Meta Quest Pro(meta.com)
meta.com
Meta Quest Pro
https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/
1,106 comments
I think there’s a lot of hate because Facebook is an immensely hate-able company that needs its next cash cow and it sure hopes this is it.
Look at the history of it’s core product to see where VR will go if it takes off:
Facebook was the cool place for college students to connect with friends. No ID requirements to sign up and no ads for years. Your feed was just your friends post. Things were great. Now there’s ads in your feed and you need to definitively prove your identity. Not to mention the history of scandals and privacy violations.
They’ll do whatever it takes to get those first 100 million users. Once they get them though all bets are off. Privacy will only get worse, they’ll give up on the initial power users because who cares about a couple million hard core gamers?
Look at the history of it’s core product to see where VR will go if it takes off:
Facebook was the cool place for college students to connect with friends. No ID requirements to sign up and no ads for years. Your feed was just your friends post. Things were great. Now there’s ads in your feed and you need to definitively prove your identity. Not to mention the history of scandals and privacy violations.
They’ll do whatever it takes to get those first 100 million users. Once they get them though all bets are off. Privacy will only get worse, they’ll give up on the initial power users because who cares about a couple million hard core gamers?
They did absolutely monstrous shit in regards to privacy, that makes the meta of today look like a finely tuned privacy machine that serves to protect every user to the teeth.
Only nobody cared because that was the time prior to the latest privacy awakening, and apparently we still have a hard time putting it in the right context. If the best thing you can say about a company is that it was not big and nobody cared about their (what are now considered) atrocities back when, then you should probably reconsider your evaluation.
Only nobody cared because that was the time prior to the latest privacy awakening, and apparently we still have a hard time putting it in the right context. If the best thing you can say about a company is that it was not big and nobody cared about their (what are now considered) atrocities back when, then you should probably reconsider your evaluation.
> They did absolutely monstrous shit in regards to privacy, that makes the meta of today look like a finely tuned privacy machine that serves to protect every user to the teeth.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Any Meta app you have on your smartphone is doing what they can to collect heuristics in order to identify you and serve you Ads. How is that any different? It's just not as obvious.
> Only nobody cared because that was the time prior to the latest privacy awakening [...]
You make it sound like it's a fad or the user simply didn't care in the 2000s. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If a private company would park a van in front of your door to observe you 24/7 in order to sell mundane details about your daily life to advertisers you'd be up in arms. Yet in the digital space it's no big deal.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Any Meta app you have on your smartphone is doing what they can to collect heuristics in order to identify you and serve you Ads. How is that any different? It's just not as obvious.
> Only nobody cared because that was the time prior to the latest privacy awakening [...]
You make it sound like it's a fad or the user simply didn't care in the 2000s. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If a private company would park a van in front of your door to observe you 24/7 in order to sell mundane details about your daily life to advertisers you'd be up in arms. Yet in the digital space it's no big deal.
> > They did absolutely monstrous shit in regards to privacy, that makes the meta of today look like a finely tuned privacy machine that serves to protect every user to the teeth.
> How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Any Meta app you have on your smartphone is doing what they can to collect heuristics in order to identify you and serve you Ads. How is that any different? It's just not as obvious.
In the early days of Facebook there was a negative article about them in Harvard's student newspaper. Mark Zuckerberg looked for through the logs for login attempts from student journalists at the paper and used the passwords they entered to try to gain access to their email accounts.[0] I'd say that is significantly worse from a privacy perspective than using cookies to show you more relevant ads.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
In the early days of Facebook there was a negative article about them in Harvard's student newspaper. Mark Zuckerberg looked for through the logs for login attempts from student journalists at the paper and used the passwords they entered to try to gain access to their email accounts.[0] I'd say that is significantly worse from a privacy perspective than using cookies to show you more relevant ads.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
So when Zuckerberg's social world was Harvard he violated the privacy of the school. Now his social world is different and he'd have less reasons to perform those same crimes. Way more power and reason to perform an entirely different set of crimes though!
> You make it sound like it's a fad
Privacy is not a set concept.
If you had told my parents in their youth, that their kids would have a high likelihood of happily divulging big chunks of their private life to the world at large, as a matter of routine, they would quite literally not even have understood the concept, no matter in how much detail you would have explained all the steps leading up to that. Why would anyone want any of that?
I am building a small business in the medical field right now. People are real sensitive about their data – right until the point where they happily waive all privacy rights to push you to use WhatsApp for all sensitive communication, because, OF COURSE they'd want to use WhatsApp, what else, it's real convenient after all.
Privacy is not a set concept.
If you had told my parents in their youth, that their kids would have a high likelihood of happily divulging big chunks of their private life to the world at large, as a matter of routine, they would quite literally not even have understood the concept, no matter in how much detail you would have explained all the steps leading up to that. Why would anyone want any of that?
I am building a small business in the medical field right now. People are real sensitive about their data – right until the point where they happily waive all privacy rights to push you to use WhatsApp for all sensitive communication, because, OF COURSE they'd want to use WhatsApp, what else, it's real convenient after all.
GP is kind of downplaying the real horror of Facebook which is that they (allegedly) enabled genocide.
And not many seem to care or remember. Was so far away, to another group of people, won't happen here, what does it matter
Except that to some extent, similar things are happening here -- Putin was, from what I've read, using FB to do psyops, to prepare his 2014 takeover of parts of Ukraine: making up and spreading stories about Russians getting abducted etc, ... Which helped him with the 2014 annexations, and leading up to his invasion and war today. More people dead than in Myanmar.
A bit surprising that the current US gov doesn't seem to look at FB as a psyops threat against itself?
Except that to some extent, similar things are happening here -- Putin was, from what I've read, using FB to do psyops, to prepare his 2014 takeover of parts of Ukraine: making up and spreading stories about Russians getting abducted etc, ... Which helped him with the 2014 annexations, and leading up to his invasion and war today. More people dead than in Myanmar.
A bit surprising that the current US gov doesn't seem to look at FB as a psyops threat against itself?
Isn't everyone doing that though? With Apple stepping into the Ads business, it is almost clear that they will eventually wipe out any third party competition, especially facebook from their platform. Facebook has realised that it desperately needs a hardware channel to survive in the cut-throat competitive field the tech industry has become, and VR is that channel.
Yep, our current system sucks. I happen to think Facebook is much, much, worse than Apple but who knows in 5 or 10 years.
Apple is building its own VR headset and making money off VR hardware seems like a stretch.
Apple is building its own VR headset and making money off VR hardware seems like a stretch.
That doesn't seem a huge stretch to me. Apple has always tried to be on the leading edge in novel human-computer interaction hardware: the mouse, the touch screen, the pocket computer, the wrist computer...
The Newton…
The wrist computer is useless though
Their current version/vision perhaps is yes. But they're still the market leaders (Although Apples problem with innovation procrastination when market leaders is frustrating).
I guess we have to wait for competition here before we see things move faster(particularly better human interfacing etc). All in all they shoot to the expectations of their users. (And the competition simply plays catch up)
Im waiting for the "total recall" (the new one) style hand/pane/internal projections but that might skip watches and go straight to a neuralink thing.
I guess we have to wait for competition here before we see things move faster(particularly better human interfacing etc). All in all they shoot to the expectations of their users. (And the competition simply plays catch up)
Im waiting for the "total recall" (the new one) style hand/pane/internal projections but that might skip watches and go straight to a neuralink thing.
The wrist computer doesn't make sense to me. Why is every manufacturer so focused on having the same capabilities of a smartphone on a smartwatch? Shouldn't a smartwatch be a complement of the smartphone? Like, take out the cellular, microphone, maybe even WiFi and speaker (just give it a tiny one for beeping), give it a very energy efficient SoC with very limited GPU capabilities, an OLED (or AMOLED) display that is always on with white/gray on black time driven by a low power circuit, and the rest is just sensors and battery. All processing is done in the phone and they're connected via Bluetooth LE, the watch just collects health and movement data, and the battery lasts at least a week.
Why would anyone reply to a text from a watch, when their paired phone is in their pockets? Or listening to music from a watch with a 200mAh battery? Are we stupid?
And I'm not implying the screen only shows time, but it just shows the data in real time and let's you configure things, apps are limited and most things are white on black, again, battery is #1. My wristwatch lasts over a year and shows the time without having to flick or touch it.
Why would anyone reply to a text from a watch, when their paired phone is in their pockets? Or listening to music from a watch with a 200mAh battery? Are we stupid?
And I'm not implying the screen only shows time, but it just shows the data in real time and let's you configure things, apps are limited and most things are white on black, again, battery is #1. My wristwatch lasts over a year and shows the time without having to flick or touch it.
You get texts/emails on watch so you can glance at your watch and read it without pulling out your phone.
You don’t listen through your watch but use it as a more convenient interface to change a song/playlist.
The test use case is while you are driving because you can talk to it and it will type out what you’re saying well. Rather than pulling out your phone and trying to text back.
It also monitors vitals and steps. It is also handy when I forget my phone in the car and I need to text or make a quick call.
I could go on but I’m done typing.
You don’t listen through your watch but use it as a more convenient interface to change a song/playlist.
The test use case is while you are driving because you can talk to it and it will type out what you’re saying well. Rather than pulling out your phone and trying to text back.
It also monitors vitals and steps. It is also handy when I forget my phone in the car and I need to text or make a quick call.
I could go on but I’m done typing.
Valve hasn't done that with Steam, and they're the only real competition Facebook has with VR.
Valve is privately owned, public companies need to keep growing revenue.
Have you not been following the Steam Deck?
I clearly haven't, can you elaborate? I thought the steam deck was near universally lauded for it's open and hackable software, repairable hardware and competitive pricepoint.
Is there some privacy news or other scandal I've missed?
Full disclosure, I say this having spent days playing my Steam Deck now.
It's a hardware channel to deliver you an ad platform selling you video games. Steam has better vertical integration (they are selling the games they are advertising), but it's the same idea. I haven't seen Steam OS telemetry reports, but I would expect they're basically the same as every other tech player. The platform _is_ open and hackable, but the OS is immutable and it's still an ad device.
It's a hardware channel to deliver you an ad platform selling you video games. Steam has better vertical integration (they are selling the games they are advertising), but it's the same idea. I haven't seen Steam OS telemetry reports, but I would expect they're basically the same as every other tech player. The platform _is_ open and hackable, but the OS is immutable and it's still an ad device.
I also have a Steam Deck, and I should make it clear the "ads" are the usual Steam Store stuff - entirely voluntary (you don't see ads for games unless you visit the Store page) and non-intrusive.
I think there's a world of difference between showing people ads for games when they visit a store page voluntarily, and showing people ads in their social media feed when what they want is to see their friends' updates.
I think there's a world of difference between showing people ads for games when they visit a store page voluntarily, and showing people ads in their social media feed when what they want is to see their friends' updates.
I find it very weird as well. So a store shouldn't show products it sell? Only allow them to be searched?
I understand being anti-add, but we are talking about store here selling and distributing products. Which makes reasonable attempt to serve relevant suggestions to user. Of new games or games that are somewhat based on what users have already played or followed.
Now if Steam store was showing third-party advertisements I would be on barricades.
And no one actually forces you to use the Steam on Steam Deck it is linux box with root access in place...
I understand being anti-add, but we are talking about store here selling and distributing products. Which makes reasonable attempt to serve relevant suggestions to user. Of new games or games that are somewhat based on what users have already played or followed.
Now if Steam store was showing third-party advertisements I would be on barricades.
And no one actually forces you to use the Steam on Steam Deck it is linux box with root access in place...
I am absolutely astonished. Up until now I was absolutely sure that Valve was purely a charity. /s
Seriously though. Can we have some nuance in the debate about advertising? Surely the bit we object to is the invasive, privacy and democracy-eroding tracking - not the concept of advertising itself?
Seriously though. Can we have some nuance in the debate about advertising? Surely the bit we object to is the invasive, privacy and democracy-eroding tracking - not the concept of advertising itself?
That's like going in to a store and calling their product displays ads.
What about the Steam Deck isn't privacy-friendly?
I don't think I've heard a bad thing about it, except maybe for the battery time. What are you referring to?
True, and it isn't just hate for the sake of hate. I would like to have a device like that (not for meetings, god forbid, but I'd like to read without having to hold a book in by hands, or to watch a 360° 3D movie, you know), but I'm just not gonna buy it from Facebook. To clarify, I'm not gonna buy it from any company that will require me to sign-up and log-in somewhere to use the device I bought.
"To clarify, I'm not gonna buy it from any company that will require me to sign-up and log-in somewhere to use the device I bought."
Dont both Android and iOS devices do this?
Dont both Android and iOS devices do this?
After wanting a metaverse since 1992, if anyone could make me not want one it's Zuck.
Maybe they didn’t require ID, but for the first year(s) they did require a valid college, and then business domain in your email at sign up so it was really anon as you’re making it out to be.
I’m glad you pointed this out, it seems to have been a lost fact. When I got my fb account it was when fb was still adding schools a chunk at a time, mine happened to be one of them. My friends who went to schools not yet “in” or didn’t go to school at all we’re quite jealous. This span of time lasted less than a year but part of the initial draw of fb was the exclusive nature of it.
I never understood the hate for Facebook. Everytime someone points out their reasons, usually it has major flaws in 1) Inconsistency 2) Hypocrisy 3) Ideological bias 4) Bandwagoning.
So if someone wants to hate Facebook, if they have principled position, I respect that. But that's hardly ever the case in my experience online and offline.
I am not a fan of most social media companies, but I love the tech scene, and the progress Meta is making in this field. Should be universally applauded even by the harshest critics of Facebook.
So if someone wants to hate Facebook, if they have principled position, I respect that. But that's hardly ever the case in my experience online and offline.
I am not a fan of most social media companies, but I love the tech scene, and the progress Meta is making in this field. Should be universally applauded even by the harshest critics of Facebook.
I don’t think “progressing in a field” is worthy of applause if you’re just going to use that progress to hurt people. Technology doesn’t just magically make peoples lives better, sorry but the cats out of the bag on that one.
Not defending Facebook, but that is essentially what capitalism is, and virtually all "successful" companies follow the same path.
I get how someone who doesn't question it or doesn't object to it could be confused by the hate for facebook.
I get how someone who doesn't question it or doesn't object to it could be confused by the hate for facebook.
Well maybe you never had the need for privacy. Fine with you, not fine by most people. Or you are oblivious how previously quite good tool for integration with remote friends and family got progressively worse to the point where its utter ad-infested and bug-infested piece of crap (to be fair FB was having tons of bugs since beginning, they just didn't improve on that front, I can easily hit 3-5 of them within a minute of casual use - latest firefox with ublock origin).
No company sliding down so much has received much love. Not sure what is there to not understand. Oh yes and owner is clearly an amoral person with strong sociopathic traits hellbent on making humanity worse off long term, not unique but the same applies and compounds.
No amount of self-serving VR progression or some open source libs can anyhow annulate that. Morals is something a lot of people value, and lack of it gets appropriate reactions.
No company sliding down so much has received much love. Not sure what is there to not understand. Oh yes and owner is clearly an amoral person with strong sociopathic traits hellbent on making humanity worse off long term, not unique but the same applies and compounds.
No amount of self-serving VR progression or some open source libs can anyhow annulate that. Morals is something a lot of people value, and lack of it gets appropriate reactions.
The NYT writing FB hit pieces every week for the last three years, hasn't helped that perception.
As far as I can remember it all started since Trump got elected. Before then the tone on Facebook was much more positive than it is now
The word "dystopia" (according to Google Trends at least) had a large spike worldwide in November 2016 and has been consistently trending higher than pre-November 2016 ever since. Trump (or probably just general events around then) did something to the Anglosphere net that definitely made it more negative and cynical.
EDIT: same pattern with "dystopian"
EDIT: same pattern with "dystopian"
Also, Brexit.
It’s all just pure facebook hate. I remember some of same people who today trash vr and anything coming out of meta-RL were literally drooling at totally absurd incomplete and awful VR demos at GDC 7 or 8 years ago at a time when I really thought VR was totally unusable and unplayable.
Now that the tech is actually nice enough that it is usable and sometimes even actually better for certain things folks are just jumping on the hate fb bandwagon.
You’re absolutely right that most people here haven’t even tried some of this stuff. Personally I never gave VR a thought myself but my brother wanted a quest so I bought one, now I have my own and am looking forward to trying what’s next.
Now that the tech is actually nice enough that it is usable and sometimes even actually better for certain things folks are just jumping on the hate fb bandwagon.
You’re absolutely right that most people here haven’t even tried some of this stuff. Personally I never gave VR a thought myself but my brother wanted a quest so I bought one, now I have my own and am looking forward to trying what’s next.
Most people on HN aren’t trying VR because HN’s users are aging like Slashdot’s user base years back. A lot of HN comments on VR are simply variants of “get off my lawn”. You’d think people would actually try something for a decent amount of time before panning it with a novella length comment. If I were to guess, most HN users have only tried Google Cardboard and not modern VR
On that note, I understand why people dislike meta even if they’re making really cool stuff, but people have to realize that Meta isn’t the only VR company. I have a feeling that only Apple can change the popular perception of VR
On that note, I understand why people dislike meta even if they’re making really cool stuff, but people have to realize that Meta isn’t the only VR company. I have a feeling that only Apple can change the popular perception of VR
I have tried it and it is a pretty cool experience. But I understand the rants, not a matter of age btw. Facebook is for old people for that matter and developing against any META hardware would have to take that into consideration.
But the closed environments are just majorly repellant. I had an older headset (rift s) and suddenly needed to create a facebook account. Should have bought the more expensive Steam version. But I don't see how VR can really reach the masses. You need the extra funds and a decent system and 2D monitor is the more sensible investment.
I will never buy an Occulus device again of course. There were management decisions anyone who really likes technology and wants to dabble with it will very likely and understandably hate with a burning passion. A passion sourced in the love for technology and the ability to share it. And they knew that people would dislike it, just hoped they would comply in switching to their Facebook platform.
This is 100% on Facebook and to 0% on grumpy users. Not being grumpy is pretty naive in my opinion.
But the closed environments are just majorly repellant. I had an older headset (rift s) and suddenly needed to create a facebook account. Should have bought the more expensive Steam version. But I don't see how VR can really reach the masses. You need the extra funds and a decent system and 2D monitor is the more sensible investment.
I will never buy an Occulus device again of course. There were management decisions anyone who really likes technology and wants to dabble with it will very likely and understandably hate with a burning passion. A passion sourced in the love for technology and the ability to share it. And they knew that people would dislike it, just hoped they would comply in switching to their Facebook platform.
This is 100% on Facebook and to 0% on grumpy users. Not being grumpy is pretty naive in my opinion.
> But I don't see how VR can really reach the masses.
The same exact way every technology gets adopted by the masses: it gets cheaper, faster, and better. I really don’t understand why people are suddenly forgetting this tenet of technology. Oh and btw Meta isn’t the only VR company. Despite the name, meta cannot fully own the metaverse since it’s essentially VR over the internet. I still don’t understand how so many technical people can fall for the marketing
The same exact way every technology gets adopted by the masses: it gets cheaper, faster, and better. I really don’t understand why people are suddenly forgetting this tenet of technology. Oh and btw Meta isn’t the only VR company. Despite the name, meta cannot fully own the metaverse since it’s essentially VR over the internet. I still don’t understand how so many technical people can fall for the marketing
> I still don’t understand how so many technical people can fall for the marketing.
Because if you're predisposed to hating new technology or generally thinking technology causes more harm than good, then you'll look for the weakest interpretation of a new development and use that to get angry.
For all the angry ranters in this thread it's the idea that Meta will be the only company to do VR hardware and software ("I mean it's their name for god's sake!"). In reality Horizon Worlds is definitely the runner-up with stalwarts like VRChat and Second Life that actually have mindshare across multiple platforms and headsets. Immersed is the better app for productivity right now, Workrooms is pretty new. Horizon is playing catch-up. Companies like HP and Apple are making headsets. The market is just getting started. But the idea of a healthy, competitive, VR market with lots of choice doesn't fit the narrative around evil technology so nobody wants to make that point.
Because if you're predisposed to hating new technology or generally thinking technology causes more harm than good, then you'll look for the weakest interpretation of a new development and use that to get angry.
For all the angry ranters in this thread it's the idea that Meta will be the only company to do VR hardware and software ("I mean it's their name for god's sake!"). In reality Horizon Worlds is definitely the runner-up with stalwarts like VRChat and Second Life that actually have mindshare across multiple platforms and headsets. Immersed is the better app for productivity right now, Workrooms is pretty new. Horizon is playing catch-up. Companies like HP and Apple are making headsets. The market is just getting started. But the idea of a healthy, competitive, VR market with lots of choice doesn't fit the narrative around evil technology so nobody wants to make that point.
Cheaper faster and better is insufficient: it needs compelling use cases. And we keep tuning into Mark waiting for him to demonstrate compelling uses cases and... crickets.
And bluntly, instead of talking about compelling, awesome use cases you appear to have nothing to say about that because you assert that HN users haven't tried VR headsets. In my case (and I believe for many readers), that is untrue.
And bluntly, instead of talking about compelling, awesome use cases you appear to have nothing to say about that because you assert that HN users haven't tried VR headsets. In my case (and I believe for many readers), that is untrue.
There are compelling use cases like being able to play ping pong with your sibling who lives thousands of miles away. The same applies to watching movies and playing board games. It’s next gen zoom at the very least due to the presence it provides. You’d know that if you just tried it instead of dismissing it and coming up with bad assumptions due to a lack of data. Meta isn’t the only VR company and it won’t be the last. Everyone is too fixated on not seeing the forest for the trees immediately in front of you
I would argue a lot of the HN crowd is exactly the type to be first adopters of tech, VR in particular since it really is different from anything else and the technical know-how is super helpful in getting things to run (HN users would probably not be intimidated).
But a lot of HN users are old enough to remember Meta's (Facebook) catastrophic privacy issues and know better than to let Meta into a huge portion of our life such as work infrastructure.
But a lot of HN users are old enough to remember Meta's (Facebook) catastrophic privacy issues and know better than to let Meta into a huge portion of our life such as work infrastructure.
Meta isn’t the only company in VR. It’s like equating AOL with the internet. Im just watching history repeat itself
It is pretty amazing that Apple gets to pull the "we're the good guys" while their market is affluent people able to spend 1k+ on hardware. They call their ad-tech "user tailored experience" and label FB's as "tracking".
Meanwhile FB provides free services to two billion people and get to be the scapegoat for NYT and Apple. Yes, they sell adds--just like the entire media landscape going back hundreds of years.
Meanwhile FB provides free services to two billion people and get to be the scapegoat for NYT and Apple. Yes, they sell adds--just like the entire media landscape going back hundreds of years.
FB doesn't just "sell ads". They do their best to snoop on users (and non-users) in every context they can to better target advertising. And there's no easy way to say "stop tracking me". I think it's perfectly reasonable to be a little miffed about that.
20 years ago we called software designed to do this kind of thing "spyware". How did it get normalized to the point that people defend it?
And regarding the comparison to traditional media: if the NYT had a PI following me around every day, I wouldn't trust them either.
20 years ago we called software designed to do this kind of thing "spyware". How did it get normalized to the point that people defend it?
And regarding the comparison to traditional media: if the NYT had a PI following me around every day, I wouldn't trust them either.
Most companies selling ads have to do tracking in order to insure their customers are actually getting what they paid for with their marketing campaigns instead of having fake bot views. I’m not entirely sure how Apple can avoid that and still appease its ad customers
It’s easier to fight fraud when you own the entire stack from the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the SDKs.
You’re not wrong, and I’m definitely an Apple fan at the moment. I just don’t see how they can’t start tracking us if they want their new ads division to succeed. As a customer, I’m a little worried about this new division.
I have a quest 2. It’s pretty disappointing.
Is there public demographic data on HN users? My expectation, based on comments, would be that HN is skewing younger over time. Certainly it's gotten more popular over time, so a static, aging demographic seems unlikely to me.
Given the larger trends in the demographics of every developed country, I highly doubt it. Nearly every population is now skewed towards the older generations as becoming a larger and larger demographic due to longer lifespans and much lower birthrates. I do not feel that HN is safe from this trend
[deleted]
For what it's worth, you're at least right about me; I truly hate fb, and their simple involvement in a product is sufficient reason not to purchase it unless it's been thoroughly broken by the modding community.
I'm right with you there. Hating and boycotting FB and all their products is the clear ethical choice.
I sincerely hope the company goes out of business.
Same here, I don't get the whataboutism some folks here try to spin off, like we are some luddites shaming VR concept itself.
No, its purely FB, clearly long-term amoral company, that gets all the (well deserved) hate. I stand behind the statement that humankind is worse-off long-term with FB existing and trying to get into all aspects of our existence to sell more ads.
I wouldn't care about it at all if US had good regulators re privacy and other aspects of these sneaky corporations. But it clearly doesn't, cash flow is the king, hence one should be reasonably warry of such behavior, with company wielding so much power.
The above more or less applies also to ie Google and Apple, but based on behavior FB is in its own category.
No, its purely FB, clearly long-term amoral company, that gets all the (well deserved) hate. I stand behind the statement that humankind is worse-off long-term with FB existing and trying to get into all aspects of our existence to sell more ads.
I wouldn't care about it at all if US had good regulators re privacy and other aspects of these sneaky corporations. But it clearly doesn't, cash flow is the king, hence one should be reasonably warry of such behavior, with company wielding so much power.
The above more or less applies also to ie Google and Apple, but based on behavior FB is in its own category.
I don't think so. I've tried it. It's definitely the next big "thing" I wanna spend on. But this isn't it. And as a gamer I strongly feel Meta isn't the company that's gonna give me "it".
I'd rather back another horse for $1500. And as a consumer base, none of us are obliged to be fangirls for Meta given their track record.
I'd rather back another horse for $1500. And as a consumer base, none of us are obliged to be fangirls for Meta given their track record.
More than a decade I was a young teen dreaming of immersive experiences offered by the wii. I can even say with some specificity that I thought RED STEEL 2 was going to be the most amazing game ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Steel_2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO91n5phQQY
It's a pretty good title! It's a better VR game than most actual VR games. The control scheme has some interesting motion sword and gunplay. Plus you can turn and dash without getting motion sick because its on a tv. Look at the fighting gameplay. See how much better it is than Half Life Alyx and Boneworks?
But, the immersive quality of red steel 2 fades pretty quickly. As does Alyx and boneworks. Because... it sucks. VR asks you to believe you're in a world, like in ready player one. But you're not. None of the little things are there. It's just a camera on your face with better wii wands.
Having understood this, it's pretty clear that the best possible resolution headset will not fundamentally change the VR experience. Maybe text will be easily readable. That would be nice. But the experience Meta wants you to believe you'll have won't be coming any time soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO91n5phQQY
It's a pretty good title! It's a better VR game than most actual VR games. The control scheme has some interesting motion sword and gunplay. Plus you can turn and dash without getting motion sick because its on a tv. Look at the fighting gameplay. See how much better it is than Half Life Alyx and Boneworks?
But, the immersive quality of red steel 2 fades pretty quickly. As does Alyx and boneworks. Because... it sucks. VR asks you to believe you're in a world, like in ready player one. But you're not. None of the little things are there. It's just a camera on your face with better wii wands.
Having understood this, it's pretty clear that the best possible resolution headset will not fundamentally change the VR experience. Maybe text will be easily readable. That would be nice. But the experience Meta wants you to believe you'll have won't be coming any time soon.
VR 7-8 years ago wasn't gated behind a store and large EULA, and the people in charge hadn't announced their intent to not just monopolize and monetize social VR spaces, but also workspaces.
There was still reason to be excited and hopeful about the future of VR.
I'll wait to get excited if the Index is updated. And until then I'll keep using my low res low FOV first gen Vive. Exclusively to hit boxes.
There was still reason to be excited and hopeful about the future of VR.
I'll wait to get excited if the Index is updated. And until then I'll keep using my low res low FOV first gen Vive. Exclusively to hit boxes.
> VR 7-8 years ago wasn't gated behind a store
You make it sound like it is all gated behind an app store now somehow. Which is not the case at all.
On my quest 2 headset, I can play games from oculus store, I can also play any steamvr/pcvr games on quest 2 (connected to the desktop PC by a cable or in wireless mode), as well as any user-built application .apk files dowloaded to my headset directly (either from the headset's web browser or transferred from PC). All on the official firmware, no jailbreaking or any special steps needed to make this work.
Not sure how this is even remotely representative of some app store gating.
You make it sound like it is all gated behind an app store now somehow. Which is not the case at all.
On my quest 2 headset, I can play games from oculus store, I can also play any steamvr/pcvr games on quest 2 (connected to the desktop PC by a cable or in wireless mode), as well as any user-built application .apk files dowloaded to my headset directly (either from the headset's web browser or transferred from PC). All on the official firmware, no jailbreaking or any special steps needed to make this work.
Not sure how this is even remotely representative of some app store gating.
Haven't some people been banned from the store permanently, rendering SteamVR and sideloading useless too?
I’ve read of people getting their Facebook accounts banned and losing their oculus store purchases. But now they use a meta account so that issue shouldn’t happen as often. Because the bans were happening because the attached Facebook account was inactive.
But you could always make a new account and play your steam games
But you could always make a new account and play your steam games
I still prefer a product that works independent of needing to sign in (and share a bunch of data, some of it biometric), but I'm glad they fixed the google-like ban blast radius at least.
I had access to Oculus dev kits back in the day and am now a Valve Index owner, which means that
1. I've been closely following VR for almost 10 years now
2. I've invested some money for the best VR hardware available (at the time).
My take on Facebook and why I am fully on board with the skepticism here:
- VR hardware, at least on the higher end, is pretty good. It has been "there" for many possible applications at least in terms of fidelity since ~2019. VR being so uninteresting is mostly a software problem in my opinion, not a hardware problem, even if the hardware development is important to make adoption more realistic without the need to invest a ton of money.
- The novelty of VR wears off rather quickly. I barely use my VR hardware nowadays, and right now I can't imagine a scenario in which VR makes anything in my everyday life easier and more efficient, quite the opposite. While I don't doubt that it will happen, I very much doubt that Facebook will be involved in the next important step forward. They are just too out of touch with reality (outside of the investor/silicon valley/zuckerberg bubble) for that.
- The software is just lacking, and everything Facebook is presenting when it comes to software is in many ways a step back compared to VR products from as early as 2014 (e.g. VR Chat)...Acting as if Facebook is pushing anything forward here is just naive following of buzzwords at best, dishonest parroting of marketing talk at worst.
- Anything a company like Facebook might plan with VR is just uninteresting, because it will ultimately have dark patterns, manipulation and monetization baked into its very core, be it directly or indirectly.
Rather than developing VR as a "next step" in personal computing, Facebook is just racing to build an ad infested dystopian walled garden as fast as they can, why would I get excited about that in the slightest?
I'm still generally very interested in VR, but the only thing I'll get excited about is VR device from a manufacturer that doesn't have backstabbing me as his ultimate goal and will base all his decisions on being Facebook.
And yes, I still remember "Oculus won't require a Facebook Sign-In", and while that has been reverted for now, I won't believe for a second that the people working at Facebook aren't eager to get something equivalent back as soon as enough users are on board.
1. I've been closely following VR for almost 10 years now
2. I've invested some money for the best VR hardware available (at the time).
My take on Facebook and why I am fully on board with the skepticism here:
- VR hardware, at least on the higher end, is pretty good. It has been "there" for many possible applications at least in terms of fidelity since ~2019. VR being so uninteresting is mostly a software problem in my opinion, not a hardware problem, even if the hardware development is important to make adoption more realistic without the need to invest a ton of money.
- The novelty of VR wears off rather quickly. I barely use my VR hardware nowadays, and right now I can't imagine a scenario in which VR makes anything in my everyday life easier and more efficient, quite the opposite. While I don't doubt that it will happen, I very much doubt that Facebook will be involved in the next important step forward. They are just too out of touch with reality (outside of the investor/silicon valley/zuckerberg bubble) for that.
- The software is just lacking, and everything Facebook is presenting when it comes to software is in many ways a step back compared to VR products from as early as 2014 (e.g. VR Chat)...Acting as if Facebook is pushing anything forward here is just naive following of buzzwords at best, dishonest parroting of marketing talk at worst.
- Anything a company like Facebook might plan with VR is just uninteresting, because it will ultimately have dark patterns, manipulation and monetization baked into its very core, be it directly or indirectly.
Rather than developing VR as a "next step" in personal computing, Facebook is just racing to build an ad infested dystopian walled garden as fast as they can, why would I get excited about that in the slightest?
I'm still generally very interested in VR, but the only thing I'll get excited about is VR device from a manufacturer that doesn't have backstabbing me as his ultimate goal and will base all his decisions on being Facebook.
And yes, I still remember "Oculus won't require a Facebook Sign-In", and while that has been reverted for now, I won't believe for a second that the people working at Facebook aren't eager to get something equivalent back as soon as enough users are on board.
I believe the visceral pushback is happening because this is a perfect example of a technology and platform that should not be. And most people instinctively sense that.
We need more humanity, care for ourselves and others, more love and connection to humans and everything surrounding us, to experience what it means to be alive and being a part of the universe. This tech aims to isolate us even more than we already are, through its fundamental design. When you put human values above the maniacal quest of a boy billionaire for relevance and power, you come to the conclusion that this is the entirely wrong path.
The hardware is inconsequential.
We need more humanity, care for ourselves and others, more love and connection to humans and everything surrounding us, to experience what it means to be alive and being a part of the universe. This tech aims to isolate us even more than we already are, through its fundamental design. When you put human values above the maniacal quest of a boy billionaire for relevance and power, you come to the conclusion that this is the entirely wrong path.
The hardware is inconsequential.
As someone working in the space (not Meta):
The overall goal is the exact opposite of what you're saying here. Just about every single person I've ever talked to in this industry wants to build devices to bring human beings together across space + time. Allowing folks to see each other eye to eye and form real human connections where otherwise it would be impossible. XR is probably the least isolating technology in history if you consider what it can do in terms of breaking down boundaries of time, distance, ability, and appearance. It is the most humanistic of any technology I've ever used in my life, in the way that it's explicitly designed to bridge human, emotional connections where none could exist before. Just one of many perspectives...
The overall goal is the exact opposite of what you're saying here. Just about every single person I've ever talked to in this industry wants to build devices to bring human beings together across space + time. Allowing folks to see each other eye to eye and form real human connections where otherwise it would be impossible. XR is probably the least isolating technology in history if you consider what it can do in terms of breaking down boundaries of time, distance, ability, and appearance. It is the most humanistic of any technology I've ever used in my life, in the way that it's explicitly designed to bridge human, emotional connections where none could exist before. Just one of many perspectives...
> Just about every single person I've ever talked to in this industry wants to build devices to bring human beings together across space + time.
This is admirable, but unless they also have some ideas about how to keep such a service running the funding model is going to default to advertising. And advertising has a corrosive impact on free-expression (can't allow anything untoward to happen next to an ad) and community (is this person being genuine or are they selling something?).
With internet revenue models being what they are, I don't see VR social experiences going in a good direction at the moment. Maybe if we had a good p2p technology for hosting/joining VR worlds so these things could be community-run there would be hope. But every popular VR application I know of is hopelessly centralized and subject to the same market forces that made social media such a mess.
This is admirable, but unless they also have some ideas about how to keep such a service running the funding model is going to default to advertising. And advertising has a corrosive impact on free-expression (can't allow anything untoward to happen next to an ad) and community (is this person being genuine or are they selling something?).
With internet revenue models being what they are, I don't see VR social experiences going in a good direction at the moment. Maybe if we had a good p2p technology for hosting/joining VR worlds so these things could be community-run there would be hope. But every popular VR application I know of is hopelessly centralized and subject to the same market forces that made social media such a mess.
If recent history is taken into account, the goal of anything in this space is, or will ultimately turn out to be, engagement. “Social” platforms today are unhealthy places as is. Do you really think another layer of abstraction away from a common reality will turn out to “bridge human, emotional connections where none could before”? I’m curious: what exactly are you referring to?
I do see potential applications in fields like 3D-enhanced medical imaging, as highly specialized tools for professionals. But not as a general tool or device.
Long-term, I find it more likely that people who can escape into a convincing, curated reality, will do so with increasing frequency and in turn stop caring about their surroundings. Because we’re human primates and not responsible enough to deal with complex change like this yet.
I do see potential applications in fields like 3D-enhanced medical imaging, as highly specialized tools for professionals. But not as a general tool or device.
Long-term, I find it more likely that people who can escape into a convincing, curated reality, will do so with increasing frequency and in turn stop caring about their surroundings. Because we’re human primates and not responsible enough to deal with complex change like this yet.
Not sure if any technology can make something real or less isolating.
You can mimic with with audio, video conferencing and now XR but it's till fake bits which can be manipulated by you know who or make you pay or watch ads which is what it will be. Should have named it Adverse.
When I see the facial rigs in VR chat, I see incessant youtube face.
Yeah, and Facebook was always about connecting ppl.
You are working Ina capitalistic system, the only motive for your company is profit for shareholders. When you are small and inconsequential, other motives might rule. But the trajectory is clear. If you succeed, your company turn into a paper clip machine for which humans are just meat for the grinder. This is how it always plays out.
You are working Ina capitalistic system, the only motive for your company is profit for shareholders. When you are small and inconsequential, other motives might rule. But the trajectory is clear. If you succeed, your company turn into a paper clip machine for which humans are just meat for the grinder. This is how it always plays out.
As opposed to what? A communist system where it's run by spotless, selfless bureaucrats? Do you have an alternative to our capitalistic system that results in lower corruption?
I’m so
You're really leaning your entire arm on the scale here.
People have a visceral reaction to the implication that donning a computer on your head and interacting via Corporate Memphis styled cartoon avatars is any sort of future that we should seek. It's that simple.
That video of a woman sitting lifelessly at her table while her avatar engages in hearty expressive conversation puts a lump of discomfort in my throat. It's a repulsively dystopian outcome for social interaction, but Meta wants to sell it as a future we're missing out on.
People do not like that. I've followed VR since it's infancy, owned most of the major headsets, used it in an office environment, and I will say while VR is cool, the promise of the metaverse is deeply offensive to the senses of most people, myself included.
People have a visceral reaction to the implication that donning a computer on your head and interacting via Corporate Memphis styled cartoon avatars is any sort of future that we should seek. It's that simple.
That video of a woman sitting lifelessly at her table while her avatar engages in hearty expressive conversation puts a lump of discomfort in my throat. It's a repulsively dystopian outcome for social interaction, but Meta wants to sell it as a future we're missing out on.
People do not like that. I've followed VR since it's infancy, owned most of the major headsets, used it in an office environment, and I will say while VR is cool, the promise of the metaverse is deeply offensive to the senses of most people, myself included.
The worst moment for me was after working by myself in VR logging in to a shared workspace and having a dude, muted, sat on the couch next to me. It loaded me in unmuted by default and I was talking to myself about what was happening.
It wasn’t at all clear that he was muted and I was unmuted and his hands were moving disconcertingly near where his body should have been. I started describing him to someone irl and his weird avatar head turns slowly toward me, hands still pulsating.
I said something like “uh shit I think he can hear me…?” and his floating weird head glitchily nodded, fingers creeping across his torso the whole time.
I logged out. That was it. So many things wrong I’m not sure I could find any reason why I’d try that again.
It wasn’t at all clear that he was muted and I was unmuted and his hands were moving disconcertingly near where his body should have been. I started describing him to someone irl and his weird avatar head turns slowly toward me, hands still pulsating.
I said something like “uh shit I think he can hear me…?” and his floating weird head glitchily nodded, fingers creeping across his torso the whole time.
I logged out. That was it. So many things wrong I’m not sure I could find any reason why I’d try that again.
So you had one bad experience in the immature stage of early development of a technology.
I don't understand how you extrapolate that to the entirety of every possibility it will ever have to offer. Yes Zuckerberg's metaverse vision is weird and creepy. But the underlying tech that is being developed to enable it to exist is transformational. The use cases will develop from what suceeds and people actually like. You could just as easily have painted a dystopian picture of people staring blankly at their iPhones walking down the street instead of talking to the person next to them.
I don't understand how you extrapolate that to the entirety of every possibility it will ever have to offer. Yes Zuckerberg's metaverse vision is weird and creepy. But the underlying tech that is being developed to enable it to exist is transformational. The use cases will develop from what suceeds and people actually like. You could just as easily have painted a dystopian picture of people staring blankly at their iPhones walking down the street instead of talking to the person next to them.
Some people seem to be defending VR itself vs my comment on the metaverse. I use VR a fair bit. I’m not excited specifically about the co-working/social use cases.
Presentations can be really cool.
I won’t get into whether the current state of smartphone use is or isn’t dystopian, at least not on HN.
Presentations can be really cool.
I won’t get into whether the current state of smartphone use is or isn’t dystopian, at least not on HN.
The previous comment reminds me of how older people used to describe the internet when it was slowly gaining traction. It’s obvious that there were a lot of rough edges, but it would be really short sighted not to see the future potential. The same thing happened to the first smart phones.
The www did things better than anything that already existed. Many things it offered were both massively useful and simply not exist before.
What exactly does "Metaverse" improve? What does it offer to the business world that cannot already be done?
And are these improvements worth a 1799$ Price-Point per employee, plus all the work & expenses imposed by integrating this into existing structures, and making sure its compliant to regulations and company rules?
And are these improvements worth enough to the employees themselves so they will be willing to wear a headset for 8h a day (Especially in labour markets that already face a supply problem)?
What exactly does "Metaverse" improve? What does it offer to the business world that cannot already be done?
And are these improvements worth a 1799$ Price-Point per employee, plus all the work & expenses imposed by integrating this into existing structures, and making sure its compliant to regulations and company rules?
And are these improvements worth enough to the employees themselves so they will be willing to wear a headset for 8h a day (Especially in labour markets that already face a supply problem)?
One of the many benefits that the metaverse introduces is immersion into virtual presences. You’d realize this if you ever tried anything more than Google cardboard. That’s not to say that VR doesn’t have many temporary downsides that will be addressed with tech improvements, but to not see its potential is the same way the internet was treated by older folks in the last century
> The www did things better than anything that already existed.
Older folks didn’t realize this since they waited a long time to actually try it, similar to how older folks treat VR today
Still, your statement on the internet was not true especially when it came to low res videos and many other flaws which we have since addressed over time. Back then surfing the internet also tied up a household’s main form of communication.
> The www did things better than anything that already existed.
Older folks didn’t realize this since they waited a long time to actually try it, similar to how older folks treat VR today
Still, your statement on the internet was not true especially when it came to low res videos and many other flaws which we have since addressed over time. Back then surfing the internet also tied up a household’s main form of communication.
You seem to me to be conflating the metaverse, which is what I was talking about, with VR, which is how I got into it.
I didn’t come late to any of these parties. There are some cool experiences in VR, including what you mentioned.
The internet was immediately transformative, though. There was no video, never mind the resolution. There was no audio. You waited minutes if not an hour for an image-heavy page to load. I loved it immediately.
Syncing up with a headset on in a shared coffee shop with hands and fingers is not a technology problem. It is down to not understanding the medium. My reaction was to this shortcoming in the makers of the product (in this case Immersed) and by extension Facebook’s vision of social.
We have no shortage of ways to simultaneously edit things. The idea that collaborative work in VR, which is currently already hard to work in, is the driving use case of VR adoption, especially in a “social” way, does not seem likely to me.
What’s the term for needlessly carrying over phenomenological cruft from a previous technology experience? Like analog dials on a digital touchscreen. VR (and whatever the metaverse will be) are stuck in it. They can come into their own only when something truly better (and probably unique to the medium) appears.
Right now the most interesting thing from VR for me is the use of its immersivity in psychological research.
I didn’t come late to any of these parties. There are some cool experiences in VR, including what you mentioned.
The internet was immediately transformative, though. There was no video, never mind the resolution. There was no audio. You waited minutes if not an hour for an image-heavy page to load. I loved it immediately.
Syncing up with a headset on in a shared coffee shop with hands and fingers is not a technology problem. It is down to not understanding the medium. My reaction was to this shortcoming in the makers of the product (in this case Immersed) and by extension Facebook’s vision of social.
We have no shortage of ways to simultaneously edit things. The idea that collaborative work in VR, which is currently already hard to work in, is the driving use case of VR adoption, especially in a “social” way, does not seem likely to me.
What’s the term for needlessly carrying over phenomenological cruft from a previous technology experience? Like analog dials on a digital touchscreen. VR (and whatever the metaverse will be) are stuck in it. They can come into their own only when something truly better (and probably unique to the medium) appears.
Right now the most interesting thing from VR for me is the use of its immersivity in psychological research.
> You’d realize this if you ever tried anything more than Google cardboard.
I have a quest2, and I think its a fantastic piece of hardware. I am having tons of fun with it and use it every day.
For gaming.
Because in gaming, immersion into the world is something I cherish and want, and am willing to spend money on.
I am not looking for immersion into a spreadsheet, or my source code.
There, I look for information density, ease of navigation, searchability, tooling, interoperability, the ability to share and collaborate quickly and efficiently, and to make my intentions available for processing by machines.
My question is: Which of these priorities does VR enhance, in what way, over the existing technology?
I have a quest2, and I think its a fantastic piece of hardware. I am having tons of fun with it and use it every day.
For gaming.
Because in gaming, immersion into the world is something I cherish and want, and am willing to spend money on.
I am not looking for immersion into a spreadsheet, or my source code.
There, I look for information density, ease of navigation, searchability, tooling, interoperability, the ability to share and collaborate quickly and efficiently, and to make my intentions available for processing by machines.
My question is: Which of these priorities does VR enhance, in what way, over the existing technology?
How about a near infinite canvas with 6DOF for a Visio app along with social immersion? How about a desktop the size of your physical room?
You have to try the productivity apps before you pan it
You have to try the productivity apps before you pan it
I am not looking for "social immersion" when drawing a diagram. I am looking for getting information into and out of systems quickly and efficiently.
And I already have "infinite canvases" in drawing apps, at least until my systems 64GB of RAM are full. What I don't have, and also don't want (because I cannot see how this would increase my productivity), is the necessity to walk around my room or perform gestures with controllers to navigate said canvas (or desktop), when I can do the same with a quick and precise flick of my mouse or a keyboard-shortcut.
And I already have "infinite canvases" in drawing apps, at least until my systems 64GB of RAM are full. What I don't have, and also don't want (because I cannot see how this would increase my productivity), is the necessity to walk around my room or perform gestures with controllers to navigate said canvas (or desktop), when I can do the same with a quick and precise flick of my mouse or a keyboard-shortcut.
> am not looking for "social immersion" when drawing a diagram.
"social immersion" was quick wording to say “working on a viseo diagram with someone else in a shared semi-physical space”. This is better than a flat zoom session.
> And I already have "infinite canvases" in drawing apps
No, because it’s not the same. You can’t see as much of it as you can in VR. There’s a difference in having that workspace visible all around you vs having it trapped inside a small 28” monitor
It’s really hard to believe that you’ve even used VR for even gaming just based on your comments. You don’t seem to have experienced breaking out of a flat 2d screen. You really have to try it before making a lot of poor assumptions
"social immersion" was quick wording to say “working on a viseo diagram with someone else in a shared semi-physical space”. This is better than a flat zoom session.
> And I already have "infinite canvases" in drawing apps
No, because it’s not the same. You can’t see as much of it as you can in VR. There’s a difference in having that workspace visible all around you vs having it trapped inside a small 28” monitor
It’s really hard to believe that you’ve even used VR for even gaming just based on your comments. You don’t seem to have experienced breaking out of a flat 2d screen. You really have to try it before making a lot of poor assumptions
> This is better than a flat zoom session.
Why? What specifically makes it better as in more efficient, faster, easier to use? I am not using Viseo specifically for making diagrams, but the applications we use allow for collaborative editing. If my colleague wants to show me something he just draws it on his screen and I see the edits in real time. I also see a location indicator of his mouse.
How does seeing his avatar in a virtual space improve upon this? Does it offer me more information density? Is the information easier to digest? Is it easier to edit the diagram?
> You can’t see as much of it as you can in VR.
I can see my entire workspace if I want, I just have to zoom out. Sure, I can't see details then. The same is true for seeing something in some distance in a virtual space. So what difference does it make in that regard?
