Google is building a new augmented reality device and operating system(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Google is building a new augmented reality device and operating system
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/google-is-building-a-new-augmented-reality-device-and-operating-system/
202 comments
Google seems unfocused - AR is an example of this, their messaging platforms and failure to leverage Google voice for 10yrs after the acquisition are too.
I’d bet on Apple, FB, or some new entry (harder without the underlying OS).
DeepMind is the most interesting thing coming out of Google imo.
I’d bet on Apple, FB, or some new entry (harder without the underlying OS).
DeepMind is the most interesting thing coming out of Google imo.
Google is unfocused. That's the how the company is designed. It's a federation of VPs, each trying to build a little fiefdom and buy a third bay area house. Sometimes this works well because it fosters competition, but there's a definite lack of coherency.
They wanted a letter starting with A to be the parent company of Google. It should have been ADHD and not Alphabet. /s
:(
Adhd people can be very focused
Adhd people can be very focused
Can be, on occasion, when focusing on something that's highly interesting to them.
Stable products and visions are definitely not interesting to Google.
Stable products and visions are definitely not interesting to Google.
Was that just a random number you threw out? Because it's depressing if even VPs can only afford three Bay Area homes.
I'd guess a VP can afford just one? Median housing price is 3M in Palo Alto.
I mean a good senior engineer is making $450k+ per year, I don’t know what a VP makes but it’s gotta be pretty high? Anyone know?
I'm guessing Google VPs make ~5 mil a year, given that L8 engineers make ~1 mil a year [0]
[0] levels.fyi
[0] levels.fyi
There are huge issues with how these salaries are reported. When you include stock compensation especially: what about vesting schedules and taxes? You can leave a job (by choice or otherwise) where you worked for a year and were making "1 million a year" with less than $300k in total compensation.
It feels like a little trick being played on the employees, kind of like unlimited PTO. I'm sure some people actually enjoy the full benefits of what they're promised, but I'd be surprised if that's a majority.
It feels like a little trick being played on the employees, kind of like unlimited PTO. I'm sure some people actually enjoy the full benefits of what they're promised, but I'd be surprised if that's a majority.
Equity compensation at places like Google vests monthly with no cliff, and it's taxed as income. You get what you see on the tin.
> places like Google
Which place aside from Google?
Which place aside from Google?
Facebook, Amazon (mostly cash bonus first two years, but still "vests" monthly with no cliff), Uber, Lyft (every 3 months), Snapchat, etc. It's not all of them but it's an increasing number.
Also, even with a 1-year cliff, for most people it'll still basically be indistinguishable from cash? Leaving (or getting fired) before you hit the 1 year mark is pretty rare, and after the first cliff it usually transitions to something like every 3 months.
Also, even with a 1-year cliff, for most people it'll still basically be indistinguishable from cash? Leaving (or getting fired) before you hit the 1 year mark is pretty rare, and after the first cliff it usually transitions to something like every 3 months.
The cliff is irrelevant, if you leave before you fully vest your pay rate does not actually match what you claim.
The reason I brought up taxes (which might seem odd to people since compensation usually ignores them) is because they will significantly change the equation for various reasons. (AMT, RSUs taxed as short term gains and not long term, state tax affecting comp regardless of cost of living, etc.)
Ultimately, any compensation number that rolls all of this up into one number is mostly useless for actually knowing how much money you’ll have in N years, but it is useful for comparing offers, which is fine - but then these numbers shouldn’t appear without qualification in the type of discussion where personal finance is involved.
Not to mention that since this is a forum where many people are involved in startups, a 50k salary often (ok, maybe not often but I’m on 1/1) turns into several millions in a few years. Does that mean founders should claim they were making $2 mil per year? I don’t think so - but that’s the only comparison available if you use levels.fyi.
The reason I brought up taxes (which might seem odd to people since compensation usually ignores them) is because they will significantly change the equation for various reasons. (AMT, RSUs taxed as short term gains and not long term, state tax affecting comp regardless of cost of living, etc.)
Ultimately, any compensation number that rolls all of this up into one number is mostly useless for actually knowing how much money you’ll have in N years, but it is useful for comparing offers, which is fine - but then these numbers shouldn’t appear without qualification in the type of discussion where personal finance is involved.
Not to mention that since this is a forum where many people are involved in startups, a 50k salary often (ok, maybe not often but I’m on 1/1) turns into several millions in a few years. Does that mean founders should claim they were making $2 mil per year? I don’t think so - but that’s the only comparison available if you use levels.fyi.
> The cliff is irrelevant, if you leave before you fully vest your pay rate does not actually match what you claim.
This doesn't make sense as well. You don't need to work at Google for a year to get the first year's equity. So there is no one year cliff.
The frequency of how often you vest is also monthly. Specially at the L6+ levels. So you will lose at most of one month's equity (i.e. 1/48th of the grant) if you are bad at planning your last day. So to put actual numbers again, let's say your offer is 240k cash + 240k RSUs every year. So you vest 240k/12 = 20k in RSUs every month on say 20th of the month. If you leave on the 19th of your 12 month of the employment (i.e. before finishing one year), you don't lose on 240k of RSUs but just 20k of RSUs. So you will earn 220k of cash + 229k of RSUs before you leave.
This doesn't make sense as well. You don't need to work at Google for a year to get the first year's equity. So there is no one year cliff.
The frequency of how often you vest is also monthly. Specially at the L6+ levels. So you will lose at most of one month's equity (i.e. 1/48th of the grant) if you are bad at planning your last day. So to put actual numbers again, let's say your offer is 240k cash + 240k RSUs every year. So you vest 240k/12 = 20k in RSUs every month on say 20th of the month. If you leave on the 19th of your 12 month of the employment (i.e. before finishing one year), you don't lose on 240k of RSUs but just 20k of RSUs. So you will earn 220k of cash + 229k of RSUs before you leave.
One of your original claims was this:
> You can leave a job (by choice or otherwise) where you worked for a year and were making "1 million a year" with less than $300k in total compensation.
For the purposes of discussing compensation at FAANG & similar, this is basically untrue. If you work at those companies for a year you'll take home (short of a massive movement in stock price) something approximately resembling what was promised to you. Taxes do not change the equation on this, since vested RSUs are taxed as income (_not_ short-term gains; them being the same rate is irrelevant - they are in fact just reported as income on your W2, without being broken out from your salary, it's literally one number). AMT applies regardless of whether your income is derived from vested RSUs or base salary - if you work at Netflix you're probably getting hit too. I don't see how state income taxes are relevant, since, again, those apply exactly the same way to RSUs as they do to salary.
> Ultimately, any compensation number that rolls all of this up into one number is mostly useless for actually knowing how much money you’ll have in N years
Uh, no? You can straightforwardly project your take-home pay over time; if you want to be really precise you can do it as a probability density function to take into account the potential movement of the stock price over time based on the volatility.
This is all a bit of a distraction from your main point:
> I'm sure some people actually enjoy the full benefits of what they're promised, but I'd be surprised if that's a majority.
Untrue! Obviously, trivially untrue, as demonstrated above.
> You can leave a job (by choice or otherwise) where you worked for a year and were making "1 million a year" with less than $300k in total compensation.
For the purposes of discussing compensation at FAANG & similar, this is basically untrue. If you work at those companies for a year you'll take home (short of a massive movement in stock price) something approximately resembling what was promised to you. Taxes do not change the equation on this, since vested RSUs are taxed as income (_not_ short-term gains; them being the same rate is irrelevant - they are in fact just reported as income on your W2, without being broken out from your salary, it's literally one number). AMT applies regardless of whether your income is derived from vested RSUs or base salary - if you work at Netflix you're probably getting hit too. I don't see how state income taxes are relevant, since, again, those apply exactly the same way to RSUs as they do to salary.
