You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not sure why they tried this.
‘We made a VR games headset, but replaced the games with office related programs, like calenders and notepads’
Did any of them ever use an Oculus Quest? Like, why did they try this? Is this Apple’s Google Glass moment? Did they really think that if you pay enough youtubers to wear it in public, normal people would magically go into car-level debt to emulate them?
In fact, I’ll go as far as to say this campaign and price point was a bigger mistake, and a louder failure than Google Glasses.
Bro, just one more year. Let them come up with just another pair of goggles bro, trust me bro, one more year and we will be in VR future bro.
I’m still waiting for:
- good Linux support, including apps/games
- not too expensive - $500-ish
- relatively privacy-friendly, so anything Meta is out
Valve Index is close, but it’s expensive and Linux content is very limited. Bigscreen VR Headsets looks interesting since it seems more comfortable than Index, just as privacy-friendly, and should work on Linux, but it’s still a little expensive ($1k) and there aren’t many Linux VR apps AFAIK. I might get it though, still deciding.
Everyone I’ve talked to that has used a Vision Pro has said it’s an incredible piece of magical technology, but it’s utterly useless.
It’s literally just Apple flexing.
but it’s utterly useless.
That imo has been the issue with VR/AR for a while now. The Hardware as you said is pretty good by now and looking at something like the quest even afforable. What’s lacking is content and use cases.
Smartphones had an easier time being adopted, since it was just moving from a larger to a smaller screen. But VR/AR actually needs a new type of content to make use of it’s capabilities. And there you run into a chicken/egg problem, where no one is putting in the effort (and vr content is harder to produce) without a large user base.
Just games and some office stuff (that you can do just as well on a regular pc) aren’t cutting it. You’d need stuff like every major sport event being broadcast with unique content, e.g. formula one with the ability to put yourself into the driver seat of any car.
When the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift first came out, the rift didn’t yet have full-room support. You had to sit facing the base station and use a video game controller. Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
One pro-con comparison I read at the time actually listed needing to walk around the room as a con against HTC. That is the whole point of VR.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides.
Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
Issue is that if I remember correctly the vive was an outside-in concept that required base stations to be setup. So you lose the cable, but are still bound by location. And importantly also needs a pc aswell. So still far away from standalone.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides
But I think VR/AR could make us lazier:
For VR the promise is immersion. You get to experience a concert, sport event, unique experience or exotic place from your own living room. And for many of that it is just fine to sit on a couch and still have a benefit from the technology.
For AR i think it’s a bit more productivity focused. For example less need to train personel, if you can project every instruction into their field of view.
Issue is that if I remember correctly the vive was an outside-in concept that required base stations to be setup
But that wasn’t the complaint levied. They were literally complaining about needing to walk around.
And for many of that it is just fine to sit on a couch and still have a benefit from the technology.
But everyone knows the people watching at home on traditional 2D TV get the best view. Zooms on the players/performers, slow-mo recap, etc. I can’t imagine the nausea of having your entire field of view warped across the court to see every special angle. Not to mention, until whatever VR app has a plug in for every thing you’d want to do on your phone while you’re watching the game, you’re stuck paying 100% of your attention to the sport.
Hell, even the people at the concert or sporting event spend half their time on their phone.
until whatever VR app has a plug in for every thing you’d want to do on your phone
Isn’t that the big difference with Apple’s visionOS vs the other VR headsets? It’s basically iPadOS, where you can run multiple apps at the same time and move windows around, without anything needing to know what else is going on, and everything uses the standard window and widgets toolkits. Unlike the Meta Quest, which is basically SteamOS where you’re switching between Unity games that take over the whole device and they all have to re-invent the world with slightly different controls and everything.
If you are really super deep into the ecosystem and the AR pass through is that good, then I can see it working. On Oculus, I often find myself peering through the gap by my nose to see whatever notification or whatnot on my phone. Apple Vision can fix that.