Why? What specifically makes it better as in more efficient, faster, easier to use? I am not using Viseo specifically for making diagrams, but the applications we use allow for collaborative editing. If my colleague wants to show me something he just draws it on his screen and I see the edits in real time. I also see a location indicator of his mouse.
How does seeing his avatar in a virtual space improve upon this? Does it offer me more information density? Is the information easier to digest? Is it easier to edit the diagram?
> You can’t see as much of it as you can in VR.
I can see my entire workspace if I want, I just have to zoom out. Sure, I can't see details then. The same is true for seeing something in some distance in a virtual space. So what difference does it make in that regard?
That sanitized corporate dystopia wants to have the same restrictions, scarcity and limitations as real life.
The theory: you could let you explore limitless worlds only bound by your imagination and current compute power.
Current meta vision: Horrible outdated corporate cartoon graphics so you can go to a bland sanitized online store to buy an NFT picture of some shoes, and look at a horrible cartoon representation of the Eiffel tower.
Meta should be classed as an enemy of humanity.
The theory: you could let you explore limitless worlds only bound by your imagination and current compute power.
Current meta vision: Horrible outdated corporate cartoon graphics so you can go to a bland sanitized online store to buy an NFT picture of some shoes, and look at a horrible cartoon representation of the Eiffel tower.
Meta should be classed as an enemy of humanity.
Absolutely. It's about time we raised our heads and looked at where humanity is heading. I feel bad for my kids if this is it.
Putting on my VR headset to get in a meeting with the rest of my team does not sound nearly as unreasonable though. It could be the same as starting zoom.
Like, at this price point, and with these features that isn’t it, but I can see it in a non-dystopian way.
It’s just that it’s Facebook providing the hardware that scares me.
Like, at this price point, and with these features that isn’t it, but I can see it in a non-dystopian way.
It’s just that it’s Facebook providing the hardware that scares me.
> "It’s just that it’s Facebook providing the hardware that scares me."
This is the key part. VR somehow skipped right into "walled garden" and "platfrom" territory right off the bat. It's not just hardware that is interchangeable and multi-use with pluggable things and apps. I think a lot of the people weary of Facebook's VR headset would be put at ease to a large degree if this was an 100% open ecosystem where just one of Facebook's entities is providing the hardware.
This is the key part. VR somehow skipped right into "walled garden" and "platfrom" territory right off the bat. It's not just hardware that is interchangeable and multi-use with pluggable things and apps. I think a lot of the people weary of Facebook's VR headset would be put at ease to a large degree if this was an 100% open ecosystem where just one of Facebook's entities is providing the hardware.
> VR somehow skipped right into "walled garden" and "platfrom" territory right off the bat
Thats not what happened. One of the biggest walled gardens spent a tiny portion of their massive wealth to move into another market by purchasing the market leader.
Its this behaviour that needs to stop. Corps should be restricted to a single trade category.
Thats not what happened. One of the biggest walled gardens spent a tiny portion of their massive wealth to move into another market by purchasing the market leader.
Its this behaviour that needs to stop. Corps should be restricted to a single trade category.
> Corps should be restricted to a single trade category.
Can you come up with a definition of trade category that is legally useful and would prevent Meta from getting into VR hardware?
Can you come up with a definition of trade category that is legally useful and would prevent Meta from getting into VR hardware?
I dont need to come up with one - they already exist in the form of trademark (WIPO NCL) classification.
I suppose the hardware would be class 28, the app store would be class 35, there are other classes that would be applicable too given they also provide services, etc.
Preferably they would be even more granular than that - I believe the chinese system is a bit more detailed in that area.
I suppose the hardware would be class 28, the app store would be class 35, there are other classes that would be applicable too given they also provide services, etc.
Preferably they would be even more granular than that - I believe the chinese system is a bit more detailed in that area.
Those of us who feel this...
> Putting on my VR headset to get in a meeting with the rest of my team does not sound nearly as unreasonable
... are a minority vastly overrepresented by the website we're on.
The company I worked at during the bulk of the pandemic let us all expense headsets to have meetings.
Getting into VR the first time is not a seamless experience in the slightest, so trying to get serious work done in meetings took weeks because of the mix of experience levels.
Then there was the fact that at the end of the day we live in a flat 2D world of software. Trying to hit touch targets meant for a mouse with a magic wand is maddening.
Then there's just the entire uncanniness of avatars that we're nowhere near solving. VR avatars are consistently forced to take on cartoonish proportions because we can't render convincing customizable human avatars on these headsets and won't be near that any time soon. Same goes with the backdrops, which end up being "infected" with the cartoonishness to avoid clashing.
-
But you know what the death knell was for our VR use? At the end of the day, even at its best, it was the same as starting Zoom.
For non-enthusiasts it needs to be stomping Zoom.
They don't want to strap a screen to their face just to do the stuff that they were doing by sitting in front of a laptop. At the end of the day, it was "ok enough", and that was precisely why it fizzled out. General apathy at the fact that, this was not an improvement of exactly what we had been doing for months before, was enough to get people suggesting zoom the moment an issue cropped up, and eventually we all just dropped the headsets.
> Putting on my VR headset to get in a meeting with the rest of my team does not sound nearly as unreasonable
... are a minority vastly overrepresented by the website we're on.
The company I worked at during the bulk of the pandemic let us all expense headsets to have meetings.
Getting into VR the first time is not a seamless experience in the slightest, so trying to get serious work done in meetings took weeks because of the mix of experience levels.
Then there was the fact that at the end of the day we live in a flat 2D world of software. Trying to hit touch targets meant for a mouse with a magic wand is maddening.
Then there's just the entire uncanniness of avatars that we're nowhere near solving. VR avatars are consistently forced to take on cartoonish proportions because we can't render convincing customizable human avatars on these headsets and won't be near that any time soon. Same goes with the backdrops, which end up being "infected" with the cartoonishness to avoid clashing.
-
But you know what the death knell was for our VR use? At the end of the day, even at its best, it was the same as starting Zoom.
For non-enthusiasts it needs to be stomping Zoom.
They don't want to strap a screen to their face just to do the stuff that they were doing by sitting in front of a laptop. At the end of the day, it was "ok enough", and that was precisely why it fizzled out. General apathy at the fact that, this was not an improvement of exactly what we had been doing for months before, was enough to get people suggesting zoom the moment an issue cropped up, and eventually we all just dropped the headsets.
Re: usage for work. I wonder how using VR googles can actually work in any sort of public space (like an office). Since your vision is absolutely obscured, it basically requires absolute trust of the people around you. Other people can not only steal your wallet from your bag (that could still happen in a regular office, people leave private stuff unattended), but can for example come close to you and touch your hair or do other kinds of pervy things. I can't imagine women not being worried about this.
A solution would be to give each employee a tiny office with a door and a lock, which wouldn't be a bad outcome of VR to be honest...
A solution would be to give each employee a tiny office with a door and a lock, which wouldn't be a bad outcome of VR to be honest...
The headsets have cameras on the outside your vision can "pass through" and you can see the world around you - just with virtual objects in it. This gives you a mixed reality experience rather than a virtual world. So for example you see the cafe around you but with you laptop screen hovering above the table and your australian friend bob sat on the other side.
One of the big feature improvements on this unit is that those cameras area lot better.
Another feature is that the headset uses some kind of lidar to map out the space around you, so that even if you are in an immersive experience objects and people coming into the real world area you marked out will get overlayed into your virtual world, so you can see bob sneaking up behind you.
These headsets are pretty cool and the consumer one is pretty cheap. Well worth getting one even if you are intending to sell it on after experimenting.
One of the big feature improvements on this unit is that those cameras area lot better.
Another feature is that the headset uses some kind of lidar to map out the space around you, so that even if you are in an immersive experience objects and people coming into the real world area you marked out will get overlayed into your virtual world, so you can see bob sneaking up behind you.
These headsets are pretty cool and the consumer one is pretty cheap. Well worth getting one even if you are intending to sell it on after experimenting.
I am a connoisseur of VR from back when you could count the polygons on 3D models. I am definitely an enthusiast, and even got lucky enough to develop some VR applications (mostly for HTC Vive). So I'm definitely all in on VR!
But I'm all out when it comes to Meta and Facebook, who have repeatedly proven they are simply a bad actor. The gross privacy negligence, the disgusting mistreatment of their users and advertisers alike, and being a major factor in today's terrible social issues, Meta is a huge net negative for humanity.
They can hand those out for free, and I will still not take it. I am done feeding them data. I want no part of their ecosystem, even by proxy. It doesn't even matter what the product does - I will not take it from Meta.
I realize some people here work for Meta and it's not personal. But you must encounter this opinion from time to time. I have friends who work at Meta and it's incredible to see how they brace for impact every time they tell someone where they work. I feel bad for them, but Meta earned this notorious reputation with noticeable effort.
But I'm all out when it comes to Meta and Facebook, who have repeatedly proven they are simply a bad actor. The gross privacy negligence, the disgusting mistreatment of their users and advertisers alike, and being a major factor in today's terrible social issues, Meta is a huge net negative for humanity.
They can hand those out for free, and I will still not take it. I am done feeding them data. I want no part of their ecosystem, even by proxy. It doesn't even matter what the product does - I will not take it from Meta.
I realize some people here work for Meta and it's not personal. But you must encounter this opinion from time to time. I have friends who work at Meta and it's incredible to see how they brace for impact every time they tell someone where they work. I feel bad for them, but Meta earned this notorious reputation with noticeable effort.
HN generally had good SNR. However when it comes to certain things remotely involving a controversial party, it can inspire lots of off topic/uninteresting/uninformative commenting. Just have to tune it out. Anywho, I totally agree that whatever happens with the metaverse doesn’t make their R&D any less valuable—-motion handling, their work into optics, neuronal signal decoding and a bunch of other multidisciplinary areas of research they’re reaching into. It’s really cool to see some of the things out of Meta AI/Reality Labs, and I hope they continue keeping things open.
> HN generally had good SNR
This was never true and perpetuating that myth contributes to the worst characteristic of HN.
This was never true and perpetuating that myth contributes to the worst characteristic of HN.
It's almost as if "S" is different things to different people.
How far back have you been lurking?
> I'm baffled by the reaction here. I agree that productive VR work is still not ready for prime time, but most of you haven't tried any of this (let alone the new hardware) and you're already dismissing even the possibility of it becoming good in the future. Reminds me of the Dropbox thread. You know which one.
This is Hacker News' reaction to almost every new thing that isn't already several years past the early adopter end of the curve (crypto, VR, a lot of bio). The community has become a bit stiff and conservative, for a tech community.
This is Hacker News' reaction to almost every new thing that isn't already several years past the early adopter end of the curve (crypto, VR, a lot of bio). The community has become a bit stiff and conservative, for a tech community.
>The community has become a bit stiff and conservative, for a tech community.
A natural reaction to decades of "overpromise, under deliver".
A natural reaction to decades of "overpromise, under deliver".
I’d argue that naive tech-positivity has run its course and more initial believers are sobering up to the reality of what kind of monsters this debonair optimism helped create.
Yes I hate Meta but that’s not the reason for my opposition towards this. Even Microsoft announced an integration and I don’t hate that company.
In aggregate, company's are pouring billions of dollars and who know how many person hours into VR meetings. Engineers are a limited resource. Investment is a limited resource. This could be going towards trying to solve many more useful problems.
I see people talking about the immersiveness being the biggest selling point. That's so true for video games but do people really think immersion is what's missing with remote work? I've been a fully remote employee for many years. It's the real time chat, drastically improved document collaboration, and video conferencing that has made the biggest impact. I've never yearned to be taken out of the coffee shop I'm working in or my home office and transported to a virtual conference room where I have to physically move my arms and head just like the real world.
Just because some tech works for one use case doesn't mean it does for another. Our touch screens are great on a phone. Terrible in a car where you need to be able to control things without focusing your eyes on it.
People look at this new tech and are flying to it because it's the new shiny thing. If you're in this group, think about what a marvel a screen, keyboard, and mouse are. You only twitch your eyes and barely move your hands and fingers at all. Yet, you can rapidly type, switch between totally different applications, scroll huge canvases of interfaces, etc all while barely expending any energy at all. That's that I call efficiency.
In aggregate, company's are pouring billions of dollars and who know how many person hours into VR meetings. Engineers are a limited resource. Investment is a limited resource. This could be going towards trying to solve many more useful problems.
I see people talking about the immersiveness being the biggest selling point. That's so true for video games but do people really think immersion is what's missing with remote work? I've been a fully remote employee for many years. It's the real time chat, drastically improved document collaboration, and video conferencing that has made the biggest impact. I've never yearned to be taken out of the coffee shop I'm working in or my home office and transported to a virtual conference room where I have to physically move my arms and head just like the real world.
Just because some tech works for one use case doesn't mean it does for another. Our touch screens are great on a phone. Terrible in a car where you need to be able to control things without focusing your eyes on it.
People look at this new tech and are flying to it because it's the new shiny thing. If you're in this group, think about what a marvel a screen, keyboard, and mouse are. You only twitch your eyes and barely move your hands and fingers at all. Yet, you can rapidly type, switch between totally different applications, scroll huge canvases of interfaces, etc all while barely expending any energy at all. That's that I call efficiency.
> Also what I really don't understand is how anyone can have anything against them spending $$$ on R&D? Worst case scenario: their whole productivity angle doesn't work out, they lose billions upon billions in the coming decade and eventually scrap the whole thing.
Err well people who own Meta, which is likely a lot of people here through shares, investment funds, pensions, probably don’t want that do they?
Err well people who own Meta, which is likely a lot of people here through shares, investment funds, pensions, probably don’t want that do they?
I think the metaverse is something very cool and for it to be associated with Facebook which comes across as a toxic company causes resentment. Something cool and futuristic that I've read and dreamed about has been tainted before coming to fruition because of who is making it.
I hear great things about the headsets but I just dont trust the company that makes them.
I a not dismissing the possibility of it becoming "good" (as in "works well technically"). Throw enough money and talent at almost any technical problem, and the solution can become "good".
I doubt a wide adoption in the market. Just because something new has been created doesn't mean the market will adopt it. It has to have a tangible advantage. If it is meant to replace something, like existing workflows and methods it needs to have an advantage so massive, that it isn't just better than what exists already, but is worth the cost of any transitions as well.
And I just don't see that.
Why would I wear a device, that is still big even in its newest incarnation, on my head when I have 3 ultra-high-definition monitors? Why would I use controllers when I have a mouse, keyboard and a touch-sensitive screen? I already have video chat, speech recognition, chat, mail etc. at my disposal. I already have all these forms of communication on a device that fits in my pocket for when I'm out of office. I already have all these things, and they work, they are configured, they are integrated in my employers existing infrastructure, workflows, methods, they are compliant with whatever regulations apply, they are tried, tested and budgeted for.
I mean, how would I even make the case for this to my employer? "Hey, Mr. CEO sir, my team needs devices that we have never used before in this company, to do exactly what we do now, except you would be able to watch our avatars sitting in front of virtuals screens while we do it, that is, if you wear one as well. Btw. the thing costs 1799 $ per employee."
I doubt a wide adoption in the market. Just because something new has been created doesn't mean the market will adopt it. It has to have a tangible advantage. If it is meant to replace something, like existing workflows and methods it needs to have an advantage so massive, that it isn't just better than what exists already, but is worth the cost of any transitions as well.
And I just don't see that.
Why would I wear a device, that is still big even in its newest incarnation, on my head when I have 3 ultra-high-definition monitors? Why would I use controllers when I have a mouse, keyboard and a touch-sensitive screen? I already have video chat, speech recognition, chat, mail etc. at my disposal. I already have all these forms of communication on a device that fits in my pocket for when I'm out of office. I already have all these things, and they work, they are configured, they are integrated in my employers existing infrastructure, workflows, methods, they are compliant with whatever regulations apply, they are tried, tested and budgeted for.
I mean, how would I even make the case for this to my employer? "Hey, Mr. CEO sir, my team needs devices that we have never used before in this company, to do exactly what we do now, except you would be able to watch our avatars sitting in front of virtuals screens while we do it, that is, if you wear one as well. Btw. the thing costs 1799 $ per employee."
There are more important problems than low latency rendering pipelines in the world that they could be solving instead.
What Meta is doing, is creating themselves a platform where they can sell ads, because they've been hurt by recent privacy changes by Apple and fear the market share of Google Chrome.
What Meta is doing, is creating themselves a platform where they can sell ads, because they've been hurt by recent privacy changes by Apple and fear the market share of Google Chrome.
> Reminds me of the Dropbox thread. You know which one.
I didn't see the thread until later but back then I thought the Dropbox was a sucker that I was taking advantage of because I could get extra 50 MB or whatever by just walking up to someone in my dorm and referring them to use Dropbox, even if they had no intention to continue using Dropbox...
I want to be less naive now. Facebook (it doesn't deserve the Meta name) will NEVER, EVER do anything for "good". I believe it simply is not capable of doing any "good". We cannot let Facebook be the gatekeepers of a pay toilet, much less the (purported) future of our communications.
Back to the topic though, I thought xbox kinect was trying to solve all of these problems a long time ago with just a couple of cameras. what happened?
I didn't see the thread until later but back then I thought the Dropbox was a sucker that I was taking advantage of because I could get extra 50 MB or whatever by just walking up to someone in my dorm and referring them to use Dropbox, even if they had no intention to continue using Dropbox...
I want to be less naive now. Facebook (it doesn't deserve the Meta name) will NEVER, EVER do anything for "good". I believe it simply is not capable of doing any "good". We cannot let Facebook be the gatekeepers of a pay toilet, much less the (purported) future of our communications.
Back to the topic though, I thought xbox kinect was trying to solve all of these problems a long time ago with just a couple of cameras. what happened?
$1500.00 as a hardware loss leader for Perky Pat 2022 versus eat food and pay too much for freaking rent.
Humans do not own VR anything.
Humans do not own VR anything.
You earned my upvote with the PKD 3SOPA reference.
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Luckey: an evil alt-right-wing extremist pulling the wool over people’s eyes with his robotic right hand, artificial eyes, and steel teeth, who returned from an expedition to the Prox system in possession of a new alien hallucinogen Chew-Z to compete with Can-D, to perpetrate an uncanny creepy plot about adults on drugs playing together with physical miniaturized doll houses in order to escape their dystopian existence by retreating into to a mega-corporation controlled virtual reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stigmata_of_Palmer_E...
Silicon Valley Keenan Feldspar's VR (S4E8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8MAV9jhf04
Silicon Valley (HBO) - HooliVR Goggles (Phone Exploding) S04E09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUAnN-FXcdE
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Luckey: an evil alt-right-wing extremist pulling the wool over people’s eyes with his robotic right hand, artificial eyes, and steel teeth, who returned from an expedition to the Prox system in possession of a new alien hallucinogen Chew-Z to compete with Can-D, to perpetrate an uncanny creepy plot about adults on drugs playing together with physical miniaturized doll houses in order to escape their dystopian existence by retreating into to a mega-corporation controlled virtual reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stigmata_of_Palmer_E...
Silicon Valley Keenan Feldspar's VR (S4E8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8MAV9jhf04
Silicon Valley (HBO) - HooliVR Goggles (Phone Exploding) S04E09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUAnN-FXcdE
ctrl+f "stigmata"
Damn it, someone made the joke.
Don't forget the promise Palmer Luc-- I mean Eldritch makes Mayerson: that Chew-Z offers incredible opportunity to allow formative experiences customized to the user, yet Lucke-- I mean Eldritch is so controlling of the shared hallucination that Mayerson surmises death is the correct course of action.
Damn it, someone made the joke.
Don't forget the promise Palmer Luc-- I mean Eldritch makes Mayerson: that Chew-Z offers incredible opportunity to allow formative experiences customized to the user, yet Lucke-- I mean Eldritch is so controlling of the shared hallucination that Mayerson surmises death is the correct course of action.
At least Palmer Eldritch's sister never married a "gaslighting creep" like Matt Gaetz, and he never threw a fundraiser for Dr. Oz where the quack Doctor gave a speech in front of Adolph Hitler's car.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matt-gaetzs-future-sister-in-l...
https://deadline.com/2022/10/dr-oz-adolf-hitler-senate-fundr...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matt-gaetzs-future-sister-in-l...
https://deadline.com/2022/10/dr-oz-adolf-hitler-senate-fundr...
By the way, the comments in the "Dropbox thread" are overwhelmingly supporting and positive.
> Then they've still invented a lot of super interesting tech along the way.
Google has also developed a lot of interesting tech along the way. Most of it is junk you can buy for $5 at the Salvation Army now.
The problem with "Meta" is that it's pushing something without any buy-in from an audience that cares about it.
The actual audience for VR is almost completely at the early adopter, 1974 Altair stage. We're at the stage where the enthusiasts are figuring out what works and what doesn't. That's mostly what social interactions will work at first, and what hardware mods are most important to expand those.
As much crap as people give Ready Player One, there's an analogy in there. Facebook is the mega corp trying to take over. They're the "Innovative Online Industries (IOI)" from the novel, a "multinational corporation bent on a well-funded effort to find the Easter egg in order to take control of the OASIS and monetize it." (Direct quote from Wikipedia.)
As a counter example, let me tell you about an early experience I had in Second Life circa 2005 or so.
I got involved with SL for a few years back then. There was one singular critical moment I experienced that convinced me there was something very special happening back then which I really haven't experienced again yet.
In SL your avatar can fly around. Here I am on my low level 2005 pc and low res 2005 monitor with 2005 headphones. I'm cruising around a bit I fly over this hill into one of the weirdest things I had ever seen at that point in my life of 25 years.
I fly over the crest of this hill and run into an amphitheater with a stage. Same thing we've all seen dozens of times in real life. There are dozens of other avatars all in the crowd sitting in different areas of the amphitheater. Most of the audience was oddly wearing furry costumes.
On the stage is a band of other characters, all doing different animations of playing fake instruments.
So the way I'm describing this seems pretty normal these days and nothing impressive. But this was 2005.
What hit me really hard is that these are all real people experiencing the same event AT THE SAME TIME. That was the aha moment.
The band wasn't just npc characters. There was an actual band of 5 or so people together in the real world streaming their show into SL for a bunch of other people from all over the world to watch in real time. Sure, it's like 50 people dressed as sexy foxes and stuff, but they were all witnessing this musical performance in real time through this weird 3rd party virtual interface that very accurately replicated a real world experience in terms of spatial placement and audio (to some extent).
For me, it was this super weird magical moment that gave me a glimpse of what the future actually could be. Everything was built by the people from their avatars to the band people to the person that designed and built the stage and amphitheater. And it was in a shared virtual/physical space where I was able to randomly encounter it just by flying around and crossing a certain hill.
To this day I've probably had a similar AHA moment a handful of times.
Today you can watch bathtub fun time on Twitch, or people begging for subs on YouTube, or people spamming TikTok to promote their SoundCloud accounts.
But none of that comes close to the experience of discovery in 2005 of finding an impromptu rock show in Second Life with furry foxes watching in real-time.
In modern times, I haven't bought a VR headset yet. I've played with it when available, and I've seen a taste of VRChat and some other awesomely weird modern experiences.
I'm firmly convinced that whatever actually ends up becoming "the metaverse" isn't coming from an out of touch older millennial billionaire who took the wrong message from a particular book/movie or it's actual spiritual predecessor Snowcrash.
There's a last sentence here that I tried to write a few times and failed. Weirdos is wrong, so is "alternate thinkers". Young people? That's wrong too because since 2005 Second Life's population of users has been mostly flat but consistent, and they tend to be older tech savvy folks that have used these platforms for decades before they got "popular".
I don't have a label, and that's probably the point. There eventually may be lots of people who dive into "the metaverse", but those people are so diverse that IOI/Meta isn't going to be able to dictate whatever it becomes.
Google has also developed a lot of interesting tech along the way. Most of it is junk you can buy for $5 at the Salvation Army now.
The problem with "Meta" is that it's pushing something without any buy-in from an audience that cares about it.
The actual audience for VR is almost completely at the early adopter, 1974 Altair stage. We're at the stage where the enthusiasts are figuring out what works and what doesn't. That's mostly what social interactions will work at first, and what hardware mods are most important to expand those.
As much crap as people give Ready Player One, there's an analogy in there. Facebook is the mega corp trying to take over. They're the "Innovative Online Industries (IOI)" from the novel, a "multinational corporation bent on a well-funded effort to find the Easter egg in order to take control of the OASIS and monetize it." (Direct quote from Wikipedia.)
As a counter example, let me tell you about an early experience I had in Second Life circa 2005 or so.
I got involved with SL for a few years back then. There was one singular critical moment I experienced that convinced me there was something very special happening back then which I really haven't experienced again yet.
In SL your avatar can fly around. Here I am on my low level 2005 pc and low res 2005 monitor with 2005 headphones. I'm cruising around a bit I fly over this hill into one of the weirdest things I had ever seen at that point in my life of 25 years.
I fly over the crest of this hill and run into an amphitheater with a stage. Same thing we've all seen dozens of times in real life. There are dozens of other avatars all in the crowd sitting in different areas of the amphitheater. Most of the audience was oddly wearing furry costumes.
On the stage is a band of other characters, all doing different animations of playing fake instruments.
So the way I'm describing this seems pretty normal these days and nothing impressive. But this was 2005.
What hit me really hard is that these are all real people experiencing the same event AT THE SAME TIME. That was the aha moment.
The band wasn't just npc characters. There was an actual band of 5 or so people together in the real world streaming their show into SL for a bunch of other people from all over the world to watch in real time. Sure, it's like 50 people dressed as sexy foxes and stuff, but they were all witnessing this musical performance in real time through this weird 3rd party virtual interface that very accurately replicated a real world experience in terms of spatial placement and audio (to some extent).
For me, it was this super weird magical moment that gave me a glimpse of what the future actually could be. Everything was built by the people from their avatars to the band people to the person that designed and built the stage and amphitheater. And it was in a shared virtual/physical space where I was able to randomly encounter it just by flying around and crossing a certain hill.
To this day I've probably had a similar AHA moment a handful of times.
Today you can watch bathtub fun time on Twitch, or people begging for subs on YouTube, or people spamming TikTok to promote their SoundCloud accounts.
But none of that comes close to the experience of discovery in 2005 of finding an impromptu rock show in Second Life with furry foxes watching in real-time.
In modern times, I haven't bought a VR headset yet. I've played with it when available, and I've seen a taste of VRChat and some other awesomely weird modern experiences.
I'm firmly convinced that whatever actually ends up becoming "the metaverse" isn't coming from an out of touch older millennial billionaire who took the wrong message from a particular book/movie or it's actual spiritual predecessor Snowcrash.
There's a last sentence here that I tried to write a few times and failed. Weirdos is wrong, so is "alternate thinkers". Young people? That's wrong too because since 2005 Second Life's population of users has been mostly flat but consistent, and they tend to be older tech savvy folks that have used these platforms for decades before they got "popular".
I don't have a label, and that's probably the point. There eventually may be lots of people who dive into "the metaverse", but those people are so diverse that IOI/Meta isn't going to be able to dictate whatever it becomes.
thanks for saying what i couldnt put into words like that!
I think the tech is super cool and people shouldn’t hate that much on Meta
I don't hate Meta/Facebook, I like it as much as cancer.
Super cool tech is not a free pass. The tech doesn't stand on it's own, the Quest Pro is an integral part of a dystopian world ruled by Meta.
It's not hate, I just don't want to support or enable Meta's dystopia.
Super cool tech is not a free pass. The tech doesn't stand on it's own, the Quest Pro is an integral part of a dystopian world ruled by Meta.
It's not hate, I just don't want to support or enable Meta's dystopia.
I would be really surprised if they were "inventing" high-dpi displays or new lenses. The likely scenario to me seems that they would just buy what is already available or perhaps pay another shop to customize something for them, not invent a new technology.
What it really seems like they are doing is having a serious case of NIH syndrome and re-writing a bunch of stuff that already exists elsewhere.
People hate it because Facebook has not proven itself to be a good steward of technology, and I think people are more broadly questioning whether we should elevate these companies to stewards of our lives in the first place.
What it really seems like they are doing is having a serious case of NIH syndrome and re-writing a bunch of stuff that already exists elsewhere.
People hate it because Facebook has not proven itself to be a good steward of technology, and I think people are more broadly questioning whether we should elevate these companies to stewards of our lives in the first place.
That's because you don't understand their business model.
I would be super excited for this if it was from any other company.
But as things stand, the more successful this thing is, the more Facebook thrives.
I really can’t cheer on anything that prolongs the life of Facebook.
But as things stand, the more successful this thing is, the more Facebook thrives.
I really can’t cheer on anything that prolongs the life of Facebook.
Having tried and used current VR hardware for many hours, often long sessions, I can absolutely see the potential. But the hardware and sofware has a long long way to go. Looking just at Meta and the Meta Quest 2, the top 10-20 apps are the same today as they were a year ago. There are some cool fitness type apps, but for the time being its a novelty and I don't see doing meetings in VR as something I have any need or desire to do once the novelty wears off.
Isn’t it tech policing itself? Meta is structured in a way no one can say no to Zuckerberg. That pretty much leaves only general pushback and outright legislation to counter his judgements. All of them individually and collectively.
So yes a tech forum is alight with negativity. We’re also one of the canaries in the mine that should be listened to in this.
He’s eroded freedoms (misinformation, rampant gaslighting, bullying, etc), invaded peoples privacy, and there’s no remedy but defection.
So yes a tech forum is alight with negativity. We’re also one of the canaries in the mine that should be listened to in this.
He’s eroded freedoms (misinformation, rampant gaslighting, bullying, etc), invaded peoples privacy, and there’s no remedy but defection.
Meta makes the world a worse place. It always has. The flagship product, FB, was built to creep on women. The sooner Meta dies, the better for our planet.
If the tech is so interesting then why is the "tech specs" tab filled with no substance? I can barely begin to speculate what would make this hardware stand out over the competition, let alone make confident conclusions. The hardware having the potential to be cool isn't a strong point to make because the people selling the hardware aren't even making it.
The last thing people want is more monitoring of their work. VR work, compared to video calls, is more monitoring. You could have checked your phone during video calls which you couldn't do it with VR.
And neither video calls nor VR is proven to be more productive than emails.
And neither video calls nor VR is proven to be more productive than emails.
There's some truth in that. People are uncomfortable with the thought of becoming (even more?) Mark's serfs and want to dispel that by magically willing the tech into being garbage.
The fact is that in 2022 many parts of bigtech-skeptic narrative are being planted in the mainstream culture and politics: the mature thing would be to lean into that, as a responsible technologist, and not rely on nerdy rituals of thrashing 'ware on forums. As much as it is fun, it serves a different purpose. I mean, if it is dangerous for us as human beings and citizens, just say it aloud, we won't be saved by the tech being buggy.
Myself, I have enough stuff to do in the big screen and audio system world and don't crave VR immersion, though it was fun when I tried. But I can see the potential and know that people are already using it in gaming and virtual workspaces. You can potentially buy one simple thing for your computer, not waste that much space and have the immersive experience. One thing I want is that it is open (software and hardware wise) and not connected to any surveillance machine, like we should be able to expect from a freaking appliance.
The fact is that in 2022 many parts of bigtech-skeptic narrative are being planted in the mainstream culture and politics: the mature thing would be to lean into that, as a responsible technologist, and not rely on nerdy rituals of thrashing 'ware on forums. As much as it is fun, it serves a different purpose. I mean, if it is dangerous for us as human beings and citizens, just say it aloud, we won't be saved by the tech being buggy.
Myself, I have enough stuff to do in the big screen and audio system world and don't crave VR immersion, though it was fun when I tried. But I can see the potential and know that people are already using it in gaming and virtual workspaces. You can potentially buy one simple thing for your computer, not waste that much space and have the immersive experience. One thing I want is that it is open (software and hardware wise) and not connected to any surveillance machine, like we should be able to expect from a freaking appliance.
I'm a user of Immersed (an VR for productivity app) and I use to code frequently.
I wanted QPro to be a success. I expected at least a reasonable bump in resolution. What was released is just disappointing and I can not justify paying that price point. I would go for Pico4 before of QPro.
I wanted QPro to be a success. I expected at least a reasonable bump in resolution. What was released is just disappointing and I can not justify paying that price point. I would go for Pico4 before of QPro.
[deleted]
Zuck, has wanted to build VR social world for years. How do you see that relating to his other visions /ambitions ? What do you think people will really find meaningful in this VR product 10 years in future?
>Reminds me of the Dropbox thread
Cute. Whenever someone wants to defend their dear little niche/dead end product they always make that reference on HN. Similarly on slashdot with the ipod comment. Yet there is a subtlety that every person who makes this broken analogy are missing (apart from the fact, that, well, if someone made a book that kept a record of all instances this analogy was made on HN, it would be hard to miss the fact that.. no, X pet product defended Y times on hn didn't become the next dropbox)
The criticisms against dropbox and the first ipod were nerds who thought there was already, -within the same product category- good enough things, underestimating the importance of things like UI, accessibility, portability (in the case of the ipod when people compared it to the gigantic creative jukeboxes and mp3 CD-R players).
They were criticism targeted at a single product, not an entire category, because no one sane would think there's no use for tools that remotely sync documents, or gives you the ability to listen to your entire music collection on the go. Dropbox and the ipod were great, refined products, but products that stood on the shoulders of giants and markets that were already plentiful by the time they came out. Keeping backups of documents is a need a great amount of people have. People were already listening to portable music when the ipod came out. They were product that did important things better than anyone else on the market, but products that entered markets that were already quite mature. Meanwhile VR as a whole is still a niche.
VR enthusiasts are more like the nerds of old who made fun of dropbox. They have very little understanding of the wants of the general public. Shut yourself in a closed uncanny valley virtual world wearing an uncomfortable headset for hours? This is more like the people who thought rolling your own was better than dropbox.
Zuckerberg is not the next Steve Jobs. If anything, he's the carbon copy of the typical slashdot reader. His mindset is thoroughly alien to the human mind.
https://qz.com/1331956/mark-zuckerberg-keeps-forgetting-abou...
>In the Recode interview, Zuckerberg falls back on the term “use case” to describe people using Facebook Live to stream their own suicides in real time. He repeats this characterization, going on to call suicide-streaming a “use” of Facebook Live: “There were a small number of uses of this, but people were using it to…show themselves self-harm or there were even a few cases of suicide.”
This is the sort of people who think the future of humanity is to enclose yourself harder in your little virtual bubble. The everyday man finds this sort repellent.
Cute. Whenever someone wants to defend their dear little niche/dead end product they always make that reference on HN. Similarly on slashdot with the ipod comment. Yet there is a subtlety that every person who makes this broken analogy are missing (apart from the fact, that, well, if someone made a book that kept a record of all instances this analogy was made on HN, it would be hard to miss the fact that.. no, X pet product defended Y times on hn didn't become the next dropbox)
The criticisms against dropbox and the first ipod were nerds who thought there was already, -within the same product category- good enough things, underestimating the importance of things like UI, accessibility, portability (in the case of the ipod when people compared it to the gigantic creative jukeboxes and mp3 CD-R players).
They were criticism targeted at a single product, not an entire category, because no one sane would think there's no use for tools that remotely sync documents, or gives you the ability to listen to your entire music collection on the go. Dropbox and the ipod were great, refined products, but products that stood on the shoulders of giants and markets that were already plentiful by the time they came out. Keeping backups of documents is a need a great amount of people have. People were already listening to portable music when the ipod came out. They were product that did important things better than anyone else on the market, but products that entered markets that were already quite mature. Meanwhile VR as a whole is still a niche.
VR enthusiasts are more like the nerds of old who made fun of dropbox. They have very little understanding of the wants of the general public. Shut yourself in a closed uncanny valley virtual world wearing an uncomfortable headset for hours? This is more like the people who thought rolling your own was better than dropbox.
Zuckerberg is not the next Steve Jobs. If anything, he's the carbon copy of the typical slashdot reader. His mindset is thoroughly alien to the human mind.
https://qz.com/1331956/mark-zuckerberg-keeps-forgetting-abou...
>In the Recode interview, Zuckerberg falls back on the term “use case” to describe people using Facebook Live to stream their own suicides in real time. He repeats this characterization, going on to call suicide-streaming a “use” of Facebook Live: “There were a small number of uses of this, but people were using it to…show themselves self-harm or there were even a few cases of suicide.”
This is the sort of people who think the future of humanity is to enclose yourself harder in your little virtual bubble. The everyday man finds this sort repellent.
I love it when people call VR niche. The quest 2 is estimates to have sold a similar number of units to the Xbox X and S combined, and about 3/4 the number of units as the PS5 [1]. It is now a mainstream console.
[1]https://uploadvr.com/quest-2-sold-almost-15-million-idc/
[1]https://uploadvr.com/quest-2-sold-almost-15-million-idc/
And Nintendo sold 42 million Wii Balance Boards ¹). Compared to previous generations, Gen 9 console sales have been atrocious.
The Quest 2 might be a mainstream console, but it's not mainstream.
¹) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Balance_Board#Reception
The Quest 2 might be a mainstream console, but it's not mainstream.
¹) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Balance_Board#Reception
a mainstream console is used everyday. how many VR headsets are sitting unused on shelves? the volume of sales is far from being the most relevant metric.
It’s great to be excited for the future. Agreed. It’s also good to be cautious about a future where Facebook owns all the Patents to the tech. That sounds like a dystopia to me.
Which Dropbox thread? Not everyone on HN has been here a long time
Maybe rose-colored glasses but man I miss that HN.
Isn’t that comment an example of the ignorant and snide HN that we don’t want?
That HN died the day pg announced that HN would be more general interest instead of being more focused on startups, tech, and programming
Indeed some us were in high school or even grade school at the time
This is made by facebook so who cares.
[deleted]
vr is not taking off. the market for VR is growing but still way less than initially expected. and the whole VR for work seems antithetic to companies asking people to go back to the office.
I’m really excited, too, but there are serious issues in Meta’s execution: They really need to get their UX, customer service, and hardware/firmware release processes solid.
It’s foolhardy and expensive to test hardware in prod, especially in a down economy with logistics/resourcing issues, and it’s absolutely nuts to disregard passionate, on-the-hour-Oculus-is-so-great (Boomer) users who’ve thrown thousands into the platform, telling them to delete their Facebook accounts (Facebook accounts they now are now dependent upon) to resolve unverified firmware borkage.
(Also, a more lightweight headset would help get the rest of us there. ;) Where’d ya go, Google Glass?)
Looking at past historical patterns, though, I truly believe a smaller company will emerge from the recession in the next year or two that gets us closer than Meta or any other large company ever has or will.
It’s foolhardy and expensive to test hardware in prod, especially in a down economy with logistics/resourcing issues, and it’s absolutely nuts to disregard passionate, on-the-hour-Oculus-is-so-great (Boomer) users who’ve thrown thousands into the platform, telling them to delete their Facebook accounts (Facebook accounts they now are now dependent upon) to resolve unverified firmware borkage.
(Also, a more lightweight headset would help get the rest of us there. ;) Where’d ya go, Google Glass?)
Looking at past historical patterns, though, I truly believe a smaller company will emerge from the recession in the next year or two that gets us closer than Meta or any other large company ever has or will.
[deleted]
I really can’t understand why there’s so much time and resources being put into re-inventing virtual meetings.
This is supposed to capture subtle facial expressions. I’m sure every generation will capture more subtleties and have increasingly realistic avatars. So why not just see real faces then?
I always see mentions of virtual sticky notes on a whiteboard. That sounds awful. Do you need to squint to view them from your virtual seat at the table? Do you need to walk your avatar to the board and avoid bumping into others who might be posting their own? We don’t have those issues today with sites like Miro. If the metaverse will somehow avoid these annoyances then how would it be any different from the non-metaverse experience?
This is supposed to capture subtle facial expressions. I’m sure every generation will capture more subtleties and have increasingly realistic avatars. So why not just see real faces then?
I always see mentions of virtual sticky notes on a whiteboard. That sounds awful. Do you need to squint to view them from your virtual seat at the table? Do you need to walk your avatar to the board and avoid bumping into others who might be posting their own? We don’t have those issues today with sites like Miro. If the metaverse will somehow avoid these annoyances then how would it be any different from the non-metaverse experience?
It's funny that HN is pro-remote work but anti-innovations for making the remote more efficient.
While I agree virtual meeting may not be the answer, BUT it is important step in figuring out the balance. I think it's good that Meta is burning $$$ and advancing in figuring out the optimal solution on our behalf (consider it as RnD cost).
Irrespective of it, in case the headsets can become as easy as wearing glasses, I doubt why anyone wouldn't use it.
While I agree virtual meeting may not be the answer, BUT it is important step in figuring out the balance. I think it's good that Meta is burning $$$ and advancing in figuring out the optimal solution on our behalf (consider it as RnD cost).
Irrespective of it, in case the headsets can become as easy as wearing glasses, I doubt why anyone wouldn't use it.
> It's funny that HN is pro-remote work but anti-innovations for making the remote more efficient
This isn’t more than efficient. Emulating real life is worse here.
I want to see innovations that take advantage of not being bounded by fucking office spaces.
It’s like writing an email client that forces you to hand write all of the emails and fill out the to field on a little envelope.
This isn’t more than efficient. Emulating real life is worse here.
I want to see innovations that take advantage of not being bounded by fucking office spaces.
It’s like writing an email client that forces you to hand write all of the emails and fill out the to field on a little envelope.
I find VR remote work'emulations' of onsite work to be akin to vegan food "emulation" of the non-vegan stuff: trying to "emulate " a non-vegan dish using th HF e vegan "replacement" ingredients makes it gross for me. Instead, there are plenty of great "originally vegan" dishes.
Coming back from the analogy, VR and specially AR should strive to use their advantages to create new intetaction experiences, instead of trying to mimic the onsite presence...
I want a high def AR whiteboard that I can "move" independently to my wall, while other people also move position it any way they want in their local environment.
Coming back from the analogy, VR and specially AR should strive to use their advantages to create new intetaction experiences, instead of trying to mimic the onsite presence...
I want a high def AR whiteboard that I can "move" independently to my wall, while other people also move position it any way they want in their local environment.
The meat and meatspace “replacements” are bridge technologies that reduce the suffering of animals and people respectively. Sometimes a vegan just wants a burger. Sometimes an exec just needs a little help to let go.
Sure these bridges have plenty of problems today, and maybe they’ll go to nowhere. But maybe in the far future they’ll lead us to cruelty free, healthy designer tissues that taste better than anything an animal makes, and Bret Victor’s dynamic medium.
Sure these bridges have plenty of problems today, and maybe they’ll go to nowhere. But maybe in the far future they’ll lead us to cruelty free, healthy designer tissues that taste better than anything an animal makes, and Bret Victor’s dynamic medium.
This is just like early smart phones, early PCs, and the internet before the 2000s. Yes, there are many flaws, but can’t people see the future potential?
People can't see the future potential because the people actively working on it aren't showing us any future potential. Everything they're showing is worse versions of what we currently have, but "in VR!".
That’s not true. The main reason you’ve written this is simply because you have yet to try a VR system that wasn’t the equivalent to Google cardboard
I used one of the newer oculus recently. It was fun for a short period of time. It wasn't so great that I'd spend a considerably amount of time wearing it, because it's so much effort to use.
The discussion is in terms of using it for meetings and such, and in that case, there's nothing they've shown us that isn't "attend a meeting in person, remote", which I can do in zoom, without needing to wear a heavy, uncomfortable thing on my entire face, for most of a day. A number of things about it are actively worse. This is why I'm saying they're just showing us the same thing, in VR. There's nothing to be excited about.
The discussion is in terms of using it for meetings and such, and in that case, there's nothing they've shown us that isn't "attend a meeting in person, remote", which I can do in zoom, without needing to wear a heavy, uncomfortable thing on my entire face, for most of a day. A number of things about it are actively worse. This is why I'm saying they're just showing us the same thing, in VR. There's nothing to be excited about.
Zoom is terrible for presence, as in feeling like both of you are in the same place which VR achieves quite easily even with terrible graphics. That is very hard to demo. You have to experience it yourself for more than one 5 minute session. I strongly doubt that you’ve even used a Quest just based on your comments. It has many problems and flaws, but “too much effort to use” isn’t one of them.
Putting something on that requires full immersion requires you to be able to fully block out time, and have physical space available, with all of the necessary equipment is effort. That physical space also needs to be a trusted space, since you're unable to know what's going on around you. For zoom, I can join on my cell phone, from basically anywhere.
That's too much effort to use.
That's too much effort to use.
Absolutely!
Give me a minority report style interface, let me drag data and sites all around me in 360 degrees.
Take me on a walk through a 3d graph of your data as we discuss it.
Shrink me to the size of an ant, or explode me to the size of the sun in a model of the milky way to really understand scale.
But this... second life knockoff, "Hey lets have a meeting but we are on the beach" just feels so uninspired.
Give me a minority report style interface, let me drag data and sites all around me in 360 degrees.
Take me on a walk through a 3d graph of your data as we discuss it.
Shrink me to the size of an ant, or explode me to the size of the sun in a model of the milky way to really understand scale.
But this... second life knockoff, "Hey lets have a meeting but we are on the beach" just feels so uninspired.
That email client analogy is brilliant.
I hope meta also emulates how choosing a seat around a conference table is important.
Including because of power plugs, blinding or overheating sun from windows, and being closer to the boss makes you louder.
I hope meta also emulates how choosing a seat around a conference table is important.
Including because of power plugs, blinding or overheating sun from windows, and being closer to the boss makes you louder.
Have you tried meeting in VR on quest compared to zoom?
While not great, waaay better. Same as email isn’t great, but way better than mail.
While not great, waaay better. Same as email isn’t great, but way better than mail.
I haven’t but am curious what you thought were the biggest improvements over a standard meeting. Did you try virtual sticky notes/whiteboarding or any other collaborative tasks?
It’s the immersion of “being there”. It’s the same reason why playing poker in VR is better than playing it on a flatscreen against your friends and family who are hundreds of miles away. Yes, visual fidelity isn’t the best when using something like a Quest, but there’s still something there just like when people first tried out YouTube. I’m sure there were people going, “why not watch cable Tv instead?”
It’s hard to put into words. You have to try it. For some reason, that is not something a lot of HN users are willing to do with modern VR. Google Cardboard is not modern VR
It’s hard to put into words. You have to try it. For some reason, that is not something a lot of HN users are willing to do with modern VR. Google Cardboard is not modern VR
> like when people first tried out YouTube. I’m sure there were people going, “why not watch cable Tv instead?”
But youtube obviously had something cable tv didn’t - user generated content. The Quest is the equivalent of youtube just being a crappy bootleg of cable TV.
> It’s hard to put into words. You have to try it. For some reason, that is not something a lot of HN users are willing to do with modern VR.
Because the current offer is “bad emulation of office meetings that weren’t great to begin with”.
Would you be thrilled to use a Quest to wait your turn in a virtual lobby of a DMV to talk to a teller to pay for a license renewal? Or would you rather just pay it online with a credit card on a web page?
But youtube obviously had something cable tv didn’t - user generated content. The Quest is the equivalent of youtube just being a crappy bootleg of cable TV.
> It’s hard to put into words. You have to try it. For some reason, that is not something a lot of HN users are willing to do with modern VR.
Because the current offer is “bad emulation of office meetings that weren’t great to begin with”.
Would you be thrilled to use a Quest to wait your turn in a virtual lobby of a DMV to talk to a teller to pay for a license renewal? Or would you rather just pay it online with a credit card on a web page?
> But youtube obviously had something cable tv didn’t - user generated content.
Yes, but armchair pundits couldn’t see any advantage similar to how older people view VR now.
> Would you be thrilled to use a Quest to wait your turn in a virtual lobby of a DMV to talk to a teller to pay for a license renewal?
This is a terrible analogy because the DMV is not a meeting. It’s a service and it’s already being automated.
You have bad analogies because you haven’t used VR enough, if at all, to really have such a strong opinion. This is no different from senior citizens who used to constantly hurl insults at the internet, video games, comics, or any new trend
Yes, but armchair pundits couldn’t see any advantage similar to how older people view VR now.
> Would you be thrilled to use a Quest to wait your turn in a virtual lobby of a DMV to talk to a teller to pay for a license renewal?
This is a terrible analogy because the DMV is not a meeting. It’s a service and it’s already being automated.