> Ultimately, any compensation number that rolls all of this up into one number is mostly useless for actually knowing how much money you’ll have in N years
Uh, no? You can straightforwardly project your take-home pay over time; if you want to be really precise you can do it as a probability density function to take into account the potential movement of the stock price over time based on the volatility.
This is all a bit of a distraction from your main point:
> I'm sure some people actually enjoy the full benefits of what they're promised, but I'd be surprised if that's a majority.
Untrue! Obviously, trivially untrue, as demonstrated above.
> RSUs taxed as short term gains and not long term
That's not correct. RSUs get taxed as normal income. So whether you get $600k cash or $300k cash + $300k of RSUs, your tax bill is the same. The gain on the RSUs get taxed as short or long term capital gain. That comes into picture when you sell. If you auto-sell, there is no/very little gain, so no additional tax there and for intents and purpose, it's as if getting $600k in cash.
The numbers reported on levels.fyi are not useless. They give you a good idea of what one can get if they started working there at that moment. You can extrapolate more out of it by understanding the stock gain.
That's not correct. RSUs get taxed as normal income. So whether you get $600k cash or $300k cash + $300k of RSUs, your tax bill is the same. The gain on the RSUs get taxed as short or long term capital gain. That comes into picture when you sell. If you auto-sell, there is no/very little gain, so no additional tax there and for intents and purpose, it's as if getting $600k in cash.
The numbers reported on levels.fyi are not useless. They give you a good idea of what one can get if they started working there at that moment. You can extrapolate more out of it by understanding the stock gain.
It feels like a little trick being played on the employees
It's a common trick.
In the 1990's Bill Clinton famously categorized people who made $200,000 a year as "millionaires." Why? Because they "should" be able to save a million dollars within five years.
People in power find it easy to play word games with other people's money.
It's a common trick.
In the 1990's Bill Clinton famously categorized people who made $200,000 a year as "millionaires." Why? Because they "should" be able to save a million dollars within five years.
People in power find it easy to play word games with other people's money.
It's all fairly straightforward actually, as long as you're familiar with how compensation works at big companies (salary, stock, bonus, refreshers). Blind and levels.fyi have raised the transparency on comp quite a bit. $1M/year total compensation (that's annual comp, not the total four year vest) is reasonable for a L8/director-level at the tech giants. This is before tax of course, which is how literally everyone talks about compensation.
[deleted]
VPs start at about 2M/year before taxes. That doesn't buy you much in the Bay Area.
That's a very odd take. There are very few homes one wouldn't be able to afford (yes, with a mortgage) at 2M/year.
I bought a $1MM house in the bay area on a salary 1/10th of that. $2MM/year TC buys you a heck of a lot of house.
You probably meant you were given a loan to buy a house.
Yes, that’s how people typically buy houses. Deeming a salary low if you can’t buy a house with one year of after-taxes, after-expenses income, sounds rather insane to me.
> buy a third bay area house
In palo alto / atherton no less.
In palo alto / atherton no less.
It hurts to see it the accidental implication that DeepMind came out of Google. DeepMind was one of the UK's greater recent creations and it got bought/absorbed for a pittance in exchange for custom TPUs.
I'll agree though that DeepMind would not have been able to exist really without Google's ongoing funding and hardware, so maybe it is Google's creation at this point.
I'll agree though that DeepMind would not have been able to exist really without Google's ongoing funding and hardware, so maybe it is Google's creation at this point.
> their messaging platforms and failure to leverage Google voice for 10yrs after the acquisition are too
The Hangouts > Chat transition is exactly this. Objectively, they've made it worse and more buggy on their own Android platform. Ever since the transition I talk to friends less on Google services. Many of us jumped to Discord
Don't even get me going on the Gmail rollout...
Google was once an innovator (search, Gmail, Docs) but I'm not expecting quality from any of their future product rollouts... especially if it's an existing product.
The Hangouts > Chat transition is exactly this. Objectively, they've made it worse and more buggy on their own Android platform. Ever since the transition I talk to friends less on Google services. Many of us jumped to Discord
Don't even get me going on the Gmail rollout...
Google was once an innovator (search, Gmail, Docs) but I'm not expecting quality from any of their future product rollouts... especially if it's an existing product.
This upsets me, because I genuinely liked GTalk and early Hangouts. The constant rebrands and iterations made me and my friends stop using G's chat products too.
I too don't expect quality from anything Google anymore. It's become an untrustworthy brand.
I too don't expect quality from anything Google anymore. It's become an untrustworthy brand.
Yeah - I moved off every Google service during covid (switching all accounts to fastmail was the biggest pain, but once moved has been great).
One nice thing I'll say is Google's data tools and privacy controls are great. It's very easy to export/delete/control your data there from the settings if you dig through them.
The only thing I still use regularly for personal accounts is YouTube premium.
Thankfully no friends use hangouts and I was able to move the stragglers to signal. I personally don't like discord either, but it's harder to get people out of that one (for now).
One nice thing I'll say is Google's data tools and privacy controls are great. It's very easy to export/delete/control your data there from the settings if you dig through them.
The only thing I still use regularly for personal accounts is YouTube premium.
Thankfully no friends use hangouts and I was able to move the stragglers to signal. I personally don't like discord either, but it's harder to get people out of that one (for now).
> Google was once an innovator (search, Gmail, Docs)
Docs was from an acquisition.
Docs was from an acquisition.
I used to think that mattered, but I’m not so sure any more. After all the people that developed that product became part of Google, and they didn’t become any less the innovators of it as a result.
I think what matters with an acquisition is how it’s managed and how the technology is developed. I think it’s unarguable Google has put significant investment into docs and done a good job developing the product so I have no problem at this point giving them credit for it.
I think what matters with an acquisition is how it’s managed and how the technology is developed. I think it’s unarguable Google has put significant investment into docs and done a good job developing the product so I have no problem at this point giving them credit for it.
If you want maintained, passionately developed software, it absolutely matters.
It's not impossible to "focus" Google but lets not pretend Google is making these decisions to focus on something or not. It's small groups of people or singular people who make these decisions and those visionaries can easily change their focus or be offered a more compelling role at a start up doing the same thing after they spend 12 months learning how to do it at Google.
I don't love Facebook/Meta but it looks like they put a lot of eggs into the Metaverse bucket. Google has never really done that. They have dabbled and because its Google people assume its going to be big or meaningful. But once people internally make enough progress to get promoted and move around internally its not going to continue to be supported without guidance from the top and the top doesnt care about AR/VR/Metaverse. Or at least they havnt until now.
I don't love Facebook/Meta but it looks like they put a lot of eggs into the Metaverse bucket. Google has never really done that. They have dabbled and because its Google people assume its going to be big or meaningful. But once people internally make enough progress to get promoted and move around internally its not going to continue to be supported without guidance from the top and the top doesnt care about AR/VR/Metaverse. Or at least they havnt until now.
The two statements don't really work together:
> It's small groups of people or singular people who make these decisions and those visionaries can easily change their focus or be offered a more compelling role
True! All companies face this problem. Smart, capable people have options and frequently will decide to leave and do something else/go somewhere else.
> but lets not pretend Google is making these decisions to focus on something or not
This is where the disconnect is. As a company you decide what things are priorities, and you build teams to pursue those priorities in a way that is resilient to people leaving - even extremely senior leadership individuals.
If a project withers and dies because a key player leaves, then it never had the company's focus. Part of effectively managing a company is to ensure your most important things don't have a low bus factor (or in Google's case, a bug factor of exactly one).
MS, FB, Apple, etc, all have a record of being able to relentlessly pursue a particular goal despite being subject to the same workforce attrition forces that affect Google.