Though you still have to contend with the comfort factor. It’s a lot to wear on your face when you’re supposed to be casually enjoying content for hours at a time. Heaven forbid you care about how your hair looks.
You’ve nailed it. Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren’t many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
That’s why the biggest use case for VR has been gaming and metaverses. It’s a ready-to-go thing that adapts well, but it’s certainly not for everyone. For my part, I’m saving up for a PS VR2, because it’s adding PC support soon and I already own a PS5 as well. Far, far cheaper than Apple’s device, and likely quite good still.
Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren’t many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
Yeah normally Apple is maybe the only company that has the scale and control over their ecosystem to force rapid adoption. But this was clearly not a consumer product aimed at capturing the masses, but more or less a dev kit sold to anyone willing to shell out the price.
The PS VR2 sounds nice, but feels like it is only aimed at the gaming market and even there sony only captures a fraction.
The Quest as a standalone device imo really would have the best shot at mass market adoption, but Facebook rightfully has an image problem. And despite spending so much on development doesn’t seem to create any content or incentivize others to do so.
Edit: actually kind of forgot “bigscreenVR”. I am somewhat surprised that the default is to cram all hardware into the headset making it much bulkier instead of a seperate piece on a belt, back, or maybe strap on your upper arm.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned upcoming PC support for PS VR2.
“Hey look what we could do at six times the price point” isn’t a flex, it’s stupidity.
Like why not just release Apple brand Skis, or team up with Nike and make some shoes, or Jewelry if you want to do high priced stuff rich idiots pay for.
It’s a flex because the vision pro has the best optics and display technology ever made. It’s stupid because it has no use. It’s not a flex because it’s expensive, it’s expensive because it’s a flex, if that makes sense.
Best display technology ever made??
Yes.
DARPA is going to have to play with this for a while before it gets to a point where it’s actually useful to the general public. And they are playing with it.
Companies have been pushing VR so long now. I’ll say that I think the tech is cool and the idea is cool, but I will literally never use them.
I can’t wear them while working as I am in meetings 99% of the time.
I would not wear them in my free time, as I do not want to disassociate from my wife and cats.
The current iterations have far more potential than the past.
But the hardware is stil too power inefficiënt and the display pixel density is expensive to produce.
Why does this feel like another “voice assistant” that we’re supposed to talk to all day?
If we worked from home, maaaayyybe voice control could be a thing once it’s 100%? But Boss Man wants us back at work. Are we really going to be a open-office with everyone talking to their computer like some sort of crypto bro boiler room?
It’s sorta like the “video phone” that everyone was dying to have for decades. We finally got it and everyone went “meh”. A few grandparents use it to talk to their grandkids. Hell, most of the current generations don’t even use phones anymore.
It’s one more technology that’s being pushed out before it’s baked and will likely be only really useful in niche applications. Really fucking good for those niche applications, but just too expensive and awkward for anyone else.
The video phone is now facetime, skype, zoom, google meet etc…
Yeah, FaceTime. But how often do people use it in practice?
Good point about Zoom. Business clearly like Zoom for meetings, but big business is still hammering BTO hard. Will Zoom be marginalized when they finally force in-person meetings?
Also, the last few companies I worked for that did Zoom meetings, everyone kept their cameras off.
There are some demographics where its usage is extremely common. I’ve come across multiple people who are on FaceTime calls while in public. Just walking around on video and speaker, talking to someone else. I can’t conceive of using it this way, but in some social circles it’s totally normalized.
This page has some interesting quotes. Reading through, it sounds like it’s hovering at or below the top 5 most common video chat tools. There’s a lot of bias towards quotes about 2020 usage so that’s obviously skewed, but that year at least 9-25% of various demographics were cited using FaceTime daily.
I use FaceTime 2-3 times a year to talk to my nephew, and maybe 3-5 times a year to screen share or show my mum things. But I do use Teams video calls literally 5 days a week (I try to avoid the video part when I can, but there are a few in leadership who really push for it. My company is never doing RTO, so I’ll accept a bit of video calling for the sake of permanent WFH!).