You have bad analogies because you haven’t used VR enough, if at all, to really have such a strong opinion. This is no different from senior citizens who used to constantly hurl insults at the internet, video games, comics, or any new trend
I have used VR a lot. What Quest is chasing is the old person’s vision of what VR should be - a bad mirror of reality. All of the good VR innovation I’ve seen has been in games.
All of my analogies are exactly the same. It’s using technology to try to poorly replicate what already exists rather than using technology to enable a bunch of new things possible without the bounds of the physical world.
> This is a terrible analogy because the DMV is not a meeting. It’s a service and it’s already being automated.
You’re missing the point. Renewing a license over the Internet removed an instance of one of the worst facets of the DMV. Quest isn’t working on getting rid of the worst parts of meetings, it’s working on copying (poorly) the whole experience as-is.
The quest version of the DMV if the website didn’t already exist would be to sit in a waiting room. Innovation would be to get rid of it.
All of my analogies are exactly the same. It’s using technology to try to poorly replicate what already exists rather than using technology to enable a bunch of new things possible without the bounds of the physical world.
> This is a terrible analogy because the DMV is not a meeting. It’s a service and it’s already being automated.
You’re missing the point. Renewing a license over the Internet removed an instance of one of the worst facets of the DMV. Quest isn’t working on getting rid of the worst parts of meetings, it’s working on copying (poorly) the whole experience as-is.
The quest version of the DMV if the website didn’t already exist would be to sit in a waiting room. Innovation would be to get rid of it.
I feel that you’re missing the point. Your DMV example is just terrible and not applicable. If it ever gets translated from the web to VR, it is not going to being a line queue / waiting game. It’s a ridiculous assertion.
Given your comments, it’s very hard to believe that you’ve used VR much if at all. VR has many problems, but not the ones you’ve mentioned
Given your comments, it’s very hard to believe that you’ve used VR much if at all. VR has many problems, but not the ones you’ve mentioned
> Given your comments, it’s very hard to believe that you’ve used VR much if at all. VR has many problems, but not the ones you’ve mentioned
After all this time, you’re still getting confused and think my complaints are about VR. They are not. I’ve used VR for gaming and simulations on and off for 6 years now.
The problem is not VR. The problem is Meta’s approach to what VR should be used for. They are taking some of the worst facets of business and copying them as-is into VR.
That’s why the DMV analogy. They’ve done nothing to improve the actual meetings which is why they would do nothing to improve the DMV experience beyond making the entire thing virtual.
You know what would be great? A VR DMV replacement for a basic driving test. Yet you didn’t even suggest that because your fixated on the most boring aspects of VR like Meta is.
After all this time, you’re still getting confused and think my complaints are about VR. They are not. I’ve used VR for gaming and simulations on and off for 6 years now.
The problem is not VR. The problem is Meta’s approach to what VR should be used for. They are taking some of the worst facets of business and copying them as-is into VR.
That’s why the DMV analogy. They’ve done nothing to improve the actual meetings which is why they would do nothing to improve the DMV experience beyond making the entire thing virtual.
You know what would be great? A VR DMV replacement for a basic driving test. Yet you didn’t even suggest that because your fixated on the most boring aspects of VR like Meta is.
> After all this time, you’re still getting confused and think my complaints are about VR. They are not. I’ve used VR for gaming and simulations on and off for 6 years now. The problem is not VR. The problem is Meta’s approach to what VR should be used for.
That’s interesting because your complaints that are supposedly exclusive to meta are so generic that it seems to apply to VR at large. That and your DMV analogy would still lead me to conclude that you haven’t really used VR much if at all, but Ive been wrong before.
That’s interesting because your complaints that are supposedly exclusive to meta are so generic that it seems to apply to VR at large. That and your DMV analogy would still lead me to conclude that you haven’t really used VR much if at all, but Ive been wrong before.
I think the point is that the goal of a meeting is not to have a meeting, so being more meeting-like is not necessarily a good thing.
My point is that a lot of the people complaining about VR haven’t even tried it to experience its immersion. Until you understand that, you won’t understand what VR brings to meetings. It doesn’t demo well on a flat screen.
These comments are extremely unconvincing. If the best sales pitch for VR is that you need to invest a bunch of time and money in order to see why it's worth investing a bunch of time and money into, that makes me even more skeptical about it's future. VR will never grow beyond a niche of technical fans until less interested users can see the value.
No, the point we’re making is that you need to just try it instead of making lots of terrible and wrong assumptions about a subject matter that you’re not very familiar with
Today you don’t need to invest a lot of time or money in order to be familiar with VR. A meta quest is an affordable console, and so are many older gen PCVR headsets. You can also rent the meta quest or borrow it from certain libraries.
Today you don’t need to invest a lot of time or money in order to be familiar with VR. A meta quest is an affordable console, and so are many older gen PCVR headsets. You can also rent the meta quest or borrow it from certain libraries.
VR adds a third dimension compared to a typical remote meeting. For me, this gives a sense of locality, as if you’re sitting next to a specific person (not a bunch of tiles) and can communicate with them naturally. Features like breakout rooms are not required.
Any other remote meeting features like virtual whiteboards are usually the same level of convenience, or more so. It’s almost like progressive enhancement when the meeting has both VR and non-VR attendees.
Any other remote meeting features like virtual whiteboards are usually the same level of convenience, or more so. It’s almost like progressive enhancement when the meeting has both VR and non-VR attendees.
That’s a big thing that I find missing. In zoom meetings you can’t talk over each other. Like in a normal room of people there can be a bunch of conversations happening at once (like you can whisper to the person next to you if there’s a presentation, or even during a gathering you can walk around and say hi to different people)
Emails still retain the structure of intra-office memos, something which hasn't existed for at least 20 years. We don't really notice with emails, because the initial real-world analogy became a minor detail of the more technologically evolved system. An optimistic view would be that VR will follow a similar trajectory, and attempts to recreate the real world will eventually give way to real innovations. The idea of the metaverse (and especially Meta's version), though, is so focussed on the real world analogy, I think it's more likely to be a barrier to this kind of innovation than an early version of it.
> It’s like writing an email client that forces you to hand write all of the emails and fill out the to field on a little envelope.
someone's not tried it.
VR meetings are, for a very select type of interaction, awesome. Talking to someone over VC is shite. Its half duplex, emotionally and physically draining. That effect is magnified when you add more than one other person.
VR meetings in a very supirsing way, feel more natural than VC. Its got 3d audio, which means low latency duplex talking can happen. You can have more than one conversation in the same VR "room"
None of that is possible with Video conferencing (yet).
someone's not tried it.
VR meetings are, for a very select type of interaction, awesome. Talking to someone over VC is shite. Its half duplex, emotionally and physically draining. That effect is magnified when you add more than one other person.
VR meetings in a very supirsing way, feel more natural than VC. Its got 3d audio, which means low latency duplex talking can happen. You can have more than one conversation in the same VR "room"
None of that is possible with Video conferencing (yet).
VR doesn’t solve low latency, which is what causes people to talk over each other. I assume you haven’t tried VR with one participant on a saturated coffee shop WiFi 2k miles away.
> I assume you haven’t tried VR with one participant on a saturated coffee shop WiFi 2k miles away.
Coffee shop, no 140ms ping time away, yes. But you are confusing latency with half duplex. VCs cut the sound to all other streams when someone is talking[1]. which causes huge stuttering.
[1] mostly
Coffee shop, no 140ms ping time away, yes. But you are confusing latency with half duplex. VCs cut the sound to all other streams when someone is talking[1]. which causes huge stuttering.
[1] mostly
Amen. I'm happy being able to join all-hands Teams meetings, mute them and do something I want to with my life. When I was in the office I had to sit there and waste my life. Now I don't have to keep up the pretense of caring.
There's no way I'd want to have to strap a VR headset on to appear in a meeting I don't want to be in, and for it to be obvious when I'm ignoring it.
There's no way I'd want to have to strap a VR headset on to appear in a meeting I don't want to be in, and for it to be obvious when I'm ignoring it.
Perhaps emulating real life is a prerequisite to real innovations in VR. It may be hard to get mass adoption of more unfamiliar paradigms.
And perhaps it's not. Perhaps the boundaries of the imagination of the product people are limiting what is being created here. "Wouldn't it be cool if you could travel in a virtual car and go to a virtual mall where there were virtual shops and you could walk around them and buy stuff?" Well no it wouldn't be cool. The internet is better than that already and most people who look at this think it's terrible because it is. If you produce something that is a facsimile of the real world it's always going to be a pale imitation. If you want people to adopt it, it has to be better in some important way that they care about.
There's many VR headsets and even the Oculus store has tons of other productivity apps. The most popular one on Oculus isn't Horizon Workrooms, it's ImmersedVR. This is a Meta announcement so of course it's about Meta, but it's not like WWDC coverage means only Apple makes computers, phones, and OSes.
Show me some evidence, or even some compelling reasoning, for how something can make remote work more efficient, and I'll be all over it. If Meta's got some sort of doodad that will make it so that I can get all the benefits of in-person meetings from home, great, let's go, I'll pay to upgrade my team at work out of pocket.
But I don't see any sign of that here. You're saying that, if the headsets were easy to wear, everyone would use them, but I can't imagine why. How's this better than a laptop with a camera? I can read text more easily on the laptop. I can share documents more easily on the camera. I can see people's faces and emotions more clearly with the camera. This gets me nothing, and it does so at significant cost.
This appears to be a solution desperately searching for a problem, and remote meetings certainly have problems, but this doesn't seem to be able to solve any of them.
Sure, I'll be excited about this if I really need to collaboratively design the frame of a car with a team that's all working remotely. It'll work great for that. But you know how often my meetings would be greatly eased with a collaborative 3D space? Not often.
But I don't see any sign of that here. You're saying that, if the headsets were easy to wear, everyone would use them, but I can't imagine why. How's this better than a laptop with a camera? I can read text more easily on the laptop. I can share documents more easily on the camera. I can see people's faces and emotions more clearly with the camera. This gets me nothing, and it does so at significant cost.
This appears to be a solution desperately searching for a problem, and remote meetings certainly have problems, but this doesn't seem to be able to solve any of them.
Sure, I'll be excited about this if I really need to collaboratively design the frame of a car with a team that's all working remotely. It'll work great for that. But you know how often my meetings would be greatly eased with a collaborative 3D space? Not often.
> But you know how often my meetings would be greatly eased with a collaborative 3D space? Not often.
Yep, agreed. I keep seeing glossy promos with people standing around collaborating on a design. But honestly how common is that? In my experience the collaborative moments are much fewer than the one person design marathons between meetings.
There seems to be a misplaced idea that everyone wants collaborative design. The Figma founder guy said something like "multiplayer design is the future". Really? I don't think so. The process of focused expertise in design is often driven by the designer, who then meets with colleagues or stakeholders to review and MAYBE try a few things in real time.
Collaborative real time design of course happens, but not as much as they're trying to express. Too many cooks being the basis of avoiding over-collaborative design!
Yep, agreed. I keep seeing glossy promos with people standing around collaborating on a design. But honestly how common is that? In my experience the collaborative moments are much fewer than the one person design marathons between meetings.
There seems to be a misplaced idea that everyone wants collaborative design. The Figma founder guy said something like "multiplayer design is the future". Really? I don't think so. The process of focused expertise in design is often driven by the designer, who then meets with colleagues or stakeholders to review and MAYBE try a few things in real time.
Collaborative real time design of course happens, but not as much as they're trying to express. Too many cooks being the basis of avoiding over-collaborative design!
for making the remote more efficient
Literally the worst of all worlds. Looks like you get the inefficiency of in person meetings... along with all of the tech headaches plus nausea... count me out
It's funny that HN is pro-remote work but anti-innovations for making the remote more efficient.
Whoa there - you’re speaking only for yourself! There’s a minority of us that abhor Teams and wish daily for another company to come up with something better. Of course, that doesn’t mean (badly) reinventing the wheel like this. Really, I’m just hoping for a snappier and more ergonomic Teams but I welcome any and all innovation in the space.
Whoa there - you’re speaking only for yourself! There’s a minority of us that abhor Teams and wish daily for another company to come up with something better. Of course, that doesn’t mean (badly) reinventing the wheel like this. Really, I’m just hoping for a snappier and more ergonomic Teams but I welcome any and all innovation in the space.
I have never seen anything more efficient at making group decisions than a pull request.
If your team is getting on a call to present things or to talk things through, you’re very likely on a train to nowhere.
In a remote setting, every ounce of effort spent toward emulating “meat space” distracts from the artifact, the work product, and the result.
I am on a team now who records meetings so they can re-watch them. Let that productivity drain set in.
If your team is getting on a call to present things or to talk things through, you’re very likely on a train to nowhere.
In a remote setting, every ounce of effort spent toward emulating “meat space” distracts from the artifact, the work product, and the result.
I am on a team now who records meetings so they can re-watch them. Let that productivity drain set in.
Not all work is coding, or can be reduced to text editing and discussions about diffs.
That's not the point. The point is that meetings themselves are not work, and that in most cases they make the work more difficult.
If no meeting happened, but all the artifacts required to guide work exist and are accessible and understood, you come out ahead.
A pull request doesn't replace a meeting, but it can obviate the need for a meeting. Information sharing, done. Feedback and suggestions, captured. Goal and metrics, visible.
In my experience (working on both coding and non-coding initiatives) the most effective meetings are the ones teams ask for in addition to a thorough, async, text-driven collaborative process.
If no meeting happened, but all the artifacts required to guide work exist and are accessible and understood, you come out ahead.
A pull request doesn't replace a meeting, but it can obviate the need for a meeting. Information sharing, done. Feedback and suggestions, captured. Goal and metrics, visible.
In my experience (working on both coding and non-coding initiatives) the most effective meetings are the ones teams ask for in addition to a thorough, async, text-driven collaborative process.
People like remote work because they don’t have to be in an office. Meta’s vision is to make an immersive office video game. Sorry, I hate it, that sounds like the worst of both worlds.
Because people don't think this is an innovation that will make remote work more efficient.
What exactly about this makes remote work more efficient?
Can I type faster while wearing a headset and holding controllers? Can I navigate source code better than on my three 4k screens and ergonomic keyboard? Does it somehow improve my deployment workflow?
Can I type faster while wearing a headset and holding controllers? Can I navigate source code better than on my three 4k screens and ergonomic keyboard? Does it somehow improve my deployment workflow?
Come on, a multi screen setup at home is better than some half asses 3D VR attempt: at BEST we ll have multi screens inside the 3D world because we need flat surfaces with tons of written stuff on them...
Theres also the fact that the headsets doesn't nearly present digital content with enough quality to rival traditional 2D interfaces. There does not seem to be a simple way to fix this problem, the laws of physics is a cruel mistress.
EDIT: I had the image of a "glasses" like VR form from the parent comment when making this comment. It is not talking about Meta's product.
EDIT: I had the image of a "glasses" like VR form from the parent comment when making this comment. It is not talking about Meta's product.
You only need the clarity the eyes can actually perceive. What physics do you think prevents this? There are already headsets with 70ppd [1], which is the same as a 27 inch 4k display, 23 inches away. That’s now.
1. https://varjo.com/products/xr-3/
1. https://varjo.com/products/xr-3/
Sorry, I was referring to the parent comment's notion that the headsets would be as "easy as wearing glasses" and have high quality (especially color fidelity), not that you can't have high quality VR overall.
Why can’t they be as easy as wearing glasses [1]? Do you think direct retina projection (also available now) is somehow limited? I agree waveguides might be.
1. https://www.nreal.ai/
1. https://www.nreal.ai/
> Irrespective of it, in case the headsets can become as easy as wearing glasses, I doubt why anyone wouldn't use it.
There is nothing in the world that could convince me to bring a Meta VR headset into my home. May as well just install surveillance cameras and pipe the feed directly to Meta.
There is nothing in the world that could convince me to bring a Meta VR headset into my home. May as well just install surveillance cameras and pipe the feed directly to Meta.
> but anti-innovations for making the remote more efficient.
I don't personally want to wear a giant computer on my head all day.
I don't personally want to wear a giant computer on my head all day.
Why respond to a comment that literally contains the text "in case the headsets can become as easy as wearing glasses" with a reply about wearing "a giant computer on [your] head". You could have made your VR-skeptic response to someone who was hyping up the headsets of today, not the headsets of tomorrow.
Because I don’t want to wear a giant computer on my head.
I'll take the other, more optimistic side of this.
The reason they're spending so much time on reinventing meetings is because they see that the killer use case for VR/AR headsets is to replace your laptop with a device that shows you a screen, or multiple screens, wherever you go, whenever you want it there.
If you start from the premise that eventually people won't huddle over their 16" laptop screens to make calls, but will instead be wearing a headset that shows them as many giant monitors as they like, then everything else flows from that. How do you handle calls in a world where every user is essentially wearing a visor? How do you collaborate? These aren't solved problems yet, but I'm a firm believer that the headset will replace the laptop, and if that happens I'll be glad somebody has put the effort in to make everything else around that as seamless as it can be.
The reason they're spending so much time on reinventing meetings is because they see that the killer use case for VR/AR headsets is to replace your laptop with a device that shows you a screen, or multiple screens, wherever you go, whenever you want it there.
If you start from the premise that eventually people won't huddle over their 16" laptop screens to make calls, but will instead be wearing a headset that shows them as many giant monitors as they like, then everything else flows from that. How do you handle calls in a world where every user is essentially wearing a visor? How do you collaborate? These aren't solved problems yet, but I'm a firm believer that the headset will replace the laptop, and if that happens I'll be glad somebody has put the effort in to make everything else around that as seamless as it can be.
I really cant understand why people want to spend 8 hours a day with a VR headset on. I have a Rift S and after a couple of hours I cant wait to take it off, I'm sure as hell not going to wear one all day just for my job no matter how good the software is.
We don't, not with our current headsets, but also Rift S has been discontinued for awhile and the new Meta Quest Pro headset is significantly more comfortable and capable than Quest 2 and far better than the Rift S.
Within a few years, very comfortable lightweight goggles or glasses will have capabilities that can replace phone and PC interfaces.
Your comment is the equivalent of someone who bought an early airplane and based on that decides that commercial jets are impractical for long flights. Or someone who saw the early CRTs and decided that since they preferred reading paper teletype output that computer monitors would never be usable.
Within a few years, very comfortable lightweight goggles or glasses will have capabilities that can replace phone and PC interfaces.
Your comment is the equivalent of someone who bought an early airplane and based on that decides that commercial jets are impractical for long flights. Or someone who saw the early CRTs and decided that since they preferred reading paper teletype output that computer monitors would never be usable.
I have yet to see any proof that the glasses style of VR is anywhere near being feasible. I have been an adopter of VR since 2014 when I bought the rift DK2 and the form factor is still practically the same, despite the costs being a lot higher for these new models.
I don't think your analogies work at all. I think VR is great for games, which is what occulus originally marketed it for, it's only since Facebook bought them that the direction has totally changed.
I don't think your analogies work at all. I think VR is great for games, which is what occulus originally marketed it for, it's only since Facebook bought them that the direction has totally changed.
While it doesn't have a ton of power, the Vive Flow[0] seems like a great form factor. A few more years of miniaturization and advancements, you will probably see some much more capable VR headsets in a more glasses-like form. They weigh 1/4 that of the Quest Pro.
[0] https://www.vive.com/us/product/vive-flow/overview/
[0] https://www.vive.com/us/product/vive-flow/overview/
Meta Quest Pro form factor is a very significant decrease. Multiple AR/VR glasses such as Leap 2 and Spectacles work great, they just need a wider field of view.
We'll figure out how to interface with the optic nerve eventually.
I'm happy spending all day with sunglasses on. Before too long, this'll not be much different an experience.
Already Lenovo and others have pretty lightweight glasses that provide a basic (1080p or similar) screen, the Quest Pro looks like a definite step forward from prior VR headsets, Magic Leap and HoloLens are on their second iterations, micro-OLEDs are coming, Apple is working on something, etc…
If you see the direction travel then I'd think you may at least admit that your Rift S experience (which is long in the tooth even prior to the Quest Pro announcement) is no useful guide to what the VR/AR future people are excited about will actualy be like.
Already Lenovo and others have pretty lightweight glasses that provide a basic (1080p or similar) screen, the Quest Pro looks like a definite step forward from prior VR headsets, Magic Leap and HoloLens are on their second iterations, micro-OLEDs are coming, Apple is working on something, etc…
If you see the direction travel then I'd think you may at least admit that your Rift S experience (which is long in the tooth even prior to the Quest Pro announcement) is no useful guide to what the VR/AR future people are excited about will actualy be like.
I think if we change our assumptions of a headset from what it is today to where it could get to - something like eating glasses every day (seems like a long way away) then this sounds very plausible to me. It’s a race to work out how convenient we can make these headsets.
Of course. Pop your VR headset on at a café, I'm sure it'll work out great. Bash people with your wide arm movements at Starbucks and look like a clown.
Those meetings that could have been an email? Now they're the worst of both worlds, remote but still forced to have this meeting in VR.
Instead of having a screen (or multiple screens), force people in a shitty virtual reality where you have to walk around still, but this time it's either by teleporting with joysticks or making you puke with smooth movement.
Those meetings that could have been an email? Now they're the worst of both worlds, remote but still forced to have this meeting in VR.
Instead of having a screen (or multiple screens), force people in a shitty virtual reality where you have to walk around still, but this time it's either by teleporting with joysticks or making you puke with smooth movement.
> Pop your VR headset on at a café, I'm sure it'll work out great. Bash people with your wide arm movements at Starbucks and look like a clown.
Could you be strawmanning any harder?
I've been now full time remote working for 3 years and I have done exactly zero work from any kind of cafe. I have however done one day of work in a virtual desktop, but currently (as of couple years back) I didn't find it any better than just using normal desk and monitor setup.
>Those meetings that could have been an email?
This is complete a company issue. This VR tech is meant for actual meetings.
>Instead of having a screen (or multiple screens), force people in a shitty virtual reality where you have to walk around still,
You are completely misunderstanding the tech. You can literally have infinite amount of screens in a VR environment if you still want to cling to the notion of screens.
This all being said. I doubt this will catch on, however the facial expression capturing tech will be nice for future gaming and chatting applications.
Could you be strawmanning any harder?
I've been now full time remote working for 3 years and I have done exactly zero work from any kind of cafe. I have however done one day of work in a virtual desktop, but currently (as of couple years back) I didn't find it any better than just using normal desk and monitor setup.
>Those meetings that could have been an email?
This is complete a company issue. This VR tech is meant for actual meetings.
>Instead of having a screen (or multiple screens), force people in a shitty virtual reality where you have to walk around still,
You are completely misunderstanding the tech. You can literally have infinite amount of screens in a VR environment if you still want to cling to the notion of screens.
This all being said. I doubt this will catch on, however the facial expression capturing tech will be nice for future gaming and chatting applications.
I misunderstand the tech so much that I have a Valve Index. Working with multiple screens on that is absolute hell, taking up your entire view, locking you into a bubble. Enjoy your neck pain when you need to turn your head every other second. Oh and good luck with using both a pointer and a keyboard while in VR, I hope you remember where your keys are.
Facial capture for gaming will be absolutely worthless, and so will it be for chatting. Firstly because it already exists without wearing an expensive helmet that makes you sweat and is uncomfortable, secondly because nobody wants to wear a damn helmet so that people can see you smile ingame, and thirdly because nobody wants to put 1k+ on a device whoses uses are extremely limited.
Facial capture for gaming will be absolutely worthless, and so will it be for chatting. Firstly because it already exists without wearing an expensive helmet that makes you sweat and is uncomfortable, secondly because nobody wants to wear a damn helmet so that people can see you smile ingame, and thirdly because nobody wants to put 1k+ on a device whoses uses are extremely limited.
>Working with multiple screens on that is absolute hell, taking up your entire view, locking you into a bubble. Enjoy your neck pain when you need to turn your head every other second.
How is this any different from having multiple screens?
>Oh and good luck with using both a pointer and a keyboard while in VR, I hope you remember where your keys are.
What? Remember what keys? Like keyboard keys?
>Facial capture for gaming will be absolutely worthless, and so will it be for chatting.
Based on what? Just because you don't want them? How many people are cybering in VRchat at this very moment? You don't think these people would very much like to have a way to show facial features as they are performing them?
>Firstly because it already exists without wearing an expensive helmet that makes you sweat and is uncomfortable
Citation needed. What tech already does this? Also I don't sweat much with my Oculus Quest headset, why you think this is any different?
>secondly because nobody wants to wear a damn helmet so that people can see you smile ingame
I would very much like this. It would make VR games even more immersive if expressions would be captured and translated to the in-game models.
>and thirdly because nobody wants to put 1k+ on a device whoses uses are extremely limited.
Why is the price an issue? You said that you had Valve Index, looking at the price the headset with controllers and the tracking stations cost over 1k. Did you lie about having Valve Index or where the disconnect is? Anyways, yes, 1.7k for VR headset is a lot, but the tech will find its way to cheaper headsets as well, so price argument seems very weird to me.
How is this any different from having multiple screens?
>Oh and good luck with using both a pointer and a keyboard while in VR, I hope you remember where your keys are.
What? Remember what keys? Like keyboard keys?
>Facial capture for gaming will be absolutely worthless, and so will it be for chatting.
Based on what? Just because you don't want them? How many people are cybering in VRchat at this very moment? You don't think these people would very much like to have a way to show facial features as they are performing them?
>Firstly because it already exists without wearing an expensive helmet that makes you sweat and is uncomfortable
Citation needed. What tech already does this? Also I don't sweat much with my Oculus Quest headset, why you think this is any different?
>secondly because nobody wants to wear a damn helmet so that people can see you smile ingame
I would very much like this. It would make VR games even more immersive if expressions would be captured and translated to the in-game models.
>and thirdly because nobody wants to put 1k+ on a device whoses uses are extremely limited.
Why is the price an issue? You said that you had Valve Index, looking at the price the headset with controllers and the tracking stations cost over 1k. Did you lie about having Valve Index or where the disconnect is? Anyways, yes, 1.7k for VR headset is a lot, but the tech will find its way to cheaper headsets as well, so price argument seems very weird to me.
Businessy apps like immersed already have KB/M passthrough. How it works there is you define a box with the location of your KB/M and can see it all the time. With the better cameras of the Pro I imagine it'll be even better. Some popular keyboards like the Apple Magic keyboard are also supported for passthrough in a fancier way.
If the resolution was bumped high enough you could probably use 3 monitors like you do in real life at a similar distance with similar resolution.
Wouldn't facial capture make chat in an MMO better too? Certainly not a requirement but it could make it more immersive and enjoyable?
If the resolution was bumped high enough you could probably use 3 monitors like you do in real life at a similar distance with similar resolution.
Wouldn't facial capture make chat in an MMO better too? Certainly not a requirement but it could make it more immersive and enjoyable?
What if the headset just projects a display into your view and you can set where it is in relation to the real world AR-style?
Then you just pop your displayless laptop down on the café table and start typing away like you would with a normal laptop, except you're the only one who can see your screen.
No need to wave around any controllers, no danger of accidentally smacking someone's grande venti mocha latte.
Then you just pop your displayless laptop down on the café table and start typing away like you would with a normal laptop, except you're the only one who can see your screen.
No need to wave around any controllers, no danger of accidentally smacking someone's grande venti mocha latte.
So, instead of carrying around a small laptop that is a square and fits in pretty much any bag, you're carrying a keyboard, maybe a mouse, and a full on head sized VR device that only fits in a backpack or a tote bag? Along with lacking the storage that a laptop offer, the offline capacity of it, the battery life of it?
The future sounds _great_.
In addition, I will not let you besmirch the name of the venti mocha latte. Sometimes all you need is three times your daily sugar intake in a single, deadly, way too hot cup of very average coffee.
The future sounds _great_.
In addition, I will not let you besmirch the name of the venti mocha latte. Sometimes all you need is three times your daily sugar intake in a single, deadly, way too hot cup of very average coffee.
The "keyboard" can just be a regular laptop with no display. All the storage and power you need.
This all reminds me of the tech communities reaction to the first iPod and iPhone.
The reaction to the iPhone was incredibly positive, when comparing it to the closest competitor. It was obviously, immediately, that it was a revolutionary change in UI for phones.
Yes, the reaction to the iPod was negative, but honestly, at the time, the iPod wasn't dramatically and obviously better than the competition. It took a couple generations to show that it was not only better, but it was getting better considerably faster than the competition.
Yes, the reaction to the iPod was negative, but honestly, at the time, the iPod wasn't dramatically and obviously better than the competition. It took a couple generations to show that it was not only better, but it was getting better considerably faster than the competition.
You'll appreciate this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzRjtvMQds4
If there, at some point, is a wireless capable VR/AR headset that can replace a ~32" 1440p monitor I'll be the first in line to buy one if it's priced under 1k. Maybe even under 2k.
I've got so much more I want to use my desk space for than a monitor =)
I've got so much more I want to use my desk space for than a monitor =)
> I really can’t understand why there’s so much time and resources being put into re-inventing virtual meetings.
Because Meta needs to find new revenue streams.
Because Meta needs to find new revenue streams.
Why not find one that's closer to their core competence?
What are those?
Mining people's user-generated content for their areas of interest and on the one hand serving them content that will keep them coming back while on the other hand selling that "engagement" to advertisers.
Pretty obvious in the light of the above why they want to be the metaverse platform of choice.
Pretty obvious in the light of the above why they want to be the metaverse platform of choice.
Putting ads on surfaces that people look at
Virtual meetings, but with people shouting at each other about whatever in the news has made them angry lately.
Honestly, Facebook is a good CRM with unlimited storage at no cost. There is no privacy on private forums with regards to the web administer so Facebook continues that tradition of a host knowing what their users are uploading and privately messaging.
Yup, they could also probably take over the craigslist/autotrader market if they tried.
I assume that is what Marketplace is but like all of their products they have a spam problem
Didn’t they already take over the Craigslist market? I don’t buy used things online ever, but all my peers who do refer exclusively to Marketplace and not Craigslist.
wat? no. there is zero guarantee that what you store there today will be available tomorrow.
Because Meta wants to find that hardware product that people would give a shit about. This way they own the software & the hardware.
Meta wants to be Apple.
Meta wants to be Apple.
All those annoyances and complaints will be forgotten if it's possible to give people the feeling like they're actually together
Which it won't.
Why not?
Seriously - I play ping-pong (Eleven on Quest 2) with my Dad across the country in VR weekly. It's a fun, decent pingpong sim that is remarkably good, but extremely low fidelity graphics.
Even though there's just a head and the paddle for the avatars, I can tell it's him playing because of subtle head and hands movements he does when he loses a point. It's this slumping thing with the shoulders that he does, hard to describe. But it's wild how much presence that little gesture gives.
Seriously - I play ping-pong (Eleven on Quest 2) with my Dad across the country in VR weekly. It's a fun, decent pingpong sim that is remarkably good, but extremely low fidelity graphics.
Even though there's just a head and the paddle for the avatars, I can tell it's him playing because of subtle head and hands movements he does when he loses a point. It's this slumping thing with the shoulders that he does, hard to describe. But it's wild how much presence that little gesture gives.
I completely agree VR games are awesome, but thats because the goal of video games is to be as immersive as possible and get you lost in it. That’s the perfect use case of VR and companies like Nintendo and Sony have been trying to perfect it for decades.
Work and work meetings is a completely different use case. We don’t need nor want to feel like we’re taken out of our comfortable home and stuck in a real conference room, really manipulating sticky notes with virtual hands, turning our head up to 180 degrees as people speak, etc to be working remotely.
Work and work meetings is a completely different use case. We don’t need nor want to feel like we’re taken out of our comfortable home and stuck in a real conference room, really manipulating sticky notes with virtual hands, turning our head up to 180 degrees as people speak, etc to be working remotely.
100%. Playing games in VR is on a whole other level when it comes to virtual presence, and it really is something that needs to be experienced rather than told.
I sunk ~ 600 hours into population one since its launch. The gameplay is ok, but the experience of playing WITH people in VR is something I’ve never come close to in 25 years of gaming, and many of the people I played with regularly had never done much gaming before they picked up their quest. I 100% get why they’re pushing this.
I sunk ~ 600 hours into population one since its launch. The gameplay is ok, but the experience of playing WITH people in VR is something I’ve never come close to in 25 years of gaming, and many of the people I played with regularly had never done much gaming before they picked up their quest. I 100% get why they’re pushing this.
Sure, but this is an opt-in versus opt-out process. If you are with your friends or family, you will opt-in and share that stuff. If you are with your co-workers? Just as right now they don't get a webcam view on Teams(for my team at least), they are getting audio.
There are great experiences to be had within VR worlds, but I can't yet see the transition to any working environment that can't be done without VR.
There are great experiences to be had within VR worlds, but I can't yet see the transition to any working environment that can't be done without VR.
I don't know what team your on, but I've been WFH for nearly a decade, and for important meetings, it's always camera on. Even then it's a challenge.
There's nothing more frustrating than a colleague obviously not paying attention, or grocery shopping with video off, on a call where they're essential. And then you have to repeat.. etc.
I'm all for VR meetings if they can nail things like eye-contact, accurate mapping to mount movements and body indicators that show attention and focus.
Because right now, too often zoom calls are a dumpster fire distraction, which is exhausting for all involved.
There's nothing more frustrating than a colleague obviously not paying attention, or grocery shopping with video off, on a call where they're essential. And then you have to repeat.. etc.
I'm all for VR meetings if they can nail things like eye-contact, accurate mapping to mount movements and body indicators that show attention and focus.
Because right now, too often zoom calls are a dumpster fire distraction, which is exhausting for all involved.
I have never felt like I was physically with someone in another country like i have in horizons and bigscreen
Maybe not by Meta, but it's an inevitability, as consumers want it and are willing to pay for it.
It's so that I can play a game with you, and you can look like an orc - with your facial expressions, and I can look like an elf - with my facial expressions.
Except, they want it to be like a giant MMO.
...where I am happy to pay real money to buy virtual clothing for my elf. Which is a thing people do, when they really care about the game.
Except, they want it to be like a giant MMO.
...where I am happy to pay real money to buy virtual clothing for my elf. Which is a thing people do, when they really care about the game.
You seriously don't have any issues with virtual meetings that you generally don't have with real meetings?
Is it a sign of neuroatypicality if I find faces just generally distracting and useless in meetings? IMO there are more than enough non-verbal cues in voice and real-time conversation flow like response speed.
(Plus people have way too much control over body language and facial expression for it to be useful in work setting)
(Plus people have way too much control over body language and facial expression for it to be useful in work setting)
You're not the only one. It's just that there is a massive industry teaching people that effective communication and active listening involves staring into peoples eyes and giving constant affirmation with noise that they are being listened to. Something that in other cultures can be considered highly offensive and rude by the way.
So no, you're not the only one, but unfortunately, you, just like me, are a silent minority. Although in some of my previous engagements building efficient highly distributed teams have spent a lot of time teaching people to work asynchronously. Which made the few time limited calls extremely effective.
So no, you're not the only one, but unfortunately, you, just like me, are a silent minority. Although in some of my previous engagements building efficient highly distributed teams have spent a lot of time teaching people to work asynchronously. Which made the few time limited calls extremely effective.
When I'm in video meetings I become hyper aware that I'm on camera and it immediately diverts a bit of my focus to little social things:
- oh I'm not smiling!
- what's that on my face?
- my hair is sticking up
- did I just pick my nose?
Even if I turn off my cam view of myself I can't seem to get rid of it. Of course I have some of this awareness in real world meetings but in a virtual meetings it's like 10x. It makes trying to do any coding over a screen share almost impossible for me, my brain feels like it's being split in half doing too much at once. Luckily most peer coding is just the screen and voice, no cam. Except interviews, lol.
- oh I'm not smiling!
- what's that on my face?
- my hair is sticking up
- did I just pick my nose?
Even if I turn off my cam view of myself I can't seem to get rid of it. Of course I have some of this awareness in real world meetings but in a virtual meetings it's like 10x. It makes trying to do any coding over a screen share almost impossible for me, my brain feels like it's being split in half doing too much at once. Luckily most peer coding is just the screen and voice, no cam. Except interviews, lol.
I'm the opposite. I find it very difficult to communicate with someone who doesn't turn on video. It's tough to gauge whether the other person understands what I'm saying or if we're still connected as I talk. I can never get in the flow.
I never liked phone calls and always preferred face-to-face communication, maybe that's related.
I never liked phone calls and always preferred face-to-face communication, maybe that's related.
With voice, I am focused on what I am saying until I make my point. If it then turns out I was not listened to, that sucks and screw that person. With video, while making my point I see the person staring at the screen, eyes wandering, and I guess it's 50/50 chance they are browsing the web. They may not, but visual input makes me wonder and ruins my focus. Times that the number of participants, if everyone has video on.
And yeah, when on a call I almost always walk, helps concentration/blood flow.
And yeah, when on a call I almost always walk, helps concentration/blood flow.
You raise some interesting points; I just want to point out that it's extremely difficult to maintain complete, continuous control over body language and facial expression--consider how significant the concept of a "tell" is even at the highest levels of poker play.
If you find faces to be useless, you can hide them on your computer monitor while in a meeting and no one would know. In the metaverse the avatars will not be faceless and you won’t be able to hide them from view
In Facebook's metaverse you can't, but in VRChat (that is, the app people actually use), disabling others' avatars (which sets them to a generic default 'robot') is default functionality.
I don’t personally think that meetings would be the same without any smiles.
They're trying to get in on some of that sweet, sweet, B2B enterprise contract money.
Facebook needs to create a new con to justify their valuation now that the charade is being exposed. That's literally it.
I’ve been a very early adopter of this tech (Kickstarter backer of Oculus), get zero motion sickness and have a great time working in VR through a virtual desktop. This looks like a few floating screens in front of my face, in a space station and I’m typing on a real Bluetooth keyboard. I think this is the only way companies will be able to keep remote-friendly polices and stay competitive with product. YMMV because I am biased to be for this, but, the way they’ve tuned this Pro model looks like it’s exactly for my use-case.
There are a lot of people pooh-poohing this who haven't tried a meeting in Workrooms. I was skeptical going in, even as a VR early adopter, and it exceeded my expectations by a long way. It feels a whole lot more like a real meeting than a Zoom call does.
I don't know if it's enough better for me to choose it over Zoom in everyday use, but this was on Quest 2. A meeting where everyone is wearing Quest Pro will be significantly better. I expect that the combination of the better screen/lenses, better comfort, much better AR passthrough, and of course the new eye/face tracking will make for a very compelling experience.
I don't know if it's enough better for me to choose it over Zoom in everyday use, but this was on Quest 2. A meeting where everyone is wearing Quest Pro will be significantly better. I expect that the combination of the better screen/lenses, better comfort, much better AR passthrough, and of course the new eye/face tracking will make for a very compelling experience.
> enough better for me to choose it over Zoom in everyday use
It doesn’t have to be better than Zoom. It has to be $1500 better than Zoom. Per employee.
I’m in agreement with you — I like Immersed and I like the idea of VR meetings. But will people/employers opt for this over a hybrid on-site/remote system? How do VR meetings work when half the team is onsite in a conference zoom? I don’t want to put on a VR a headset to talk to the coworker sitting physically next to me in a conference room.
Sadly, I see this as useful only for remote-only teams. As one of a handful of remote people on my team, it doesn’t seem like a workable option, even if I already like/use VR.
It doesn’t have to be better than Zoom. It has to be $1500 better than Zoom. Per employee.
I’m in agreement with you — I like Immersed and I like the idea of VR meetings. But will people/employers opt for this over a hybrid on-site/remote system? How do VR meetings work when half the team is onsite in a conference zoom? I don’t want to put on a VR a headset to talk to the coworker sitting physically next to me in a conference room.
Sadly, I see this as useful only for remote-only teams. As one of a handful of remote people on my team, it doesn’t seem like a workable option, even if I already like/use VR.
My team has been using Quest 2 for meetings for the past 4 months. My verdict is that it is highly preferable to video calls IFF you didn’t have to wear that terribly uncomfortable device with laggy external cameras. We’re knocking at the door of the future here but the tech is still way behind where it needs to be for widespread adoption. Is this headset that leap forward?
I'm waiting to see what the rumored Apple headset is like. It seems like minimizing the size and weight of actual electronics in the headset is the missing part of the current round of competition, and Apple is very good at that.
I think there needs to be a few things solved:
1. The lenses. Fresnel lens are a pain, if you aren't dead centre of the headset slips because of sweat, you get blurriness.
2. The weight. I have a Quest 2, and while light, it's still noticeable, and I definitely wouldn't want to work on it.
3. Resolution. You're trying to replace IRL UHD Human Vision, a resolution of 1920 x 1832 isn't going to cut it.
I enjoyed the stuff I tried in VR when it was novel, but mostly now it sits on the side, doing nothing. It just didn't hold my attention for long enough.
1. The lenses. Fresnel lens are a pain, if you aren't dead centre of the headset slips because of sweat, you get blurriness.
2. The weight. I have a Quest 2, and while light, it's still noticeable, and I definitely wouldn't want to work on it.
3. Resolution. You're trying to replace IRL UHD Human Vision, a resolution of 1920 x 1832 isn't going to cut it.
I enjoyed the stuff I tried in VR when it was novel, but mostly now it sits on the side, doing nothing. It just didn't hold my attention for long enough.
Good thing Quest Pro improves on all of those things. (Technically not weight, but weight distribution which is huge).
> It doesn’t have to be better than Zoom. It has to be $1500 better than Zoom. Per employee.
Is this sarcasm? That's less than 2/3rds of the entry-level price of a 16" MacBook Pro.
If whatever your (remote) business makes isn't valuable enough to spend $125 / month per employee on (assuming you buy a new system every year!), then the future is bleak...
Is this sarcasm? That's less than 2/3rds of the entry-level price of a 16" MacBook Pro.
If whatever your (remote) business makes isn't valuable enough to spend $125 / month per employee on (assuming you buy a new system every year!), then the future is bleak...
I think you’re doing the math wrong.
The question isn’t if your business can afford to spend $125/mo on VR headset for every employee (I’d even amortize that over 2-3 years to $42-62/mo).
The question is — does the employer get more than $125/mo of benefit out of the VR solution — for every employee that needs to attend meetings. Because this only works if everyone in a meeting has a headset. And you’re only going to see $CORP buying these headsets if they get more benefit out of them than they cost.
Buying a ten seat license for Zoom Pro is an easy thing to approve. The laptop/computer required for a zoom meeting (as you pointed out) is already a sunk cost. Buying $15k of VR gear to have that same 10-person meeting is a much tougher pill to swallow.
For some small teams, I could see this absolutely making sense. But Facebook needs to sell this to large enterprises to have the transformational impact they are looking for.
The question isn’t if your business can afford to spend $125/mo on VR headset for every employee (I’d even amortize that over 2-3 years to $42-62/mo).
The question is — does the employer get more than $125/mo of benefit out of the VR solution — for every employee that needs to attend meetings. Because this only works if everyone in a meeting has a headset. And you’re only going to see $CORP buying these headsets if they get more benefit out of them than they cost.
Buying a ten seat license for Zoom Pro is an easy thing to approve. The laptop/computer required for a zoom meeting (as you pointed out) is already a sunk cost. Buying $15k of VR gear to have that same 10-person meeting is a much tougher pill to swallow.
For some small teams, I could see this absolutely making sense. But Facebook needs to sell this to large enterprises to have the transformational impact they are looking for.
There is zero chance my enterprise would go for this - besides which taking on and off VR headsets during the day vs opening Microsoft Teams just doesn't currently seem that practical.
I'm sure the day will come where this is more normal, but there are still a few more cultural and technical hurdles to overcome.
During the last lockdown here, I took a few meetings in VR with a digital avatar (using teams) and it was a pretty good experience and broke up the monotony of working from home, but I haven't done it again since being back in hybrid mode...
All that being said, I desperately want one of these to try out as essentially a 'replacement' for my monitor at home.
I'm sure the day will come where this is more normal, but there are still a few more cultural and technical hurdles to overcome.
During the last lockdown here, I took a few meetings in VR with a digital avatar (using teams) and it was a pretty good experience and broke up the monotony of working from home, but I haven't done it again since being back in hybrid mode...
All that being said, I desperately want one of these to try out as essentially a 'replacement' for my monitor at home.
> All that being said, I desperately want one of these to try out as essentially a 'replacement' for my monitor at home.
I’m very much in the same situation. I have a Quest 1 and 2. And they were great during lock down to have something for my kids to do to be active indoors. I had a few meetings that way too and liked Immersed the few times I used it.
But, this has me excited. (But not for meetings)
I’m very interested to see how this new headset will work as a monitor replacement. Especially if I can take my “work” environment home with me, or when I’m working in the car while waiting for my kid’s $SPORT practice.
I’m very much in the same situation. I have a Quest 1 and 2. And they were great during lock down to have something for my kids to do to be active indoors. I had a few meetings that way too and liked Immersed the few times I used it.
But, this has me excited. (But not for meetings)
I’m very interested to see how this new headset will work as a monitor replacement. Especially if I can take my “work” environment home with me, or when I’m working in the car while waiting for my kid’s $SPORT practice.
It’s just as difficult to swallow a $15K cloud bill and companies do that every month. They will have money to buy employees VR equipment to improve productivity with the money they saved on real estate.
[deleted]
My company profits millions a year and I can barely get a new keyboard as a top SW developer :)
While working for a small startup of 5, I had very nice equipment.
$1500 is nothing if it makes remote collaboration competitive with IRL collaboration.
But how often do you have exclusively remote collaboration?
I’m sure for many people that is common. It’s not for me. Normally I’m talking with a few people remote in zoom and the rest of the team on site in a conference room.
For remote exclusive groups, this makes sense.
But does it make sense for businesses to buy this for all of their employees — if they have a hybrid workforce? I would expect most employers will or are shifting towards a hybrid setup.
How many remote-only employers are there? Is it enough of a market to make this more than a gimmick?
I get VR for personal use. I get it for one-to-one communication. But I’m skeptical for business communication.
I’m sure for many people that is common. It’s not for me. Normally I’m talking with a few people remote in zoom and the rest of the team on site in a conference room.
For remote exclusive groups, this makes sense.
But does it make sense for businesses to buy this for all of their employees — if they have a hybrid workforce? I would expect most employers will or are shifting towards a hybrid setup.
How many remote-only employers are there? Is it enough of a market to make this more than a gimmick?
I get VR for personal use. I get it for one-to-one communication. But I’m skeptical for business communication.
I work at a place that technically has an office, but 99% of the time only a single person is in it during the week, and 80% of my team now lives across the world (they started here in Aus but moved) -- we're as close to "remote only" as you can get, but my boss and I had a laugh at the Quest Pro (despite us both being VR users!) today when it was announced. Even for remote-only work, it's just not there yet, and not at $2500 AUD per device. Maybe if the next version has a much higher resolution for better text rendering on N virtual screens, so they can have dual-purpose.
The resolution is a real disappointment. Having experimented with a regular quest for virtual monitors its clear that insufficient resolution is one of the biggest problems currently. They have made some other improvements that in theory improve the effective resolution. I will watch the reviews to see how much that actually helps but its hard to imagine it making the kind of difference I think is necessary.
[deleted]
[deleted]
i have no idea how well it addresses it but Zuckerberg did specifically acknowledge this in his keynote. He talked specifically about ensuring seamless experience for people using flat screens with Zoom and Teams mixed with those in VR. I don't think your assumption that it's only for pure remote is valid, at least certainly in terms of what Meta is working on.
1500$/employee is cheaper than flying them to an offsite. Heck you could buy 100 of these and ship them to employees temporarily for their offsite.
Why bother with offsites when video conferencing is ubiquitous?
After working in an extremely remote friendly workplace prior to the pandemic, and then with everyone working remotely for two years, I think the results of the natural experiment is in. There's zero benefit to being physically together in the 2020s.
Even when I've been offsite before, it's just a waste money. Sit in a room with my laptop? Uh... I was already doing that. Look at this person's screen? Already can did that. Go out and get Thai food and cocktails on corporate account? Well, I couldn't do that.
After working in an extremely remote friendly workplace prior to the pandemic, and then with everyone working remotely for two years, I think the results of the natural experiment is in. There's zero benefit to being physically together in the 2020s.