> It's small groups of people or singular people who make these decisions and those visionaries can easily change their focus or be offered a more compelling role
True! All companies face this problem. Smart, capable people have options and frequently will decide to leave and do something else/go somewhere else.
> but lets not pretend Google is making these decisions to focus on something or not
This is where the disconnect is. As a company you decide what things are priorities, and you build teams to pursue those priorities in a way that is resilient to people leaving - even extremely senior leadership individuals.
If a project withers and dies because a key player leaves, then it never had the company's focus. Part of effectively managing a company is to ensure your most important things don't have a low bus factor (or in Google's case, a bug factor of exactly one).
MS, FB, Apple, etc, all have a record of being able to relentlessly pursue a particular goal despite being subject to the same workforce attrition forces that affect Google.
I’m a little confused by your first sentence because it sounds like we’re mostly in agreement?
Google does a bunch of random things kind of haphazardly. Whether this is caused by incentive problems around promo or something else I don’t know.
I don’t think they compare favorably to Apple, Zuckerberg, or modern Microsoft. I’d guess it comes from the top.
Google does a bunch of random things kind of haphazardly. Whether this is caused by incentive problems around promo or something else I don’t know.
I don’t think they compare favorably to Apple, Zuckerberg, or modern Microsoft. I’d guess it comes from the top.
> I don't love Facebook/Meta but it looks like they put a lot of eggs into the Metaverse bucket. Google has never really done that.
They did with Google Plus, and they eventually killed it.
They did with Google Plus, and they eventually killed it.
Google isn't one entity any more, it sounds like it's more like some kind of unofficial in-house version of YC except with more politics because the startups are more closely coupled.
Also DeepMind didn't come out of Google, it came out of some British boffins that got acquired for squillions (comparatively, I mean it's only a serious and arguably somewhat successful attempt at building general AI, it's not like it's adtech or finance or something else really important...) and as far as I can see the number one thing Google has done to help them, other than throwing money at them, is to otherwise leave them the hell alone.
Also DeepMind didn't come out of Google, it came out of some British boffins that got acquired for squillions (comparatively, I mean it's only a serious and arguably somewhat successful attempt at building general AI, it's not like it's adtech or finance or something else really important...) and as far as I can see the number one thing Google has done to help them, other than throwing money at them, is to otherwise leave them the hell alone.
> harder without the underlying OS
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the current mainline Linux. There’re issues on desktop, sure. But VR/AR stuff is not similar to desktop, quite the opposite, it’s similar to embedded. For newer mobile GPUs, Linux even support Vulkan in addition to GLES.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the current mainline Linux. There’re issues on desktop, sure. But VR/AR stuff is not similar to desktop, quite the opposite, it’s similar to embedded. For newer mobile GPUs, Linux even support Vulkan in addition to GLES.
But the tooling (vs Metal/DX/LibGNMX/...), oh my.
>Google, you’re charging into battle with Apple and Zuck and you got a dildo made of American cheese. Good luck.
Zuck's vision is trash to the point I question whether the man's had an original idea in his life, so I'm not completely discounting the American cheese monstrosity as somehow prevailing.
I don't really care for Apple either, but I suspect they're going to "win" by virtue of focus and culture alone.
Of course, if any of these three entities win, it is the world that loses. Rather, continues to lose—depending on how you look at it.
Zuck's vision is trash to the point I question whether the man's had an original idea in his life, so I'm not completely discounting the American cheese monstrosity as somehow prevailing.
I don't really care for Apple either, but I suspect they're going to "win" by virtue of focus and culture alone.
Of course, if any of these three entities win, it is the world that loses. Rather, continues to lose—depending on how you look at it.
Whilst I'm all for ragging on Facebook's missteps, their vision seems pretty good if I was in Zuc's shoes.
They want to be vertically integrated, discount Apple in this space.
They're deploying cost effective hardware combined with vertically integrated software stacks that "just work."
And they are leveraging things Facebook does extremely well, targeting extreme volume for cost amortization, UX and building microtransaction loops.
Like it or not those are things you can't say Facebook is bad at that stuff generally speaking.
Everything about the Facebook metaverse vision is cynical from a societal aspect.
But the business case is fine.
They won't make any money for about 10 years, but after 10-15 years of Quest like products, they will be doing well for themselves.
They want to be vertically integrated, discount Apple in this space.
They're deploying cost effective hardware combined with vertically integrated software stacks that "just work."
And they are leveraging things Facebook does extremely well, targeting extreme volume for cost amortization, UX and building microtransaction loops.
Like it or not those are things you can't say Facebook is bad at that stuff generally speaking.
Everything about the Facebook metaverse vision is cynical from a societal aspect.
But the business case is fine.
They won't make any money for about 10 years, but after 10-15 years of Quest like products, they will be doing well for themselves.
>Whilst I'm all for ragging on Facebook's missteps ...
I prefer ragging on their very existence, but to each their own. :)
Certainly not disputing they know how to make money. I'm sure they'll make a killing on AR/Metaverse bullshit.
I prefer ragging on their very existence, but to each their own. :)
Certainly not disputing they know how to make money. I'm sure they'll make a killing on AR/Metaverse bullshit.
Users of React, React Native, Folley, GHC, Flow,.... seem to appreciate their existence.
I think it's possible to respect the software their developers create and dislike the business goals and cynical approach to making money.
Facebook has made some wonderful software, and it has fundamentally degraded humanity.
Facebook has made some wonderful software, and it has fundamentally degraded humanity.
Not when that software is made with blood money, so to speak.
This is what I find so hypocritical on Facebook complaints, washing over how the meat for the sausage is paid for and the animal was slaughtered, only because it tastes good and the complainers want more of it on their plate.
If what Facebook does is so amoral then don't use software paid with selling their customers' data.
This is what I find so hypocritical on Facebook complaints, washing over how the meat for the sausage is paid for and the animal was slaughtered, only because it tastes good and the complainers want more of it on their plate.
If what Facebook does is so amoral then don't use software paid with selling their customers' data.
> Considering how Google’s treated AR and VR in the last 10 years
You mean how they've treated a large proportion of their customer-facing products?
You mean how they've treated a large proportion of their customer-facing products?
i read the title, and thought of Google Reader, then came for the comments.
>Google, you’re charging into battle with Apple and Zuck and you got a dildo made of American cheese. Good luck.
This is rare on HN. But true. Google's new CEO still have a lot to prove. The problem with Google was they were not found upon a product DNA. They have very little if any product sensibility.
At this rate, Google search may be first to be disrupted before Facebook. Apple has its cracks but still far too minor.
It is also interesting this is finally the mainstream view, at least the top HN comment. Prior to 2016, people still believe AMP in good faith, Firefox compatibility was not Google's fault, ads by Google were Ok.
This is rare on HN. But true. Google's new CEO still have a lot to prove. The problem with Google was they were not found upon a product DNA. They have very little if any product sensibility.
At this rate, Google search may be first to be disrupted before Facebook. Apple has its cracks but still far too minor.
It is also interesting this is finally the mainstream view, at least the top HN comment. Prior to 2016, people still believe AMP in good faith, Firefox compatibility was not Google's fault, ads by Google were Ok.
> At this rate, Google search may be first to be disrupted before Facebook. Apple has its cracks but still far too minor.
After a few years of using DDG which is equally bad as Google but has less and less annoying ads I tried out Kagi last week.
The difference is so big I don't care to verify with neither DDG nor Google: I know based on long experience how bad their results are.
Kagi has so far been a breath of fresh air, a taste of how search used to work when Google actually found the things I asked for, not the thing an insanely annoying AI think I want.
After a few years of using DDG which is equally bad as Google but has less and less annoying ads I tried out Kagi last week.
