what other people do or say. For you, Musk may not be one of those people. But for many, he probably is.
Elon's arbitrary and uniformed comments and anecdotes about Medical tech are as bad as anything Pharma is doing.
I wonder if he considers GSK's arbitrary promotion of their products as 'free speech' as well?
There's a staggering lack of self awareness with this guy on this issue.
There are zillions of fanboys and people 'influenced' by Musk and others, imagine a doctor prescribes 'ABC for depression' and a patient is reluctant, or worse, 'adamant' about the drug i.e. 'PeEPLE aRe dYInG!'.
It's a common problem now in the medical field.
If GSK can be held accountable for false or misleading information about something that 'causes harm' - then maybe so should Musk and others.
At the same time, obviously, drugs do cause harm and sometimes without even any malign intent, so it becomes problematic then for regular, legitimate, 'good faith' investigation as well i.e. why should we trust '60 Minutes' investigation more than the FDC, the Drug Maker, or Elong Musk? It's tough.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's a very serious issue we need to think about.
Free speech doesn't exempt you from committing crimes.
I'm against all regulations, I personally think we should have 3rd party companies reviewing products and the processes to create products and that anything should be sellable.
That said, if the customers have an expectation that products need to have a certain characteristics to be sold because of regulations - if you bypass those regulations you are committing fraud to your customers.
It would be equivalent to a company saying "The Health Reviewer Company X said our product is good for treating depression" when no such claim was made. It's pure and simple fraud - and they're free to say it and be sued into oblivion.
I really don't agree with this at all. I was put on antidepressants late in my teenage years for unexplained fatigue which was misdiagnosed as depression. I was first put on an SSRI - Lexapro. I went from 140 pounds to 180 in a month or two, and I certainly wasn't ravenously eating.
I went off an on it a few times, and I can see how other people would have a really hard time getting off of it. I was also put on Wellbutrin, and that had no effect on my weight (if not slight weight loss), it was better as far as sexual side effects go, and it was easier to come off of.
I now have a prescription for Adderall - again, for the fatigue - and I can see how some people could be addicted to it. Personally, I think it's a shame we can't just sell it over the counter. It's amazing for if you need to drive late at night, and it's the best damned cold medicine there is. If we could make an Adderall type stimulant where your brain downregulating receptors wasn't a factor a lot of people would lead significantly happier lives.
You can never be sure, we were sure afghan army will hold and we were sure Ukraine wouldn't last long, and the opposite happaned.
The logic is that this war is as close as it gets to 0% approval, and many soldiers arent happy aboit either. If they had a way to avoid killing their 'slavic brothers' that does not lead to being stuck in a gulag, a significan portion would take it. I am not sure how much money theid need, but compared to cost of a war, this is cheap. Kremlim would be bleeding manpower.