Even when I've been offsite before, it's just a waste money. Sit in a room with my laptop? Uh... I was already doing that. Look at this person's screen? Already can did that. Go out and get Thai food and cocktails on corporate account? Well, I couldn't do that.
I joined a company and worked remotely for about a year before meeting anyone I worked with (in person). We eventually did all meet up and it was great.
There is just enough latency in video conferencing that people start talking at the same time a lot. This is fine in short meetings. But when we wanted to discuss larger structural changes for longer periods of time, it was exhausting. It worked much better in person.
> Go out and get Thai food and cocktails on corporate account? Well, I couldn't do that.
That also provides lots of value in my book. People talk about random shit and sometimes that creates good ideas. Also it's just nice to actually meet the people you work with.
I'm not saying you need constant off-sites, but meeting up sometimes is great.
There is just enough latency in video conferencing that people start talking at the same time a lot. This is fine in short meetings. But when we wanted to discuss larger structural changes for longer periods of time, it was exhausting. It worked much better in person.
> Go out and get Thai food and cocktails on corporate account? Well, I couldn't do that.
That also provides lots of value in my book. People talk about random shit and sometimes that creates good ideas. Also it's just nice to actually meet the people you work with.
I'm not saying you need constant off-sites, but meeting up sometimes is great.
> There's zero benefit to being physically together in the 2020s.
Correction - 0 benefit for you. And that’s fine. For many others not getting together in person severely impacts productivity.
Correction - 0 benefit for you. And that’s fine. For many others not getting together in person severely impacts productivity.
You’re going to have to do better than simply stating that somewhere someone might possibly benefit and therefore everyone has to change their life to accommodate.
Me and most of coworkers in my org of 50 people fully voluntary come to the office, as being together in person increases our productivity, that was down during COVID.
Meanwhile you claim that because it works for you, it becomes a dogma that people shouldn't work together in person?
Sorry, it hard to take your arguments seriously.
Meanwhile you claim that because it works for you, it becomes a dogma that people shouldn't work together in person?
Sorry, it hard to take your arguments seriously.
The point of mixed reality is that you can beam people into the space. So the people in the room could watch on a TV and be there in person if they wanted, while everyone else was there in VR.
[deleted]
The main reason I don't see it working for meetings is because it's relatively a hassle to put it on and going into meetings I want everything to happen fast and painless. Every delay or extra step is to be avoided. Sometimes you have a series of back to back meetings where things really need to work fast.
Besides, haven't tried the Pro but everything else I did try isn't there in terms of comfort. A lot of people wear glasses and it's just a bad experience for them.
The last point that seems to be unaccounted for is the flexibility of current voice meetings. You can connect from almost any device anywhere. You can join a meeting from your car. I somehow sense that's going to be a tad problematic with a VR headset.
Besides, haven't tried the Pro but everything else I did try isn't there in terms of comfort. A lot of people wear glasses and it's just a bad experience for them.
The last point that seems to be unaccounted for is the flexibility of current voice meetings. You can connect from almost any device anywhere. You can join a meeting from your car. I somehow sense that's going to be a tad problematic with a VR headset.
Quest Pro actually addresses those concerns. The head mount style is miles easier than the Quest 2 strap; it looks much more like PSVR if you've tried that. Putting on PSVR feels more like putting on a hat. It rests more on top of your head and doesn't smash your face. In fact, unlike other VR headsets it looks like Quest Pro doesn't contact your face at all, and leaves plenty of room for glasses. There's no charging cable to plug/unplug, no external tracker, and you don't need the controllers for meetings, so the headset is entirely self-contained. It could literally be as simple as five seconds to pick the headset up off your desk and put it on like a hat and it turns on automatically and you're in.
Of course the ultimate idea is you'll be doing your regular work on virtual screens in VR, so you won't even need to don/doff the headset. But I think comfort and battery life and screen resolution will need to improve further for that to be realistic for most people.
As for flexibility, Workrooms supports standard video calling just fine. You can join from your laptop or phone and still participate. To the VR participants you appear on a large projection screen, and you see the VR participants using a virtual meeting room camera. So you lose nothing in terms of flexibility.
Of course the ultimate idea is you'll be doing your regular work on virtual screens in VR, so you won't even need to don/doff the headset. But I think comfort and battery life and screen resolution will need to improve further for that to be realistic for most people.
As for flexibility, Workrooms supports standard video calling just fine. You can join from your laptop or phone and still participate. To the VR participants you appear on a large projection screen, and you see the VR participants using a virtual meeting room camera. So you lose nothing in terms of flexibility.
Exactly, people show up 5-10 minutes late to meetings where they have to click a single button to join, and we expect them to hook in to a VR setup before joining?
Not to mention that "too many meetings" is a thing many of us complain about. Just because they might be "VR meetings" doesn't take away the feeling that you're having too many meetings.
I tried out Horizon Worlds recently and I was honestly amazed by how immersive it was. I genuinely felt like I was out socialising with people while sat at home.
I can definitely see the use cases, especially as the technology improves. If there were live VR music events that me and my friends in different cities and countries could all attend to feel together I imagine I'd use it quite often.
I can definitely see the use cases, especially as the technology improves. If there were live VR music events that me and my friends in different cities and countries could all attend to feel together I imagine I'd use it quite often.
This comment reminds me my first times in geocities chatrooms, talking with people all over the world. Welcome to the future.
> live VR music events
How does that work? Do you mean the band members are avatars too? Or are you talking about a DJ pressing play, and you're in VR space with your friends basically listening to a playlist?
Or are you in a VR cinema with your friends, watching a live stream of a real band?
How does that work? Do you mean the band members are avatars too? Or are you talking about a DJ pressing play, and you're in VR space with your friends basically listening to a playlist?
Or are you in a VR cinema with your friends, watching a live stream of a real band?
It's done a few different ways, I don't think the perfect solution has been found yet. DJs or bands have performed as avatars by using full body tracking. More commonly, the performer will have a camera on them and the video is displayed on a screen in the VR event. They can also see what's happening in the event so it's possible for them to interact with the crowd. As headsets become lighter and more comfortable and FBT gets easier with inside out camera tracking or better trackers; performing as an avatar will become more common. The events are usually in environments that look like clubs or concert halls.
Aren't there several companies that do that ?
Maybe https://wavexr.com/ for example?
Maybe https://wavexr.com/ for example?
Is agreeing to the third party abusive Meta/Facebook TOS going to be a requirement of employment with third parties then?
Will users be permitted to create accounts only for work?
If not, when your personal account gets banned or disabled, will you be unable to work?
Will users be permitted to create accounts only for work?
If not, when your personal account gets banned or disabled, will you be unable to work?
The Facebook login requirement is gone. If you are banned from Facebook you can use Quest, no problem. Yes, you can create a separate work account. In fact, Workplace accounts are separate already.
This is what kept me from trying Quest despite being a VR superfan. Once they finally announced the account change I took the plunge and picked one up
I just didn't want to risk losing hundreds of dollars' worth of games because Facebook's retarded algorithms decided they don't like some meme I posted years ago.
(Actually, Facebook's moderation has kept me from using it for anything other than posting family photos and clicking the "like" button on others' photos.. it's just too risky that I'll cross a line and get deleted)
I just didn't want to risk losing hundreds of dollars' worth of games because Facebook's retarded algorithms decided they don't like some meme I posted years ago.
(Actually, Facebook's moderation has kept me from using it for anything other than posting family photos and clicking the "like" button on others' photos.. it's just too risky that I'll cross a line and get deleted)
I’ve heard they still maintain real name basis for the Meta login requirement though…
That is incorrect.
From https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/#:~:t....
> Email: You can only create one Meta account per email address. First and last name: We recommend using your real name in case you need to recover your account or manage your store purchases, but it is not required.
From https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/#:~:t....
> Email: You can only create one Meta account per email address. First and last name: We recommend using your real name in case you need to recover your account or manage your store purchases, but it is not required.
Is this a general change? My Rift was nice but it has been gathering dust since that change, it would be cool to hear they've relented.
Yes it is a general change. A Facebook account is no longer needed to use VR. You can link a Facebook account if you so choose, but even then a ban on Facebook has no effect on your access to VR.
If you have an old Oculus account, it can be converted directly into a Meta account.
See https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/ and https://www.oculus.com/blog/getting-started-with-meta-accoun....
Note that it will be far easier to convert your Oculus account before 1 January 2023.
If you have an old Oculus account, it can be converted directly into a Meta account.
See https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/ and https://www.oculus.com/blog/getting-started-with-meta-accoun....
Note that it will be far easier to convert your Oculus account before 1 January 2023.
I've been reluctant to try getting my coworkers into VR because they'd probably just laugh at me, but a couple of friends and I met up in VR (we're all fully-grown professionals) and it was great. Meetings in VR would be a lot more productive, IMO.
Never tried it,
Can you see the micro expressions on your audience faces?
Can you draw on a whiteboard with fidelity similar to that of RL chalkboard?
Can I take notes?
Can you see the micro expressions on your audience faces?
Can you draw on a whiteboard with fidelity similar to that of RL chalkboard?
Can I take notes?
> Can you see the micro expressions on your audience faces?
No, but you get an amazing amount of context from their body language
> Can you draw on a whiteboard with fidelity similar to that of RL chalkboard?
Yes
> Can I take notes?
I never tried this, but I can imagine several ways to do so (the simplest of which is to just record the meeting & the contents of the whiteboard).
No, but you get an amazing amount of context from their body language
> Can you draw on a whiteboard with fidelity similar to that of RL chalkboard?
Yes
> Can I take notes?
I never tried this, but I can imagine several ways to do so (the simplest of which is to just record the meeting & the contents of the whiteboard).
The idea of being painted as a literal second class citizen if you have lower end hardware is gross, but it's also the natural destination of progressive enhancement if e.g. facial expressions only work with the expensive thing.
Snow Crash is getting closer and closer it seems, the distinction between the rich folks with their outrageous avatars in the inner city and the plebeians who access the 'net through some public terminal which provides them with a nondescript black-and-white avatar - which is not allowed to enter the inner city - is a clear feature of its world.
It’s the other way around. Wealthy people can opt out of Meta’s VR surveillance apparatus, others cannot.
Many if not most things in life can be improved by spending more money, in ways that give you practical and social advantages. It's not as if VR is unique in that respect.
> The idea of being painted as a literal second class citizen if you have lower end hardware is gross
This is true for cars, houses, PC gamers, console gamers, mechanics, chefs, etc etc etc
This is true for cars, houses, PC gamers, console gamers, mechanics, chefs, etc etc etc
On the Internet, by default, I have no idea how nice your car, house, computer, or food is. We're talking on a website that would comfortably load on 1990s hardware.
Meta is just one small corner of this and as such doesn't perhaps deserve particular blame, but it's sad to think about how we've slowly eroded the Internet's fundamentally democratic, equalizing nature.
Meta is just one small corner of this and as such doesn't perhaps deserve particular blame, but it's sad to think about how we've slowly eroded the Internet's fundamentally democratic, equalizing nature.
The lowest common denominator poses heavy limitations of what can be done. I agree with you but also sympathize with those who want to go beyond text and still images.
I agree! The Internet can be way more than a text forum like this. My point was merely that we don't have to build an online world that reflects our real world's democratic leakages. We can simply choose to do better, so long as we're willing to say no to some (but not all!) forms of profit.
There's a big difference between driving a lowend car and literally not being able to express yourself.
I am well aware that status and appearance are already things in real life, but it becomes a whole different thing when it gets intermixed with your identity. Your actual person is worse because you didn't buy the upgrade. That's way different than not having a cool shirt or whatever.
I am well aware that status and appearance are already things in real life, but it becomes a whole different thing when it gets intermixed with your identity. Your actual person is worse because you didn't buy the upgrade. That's way different than not having a cool shirt or whatever.
This is something to worry about when we're at the level of VR adoption where people are conducting their daily business in the metaverse. At that point, camera based face and body tracking will likely be dirt cheap and included with even the most basic headset. Having a good network connection will be a bigger divider since that technology is improving much more slowly and unevenly.
If we weren't already talking about a luxury item such as a VR headset, I might agree. But I can't feel sorry for someone who buys a non-essential item and then feels hard done by because they didn't buy a better non-essential item to be honest.
> It feels a whole lot more like a real meeting than a Zoom call does.
I haven't had the chance to try it myself, so can you explain how it's better?
I feel like the main problem with remote meetings is the audio latency. You cannot speak as you would naturally, you'd speak in turn instead. I'm guessing VR allows you to give and receive visual cues about this so it might be better, is this what you had in mind?
I haven't had the chance to try it myself, so can you explain how it's better?
I feel like the main problem with remote meetings is the audio latency. You cannot speak as you would naturally, you'd speak in turn instead. I'm guessing VR allows you to give and receive visual cues about this so it might be better, is this what you had in mind?
The audio latency is better. You're not sending or receiving HD video so your connection is less loaded and the audio doesn't ever have to be delayed to synchronize with video. And VR devices are better optimized for low latency than your average system. Visual cues for turn taking while speaking work better, as you mentioned. Spatial audio is awesome for locating speakers and differentiating multiple speakers at once. Hand gestures work better; you can actually point at things in a shared 3D space.
People just won’t put on world-occluding headsets to talk to cartoons, end of the day. Only in bubble-land does this pass the smell test imo.
I remember swearing up and down that I didn't need a phone I could carry everywhere with me. This was in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
What communication was so important that it couldn't wait until I was home, next to my land line and answering machine?
What communication was so important that it couldn't wait until I was home, next to my land line and answering machine?
Phones work because they are so simple, unobtrusive and easy to position and use contextually. They are the argument against VR.
Have you seen the cellphones of the late 1980s? https://techcentral.co.za/the-cellphones-of-the-1980s/191544...
While phones now are "simple, unobtrusive and easy to position and use contextually", they certainly weren't then.
While phones now are "simple, unobtrusive and easy to position and use contextually", they certainly weren't then.
And they weren’t as popular then. They also were unobtrusive in the ways that matter - you could walk around and talk while doing other things. David Foster Wallace has a whole thing on this in IJ that really captures it well, where even corded phones are really better than we give credit because they give you freedom and privacy. You can do chores, look in the mirror, and signal to people in the room all while talking.
If anything I think things move more towards Slack Huddle where you retain your freedom of movement in favor of just voice + screen. It’s an anachronistic pov to try and force real world into virtual so literally.
It’s just a very SV thing to ignore all the social and emotional needs and just look at “oh it’s higher fidelity” or whatever. If it was all about immersion people would carry iPads around, but they don’t.
The difference in asking someone to give 10% of their vision to a TV or phone screen that can be turned away from with 0 effort, vs giving 100% of their vision, with considerable effort to enter and leave, is so under appreciated.
If anything I think things move more towards Slack Huddle where you retain your freedom of movement in favor of just voice + screen. It’s an anachronistic pov to try and force real world into virtual so literally.
It’s just a very SV thing to ignore all the social and emotional needs and just look at “oh it’s higher fidelity” or whatever. If it was all about immersion people would carry iPads around, but they don’t.
The difference in asking someone to give 10% of their vision to a TV or phone screen that can be turned away from with 0 effort, vs giving 100% of their vision, with considerable effort to enter and leave, is so under appreciated.
I don't think you've spent enough time learning about the technology or the goals of its proponents to argue against it. You're starting to veer off into strawman territory. Most VR proponents see two big use cases: immersive entertainment and augmented reality.
Immersive entertainment will demand 100% of your attention but you will want to give it 100% because there is no other way to have such a deep experience otherwise. Watching a movie or playing a game on a screen is fine but it doesn't give you the same visceral reactions that you have with even the simplest VR experiences like standing on a ledge 10 stories up or killing an NPC in melee combat. Both feel real and the second one can be quite disturbing the first time you do it even though the graphics are still low res. I've never experienced anything that even came close through a normal screen
Augmented reality will be unobtrusive and only demand part of your attention. It will be additive to the world around you and it will replace the phone in your pocket along with thousands of other things. This technology is still a long ways off but we're already building the bridge to it with mixed reality and high-res passthrough.
Immersive entertainment will demand 100% of your attention but you will want to give it 100% because there is no other way to have such a deep experience otherwise. Watching a movie or playing a game on a screen is fine but it doesn't give you the same visceral reactions that you have with even the simplest VR experiences like standing on a ledge 10 stories up or killing an NPC in melee combat. Both feel real and the second one can be quite disturbing the first time you do it even though the graphics are still low res. I've never experienced anything that even came close through a normal screen
Augmented reality will be unobtrusive and only demand part of your attention. It will be additive to the world around you and it will replace the phone in your pocket along with thousands of other things. This technology is still a long ways off but we're already building the bridge to it with mixed reality and high-res passthrough.
I don’t think you have the capability to understand this thread.
I’m talking about virtual meetings specifically, and then adding a note about why it’ll never be generally popular like we see smartphones only because someone replied with that.
I’ve used VR and whatever joke AR exists (the MS headset) extensively and I don’t need to be familiar with “proponents” to make any argument whatsoever.
VR will be cool for sunset of gaming, some may like it for work. Meetings not so much. AR doesn’t even really exist and no passthrough doesn’t count at least not this decade.
I’m talking about virtual meetings specifically, and then adding a note about why it’ll never be generally popular like we see smartphones only because someone replied with that.
I’ve used VR and whatever joke AR exists (the MS headset) extensively and I don’t need to be familiar with “proponents” to make any argument whatsoever.
VR will be cool for sunset of gaming, some may like it for work. Meetings not so much. AR doesn’t even really exist and no passthrough doesn’t count at least not this decade.
Hey man, I wasn't trying to start a fight so reel it in a bit. If you don't like VR personally, that's fine but I don't think your personal experience generalizes to everyone.
I'm perfectly happy admitting that VR will remain niche for quite some time, just like cellphones did and pretty much for the same reasons: size, cost, battery life, cold start of a tech that requires network effects to grow, and social acceptability of use in public spaces. Similar cycles played a factor in the adoption of home computers and the internet, it takes a while for new technology to get off the ground and the initial versions of it are always clunky and unergonomic compared to later revisions that take into account knowledge gained by building and deploying the naive and constrained design.
VR headsets won't always look like they do now, that can be guaranteed as long as technological progress continues. We can argue about the timeline but I admit that no one can predict the future so what's the point. I do think VR will matter for meetings and social activities, there's a huge market consisting of people who live far away from their loved ones or who lose touch with friends after a move. As the technology and UX improve it will become more common to visit someone in VR instead of calling them occasionally. I did say AR doesn't exist and that what we have right now is MR (Mixed Reality) which involves passthrough. I don't even know what sunset of gaming means, it sounds as non-sensical as sunset of movies or sunset of radio to me.
I'm perfectly happy admitting that VR will remain niche for quite some time, just like cellphones did and pretty much for the same reasons: size, cost, battery life, cold start of a tech that requires network effects to grow, and social acceptability of use in public spaces. Similar cycles played a factor in the adoption of home computers and the internet, it takes a while for new technology to get off the ground and the initial versions of it are always clunky and unergonomic compared to later revisions that take into account knowledge gained by building and deploying the naive and constrained design.
VR headsets won't always look like they do now, that can be guaranteed as long as technological progress continues. We can argue about the timeline but I admit that no one can predict the future so what's the point. I do think VR will matter for meetings and social activities, there's a huge market consisting of people who live far away from their loved ones or who lose touch with friends after a move. As the technology and UX improve it will become more common to visit someone in VR instead of calling them occasionally. I did say AR doesn't exist and that what we have right now is MR (Mixed Reality) which involves passthrough. I don't even know what sunset of gaming means, it sounds as non-sensical as sunset of movies or sunset of radio to me.
VR with inside-out tracking is way easier to use casually than wired PCVR.
> People just won’t put on world-occluding headsets to talk to cartoons
People already do with VRChat (current average about 19,000 users/day on Steam, likely much more on the standalone app on the Quest 2), and it frankly sucks in a ton of ways. Take an app that captures the same user interest, fix all the shitty parts, and put it on better hardware and I would expect user numbers to explode.
People already do with VRChat (current average about 19,000 users/day on Steam, likely much more on the standalone app on the Quest 2), and it frankly sucks in a ton of ways. Take an app that captures the same user interest, fix all the shitty parts, and put it on better hardware and I would expect user numbers to explode.
The headset here doesn’t occlude the world it has video pass through.
I think the entire player population of VRChat would like to disagree with you.
The audio latency problem is solved with spatial audio. In VRChat you can easily follow a conversation with 10 people talking over each other, because the audio comes from the direction of their avatars and you can tune it in and out naturally like you do in real life.
$1800 to ram the concept of physical meetings remotely instead of adapting to the benefits of remote work is a comically steep price that only SV tech bros will consider.
Even the NYC finance people blowing that weekly on cocaïne will laugh their asses off at the idea.
Even the NYC finance people blowing that weekly on cocaïne will laugh their asses off at the idea.
The hardware looks pretty good. I bought a HP reverb G2 because it had the highest resolution. While not bad, i learned that resolution isn't everything as the picture is pretty blurry anywhere except dead ahead due to the Fresnel lenses, so the new pancake lenses sound promising. I also don't get motion sickness and might be interested in working in VR if the readability is good. My only other hold up is that even at 36 years old and using computers since I was 5, I still don't type properly and do occasionally look down at the keyboard lol. Would be great if the forward facing cameras will allow this.
The Quest 1 and 2 also have fresnel lenses but they're not all that blurry. Sharpest dead ahead sure but it's not terrible.
And I wonder if the pancake lenses are really better there. I think god rays will be significantly reduced but edge sharpness is really hard to do with such close focus. The light path at the edges of the LCD to the eye could be twice as long than in the middle.
And I wonder if the pancake lenses are really better there. I think god rays will be significantly reduced but edge sharpness is really hard to do with such close focus. The light path at the edges of the LCD to the eye could be twice as long than in the middle.
Meta Workrooms has passthrough mode for just the keyboard so you can still look down at your fingers when you're typing.
This feature is surprisingly polished. Your keyboard is tracked by the headset and it renders a high quality model in place of it, and when the headset sees your hands go over the keyboard, it overlays the video of your hands into the scene.
I think this is the only way companies will be able to keep remote-friendly polices and stay competitive with product.
People have built billion dollar companies entirely remotely without VR (eg Gitlab), so why will it become a requirement in the future? What change will happen to make it a necessity?
People have built billion dollar companies entirely remotely without VR (eg Gitlab), so why will it become a requirement in the future? What change will happen to make it a necessity?
> get zero motion sickness
Whatever the opposite of a killer app is called (maybe "app killer"?) this is it.
Even if it afflicts a relatively small number of users, it's a serious problem. Besides terrible PR (people less likely to try it because of the risk of a bad experience) it's the fact that any technology that arbitrarily excludes some non-tiny portion of the population is problematic for broad acceptance.
Whatever the opposite of a killer app is called (maybe "app killer"?) this is it.
Even if it afflicts a relatively small number of users, it's a serious problem. Besides terrible PR (people less likely to try it because of the risk of a bad experience) it's the fact that any technology that arbitrarily excludes some non-tiny portion of the population is problematic for broad acceptance.
Does anybody actually get motion sickness in apps where there's no motion?
I've never seen an instance of that. If it does happen to some people I'd be very curious about what causes it since there's no obvious reason why it should occur.
I've never seen an instance of that. If it does happen to some people I'd be very curious about what causes it since there's no obvious reason why it should occur.
I’ve gotten motion sickness just looking at static images from Google Earth. I used to work at Facebook and saw some talks on this. As I understand it, the problem is basically one of latency; the time between when your head moves and when the image updates should be < 7 ms or something like that.
If getting the response times below 7ms is all that's required to fix that problem for the small minority of people who have it then that still seems pretty doable. You would need a 144hz display though.
Are you sure you weren't experiencing other problems though, like stuttering or dropped frames? I've noticed Google Earth can have performance issues sometimes depending on how detailed the 3d imagery is in the area you're viewing.
Are you sure you weren't experiencing other problems though, like stuttering or dropped frames? I've noticed Google Earth can have performance issues sometimes depending on how detailed the 3d imagery is in the area you're viewing.
> If getting the response times below 7ms is all that's required to fix that problem for the small minority of people who have it then that still seems pretty doable. You would need a 144hz display though.
It's not just the frame rate. When your eyes and inner ear don't agree on the perception of movement you can end up with motion sickness. It's very easy in VR for your eyes to see movement counter to what's being perceived by your inner ear.
It's not just the frame rate. When your eyes and inner ear don't agree on the perception of movement you can end up with motion sickness. It's very easy in VR for your eyes to see movement counter to what's being perceived by your inner ear.
You should try the original Oculus Rift dev kit.
It didn’t do any head (other than rotation) tracking, and it’s extremely disorienting to move your head and have the view be static.
It didn’t do any head (other than rotation) tracking, and it’s extremely disorienting to move your head and have the view be static.
I'd count that as motion. Instead of the world remaining static when you move your head, it moves with you.
This gets better and better as the hardware improves. Most VR nausea is caused by poor hardware performance
That's probably going to be the inevitable problem with VR solutions though, right? Maybe not in the tech bubble, but outside of that, I absolutely can see this going down as some version of "execs get the latest and greatest VR headset, average employee gets the shitty thing from 5 generations ago that induces massive motion sickness" in non-tech companies.
No, it isn’t because that would mean lost productivity if you’re hinting that anyone not c level gets a nausea inducing headset.
Apparently its also a problem that affects older people more than younger ones.
Good luck getting your VR meetings product off the ground when your 50 year old boss can’t use it without getting sick.
Good luck getting your VR meetings product off the ground when your 50 year old boss can’t use it without getting sick.
The worst part is that if you try and fight through the sickness, you'll actually condition yourself to get sicker. If you power through sim sickness enough, you'll get to a point where you feel like tossing your cookies when you just look at or think about a VR headset.
I think it's become a major problem in the VR game market. Everyone except the super hard core has been burned away by sim sickness, so now all the remaining fans demand intense but nausea-inducing experiences with no comfort options (or too-easily disabled comfort options)
I think it's become a major problem in the VR game market. Everyone except the super hard core has been burned away by sim sickness, so now all the remaining fans demand intense but nausea-inducing experiences with no comfort options (or too-easily disabled comfort options)
> The worst part is that if you try and fight through the sickness, you'll actually condition yourself to get sicker.
Yes. This is absolutely true. Whatever you do: DON'T try to 'fight through it'. As soon as you don't feel well, STOP. Then pick it up later. Soon you will be able to go for a longer time and it'll disappear completely. Make sure your IDP is set correctly. Get an optometrist to check it for you to make sure. Looking crosseyed (unknowingly) really does not help things.
If you tried doing it that way you were really doing it wrong. You could indeed develop a negative association to the headset. I had this with the DK1 (Development Kit 1) of the Rift, but this was because it simply had horribly inaccurate 3DOF tracking (not 6DOF as required in the real world), and also a high persistance display.
> I think it's become a major problem in the VR game market. Everyone except the super hard core has been burned away by sim sickness, so now all the remaining fans demand intense but nausea-inducing experiences with no comfort options (or too-easily disabled comfort options)
It's not. First of all, you have to take it easy like I described. You will accomodate to it much better. Yes some people will never manage it but it's a really small percentage. If you can ride in the back of a car without getting sick, you can do this as long as you take it easy.
Also, the experiences Meta is aiming for here don't involve rollercoasters and the like. VR is totally fine if you're moving normally within your free tracked space. The problem starts happening when you move with the stick without actually moving, because the disassociation between the visual and inertial senses. The teleportation option helps a lot.
But in a business meeting really you don't have to move around a lot. As long as your motions within that small space are tracked accurately, there will be no motion sickness.
Yes. This is absolutely true. Whatever you do: DON'T try to 'fight through it'. As soon as you don't feel well, STOP. Then pick it up later. Soon you will be able to go for a longer time and it'll disappear completely. Make sure your IDP is set correctly. Get an optometrist to check it for you to make sure. Looking crosseyed (unknowingly) really does not help things.
If you tried doing it that way you were really doing it wrong. You could indeed develop a negative association to the headset. I had this with the DK1 (Development Kit 1) of the Rift, but this was because it simply had horribly inaccurate 3DOF tracking (not 6DOF as required in the real world), and also a high persistance display.
> I think it's become a major problem in the VR game market. Everyone except the super hard core has been burned away by sim sickness, so now all the remaining fans demand intense but nausea-inducing experiences with no comfort options (or too-easily disabled comfort options)
It's not. First of all, you have to take it easy like I described. You will accomodate to it much better. Yes some people will never manage it but it's a really small percentage. If you can ride in the back of a car without getting sick, you can do this as long as you take it easy.
Also, the experiences Meta is aiming for here don't involve rollercoasters and the like. VR is totally fine if you're moving normally within your free tracked space. The problem starts happening when you move with the stick without actually moving, because the disassociation between the visual and inertial senses. The teleportation option helps a lot.
But in a business meeting really you don't have to move around a lot. As long as your motions within that small space are tracked accurately, there will be no motion sickness.
> If you can ride in the back of a car without getting sick
I can do that if I'm looking out the window, but not if I try to read a book or watch a video.
Attention and focus seems to have a lot to do with the problem, which makes sense since the issue is a disconnect between what your brain is experiencing and what your inner ear is experiencing.
I can do that if I'm looking out the window, but not if I try to read a book or watch a video.
Attention and focus seems to have a lot to do with the problem, which makes sense since the issue is a disconnect between what your brain is experiencing and what your inner ear is experiencing.
> Get an optometrist to check it for you to make sure.
There are plenty of phone apps that can get you an IPD measurement that's accurate enough for glasses prescriptions.
There are plenty of phone apps that can get you an IPD measurement that's accurate enough for glasses prescriptions.
[deleted]
I get motion sickness when I'm playing regular video games, not even VR, that's entirely out of the question.
If I don't stop at the first sign of queasiness, which for me creeps up quite slowly, if I don't notice and it gets reasonably strong, it will keep building for another half hour after I stop and can take up to 2 hours to go away. The only thing I can do is lie down with my eyes closed and think about not throwing up.
With me, the more focused I am on the game, even if the screen takes up a smaller part of my vision, the sicker I get. The more my lizard brain thinks its reality, the worse it is.
If I don't stop at the first sign of queasiness, which for me creeps up quite slowly, if I don't notice and it gets reasonably strong, it will keep building for another half hour after I stop and can take up to 2 hours to go away. The only thing I can do is lie down with my eyes closed and think about not throwing up.
With me, the more focused I am on the game, even if the screen takes up a smaller part of my vision, the sicker I get. The more my lizard brain thinks its reality, the worse it is.
I don't think that's true in every case. When I first started playing VR I would sometimes get a little motion sick. I kept playing and only took breaks when it got bad. Now almost nothing makes me motion sick except when my headset massively bugs out and the world freezes and even then I don't get that sick just a bit uncomfortable.
I've heard of other people purposely training themselves to not be motion sick by playing fairly extreme games or in one case a developer who built a world that would repeatedly drop him from a height.
I don't doubt that it's possible to have the opposite outcome, it probably depends on the person and the process they're going through. I just don't think it's a general rule.
I've heard of other people purposely training themselves to not be motion sick by playing fairly extreme games or in one case a developer who built a world that would repeatedly drop him from a height.
I don't doubt that it's possible to have the opposite outcome, it probably depends on the person and the process they're going through. I just don't think it's a general rule.
> get zero motion sickness and have a great time working in VR through a virtual desktop
Do you not wind up sweaty? Every time I wear a VR headset for more than a few minutes it's .....moist.
Do you not wind up sweaty? Every time I wear a VR headset for more than a few minutes it's .....moist.
The inserts that come with the headset are not very breathable. You could change those.
There are small fans that attach to the headset. I've found that they help quite a bit.
There are small fans that attach to the headset. I've found that they help quite a bit.
I don't, as long as ambient temperature is below 25 or so degrees C.
I'm in Spain so this kinda rules out using it in summer for long. But most of the year it's fine.
I have to say the new silicone 'skin' they provided to Quest 2 owners makes the sweatiness a bit worse, but it is easier to clean. And the original Quest 2 material was prone to causing skin irritation so I didn't want to risk it for too long.
I'm in Spain so this kinda rules out using it in summer for long. But most of the year it's fine.
I have to say the new silicone 'skin' they provided to Quest 2 owners makes the sweatiness a bit worse, but it is easier to clean. And the original Quest 2 material was prone to causing skin irritation so I didn't want to risk it for too long.
What headset are you using? This is the setup I'd like to try rather than buying new monitors.
The main sticking point for me is that my real desktop/workspace has much better privacy than these new virtual ones
What do you mean by that? How does a physical display on your desk provide better privacy than a physical display a few inches from you eyes? It’s not some shared/cloud display.
When you use a meta headset, the cameras on the outside film the environment around you. In order to use for example the gesture recognition feature, you consent for that video to be sent to meta as an AI training input.
Although your boss, today, doesn't get extra information, you are inviting a faceless organisation to collect hugely intrusive data about your home, much as if you install an Alexa or Google home.
How much privacy we sacrifice for convenience and features is a decision we all need to make - and it's a difficult decision because I actually don't care if facebook have photos of my messy desk. But I would care if they got hacked an my credit card got leaked, very practically, or if an employer provided unit fed my HR telemetry about my stress levels or how much of the time I spent pooping. That would not be an acceptable tradeoff and it is possible.
Although your boss, today, doesn't get extra information, you are inviting a faceless organisation to collect hugely intrusive data about your home, much as if you install an Alexa or Google home.
How much privacy we sacrifice for convenience and features is a decision we all need to make - and it's a difficult decision because I actually don't care if facebook have photos of my messy desk. But I would care if they got hacked an my credit card got leaked, very practically, or if an employer provided unit fed my HR telemetry about my stress levels or how much of the time I spent pooping. That would not be an acceptable tradeoff and it is possible.
> In order to use for example the gesture recognition feature, you consent for that video to be sent to meta as an AI training input.
Then don’t consent to the 10ft tall disclaimer, if it exists. I never use hand tracking, and work in VR just fine. I imagine that need will go away once they have enough training data. The hand tracking has improved tremendously since launch.
It sounds like you believe there are data leaks that aren’t being disclosed in the privacy policy. You should contact a lawyer if you have insider information on this.
Then don’t consent to the 10ft tall disclaimer, if it exists. I never use hand tracking, and work in VR just fine. I imagine that need will go away once they have enough training data. The hand tracking has improved tremendously since launch.
It sounds like you believe there are data leaks that aren’t being disclosed in the privacy policy. You should contact a lawyer if you have insider information on this.
>I’ve been a very early adopter of this tech (Kickstarter backer of Oculus), get zero motion sickness
Me too!
Have you written about your setup anywhere? Are you willing to dump some notes and share?
Me too!
Have you written about your setup anywhere? Are you willing to dump some notes and share?
Tested hands on impressions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc
Funny thing about the $1500 price point.
If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain. It's basically a laptop with 3 monitors that appear out of thin air whenever you want. Amazing.
To do this it needs to be comfortable enough to wear all day and it needs to be high enough resolution to stare at text all day. It's at least plausible the Pro is comfortable enough for some based on early impressions. But the displays are not cutting it.
I don't think it needs to equal the DPI of a monitor at human viewing distance, but 2160x2160 is still way to low. Maybe 3k would do it with super sampling. Oh and the Quest Pro would need to run any Android app, or else it would only be useful tethered to my computer and lose a lot of the appeal.
So if the Quest Pro can't handle this use case, $1500 seems crazy expensive. A luxury. They have to hope they have a killer game or app that somehow gets people in.
During the height of the pandemic I would have almost paid $1500 if this had a really good 'virtual couch' experience where you can hang out and watch Netflix with friends, passively socializing in a way that felt comparable to the real thing. People love doing this in but it's always so janky.
Funny thing about the $1500 price point.
If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain. It's basically a laptop with 3 monitors that appear out of thin air whenever you want. Amazing.
To do this it needs to be comfortable enough to wear all day and it needs to be high enough resolution to stare at text all day. It's at least plausible the Pro is comfortable enough for some based on early impressions. But the displays are not cutting it.
I don't think it needs to equal the DPI of a monitor at human viewing distance, but 2160x2160 is still way to low. Maybe 3k would do it with super sampling. Oh and the Quest Pro would need to run any Android app, or else it would only be useful tethered to my computer and lose a lot of the appeal.
So if the Quest Pro can't handle this use case, $1500 seems crazy expensive. A luxury. They have to hope they have a killer game or app that somehow gets people in.
During the height of the pandemic I would have almost paid $1500 if this had a really good 'virtual couch' experience where you can hang out and watch Netflix with friends, passively socializing in a way that felt comparable to the real thing. People love doing this in but it's always so janky.
This level of access leads me to worry that the reviewer won't be entirely honest. Is he really going to pan the product when he is interviewing Zuckerberg in the video and getting behind the scenes content? Pretty much renders the video useless to me to understand if the product is good or not.
Well, Carmack is employed by Zuckerberg and he just pooh-poohed Horizon Worlds as well as the Quest Pro (from a strategy perspective). Both seem to be loved by Zuckerberg.
Is there any research (not wild conjecture) on staring at a screen strapped to your face for extended durations? I am already near sighted from having spent a lifetime focusing on a screen an arm's reach away. What happens if there is no chance of errantly focusing on other objects and forcing my eyes even a modicum of daily activity?
The optics put the virtual image (if you remember physics class) of the screen about 1.2 meters in front of your eyes, not inches. Your eyes lens/focus muscles will be set just as if you were focused on something actually 1.2 meters.
"By the end of this decade we're going to replace our workstations on our desks with a VR setup"
Thanks, I hate it.
Thanks, I hate it.
It's interesting, I love it, really want to do it, and am waiting impatiently for it.
I have a desk with 3 big monitors on it and the idea of being able to take that workspace with me in my backpack is incredibly appealing. Working on my laptop alone (a 16" MBP) is awful in comparison.
We are far away from actually being able to effectively simulate my full-desk workspace in VR.
But even the Quest 2 was enough to make it easy to imagine how it will be when we get there, and obvious that this is how I want to work in the future. And for me, the future can't come soon enough; I'm ready!
That's why I skipped upgrading my phone this year and ordered the Meta Quest Pro instead. I know it also won't be able to replicate my desk setup (and I really hate giving money to facebook too) but I want to experience for myself how much closer we are.
To me, a VR work environment (with mixed-reality option) is the holy grail, and while its clear we aren't technologically there yet, it is equally clear that we will be within a decade or so (maybe less).
I have a desk with 3 big monitors on it and the idea of being able to take that workspace with me in my backpack is incredibly appealing. Working on my laptop alone (a 16" MBP) is awful in comparison.
We are far away from actually being able to effectively simulate my full-desk workspace in VR.
But even the Quest 2 was enough to make it easy to imagine how it will be when we get there, and obvious that this is how I want to work in the future. And for me, the future can't come soon enough; I'm ready!
That's why I skipped upgrading my phone this year and ordered the Meta Quest Pro instead. I know it also won't be able to replicate my desk setup (and I really hate giving money to facebook too) but I want to experience for myself how much closer we are.
To me, a VR work environment (with mixed-reality option) is the holy grail, and while its clear we aren't technologically there yet, it is equally clear that we will be within a decade or so (maybe less).
Also, as an aside, I would really like to have six monitors, or 12 even.
But as a practical matter, adding more than 3-4 monitor arms to a physical desk becomes difficult.
So if your startup happens to sell a-grav monitors that can just float in space above my desk, and be re-arranged by waving my hands at them, hit me up in my DMs!
But as a practical matter, adding more than 3-4 monitor arms to a physical desk becomes difficult.
So if your startup happens to sell a-grav monitors that can just float in space above my desk, and be re-arranged by waving my hands at them, hit me up in my DMs!
Working in VR often, I’ve realize dI don’t want virtual monitors at all. I want virtual app windows.
Yeah. I think the shape of what that looks like is still TBD, but I think you are right.
I don't yet know personally what I want it to look like (and reserve the right to change my mind many times over the next few years) but there is no reason to stick to the conventional paradigm of "monitors" when in theory you could just let every window or widget float in space, independently or in sets.
Lots of stuff yet to be innovated!
I don't yet know personally what I want it to look like (and reserve the right to change my mind many times over the next few years) but there is no reason to stick to the conventional paradigm of "monitors" when in theory you could just let every window or widget float in space, independently or in sets.
Lots of stuff yet to be innovated!
I literally wrote a post above saying this.
Allegedly some of the VR desktop environments support app windows although the one which looked most promising is Quest-only.
I find it baffling that MSFT cannot figure out how to give arbitrary apps their own window in WMR and have to be written specifically to do that. Also: How is their virtual desktop app so bad compared to even the free Desktop+ on Steam?
Allegedly some of the VR desktop environments support app windows although the one which looked most promising is Quest-only.
I find it baffling that MSFT cannot figure out how to give arbitrary apps their own window in WMR and have to be written specifically to do that. Also: How is their virtual desktop app so bad compared to even the free Desktop+ on Steam?
in your backpack to where? Sit in a coffee shop with that humongous thing on your face?
to the backyard veranda enjoying the sun? Well you ain't seeing the sun, nor the backyard
So where to?
So where to?
Yes, literally to the coffee shop, as one example.
And that's why the (optional) mixed-reality feature is mandatory.
I wouldn't be self-conscious about wearing a headset at a starbucks (just like I wasn't about using an in-ear bluetooth headset for my phone ~20 years ago when people thought that looked weird) — but I don't want to not be able to see the people around me in a public space even if I look at them.
I think within 10-15 years you will see about as many solo customers at a typical starbucks using a mixed-reality headset as you see using wireless earbuds today.
(However, I wouldn't invest the time and money to build out a cloud-powered VR engineering workspace just to be able to take it to the coffee shop. I mainly mean taking it on trips abroad, taking it home when I visit my family, etc.)
And that's why the (optional) mixed-reality feature is mandatory.
I wouldn't be self-conscious about wearing a headset at a starbucks (just like I wasn't about using an in-ear bluetooth headset for my phone ~20 years ago when people thought that looked weird) — but I don't want to not be able to see the people around me in a public space even if I look at them.
I think within 10-15 years you will see about as many solo customers at a typical starbucks using a mixed-reality headset as you see using wireless earbuds today.
(However, I wouldn't invest the time and money to build out a cloud-powered VR engineering workspace just to be able to take it to the coffee shop. I mainly mean taking it on trips abroad, taking it home when I visit my family, etc.)
I'm with you .... it's fascinating how hard it seems to be for people who aren't bought into this vision to accept there is even a low probability of it happening. But it seems almost completely obvious to me that this is where things will end up. Once an AR headset can render a high fidelity / resolution monitor virtually in front of you it will seem insane to go and buy a giant physical rectangle that is geolocked to your office or where ever you put it.
The timeline is unpredictable but that's the excitement of getting in early to these types of things, because we can start to experience and anticipate what the future will look like before others even have the chance.
The timeline is unpredictable but that's the excitement of getting in early to these types of things, because we can start to experience and anticipate what the future will look like before others even have the chance.
Why are you in a coffee shop using VR? Go somewhere else if you want to be somewhere else!
If I owned a coffee shop I'd ban VR headsets. You are in my coffee shop to be in my coffee shop. Go home to use VR or sit in the park or something!
If I owned a coffee shop I'd ban VR headsets. You are in my coffee shop to be in my coffee shop. Go home to use VR or sit in the park or something!
I have heard a dozen variants of this question. But I don't quite get what is hard to understand about it.
In this scenario, I am using a headset (VR, with mixed reality so I can see the real world around me also as needed) for the exact same reason people use a laptop computer in a coffee shop.
The difference would be that I have many big screens instead of one small screen.
Like most people who go to a coffee shop alone in the city, I am not going there to... be in the coffee shop. I am going there to get a seat and get some work done (with the added bonus of a coffee, and possibly a sandwich or pastry).
In this scenario, I am using a headset (VR, with mixed reality so I can see the real world around me also as needed) for the exact same reason people use a laptop computer in a coffee shop.
The difference would be that I have many big screens instead of one small screen.
Like most people who go to a coffee shop alone in the city, I am not going there to... be in the coffee shop. I am going there to get a seat and get some work done (with the added bonus of a coffee, and possibly a sandwich or pastry).
You don't seem to grok why Google's glasses failed so miserably - they were creepy as f*k to so many people, running around with camera only owner knows if its on or not. Absolutely nothing changed for the better, in fact this would be so much worse - now nobody else would be able to see where you are looking at, an if you are filming them while they want to have some quiet alone time.
Personally I would never ever want to spend money in any food-providing business that would allow such people around us. There is a world of difference between laptops and this. Don't expect mass adoption in cafes soon, I can imagine some SF tech-friendly cafes allowing it as an experiment but overall it would be taking too much risk as an owner at least in this decade.
It also begs the question why you would actually sit in café if you completely shield yourself from whole environment. At home you can usually create much more comfortable place.
Personally I would never ever want to spend money in any food-providing business that would allow such people around us. There is a world of difference between laptops and this. Don't expect mass adoption in cafes soon, I can imagine some SF tech-friendly cafes allowing it as an experiment but overall it would be taking too much risk as an owner at least in this decade.
It also begs the question why you would actually sit in café if you completely shield yourself from whole environment. At home you can usually create much more comfortable place.
Pretty sure that ship has sailed, dude.
The last time I was in a starbucks (in Tokyo) well over 50% of the people were holding highres video cameras in their hands, swiping away in solitude. I couldn't see what they were looking at, nor could I know if they were recording — but who gives a shit? It's a public place. If I cared about that, I'd have to play it safe and assume they all were.
So I think you have it backwards. It's 2022; if you want to make sure you aren't recorded while out in public, then you stay home. (That starbucks also has its own cameras, mounted on the ceiling.)
P.S. Google Glass failed because it didn't provide sufficient utility and value to its users. Not because it freaked out a certain subset of the population, or because John Gruber called them glassholes.
If it had provided real enduring value, then tons of people would wear them and nobody would give a shit about some subgroup's Luddite anxieties — my great grandpa and some of his buddies had similar feelings about the Sony Walkman. But nobody stopped using walkmans because those old guys didn't like them shutting out the outside world with their headphones; they stopped because eventually minidisc players and ipods were invented.
The last time I was in a starbucks (in Tokyo) well over 50% of the people were holding highres video cameras in their hands, swiping away in solitude. I couldn't see what they were looking at, nor could I know if they were recording — but who gives a shit? It's a public place. If I cared about that, I'd have to play it safe and assume they all were.
So I think you have it backwards. It's 2022; if you want to make sure you aren't recorded while out in public, then you stay home. (That starbucks also has its own cameras, mounted on the ceiling.)
P.S. Google Glass failed because it didn't provide sufficient utility and value to its users. Not because it freaked out a certain subset of the population, or because John Gruber called them glassholes.
If it had provided real enduring value, then tons of people would wear them and nobody would give a shit about some subgroup's Luddite anxieties — my great grandpa and some of his buddies had similar feelings about the Sony Walkman. But nobody stopped using walkmans because those old guys didn't like them shutting out the outside world with their headphones; they stopped because eventually minidisc players and ipods were invented.
Well, dude, not every nation is like Japan, when it comes to technology I dare to say no country is like Japan, nor it strives to be (maybe South Korea but not even them). So taking the most extreme example (and not really the same example by any stretch of imagination) and stating whole mankind across whole globe is like that is not even stretching it, its a plain lie.
Since you seem completely oblivious about other cultures - there are still whole cultures where taking a picture without asking for permission is highly offensive. We talk about billions of people. And even in other places, like most Europe, you try something like that in cafe and you will be asked to put it down. I also mentioned current decade, things change but not that fast as some kids project it to be.
I think it would benefit tremendously to basically everybody to actually travel a bit like backpackers as far culturally as possible to challenge themselves and their worldviews a bit.
Since you seem completely oblivious about other cultures - there are still whole cultures where taking a picture without asking for permission is highly offensive. We talk about billions of people. And even in other places, like most Europe, you try something like that in cafe and you will be asked to put it down. I also mentioned current decade, things change but not that fast as some kids project it to be.
I think it would benefit tremendously to basically everybody to actually travel a bit like backpackers as far culturally as possible to challenge themselves and their worldviews a bit.
OK, but I'm originally from California and was there just a couple months ago. Same story at starbucks there: cameras on the ceiling, camera phones in tons of peoples' hands.