The difference is so big I don't care to verify with neither DDG nor Google: I know based on long experience how bad their results are.
Kagi has so far been a breath of fresh air, a taste of how search used to work when Google actually found the things I asked for, not the thing an insanely annoying AI think I want.
Yes. And I forgot to mention in my original post, I only just realise very recently, in a lot of cases every single results in the first page are now Ads. Every single one. I have to scroll down to below the fold to get the result I wanted.
I dont think any one at Google cares about UX anymore.
I dont think any one at Google cares about UX anymore.
Tango did, 7 years ago, everything ARKit does today. All they had to do was loss-lead on a showstopper of a phone with one killer app. They basically stripped down Tango to create ARCore, and lost the SLAM space to Apple and Niantic. No one realizes it yet, but this is about as bad as Microsoft losing the web to Google.
Isn't Niantic something from Google?
checks https://nianticlabs.com/en/about/
Keyhole made what got renamed Google Earth when Google ate them, ten years later the core of that team started Niantic Labs inside Google, made Ingress, a few years later Niantic left Google (with funding from Google, Nintendo, and Pokemon) and made Pokemon Go. Niantic has acquihired a few companies working in related spaces.
checks https://nianticlabs.com/en/about/
Keyhole made what got renamed Google Earth when Google ate them, ten years later the core of that team started Niantic Labs inside Google, made Ingress, a few years later Niantic left Google (with funding from Google, Nintendo, and Pokemon) and made Pokemon Go. Niantic has acquihired a few companies working in related spaces.
>Google let Niantic go.
Oh, I didn't know that. That's even worse. Niantic is positioning itself to be a competitor to Apple in the global spatial map game.
Explains why Go released on Android first, though. Neat. I hope that doesn't change now that they're running with 6d.ai.
Oh, I didn't know that. That's even worse. Niantic is positioning itself to be a competitor to Apple in the global spatial map game.
Explains why Go released on Android first, though. Neat. I hope that doesn't change now that they're running with 6d.ai.
Mostly because ARCore tooling looks like desktop Linux UI/UX just like everything else that Google has produced in 3D tooling space for Android.
I guess SceneForm was the best that they could manage to come closer to Metal Frameworks, and they just killed.
I guess SceneForm was the best that they could manage to come closer to Metal Frameworks, and they just killed.
I think Asus did have Tango phones but it wasn't quite powerful enough. It couldn't compete with sexier flagships of the same year.
Glass was not AR. It was a tiny screen you had to shift your focus to.
I should change my usernames to glasswasnotar because I feel like I am always saying that when people talk about glass and ar
I should change my usernames to glasswasnotar because I feel like I am always saying that when people talk about glass and ar
I disagree. It was and is an AR product.
Re-watch this early promo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErpNpR3XYUw
There are several clear AR features displayed. There's a location based notification about the subway service upon getting close to the entrance. There's overlaid compass based walking directions. There's GPS based location identification and check-in. AR is more than just computer vision driven overlays. Though that tech wasn't available to be put in a HMD at the time, these GPS driven features absolutely were AR features and the original Glass should rightfully be considered the first AR consumer product.
Furthermore, the product still exists as the Enterprise Edition 2 and this current version supports computer vison and object identification applications, further strengthening its AR use cases.
Re-watch this early promo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErpNpR3XYUw
There are several clear AR features displayed. There's a location based notification about the subway service upon getting close to the entrance. There's overlaid compass based walking directions. There's GPS based location identification and check-in. AR is more than just computer vision driven overlays. Though that tech wasn't available to be put in a HMD at the time, these GPS driven features absolutely were AR features and the original Glass should rightfully be considered the first AR consumer product.
Furthermore, the product still exists as the Enterprise Edition 2 and this current version supports computer vison and object identification applications, further strengthening its AR use cases.
Sure if the experience of using it had been anything like that video it would have been AR, but it was not like that. I’m sure they wanted AR glasses but instead they built a tiny screen you could look at when you weren’t looking at what was around you… kinda like a phone that you didn’t have to hold.
[deleted]
How is a tiny screen overlaid in an accessible field of vision, not totally obscuring your perception of reality, NOT "augmenting reality"? I agree it barely meets the threshold, but I don't write it off as not AR full stop.
AR is colloquially understood to mean overlaying your field of vision with graphics that interact with reality in your field of vision.
By way of a real-world example, military pilots have heads-up displays that overlay IDs of aircraft on the aircraft as they appear to the pilot. That's AR.
My volvo has a heads-up display that show me my speed, the current speed limit, warnings, lane guidance... But none of that points to anything in my field of vision. Not AR.
Mercedes also have heads-up displays, and while I don't own one, I saw a demonstration where when you are using adaptive cruise control, it highlights the car it is following. That's AR.
The above is my lay understanding. If you buy this distinction between "heads up display" as a general term, and "AR" as a specific use of a heads up display, then Glass was not AR. It was just a heads-up display.
By way of a real-world example, military pilots have heads-up displays that overlay IDs of aircraft on the aircraft as they appear to the pilot. That's AR.
My volvo has a heads-up display that show me my speed, the current speed limit, warnings, lane guidance... But none of that points to anything in my field of vision. Not AR.
Mercedes also have heads-up displays, and while I don't own one, I saw a demonstration where when you are using adaptive cruise control, it highlights the car it is following. That's AR.
The above is my lay understanding. If you buy this distinction between "heads up display" as a general term, and "AR" as a specific use of a heads up display, then Glass was not AR. It was just a heads-up display.
Glass had no overlay.
You don’t see reality and the screen at the same time. It is reality or the screen. (Just like a phone that isn’t running an AR app)
Looking at the screen does obscure your perception of reality because your eye has to change focus. The little prism was transparent but it may as well have been translucent because you couldn’t focus on the screen and the world at the same time.
You don’t see reality and the screen at the same time. It is reality or the screen. (Just like a phone that isn’t running an AR app)
Looking at the screen does obscure your perception of reality because your eye has to change focus. The little prism was transparent but it may as well have been translucent because you couldn’t focus on the screen and the world at the same time.
It wasn't an overlay and wasn't powerful enough to do much with the camera in any realtime way. It was closer to a low powered smart watch that's mostly always in view.
This is a better description than I’ve been using… since it was so underpowered it was more like a smartwatch than a phone.
But it wasn’t even mostly always in view… when you weren’t focused on it I guess it could kinda flash and make you focus on it, but it had no overlay ability.
But it wasn’t even mostly always in view… when you weren’t focused on it I guess it could kinda flash and make you focus on it, but it had no overlay ability.
> Considering how Google’s treated AR and VR in the last 10 years, hyping people up then quietly pulling back support and finally cancellation after just 2-3 years
s/AR and VR/half of the products that Google develops/
Google has some kind of inability to develop stable, boring, long-lasting products, instead prioritizing UX churn and new half-baked features over fixing old bugs or optimizing for performance.
There was a very insightful comment on the Teams 911 thread a few days ago[1] - the entire thing is worth reading, but the most important point is "Google is not setup in same way and internal incentives are not like that, judging by hoard of messaging apps. They are simply setup to make very short projects that do not require long-term commitment."
I do not trust Google to make stable (or privacy-preserving, which is especially relevant to AR...) products.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29496753
s/AR and VR/half of the products that Google develops/
Google has some kind of inability to develop stable, boring, long-lasting products, instead prioritizing UX churn and new half-baked features over fixing old bugs or optimizing for performance.
There was a very insightful comment on the Teams 911 thread a few days ago[1] - the entire thing is worth reading, but the most important point is "Google is not setup in same way and internal incentives are not like that, judging by hoard of messaging apps. They are simply setup to make very short projects that do not require long-term commitment."