Sorry if you don't like it, but smartphones are everywhere now, and that's not gonna change. You might feel like sitting alone wearing a headset is somehow fundamentally different than sitting alone using a smartphone, but it really isn't. It is precisely the same in all respects that matter — you just aren't used to it yet.
However, we might be talking about a different kind of "coffee shop". I'm talking about corporate coffee shops like starbucks. They mainly offer industrial coffee and food, wifi, and a place to work, while you are in between things or in transit. I haven't been to Europe since before COVID ,but IIRC it was already pretty much the same there, too, even three years ago. I saw hundreds of people using iPhones, and pretty sure I didn't see anybody get asked to put it down.
Sorry if you don't like it, but smartphones are everywhere now, and that's not gonna change. You might feel like sitting alone wearing a headset is somehow fundamentally different than sitting alone using a smartphone, but it really isn't. It is precisely the same in all respects that matter — you just aren't used to it yet.
However, we might be talking about a different kind of "coffee shop". I'm talking about corporate coffee shops like starbucks. They mainly offer industrial coffee and food, wifi, and a place to work, while you are in between things or in transit. I haven't been to Europe since before COVID ,but IIRC it was already pretty much the same there, too, even three years ago. I saw hundreds of people using iPhones, and pretty sure I didn't see anybody get asked to put it down.
Completely different. Your face and ears are covered, so the staff or anyone else can't interrupt your special virtual bubble. Not without tapping you on shoulder.
Perhaps you could place a doorbell on the table. When pressed it gives you a notification in your eye screens. You could rig up automated contextual replies "yes you can borrow the sugar". Saving you the bother of being human.
Sitting there with laptop or phone, you are not faceless like you are with VR headset.
Perhaps you could place a doorbell on the table. When pressed it gives you a notification in your eye screens. You could rig up automated contextual replies "yes you can borrow the sugar". Saving you the bother of being human.
Sitting there with laptop or phone, you are not faceless like you are with VR headset.
Agree, I honestly don't understand the level of optimism shown here. To me this sounds like exactly the opposite of how I would like to work in the future. The fact that Facebook fully controls the software and hardware platform is just a huge additional turnoff.
> The fact that Facebook fully controls the software and hardware platform is just a huge additional turnoff.
I'm actually quite optimistic: I don't see a reason why Meta will be the only player in VR.
I don't think long term they can maintain a moat on a hardware level - other headset producers will pop up once the tech is better understood and we may end up with a situation similar to what we currently have in the console world (2-3 big players and a few niche ones).
I think Meta sees that and are trying to build a moat on a social-networking level and, honestly, I don't know how well that will work.
I'm actually quite optimistic: I don't see a reason why Meta will be the only player in VR.
I don't think long term they can maintain a moat on a hardware level - other headset producers will pop up once the tech is better understood and we may end up with a situation similar to what we currently have in the console world (2-3 big players and a few niche ones).
I think Meta sees that and are trying to build a moat on a social-networking level and, honestly, I don't know how well that will work.
I don't like Facebook any more than you but to be fair, they're not as bad as they could be. For on-device software sideloading is available and SideQuest makes it pretty functional. Additionally, the device supports OpenVR and can be used with any software you'd like to run on your desktop PC.
It's more the Google approach to the ecosystem than it is the Apple approach, though I don't believe the OS is open-source.
It's more the Google approach to the ecosystem than it is the Apple approach, though I don't believe the OS is open-source.
Does that mean I don't need to create an account if I want to use the headset only with OpenVR stuff?
You need a Meta account. Not a Facebook (social network) account.
Meta accounts only require an email address. There is no real name requirement, which they explicitly state in their help page[1] so this isn't a violation of the TOS.
[1] https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/, see "Setting up your Meta account with email" section.
Meta accounts only require an email address. There is no real name requirement, which they explicitly state in their help page[1] so this isn't a violation of the TOS.
[1] https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/, see "Setting up your Meta account with email" section.
No, unfortunately to use it with a PC you need to have their app installed on the PC as well and be signed in on both.
Imagine buying a monitor and being forced to install the manufacturer’s app just to display stuff on it.
Eh. No.
Eh. No.
This isn't a monitor though, it's another standalone computer that you're streaming an image to. The wired connection option isn't using DisplayPort or HDMI signaling over USB-C, it's establishing a network connection over the USB link and then streaming video over that in the same way as it would over WiFi.
VR headsets that don't contain their own processing on the other hand do in fact work like a normal monitor. Usually they'll go in to a "direct mode" that does not appear as a monitor when their drivers are installed for both performance and convenience reasons, but they can be configured to just appear as yet another monitor.
VR headsets that don't contain their own processing on the other hand do in fact work like a normal monitor. Usually they'll go in to a "direct mode" that does not appear as a monitor when their drivers are installed for both performance and convenience reasons, but they can be configured to just appear as yet another monitor.
You must be young, that was exactly how things were for decades. Its just that it was called a driver, not an app but in effect it was same piece of software that unlocked the device for use. For monitors, often without proprietary driver, it would work only on some default vesa resolutions, not support all available refresh rates etc.
A monitor driver, at least in the form most people remember dealing with on Win32 systems, wasn't even a piece of software. It was just a .INF file containing the Windows equivalent to X modelines describing what modes and was only necessary if you either didn't have working EDID for whatever reason or wanted to go outside the range the monitor advertised working at.
Before these "drivers" had to be signed it was common for various graphics tweak tools to provide a method for building your own custom INF to "overclock" a monitor that only officially supported 60 Hz or whatever.
Before these "drivers" had to be signed it was common for various graphics tweak tools to provide a method for building your own custom INF to "overclock" a monitor that only officially supported 60 Hz or whatever.
Embrace, extend, extinguish
Because we desperately need something to keep the party going, computers/internet tech can't have fully matured, that means the war for market share and labor will have finished and we'll all be where mechanical engineers are today in terms of compensation.
Curious what you don't like about it. So many of the people who say this are basing on assumptions that are either solved or on a clear path to being solved.
For example people say it's uncomfortable : solved now by Quest Pro. People say resolution isn't high enough. Clear path to being solved as display tech and foveated rendering takes over. Don't like being isolated? Solved by Quest Pro with high quality pass through and open side profile. Can't type without seeing your hands? Solved by Quest Pro. Experienced nausea once upon a time using VR? I will bet 80% chance its solved because the tech has gotten vastly better.
For example people say it's uncomfortable : solved now by Quest Pro. People say resolution isn't high enough. Clear path to being solved as display tech and foveated rendering takes over. Don't like being isolated? Solved by Quest Pro with high quality pass through and open side profile. Can't type without seeing your hands? Solved by Quest Pro. Experienced nausea once upon a time using VR? I will bet 80% chance its solved because the tech has gotten vastly better.
> uncomfortable : solved now by Quest Pro.
For a lot of people the very fact you have a device on your head is what's uncomfortable. Screens in front of your eyes, your senses boxed in. That's the point of VR, which is why it won't be adopted as widely as some are hoping.
For a lot of people the very fact you have a device on your head is what's uncomfortable. Screens in front of your eyes, your senses boxed in. That's the point of VR, which is why it won't be adopted as widely as some are hoping.
I guess I just don't see what the benefit would be in the first place. I can see the benefit fine for video games and similar, but not really for using microsoft word or coding. But then again I haven't tried it
Is the "owned by an ridiculously evil corporation that makes it's money by creating social strife, ruining society, destroying lives and brainwashing people"-problem on the path to being solved?
They probably disagree that it's solved. I"ve used Quest 2 and the idea of having to do my job with it is excruciating.
I would say you kind of exemplify the problem then.
The Quest Pro is aimed like a laser at fixing all of these issues (with the exception of resolution, my main gripe). But your willingness to extrapolate your experience on a $300 headset to infer the limit of everything that will ever be possible is way over-reaching.
Of course, I am over-reaching in the sense that I haven't tried the Quest Pro yet so who knows how real any of the improvements are. But I don't have any trouble believing the tech will get there whether it's this product or future ones.
The Quest Pro is aimed like a laser at fixing all of these issues (with the exception of resolution, my main gripe). But your willingness to extrapolate your experience on a $300 headset to infer the limit of everything that will ever be possible is way over-reaching.
Of course, I am over-reaching in the sense that I haven't tried the Quest Pro yet so who knows how real any of the improvements are. But I don't have any trouble believing the tech will get there whether it's this product or future ones.
I wouldn’t be surprised if open hardware is gone for good. There is too much money to be made with SAAS.
[deleted]
Why? We'll only replace it if it's actually better. In which case you'll probably love it.
For real, monitors are ugly and take up space and become super expensive quick.
If we actually manage to come up with something better then monitors, then amazing. If we don't, they won't be replaced.
For real, monitors are ugly and take up space and become super expensive quick.
If we actually manage to come up with something better then monitors, then amazing. If we don't, they won't be replaced.
> Why? We'll only replace it if it's actually better. In which case you'll probably love it.
If it's better for businesses mandating what their WFH users use.
And then, even, it's more like "if salespeople convince some managers it's better", which isn't the same thing as is-in-fact-better.
If it's better for businesses mandating what their WFH users use.
And then, even, it's more like "if salespeople convince some managers it's better", which isn't the same thing as is-in-fact-better.
Nausea, sweaty forehead, weight on my head giving cramps in my neck, disconnect from the world around me (I work at home with kids), visual inaccessibility (I need to wear computer glasses).
No magic engineering from Meta are going to fix these issues.
No magic engineering from Meta are going to fix these issues.
Those are all already fixed, or easily fixable.
Nausea only occurs (as far as I can tell) when the motion you see in the headset doesn't match your motion in real life. That's not a problem for a simulated desktop experience.
Sweaty forehead typically only occurs if you're getting a work out in VR, which wouldn't be a problem for office work. But for those who have that issue even when not exercising it seems easily solvable with better ventilation. Hardly an impossible engineering challenge.
Neck cramps are solvable by balancing the weight on your head better. Quest Pro has this.
Disconnection from the world is solved by high resolution video passthrough. Quest Pro has this.
Visual accessibility is solved by prescription lens inserts. That's been a thing since the Rift 1.
Nausea only occurs (as far as I can tell) when the motion you see in the headset doesn't match your motion in real life. That's not a problem for a simulated desktop experience.
Sweaty forehead typically only occurs if you're getting a work out in VR, which wouldn't be a problem for office work. But for those who have that issue even when not exercising it seems easily solvable with better ventilation. Hardly an impossible engineering challenge.
Neck cramps are solvable by balancing the weight on your head better. Quest Pro has this.
Disconnection from the world is solved by high resolution video passthrough. Quest Pro has this.
Visual accessibility is solved by prescription lens inserts. That's been a thing since the Rift 1.
That doesn’t match my experience. I know that’s not very objective, but that’s the best I can give you here.
Just putting on a VR headset, makes my head sweaty within a minute or two, even when I’m just sitting down and doing nothing strenuous. Just different biology I guess I generally don’t like wearing hats for the same reason, it makes my head and hair, sweaty.
Speaking of hats, I generally don’t like wearing construction hard hats either, because it makes my neck sore at the end of the day. And that’s just having a little bit of balanced weight on the top of my head. Balancing isn’t the issue, it’s a higher center of gravity, especially when you rotate the head as you are prone to do in VR.
Nausea I get consistently, no matter what I am doing. Even if stationary, any bit of lag can cause nausea. I can’t imagine doing development work and not causing the machine to lag a little bit here and there, when I run a test, suite or something. Thankfully for me, it’s only mild, but if I were to do this, all day would be a large impact on quality of life. I don’t wanna spend half my day mildly nauseous.
And all of this only so that I don’t have to have a couple of high resolution monitors on my desk? I just really don’t get it. It’s a solution in search of a problem.
Just putting on a VR headset, makes my head sweaty within a minute or two, even when I’m just sitting down and doing nothing strenuous. Just different biology I guess I generally don’t like wearing hats for the same reason, it makes my head and hair, sweaty.
Speaking of hats, I generally don’t like wearing construction hard hats either, because it makes my neck sore at the end of the day. And that’s just having a little bit of balanced weight on the top of my head. Balancing isn’t the issue, it’s a higher center of gravity, especially when you rotate the head as you are prone to do in VR.
Nausea I get consistently, no matter what I am doing. Even if stationary, any bit of lag can cause nausea. I can’t imagine doing development work and not causing the machine to lag a little bit here and there, when I run a test, suite or something. Thankfully for me, it’s only mild, but if I were to do this, all day would be a large impact on quality of life. I don’t wanna spend half my day mildly nauseous.
And all of this only so that I don’t have to have a couple of high resolution monitors on my desk? I just really don’t get it. It’s a solution in search of a problem.
I don't doubt that your experience is valid, but it's not everyone's.
For instance, I use the old busted Quest 2 headset every single day, and I don't get any nausea, or neck soreness. (I do definitely get the sweaty head, though. Largely because I use a boxing exercise app with it, which gets really sweaty, but in non-exertion use cases, too. (I also tend to sweat in hats and over-ear headphones.)
The sweat problem will gradually get better over time, as headsets get lighter and more breathable.
Unlike a lot of VR enthusiasts, though, my own interest is almost exlcusively in replicated an expansive, multi-monitor setup for sofware engineering.
Why? I have an XXL desk from GeekDesk with 3 large high-res monitors. It's fantastically productive. So much so that it makes working on a laptop, or even a desktop with only 1 monitor, super annoying.
But I want to be able to take that workspace with me.
(Even to work; I work at home mainly and when I do go into the office and get stuck with a single busted-ass low-res 4K display, it sucks. But I want to take my workspace other places, too.)
I'll put up with some minor annoyances, like sweat, to be able to do that. In your case, it sounds like they will need to solve more problems to make it usable — or you might just decide to stick with a real desk and monitors, and that portability isn't worth the tradeoffs.
For instance, I use the old busted Quest 2 headset every single day, and I don't get any nausea, or neck soreness. (I do definitely get the sweaty head, though. Largely because I use a boxing exercise app with it, which gets really sweaty, but in non-exertion use cases, too. (I also tend to sweat in hats and over-ear headphones.)
The sweat problem will gradually get better over time, as headsets get lighter and more breathable.
Unlike a lot of VR enthusiasts, though, my own interest is almost exlcusively in replicated an expansive, multi-monitor setup for sofware engineering.
Why? I have an XXL desk from GeekDesk with 3 large high-res monitors. It's fantastically productive. So much so that it makes working on a laptop, or even a desktop with only 1 monitor, super annoying.
But I want to be able to take that workspace with me.
(Even to work; I work at home mainly and when I do go into the office and get stuck with a single busted-ass low-res 4K display, it sucks. But I want to take my workspace other places, too.)
I'll put up with some minor annoyances, like sweat, to be able to do that. In your case, it sounds like they will need to solve more problems to make it usable — or you might just decide to stick with a real desk and monitors, and that portability isn't worth the tradeoffs.
> Disconnection from the world is solved by high resolution video passthrough.
This one will go into my treasure trove of HN quotes.
This one will go into my treasure trove of HN quotes.
To be fair, hearing aid is a similar device now used
It completely missed the point though, by a mile.
I took the point as being that you can't see your physical surroundings, so you don't know what's going on outside the headset. Passthrough solves that, at least when it's turned on (which for office work it almost always would be).
If we're talking about disconnection from the world in a more abstract sense then I agree passthrough doesn't solve that. But that's not really a problem unique to VR either.
If we're talking about disconnection from the world in a more abstract sense then I agree passthrough doesn't solve that. But that's not really a problem unique to VR either.
Me being able to see my wife when she comes in the room, or my kids playing in the room next door is only half the issue. They need to be able to see, and emotionally connect with my face without me having pull off all my gear every time something needs to be said or confirmed. They need to feel like I'm not off in my own separate world, and I don't want to feel that either. As a parent and a work-at-home spouse, and even just as a company founder I'm always multitasking at every given moment. And that means juggling things in the real world as well as the virtual.
What you see now very obviously isn’t the end game of this tech. Here’s what a virtual screen can look like: https://www.nreal.ai/
Sorry, I just don't get the consumer application. I see a bunch of people sitting around a living room wearing dorky glasses, when they could be sitting around the same living room with a TV, and it's much more convenient. Was there something else I was supposed to see from that landing page?
I think there are transformative / killer applications of AR to certain industries like traditional engineering, aviation, construction, logistics, etc. Microsoft Hololens could be a killer product if they could get it under $1k and open up the software stack a bit.
But as a consumer device, outside of gaming? Or a productivity tool? I don't see it. Keep in mind just how difficult a sell 3D movies were, and that just required putting on some plastic sunglasses.
I think there are transformative / killer applications of AR to certain industries like traditional engineering, aviation, construction, logistics, etc. Microsoft Hololens could be a killer product if they could get it under $1k and open up the software stack a bit.
But as a consumer device, outside of gaming? Or a productivity tool? I don't see it. Keep in mind just how difficult a sell 3D movies were, and that just required putting on some plastic sunglasses.
That form factor, and the real-world-pass through, refutes literally every one of your points…
I guess we’ll have to see how it goes!
I guess we’ll have to see how it goes!
You don't get nausea from experience where you don't move around in VR. Virtual monitors should not cause any nausea. Same for the sweaty forehead.
The weight issue is lesser with the Quest Pro (since the weight is balanced at the back) and will get better with time with newer devices.
> visual inaccessibility (I need to wear computer glasses)
Quest 2 provides spacers for glasses. I assume Quest Pro will as well.
The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.
The weight issue is lesser with the Quest Pro (since the weight is balanced at the back) and will get better with time with newer devices.
> visual inaccessibility (I need to wear computer glasses)
Quest 2 provides spacers for glasses. I assume Quest Pro will as well.
The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.
Merely the minutest lag when rotating your head can cause nausea in a statistically significant number of people.
Any VR absolutely does cause sweaty forehead symptom for me. It’s just my different biology I guess.
> The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.
The solution is AR. I would use a Microsoft hololens, if it was available at a reasonable price point.
Any VR absolutely does cause sweaty forehead symptom for me. It’s just my different biology I guess.
> The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.
The solution is AR. I would use a Microsoft hololens, if it was available at a reasonable price point.
> Merely the minutest lag when rotating your head can cause nausea in a statistically significant number of people
Do you have a source for that? The lag issue seems entirely solved now, on a device like the Quest 2, it was an issue only in earlier days with slower hardware.
There were lots of different theories early on, but now the cause of nausea seems to be entirely based on motion over a large field of view, which causes a disconnect between your inner ear telling you you're not moving, and your eyes telling you you are. Hence why VR games generally default to teleporting rather than walking/running.
(There can be separate issues such as eyestrain if your IPD doesn't match or relating to wearing glasses, but those are device-specific.)
Do you have a source for that? The lag issue seems entirely solved now, on a device like the Quest 2, it was an issue only in earlier days with slower hardware.
There were lots of different theories early on, but now the cause of nausea seems to be entirely based on motion over a large field of view, which causes a disconnect between your inner ear telling you you're not moving, and your eyes telling you you are. Hence why VR games generally default to teleporting rather than walking/running.
(There can be separate issues such as eyestrain if your IPD doesn't match or relating to wearing glasses, but those are device-specific.)
> The solution is AR. I would use a Microsoft hololens, if it was available at a reasonable price point.
Interesting, the Quest Pro is I believe aimed at the same audience as the HoloLens, but at a lower price point. Though, not fully AR - more like MR I believe.
Interesting, the Quest Pro is I believe aimed at the same audience as the HoloLens, but at a lower price point. Though, not fully AR - more like MR I believe.
Pass-through VR headsets will never, ever meet the use cases I have in mind, like integrated virtual HUDs for pilots or machinery operators, or even construction workers on large building sites. Going blind due an equipment failure while operating tons of moving machinery is not a reasonable failure mode.
And speaking personally, I just don't want to be disconnected from the environment in which I am presently existing. Projected overlays on glasses could be useful, I'll grant, but not a vision-restricting, self-isolating VR headset.
And speaking personally, I just don't want to be disconnected from the environment in which I am presently existing. Projected overlays on glasses could be useful, I'll grant, but not a vision-restricting, self-isolating VR headset.
> Projected overlays on glasses could be useful, I'll grant
That's what they are aiming for long-term. Zuckerberg said in the Connect talk that glasses would be the ideal form factor.
That's what they are aiming for long-term. Zuckerberg said in the Connect talk that glasses would be the ideal form factor.
My experience is that spacers or not, using these with glasses is uncomfortable. Adding prescription inserts are more comfortable and provide a better visual experience. I bought some very cheap glasses and 3d printed the inserts. They have magnetic mounts and you can remove them easily.
Why? Because your virtual monitors will exist in Meta's dogshit virtual survaillence world.
Why do you think Meta will be the only one making hardware?
There are plenty of head mounted displays that don't have any smarts built in.
There are plenty of head mounted displays that don't have any smarts built in.
You can buy a phone that isn't powered by iOS or Android too, but you probably won't.
If you just want virtual monitors, I think there will be many "dumb" headsets available. If you want a full standalone experience, then sure, maybe not. But, I think those are, potentially, different markets.
Don’t worry, it won’t happen. This is just a desperate attempt by Facebook to not be the website where your insane Aunt posts QAnon stuff. It’s not appealing enough to last. It’s just like crypto, a solution searching for a problem to solve. Eventually it will spike and then fade when people realize they get no real benefit from it.
$1500 isn’t bad at all. An apple watch can cost $800 and a base spec MBP is like $1400. If it was the price of hololens ($3k?) then it’d be a concern
I think it needs higher resolution to be able to be directly comparable to a MBP. Can I stare at VSCode all day in this thing or not?
Then again it's a different platform. Can a MBP compare to a 5K desktop monitor?
I get they are trying to make this a productivity tool, but there's a lot of productive use cases outside of directly editing text.
I get they are trying to make this a productivity tool, but there's a lot of productive use cases outside of directly editing text.
It's not the same thing. Each of these products have tiered versions targeted at different income levels. If there was only one iPhone version being sold at $1500 then it would probably be dead by now.
It is the same, with the quest Pro being the highest tier, as plainly stated by Zuckerberg.
Are you aware of the Quest 2 that is $399?
Also: despite the frequent comments by folks here that did not watch the announcement, this is a business-focused device first. It is not targeted towards consumers or gamers. That is the Quest 2, which will continue to be sold.
Also: despite the frequent comments by folks here that did not watch the announcement, this is a business-focused device first. It is not targeted towards consumers or gamers. That is the Quest 2, which will continue to be sold.
> If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain. It's basically a laptop with 3 monitors that appear out of thin air whenever you want. Amazing.
It won't. The form factor is still too clunky and you will most likely get eye strain.
Btw, another commenter posted a link to these Nreal Air glasses (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8hMtWeTUg ). I'd never heard of them before, but they look like a much better approach to a monitor replacement device. They're lighter and more comfortable because they try to do fewer things (no controllers, no battery, no VR).
It won't. The form factor is still too clunky and you will most likely get eye strain.
Btw, another commenter posted a link to these Nreal Air glasses (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8hMtWeTUg ). I'd never heard of them before, but they look like a much better approach to a monitor replacement device. They're lighter and more comfortable because they try to do fewer things (no controllers, no battery, no VR).
I tried Nreal Air, its resolution is great even for reading text, but FOV isn't good as a primary monitor. Maybe it's tradeoff.
HoloLens had same price point and this price point is where consumer products go to die. I think they are currently looking for early adopters and may be built up volume in 2-3 years (a la iPhone). HoloLens hade strategy which didn't work because utility of AR was far less than utility of mobile computer in your pocket. It looks to me the whole bet here is that VR's killer app would be virtual meetings and it will fix this critical issue. Unfortunately, doing meetings requires two people to have this device and that would be tremendous barrier for adoption. Is no one at Meta thinking of these stuff and learn from history?
If it's meetings they are targeting, then it's not a consumer product. They probably want to sell it to enterprise clients and that changes completely the approach for them. You don't have to sell it to a picky consumer with many opinions and few money, but to a corporate buyer with a huge budget, many incentives for innovating a the ability to purchase them in multiples.
For me I don't see how any vr device will be comfortable. I don't even like wearing my glasses for too long.
Replacing 3 monitors is a start.
The real dream of VR work IMO is app windows floating all around, more windowing system than virtual displays.
Or - a re-imagining of how productivity looks like in 3 dimensions. Imagine a spreadsheet app with more than 2 dimensions worth of cells! Or a code editor which diagrams our your functions in 3d space to see the dependencies.
(/me Makes "Minority Report" style swoosh hand gestures)
The real dream of VR work IMO is app windows floating all around, more windowing system than virtual displays.
Or - a re-imagining of how productivity looks like in 3 dimensions. Imagine a spreadsheet app with more than 2 dimensions worth of cells! Or a code editor which diagrams our your functions in 3d space to see the dependencies.
(/me Makes "Minority Report" style swoosh hand gestures)
An unstated benefit of real monitors is that you can stop looking at the monitors.
But because of its 1-2 hour battery life you would have to keep it wired and hope it doesn't suffer from the same issue that Quest 2 suffers from where even wired it slowly looses battery life.
However, the Quest 2 could still last a whole work day while wired, the Quest Pro might not.
However, the Quest 2 could still last a whole work day while wired, the Quest Pro might not.
[deleted]
No human will ever enjoy the feeling of a giant block on their face. Even if the quest was 100x higher res it will never be "default" since it limits peripheral awareness, motion, causes eye strain.
I get Zuck's philosphy on upping the human-computer paradigm to the natural next step but imo horizontal screens at a comfortable 1-10 feet from your eyes will remain unchallenged until seamless brain controlled holograms become a thing.
I get Zuck's philosphy on upping the human-computer paradigm to the natural next step but imo horizontal screens at a comfortable 1-10 feet from your eyes will remain unchallenged until seamless brain controlled holograms become a thing.
People thought similar things about reading stuff on mobile phones too.
> If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain.
If it could drive me to work, it’d replace the subway. $1500 is a steal.
If it could drive me to work, it’d replace the subway. $1500 is a steal.
That video doesn't include the quest pro
That video was for the prototype. Same channel just uploaded a video of the real hands-on for Quest Pro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNYpD212HQA
I didn't see it in this page, but previous announcements put the battery life at 1-2 hours (unverified).
I know it's fun to hate on Meta, but this honestly looks like it resolves most of the gripes I had with the Quest 2, aside from the whole Facebook integration piece... It looks like a solid piece of hardware.
I know it's fun to hate on Meta, but this honestly looks like it resolves most of the gripes I had with the Quest 2, aside from the whole Facebook integration piece... It looks like a solid piece of hardware.
> Facebook integration
They did make good on this. You can make Meta accounts with arbitrary emails and there's no connection to Facebook or real name stuff.
They did make good on this. You can make Meta accounts with arbitrary emails and there's no connection to Facebook or real name stuff.
You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps, converting your "Oculus" account to a "Horizon" account to unlink your Facebook from your Meta or whatever (who knows!).
I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can *not* be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again and install software updates in broken UIs with no progress indication etc.
The only thing I use it for anymore is if somebody's over and wants to try VR, I let them to the tutorial demo and maybe play some Superhot (which hasn't broken for lack of updates ... yet!). Unfortunately streaming that to the TV via Chromecast from the app doesn't work anymore for Zuck knows what reason.
Consumer tech is so hostile and frustrating, I really just can not deal with it anymore. Sorry for the rant.
I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can *not* be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again and install software updates in broken UIs with no progress indication etc.
The only thing I use it for anymore is if somebody's over and wants to try VR, I let them to the tutorial demo and maybe play some Superhot (which hasn't broken for lack of updates ... yet!). Unfortunately streaming that to the TV via Chromecast from the app doesn't work anymore for Zuck knows what reason.
Consumer tech is so hostile and frustrating, I really just can not deal with it anymore. Sorry for the rant.
> I have a Quest (1 and 2 actually, though the 1 is in storage) and I basically never use it anymore because I just can not be bothered to try and log in through its various apps again
Your knowledge and experience does not reflect current reality. Multiple logins haven't been required since the launch of the Quest 2. I didn't have a Quest 1, so I can't comment there.
> You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps
This is false. Only one account is needed. Sometimes individual apps will require a login, but that's exceedingly rare, or allows you to login with other devices, to the app, outside of the Quest ecosystem. This is not a fault of Meta, it's just the reality of third party credentials. I don't recall the last app I had to
If you buy a headset now, you would make a Meta account that would be used for everything. That's it.
If you had a Facebook account and are ok with continuing with the Facebook account, you're done.
If you had a Facebook account and you want to convert it to a Meta account, you can choose to do this, then you're done.
All three situations above use a single account for all apps, besides those that are meant to be accessible cross platform.
Your knowledge and experience does not reflect current reality. Multiple logins haven't been required since the launch of the Quest 2. I didn't have a Quest 1, so I can't comment there.
> You still have to deal with a complicated web of accounts and apps
This is false. Only one account is needed. Sometimes individual apps will require a login, but that's exceedingly rare, or allows you to login with other devices, to the app, outside of the Quest ecosystem. This is not a fault of Meta, it's just the reality of third party credentials. I don't recall the last app I had to
If you buy a headset now, you would make a Meta account that would be used for everything. That's it.
If you had a Facebook account and are ok with continuing with the Facebook account, you're done.
If you had a Facebook account and you want to convert it to a Meta account, you can choose to do this, then you're done.
All three situations above use a single account for all apps, besides those that are meant to be accessible cross platform.
I hate this kind of apologism.
"It's all very simple if you're an industry expert following $company's every move!"
There is no way to use all features of a Quest without logging in _at least_ twice (once on a phone, once on the device itself, because some features are inexplicably only accessible through the app). If you've had it for a while, you've also had to deal with (potentially non-exhaustive list):
- an Oculus account (comes (came?) in linked/unlinked flavours)
- a Facebook account
- a Meta account (is that the same as the above? who knows!)
- a Horizon account (what even is Horizon?)
From the perspective of somebody who just bought the damn thing to use it, as far as I can tell none of these were avoidable if you followed the default flows. There's probably more now. That's ignoring steps on the phone, and linking steps between devices through URLs needing to be opened on a computer and all of that faff.
I'm sure there's a secret code phrase I could've garnered from some Reddit with 10k users that, if I had said it to Support, would have let me skip one of these steps - but who does that?
"It's all very simple if you're an industry expert following $company's every move!"
There is no way to use all features of a Quest without logging in _at least_ twice (once on a phone, once on the device itself, because some features are inexplicably only accessible through the app). If you've had it for a while, you've also had to deal with (potentially non-exhaustive list):
- an Oculus account (comes (came?) in linked/unlinked flavours)
- a Facebook account
- a Meta account (is that the same as the above? who knows!)
- a Horizon account (what even is Horizon?)
From the perspective of somebody who just bought the damn thing to use it, as far as I can tell none of these were avoidable if you followed the default flows. There's probably more now. That's ignoring steps on the phone, and linking steps between devices through URLs needing to be opened on a computer and all of that faff.
I'm sure there's a secret code phrase I could've garnered from some Reddit with 10k users that, if I had said it to Support, would have let me skip one of these steps - but who does that?
Ironically this is exactly what they were trying to avoid by just requiring a Facebook account for everything
Maybe that is what they were trying to avoid but in practice they made it much worse. Oculus had accounts before they were bought by FB, it was pretty much like a Steam account for better or for worse. Then by the Quest 2 you had to use your Facebook account, which meant you had to verify your facebook account on your phone (maybe there was a work around, I didn't find it) and it asked for your phone number and then FB is texting you saying some robot with a woman's name just friended you, and you have this duummy account that is always posting what you are doing on the quest etc. etc.
Yeah I am sure there is a way to turn off all that junk and opt out of installing the app or giving them your phone number but its full of anti-patterns to make you do it. What a hassle.
Yeah I am sure there is a way to turn off all that junk and opt out of installing the app or giving them your phone number but its full of anti-patterns to make you do it. What a hassle.
You can't give them credit for solving a problem they created. If Nvidia made me log in to Facebook to use my graphics card, I wouldn't cheer when they gave me the option to make an Nvidia account instead.
I don't know if you realize the hilarity of this, but GeForce Experience (the only way to get auto-updates for Nvidia drivers) requires an Nvidia account, with options to login via Google, Facebook, et al
Kind of infuriating. But not as much as remembering to go and update my drivers... :\
Kind of infuriating. But not as much as remembering to go and update my drivers... :\
Or, here’s an idea. They could just not require an ‘anything’ account at all. That’s how my PC works, and it’s fine.
just the fact that a cascading number of if statements is needed is a sign that it's too complex lol
I disagree, since a single user would only experience a single if statement.
This is false. They evolve over time and you get pushed into various mandatory migration and linking/unlinking steps.
By the way, this kind of thing is in no way particular to Facebook - our entire industry has this much disrespect for its users.
By the way, this kind of thing is in no way particular to Facebook - our entire industry has this much disrespect for its users.
With the current state, which appears to be stable (no more company acquisitions/name changes), they would experience one.
100% stable, all the way until the next company acquisition / name change / "An Update on Quest" / reorg. and so on.
This isn't some unique Meta or VR. These are growing pains of new tech. This is what happens with all new tech. We'll see dozens of companies grow, die, and be acquired, and dozens of products change hands and disappear. This is the MO for all new tech that all of us are intimately familiar with.
In this particular case, with this particular product and company, the churn has happened, and we should see some stability now.
If you want complete stability, you're in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong website. But there's no reason to be irrational about it.
In this particular case, with this particular product and company, the churn has happened, and we should see some stability now.
If you want complete stability, you're in the wrong line of work, and definitely on the wrong website. But there's no reason to be irrational about it.
The next company acquisition? Who do you think is going to buy Meta?
It was pretty simple for me to convert my Facebook account to a Meta only account. The first time I put on my headset after that change it asked if I wanted to unlink my facebook account and create a new account. I had to pick a new username and password, and re-enter my pairing code. But that was it. I was actually surprised it asked me.
I did this and they recently did something with the accounts (forcing you to get a metaverse account I think?) that turned into a massive headache. In the end I was only able to get it working again by creating a new account (or subaccount?) and redoing all of the Quest Link stuff. Even now it complains that my account isn't set up properly if I use the built-in store, although for now it is working. The whole thing is hugely confusing and the only point seemed to be to try to shove Metaverse down my throat.
I do have to say that Quest Link over WiFi works amazingly well and lets you break out of the walled garden to get to the more interesting corners of VR. It also lets you run stuff that would be way too heavy for the mobile-phone level processor on the Quest. Only downside is the WiFi eats a lot of battery power, so one of those headbands with an extra battery is almost required, but since they improve the weight distribution of the headset it's not a terrible buy.
I do have to say that Quest Link over WiFi works amazingly well and lets you break out of the walled garden to get to the more interesting corners of VR. It also lets you run stuff that would be way too heavy for the mobile-phone level processor on the Quest. Only downside is the WiFi eats a lot of battery power, so one of those headbands with an extra battery is almost required, but since they improve the weight distribution of the headset it's not a terrible buy.
For now. Facebook didn't demand my phone number and a scan of my drivers license when I first signed up either.
A Facebook account is a Facebook account.
They're a bad actor, having demonstrated this beyond a shadow of doubt.
A sensible person would need a strong signal to believe they've switched to cooperating, and no such signal is evident.
They're a bad actor, having demonstrated this beyond a shadow of doubt.
A sensible person would need a strong signal to believe they've switched to cooperating, and no such signal is evident.
And Quest doesn't require a Facebook account
It does, that's what I'm saying.
It requires an account owned by Facebook. I don't do that company the courtesy of using their pretentious, bullshit, fake rebranding, out of disrespect.
It requires an account owned by Facebook. I don't do that company the courtesy of using their pretentious, bullshit, fake rebranding, out of disrespect.
A Meta account is a facebook account by another name. It's hard to trust any sort of _required_ account system that originates from their ecosystem these days.
> They did make good on this. You can make Meta accounts with arbitrary emails and there's no connection to Facebook or real name stuff.
Can you also use the Meta headsets without creating any account?
Can you also use the Meta headsets without creating any account?
[deleted]
[deleted]
honestly, if you need an account at all it's still in internet-of-shit territory and could be unilaterally degraded at any time.
Do you trust that Facebook has neither the capability nor the incentive to develop the capability to track you and combine all that data into a profile? I do not.
Facebook has shadow profiles for people who don’t use the service.
Facebook has shadow profiles for people who don’t use the service.
Facebook, and every advertiser, credit agency, etc.
I would say it's a delicate balance, with heavy batteries being the most annoying for heavy users (the target audience, from what I can tell), who will have pocket battery packs, or low moment-of-inertia placements, anyways.
I personally don't want any unnecessary weight on my face since I sometimes use my headsets for 8 hours at a time, for coding. For comparison, something like the nreal air [1] is only 79g!
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
I personally don't want any unnecessary weight on my face since I sometimes use my headsets for 8 hours at a time, for coding. For comparison, something like the nreal air [1] is only 79g!
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
> I personally don't want any unnecessary weight on my face since I sometimes use my headsets for 8 hours at a time, for coding
Out of curiosity, how does that work? What's the flow, what software do you use, do you still use a keyboard to type?
Out of curiosity, how does that work? What's the flow, what software do you use, do you still use a keyboard to type?
I stream my desktop, with a few virtual screens, using ImmersedVR [1], but other options are available, like VirtualDesktop [2] (over local/remote network), which can be used with something like ShadowPC for full cloud. Others I know code completely in the native browser with the multi-screen interface you see in Meta commercials. Native is still a work in progress, but you can sideload android apps to put them into their own windows.
For desktop streaming, you can use your desktop keyboard/mouse, or a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. For native apps, you use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. The headset sees/tracks the (supported) keyboard with the passthrough cameras and shows a passthrough window/overlay, where it is.
I have no doubt that virtual displays are the future, but probably not until form factors are like the nreal air [3], which I think is still too limited for resolution. Next gen, I'll probably switch over. People will probably be happy enough once PPD triples.
1. https://www.immersed.com/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/de7ojk/using_v...
3. https://www.nreal.ai/air/
For desktop streaming, you can use your desktop keyboard/mouse, or a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. For native apps, you use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse connected to the headset. The headset sees/tracks the (supported) keyboard with the passthrough cameras and shows a passthrough window/overlay, where it is.
I have no doubt that virtual displays are the future, but probably not until form factors are like the nreal air [3], which I think is still too limited for resolution. Next gen, I'll probably switch over. People will probably be happy enough once PPD triples.
1. https://www.immersed.com/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/de7ojk/using_v...
3. https://www.nreal.ai/air/
Additional weight isn't matter or even better if it's balanced well. I put weight on my back like this that is more comfortable than nothing. https://assets.st-note.com/production/uploads/images/3712775...
Quest Pro has battery on the back so it looks very well balanced. Let's see how long the battery lasts.
Quest Pro has battery on the back so it looks very well balanced. Let's see how long the battery lasts.
I have and enjoy the Quest2. I'm not seeing much that would make me want a Quest Pro for an extra $1100. The pro looks more comfortable, the color passthrough is cool, and I respect the new lens and resolution upgrade, but again, $1100? Not worth it to me.
The price tag does feel too rich (but then again it's not aimed at retail). Thing is, the leap from Quest 2 to Quest Pro feels comparable to the leap between consecutive console generations (e.g. PS4-PS5) - it's iterative improvement, but not ground breaking. In the case of consoles, you don't expect the price tag to change that much, though, so it makes the Quest's big price hike a bit hard to swallow.
The other thing is, I suspect the Quest 2 price point was heavily subsidised, so maybe we're just seeing the real cost of a VR headset when it's advertised to what's perceived as a less price sensitive audience (i.e. businesses).
The other thing is, I suspect the Quest 2 price point was heavily subsidised, so maybe we're just seeing the real cost of a VR headset when it's advertised to what's perceived as a less price sensitive audience (i.e. businesses).
Now people underestimates what "Pro" means (I'm watching you, AirPods Pro), but Quest Pro seems to real "Pro" oriented product like HoloLens.
This isn't really being sold to the same people as the Quest2, so it's not surprising that existing Quest2 users aren't having much interest.
For me it'll depend on the magnitude of the improvement, especially in resolution. If it's a serious improvement, I could see it as viable for productive work and not just games, in which case it might be worth the money.
It's not. The meta site is low on specs, but they mentioned in the video that it's got 37% more pixels (and a bit higher density in the middle)
This means that for every 3 pixels on the quest 2 you now have 4. Not exactly a huge increase IMO. What's needed to reach the equivalent of a 24" 1080p monitor at say 2-3 feet away, still needs like a 2-4x increase in pixel per degree.
This means that for every 3 pixels on the quest 2 you now have 4. Not exactly a huge increase IMO. What's needed to reach the equivalent of a 24" 1080p monitor at say 2-3 feet away, still needs like a 2-4x increase in pixel per degree.
There's a USB-C cable that can power it.
Completely different price points though. The Quest 2 was priced for the general public, this is a specialty device for hobbyists and it looks like they are targeting corporations. Hobbyists already have had more advanced options available at this price point, so I'm not totally sure I understand the market for this.
It’s not in Meta’s best interest to obsolete the Quest 2. VR is already a tough sell, and like other “consoles”, significant revenue comes from selling apps.
If they tell the regular users (who spend $50 per game) that they can’t purchase new games without a new headset, I bet most would ditch the technology.
If they tell the regular users (who spend $50 per game) that they can’t purchase new games without a new headset, I bet most would ditch the technology.
The original Quest was released May 2019, and the Quest 2 was released Oct. 2020. Maybe a lot of the early adopters felt burned, but the Quest1's short life obviously didn't put much of a damper in the Quest 2's sales.
Are there many apps or games that only work on the Quest 2? I have the original Quest and I still use it several times a week. It's basically the Beat Saber machine an this point, but it's still pretty fun.
There is some and they are some of the bigger titles, Resident Evil 4 VR and Bonelab for example.
> Hobbyists already have had more advanced options available at this price point
Could you name the other more advanced standalone options? I'm only aware of Pico, which is near parity, but tied to the CCP.
Could you name the other more advanced standalone options? I'm only aware of Pico, which is near parity, but tied to the CCP.
The Varjo Aero and Pimax 8k/12k are ones I'm familiar with.
I don't think these are very comparable to the Quest Pro.
It appears neither of those have face tracking, and the Pimax doesn't have eye tracking. Besides that, both of those are PCVR (not standalone) and the Aero doesn't even come with controllers despite costing nearly $2000.
It appears neither of those have face tracking, and the Pimax doesn't have eye tracking. Besides that, both of those are PCVR (not standalone) and the Aero doesn't even come with controllers despite costing nearly $2000.
Neither of those are standalone or wireless. You also need to figure in the cost of a capable PC to use them with
[deleted]
> I didn't see it in this page, but previous announcements put the battery life at 1-2 hours (unverified).
I still find it weird they haven't shown any mention of incorporating the Bobo VR solution to battery life problems, where there's a secondary battery pack on a magnetic mount and you can swap it out without taking the headset off.
I still find it weird they haven't shown any mention of incorporating the Bobo VR solution to battery life problems, where there's a secondary battery pack on a magnetic mount and you can swap it out without taking the headset off.
Better than Google Glass which was 20 minutes in video mode.
There is no Facebook integration. That was removed 2 months ago.
No Facebook like Instagram is no Facebook.
Meanings it’s all Facebook on the backend.
Your account just doesn’t say Facebook erm Meta on it. You are still subject to all the bad things they do with automated bans, shifting TOS, social bla, etc.
Meanings it’s all Facebook on the backend.
Your account just doesn’t say Facebook erm Meta on it. You are still subject to all the bad things they do with automated bans, shifting TOS, social bla, etc.
Citation?
This is a question of trustworthiness; Meta/Facebook (if you are paying attention) has none. Better to act as if they will misuse your personal information or otherwise do something unsavory because they have done so many times in the past.
Yea, that's totally fair. Meta is about as shady as it gets with this stuff.
"I want to see its resolution!". Click on tech specs. "...with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2". Thanks Meta, that is super helpful!
2160x2160 per-eye according to https://vr-compare.com/headset/metaquestpro
1440x1600 per-eye is valve index, and 1832x1920 per-eye for the Quest 2
No idea where the 4x comes from, but I'm guessing that the mixed reality cameras are just better and it's a semi-misleading statement.
1440x1600 per-eye is valve index, and 1832x1920 per-eye for the Quest 2
No idea where the 4x comes from, but I'm guessing that the mixed reality cameras are just better and it's a semi-misleading statement.
From The Verge:
> Its screens offer a respectable 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye with a maximum 90Hz refresh rate, plus new display tech that Meta says offers 75 percent more contrast than the Quest 2’s.
> Its screens offer a respectable 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye with a maximum 90Hz refresh rate, plus new display tech that Meta says offers 75 percent more contrast than the Quest 2’s.
4x comes from higher resolution pass-through cameras
They mentioned that they have higher resolution in the central part of the display, so perhaps this is a variable pixel density display?
VR lenses mean that uniform display pixels result in non-uniform pixels per degree to the eye. Not sure if the effective resolution has changed but almost certain the display panel is uniform pixel density.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is really annoying their "tech specs" is all just marketing buzz words. Even worse the first "spec" listed is:
PREMIUM COMFORT
World class counter balanced ergonomics meets sleek design to create a more comfortable headset."world class ergonomics".
Yeah... Not much of a spec sheet. I don't think there is a registration for a "world class" specification anywhere.
The tech spec sheet should be for actual specs, not sales drivel.
Yeah... Not much of a spec sheet. I don't think there is a registration for a "world class" specification anywhere.
The tech spec sheet should be for actual specs, not sales drivel.
“Counterbalanced” is a spec that is extremely important with extended use of VR. That one needs to stay.
I was wondering if they mean 4x the screen resolution or the camera resolution since its in the mixed reality section. Also without even knowing the resolution/refresh rate/vertical/horizontal fov it would be hard to justify a pre order.
It's the passthrough camera res yes, they mentioned this in the presentation. 4X is easy to believe because the Q2's passthrough resolution is really low. Of course those cams were initially specced only for tracking so that makes sense.
It's strange that the display resolution is not mentioned anywhere on meta's site though. Overall this spec sheet is pretty useless.
During the presentation they mentioned "37% more pixels" than quest 2, and more density in the center due to the new lenses. I assume the 2160x2160 ventured on some sites is pretty much correct and the Quest 2-like 1830x1920 is not. Would be great to get actual confirmation though.
It's strange that the display resolution is not mentioned anywhere on meta's site though. Overall this spec sheet is pretty useless.
During the presentation they mentioned "37% more pixels" than quest 2, and more density in the center due to the new lenses. I assume the 2160x2160 ventured on some sites is pretty much correct and the Quest 2-like 1830x1920 is not. Would be great to get actual confirmation though.
I'm a VR enthusiast, but will never buy from Meta! (I had the Oculus Quest previously.)
I'm waiting for my next gen headset.
Apple might release next spring. Pico hardware for sale in Europe is interesting. Looking forward to seeing if they ship the the US. Several indie hardware plays out there (lynx-r.com, simulavr.com, etc)
I'm waiting for my next gen headset.
Apple might release next spring. Pico hardware for sale in Europe is interesting. Looking forward to seeing if they ship the the US. Several indie hardware plays out there (lynx-r.com, simulavr.com, etc)
I'm puzzled by this announcement. The device seems fantastic, but the app lineup on the site is incredibly lame. Adobe Acrobat? Dropbox? Smartsheet?
I get it, they're focusing on corporate / professional users, but gosh, I'm not spending $1,650 bucks on such an innovative device to run Adobe Acrobat and freaking spreadsheet-based project management tool!
Where's the "wow" first-party apps for the Pro? Where's the new version of Supernatural? Beat Saber? Minecraft in AR/VR? Or whatever fancy B2B apps they spent this last year working on (they do exist, right? Right?). In my mind you need to appeal to both end users and the professional audience at the same time, in order to move the industry forward. Otherwise you'll end up with a HoloLens-like marketshare.
I'm saying this as an early adopter since Oculus Kickstarter days, and really want to see the whole vr/ar/metaverse succeed. But Meta could take a page from Apple playbook on how to put together keynotes and product launches.
ps: on the positive side, the Carmack Unscripted livestream was great. John continues to be in his best shape, and too bad the conversation was 'cut short' (by his standards).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33169482
I get it, they're focusing on corporate / professional users, but gosh, I'm not spending $1,650 bucks on such an innovative device to run Adobe Acrobat and freaking spreadsheet-based project management tool!
Where's the "wow" first-party apps for the Pro? Where's the new version of Supernatural? Beat Saber? Minecraft in AR/VR? Or whatever fancy B2B apps they spent this last year working on (they do exist, right? Right?). In my mind you need to appeal to both end users and the professional audience at the same time, in order to move the industry forward. Otherwise you'll end up with a HoloLens-like marketshare.
I'm saying this as an early adopter since Oculus Kickstarter days, and really want to see the whole vr/ar/metaverse succeed. But Meta could take a page from Apple playbook on how to put together keynotes and product launches.
ps: on the positive side, the Carmack Unscripted livestream was great. John continues to be in his best shape, and too bad the conversation was 'cut short' (by his standards).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33169482
(responding to a now deleted comment, that argued that this wasn't an announcement for people who play Beat saber, and the whole segmentation of pro users vs. end-users made sense)
I agree the segmentation of devices makes sense, but it requires an app ecosystem that sits on top and needs to work for everyone together, and you need developers creating those experiences. Like when Apple launched iOS 2 and supported apps for the first time; you need a strong line up of developers and creators in order to move the industry forward.
Adobe Acrobat is not the thing to get corporate users excited. Nor Smartsheet. Where's Zoom and meetings with 3D spatial audio? Autodesk? Maya? Matlab? Training experiences? And yes, bring in games, fitness apps, movies together. We talk so much about "making remote work fun", that this can be a fantastic team experience to blend experiences.
But ok, it seems I'm overreacting to a lousy product landing page put together at the last minute. I'm now watching the keynote[1][2] (which, weirdly, it's not linked anywhere), and it's waay better.
As I expected, lots of mentions of new games, fitness apps, Marvel movies, and all intermixed with Zoom and Microsoft Teams (ha!), virtual monitors, collaboration tools, etc. And if you pay close attention, you'll notice that Beat Saber came right after Accenture and Satya Nadella (!), and discussions on the future of work. So it seems they are indeed blurring the lines between these segments, no matter what device you're using.
I'm still a believer, both as a professional and end user [3], so looking forward to testing the new hardware.
[1] On YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvfV-iGwYX8
[2] On FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityLabs/videos/1425118524564060
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31819718
I agree the segmentation of devices makes sense, but it requires an app ecosystem that sits on top and needs to work for everyone together, and you need developers creating those experiences. Like when Apple launched iOS 2 and supported apps for the first time; you need a strong line up of developers and creators in order to move the industry forward.
Adobe Acrobat is not the thing to get corporate users excited. Nor Smartsheet. Where's Zoom and meetings with 3D spatial audio? Autodesk? Maya? Matlab? Training experiences? And yes, bring in games, fitness apps, movies together. We talk so much about "making remote work fun", that this can be a fantastic team experience to blend experiences.
But ok, it seems I'm overreacting to a lousy product landing page put together at the last minute. I'm now watching the keynote[1][2] (which, weirdly, it's not linked anywhere), and it's waay better.
As I expected, lots of mentions of new games, fitness apps, Marvel movies, and all intermixed with Zoom and Microsoft Teams (ha!), virtual monitors, collaboration tools, etc. And if you pay close attention, you'll notice that Beat Saber came right after Accenture and Satya Nadella (!), and discussions on the future of work. So it seems they are indeed blurring the lines between these segments, no matter what device you're using.
I'm still a believer, both as a professional and end user [3], so looking forward to testing the new hardware.
[1] On YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvfV-iGwYX8
[2] On FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityLabs/videos/1425118524564060
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31819718
[deleted]
Whenever I find myself even mildly excited about VR hardware I ask myself what it looks like if Facebook truly succeeds in this? Like what if they got massive adoption and are able to tie in all their revenue engines within a walled-garden VR setup? What if they succeed and get tons of enterprise customers?
It would be absolutely awful right? Like the worst parts of dystopian fiction with microtransactions and popups and all kinds of other cruft in a 360 field of vision some how mandated for gaming and work. World-wide, probably tying into education and basic information access.
It would be absolutely awful right? Like the worst parts of dystopian fiction with microtransactions and popups and all kinds of other cruft in a 360 field of vision some how mandated for gaming and work. World-wide, probably tying into education and basic information access.
I have never gotten over Microsoft putting ads on the Windows desktop. It felt like the Rubicon was crossed at that moment: no longer would my personal computer be mine. And that was from a software company doing it to software that I paid for.
What should we expect from an advertising company?
What should we expect from an advertising company?
My journey is Windows -> Mac -> Linux. I hope to stick with Linux (or at least OSS operating systems) for the remainder of my career. My computer is mine, and it's never felt more like mine than it does now.
It's not without its bumps and warts, but I highly recommend it.
Also, gaming isn't perfect, but it's really quite good for the kinds of games I play (mostly indie games on Steam).
It's not without its bumps and warts, but I highly recommend it.
Also, gaming isn't perfect, but it's really quite good for the kinds of games I play (mostly indie games on Steam).
I went Windows > Mac > Linux > Mac > Linux
Just recently got a System 76 machine and they really nail the whole experience. Last time I tried to do 100% linux desktop was probably around 2016, and while it wasn't bad, gaming was impossible except for a hilariously small number of titles and I still had trouble with drivers for most everyday things, had wifi problems etc. It was not bad, but not really something I could use 100% of the time.
Pop!_OS has been great so far, and most importantly, Linux gaming is now really, really incredible. I don't do much multiplayer gaming these days, but I've played a bunch of new titles including CyberPunk 2077 and Stray, plus nearly my entire back catalog, and they play perfectly without any fiddling to get them started.
Most important:
> My computer is mine, and it's never felt more like mine than it does now.
I hadn't realized how slowly my Mac had become more and more Apple's machine over time. I felt like I was slowly losing control of more and more of the device and more things were also Apple's things (for example files stored on iCloud which is both convenient but also feels like I'm really using Apple's computer).
Linux desktop, and getting back to using mostly OSS again really made me enjoy computing again and realize how much everything else feels like you're working on a big advertising box.
Just recently got a System 76 machine and they really nail the whole experience. Last time I tried to do 100% linux desktop was probably around 2016, and while it wasn't bad, gaming was impossible except for a hilariously small number of titles and I still had trouble with drivers for most everyday things, had wifi problems etc. It was not bad, but not really something I could use 100% of the time.
Pop!_OS has been great so far, and most importantly, Linux gaming is now really, really incredible. I don't do much multiplayer gaming these days, but I've played a bunch of new titles including CyberPunk 2077 and Stray, plus nearly my entire back catalog, and they play perfectly without any fiddling to get them started.
Most important:
> My computer is mine, and it's never felt more like mine than it does now.
I hadn't realized how slowly my Mac had become more and more Apple's machine over time. I felt like I was slowly losing control of more and more of the device and more things were also Apple's things (for example files stored on iCloud which is both convenient but also feels like I'm really using Apple's computer).
Linux desktop, and getting back to using mostly OSS again really made me enjoy computing again and realize how much everything else feels like you're working on a big advertising box.
I went from Windows -> Linux -> Windows with a Linux VM. Honestly Linux is just too much of a hassle to get it working right directly on the hardware - I always had issues with either drivers, sound, multiple monitors, etc. And while I'm sure these could be resolved one way or another I just don't have the time (anymore) to troubleshoot my own system every other month. Windows is perfectly fine for web browsing, text editing, gaming etc. - while I can program in a familiar Linux environment. Added bonus: whenever I change computers I can just copy the VM image to the new one and continue instantly.
I went Windows 10 to Linux. Gaming is more than ok, thanks Steam, and for those games that don't run under Linux I have double boot. My whole Windows career I insisted in Pro liscences, the peivate always felt wierd. And aince Windows 11 simply unusable, Win 10 Pro is still accwptable, every time I see a Home version I feel like crying... The last Windows were I really felt like my computer was as mine as it does with Linux was NT and Windows 2000. With the same shenenigans for installong software from third parties like under modern Ubuntu, maybe that plays a role too.
Even Apple has ads in iOS now, and nobody complains about it.
No one?
Let me be the first. I would like to note my formal complaint at apple put ads on my expensive iPhone.
Maybe I’m a nobody, but I’m somebody.
Let me be the first. I would like to note my formal complaint at apple put ads on my expensive iPhone.
Maybe I’m a nobody, but I’m somebody.
They have ads in the store. Not on iOS in general.
This is wrong. There are plenty of ads outside of the App Store, like:
- There are adds for iCloud in the Settings app.
- There are ads for Apple News in the Stocks app.
- There are adds for iCloud in the Settings app.
- There are ads for Apple News in the Stocks app.
There are no adds for iCloud in the settings app. There is a page where you can pay for the service.
But.. I’ll grant the second - there are ads for Apple News in the stocks app.
So no. There are not “plenty of ads” outside the App Store.
But.. I’ll grant the second - there are ads for Apple News in the stocks app.
So no. There are not “plenty of ads” outside the App Store.
the store is part of the OS, you cannot delete the app store, you cannot use an alternative app store, and you cannot turn the ads off. Ads are part of the OS.
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/control-how-apple-del...
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/control-how-apple-del...
Propositionally true but misleading.
Ads are only in the store, not the OS in general.
Your eyes are part of your head, and your head is part of your body.
You have eyes in your head, and not in the rest of your body.
We don’t say you have eyes in your body, even though you can make the logical case for this truth, because it would be misleading in the same way.
Ads are only in the store, not the OS in general.
Your eyes are part of your head, and your head is part of your body.
You have eyes in your head, and not in the rest of your body.
We don’t say you have eyes in your body, even though you can make the logical case for this truth, because it would be misleading in the same way.
Odd take.
Why odd? It’s a growing movement in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
Apple Maps is an Ad when I click on an address and only have google maps installed
You’re having to work hard. A link to renable a standard feature that was included with the OS is not an ad.
If my phone automatically recognizes addresses but refuses to recognize the world’s leading map service and instead sends me to the App Store to use their second rate app, it’s certainly an ad.
Obviously you don’t know the history:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/26/disagreements-ove...
As for being a second rate app, that was once true, but isn’t now.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/05/13/compared-apple-ma...
It seems that you are unaware that Google maps uses location data to make ads follow you around. That seems like a pretty good reason for Apple to protect its users from Google’s data collection machine.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/26/disagreements-ove...
As for being a second rate app, that was once true, but isn’t now.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/05/13/compared-apple-ma...
It seems that you are unaware that Google maps uses location data to make ads follow you around. That seems like a pretty good reason for Apple to protect its users from Google’s data collection machine.
I want google maps to use my position data so that I know where traffic jams are in real time. It has saved me a bunch.
Apple Maps still sends people to strange places when you leave the city. (Apple Maps once sent us to the middle of a farm field, which was funny at the time, so I was glad it happened.)
Apple Maps still sends people to strange places when you leave the city. (Apple Maps once sent us to the middle of a farm field, which was funny at the time, so I was glad it happened.)
Apple Maps has traffic jam data. For that matter, my DVD based navigation in my 10 year old car gets real time traffic updates.
Neither of them involve using my position data to let ads track me.
Additionally nothing stops you from using Google Maps on iOS, or Waze for that matter, another Google Mapping product renowned for good traffic data.
In any case it sounds like you would prefer tighter integration of Google products into the OS, and have no problem with them collecting data on you.
In this case why not just use Android?
Neither of them involve using my position data to let ads track me.
Additionally nothing stops you from using Google Maps on iOS, or Waze for that matter, another Google Mapping product renowned for good traffic data.
In any case it sounds like you would prefer tighter integration of Google products into the OS, and have no problem with them collecting data on you.
In this case why not just use Android?
Not if you count the ads to activate Apple products like AppleTv/AppleMusic
[deleted]
You mean the UI to enable the services? Those aren’t ads.
But they are? Under Settings, there is no "Apple Arcade" where I can decide whether to enable it or not. It's on top of all settings, and it pushes me to do it. It's an ad.
This doesn’t make sense. Of course you can decide whether to enable Apple Arcade or not. Obviously it’s a paid service, so you have to pay to enable it.
Who is ‘pushing’ you to do anything?
Who is ‘pushing’ you to do anything?
It's a banner on top of settings that has to be forcefully hidden, it's not in the Apple Arcade setting. Many people are explaining to you that if it behaves like an ad and smells like an ad, it's an ad.
I feel that you are either arguing in bad faith, or determined to defend Apple at all costs. I guess when your car manufacturer will start showing you "Enable Entertaining Package Plus for 14$/mo" in your car dashboard, you will be happy, think "of course I can decide whether to enable it or not", and probably feel very clever.
I feel that you are either arguing in bad faith, or determined to defend Apple at all costs. I guess when your car manufacturer will start showing you "Enable Entertaining Package Plus for 14$/mo" in your car dashboard, you will be happy, think "of course I can decide whether to enable it or not", and probably feel very clever.
I'll certainly never use Windows again; for any reason. The idea of built-in advertising within an OS is absolutely a line too far crossed.
Doesn't matter that you can disable it; it's the existence of the advertising alone that tells me enough about the garbage philosophy of the company producing the software that I want nothing to do with it, and I could never rightfully recommend it to anyone.
Doesn't matter that you can disable it; it's the existence of the advertising alone that tells me enough about the garbage philosophy of the company producing the software that I want nothing to do with it, and I could never rightfully recommend it to anyone.
Isn't it mainly plugs for stuff like their web browser or office products? I feel like the only way around that is using some kind of OSS or linux. Apple is always pushing their stuff on me. iCloud, The TV app, the music app, oh sign up for apple health. Plus if you use iOS, you basically need to use their web browser.
So you don’t use either iOS or Android? Those both have ads in the OS.
This is what I've been worried about too. Meta isn't betting the farm on a shitty Second Life ripoff because they think consumers will want it. I think they're doing it because the end users are going to be low-level work from home employees who have no choice in the matter.
I'm increasingly convinced that Meta isn't betting the farm at all. They just wanted to rebrand away from something that reminds people of election manipulation and teen suicides and toward something that reminds people of the future.
All this VR stuff seems to be an experimental group combined with a marketing budget to cure FB's brand.
All this VR stuff seems to be an experimental group combined with a marketing budget to cure FB's brand.
It's more dire than that from their business perspective.
TikTok is killing them in the social media space.
They lost billions because of their reliance on Apple, who rug pulled them with the iOS privacy changes.
This is what they're choosing to pursue in response to existential threats to their business.
TikTok is killing them in the social media space.
They lost billions because of their reliance on Apple, who rug pulled them with the iOS privacy changes.
This is what they're choosing to pursue in response to existential threats to their business.
You think Meta is spending billions on a PR exercise ? Be serious.
There are many companies including Apple and Microsoft who do think that VR has the potential to offer ground-breaking new experiences and as such worth investing in.
There are many companies including Apple and Microsoft who do think that VR has the potential to offer ground-breaking new experiences and as such worth investing in.
Yes - I do think Meta is spending single digit billions on a PR exercise. That is not an unreasonable marketing budget for a several-hundred-billion-dollar company that is currently experiencing huge losses in brand value, and they are certainly looking at how to get a piece of the VR pie in order to get a discount on it.
There are over 20K full time employees in Meta’s Reality Labs working on metaverse tech… this is not a marketing exercise.
This would be true if they weren’t releasing good hardware as well.
the end users are going to be low-level work from home
employees who have no choice in the matter.
There would have to be killer apps for those headsets. Things that can't be done as well (or done at all) with traditional interfaces.
I haven't heard many ideas being thrown around for things that would actually benefit from VR.
There are certain niche applications that are easy to imagine. Maybe some CAD/CAM stuff, maybe remote surgery or some shit.
But the vast majority of things people do would have no benefit. You're not going to crunch through help desk tickets faster in VR. I realize people probably said the same things about traditional computers 50 years ago, but there were also a lot of folks that were bullish on them. I just don't see it with VR.
Surveillance is the big one, I think. Speak to anyone who has worked at a call center. They track you like crazy, and keep every metric imaginable. Imagine how much worse it would be if they were enabled to literally track your eye movements.
> Things that can't be done as well (or done at all) with traditional interfaces
I work from home and do daily standups, design reviews, architecture etc.
All of those could be significantly better with VR.
I work from home and do daily standups, design reviews, architecture etc.
All of those could be significantly better with VR.
architecture
It's easy for me to imagine architects spinning models around Minority Report style with their hands, going on virtual walkthroughs, etc with VR apps.
It's less clear to me that these would actually improve the process. I realize that a 2D projection of a 3D object is always going to be a bit of a compromise, but are today's 2D interfaces and displays actually holding things back?
I'm thinking of the wave of "Minority Report" style interfaces that were proposed after that movie came out. They seemed to "obviously" be the future. But after a while everybody realized that moving a few cm on a mouse/trackpad was actually orders of magnitude more efficient than waving your arms around like a maniac for ten hours a day.
"We estimate we can sell up to 80% of a user's vision without inducing seizures."
- Ernest Cline, "Ready Player One"
I found that book to be nauseatingly ham-fisted and this quote is a great example. It really beats you over the head with the theme, but also begs the question would people actually put up with that?
The book is fundamentally nostalgic. There’s very little depth or “future” in it (which is not a slight; I don’t think Cline was going for anything different).
I find it to be nostalgic in the worst way. It seems to miss the spirit of its source material at every step, it wallows in gatekeeping, and is just in a way cringey.
Based off a casual perusal of almost any news site without an ad blocker, yes. Yes they will.
Based off some scroll positions on Facebook, 80% might be a bit low.
As a side note, it's a quote from a fictional character that's (sadly only slightly) exaggerating a real problem for effect. It's not intended to be taken as a gospel truth.
Based off some scroll positions on Facebook, 80% might be a bit low.
As a side note, it's a quote from a fictional character that's (sadly only slightly) exaggerating a real problem for effect. It's not intended to be taken as a gospel truth.
I’ve never seen anything that approached 80% of the screen space being ads, and plastering that much of your view in VR is preposterous.
I understand that it isn’t meant to be a literal prediction about the future, but it’s still bad writing. The whole book is just so terrible tedious. Every character constantly says out loud at length what their motivations are. The villains give long speech’s like som 80s cartoon but lacking all of the flair and fun of the source material.
I understand that it isn’t meant to be a literal prediction about the future, but it’s still bad writing. The whole book is just so terrible tedious. Every character constantly says out loud at length what their motivations are. The villains give long speech’s like som 80s cartoon but lacking all of the flair and fun of the source material.
I get it. You didn’t like the book. You can stop the pretentious pontification upon how little you liked it and why everyone else should despise the book and every quote from the book just as much as you do.
Jesus.
Jesus.
No one else needs to dislike it as far as I'm concerned, people like what they like. Mostly I was eye rolling at using a quote from it as any form of contemporary social commentary.
What percent of a Google search screen is now ads?
Current FB is forced by reality to be an ads company. If they can find an alternative that lets them not be an ads company, then VR might be their path to redemption?
MSFT is putting ads in windows because charging for windows is not working as a business model anymore for them, so now it's a freemium product. You barely if at all see ads in office and related products, and thats because it's a product you can only pay for. Many enterprises will flat out refuse to use "Meta Enterprise VR" if it comes with a ton of ad tech crap, and are totally willing and wanting to pay the difference for it anyway. Too many juicy contracts will be missed to FB's competitors.
Apple is expanding their ads business a lot too.
So it really can go multiple ways, and I don't think FB is going to be the only real competitor in the VR space once it starts ramping up, especially with all the hints that apple is working on the space. You also have things like sony's playstation VR as a strong third competitor, not to mention the background PC VR stuff that exists already.
MSFT is putting ads in windows because charging for windows is not working as a business model anymore for them, so now it's a freemium product. You barely if at all see ads in office and related products, and thats because it's a product you can only pay for. Many enterprises will flat out refuse to use "Meta Enterprise VR" if it comes with a ton of ad tech crap, and are totally willing and wanting to pay the difference for it anyway. Too many juicy contracts will be missed to FB's competitors.
Apple is expanding their ads business a lot too.
So it really can go multiple ways, and I don't think FB is going to be the only real competitor in the VR space once it starts ramping up, especially with all the hints that apple is working on the space. You also have things like sony's playstation VR as a strong third competitor, not to mention the background PC VR stuff that exists already.
why do you think theyd leave the ad money on the table?
Because they can make more money without it. There is an obvious huge push to get into the corporate space with this by meta, and corporations will not abide by ads for shit they pay for. And more seriously, they will have hard contractual and legal requirements to not be surveilled.
thats not what leaving it on the table means. Apple shows you ads on their devices and services, they just gatekeep third parties like facebook. Any devices and services facebook makes absolutely would be vehicles for ads just like apple.
There's no reason for there to be any difference. Pretending any company is going to leave the money on the table for non existent good will is wishful thinking. No one will trust them regardless.
There's no reason for there to be any difference. Pretending any company is going to leave the money on the table for non existent good will is wishful thinking. No one will trust them regardless.
This 100% - especially a social media company that is shedding revenue left and right. What do you do when you are losing revenue? Find new revenue streams. What do you sell to get additional revenue? More personal data. When a giant corporation becomes desperate, they will sell anything they have in any way they can to make up revenue - I can only imagine what they will end up having to do to make up these lost revenue streams... probably not so good.
I work in Northern Europe. Someone at my company decided it would be great to introduce the so-called "Facebook for work". It's literally the worst of all worlds: you get the distraction you don't need while working, no fun, artificial corporate virtue-signaling and just plain department-flexing. After a few months
everybody stopped using it but I'm sure we're still paying for it.
It’d look the same as Apple’s iPhone ecosystem most likely.
I highly doubt that.
The extent of your usage of an iPhone is rarely mandated, and most people I know use the iPhone primarily for photos, iMessage, a browser (usually Chrome? At least in my circle) and an email account.
For those functions, Apple is hardly slamming you with recommended content and ads. Instead, you pay an initial premium for a solid bit of hardware. And if you want more, say if you want to store a lot of photos on their servers ($), you pay for it with more money.
The extent of your usage of an iPhone is rarely mandated, and most people I know use the iPhone primarily for photos, iMessage, a browser (usually Chrome? At least in my circle) and an email account.
For those functions, Apple is hardly slamming you with recommended content and ads. Instead, you pay an initial premium for a solid bit of hardware. And if you want more, say if you want to store a lot of photos on their servers ($), you pay for it with more money.
Have you ever used an Oculus Quest before? Between the full-screen Apple Music pop-ups and "suggested apps" when you search on the App Store, I think my Quest actually has less advertisements than modern iOS...
Regardless of platform, the problem is still the same, and the solution is equally plain. Apple and Meta should both be allowed to sell hardware - they're both really good at it! Their software needs an opportunity to compete with the community though, otherwise they'll never have their best interests at heart. The good news is that both companies already hire thousands of software engineers to work on their software. It's economically impossible for them to make inferior software even if we do force them to do the right thing. Win/win!
Regardless of platform, the problem is still the same, and the solution is equally plain. Apple and Meta should both be allowed to sell hardware - they're both really good at it! Their software needs an opportunity to compete with the community though, otherwise they'll never have their best interests at heart. The good news is that both companies already hire thousands of software engineers to work on their software. It's economically impossible for them to make inferior software even if we do force them to do the right thing. Win/win!
> Have you ever used an Oculus Quest before? Between the full-screen Apple Music pop-ups and "suggested apps" when you search on the App Store, I think my Quest actually has less advertisements than modern iOS...
The GP was saying what would happen in the future. iOS v1 and v2 had the same amount of advertisements as Quest.
The GP was saying what would happen in the future. iOS v1 and v2 had the same amount of advertisements as Quest.
I agree, all of this further emphasizes the importance of allowing third-parties to develop their own OSes on hardware they own.
Meta is going for the same exact play as Apple did with smartphones, but with VR.
They understand the downsides of being tied to ad revenue more than anyone else. They want to make money from Oculus Store and headset sales, just like Apple does with App Store and iPhone.
They understand the downsides of being tied to ad revenue more than anyone else. They want to make money from Oculus Store and headset sales, just like Apple does with App Store and iPhone.
Meta is going for the same exact play as Apple did with
smartphones, but with VR.
Appeal-wise... yeesh. Mobile phones and the internet were already very mainstream-popular before Apple launched the iPhone.
VR, not so much. The appeal is extremely niche, and there's really just no demand for it.
Geeks were excited about having computers in their pockets. Literally nobody I know is excited to strap a dorky piece of puke-inducing hardware onto their head outside of limited gaming uses.
> Geeks were excited about having computers in their pockets. Literally nobody I know is excited to strap a dorky piece of puke-inducing hardware onto their head outside of limited gaming uses.
I'm getting flashbacks to everyone complaining about the lack of buttons on the original iPhone, and how bulky/heavy it was in comparison to the micro-phones of the era. And how it was less powerful than comparable PDAs of the era.
I guess we'll see how well this comment ages in the same time period.
I'm getting flashbacks to everyone complaining about the lack of buttons on the original iPhone, and how bulky/heavy it was in comparison to the micro-phones of the era. And how it was less powerful than comparable PDAs of the era.
I guess we'll see how well this comment ages in the same time period.
Every successful technology has had legions of naysayers. Cars. Video games. Graphical operating systems. iPhones. Solid state drives. Electric cars.
But that's not what I'm talking about here.
I'm talking about the lack of folks enthusiastic about VR. All of the technologies I just named also had a groundswell of excitement around them; people who saw the promise.
I'm reminded of the "hype" around 3D movies and TVs about a decade ago. Remember how that was going to be the next big thing? 3D Blu-rays and stuff?
But you literally never heard people excited about that tech at ground level. From geeks to normies the reaction was a giant yawn. That's what this whole VR thing feels like.
But that's not what I'm talking about here.
I'm talking about the lack of folks enthusiastic about VR. All of the technologies I just named also had a groundswell of excitement around them; people who saw the promise.
I guess we'll see how well this comment ages in the same time period.
I'm reminded of the "hype" around 3D movies and TVs about a decade ago. Remember how that was going to be the next big thing? 3D Blu-rays and stuff?
But you literally never heard people excited about that tech at ground level. From geeks to normies the reaction was a giant yawn. That's what this whole VR thing feels like.
The question to me is why we should expect Meta to compete effectively in the high-end/high-margin space with Apple, which it sounds like they will be by sometime next year.
I’m struggling to think of any aspect of this product—save social—where Apple hasn’t demonstrated marked superiority to Meta over a decade. Software. Hardware. Logistics. Supply Chain. Marketing.
Is the “Social Network” enough to overcome all that? I doubt it.
I’m struggling to think of any aspect of this product—save social—where Apple hasn’t demonstrated marked superiority to Meta over a decade. Software. Hardware. Logistics. Supply Chain. Marketing.
Is the “Social Network” enough to overcome all that? I doubt it.
Because Meta bought Oculus. It's not the news feed guys designing the next gen VR hardware.
More importantly they want to own a platform which won’t make arbitrary rules that upends their entire business model.
If that's the case, then what can we do to preemptively frustrate facebook's control?
Enforce antitrust legislation and caselaw, and force manufacturers to stop artificially limiting competition and consumer choice.
But crucially, you can sideload, you're not tied to an app store.
Can you load your own OS? Can you use your own VR client to connect to VR spaces? As mentioned in another comment, sideloading is against the ToS and clearly not at any kind of parity with Facebook-blessed app distribution channels.
You can link it to your desktop using Link or Air Link and use whatever VR apps you want there. I use it for iRacing amongst other things.
They've made moves that telegraph limiting this. There are now warnings every time you run a sideloaded app that doing so for reasons other than active development is against the terms of service.
[deleted]
Except the iPhone is not (yet) designed to vacuum up and monetize all the data of Apple's customers.
I can't say the same with any confidence about any Meta/Facebook product.
I can't say the same with any confidence about any Meta/Facebook product.
My grandfather retired at 50 because he refused to us a PC when it became required (~1985 or so). He was lucky that he worked for a company that had pensions and bought people out into early retirement often so he had that option. If the adoption of VR is anything like that, I'll be looking for my out too.
Why is it that all news, including tech news, just fills me with endless dread nowadays? I surely can't be the only one who feels like this. Like what do we have to look forward to in the event that we don't have to face a depression, get drafted, see another pandemic, realize more of the effects of climate change, or get nuked? Wearing stupid goggles for 8 hours a day and paying Zuckerberg $50 for a virtual "I Hate Mondays" t-shirt? Oof.
Then remove yourself from that live and start reconnecting to higher values.
Seems like you are stuck in the consumerism / professional world.
Reconnect to the people around you, nature, the things you love etc and just start to dial down those things that are filling you with dread. It's not going to get any better, but the things that matter are still there underneath all that nonsense that you are being sold.
Seems like you are stuck in the consumerism / professional world.
Reconnect to the people around you, nature, the things you love etc and just start to dial down those things that are filling you with dread. It's not going to get any better, but the things that matter are still there underneath all that nonsense that you are being sold.
As I like to say, "software eating the world" is just the first step of digestion
> Why is it that all news, including tech news, just fills me with endless dread nowadays?
Because you have a lot of knowledge about world events but you don't have very much wisdom about them.
Because you have a lot of knowledge about world events but you don't have very much wisdom about them.
Commodifying software was a mistake that resulted in all sorts of perverse incentives. We first saw Microsoft succumb to it, then Amazon, and are now watching Facebook, Apple and Google all create a mustard-gas-miasma of dark patterns and rent-collection. Really, it's our fault for not recognizing these threats during the dotcom boom.
You're typing this on a piece of technology that presumably you appreciate having access to, have you considered that there were likely many people in the generation before you who assumed something like HN was impossible and that all web tech or personal computing would be purely negative / dystopian? Turns out it's a mixed bag of good and bad. As is the world. There are beautiful things happening right now all over the world and there are horrible things. The happiest people seem to be either really excellent at accepting the horrible things or looking the other way, but in both cases they make sure their eyes are focused on the good as well and not just the bad.
You would probably enjoy listening to Hal Sparks on Twitch or YouTube. He's a comedian-cum-political commentator who is extremely well read and has made it his job to explain why the world ain't ending. He's in a beef with The Young Turks whose business plan is the exact opposite, even though they're supposedly on the same side politically.
He faces the worst of what's going on, watches some of the most toxic... er, "media clips", and tells you why they're wrong and dumb and why you should actually be optimistic, based on confirmable facts and, as another comment mentioned, wisdom.
He faces the worst of what's going on, watches some of the most toxic... er, "media clips", and tells you why they're wrong and dumb and why you should actually be optimistic, based on confirmable facts and, as another comment mentioned, wisdom.
> just fills me with endless dread nowadays
News inherently captures attention through fear. "Everything is fine today" doesn't sell papers.
But if that's the story you're choosing to tell yourself I would dread that future too.
News inherently captures attention through fear. "Everything is fine today" doesn't sell papers.
But if that's the story you're choosing to tell yourself I would dread that future too.
Early retirement won't be an option for anyone under 40 and retirement for anyone under 30 with the way things are going.
Depends on what your circumstances are and how little you’re willing to live with. If you’ve got very few desires then you don’t need much. If I don’t end up married with kids I think I may just buy a good motorbike, a good tent and a good stove and travel indefinitely.
Speak for yourself, plenty of people have retired early already before 40. See /r/financialindependence if you want.
Agree. If USA was a stock ticker, he timed it perfectly
This specific issue is my personal hobby horse and how to avoid the worst of it is the subject of my essay writing and personal research:
https://noahnorman.substack.com
The Meta "stack" or core competencies they wish to align in this product domain, set up a profoundly dystopian world.
Their interest in being the platform is to own next-level surveillance of you for as much of your waking life as possible. They intend to track every gesture, your gaze, and (soon) your biometrics,
so as to feed their other big build out area, ML and similar tools for making superhuman insights about you and your interests,
which they they marry to their bread and butter, selling you to any and all comers regardless of any ethical concerns or concerns about societal consequence whatsoever. (That's not even hyperbole, it's a simple statement of fact.)
I don't believe they're ahead on this, but we can also expect to be ever more successfully manipulated by AI-powered chat bots increasingly well-tuned to provoke "engagement" and emotional response, through which to steer our beliefs behaviors and limbic system. C.f. Blade Runner 2049 and Ex Machina.
A friend made me try his rig against VR porn once, and picked a scenario which leveraged gaze and similar monkey-mind cues like whispering in one ear up close, to trigger all the "intimacy" responses.
Or: made me try the "walk the plank off the top of a skyscraper" demo. I knew perfectly well I was 1" off the floor on a 2x4. I could not step off.
We are utterly defenseless against what is coming,
and if there is one company in the public consumer sphere which has demonstrated that it utterly untrustworthy as a steward of our individual and collective wellbeing, it's Meta.
I dearly hope they crash and burn before they can foist this hellacious future on those of us unable to get out from under it.
Their interest in being the platform is to own next-level surveillance of you for as much of your waking life as possible. They intend to track every gesture, your gaze, and (soon) your biometrics,
so as to feed their other big build out area, ML and similar tools for making superhuman insights about you and your interests,
which they they marry to their bread and butter, selling you to any and all comers regardless of any ethical concerns or concerns about societal consequence whatsoever. (That's not even hyperbole, it's a simple statement of fact.)
I don't believe they're ahead on this, but we can also expect to be ever more successfully manipulated by AI-powered chat bots increasingly well-tuned to provoke "engagement" and emotional response, through which to steer our beliefs behaviors and limbic system. C.f. Blade Runner 2049 and Ex Machina.
A friend made me try his rig against VR porn once, and picked a scenario which leveraged gaze and similar monkey-mind cues like whispering in one ear up close, to trigger all the "intimacy" responses.
Or: made me try the "walk the plank off the top of a skyscraper" demo. I knew perfectly well I was 1" off the floor on a 2x4. I could not step off.
We are utterly defenseless against what is coming,
and if there is one company in the public consumer sphere which has demonstrated that it utterly untrustworthy as a steward of our individual and collective wellbeing, it's Meta.
I dearly hope they crash and burn before they can foist this hellacious future on those of us unable to get out from under it.
There's a short story called the Lifecycle of Software Objects. It introduces the idea of platform wars, e.g. competition between various metaverse worlds. I see this playing out with Horizon, maybe Roblox, Epic, etc. Things are mostly interoperable across platforms but some have limitations.
Having the choice for digital worlds would make it a little less dystopian. But I think the bigger thing is having competition with hardware, for the 'next-level surveillance' reason you highlight.
Having the choice for digital worlds would make it a little less dystopian. But I think the bigger thing is having competition with hardware, for the 'next-level surveillance' reason you highlight.
Re: tracking your gaze and biometrics, oh look
https://www.wired.com/story/metas-vr-headset-quest-pro-perso...
https://www.wired.com/story/metas-vr-headset-quest-pro-perso...
Amen
Same. My inner nerd yearns for this tech but I'm very cynical about what the public at large adopts and what we end up with in practice.
Couldn't you do this thought experiment for any product? It would be bad for any company to have a massive monopoly.
I believe AR/VR is the next great step, but that the personal benefits are generally underestimated and the work value, especially for knowledge workers, overestimated.
An AR headset you can wear while fixing a car has massive value. For writing code or project managing less so. People don’t really want to be more present in remote work meetings not to mention there’s no added business value. But enterprise is a huge market so you have to try to market to it.
An AR headset you can wear while fixing a car has massive value. For writing code or project managing less so. People don’t really want to be more present in remote work meetings not to mention there’s no added business value. But enterprise is a huge market so you have to try to market to it.
I would think it would turn Facebooks business to resemble Apple's, which I think we should all root for if we want to get away from the ad centric product they push on everyone today.
In what way? I see it as exactly the opposite of Apple's business. Where Apple makes services in order to sell more hardware, Meta (like Google) is in the ad business, so their hardware is ultimately just a way to attract more eyeballs.
This is why we're frantically building out http://thirdroom.io/preview on Matrix as a free & open alternative to the Facebook walled garden. It feels a little crazy that on one hand we're trying to outrun WhatsApp with Element, while also at the same time we're trying to outrun Horizons with Third Room, but someone's got to try...
Amazing a website/company/man whose claim to fame is a service that lets people watch videos and pictures in a virtual rolodex that happened to do a better job at letting people upload videos and pictures in a virtual rolodex assumes it can tackle 100x technical challenges better than any other company. All they have is capital, though I guess that's really all you need.
I wonder about what happens when people pass the tipping point of prioritizing the virtual world over the physical world. That is even bleaker than trying to surmise who, in the end, might "own it" because once it's to that point we've already lost it all.
Something similar:
Wouldn't these devices cause anxiety and depression related mental problems?
Humans need humans to feel okay and happy, and if these things remove lots of that (a digital avatar isn't the same thing) ... that could be dangerous?
Whilst if they automatically shut down for the rest of the day, after 3h usage, then maybe more ok.
* * *
For deep focus mode software development though, having no distractions, a 360' wide virtual screen (or 180' would be enough) could be lovely. I could fit ... 9 editors side by side. And different project tree views, and a 30'' web design window and Dev Tools. In just a pair of glasses
Wouldn't these devices cause anxiety and depression related mental problems?
Humans need humans to feel okay and happy, and if these things remove lots of that (a digital avatar isn't the same thing) ... that could be dangerous?
Whilst if they automatically shut down for the rest of the day, after 3h usage, then maybe more ok.
* * *
For deep focus mode software development though, having no distractions, a 360' wide virtual screen (or 180' would be enough) could be lovely. I could fit ... 9 editors side by side. And different project tree views, and a 30'' web design window and Dev Tools. In just a pair of glasses
Global warming shows that we have already passed that point. People care more about status and lifestyle than life.
But is it bleak? When we go all in on virtuality, and the resolution is high enough and all senses are covered, what would be missed from the physical world?
But is it bleak? When we go all in on virtuality, and the resolution is high enough and all senses are covered, what would be missed from the physical world?
[deleted]
>It would be absolutely awful right? Like the worst parts of dystopian fiction with microtransactions and popups and all kinds of other cruft in a 360 field of vision some how mandated for gaming and work. World-wide, probably tying into education and basic information access.
I don't get what exactly is awful about this. Having to use it? Can't you take it off when you don't want it? How is it any different than glowing rectangles being "mandated for gaming and work ... probably tying into education and basic information access"?
I don't get what exactly is awful about this. Having to use it? Can't you take it off when you don't want it? How is it any different than glowing rectangles being "mandated for gaming and work ... probably tying into education and basic information access"?
Constant advertising company spyware is what would be horrible about it.
Not being able to use it freely; being constantly monitored for US-centric moral policing for all your personal and private communications.
A lack of privacy for even 1-on-1 communications with friends, family, and colleagues.
Not being able to make a new account when yours gets banned for something stupid.
No API access to your own data without abusive contracts you can’t negotiate.
Having to use the name on your ID at all times, even if you have stalkers or other life safety threats.
Ads. Tons and tons of ads.
Not being able to use it freely; being constantly monitored for US-centric moral policing for all your personal and private communications.
A lack of privacy for even 1-on-1 communications with friends, family, and colleagues.
Not being able to make a new account when yours gets banned for something stupid.
No API access to your own data without abusive contracts you can’t negotiate.
Having to use the name on your ID at all times, even if you have stalkers or other life safety threats.
Ads. Tons and tons of ads.
Not to be snarky, but this response feels like a very privileged perspective on the notion of consumer choice. Yes, you can "take it off whenever you want", but if you are in dire financial straits, and your employer makes you wear it for your entire shift, what are you going to do?
Think of it from the perspective of technology today. I'm a software engineer, and given that we're on HN, you're likely something similar. Most people can't negotiate the terms of their employment as much as we can. We are lucky, in that if we see a job that requires invasive corporate spyware on personal devices, or worse yet, proctoring software, we can simply not apply.
"take it off when you don't want it" obviously refers to after you're stopped working. I thought the comparison to glowing rectangles immediately after would hint at this, considering that you're basically required to stare at glowing rectangles to do most white collar jobs. Yet, nobody is upset or calls this a dystopia, aside from the standard anti-work rhetoric of having to work in the first place.
If I’m working somewhere and they make VR mandatory I will be handing in my notice immediately. I may even refuse to work a notice period if they insist on me working in VR throughout it. If it becomes the industry norm then I will find another industry to work in, even if that means a significant pay cut.
AR glasses that are identical to normal glasses but with some useful information overlayed, that I can live with. VR, absolutely not.
AR glasses that are identical to normal glasses but with some useful information overlayed, that I can live with. VR, absolutely not.
Voting with your wallet might be effective and appropriate in this case.
I agree with you. But do you think most people are going to afford purchasing even remotely anywhere near that price point?
[deleted]
I honestly don't get it; however, I have two solid data points that lead me a very befuddled conclusion.
One of my buddies is an orthodontist who hates his current life but loves video games...he spends most of his free time plugged into the VR headsets playing first player shooter games. Okay..I kind of get that.
My other buddy who has a post graduate degree in genetics who is also an introvert mentioned how he loves Meta's universe. He loves the fact that he can hang out in a virtual theater with his other buddy who lives half way across the CONUS watching 3D movies together. That I don't get.
After typing all that out...I guess I really don't get it. Move along...nothing to see here :D
One of my buddies is an orthodontist who hates his current life but loves video games...he spends most of his free time plugged into the VR headsets playing first player shooter games. Okay..I kind of get that.
My other buddy who has a post graduate degree in genetics who is also an introvert mentioned how he loves Meta's universe. He loves the fact that he can hang out in a virtual theater with his other buddy who lives half way across the CONUS watching 3D movies together. That I don't get.
After typing all that out...I guess I really don't get it. Move along...nothing to see here :D
Did you try any of the modern VR headsets? Because it is mind blowing
I have no doubt the new headsets are phenomenal, but it's not in my character to spend that much time with a VR headset. Not to mention, have they solved the motion sickness that came w/ the earlier headsets?
>have they solved the motion sickness that came w/ the earlier headsets
I've been using VR since DK1 and I've basically never gotten motion sickness. As long as you are "in control" of your movements then it shouldn't happen (sure for a small minority of people it can, but that is no where near the norm).
The only time I've felt weird is something like a roller coaster experience where I'm stationary but everything is moving around me at a fast pace. But basically nothing is like that excpet for a few random gimmicks.
>but it's not in my character to spend that much time with a VR headset
Not really sure what that even means..
I've been using VR since DK1 and I've basically never gotten motion sickness. As long as you are "in control" of your movements then it shouldn't happen (sure for a small minority of people it can, but that is no where near the norm).
The only time I've felt weird is something like a roller coaster experience where I'm stationary but everything is moving around me at a fast pace. But basically nothing is like that excpet for a few random gimmicks.
>but it's not in my character to spend that much time with a VR headset
Not really sure what that even means..
Motion sickness depends on the individual
I've played a lot of VR with the HTC Vive and Quest 2 and never had any motion sickness (I also don't get motion sickness in cars/boats fwiw)
I've played a lot of VR with the HTC Vive and Quest 2 and never had any motion sickness (I also don't get motion sickness in cars/boats fwiw)
It also depends on the experience. "Room scale" things where your VR Motion == your Actual Motion causes no motion sickness in the vast majority of people. Flooring the gas pedal in a driving sim does cause motion sickness in the vast majority of people.
The livestream just invited Satya Nadella as the "one more thing" to intoduce Microsoft Teams and Office 365 for VR, showing how Meta hopes this will be used.
Enterprise companies are too cheap to justify $1500 per head for a gimmick, though.
Enterprise companies are too cheap to justify $1500 per head for a gimmick, though.
Doing your desk job in VR seems like a gimmick. Meetings in VR are a gimmick. Collaborative real-time design and creative work in 3D - that sounds like it's worth $1500.
I believe I'll be able to replace my monitors to do my desk job with a VR headset within 10 years. Rather than having 2 monitors of different sizes and resolutions on a desk, why not just have as many virtual monitors with exactly the size, position, and distance I want? In fact, why have monitors at all? Just position the windows in arbitrary space in front of me.
Desktop computing with a VR headset is somewhat possible right now, but I am not quite able to stomach the resolution limitations of the Quest 2. I'm looking forward to devices like SimulaVR [0], which intend to fully replace desktop computing with a self-contained VR headset (plus a mouse and keyboard).
In my mind, there are two and a half problems to solve to make it possible. One is pixel density. It has to at least be equivalent (or very close) to our own eyes. Two is comfort, both physical (ventilation, weight) and health-wise (eye strain). Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
[0] https://simulavr.com/
Desktop computing with a VR headset is somewhat possible right now, but I am not quite able to stomach the resolution limitations of the Quest 2. I'm looking forward to devices like SimulaVR [0], which intend to fully replace desktop computing with a self-contained VR headset (plus a mouse and keyboard).
In my mind, there are two and a half problems to solve to make it possible. One is pixel density. It has to at least be equivalent (or very close) to our own eyes. Two is comfort, both physical (ventilation, weight) and health-wise (eye strain). Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
[0] https://simulavr.com/
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. I think it's a gimmick for now, but as soon as the pixel density gets high enough it becomes more interesting.
> Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
I can't imagine that. I think it'll end up being a normal desk, mouse, keyboard painted into the VR world by using the passthrough cameras.
Something else I've noticed when I put on my Quest 2 is the lighting. I don't like the way the lights in my office feel like they glare in my eyes. Putting on the Quest 2 and hitting a virtual environment gives the feel of indirect lighting and I find it much more comfortable. It's like being outside.
That comfort doesn't last very long, but if I could get away with it for 2h at a time, and have high DPI virtual screens, I think I'd at least try a virtual office.
They also need to make it so I can drink a cup of coffee with the headset on or the whole thing is DOA. Lol.
> Two and a half is being able to navigate without a mouse and keyboard, and preferably no peripherals, but I think I'm able to wait for that.
I can't imagine that. I think it'll end up being a normal desk, mouse, keyboard painted into the VR world by using the passthrough cameras.
Something else I've noticed when I put on my Quest 2 is the lighting. I don't like the way the lights in my office feel like they glare in my eyes. Putting on the Quest 2 and hitting a virtual environment gives the feel of indirect lighting and I find it much more comfortable. It's like being outside.
That comfort doesn't last very long, but if I could get away with it for 2h at a time, and have high DPI virtual screens, I think I'd at least try a virtual office.
They also need to make it so I can drink a cup of coffee with the headset on or the whole thing is DOA. Lol.
> That comfort doesn't last very long
Low resolutions aside, headsets are still way too heavy and bulky, at least in my experience. Some even get quite hot. I can imagine that the weight and heat could be solved over time, but the bulkiness seems like a very big hurdle. When using lenses you need the distance, so it's hard to see how we can miniaturize headsets without a brand new technological innovation.
Low resolutions aside, headsets are still way too heavy and bulky, at least in my experience. Some even get quite hot. I can imagine that the weight and heat could be solved over time, but the bulkiness seems like a very big hurdle. When using lenses you need the distance, so it's hard to see how we can miniaturize headsets without a brand new technological innovation.
> but the bulkiness seems like a very big hurdle
The nreal air is 79g [1]. It has a 1080p resolution (45 degree, so reasonably PPD), but I imagine this will multiply over the years.
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
The nreal air is 79g [1]. It has a 1080p resolution (45 degree, so reasonably PPD), but I imagine this will multiply over the years.
1. https://www.nreal.ai/specs/
Wow, this looks awesome. Thanks.
There is no a priori reason to believe that the pixel resolution will ever be that high. Not all technology we can imagine is actually possible.
Pixel density high enough for acceptable text is already possible, just prohibitively expensive. See Varjo's headsets, for example - at the center of the display they have 70 pixels-per-degree (for comparison the Quest 2 has about 20).
> high enough for acceptable text is already possible
I don't understand this. I code and read in VR almost every day. With proper aliasing, it's extremely acceptable as is. Font characters per degree has to be increased, of course, but Quest 2 is about the same as a 720p virtual monitor.
Have you tried reading in VR?
I don't understand this. I code and read in VR almost every day. With proper aliasing, it's extremely acceptable as is. Font characters per degree has to be increased, of course, but Quest 2 is about the same as a 720p virtual monitor.
Have you tried reading in VR?
I actually think pixel density is one of the easier battle to win. Getting a cheap, lightweight, strain-free device to users is the real requirement.
For now, I can't handle more than ~30 mins with any VR/MR/AR device, but if I can actually wear one for several hours and be productive using one - I will be convinced we've turned the corner on this tech.
For now, I can't handle more than ~30 mins with any VR/MR/AR device, but if I can actually wear one for several hours and be productive using one - I will be convinced we've turned the corner on this tech.