I do not trust Google to make stable (or privacy-preserving, which is especially relevant to AR...) products.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29496753
Google projects are like Rule 34: if you can think of it, someone at Google is working on it.
Add SceneForm to it, announced with fanfare at IO and slowly forgotten.
Not just forgotten, deprecated with no notice after my team built our product with a dependency on it.
You might say, “why would you be so stupid to build your AR product on top of Google’s primary, supported, promoted, first-class way of doing AR?” And I would say Apple hasn’t fucked me over like this. In fact, Apple has continued investing in their AR offering and now makes Google’s ARCore and SceneForm look like a fucking joke.
Google Maps AR - oh yeah, that’s an API feature of ARKit now. Want to have high precision location with Google ARCore? Go fuck yourself. (I’m directly quoting Google here, don’t @ me for the language; when you’re getting gaped by Google day after day, I guess some blue language slips in)
You might say, “why would you be so stupid to build your AR product on top of Google’s primary, supported, promoted, first-class way of doing AR?” And I would say Apple hasn’t fucked me over like this. In fact, Apple has continued investing in their AR offering and now makes Google’s ARCore and SceneForm look like a fucking joke.
Google Maps AR - oh yeah, that’s an API feature of ARKit now. Want to have high precision location with Google ARCore? Go fuck yourself. (I’m directly quoting Google here, don’t @ me for the language; when you’re getting gaped by Google day after day, I guess some blue language slips in)
[deleted]
100% I was a massive Google VR/AR adopter. Usually I'm a big iOS fan but I switched for a while because of Google's work there. I believe strongly that AR is the next major platform but I HIGHLY doubt Google will have a place in that market. They ignored Daydream and then killed it. ARCore is terrible to work with and pretty far behind ARKit and even Unity/Unreal's AR lib's. I'll never trust Google again given how terrible they have been to AR/VR.
Sounds like they read some headlines along the lines of "Meta... metaverse... blah, blah, blah..." and had a bout of tech-envy. Again.
Except they are trying again, but this time with the acquisition of North. [0]
We'll see how this goes against what Meta and Apple has to offer for AR glassess.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/google-acquires-north-augmen...
We'll see how this goes against what Meta and Apple has to offer for AR glassess.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/google-acquires-north-augmen...
It seems to me that Google only iterates on things that are immediately successful. That doesn't work for something like consumer AR that hasn't really been done before; multiple iterations will be required to get it past the toy/demo/beta phase.
The moment I saw the headline I was itching to express this exact sentiment.
Google seems unable to plan long-term - they had some of the most interesting VR and AR tech early-on but completely squandered the early lead by lacking any institutional commitment to the field.
Google was among the first to put specialized sensors on devices to gain a structural understanding of your surrounding physical environment. They canned it.
Google was among the first to ship accessible, affordable VR devices via Daydream. They canned that, too.
Google's SLAM implementation was best-in-class for a while, and has basically failed to turn that into anything while FB caught up.
The company as a whole seems to have no concept of long-term strategy. Every endeavor is dipped into with the most tepid of toes, and abandoned at the first sign of difficulty (see: Stadia, Allo, oh boy I can continue). A ton of fantastic research and work goes into products that the company should continue investing losses in for long-term strategic advantage, but the company ends up pursuing the worst of both worlds: paying for the R&D and then changing strategies on a whim.
I know the messaging thing is a dead horse but it deserves to be beaten some more: Google should be fielding an iMessage competitor by now, if only to complete the platform narrative, even if it will always lose to WhatsApp. But instead it has no iMessage competitor and has rebooted its messaging strategy 10x for no discernible results. The minimum of what they needed to do was just to field a competent, stable messaging app that serves as a usable baseline for Android users... and they failed even that.
And having been inside the sausage factory myself there's one huge lever that can be pulled here: Google upper management needs to get way more obsessive about products and long-term roadmaps.
The reason why these projects die so easily is because they tend to be owned by mid-level managers and junior execs, a tier of the company where there is intense turnover. Projects die when their patrons leave the company, get promoted, move orgs, or just generally lose interest. There is frequently no champion for the project besides whichever manager/junior exec owns it. If the company hopes to invest in a field long enough for it to actually bear fruit, the commitments need to come directly from the top.
A lot of this is the hangover of Google+, whose shadow every project (even non-social media ones) lives under. The company seems desperately afraid of making multi-year commitments to things unless they are bearing immediate fruit, out of fear that they'll pull another G+, where failing ideas continued to get disproportionate investment via dictat. I don't know what the right solution to that is, but it certainly isn't what they're doing right now.
Google seems unable to plan long-term - they had some of the most interesting VR and AR tech early-on but completely squandered the early lead by lacking any institutional commitment to the field.
Google was among the first to put specialized sensors on devices to gain a structural understanding of your surrounding physical environment. They canned it.
Google was among the first to ship accessible, affordable VR devices via Daydream. They canned that, too.
Google's SLAM implementation was best-in-class for a while, and has basically failed to turn that into anything while FB caught up.
The company as a whole seems to have no concept of long-term strategy. Every endeavor is dipped into with the most tepid of toes, and abandoned at the first sign of difficulty (see: Stadia, Allo, oh boy I can continue). A ton of fantastic research and work goes into products that the company should continue investing losses in for long-term strategic advantage, but the company ends up pursuing the worst of both worlds: paying for the R&D and then changing strategies on a whim.
I know the messaging thing is a dead horse but it deserves to be beaten some more: Google should be fielding an iMessage competitor by now, if only to complete the platform narrative, even if it will always lose to WhatsApp. But instead it has no iMessage competitor and has rebooted its messaging strategy 10x for no discernible results. The minimum of what they needed to do was just to field a competent, stable messaging app that serves as a usable baseline for Android users... and they failed even that.
And having been inside the sausage factory myself there's one huge lever that can be pulled here: Google upper management needs to get way more obsessive about products and long-term roadmaps.
The reason why these projects die so easily is because they tend to be owned by mid-level managers and junior execs, a tier of the company where there is intense turnover. Projects die when their patrons leave the company, get promoted, move orgs, or just generally lose interest. There is frequently no champion for the project besides whichever manager/junior exec owns it. If the company hopes to invest in a field long enough for it to actually bear fruit, the commitments need to come directly from the top.
A lot of this is the hangover of Google+, whose shadow every project (even non-social media ones) lives under. The company seems desperately afraid of making multi-year commitments to things unless they are bearing immediate fruit, out of fear that they'll pull another G+, where failing ideas continued to get disproportionate investment via dictat. I don't know what the right solution to that is, but it certainly isn't what they're doing right now.
Considering how Google’s treated AR and VR in the last 10 years, hyping people up then quietly pulling back support and finally cancellation after just 2-3 years, I don’t see this going well.
Not just AR/V like Glass. Web and mobile software, hardware, and platforms.
We've seen so many projects launch with incredible hype and die on the vine a few years later or wither to insignificance from lack of customer support, developer resources, or a workable strategy. Nexus. Blogger. Stadia. Music. Plus. Wave.
The lesson is clear: Google can't be trusted.
Not just AR/V like Glass. Web and mobile software, hardware, and platforms.
We've seen so many projects launch with incredible hype and die on the vine a few years later or wither to insignificance from lack of customer support, developer resources, or a workable strategy. Nexus. Blogger. Stadia. Music. Plus. Wave.
The lesson is clear: Google can't be trusted.
wasn't Microsoft also in this race with the HoloLens?
What Microsoft did with Hololens is a great example of what Google should've done.
But that actually requires management with a vision.
But that actually requires management with a vision.
Not past tense -- HoloLens is a product they charge real money for.
And soon to be mass producing. They will be supplying 120k units the US army.