> They also need to make it so I can drink a cup of coffee with the headset on or the whole thing is DOA. Lol.
seriously ... i reckon its half the reason the Quest Pro is shipping without a lower face block by default.
seriously ... i reckon its half the reason the Quest Pro is shipping without a lower face block by default.
This is our (SimulaVR's) vision, basically. Our target is to have pixel density/optical quality and comfort good enough to work comfortably.
The pixel density is there (and better than quest pro), and we just need to finish the comfort features -- passthrough, mechanical comfort, integrated host.
The pixel density is there (and better than quest pro), and we just need to finish the comfort features -- passthrough, mechanical comfort, integrated host.
> Meetings in VR are a gimmick
I expect you're wrong - spatial audio, body language, face tracking, eye contact are all super valuable and possibly in VR
I expect you're wrong - spatial audio, body language, face tracking, eye contact are all super valuable and possibly in VR
Yeah, I think people underestimate the compelling nature of diverse expression. Its more fun to hang out in a game with emotes than it is to hang out in a voice call.
Will headsets replace zoom? I can't say. There are other convenience factors there. But hanging out in a virtual place is empirically compelling.
Will headsets replace zoom? I can't say. There are other convenience factors there. But hanging out in a virtual place is empirically compelling.
> Yeah, I think people underestimate the compelling nature of diverse expression.
In my experience whether they find this compelling depends a lot on the respective person. "Manager types" might like it, but quite some programmers would rather detest it.
In my experience whether they find this compelling depends a lot on the respective person. "Manager types" might like it, but quite some programmers would rather detest it.
Beyond Zoom you mean? It might do. Being autistic I tend to see meetings as an organised exchange to information rather than a body language thing, but I can see what you mean.
Communication is much more about body language than words for most people.
[deleted]
Even then I'd rather it be an Iron Man style floating holodesk than something you have to strap onto your face.
Expectation: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/a2/65/d1a265d2093c0b952112...
Reality: https://assets1.ignimgs.com/2016/10/06/maxresdefaultjpg-f9a9...
Come to think of it, they're both pretty dorky.
Expectation: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/a2/65/d1a265d2093c0b952112...
Reality: https://assets1.ignimgs.com/2016/10/06/maxresdefaultjpg-f9a9...
Come to think of it, they're both pretty dorky.
You're looking at it from the perspective of a higher-end knowledge worker. $1500 to strap a 1984-esque telescreen on your call center employee and have them work from home instead of a cubicle would save a bundle.
> $1500 to strap a 1984-esque telescreen on your call center employee and have them work from home instead of a cubicle would save a bundle.
Alternatively, think of how small you can make the cubicles if you can integrate the entire computer and telephone into a headset.
You could like double or triple capacity if cubicles were the size of those WeWork phone booths.
Alternatively, think of how small you can make the cubicles if you can integrate the entire computer and telephone into a headset.
You could like double or triple capacity if cubicles were the size of those WeWork phone booths.
Meetings in VR are genuinely far less draining than Zoom/Teams calls.
Are they? Considered I get motion sickness after 20 min or so, and i'm not alone.
If you get motion sickness after 20 minutes of a seated experience that is running at full frame rate, with no artificial locomotion, you are decidedly in the minority. It is not impossible, but it is far from common.
What does "artificial locomotion" mean? Does that mean you move around in a VR environment ? Isn't that all VR experiences ?
Not all - beat saber you're still, workrooms meetings you're still.
Sim Racing, any game where you fly or run around - those are artificial locomotion and can definitely take some getting used to for some (not all) people.
Sim Racing, any game where you fly or run around - those are artificial locomotion and can definitely take some getting used to for some (not all) people.
Everyone I know has a cap of around 20 min for their VR experience, some for motion sickness, some headaches. It's a small sample size of just people I know, but it's significant enough to mention.
Collaborative architectural design is what Arkio does, one of the launch partners.
This kinda of crap makes me laugh. We have companies desperate to get people back in the office because they say working from home ruins morale or creativity, etc. and at the same time we got companies saying the future is that people should commute into the office to put on a fucking VR headset to have meetings in a virtual office. Jesus wept.
Think of the cost savings. Instead of cubicles now we just pack everyone into a warehouse with VR goggles?
In a way this is exactly what they said about GUI in 1983. People looked at the early products like Apple Lisa and Xerox Star, and said: “Serious businesses aren’t going to be spending thousands of dollars per user on gimmicks like the mouse and high-resolution graphics. Office tasks don’t need that.” — And they were right, but only within the narrow field of what office work on computers was like in 1983. WordPerfect and 1-2-3 didn’t need the GUI. Excel and the web browser did.
I’m not saying VR/AR is going to turn out the same way, but it seems at least possible that new affordances will create new kinds of applications again.
I’m not saying VR/AR is going to turn out the same way, but it seems at least possible that new affordances will create new kinds of applications again.
How much does it cost to give someone three monitors? With the headset and something like Immersed* you can use this instead of giving your remote employee a bunch of monitors, which is also nice for the employee who might live in a studio apartment and doesn't have a lot of space, or an employee who wants to travel.
* Disclaimer: I'm an investor in Immersed.
* Disclaimer: I'm an investor in Immersed.
I used immersed with quest 2, but the resolution still bothered me a lot more than something like beat saber.
Now that the quest pro is available, I've already pre-ordered it for this use case. I'd love every project I work on to have different "screens" in different environments to put my mind into each project.
Now that the quest pro is available, I've already pre-ordered it for this use case. I'd love every project I work on to have different "screens" in different environments to put my mind into each project.
Once resolution is high enough it will be compelling but imo Immersed is held back by current headset resolutions.
I used Immersed at length for two months and I had to stop from the frequency of eye fatigue and tiredness at shorter intervals than I currently experience with regular monitor work.
Until that happens I don’t see companies sending this out, not to mention things like motion sickness some people get even with low motion VR like immersed.
I used Immersed at length for two months and I had to stop from the frequency of eye fatigue and tiredness at shorter intervals than I currently experience with regular monitor work.
Until that happens I don’t see companies sending this out, not to mention things like motion sickness some people get even with low motion VR like immersed.
To be fair I had the same problem with Immersed (the fatigue) but luckily that's a hardware problem and not a software problem. In time I think the headsets will get good enough that it's not a problem for most people.
I agree I just think that horizon is more than 5 years, which means Immersed will have to float until then.
I do plan to give them another try though with this Quest Pro as I'd rather not have all my productivity software tied to Meta.
I do plan to give them another try though with this Quest Pro as I'd rather not have all my productivity software tied to Meta.
i disagree. enterprise companies love wasting money on gimmicks vs things they really need.
What's the input story for Office 365 in VR? Bluetooth keyboard + mouse?
Considering how horrendous Teams is, I do not view it as a plus.
Personally, I’m planning to wait on an option from a different company. If I could just buy the hardware device and have the option to run my own software at some point I’d go for it, but we all know this thing is zuck’s big bet to keep his surveillance advertising company afloat. This device genuinely good but I doubt we’ll ever get full access to the space if he’s the arbiter. I don’t want to deal with them, I really hope others feel the same and I’m not forced to buy into this platform at some point.
I am sure people will hack and jailbreak this thing in no time.
I was so optimistic about VR technology when the oculus cv1 (edit: dev kit actually, cv1 was already fb as pointed out below) came out. Now that facebook owns it, I can't find that same optimism.
This looks like a sweet piece of tech, but it feels like these big tech companies have too many priorities that come before the end user: investors, the companies own ambitions, governments/politics. If the product decisions they make happen to benefit us, it's only because those other considerations were met first.
I think the best thing to happen would be for FB to solve all the really hard and expensive tech problems, and then go tits up. Then a smaller company that can actually put the user first can step in and reproduce the tech for cheap.
This looks like a sweet piece of tech, but it feels like these big tech companies have too many priorities that come before the end user: investors, the companies own ambitions, governments/politics. If the product decisions they make happen to benefit us, it's only because those other considerations were met first.
I think the best thing to happen would be for FB to solve all the really hard and expensive tech problems, and then go tits up. Then a smaller company that can actually put the user first can step in and reproduce the tech for cheap.
Just FYI, that's a misremembering that accidentally looks like a bad faith argument. The Oculus CV1 was released two years after the acquisition.
The price point and subsequent price drops were only made possible by Facebook making some important hires for the production engineering and being able to scale the processes to lower component and manufacturing costs.
For better and worse, the CV1 on day one had a meaningful amount of Facebook software and hardware engineering in it.
The price point and subsequent price drops were only made possible by Facebook making some important hires for the production engineering and being able to scale the processes to lower component and manufacturing costs.
For better and worse, the CV1 on day one had a meaningful amount of Facebook software and hardware engineering in it.
Good point, I did remember that wrong. I should have said the dev kit. I remember now that I begrudgingly bought cv1 from facebook because I wanted the tech badly enough to hold my nose.
I don't mean to disparage any of the folks at fb that contributed or their work. I just don't think that companies like fb are capable of putting the user's needs first, as much as many individuals inside the company probably would like to.
I don't mean to disparage any of the folks at fb that contributed or their work. I just don't think that companies like fb are capable of putting the user's needs first, as much as many individuals inside the company probably would like to.
The pricing is a bit of a sticker shock, but if anyone can make the $1,500 price point work, it's the company that also sells a $400 headset.
What's really interesting to me is that this headset seems to echo Apple's (purported) interests in a "premium" hardware generation targeted at enthusiasts and developers. The Quest is ultimately a leftover from the Oculus acquisition, so it should be really interesting to see how this hardware evolves under Meta's leadership.
What's really interesting to me is that this headset seems to echo Apple's (purported) interests in a "premium" hardware generation targeted at enthusiasts and developers. The Quest is ultimately a leftover from the Oculus acquisition, so it should be really interesting to see how this hardware evolves under Meta's leadership.
Meta will need cheap headsets to get adoption of their platform.
I reckon the Pro has a healthy margin and will targets companies. They will use Accenture and peddle the Microsoft suite VR to sell tens of thousands of these to companies for remote work, and most of them will barely be used .
Meta can stem the losses of the VR division, and a Quest 3 will come in a while.
I reckon the Pro has a healthy margin and will targets companies. They will use Accenture and peddle the Microsoft suite VR to sell tens of thousands of these to companies for remote work, and most of them will barely be used .
Meta can stem the losses of the VR division, and a Quest 3 will come in a while.
Quest was purely Facebook. Even their last PC only headset Rift S was essentially a rebadged Lenovo headset.
Really? The Quest 2 is definitely a Facebook-made device, but I believe the original Quest was inherited from Oculus's design labs (even though Facebook ultimately took over).
Edit: I did some digging, and the situation is actually pretty complicated. Facebook bought Oculus in 2014, but they continued operating as an "autonomous subsidiary" for a few years before being absorbed into Meta and rebranded as Reality Labs. I guess it really depends on your frame of thought, but I seem to be wrong here.
Edit: I did some digging, and the situation is actually pretty complicated. Facebook bought Oculus in 2014, but they continued operating as an "autonomous subsidiary" for a few years before being absorbed into Meta and rebranded as Reality Labs. I guess it really depends on your frame of thought, but I seem to be wrong here.
I worked on the Rift S, it was very much not a rebadged Lenovo headset.
As somebody who isn't super in the loop about VR headsets, is this $1500 headset 3.75x better than the $400 one? Why or why not?
Not really. In fact, if you put aside the standalone features, this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index. If you do consider the standalone functionality, the internals are hardly an upgrade over the Quest 2.
Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).
Meta doesn't seem to be betting on a future where people overly care about specs or prices though. I think they want this to be the Macbook Pro of VR headsets, the sort of thing that Metaverse-enabled companies buy up without a second thought and distribute to their employees because it's "enterprise ready". It's definitely not the sort of strategy that will succeed in the B2C model, but they've already got a victory there. Now they need to scale the technology up for businesses, and that's the interesting part (for me).
> this is arguably a worse piece of hardware than Valve's Index
Could you expand on this?
Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work.
1. Through the lens: https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199
Could you expand on this?
Even the Quest 2 has considerably lower screen door effect [1]. The quest pro has double the valve index PPD (~14 vs ~32). The selling point of the Index is FOV. 90 degrees is plenty for work.
1. Through the lens: https://youtu.be/ny_OPsxHQmU?t=199
It depends on how you want to argue. For me, refresh rate and FOV matter most. Low refresh headsets make me nauseated, and the Quest 1 can easily start to verge on that sickness after 30 minutes to an hour of playtime. The Index did a good job at mitigating that sickness feeling, and the FOV seems very desirable if people want to use these headsets as monitor replacements.
Quest 1 hasn't been sold in over two years, so I'm not sure it's a good benchmark.
The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes.
1. https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/
2. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_po...
The quest 2 has had official 120Hz support for a while now [1], and I don't imagine they'll regress for Quest Pro. I don't think FOV, beyond 90, is all that important for productivity. Peripheral vision is extremely useful for immersion, but probably not really for reading code on an adjacent monitor. I personally agree with the comfort of usual ergonomic guidelines, keeping eye movement within 30 degrees or so [2]. As a quick litmus test, observe someone working with multiple monitors. You'll see they move their head, not just their eyes.
1. https://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-quest-2-120hz-on-by-default/
2. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_po...
Unfortunately Quest Pro is 72hz with an option of 90hz. No 120hz.
For anybody super out of the loop:
> The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire.
The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
> The Oculus Quest 2 VR headset is the second version of the Quest headset range. It's similar to the original Oculus Quest in that it's a battery-powered, standalone headset that allows you to freely roam around your physical and digital play spaces without fear of tripping over a wire.
The Quest 2 and the Quest Pro are both "standalones".
Sorry I didn't exactly come in at the base-level here :p
The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head.
TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
The "killer feature" of the Quest/Quest 2 was that it cost $400 and came with everything you needed to get into VR. No PC required, no cables, no nothing. This is what really propelled Meta into the spotlight, and it's probably why they're even being given another shot with the Quest Pro. Other headsets, like the Windows Mixed Reality line and Valve's Index are decidedly better units, but they require pricy Windows computers and often force you to stay tethered to the machine. The Quest being battery-powered lets you use it wirelessly and anywhere you want. Having tried a few other models, the Quest has always been most comfortable to me purely because there aren't any cables sticking out of your head.
TL:DR - Meta makes seriously badass VR hardware that's held back by Facebook software. Hopefully John Carmack (or suitable legislation) will give us the best of both worlds.
In Lex Fridman's podcast, Carmack says he's officially only working 1 day at Meta in advisory capacity, though sometimes chimes in on other days as well. He also says he wants to completely focus on AGI, so I wouldn't rely on Carmack to push the VR field forward in the near future.
What's AGI in this context?
I believe Artificial General Intelligence [0].
[0] - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-rais...
[0] - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/john-carmack-agi-keen-rais...
Artificial General intelligence
IMHO the wireless is a killer feature. Having cables attached seriously limits your design space for games. Room scale is a lot less practical because you can get tangled up in the cables. VR is best when you're not sitting in a chair and can move freely, even if you're stuck in a small area.
Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
Also, you can have your cake and eat it with the Quest 2, since you can Quest Link over WiFi and play your Steam catalog or indie games if you do happen to have one of those "pricy Windows computers".
> No PC required, no cables, no nothing.
Slight nitpick/question:
if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
Slight nitpick/question:
if the battery life is 2 hours max, do most people still play with a cable to avoid having to worry about "is it going to die/do I need to charge it soon" while playing?
You can, personally I never felt the need to tether myself for better battery life. 1-2 hours is about the perfect length for a game session, and I don't think I've been able to run down my Quest 1 past 40% battery before getting sick. It seems like a good tradeoff in retrospect.
Depends on how you value pass through MR features, face/expression tracking, and removing controller dead zones.
It has eye tracking which IMO is a game changer for business use. Eye contact is the killer app for VR workplaces.
Quest 2 is a steal deal, so it's really not a good comparison target.
My god, I find simply scrolling down on that site incredibly janky.
These pages only really look nice on continuous scrolling inputs. Trackpads, touchscreens, the apple mouse, etc. Anything with traditional mouse scrolling ends up sending scroll events too infrequently to enable smooth scrolling.
Considering this is a very consumer focused product, I imagine most users have smooth scrolling inputs.
Considering this is a very consumer focused product, I imagine most users have smooth scrolling inputs.
I can't even get the page to load.
$1T company and cant even make a smooth website
1/3rd of a trillion now. There were months in 2016 where their stock price is higher than now.
Side note: it's funny how quickly the entire retail world has coalesced around "Pro" for naming of its premium lines and "+" for its subscriptions.
I wonder how long this paradigm will continue for (probably until Apple leads a change away)
I wonder how long this paradigm will continue for (probably until Apple leads a change away)
[deleted]
They have already started - „ultra” is the new „pro”
From The Verge's article:
> I was told the headset would last between one and two hours on a single charge, then take around two hours to recharge
That's...not great for a device targeted at enterprise? Especially without any sort of fast recharge or swappable battery pack.
> I was told the headset would last between one and two hours on a single charge, then take around two hours to recharge
That's...not great for a device targeted at enterprise? Especially without any sort of fast recharge or swappable battery pack.
If you're sitting down (which I imagine is the enterprise-y use case?) you can just leave it plugged in
how does that work for controllers through?
The controllers last a really long time on a single battery. My Quest 2’s batteries are finally getting low and I bought it six months ago.
These use integrated batteries and does full on inside out tracking on each controller, each controller having its own snapdragon 662.
They also do not list how long the controllers last, not found any source mentioning that yet, which is a huge red flag.
They also do not list how long the controllers last, not found any source mentioning that yet, which is a huge red flag.
Plus, they are just a single AA in each controller. Swapping takes like 30 seconds. I use NiMH rechargeables and just swap between a couple of pairs of them whenever necessary.
Good question, the new controllers have multiple cameras and are doing inside out tracking now, I'd guess that they use a lot more power than the Quest 2 controllers do.
controller battery life shouldn't be an issue. never was on quest2.
Controllers do full on inside out tracking, each controller being equipped with a snapdragon 662.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is the biggest red flag.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is the biggest red flag.
That might be a concern then.
You have to stop using them and let them charge.
Unless they release a proprietary charging cable that is.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is a red flag to me.
Unless they release a proprietary charging cable that is.
They also do not list the battery life anywhere, which is a red flag to me.
It's not a red flag. No console list the battery life of their controllers as they usually last a long time.
>Internal, rechargeable battery with up to 40 hours of battery life per charge. Battery life varies with usage and other factors.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/accessories/controllers/elite-wir...
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/accessories/controllers/elite-wir...
You could swap the entire headset. $3k/seat for professional gear for enterprise use is cheap.
no way the actual expected use case is to have two headsets per person that get switched out every two hours.
Personally, I would just keep a power bank in my pocket and wire it up.
Probably will support being used connected to the power, no?
In general, if you will use more than two hours straight probably you will sit at your chair. If not, yeah, it will be a problem.
I look at this as a halo product. It's like a VR version of a concept car. It is meant to show people what cars will be like in 5-10 years. This is meant to show people what Meta Quest 3 or 4 will be like in 2-4 years. Meta is well aware of that fact that a $1500 VR headset is not a mass consumer product. Thats likely why they have positioned it as a productivity tool for businesses. There is probably 0 market for a headset like this with consumers. The consumer VR market is almost entirely game centric right now and its not clear to me that games can even really benefit from the advances here yet. Almost no one buys a VR headset just for the "metaverse" (whatever that is). This is tech that is meant to give people a glimpse of what is possible. To sell people on the idea that a VR/AR metaverse is inevitable. It'll be judged by how well it does that.
The apps section says: "enjoy your favorite games, entertainment apps and more" and then highlights Adobe Acrobat, Dropbox, and LastPass.
Think it's clear who Meta wants to buy this! It will be great if companies buy their employees a $1500 headset that they use to play Beat Saber.
Think it's clear who Meta wants to buy this! It will be great if companies buy their employees a $1500 headset that they use to play Beat Saber.
No beatsaber allowed on company hardware until you finish taking 10 hours of calls in your virtual cubicle
> 10 hours of calls in your virtual cubicle
Cubicles (even the virtual ones) are not conductive to facilitating collaboration and inducing spontaneous exchange of ideas in an enterprise setting. We will all be taking 10 hours of calls in noisy virtual openspace!
Cubicles (even the virtual ones) are not conductive to facilitating collaboration and inducing spontaneous exchange of ideas in an enterprise setting. We will all be taking 10 hours of calls in noisy virtual openspace!
> virtual cubicle
I want to get off this ride.
I want to get off this ride.
I would actually enjoy an Adobe Acrobat VR that could render a PDF as a 3D book with quick page riffle.
If I could expense that I would :(
$2300 and their top-billed "experiences" are Adobe Acrobat, Dropbox, and LastPass.
good god, what in the hell does dropbox need a VR client for?
this entire VR push reminds me of the days when IE and Netscape were competing with "push" browsers, which were equally pointless.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/netscape-releases-beta-of-push...
this entire VR push reminds me of the days when IE and Netscape were competing with "push" browsers, which were equally pointless.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/netscape-releases-beta-of-push...
Maybe we will finally see that file system browser from Jurassic Park.
Already there! Code could use a refresh but had fun with it many years ago https://github.com/kfarr/jurassic-file-navigator
viewing dropbox files in VR, I imagine? easily syncing 3D video files so you can view it in VR? seems reasonable to me
how do you do work from VR without that?
Their competitor Hololens 2 is CAD $4,749
Feels almost like parody.
My fear about Meta's headsets taking place of my monitor is that one day I will put on the headset to do some work and see a message saying my Meta account has been suspended. If I can just use a different headset that's not the end of the world, but what if all my work was stored in "the Metaverse"?
I guess this will just run into (probably justified) scepticism as a response but at least it can be said that Zuckerberg is strongly pitching that whatever Meta builds will be an open system. If you watch the last 5 mins of the keynote it is interesting because it ends with him almost begging developers to stick with Meta as the "android" of VR rather than opt into (what he is obviously referring to as) a closed Apple alternative.
Building an open system is what you do when you're small and you need 3rd parties to help you grow. If it's successful they'll do exactly what they did with Facebook. Do you know how I know this? It's pretty pointless for them to even say they're going to be open, because it's very well established how this goes at this point -the platform captures the value.
I think it is because Meta is early and the only-one in the game right now.
In case it is able to demonstrate that virtual is "the thing" a lot of new players and "unlocked"-device competitors will jump the ship.
In case it is able to demonstrate that virtual is "the thing" a lot of new players and "unlocked"-device competitors will jump the ship.
Guess you’re free now.
_flushed into grim reality_
_flushed into grim reality_
Depending on the reviews I might pick one up later but really I'm just waiting on Apple's AR/VR headset. I have a Quest 2 and it's quite nice for casual gaming but the resolution/processor is too low/weak to handle text-heavy games (it's blurry and gives me a bit of a headache). The resolution listed by other people here (because god forbid we actually put tech specs in the tech specs section) seems like not a big jump but maybe with the dynamic foveated rendering it will be enough to have clear text.
> tech specs
Tech Specs:
"World class counter balanced ergonomics meets sleek design to create a more comfortable headset."
:/
Tech Specs:
"World class counter balanced ergonomics meets sleek design to create a more comfortable headset."
:/
Does anyone know if you can get corrective lenses for these pancake style lenses? They seem to be closer to the face. One of the things I actually enjoy about the Quest 2 is that I have lenses for them so I take off my glasses to use it, which is very nice.
one of the interesting accommodations in the Quest Pro is that you can easily slot it over glasses. It has a dial to adjust the eye distance to the lens so you can just can just dial it to the right spot.
Impressive how much processing power you can fit into such a svelte headset in 2022.
The price, while steep, is not outrageous compared to something like an iPhone. But I still haven't seen a "killer app" for VR so it's not a "daily driver" like a phone would be. The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
The price, while steep, is not outrageous compared to something like an iPhone. But I still haven't seen a "killer app" for VR so it's not a "daily driver" like a phone would be. The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
> The association with Meta is also a huge downside for me personally.
Agreed. Whether you agree with how Meta does things or not (I don't), they have made it very clear that they see the Quest as a locked down, Meta-controlled ecosystem.
I happen to use an iPhone, which arguably pioneered this sort of thing, but I feel like Meta are taking it to the next level. They have much higher rev-shares, (I think it's 40-60%), they have tighter control, require a Facebook account to use it (quite different to an Apple account to access cloud features), and while an iPhone is quite functional without the AppStore and iCloud with the web and built-in functionality, I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup.
All that lock-in worries me.
Agreed. Whether you agree with how Meta does things or not (I don't), they have made it very clear that they see the Quest as a locked down, Meta-controlled ecosystem.
I happen to use an iPhone, which arguably pioneered this sort of thing, but I feel like Meta are taking it to the next level. They have much higher rev-shares, (I think it's 40-60%), they have tighter control, require a Facebook account to use it (quite different to an Apple account to access cloud features), and while an iPhone is quite functional without the AppStore and iCloud with the web and built-in functionality, I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup.
All that lock-in worries me.
You can sideload apps for free on the Quest and Apple requires a dev account for $99 a year to sideload anything more than a trivial app or two. The Quest definitely feels objectively less locked down than iOS IMHO.
Yep, plus Zuck himself has publicly criticized Apple and said they aren't gonna go down that route. Look at all of the mainstream consoles, PS5, Nintendo Switch, etc: none of them allow you to sideload anything. And Meta even went a step further than that with the semi-unlocked bootloader. That is unprecedented, most Android phones don't even have that.
People tend to conflate FAANGs with each other. One bad Apple ruins the bunch.
People tend to conflate FAANGs with each other. One bad Apple ruins the bunch.
It also gives you a nice warning saying your Facebook account might get banned for using a pirate copy of Beat Saber.
Why join the navy when you can be a pirate?
Maybe this is a way to rid the world of Facebook? Android virus that puts pirated software on Quest devices...
> sideload apps for free on the Quest
only if you value your time at $0. the amount of time to keep sidequest working and fight official updates breaking it is not trivial.
only if you value your time at $0. the amount of time to keep sidequest working and fight official updates breaking it is not trivial.
You don't need sidequest to sideload to a meta headset.
You just need the bog standard android adb shell program.
>adb install-multiple one.apk two.apk three.apk
Done.
You just need the bog standard android adb shell program.
>adb install-multiple one.apk two.apk three.apk
Done.
So much misinfo in one post.
> They have much higher rev-shares
The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much* lower than Apple.
> they have tighter control
Than the iPhone? The Quest can be used in SteamVR like any other headset. Third-party apps can be sideloaded, and the bootloader is (semi) unlocked. Not sure how they're even comparable.
> require a Facebook account to use it
A Meta account now, disconnected from the social network. How is this different than an Apple account?
> I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup
Do you have a Quest? I've used mine entirely as a PCVR setup, I don't think I've used a FB service in years besides the store.
* EDIT: Discussed below, "much" is maybe a bit too far. Seems like the final split is roughly the same, though AppLab doesn't take a cut of IAP.
> They have much higher rev-shares
The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much* lower than Apple.
> they have tighter control
Than the iPhone? The Quest can be used in SteamVR like any other headset. Third-party apps can be sideloaded, and the bootloader is (semi) unlocked. Not sure how they're even comparable.
> require a Facebook account to use it
A Meta account now, disconnected from the social network. How is this different than an Apple account?
> I think the Quest is basically useless without a Facebook account setup
Do you have a Quest? I've used mine entirely as a PCVR setup, I don't think I've used a FB service in years besides the store.
* EDIT: Discussed below, "much" is maybe a bit too far. Seems like the final split is roughly the same, though AppLab doesn't take a cut of IAP.
> The current revshare for App Lab is 70/30 in favor of the developer. Much lower than Apple.
How is that much lower than Apple? If you do under a million a year on the App Store or in the second year of an iOS subscription it's 85/15, else it's 70/30 (unless you have a better backroom deal).
How is that much lower than Apple? If you do under a million a year on the App Store or in the second year of an iOS subscription it's 85/15, else it's 70/30 (unless you have a better backroom deal).
This is a recent change no? Previously it was 70/30 across the board and this also includes in-app subscriptions/payments.
I say much because (afaik) the majority of developer income comes from recurring payments, which AppLab doesn't take any of.
I say much because (afaik) the majority of developer income comes from recurring payments, which AppLab doesn't take any of.
Looks like implemented as of 2016. https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11880730/apple-app-store-s...
Err, maybe I'm mistaken, but this seems different than the above discussion.
From what I know, Apple takes 30% of paid app sales in the app store. In-app purchases, though, drop to a 15% take after the first year (or that's my read from the article).
Contrast this with AppLab, which takes 30% of paid app sales, but doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases.
I'll retract the "much" lower point since I assume this results in roughly the same final take. Games on non-mobile have a higher initial cost, which probably balances the lack of post-sale revenue.
Regardless, I don't think this makes the Oculus more locked down than an iPhone, since you can always bypass their store and sideload or run apps directly from your PC, which Apple isn't offering.
From what I know, Apple takes 30% of paid app sales in the app store. In-app purchases, though, drop to a 15% take after the first year (or that's my read from the article).
Contrast this with AppLab, which takes 30% of paid app sales, but doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases.
I'll retract the "much" lower point since I assume this results in roughly the same final take. Games on non-mobile have a higher initial cost, which probably balances the lack of post-sale revenue.
Regardless, I don't think this makes the Oculus more locked down than an iPhone, since you can always bypass their store and sideload or run apps directly from your PC, which Apple isn't offering.
Facebook had their chance. They failed. Call yourselves whatever you want. Buy other people work and improve it as much as you want.
"We will never sell ads." Then sold ads.
Nope. We already had a generational curb stomping by Microsoft. No more Zuckerberg.
"We will never sell ads." Then sold ads.
Nope. We already had a generational curb stomping by Microsoft. No more Zuckerberg.
When did Facebook ever say they wouldn't sell ads? You mean user data? FB launched their ad marketplace in 2007, and it's the reason they nearly hit a $1T market cap nearly 15 years later.
I think they mean when Jesse Eisenberg told Andrew Garfield Facebook would never sell ads, which is what Justin Timberlake told him, setting up the essential personal conflict between Jesse and Andrew in the movie The Social Network.
Yes that's correct. lol
It's actually because of their intense manipulation model and penchant for abusing it's users.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...
It's actually because of their intense manipulation model and penchant for abusing it's users.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...
Also, FB doesn't sell user data either, so I'm not sure what OP was talking about
*nearly, just $650B away at this point.
Wow, $1500 was more than I expected. Still, I use my Quest 2 about 20 minutes a day so assuming the heavy use of the Quest Pro, it is probably worth it.
I usually only use my Quest 2 for about a maximum of 7 or 8 minutes at a time to avoid physical discomfort. I would hope that the Quest Pro can be worn much longer, in comfort.
I used to work on VR about 24+ years ago (SAIC, Angel Studios, Disney). I am thrilled to now see commodity VR hardware and experiences.
I usually only use my Quest 2 for about a maximum of 7 or 8 minutes at a time to avoid physical discomfort. I would hope that the Quest Pro can be worn much longer, in comfort.
I used to work on VR about 24+ years ago (SAIC, Angel Studios, Disney). I am thrilled to now see commodity VR hardware and experiences.
I think as human working/living conditions get bleaker and cost of living in population centres gets higher, having an option work from a beautiful environment of your own choosing and present an identity of your own design will become more appealing. It costs a lot of money, yeah, but escapism for a month's rent seems like it could be worth it.
I don't think the experience is immersive enough or high enough resolution yet, but it will progress. When we reach the point where the limitations on legibility are the same as those limitations outside of VR then I'm sold. A perfect work environment with all the screen real estate I need, perfectly adaptable, hideable, summonable, etc? All while in whichever environment I can create/purchase? How is that not appealing?
I have friends that live on the other side of the world. Being able to each throw on a headset and work in the same environment with our ideal setups whenever we want to is tremendously exciting to me.
The biggest issue I have and the #1 reason that people aren't getting excited about this is Meta. It's the dystopian, regulated, centralized nightmare of a curated and supervised gateway to the workplace. It's the lack of freedom to own your own space, work, and visage. If I can't host my own place in the "metaverse" or craft my own representation or secure my own data, then I can't see myself entrusting a good percentage of my life to it.
Rambling thoughts, probably reading too much Neal Stephenson.
I don't think the experience is immersive enough or high enough resolution yet, but it will progress. When we reach the point where the limitations on legibility are the same as those limitations outside of VR then I'm sold. A perfect work environment with all the screen real estate I need, perfectly adaptable, hideable, summonable, etc? All while in whichever environment I can create/purchase? How is that not appealing?
I have friends that live on the other side of the world. Being able to each throw on a headset and work in the same environment with our ideal setups whenever we want to is tremendously exciting to me.
The biggest issue I have and the #1 reason that people aren't getting excited about this is Meta. It's the dystopian, regulated, centralized nightmare of a curated and supervised gateway to the workplace. It's the lack of freedom to own your own space, work, and visage. If I can't host my own place in the "metaverse" or craft my own representation or secure my own data, then I can't see myself entrusting a good percentage of my life to it.
Rambling thoughts, probably reading too much Neal Stephenson.
This is an extraordinarily disappointing release. Even if this was priced at $400 I would be disappointed. We have waited years and they included zero next gen VR tech.
I feel like VR should be in the stages similar to the early gen iPhones where every new release should have legitimate significant new tech that is unambiguously better and exciting. This instead feels like current iphones when they barely improve only here VR can't get even close to a yearly cadence of upgrades and there are loads of features for next gen upgrades still on the table.
I feel like VR should be in the stages similar to the early gen iPhones where every new release should have legitimate significant new tech that is unambiguously better and exciting. This instead feels like current iphones when they barely improve only here VR can't get even close to a yearly cadence of upgrades and there are loads of features for next gen upgrades still on the table.
The Quest Pro adds eye tracking and inward-facing cameras, high-quality color AR passthrough, foveated rendering, and new controllers that are fully independent of the headset. These things are unambiguously better and exciting.
The problem with VR tech is that it is fixing problems, not adding new features. People don't understand how insanely complicate it is to have controllers that track independently of the headset (think about it, what is their reference point and how do they know where they are in relation to each other and everything else?), but it is a giant leap in the technology. It allows you to do things like put your hand behind your back, or use it in bright (or dark) rooms where it doesn't need the controller lights to be seen to track. It just 'works better' so people don't care. It isn't a shiny new app or some new ability it didn't do before, it just does what it does... better...
Guys why can't we just call it Quest 3 I'm gonna go crazy learning all these names. Can't wait for the Meta Quest Pro 2 Max XL Mini
Because the Quest 3 is another product, this is the pro version. The consumer version will get released later I guess, and probably with a price closer to the current Quest 2.
If there even is another consumer version. It sounds like Pro is Facebook's ultimate objective for monetizing this, and Quest 1/2 was just a beta test for them to perfect their tech.
It's the other way around - Quest Pro is the one testing new tech (mixed reality, face tracking, foveated rendering, self-tracking controllers). I imagine they're going to hone these features over the next couple of years and include them in the consumer models once there is better economics/proven product market fit.
The beta testing is not complete. They need way more buy in before they ditch the consumer model.
The CAD of Quest 3 already leaked.
This isn't a Quest 3 because it's aimed at a different audience. This isn't for gaming and entertainment, it's for productivity. Look at the list of software they are highlighting. It's design and business stuff. When they say "Pro" that's actually an accurate modified. Unlike the "iPad Pro" which is just a more expensive iPad.
To be fair, iPad Pro is great for some Pro like illustrator. I criticize AirPods "Pro" that is just a great consuming device.
Because it is not Quest 3.
[deleted]
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
Best news for me is that based on https://uploadvr.com/quest-touch-pro-controllers-quest-2/ it looks like the controllers are Quest-2 compatible and will be sold separately.
I'd consider the Quest Pro too expensive but as someone who plays a lot of rhythm games where those controllers seem to be the weak point I'm strongly considering upgrading my Quest 2 controllers.
I'd consider the Quest Pro too expensive but as someone who plays a lot of rhythm games where those controllers seem to be the weak point I'm strongly considering upgrading my Quest 2 controllers.
The occlusion problem was real, but the LED rings also nicely doubled as a hand protector. I definitely wouldn't want to have my fist be the first thing that makes contact with a hard object I can't see in VR.
Sad to see it's still LCD so you don't get actual blacks. Any word on if it still feels like having a scuba mask on or if you can see in the periphery?
Mini LCD so fingers crossed it might be better(?)
I feel what you're saying though. I loved the first Quest and was heavy into VR for a bit but after an hour of the Quest 2 it ended up in the drawer. It's useless for horror games or movies because black simply does not exist - it's generous to call it grey.
I feel what you're saying though. I loved the first Quest and was heavy into VR for a bit but after an hour of the Quest 2 it ended up in the drawer. It's useless for horror games or movies because black simply does not exist - it's generous to call it grey.
They mention better contrast for this panel.
Can I not wear my glasses to use Quest Pro? Glasses are a huge PITA for wearing a VR set.
How do such devices affect eyesight? Is the leneses not "zooming in" to see "far objects" harmful? How does it compare to using flat screens?
I suppose it's findable on the Internet and I am planning to search that info later, but here seem to be knowledgeable folk, so I'd also like to hear your thoughts
I suppose it's findable on the Internet and I am planning to search that info later, but here seem to be knowledgeable folk, so I'd also like to hear your thoughts
I don't want to dismiss the effort and innovation that went into Quest Pro. I respect the team for innovating on so many aspects of the headset at once.
Although for the $1400+ price range, I would love to see some "next-gen" headsets with much higher FOV and pixel densities (even if we'd have to use foveated rendering), as well as 120Hz+ refresh rates. Perhaps the tech specs section on the product page is as spartan as it is because many people have been waiting for the next generation headset for a while?
Do we know if the Quest Pro has done anything to address the screen-door effect of the display seen in Quest 2? I understand that PPI is slightly higher, but has anything else been done?
Although for the $1400+ price range, I would love to see some "next-gen" headsets with much higher FOV and pixel densities (even if we'd have to use foveated rendering), as well as 120Hz+ refresh rates. Perhaps the tech specs section on the product page is as spartan as it is because many people have been waiting for the next generation headset for a while?
Do we know if the Quest Pro has done anything to address the screen-door effect of the display seen in Quest 2? I understand that PPI is slightly higher, but has anything else been done?
Whoever let the marketing department write the tech specs.... I can't even. It's a mockery of "Tech Specs" and has the audacity to to say at the top "It's all in the details" while providing next to zero details.
Notably not available in Germany again. That should make you think why. IIRC one of the previous headsets' unavailability was because Germany wouldn't put up with some of the consumer-hostile things Facebook was doing.
Meta's whole vision of the 'metaverse' may be silly, but come on, this is super exciting! The specific use case of using this for meetings aside, it just looks like a pretty huge leap forward in terms of hardware for AR/VR. It remains to be seen whether AR/VR is actually useful for things beyond playing video games, but my bet is that it will definitely be the case. Maybe this sort of hardware won't be quite as impactful/omnipresent as personal computers or smartphones, but it seems like it could be on the same order of magnitude as those things long term.
I'm most interested in the readability of code and the long term comfort of wearing it.
Would love to try a pair programming session with it.
Would love to try a pair programming session with it.
How do you plan to type?
With a normal keyboard? You've been able to bring a keyboard into VR for a while (from a fairly short list of supported models, at the moment) on the Quest 2 even.
edit: info here — https://www.meta.com/en-gb/help/quest/articles/headsets-and-...
edit: info here — https://www.meta.com/en-gb/help/quest/articles/headsets-and-...
Oh wow, I didn't know that was an option. Thanks for the link.
There's just no way I'd ever voluntarily give money to Mark Zuckerberg.
Love all the new tech they're trying out here, but I think they really shot themselves in the foot with the "Quest Pro" branding.
The product still has some rough edges (e.g. that 1-2hr battery life), and consumers will undoubtedly confused this for an evolution of the Quest 2 (which it is not). This feels like a highly polished developer kit that they tried to pivot into an enterprise device in the last few months.
Perhaps they did so out of fear of the public market's response? Releasing an expensive research project in this economic environment might have been a bad look.
The product still has some rough edges (e.g. that 1-2hr battery life), and consumers will undoubtedly confused this for an evolution of the Quest 2 (which it is not). This feels like a highly polished developer kit that they tried to pivot into an enterprise device in the last few months.
Perhaps they did so out of fear of the public market's response? Releasing an expensive research project in this economic environment might have been a bad look.
They mentioned using it for mixed reality and augmented reality but if they don’t open up the passthrough API to allow apps to use fiducial tracking or something, the value will be highly limited. Fiducial tracking is common with smart phone augmented reality apps.
When obvious & actually useful use case would be the ability to scan barcodes (including 2D matrix types like QR codes) hands-free. But again this isn’t possible if they keep the pass-through API closed.
This would also allow reliable, seamless integration of digital and real things. QR codes as fiducials can allow precision measurements, useful for all kinds of trades.
Another is scanning documents or pieces of paper. There’s no reason you couldn’t just draw on an ordinary piece of paper using ordinary pencil or pen or marker or crayon or whathaveyou instead of having to use whatever weird input device is in vogue. The headset could continuously scan the document, filling in places your hand is blocking over time, and updating a shared or presented document in real-time. Collaborator edits could be overlayed on top of your physical copy in real-time as well.
Lots of these things are pretty obvious but don’t work if pass-through API is blocked off like it currently is for Quest 2.
When obvious & actually useful use case would be the ability to scan barcodes (including 2D matrix types like QR codes) hands-free. But again this isn’t possible if they keep the pass-through API closed.
This would also allow reliable, seamless integration of digital and real things. QR codes as fiducials can allow precision measurements, useful for all kinds of trades.
Another is scanning documents or pieces of paper. There’s no reason you couldn’t just draw on an ordinary piece of paper using ordinary pencil or pen or marker or crayon or whathaveyou instead of having to use whatever weird input device is in vogue. The headset could continuously scan the document, filling in places your hand is blocking over time, and updating a shared or presented document in real-time. Collaborator edits could be overlayed on top of your physical copy in real-time as well.
Lots of these things are pretty obvious but don’t work if pass-through API is blocked off like it currently is for Quest 2.
Imagine getting a job at a call center, but it's work from home. Unfortunately though, your work requires you to be present in the "metaverse", meaning you have to wear stupid goggles that allow your employer and Meta to control everything you see and hear for 8 hours a day. The advantage for the employer is clear: no need to pay for an office, but you also don't have to trust your employees to do their work at home. The advantage for Meta is clear as well: realize a virtually infinite profit margin on virtual clothing and environments in our nightmare late-stage capitalist version of a company store, and bombard you with hyper-targeted advertising. I can't really emphasize enough how much the future imagined by this product sucks. I don't know how somebody can see this and, in good conscience, continue to work there.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed. Meanwhile 5 years ago in China they're using cameras to monitor pupils in the classroom to see who is paying attention [0] and more recently intrusive desktop monitoring [1] also something used by some of the gig workers like Upwork [2]? The demand is there, people like their shipping updates with packages. It's pretty bleak tbh.
[0] https://www.engadget.com/general-motors-ultium-battery-more-... [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/China-s-tech... to-limits-by-surveillance-software [2] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork...
[0] https://www.engadget.com/general-motors-ultium-battery-more-... [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/China-s-tech... to-limits-by-surveillance-software [2] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork...
They should have open sourced the platform. This would generate more hardware makers to jump in and improve hardware part, bring to market cheaper as well as more high end devices and so on. It would also accelerate building apps for the platform. A big issue in tech is that everyone wants to copy Apple, keep things secret and build walled garden. What worked for Apple worked for a reason (and bit of a luck) but may not work for others. The big issue is that everyone wants to be next Steve Jobs.
Another overlooked thing is their future EM based wrist sensor which can sense hand movement accurately even if humans don't see it moving. This can be a killer device on its own. The realistic avatar that one can generate by scanning themselves by phone is also very doable with today's tech (SIGGRAPH is full of these papers now). If they can make that happen as fluidly as enabling FaceID, that would be killer app in itself. That can start whole industry of try-before-you buy clothing stores in VR world on your avatar, for example.
Another overlooked thing is their future EM based wrist sensor which can sense hand movement accurately even if humans don't see it moving. This can be a killer device on its own. The realistic avatar that one can generate by scanning themselves by phone is also very doable with today's tech (SIGGRAPH is full of these papers now). If they can make that happen as fluidly as enabling FaceID, that would be killer app in itself. That can start whole industry of try-before-you buy clothing stores in VR world on your avatar, for example.
$1,500 for this:
> Meta Quest Pro comes with all the goods and then some so you can start working, creating and collaborating — Meta Quest Touch Pro Controllers, charging dock with rapid USB-C power adapter, 10 advanced VR/MR sensors, 256GB storage, 12GB RAM, and a Snapdragon XR2+ Qualcomm processor.
Is there even any software that can take advantage of this? Nothing in Meta’s Horizons, afaict.
> Meta Quest Pro comes with all the goods and then some so you can start working, creating and collaborating — Meta Quest Touch Pro Controllers, charging dock with rapid USB-C power adapter, 10 advanced VR/MR sensors, 256GB storage, 12GB RAM, and a Snapdragon XR2+ Qualcomm processor.
Is there even any software that can take advantage of this? Nothing in Meta’s Horizons, afaict.
The Quest was running into hardware problems running things like VRChat and some games. I think this headset is supposed to be able to run those.
Do you mean the specs are too low? Or too high?
I don’t really know if the specs are good for bang for your buck. All I know is that the Quest 2 specs run the existing library pretty well. Paying 5x the price, I would expect a jump from WiiU to PS5, but is there any software that comes close?
The 4x resolution sounds great, but the Quest 2 resolution was already pretty solid. It’s still a great movie watching experience. I’m sure it’s even better with the Pro, but not $1500-for-a-niche-device better
The 4x resolution sounds great, but the Quest 2 resolution was already pretty solid. It’s still a great movie watching experience. I’m sure it’s even better with the Pro, but not $1500-for-a-niche-device better
I wonder how the Meta Quest Pro will stack up against Simula One? [1]
On the one hand, the Simula One is even more expensive. On the other hand, it can be used as a standalone computer, not tethered to an online Metaverse.
[1] https://simulavr.com/blog/vr-comparison/
On the one hand, the Simula One is even more expensive. On the other hand, it can be used as a standalone computer, not tethered to an online Metaverse.
[1] https://simulavr.com/blog/vr-comparison/
According to people that make Simula One you can't compare them because Simula One is the next coming of Jesus and the quest pro is for kids to play games.
Quest Pro is not tethered to an online Metaverse.
I was quite impressed by the price / capability ratio of the Quest 2 and bought one immediately. Truth be told, it has mostly sat on the shelf with only occasional usage. But for $1500, this doesn't seem like a huge upgrade and I can't afford for that to sit on a shelf.
this looks like it has AR I can't wait to try developing for AR boxing I really liked the thrill of the fight but I believe AR boxing is where its at
What does AR open up for boxing that VR doesn't? Genuinely asking as I'm a fellow ToTF fan. I just can't conceive what kind of enticing features would you introduce to the game in an AR headset?
The killer app they are looking for is going to be simpler than they think, it's 360 images (and maybe video). It's hard to make 360 pics today, i would think phones would have made it a standard feature by now but they haven't, and 360 cams are expensive. 360 snapshots should become a standard and easy to use feature in ios and android phones. And even in games 360 screenshots dont really exist. I ve seen that secondlife supports those now, in a buggy and lowres way but i dont know many others.
My standard use of OQ2 revolves around that, i find myself browsing google earth with the Wander app as well as real estate listings in some websites that support it, as i find that none of the gaming experiences really stick.
My standard use of OQ2 revolves around that, i find myself browsing google earth with the Wander app as well as real estate listings in some websites that support it, as i find that none of the gaming experiences really stick.
I honestly don't see a mainstream use for 360' pictures. What is your pitch to the average consumer for getting a VR headset to use for 360 images and videos?
- Games fade, VR has a user interface problem: it's just so hard to find the VR replacement of the simple old computer keyboard in terms of communication bandwidth speed and latency.
- Movement in VR causes nausea, the entire visual field is just never meant to move like that. So static-position videos and photos will be the most comfortable , pleasant experience
I think everything else in VR including complicated controllers are gimmicks, in the same way that most people don't use the most advanced apps in their phones , but instead use instagram
- Movement in VR causes nausea, the entire visual field is just never meant to move like that. So static-position videos and photos will be the most comfortable , pleasant experience
I think everything else in VR including complicated controllers are gimmicks, in the same way that most people don't use the most advanced apps in their phones , but instead use instagram
5 hours in and 326 points to 520 comments. This isn't a good sign from the HN community (ratio going wrong way, not too many points for a brand new flagship product), which I would assume would be the most inclined audience to drop $1500 on a VR headset.
It seems this can detect facial expressions from cameras. This is significant from an information theory perspective. Being able to estimate emotional state in real time is game changing.
How long until AI makes the year’s best animated film by optimizing via emotional response?
How long until AI makes the year’s best animated film by optimizing via emotional response?
> It seems this can detect facial expressions from cameras
This is doable for some years now. AWS, Azure & GCP + other smaller companies offer APIs for just such a thing and there are also Python models that do this detection. This is by no means anything extraordinary if I understand what you are suggesting.
This is doable for some years now. AWS, Azure & GCP + other smaller companies offer APIs for just such a thing and there are also Python models that do this detection. This is by no means anything extraordinary if I understand what you are suggesting.
Still waiting (to my knowledge) for even a single manufacturer to offer a unit with independently adjustable sides. Until then, people with strabismus are out of luck. (Which is ironic, since technological assists are the only way we could possibly see depth.)
What I want to make remote work better is a laptop with the camera positioned behind the screen, maybe two thirds the way up. I don't care if this makes for a small dead zone in the screen. I want to be able to look directly at the person I'm video conferencing with, and for it to look to them like I'm looking at them too. Moving the camera down a bit would get me 90% of the way there, 90% of the time. I don't want to wear a stuffy hot VR headset. I just want a modicum more of a connection with the people I talk to every day.
Hmm, snapdragon XR2 is 3 year old SoC.
Anyone knows if XR2+ is somehow better?
The XR2 is severely downclocked on the Quest 2 and not hitting its potential at all because of thermals. Carmack has complained about how underused it is on occasion. If the XR2+ allows for a higher default clock because of better thermals, it'll perform significantly better.
In the presentation they said 50% faster and better thermals.
Anybody know (or can make an educated guess) about how the expression tracking is supposed to work? How can it read your facial expression from on your face? Seems like a very difficult angle to work from. Or are they leaving out the part where you have to use a separate camera to get that? Even then, some of the specific things they mention, such as eyebrow raises, are covered by the headset itself. I'm really skeptical about that feature, unless "tracking" is complete false advertising and expressions are triggered some other way.
Face tracking has been done in other headsets from (roughly) the same angle for like five years now. HP released a relatively cheap headset a year or two ago that did facial expression tracking from a similar angle.
It's a less-complicated problem than you might think.
It's a less-complicated problem than you might think.
So how well (or indeed just how) did that HP headset handle features that are covered by the headset? "It has been done" is PR, not an answer.
At least in the short term I think they are being more worried about getting shut down by the FCC.
They have to fight even for the Supernatural acquisition where they subpoenad SimulaVR to appear as a witness for making their point that they don't have a monopoly (that's like Google pointing at the Librem 5 to show that there are alternatives to their Android phones)
So I don't expect that happening anytime soon and a lot of alternatives will pop up, which should boost any non platform locked "Metaverses" over the alternative
“ Presenting the car designed for the average man... the Homer! Questions? What does this monstrosity cost? Jerry, what's the sticker price? $82,000! This monstrosity costs $82,000? What have I done? I mean, the zoo was fun... but I'm ruined!”
Read more at: https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=431&...
Zuck about to have his own moment. $1499??? They’re going to sell… 3 of these?
Read more at: https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=431&...
Zuck about to have his own moment. $1499??? They’re going to sell… 3 of these?
Seems like an expensive way for HR to waste money, especially since they're treating it like an enterprise product. For an employee, this would just be a two-hour battery-lifed irritance. For a gamer, it could be probably as cool as owning a PS5, but with less multiplayer joy to be had rfom.
Cheap and capable AR glasses would've been the game changer they should be looking for, in my view.
Not saying some corporates won't lap it up. but this won't drive adoption necessarily. somebody else will end up doing that
Cheap and capable AR glasses would've been the game changer they should be looking for, in my view.
Not saying some corporates won't lap it up. but this won't drive adoption necessarily. somebody else will end up doing that
I like to keep an open mind, but really… I don’t get it. Or at least I don’t get it yet, and I’m old enough to remember the first demos on SGI hardware a few decades ago.
By the time Meta figures out that headsets are not the way, they will be bankrupt. No one wants these things. People buy them, use them once or twice and then forget about them.
FWIW my kids still play on the Quest pretty much every day. Gorilla Tag is apparently the bees knees.
I only get on like once every couple of weeks however. Mostly just playing through stuff I bought off of Humble Bundles or trying not to suck at Beat Saber.
I only get on like once every couple of weeks however. Mostly just playing through stuff I bought off of Humble Bundles or trying not to suck at Beat Saber.
That's why the enterprise shift is so key. Those users don't get a choice!
Makes you wonder if there are enough psychopaths in enterprise leadership to prop this up.
I work for a reasonable sized enterprise, I can literally not think of a single use for these VR headsets, apart from some novelty, such as trying to make compulsory training more interesting. And they aren't going to buy everyone headsets for that, nor are they going to deal with the faff of sharing them out to teams (hygiene hassle).
> enough psychopaths in enterprise leadership
Until I read this sentence I thought that Meta was chasing something impossible. Now that you put it that way... this will probably succeed. tbh.
Until I read this sentence I thought that Meta was chasing something impossible. Now that you put it that way... this will probably succeed. tbh.
Has that been your experience with gaming? I was considering taking my first dip into VR with the PSVR2, but worried that as you say, it will end up collecting dust.
...or they get hooked on VR p*rn and can't stop using them. Maybe Meta wants whales like these but more enterprisey.
> Meta figures out that headsets are not the way
What is "the way"? Headsets are a necessary R&D bridge into glasses.
What is "the way"? Headsets are a necessary R&D bridge into glasses.
They should have purchased Varjo XR3 and just commoditize it.
https://youtu.be/NOk_M1Ib5F0
https://youtu.be/NOk_M1Ib5F0
CNET video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5PIqnXWHw
> Multi-tasking, it's the new superpower.
I mean, What? Why? I thought the whole point of VR headsets is to be able to focus on a single task and do it in the best possible way.
I mean, What? Why? I thought the whole point of VR headsets is to be able to focus on a single task and do it in the best possible way.
The previous quests are shoddily built - both in software and hardware. Very frustrating to try to do anything with it outside of using the default apps, which are frankly beta quality at best, and the ~3 fully fleshed out games. If you're going to invest over $1k, might as well get a valve index. I can't imagine this working out well for running custom enterprise software, which seems to be who they are targeting.
I wonder if they managed to solve the text blurriness issues. On my Quest 2 I tried using Immersed, Virtual Desktop, and other software to create virtual monitors in VR.
Text was always very blurry no matter how much I played with resolution, monitor sizes, or distances. Images and video always looked great but for reading text it was completely unusable.
For $1500 coupled with them marketing it for work, I would hope they've solved this issue.
Text was always very blurry no matter how much I played with resolution, monitor sizes, or distances. Images and video always looked great but for reading text it was completely unusable.
For $1500 coupled with them marketing it for work, I would hope they've solved this issue.
This is great news, Meta is targeting and testing demand from the enterprise (instead of consumer) market. As they get some steam, Apple will come in, learn from their mistakes, and innovate to capture and dominate later.
It has done this with Fitbit > Apple watch, now they will repeat with VR/AR, EVs, and hopefully cloud gaming (once it matures technically) - they are master strategists and innovators.
It has done this with Fitbit > Apple watch, now they will repeat with VR/AR, EVs, and hopefully cloud gaming (once it matures technically) - they are master strategists and innovators.
This shows a blank page on Firefox mobile with uBlock.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33166634
But yes I'm on Windows 10, Firefox 105.0.3, and even in private mode, no extensions enabled, the page does not load for me.
But yes I'm on Windows 10, Firefox 105.0.3, and even in private mode, no extensions enabled, the page does not load for me.
Same here
It's sad really. No matter how good this tech is I will never buy it. Because, just like iPhones, they lead humanity down a dark path.
The product page is very vague. It's not immediately clear what I can use Quest for in practice.
Also I've checked everywhere for the "screen" resolution though couldn't find a mention of it.
Having said those, I believe there will be killer apps for these headsets and metaverse, but we're just not there yet and won't reach for about 4-5 more years.
Also I've checked everywhere for the "screen" resolution though couldn't find a mention of it.
Having said those, I believe there will be killer apps for these headsets and metaverse, but we're just not there yet and won't reach for about 4-5 more years.
Too bad they still use the USB cable. Any enhancements of the display won't be as nice because you get a 500Mbit compressed video stream while playing through USB.
One of the reasons I switched from Oculus to a G2 Reverb was the visible artefacts of compressing the video for USB.
Headset looks great, designed well. Will probably make some very rich casuals happy.
One of the reasons I switched from Oculus to a G2 Reverb was the visible artefacts of compressing the video for USB.
Headset looks great, designed well. Will probably make some very rich casuals happy.
I remember hearing someone used a vr set to replace their monitors for programming.
I wonder if this pro can do it well? It that's the case, I'd just need a laptop and then the quest to have unlimited sized monitors everywhere I go.
The price makes it hard to justify a test though. Even with refunds, it's sorta annoying to go ship things back.
I wonder if this pro can do it well? It that's the case, I'd just need a laptop and then the quest to have unlimited sized monitors everywhere I go.
The price makes it hard to justify a test though. Even with refunds, it's sorta annoying to go ship things back.
£1500 and it still costs another £90 to connect it to your PC?
Unless I'm missing something, charging that much for a proprietary cable just sounds like an attempt to lock in to their ecosystem and app store, and prevent this being used as a dumb VR interface to another system.
I can understand it on the budget consumer device, but here it's a little cheap.
Unless I'm missing something, charging that much for a proprietary cable just sounds like an attempt to lock in to their ecosystem and app store, and prevent this being used as a dumb VR interface to another system.
I can understand it on the budget consumer device, but here it's a little cheap.
It is not a proprietary cable. It is a 5 meter long USB-C cable capable of 3A (it doesn't say the wattage, but Quest 2 uses QC 3.0 which is 18W) which does 5gbps data as well. It is an active fiber optic cable which is necessary because the USB 3.1 gen 1 (5gbps) spec doesn't allow for passive cables over 2 meters.
* https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...
* https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...
You can connect using wifi or using any usb cable. The one they sell is an active optical cable. Look up how much they cost elsewhere.
I think the cable is just a fibre-optic USB-C (thunderbolt?) cable. This is probably necessary to get the 5m range. I know for Thunderbolt 3 cables > 2m you had to go fibre optic and they were surprisingly expensive ($100+). It would surprise me if you couldn't plug in another USB-C cable with the correct protocol support here.
If it's like previous Oculi, you can just use a $20 USB-C cable from Amazon. But those tend to be shorter length
Is this similar to Lenovo Glasses T1?
https://news.lenovo.com/pressroom/press-releases/glasses-t1-...
https://news.lenovo.com/pressroom/press-releases/glasses-t1-...
VR will always be a wondrous tragedy - at this price point it's a little bit more of a tragedy - https://www.climaticthoughts.com/vr-wondrous-tragedy/
I wonder whether this, unlike my Quest 2,.will let you set the separation between the two screens wide enough to accommodate my not-even-really-that-big head.
I put up with it but it makes me crosseyed. (I use the buffer thingie to keep it farther from my head, which helps somewhat.)
I put up with it but it makes me crosseyed. (I use the buffer thingie to keep it farther from my head, which helps somewhat.)
VR is a solution looking for a problem just like blockchain. It has genuine use cases in very limited industries - industrial design, mass entertainment (movie theater where everyone has goggles). I don’t need to see my coworkers wearing blinders over their eyes.
Chiming in as a Quest 2 user, and one who uses Immersed for work a couple hours per day, I can't imagine spending $1,500 for a VR headset. If work provided I'd happily use it, and it might increase the amount of time I'd spend in VR.
This UI of this web page is so confusing and frustrating. In particular, they hijacked mouse scrolling in a way that it almost makes me nauseous (and maybe it would if I didn't quickly close the page).
I wonder who is the audience for this nonsense. People with disabilities? I can totally see that, but then if that is the case, perhaps these companies would do much better if they actually embraced the fact.
I can't imagine boring business apps are any more usable with two VR controllers or with blurry text.
Nor has anyone ever wanted to spend $1,500 to be able to use.. Adobe Acrobat.
Nor has anyone ever wanted to spend $1,500 to be able to use.. Adobe Acrobat.
I see they’ve joined to club of snake oil renderings for VR… they’re trying to sell some hardware to a company that will pay them to build software they don’t need - classic enterprise grift
If you are using Firefox and this page doesn't load, you may need to allow the site in the Facebook container by clicking on the jail icon and then "Allow site in Facebook container"
I really wish these things had prebuilt near/far sight corrections. As someone who wears far sight glasses nearly entry minute of my waking hours I feel left out of these VR experiences
For the record, you can purchase corrective lenses that fit over the ones on the headset. I have a pair and they’re great, the only downside being that any new prescription you get needs to be updated on your VR headset too…
This is helpful, thanks! Could you please share a link from where to buy these?
I got mine through the Oculus store, although you might be able to find them cheaper from a different seller.
https://www.meta.com/quest/accessories/quest-2-virtuclear-le...
https://www.meta.com/quest/accessories/quest-2-virtuclear-le...
I learned about the launch from my phone, because they updated the privacy policy about the eye tracking data. Perhaps an opportune method of sending marketing data over legal updates.
> Authentic avatar expressions mimic your natural facial expressions, so you can be fully present in meetings and gatherings with friends and bring more of your true personality to life in VR.
Carmack's avatar during his talk today was mostly expressionless, with weird jittery movements and a mouth that didn't line up with the dialogue. Nothing like what the promo video shows. It seems Facebook has a ways to go before they can live up to their marketing.
https://www.facebook.com/events/reality-labs-facebook-page/c...
Carmack's avatar during his talk today was mostly expressionless, with weird jittery movements and a mouth that didn't line up with the dialogue. Nothing like what the promo video shows. It seems Facebook has a ways to go before they can live up to their marketing.
https://www.facebook.com/events/reality-labs-facebook-page/c...
As he stated within the first few minutes, it wasn’t enabled for his talk. He also wasn’t using the new avatars.
Something about this page just feels dated. I can't put my finger on it, but if you compare the meta quest pro page:
https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/
To the iphone14 page (similar price point): https://www.apple.com/iphone-14-pro/
You can instantly see what showcasing a pro level product should look like given that Meta is all in on this. There is so much white space and weird scrolling resizing and what not.
It looks like I'm viewing a product page on a Dell website.
To the iphone14 page (similar price point): https://www.apple.com/iphone-14-pro/
You can instantly see what showcasing a pro level product should look like given that Meta is all in on this. There is so much white space and weird scrolling resizing and what not.
It looks like I'm viewing a product page on a Dell website.
Based on the marketing material it seems that the Quest Pro is targeted at enterprises where a $1500 device which helps improve employee productivity isn't that big a deal.
Spending $1500 per employee for a fancy gadget might not be a big deal for Facebook and Microsoft, but they are in for a shock if they expect the rest of the corporate world to cough up the cash.
Not every employee at a company gets the most powerful computer, nor does everyone get the expensive software. This is targeted at companies and employees who can benefit from the tech such as architects.
Even Facebook / Microsoft don't give out VR headsets to all employees.
This is also a first gen product, so this is not the version most companies may be adopting.
Even Facebook / Microsoft don't give out VR headsets to all employees.
This is also a first gen product, so this is not the version most companies may be adopting.
Facebook doesn't even buy Quest 2 for employees, hah.
There's nothing about this that will come close to competing with my own imagination.
In that respect, telnetting into a EW-too talker back in the 90's will be a superior product offering.
Sorry.
In that respect, telnetting into a EW-too talker back in the 90's will be a superior product offering.
Sorry.
This Metaverse/VR stuff would seem to require a lot of electricity.. and given our climate change problems I think it's mostly quite harmful.
No... More Metaverse/VR would be very good for the environment. The more we live digitally, the less stuff we need in the real world, the less we need to travel.
Is Snapdragon XR2+ just a well cooled/clocked XR2?
Imagine spending 1500 on a device that can be permanently disabled just by saying something Facebook censors don't agree with.
1500 bucks down the drain.
1500 bucks down the drain.
Can someone give us a breakdown of the difference between this and Quest 2? I don't see a direct comparison on the website
Faster, more comfortable, self tracking controllers (each essentially a Snapdragon 662 phone), better optics, higher resolution.
Double the RAM, higher resolution, color passthrough, controllers that aren't tracked by the headset (which basically means you get a wider area of motion), pancake lenses (a nice feature that puts your face closer to the screen and allows for slimmer headsets), reduction in weight.
Quest 2 128gb - $399
Quest 2 256gb - $499
Quest Pro 256gb - $1499
Quest 2 256gb - $499
Quest Pro 256gb - $1499
Why isn’t the resolution mentioned in the tech specs? Maybe I’m blind.
Also, the niche vr porn market will probably buy a lot of units.
Also, the niche vr porn market will probably buy a lot of units.
Now this is announced, selling Oculus Medium to Adobe seems like a completely idiotic move.
That would have been a killer app right there.
That would have been a killer app right there.
I love "Adobe Acrobat" is the first app listed. I've always wanted to immerse myself in PDF forms.
Trying to order it from Canada and it tells me my postal code is an invalid zip code. I tried 2 separate addresses.
Well a postal code is an invalid zip code, so not sure what you are expecting. If you select Canada in the "ship to" field it will work.
I had selected Canada but I will reselect it. Tried it a few more times and when I enter in my postal code into the field labelled “postal code” it tells me it is an invalid zip code.
Once I switched from Safari on iOS to Chrome on MacOS it worked.
Once I switched from Safari on iOS to Chrome on MacOS it worked.
Back when I ordered a Quest 2 I had to use a space somewhere in my zip code for it to work. Like "123 45" or "12 345". Do not remember the variant that worked!
There is nothing that facebook could do to convince me to pay big money for one of their pre brickable devices
[deleted]
Are the pancake optics the ones that support switching 2^n focus? The greatly rumored varifocal support...
Oooh. Would this let me access the VR software that facebook has to threaten their employees to use?
Page doesn't seem to load for me on Firefox - seeing a bunch of CORS errors in the console.
Wow, the form factor is simply amazing. I thought this would be a tethered headset (e.g. you'd need to connect it to a PC), but it seems that it's all-in-one, which explains the price.
Just compare how small these goggles are to some other VR headsets. It's amazing. I'm sure they made some tradeoffs to get there, but this is a giant leap forward.
Just compare how small these goggles are to some other VR headsets. It's amazing. I'm sure they made some tradeoffs to get there, but this is a giant leap forward.
Off topic:
Uh, does anyone else just see a blank white page? (Firefox, uBlock Origin, Javascript enabled)
Uh, does anyone else just see a blank white page? (Firefox, uBlock Origin, Javascript enabled)
Looks like its a failing because of a blocked cross-origin request. Firefox must be interpreting the CORS settings for the site differently than Chrome. Configuring CORS correctly across multiple browsers is hard!
Edit: looks like the cause for me was because of Facebook Container blocking the cross-origin request to a Facebook domain.
Edit: looks like the cause for me was because of Facebook Container blocking the cross-origin request to a Facebook domain.
I have the same setup and I can see it fine.
Thanks. Even in private mode, no extensions, it doesn't load for me. Not sure what's going on there (though lots of errors in the console.)
Looks cool, but...how would anyone working with proprietary info be allowed to use this?
[deleted]
I'm not spending another dime on VR until Thrill of the Fight 2 comes out
When visiting this link does anyone else just get a blank white page in Firefox?
Just posting to humblebrag that this page gets blocked by default on firefox.
Does anyone really want to wear this while meeting virtually with colleagues?
If it solves the “only one conversation at a time” problem with online meetings then yes. I’d rather be in a virtual room with proximal volume than a Zoom meeting with people yelling over each other
Yeah, this would be a game changer to me.
Both of you should know that there are multiple applications that already solve this problem in VR! Most of the "social" chat applications and most of the "professional" chat applications have proximity-based chat volume. Even most games have it. It's a super handy feature and a natural one for VR.
Do they? I think what folks are talking about here is having someone sound louder to someone who is closer to them in a 3d environment vs softer to someone farther away. This doesn't seem possible in, say, Zoom.
Yes, I'm aware of what they're saying. It is indeed the default for most VR applications. I can't think of a VR application that uses a global volume for voices; it's all local and diminishes based on distance from source. A universal volume for anyone on a map is weird and awkward, and most game engines have sound differ in volume based on distance and location by default. Most VR applications, even the "professional" ones, are built on top of game engines, because it's a lot easier than writing everything from scratch.
Ah, so that's the reason why SimulaVR got subpoena'd?
why is microsoft even working with them on this? dont they have their own ecosystem going, i wouldve expected them to keep office exclusive to their headsets.
Maybe it's because the VR space is still young, so they're working with Meta to make it more popular. My guess is they're betting on once the ecosystem is more mature, they can crush Meta with a better model and integrations.
Something Something Embrace, extend, and extinguish
Something Something Embrace, extend, and extinguish
I would not buy it as it forces me to merge my old Oculus account with my Facebook account.
And I don't want to sign in on Facebook on my gaming PC. Meaning my $100-$200 VR game library is gone now.
And I don't want to sign in on Facebook on my gaming PC. Meaning my $100-$200 VR game library is gone now.
God this website is hard to scroll on an iPhone.
Step 0. Ditch Luxottica and their chunky, plastic-y Ray Bans
Step 1. Buy MagicLeap
Step 2. Make it smaller
Step 3. Combine it with Quest and make it not look like it's from 1993
AR + VR + smartphone (camera, etc) + gaming console in 1 device
Step 1. Buy MagicLeap
Step 2. Make it smaller
Step 3. Combine it with Quest and make it not look like it's from 1993
AR + VR + smartphone (camera, etc) + gaming console in 1 device
In my opinion, unstoppable money printer and infinite national debt is keeping this ridiculous bubble from popping, one more useless and overpriced future electronic waste.
VR has been “5 years away” for decades. They even made kids shows about it in the 90s, and there was the Virtual Boy console from Nintendo.
And here we are, 25 years later, and it’s still just a gimmick looking for a use case.
And here we are, 25 years later, and it’s still just a gimmick looking for a use case.
That's a lot of buzz words in one page
Novelty that wears of super quick. I know people who bought Oculus out of hype and then just after a week it’s sitting on table collecting dust.
Clicked through. First thing that I read was "Starting at A$2,449.99". Closed the tab.
First/only impression: expensive toy for rich people.
First/only impression: expensive toy for rich people.
Only has 2 hours of battery life...
How does Pico 4 compares to this?
Still too bulky and ugly!
No OLED and no eye tracking, which are needed for the perfect VR experience.
It does have eye tracking
So close. Still, no OLED is still a dealbreaker as you want real darkness. The backlight from the LCD makes darkness look more gray. In VR this is uncomfortable as you want the least amount of light to enter your eyes.
Eye tracking is nice though, it makes it possible to only render high detail what you are looking at. This makes the higher resolutions much more interesting.
Eye tracking is nice though, it makes it possible to only render high detail what you are looking at. This makes the higher resolutions much more interesting.
No varifocal?
I find this page very confusing. I suppose it's a stand-alone experience, based on other Meta VR products, but it doesn't really say that anywhere. How does its processing power and display pipeline compare to the Quest, or to other VR headsets? I see lots of buzzwords but not a lot of grounded descriptions. Is this an AR device? How does the AR work? The marketing video look like simulations. I get the sense that this is aimed at creative professionals as an accessory to expand their work modalities - but there's no mention of professional support or API access or any of the traditional markers in that realm.
Generally this seems interesting but this landing page actively detracts from my interest in the product.
Generally this seems interesting but this landing page actively detracts from my interest in the product.
My sentiments exactly. I was one of the first people to fund the Rift Kickstarter way back in the day and I have no idea what this thing is or why it exists after reading that page. It's just a series of Apple-style pithy marketing statements that appear as you scroll.
Did you read the tech specs?
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
> Real-time expression tracking
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
> 37% greater pixels-per-inch. And 1.3x larger color gamut
> XR2+ processor that delivers 50% more power
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
> Real-time expression tracking
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
> 37% greater pixels-per-inch. And 1.3x larger color gamut
> XR2+ processor that delivers 50% more power
So, here's an example of what is confusing me:
> 37% greater pixels-per-inch. And 1.3x larger color gamut
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
How can the resolution be both 4x higher and have only 1.37x the pixels per inch? Those number seem out of sync.
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
What does this mean for me? Is it literally slimmer? Are the screens closer, or are there fewer (but thicker) lenses between me and the screens? I have no idea.
> Real-time expression tracking
Is this...running all of the time? Is it an option that developers can use? Is this running on the main processor? On a co-processor?
> XR2+ processor that delivers 50% more power
I did miss this line!
This processor was announced today, in concert with the Quest. One can make informed guesses about how this differs from the existing XR2[1], but it strikes me as odd to announce a new model with additional capabilities that also is using a new SOC without being specific.
[1] https://www.qualcomm.com/products/application/xr-vr-ar/snapd...
> 37% greater pixels-per-inch. And 1.3x larger color gamut
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
How can the resolution be both 4x higher and have only 1.37x the pixels per inch? Those number seem out of sync.
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
What does this mean for me? Is it literally slimmer? Are the screens closer, or are there fewer (but thicker) lenses between me and the screens? I have no idea.
> Real-time expression tracking
Is this...running all of the time? Is it an option that developers can use? Is this running on the main processor? On a co-processor?
> XR2+ processor that delivers 50% more power
I did miss this line!
This processor was announced today, in concert with the Quest. One can make informed guesses about how this differs from the existing XR2[1], but it strikes me as odd to announce a new model with additional capabilities that also is using a new SOC without being specific.
[1] https://www.qualcomm.com/products/application/xr-vr-ar/snapd...
> 37% greater pixels-per-inch. And 1.3x larger color gamut
Is referring to the display resolution inside the headset
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
Is referring to the camera resolution on the outside of the headset
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
The are using a new technology, pancake lens, giving effectively the same (or better?) performance but taking less space to do so.
> Real-time expression tracking
You can turn it on or off as a user. I don't know if they've optimised it to only "run" when the software you're interacting with is setup to use it or not.
Is referring to the display resolution inside the headset
> Full-color mixed reality, with resolution 4X higher compared to Quest 2
Is referring to the camera resolution on the outside of the headset
> slimmed down the optical stack by over 40% compared to Quest 2
The are using a new technology, pancake lens, giving effectively the same (or better?) performance but taking less space to do so.
> Real-time expression tracking
You can turn it on or off as a user. I don't know if they've optimised it to only "run" when the software you're interacting with is setup to use it or not.
I have no idea what a quest 2 is outside of a VR headset so comparing it instead of the actual stats this is useless.
[deleted]
Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that.
They also have the absolute worst business and product strategy in the world. Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
I have yet to meet a single person, anyone at all, who has expressed any interest in "The Metaverse". Even among my circle of friends who are heavily bought into VR. I struggle to find the appeal in a product vision focusing on letting anti-social people socialize.
This is a similar case where I feel a large disconnect between how innovative the technology itself is, and how myopic the use case is. Who would actually use this? Whose job would this improve? This is a solution in desperate search of a problem. At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
They also have the absolute worst business and product strategy in the world. Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
I have yet to meet a single person, anyone at all, who has expressed any interest in "The Metaverse". Even among my circle of friends who are heavily bought into VR. I struggle to find the appeal in a product vision focusing on letting anti-social people socialize.
This is a similar case where I feel a large disconnect between how innovative the technology itself is, and how myopic the use case is. Who would actually use this? Whose job would this improve? This is a solution in desperate search of a problem. At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that
I would argue Valve is the main driver of VR in terms of actual software + hardware + platform building. Facebook is just the biggest spender on VR right now.
> Who would actually use this?
Which is funny to me, because I can instantly think of over a dozen use cases for this stuff -- if Facebook was never involved. Use it for training, especially on-site training, use it for conferencing, use it for 3D visualization (basically half of the Hololens demos cross over)
But with Facebook owning it, the value prop of Oculus Quest is zero. It's no longer a hardware or software platform, it's a console, effectively no different than a Nintendo Switch or a PlayStation. Doesn't matter if the Quest was the best thing ever invented, no one reading Hacker News could deliver any products or solutions on it without Facebook owning/controlling it, so there's no reason for anyone to try.
I would argue Valve is the main driver of VR in terms of actual software + hardware + platform building. Facebook is just the biggest spender on VR right now.
> Who would actually use this?
Which is funny to me, because I can instantly think of over a dozen use cases for this stuff -- if Facebook was never involved. Use it for training, especially on-site training, use it for conferencing, use it for 3D visualization (basically half of the Hololens demos cross over)
But with Facebook owning it, the value prop of Oculus Quest is zero. It's no longer a hardware or software platform, it's a console, effectively no different than a Nintendo Switch or a PlayStation. Doesn't matter if the Quest was the best thing ever invented, no one reading Hacker News could deliver any products or solutions on it without Facebook owning/controlling it, so there's no reason for anyone to try.
I am glad that Meta is involved - I doubt anyone else would invest as heavily in VR as they are doing right now. Whether they end up being the main player or not in the future, I think this level of investment is actively inspiring the entire industry, and showing what is possible. (Compare similar views by Palmer Luckey [0])
Similarly, while essentially all smartphones before the iPhone were stylus or keyboard driven, within years of the iPhone being released there was a viable competitive platform in android. In the VR space, I highly doubt the vive or the pico headset would exist if it was not for the investments of Meta.
[0] https://venturebeat.com/business/palmer-luckey-i-left-facebo...
Similarly, while essentially all smartphones before the iPhone were stylus or keyboard driven, within years of the iPhone being released there was a viable competitive platform in android. In the VR space, I highly doubt the vive or the pico headset would exist if it was not for the investments of Meta.
[0] https://venturebeat.com/business/palmer-luckey-i-left-facebo...
I love that you called it a console, because I got the weird flashback sense that I was watching a Nintendo Wii demo (of the teacher & student demo on the webpage)
A "killer app" may be new employee training. I heard in a Stanford computer seminar that VR accelerates training with stronger learning.
>Use it for training, especially on-site training,
wouldn't this be off-site training? if you were on-site, why would you need the VR unit?
wouldn't this be off-site training? if you were on-site, why would you need the VR unit?
I am interested, nice to meet you!
I live abroad from many friends and family. If there was a way to casually hang out and replicating the in-person social experience better than video chat, I would jump on that. I already have regular Quest 2 sessions with close ones where we shoot the shit and also shoot zombies - it feels like having a friend over for playing video games.
I for one am looking forward to being able to hang out in the same room, or discover new places, while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space. I am happy Meta is investing to make this closer to a reality!
I live abroad from many friends and family. If there was a way to casually hang out and replicating the in-person social experience better than video chat, I would jump on that. I already have regular Quest 2 sessions with close ones where we shoot the shit and also shoot zombies - it feels like having a friend over for playing video games.
I for one am looking forward to being able to hang out in the same room, or discover new places, while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space. I am happy Meta is investing to make this closer to a reality!
I should clarify - I think the value of VR is creating transportive experience.
Opening up Google Earth and watching the sunset on Mount Rainier with a friend is transcendent. Sitting around a virtual boardroom talking to an avatar is not.
Meta's value proposition should be the a) the quality of the experience they provide (video games with friends included!) and b) the seamlessness to use. But a slightly more interactive video chat is not going to sell units.
Opening up Google Earth and watching the sunset on Mount Rainier with a friend is transcendent. Sitting around a virtual boardroom talking to an avatar is not.
Meta's value proposition should be the a) the quality of the experience they provide (video games with friends included!) and b) the seamlessness to use. But a slightly more interactive video chat is not going to sell units.
> Opening up Google Earth and watching the sunset on Mount Rainier
Lmao… I hate to gatekeep, but having actually backpacked into the high country with friends and watched truly spectacular sunsets, there are so many aspects of that experience, and especially the ones that make it a truly transcendent experience, that just can’t be captured with a VR headset. For one, the physical aspects, being tired and the sense of accomplishment for getting their with your stuff, breathing thinner air, the humidity and breeze as the air changes from the sun setting. You can literally feel the warm life-givingness of the sun leaving. The actual full spectrum light—not RGB filtered—carries amazing amounts of nuance and illuminates everything in an extremely dynamic way; I have yet to see an HDR screen that does a good sunset justice, and I’m not entirely sure they can. And the sound, you can’t make your house in the city quiet and still like the mountain, at least not by putting on a headset, and that quiet lets you hear the littlest things!
By comparison, more interactive video chat, allowing me to feel like I’m sharing a space with a far flung friend, is much much more compelling to me. Online tabletop board games would be much more compelling if it felt like I was actually with the other person.
Lmao… I hate to gatekeep, but having actually backpacked into the high country with friends and watched truly spectacular sunsets, there are so many aspects of that experience, and especially the ones that make it a truly transcendent experience, that just can’t be captured with a VR headset. For one, the physical aspects, being tired and the sense of accomplishment for getting their with your stuff, breathing thinner air, the humidity and breeze as the air changes from the sun setting. You can literally feel the warm life-givingness of the sun leaving. The actual full spectrum light—not RGB filtered—carries amazing amounts of nuance and illuminates everything in an extremely dynamic way; I have yet to see an HDR screen that does a good sunset justice, and I’m not entirely sure they can. And the sound, you can’t make your house in the city quiet and still like the mountain, at least not by putting on a headset, and that quiet lets you hear the littlest things!
By comparison, more interactive video chat, allowing me to feel like I’m sharing a space with a far flung friend, is much much more compelling to me. Online tabletop board games would be much more compelling if it felt like I was actually with the other person.
> especially the ones that make it a truly transcendent experience, that just can’t be captured with a VR headset
Agreed. But giving you a taste of something you may not have the resources/ability to do yourself is a much better use of the technology than giving you a taste of... playing board games in person.
Agreed. But giving you a taste of something you may not have the resources/ability to do yourself is a much better use of the technology than giving you a taste of... playing board games in person.
> I already have regular Quest 2 sessions with close ones where we shoot the shit and also shoot zombies - it feels like having a friend over for playing video games.
How is this any different from playing Xbox/PlayStation with a friend online?
> ...while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space.
Not gonna happen. Sorry to break it to you.
Guess we can file you under "not interested" now
How is this any different from playing Xbox/PlayStation with a friend online?
> ...while feeling like we are sharing the same physical space.
Not gonna happen. Sorry to break it to you.
Guess we can file you under "not interested" now
> Not gonna happen. Sorry to break it to you.
I already feel that way in my Oculus Quest 2!
In my opinion there is something different about being "embodied" in a 3D virtual environment that is all around you, seeing the gestures of people you interact with and moving around. Certain human interaction modes, such as moving closer to hear someone, looking at the person you are talking to, gesturing to highlight conversation points etc are already qualitatively different in VR than video games imo. And it looks like this will further increase in the future with face tracking etc.
I already feel that way in my Oculus Quest 2!
In my opinion there is something different about being "embodied" in a 3D virtual environment that is all around you, seeing the gestures of people you interact with and moving around. Certain human interaction modes, such as moving closer to hear someone, looking at the person you are talking to, gesturing to highlight conversation points etc are already qualitatively different in VR than video games imo. And it looks like this will further increase in the future with face tracking etc.
Why are you interested in casually hanging out with your friends and family under surveillance from an advertising company that will subject your private and personal communications to their censorship systems?
Doesn’t that make you somewhat of a bad friend?
Doesn’t that make you somewhat of a bad friend?
You might be simultaneously right and also totally missing the point and rude.
I agree with the gp. The quest 2 has helped me connect with friends in different states that felt way closer to inviting them over to hang out at the house than just video chatting or whatever.
There is real value in that. Even my wife who is not techy at all enjoyed it after first laughing in my face at the idea.
For better or worse, meta seems to be the only company currently trying to push this forward. So meta it is for now.
I agree with the gp. The quest 2 has helped me connect with friends in different states that felt way closer to inviting them over to hang out at the house than just video chatting or whatever.
There is real value in that. Even my wife who is not techy at all enjoyed it after first laughing in my face at the idea.
For better or worse, meta seems to be the only company currently trying to push this forward. So meta it is for now.
How can wanting to chill with friends possibly make them a bad friend? You brought up a good point but then kind of ruined it with such a wild accusation.
You're skipping the part about the advertising surveillance. If you were my friend and asked me to hang out, that's cool. If you were my friend but asked me to hang out where everything we did was knowingly by you subject to likely to have some company's algo running and attempting to influence what we did while hanging out, then yes, I'd say you were an asshole for a friend.
I didn't skip that. I said "You brought up a good point". I agree it was a good point. But they ruined the argument a bit by being overly dramatic. It would have been better to skip the judgmental snide remark at the end so we could have focussed on the good point.
Doesn't asking such a loaded question make you a bad community member?
>Doesn’t that make you somewhat of a bad friend?
Why are you chewing OP out as though you know for a fact that OP is the sole reason that that group of people uses Meta products? You have absolutely no insight into the decisions of that group of people, and instead of asking questions in an effort to learn more, you have suggested that OP is a bad friend.
Why are you chewing OP out as though you know for a fact that OP is the sole reason that that group of people uses Meta products? You have absolutely no insight into the decisions of that group of people, and instead of asking questions in an effort to learn more, you have suggested that OP is a bad friend.
I’m not chewing anyone out; I didn’t assert that it makes them a bad friend.
It was a sincere question, not rhetoric.
It was a sincere question, not rhetoric.
Plenty of people enjoy VRChat, because you can interact with friends, but Facebook's attempt to get people excited to interact with brands and ads and work in a heavily locked down Metaverse is ridiculous.
You can also use VRChat on a Meta Quest. It's not one of those platforms that locks it's users out of choices.
I dont disagree that Meta is probably pouring the most money into VR right now, but there are other companies looking into it. Notably Apple might launch a similarly priced headset to the Quest pro soon. Bytedance has the Pico series which are basically Quest clones at this point, but they are looking to push the tech and outcompete Meta. They're not currently launched in the US, but that may change. Valve will probably launch an Index 2 eventually.
Some lesser known headsets brands like the Pimax and Varjo target prosumer-grade and enterprise headsets in the US too.
Some lesser known headsets brands like the Pimax and Varjo target prosumer-grade and enterprise headsets in the US too.
I have just bought an American Quest 2 and found out the Pico 4 (with new pancake lenses) launches next week for the same price.
Am so kicking myself. I'll sell the Q2 at a loss and buy the Pico.
Am so kicking myself. I'll sell the Q2 at a loss and buy the Pico.
I'm not sure where you're located, but the Pico 4 isn't being sold in the US which automatically excludes a huge number of people who might otherwise consider it.
Good, means I'm getting one when it's released :D
I'm in Europe, pre-ordered on Amazon, was thinking of waiting for reviews but the 256GB version went temporarily out of stock so I just pre-ordered. Let's see if I get fucked heh.
Funny enough, there was a scarcity of Quest 2s which drove prices up to dumb levels, while the US had Q2s aplenty :/
But really, I want one to watch stuff and play PC games and maybe use it as a monitor - the pancake lens apparently make it much more palatable.
I'm in Europe, pre-ordered on Amazon, was thinking of waiting for reviews but the 256GB version went temporarily out of stock so I just pre-ordered. Let's see if I get fucked heh.
Funny enough, there was a scarcity of Quest 2s which drove prices up to dumb levels, while the US had Q2s aplenty :/
But really, I want one to watch stuff and play PC games and maybe use it as a monitor - the pancake lens apparently make it much more palatable.
I’m interested. I would love to be able to throw on a headset and sit on the couch and watch a movie with my sister, where I felt like she was watching in the room with me.
I also would like to have a meeting with my other WFH colleagues where I could tell whether people were making eye contact with me, because the conversation would flow smoother.
I also would like to have a meeting with my other WFH colleagues where I could tell whether people were making eye contact with me, because the conversation would flow smoother.
There's a thing called Big Screen VR. I'm wondering if your comment is saying that it's not viable for you (don't have the time, equipment, not a good enough experience), or that you've not heard of it. I'm not trying to be snarky "I think you'll find" just wondering if you've considered and rejected Big Scree.
I don’t have a VR headset. OP was suggesting that no one wants it, I was just raising my hand and indicating what use cases appeal to me.
Just like how over-ear headphones make my hair sweaty and itchy after a few hours, I can't imagine (personally) enjoying the feel of a clunky VR headset adding extra pounds onto my face.
Yeah, VR tends to have a hard-cutoff on the human body after ~2 hours. Most people will become physically exhausted before they reach that point, but if you do manage to make it a couple hours in, you'll almost certainly feel a little woozy.
Honestly though, the feeling of the headset on the face is the least-salient part of that discomfort (to me). It really is like a heavier pair of over-ear headphones in terms of physical profile.
Honestly though, the feeling of the headset on the face is the least-salient part of that discomfort (to me). It really is like a heavier pair of over-ear headphones in terms of physical profile.
Plus the camera adds 10 pounds as it is...
I'll see myself out now
I'll see myself out now
> I also would like to have a meeting with my other WFH colleagues
My WFH space is my private space, and I'd rather not invite my colleagues into it. Voice + screen sharing is more than enough, so no thanks. And if my employer required it I'd let myself out.
My WFH space is my private space, and I'd rather not invite my colleagues into it. Voice + screen sharing is more than enough, so no thanks. And if my employer required it I'd let myself out.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry
Valve recently posted a job opening[1] that hints at ongoing efforts in the field.
[1]: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/jobs?job_id=52
Valve recently posted a job opening[1] that hints at ongoing efforts in the field.
[1]: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/jobs?job_id=52
Yes, I strongly think in the end VR will be huge. Massive online multiplayer games will be huge (think Ready Player One type of stuff). I think lots of people will use VR for work and hanging out with friends and maybe even dating.
However, in the end I doubt this will be on a ~Facebook~ _Meta_ platform, hardware, and or game. It will be funny because Zuck and crew will be the ones who accelerated this. I predict they'll lose in the end.
However, in the end I doubt this will be on a ~Facebook~ _Meta_ platform, hardware, and or game. It will be funny because Zuck and crew will be the ones who accelerated this. I predict they'll lose in the end.
I think VR is already amazing for games. And maybe there will be some amount of social networking that occurs. But I have my doubts that there are enough people who would prefer hanging out virtually to significantly move the physical hardware in enough numbers sustainably.
I don’t get “hanging around with friends” at all. How is it suppose to work when you have this dorky goggles blocking their face?
> Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground
Workplace, portal, and the glasses? They're still developing as I understand it and they haven't given up on anything. The only failure I can think of is libra, which was killed by regulators
Workplace, portal, and the glasses? They're still developing as I understand it and they haven't given up on anything. The only failure I can think of is libra, which was killed by regulators
> Any unique product that they did not steal or acquire (and some that they did!) have been colossal failures or run into the ground. The irony of a company that has all their customer's data is that they still have yet to understand their customers.
The Marketplace (competing with Craigslist) has more than 800 million customers using it which they have built that themselves?
> At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
Yet Hololens isn't aimed at consumers, Meta Quest Pro is aimed at both and the latter has the same use-cases as the HoloLens for half the price.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that.
And also the AR industry, which they have the technology (Oculus) and the research to do both.
The death of Meta Platforms Inc. has been greatly exaggerated.
The Marketplace (competing with Craigslist) has more than 800 million customers using it which they have built that themselves?
> At least Hololens put together some convincing value propositions.
Yet Hololens isn't aimed at consumers, Meta Quest Pro is aimed at both and the latter has the same use-cases as the HoloLens for half the price.
> Facebook (sorry, Meta) is the only one continuing to advance the VR industry. I respect them for that.
And also the AR industry, which they have the technology (Oculus) and the research to do both.
The death of Meta Platforms Inc. has been greatly exaggerated.
There's still something missing on that concept, Metaverse is just a higher resolution version of Second Life. It was exciting in the first few hours but there's nothing in it.
They understand their customers. Who are advertisers. Meta’s users are its product.
Not necessarily the same for their hardware division. Their VR division is still primarily funded by device and software sales.
Every device is sold at a loss though, as far as I know.
Meta got here in the first place because Apple filtered them out. So they want to be in control of the new device. Tried Facebook mobile, didn’t pan out, too strong competition, so trying VR. Bought Oculus and here we are.
What is the alternative? That they honestly want to become a VR-end-user-centric company? Have you seen their track record?
Meta got here in the first place because Apple filtered them out. So they want to be in control of the new device. Tried Facebook mobile, didn’t pan out, too strong competition, so trying VR. Bought Oculus and here we are.
What is the alternative? That they honestly want to become a VR-end-user-centric company? Have you seen their track record?
[deleted](1)
Yay! More motion sickness with prolonged use. This needs to be ironed out.
It... pretty much has been since the 120hz update for the Quest 2? As long as they're not using a poorly-written application that drops below 90hz, I've barely heard stories of anyone getting sick these days.
I have Quest 2 and I get extremely sick after only 15-30 minutes, like a sickness that lasts for a few hours and makes me feel like I'm extremely tired. No wonder it sat in shelf since then. And no, it was not 1 application that was doing that.
Since you've left the timeline ambiguous, and didn't say if you'd enabled the 120hz mode or even been on a late-enough update to the system software to use it, your comment isn't that useful.
It hasn't been. Any experience where my character moves around causes instant nasuea and discomfort. I doubt I am alone in this.
My experience with the regular Quest was so bad that you'd have to pay me $1500 to try this.
Mark is trying hard to create his new walled garden and force-feed us with the ads once he controls the market. Let's hope it does not happen.
I'm starting to believe on this VR stuff.
$499 seems reasonable for this amazing headeset.
It's 1500
Ahh, miss understood the price. hahahaha
are you still a believer? ;)
As a Brazilian it's a bit expensive for us, but for someone that has the income in dollar seems more attractive.
And probably I will buy it in the first opportunity. haha
And probably I will buy it in the first opportunity. haha
What is your use case? And is vr popular in brazil? If so why? Sorry, genuine questions. I love the idea of vr and made some rather nice looking experiences in them, unpublished, and was amazed. PC linked tho, and soace related. I built a bunch of ships interiors that made me want to literally live in them.
where do you see $499 I see $1499
Wow, no built-in speakers/headphones? Ignoring the sticker shock for a moment, for $1500 that seems like a big oversight. The ones on my Index are incredible quality and can't be heard by anyone near me even when the volume is pumped up, but they're selling these $50 Meta Quest Pro VR Earphones separately? Feels kind of like they're adding insult to injury.
Separately, I still have a hard time with my friends Quest controllers compared to the Valve knuckles. Something about how the Valve controls grip your hands, instead of you actively gripping them, it's just so much more natural. I'm really surprised these new controllers don't have the same style of straps built-in.
Separately, I still have a hard time with my friends Quest controllers compared to the Valve knuckles. Something about how the Valve controls grip your hands, instead of you actively gripping them, it's just so much more natural. I'm really surprised these new controllers don't have the same style of straps built-in.
Not sure where you saw this, the Quest Pro has built in speakers.
Straps are detachable, comes in-box.
Straps are detachable, comes in-box.
The "What's Included" section doesn't mention them.
https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/tech-specs/#tech-specs
Images & videos on other parts of the website show bare or covered ears.
https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/tech-specs/#tech-specs
Images & videos on other parts of the website show bare or covered ears.
The speakers are built into the headset itself, one on each side near the temple. The product shots on the Meta page don't show them off well, but the grills are occasionally visible in some of the videos.
Also what I really don't understand is how anyone can have anything against them spending $$$ on R&D? Worst case scenario: their whole productivity angle doesn't work out, they lose billions upon billions in the coming decade and eventually scrap the whole thing. Then they've still invented a lot of super interesting tech along the way. High resolution displays, low latency rendering pipelines, novel human interface technologies, high fidelity hand tracking, lightweight and sharp lenses, the list goes on and on. There's lots of applications for each of those things and almost nobody else is willing to spend this much cash for such an uncertain roi. I, for one, am super excited about what the future iterations of this will look like.