I have a friend who works at a company that uses HoloLens, their use case is so that mechanics working on planes can be remotely guided by a more experienced mechanic (not sure if they're engineers?) on what they have to do to repair the aircraft.
This is because in Google, you are promoted/feted based on products you create, not what you maintain unless that's bringing in so much ad revenue that you can be spun off into a separate division.
daydream was my intro to vr, now a proud index user. Im also sad they completely dropped support for it, imagine buying a new phone and it losing an awesome feature for seemingly no reason (yes i understand google wouldve had to spend money supporting it)
Now they can call it MetaGlass!
Similar to other commenters, I came here in anger. Google has fucked it’s users, it’s developers, and the broader ecosystem with its handling of AR. Google’s engineers should be embarrassed, and the executive teams who suddenly are pretending to ‘get it’ should be embarrassed.
ARKit (iOS) works. It works well. They’ve built the groundwork by pushing out LiDAR. They’ve continued to advance the SDK. Key capabilities, like map-based geolocation are SDK-level features, rather than being reserved as Google Maps exclusives. They’ve made sure their phones and tablets have high quality cameras, compasses, and GNSS receivers, so the experience works better. They’ve made sure their devices have the horsepower to run AR experiences at 60fps, even with overhead from recording and streaming and multitasking. Edit: how did I forget about spatial audio? Spatial audio is a key capability of the iOS ecosystem (AirPods) that Google probably doesn’t have the imagination or coordination to execute on.
Google. Google has:
- made a list of the devices supporting ARCore, because they can’t manage their device ecosystem
- kills key APIs and SDKs (SceneForm) after heavily promoting them. Doesn’t update its doc and deprecates API with not guidance on replacements. “Just copy and paste hundreds of lines of OpenGL code from the samples” they say. ffs
- they still continue to push out devices that can’t keep up. Is it Qualcomm‘a fault? Maybe. Somehow Apple doesn’t have that problem. Mysterious. Maybe a large near-monopolist like Google could get their shit together and use their market dominance for good. But no, Android users get shitty overheating phones that can barely run AR at 30fps, if the apps run at all because all the underlying tech is no longer maintained.
- they keep key innovations to themselves. They beat Apple to AR navigation, but fuck developers who want that.
Oh, and btw, for people who want to do cross-platform work, Google massively fucking up AR has held everyone back. iOS is ready for top-notch AR years ago, but it’s a tough pill for people to swallow when you have to drop support for all android. Google is holding the industry back.
I hope Google gets fucked as bad as they’ve been fucking their users and developer partners.
ARKit (iOS) works. It works well. They’ve built the groundwork by pushing out LiDAR. They’ve continued to advance the SDK. Key capabilities, like map-based geolocation are SDK-level features, rather than being reserved as Google Maps exclusives. They’ve made sure their phones and tablets have high quality cameras, compasses, and GNSS receivers, so the experience works better. They’ve made sure their devices have the horsepower to run AR experiences at 60fps, even with overhead from recording and streaming and multitasking. Edit: how did I forget about spatial audio? Spatial audio is a key capability of the iOS ecosystem (AirPods) that Google probably doesn’t have the imagination or coordination to execute on.
Google. Google has:
- made a list of the devices supporting ARCore, because they can’t manage their device ecosystem
- kills key APIs and SDKs (SceneForm) after heavily promoting them. Doesn’t update its doc and deprecates API with not guidance on replacements. “Just copy and paste hundreds of lines of OpenGL code from the samples” they say. ffs
- they still continue to push out devices that can’t keep up. Is it Qualcomm‘a fault? Maybe. Somehow Apple doesn’t have that problem. Mysterious. Maybe a large near-monopolist like Google could get their shit together and use their market dominance for good. But no, Android users get shitty overheating phones that can barely run AR at 30fps, if the apps run at all because all the underlying tech is no longer maintained.
- they keep key innovations to themselves. They beat Apple to AR navigation, but fuck developers who want that.
Oh, and btw, for people who want to do cross-platform work, Google massively fucking up AR has held everyone back. iOS is ready for top-notch AR years ago, but it’s a tough pill for people to swallow when you have to drop support for all android. Google is holding the industry back.
I hope Google gets fucked as bad as they’ve been fucking their users and developer partners.
> “Just copy and paste hundreds of lines of OpenGL code from the samples” they say. ffs
For example, the Metal frameworks versus copying Vulkan samples from a random Google GitHub repo.
The last migration guide from Renderscript into Vulkan compute is a sour joke.
For example, the Metal frameworks versus copying Vulkan samples from a random Google GitHub repo.
The last migration guide from Renderscript into Vulkan compute is a sour joke.
> They’ve built the groundwork by pushing out LiDAR.
I'm convinced the LiDAR on phones is apple's big beta test of lidar on AR Glasses - to potentially avoid adding a camera and the related controversy associated with it.
I'm convinced the LiDAR on phones is apple's big beta test of lidar on AR Glasses - to potentially avoid adding a camera and the related controversy associated with it.
Google had the head start here with Glass, and then in classic Google fashion they let it die.
I'm always baffled how bad is Google at playing long term games. Their biggest mistake with Glass was trying to productize it too fast and stopping when they saw it didn't have good consumer fit.
They could have instead go more incremental by releasing developer hardware and learning from that. They could have kept that program small and nimble, but instead they pivoted into some bizarre enterprise program that has always gave me the impression of a "save face" move. Weird company.
I'm always baffled how bad is Google at playing long term games. Their biggest mistake with Glass was trying to productize it too fast and stopping when they saw it didn't have good consumer fit.
They could have instead go more incremental by releasing developer hardware and learning from that. They could have kept that program small and nimble, but instead they pivoted into some bizarre enterprise program that has always gave me the impression of a "save face" move. Weird company.
Android Things was a great example how bad they are.
1 - Remove Java layer from AOSP
2 - Add C++ frameworks as replacement
3 - Call it Brillo and show it at Linux Plummers
4 - Bring Android layer back with restrictions, call it Android Things
5 - Add back the capability to write drivers with NDK (lost in Brillo - Things transition).
6 - Let it stagnate for around one year
7 - Kill the project.
1 - Remove Java layer from AOSP
2 - Add C++ frameworks as replacement
3 - Call it Brillo and show it at Linux Plummers
4 - Bring Android layer back with restrictions, call it Android Things
5 - Add back the capability to write drivers with NDK (lost in Brillo - Things transition).
6 - Let it stagnate for around one year
7 - Kill the project.
Even Google Wave could be another example of this.
They killed it almost instantly? This was before Slack, discord, etc.
They killed it almost instantly? This was before Slack, discord, etc.
An invite only collaboration tool? How could it have failed!
People start with the assumption that Google folks are very wise. Why? This assumption just makes it more difficult to explain their bad decisions.
As long as Ads keeps bringing in billions, there is little incentive to think long term.
People laughed when Steve Balmer went on stage and started dancing around like a crazy man singing "Developers, developers, developers!" but that's what Microsoft gets right and Google gets wrong. As a developer, I have no confidence that Google will stick with anything. With Microsoft, I can still create a Windows Forms program. Heck, I could write a DOS program and it will still work in Windows 11. I'm currently learning Microsoft's Blazor because I have no confidence that Google will keeping putting resources into Flutter and Dart (once their internal needs are met, they tend to stop is how I perceive it.)
Microsoft bought Github and improved it. In addition to Visual Studio and C#, Microsoft developed VSCode and TypeScript. Microsoft pours a lot of love into Azure, WSL, and PowerShell. We know where they're going with things.
Google considers us a stretch goal and will deprioritize and defund if developer revenue metrics aren't reached. Google developed Go (mixed feelings) and Dart (meh). GCP was once considered expendable. At the heart of it, they're still an ads company.
Microsoft gets it. Google doesn't.
Google considers us a stretch goal and will deprioritize and defund if developer revenue metrics aren't reached. Google developed Go (mixed feelings) and Dart (meh). GCP was once considered expendable. At the heart of it, they're still an ads company.
Microsoft gets it. Google doesn't.
Microsoft mostly gets it, when WinDev vs DevDiv politics don't spoil the roadmap, like on WinRT/UAP/UWP/WinUI chaos, killing .NET Native and C++/CX without proper replacements (.NET 7 might get proper AOT back and C++/WinRT is a time travel to the ATL golden days), or the current war on which GUI framework is supposed to win the day.
They seem to have gotten infected with Google style management as new blood took the reigns of product development.
They seem to have gotten infected with Google style management as new blood took the reigns of product development.
I find Google is really good at taking projects that work and building the infrastructure around it to keep it working.
They suck at innovation though.
They suck at innovation though.
As an Android developer and early Glass explorer it pains me to say that I agree with a lot of the comments here.
I was having a conversation with someone connected to the upper execs there one time who explained this to me. They said that Google could generate the same amount of profit with a small fraction of the staff it currently has. The thing is though, the stock price would not be nearly as high and they have to keep the buzz going, by pushing out a lot of bets to pump up the stock. All that they need is enough perception of innovation to make wall street happy. So that is what they have done, and as a bonus a large part of salaries are paid with stock which allows them to keep the ponzi (my term not, theirs) scheme going.
Up until a few years ago most developers loved Google, but they have systematically done a lot of things to piss off a large number of them and you don't see nearly as much Google love these days. The big question is will that negative sentiment eventually affect the stock price? I know that I would personally like to see more competition in the search space (which is their bread and butter) and have less Google lobbyists in Washington DC. Also, great companies eventually do falter. The question is, will Google's fall be as fast as it's rise? Time will tell.
I was having a conversation with someone connected to the upper execs there one time who explained this to me. They said that Google could generate the same amount of profit with a small fraction of the staff it currently has. The thing is though, the stock price would not be nearly as high and they have to keep the buzz going, by pushing out a lot of bets to pump up the stock. All that they need is enough perception of innovation to make wall street happy. So that is what they have done, and as a bonus a large part of salaries are paid with stock which allows them to keep the ponzi (my term not, theirs) scheme going.
Up until a few years ago most developers loved Google, but they have systematically done a lot of things to piss off a large number of them and you don't see nearly as much Google love these days. The big question is will that negative sentiment eventually affect the stock price? I know that I would personally like to see more competition in the search space (which is their bread and butter) and have less Google lobbyists in Washington DC. Also, great companies eventually do falter. The question is, will Google's fall be as fast as it's rise? Time will tell.
I think we're getting closer to a time where smaller players can start competing in the search engine space.
Recently here on HN someone launched a search editor for small, niche, seo-free, old, content/text-heavy websites. It's useful because it serves a specific purpose, and can give you very different but useful results due to how it presents its results.
Storage is getting cheap, scaling is a solved-ish problem, ML and AI make simple to empjoy intelligent search easier than ever.
Of course, the solution is not to come up with a slightly tweaked google clone (like bing, duckduckgo, ...) but something that's more in the realm of reimagining what search means and does. I don't think it's wise to fight Google at its own game.
Recently here on HN someone launched a search editor for small, niche, seo-free, old, content/text-heavy websites. It's useful because it serves a specific purpose, and can give you very different but useful results due to how it presents its results.
Storage is getting cheap, scaling is a solved-ish problem, ML and AI make simple to empjoy intelligent search easier than ever.
Of course, the solution is not to come up with a slightly tweaked google clone (like bing, duckduckgo, ...) but something that's more in the realm of reimagining what search means and does. I don't think it's wise to fight Google at its own game.
I think this is the one you're talking about? https://search.marginalia.nu/
Yep, marginalia for sure! It's great. I will bookmark it this time :x
This might actually be one of the most exciting things about web3. A network of decentralized nodes whose maintainers get paid to operate (somewhat) is a big part of building a global-scale search engine. I'm still learning about web3 and might be wrong here.
So it seems like the tech giants may be in a race towards creating the "metaverse", or "metaverses". As a kid this would have been an incredibly exciting idea, but instead this kind of news creates a weird feeling in the bottom of my stomach. That's mostly for two reasons:
1. It seems like efforts so far towards creating the metaverse are heavily focused on reproducing the inequalities and status heirarchies we have in this reality. What's the point of escaping into a virtual world if it's just another place to get on a status treadmill?
2. Is there any chance that this is going to be an open, standards-based system like the current internet? It seems like this will almost certainly be a walled garden, or a set of walled gardens tightly controlled by a few powerful corporations. Will the open web be "legacy" which is gradually fazed out?
Even Niel Stephenson's metaverse in Snow Crash was not this dystopian.
1. It seems like efforts so far towards creating the metaverse are heavily focused on reproducing the inequalities and status heirarchies we have in this reality. What's the point of escaping into a virtual world if it's just another place to get on a status treadmill?
2. Is there any chance that this is going to be an open, standards-based system like the current internet? It seems like this will almost certainly be a walled garden, or a set of walled gardens tightly controlled by a few powerful corporations. Will the open web be "legacy" which is gradually fazed out?
Even Niel Stephenson's metaverse in Snow Crash was not this dystopian.
It’s not gonna be like we image it now: virtual places where people gather. It’s going to be the twitter feed equivalent of an online world: tailored to you and your preferences to maximize engagement.
It definitely won't be like Second Life, even though that is exactly what it should be (for better or worse).
With the sky filled with ads.
It seems that Google is hiring engineers so that they will be ready when Apple launches the AR/VR device.
Within one year after the Apple launch, Google has copied and launched their own version. It won't run as smoothly, but it's cheaper. So, anyone who can't afford to buy the Apple product will buy the Google product.
And this is how the duopoly will live forever..
Within one year after the Apple launch, Google has copied and launched their own version. It won't run as smoothly, but it's cheaper. So, anyone who can't afford to buy the Apple product will buy the Google product.
And this is how the duopoly will live forever..
Overly optimistic. Google can't even copy successful products anymore. See smartwatches.
Or Pixel phones. It’s ridiculous that they still can’t distribute them globally. I live in the Netherlands and can’t purchase one anywhere without crossing the border. And if it breaks (which pixels often do) no warranty support.
How can this be company like Google ?
How can this be company like Google ?
I have Google announcement fatigue. It's just so pointless to get excited about anything they say they're working on. I wonder how employees feel after spending years working on a new product only to see it tossed aside and forgotten. Years of their life wasted, discarded like they never mattered in the first place. It makes me shudder to imagine that as a possible trajectory my life could have taken. I mourn for any of the multiverse versions of me that lived that experience.
There has been no announcement. This is Ars reporting on a blog post on somebody reporting on a job posting.
Although likely a fast follower of Apple and FB, I think Google will be able to monetize their eye-tracking attention models of VR/MR users more effectively than Apple using their current advertising knowledge and user trust. FB will probably be more aggressive, but has lost a lot of trust so may not capture the younger more valuable users.
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-154/marketing-strate...
Your ability to not click to avoid future advertising will no longer be effective. They will learn exactly what distracts the most of your (visual) attention to ads and will target you with the most effective ads for your attention model. Then they will sell that model to their advertisers to develop more effective ads for your cohort based on value. Your visual saccades (the order, time, return rate) are not really consciously controllable, while they provide huge insight into both your past exposure and future interest images and ideas.
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-154/marketing-strate...
Your ability to not click to avoid future advertising will no longer be effective. They will learn exactly what distracts the most of your (visual) attention to ads and will target you with the most effective ads for your attention model. Then they will sell that model to their advertisers to develop more effective ads for your cohort based on value. Your visual saccades (the order, time, return rate) are not really consciously controllable, while they provide huge insight into both your past exposure and future interest images and ideas.
Augmented reality from an advertiser? No thanks. Sounds like something straight out of a dystpoian sci-fi story.
As Fry once said, "Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!"
I totally agree but VR from an advertiser that's about as moral as a cigarette company seems to be doing ok and a market leader.
Facebook didn't make oculus, they bought it. So far their main contributions have been to require a Facebook account, and halt development on the next generation flagship PC headset in favor of budget android based VR.
IMO racing to the bottom on price when the products still have FOV issues and low frame rates is a huge misstep. It doesn't matter how compelling Facebook's metaverse platform is if the hardware sucks.
IMO racing to the bottom on price when the products still have FOV issues and low frame rates is a huge misstep. It doesn't matter how compelling Facebook's metaverse platform is if the hardware sucks.
Creating a minimum viable product at a lower price point was the the whole magic behind the first Oculus. There had been better quality virtual reality headsets before that, but bringing the price all the way into the consumer range changed the game. You may prefer higher performing, top-of-the-line-computer-requiring, headsets at a higher price point but consumer VR is a new and fast growing market segment. Any company spending their effort on such a headset is likely to find a vanishing market, as the quality of cheaper wireless devices will improve much faster than high end ones.
Don't forget, the low end always eats the high end.
Don't forget, the low end always eats the high end.
Go and Quest the standalone headsets that don't require a PC were developed after getting bought by Facebook.
Quest 2 is 120hz screen same as Index. And due to slightly smaller FOV a higher resolution than Index.
Quest hardware doesn't suck though. The future of VR/AR is absolutely wireless and absolutely NOT PC based. PC VR is a niche market and always will be. I have a Rift and rarely use because who wants to be tied to a wired device that you can't see? Facebook has made a ton of mistakes and I'm really not fan but working on the Quest that was not one of them.
> in favor of budget android based VR.
But it can still work with a host PC and it has a higher res screen so whats wrong with it?
But it can still work with a host PC and it has a higher res screen so whats wrong with it?
Sure, but I don't use that one, either.
Everybody else can do as they please, but I'm fine without it.
Everybody else can do as they please, but I'm fine without it.
We're going to get to a point where instead of advertisers paying per click they'll pay per look since the glasses will be able to track eyeballs. Hell, there might be a premium that pays "x" per every millisecond spent looking at the ad.
Click farms are going to be soooo creepy. Bunch of disembodied heads on a shelf with the eyes flicking back and forth
That doesn't sound dystopian at all. Got to love capitalism!
This, but unironically. Under alternative systems you aren't going to choose what to look at
Could you expand on this? There are many economic/political systems in which people have more freedom than in capitalism.
No need to expand on religious beliefs. All it takes is faith.
Incredible claims require incredible proof.
In this case, I'd probably settle for even a single real-world example.
You can't use hypothetical systems here because the implied power structures created will be utilized by actual humans.
In this case, I'd probably settle for even a single real-world example.
You can't use hypothetical systems here because the implied power structures created will be utilized by actual humans.
That's all subjective. What is freedom to you? Which one is freer: choosing and working to buy a house or having the absolute certainty you'll always have a house? Which one is more liberating? If you had that certainty, would you abandon your current job and write poetry?
Yes, it's so important for me to choose between 16 different brands of the same thing, all owned by two massive monopoly megacorporations. Get bent.
Washing powder is the canonical example of this.
If an overabundance of detergent brands are the "canonical example" of the future-present dystopia, I think we're gonna be fine.
Will that be Google's 68th Operating System or 69th I forget how many they are up to now. /s
> But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/characters/nm0048127
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/characters/nm0048127
I sure hope they create a new programming language for it too!
Well, someone has to get promoted!
> Google's 68th Operating System or 69th
Maybe those are iterations for them
Maybe those are iterations for them
Take it slow Google. You’ll have to redo it anyways once Apple announces theirs.
I'll believe it when I see it - they may shut it down at any time to funnel more investments into tracking, ads, lobbying and PR.
The scary thing is, people are actually going to trust Google to augment their reality.
Google was an investor in Magic Heap(Leap). One of the early developers for Google was an angel investor in it and those connections lead to the Google investment, among others. Magic Leap just has a down round where they raised 500 million at a 2 billion valuation, roughly the same valuation they had when they raised ~500 million a few years ago. So they are also competing with themselves on a project that has mostly generated losses. (edited for clarity)
But it's Google, so the program will be canceled after a disappointing beta.
And appropriating a bunch of search terms.
Reserve a plot in their graveyard.
> We're still likely a decade or more away from mass consumer adoption of AR devices
Both Ars and Google seem a little behind the eight ball here (or a lot?). Do they realise that there are completely functional AR apps today on the Meta Quest store? Real apps where you can interact with virtual 3d objects in your own living room. I set up my own dojo with japanese decorations on all my office walls so that when I'm fighting my virtual opponent it has the right vibe. This is real, on a device in the low hundreds of dollars and owned already by millions.
I really think the media bought it's own hype 5 years ago when it went in hard on the "VR is dead" meme. All the while Facebook was changing the fundamentals of the game with a low cost portable device that all the enthusiasts snobbishly dismissed but regular consumers love.
Both Ars and Google seem a little behind the eight ball here (or a lot?). Do they realise that there are completely functional AR apps today on the Meta Quest store? Real apps where you can interact with virtual 3d objects in your own living room. I set up my own dojo with japanese decorations on all my office walls so that when I'm fighting my virtual opponent it has the right vibe. This is real, on a device in the low hundreds of dollars and owned already by millions.
I really think the media bought it's own hype 5 years ago when it went in hard on the "VR is dead" meme. All the while Facebook was changing the fundamentals of the game with a low cost portable device that all the enthusiasts snobbishly dismissed but regular consumers love.
Next stop for Fuschia?
Surprised to see this is the only comment (yet) mentioning Fuschia.
While I'm not hopeful for it being a community OS, I'm nonetheless interested in seeing the direction it moves in putting pressure on libre operating systems.
While I'm not hopeful for it being a community OS, I'm nonetheless interested in seeing the direction it moves in putting pressure on libre operating systems.
Mine allow me to see a future where:
The product is a flop because they forgot to make it cool, this is obvious to everyone with half a clue, but apparently not the super smart people who run the the project at google. The company throws good money after bad for years and then ultimately shutters the thing leaving behind a rabid handful of fans who (rightly) argue the google version was way better technology than anything else out there, but those fans are ultimately abandoned and forgotten just like all the other times.
Oh wait no, that was just me remembering the last five times they failed at something like this.
Oh wait no, that was just me remembering the last five times they failed at something like this.
I thought a lot about the comments here today, it's not often you see so much anger about just the mere insinuation that a company may possibly release what essentially seems like an IoT product.
I had trouble thinking of why the possibility of this being true would enrage so many, when you have no obligation to even buy it if it does become real.
The best reason I can think of is that a lot of people were genuinely excited at Google glass or daydream when it was still budding, and want to see cool/impressive tech exist but are jaded by the previous emotional investments that didn't pay off.
The best reason I can think of is that a lot of people were genuinely excited at Google glass or daydream when it was still budding, and want to see cool/impressive tech exist but are jaded by the previous emotional investments that didn't pay off.
Google - churn and obsolescence as a service.
Isn't it all similar to Microsoft's efforts in mobile devices? I mean gates tried really hard to create a windows on a mobile device. Nokia and co tried by the way as well. Then came apple from nowhere with the first iphone.
I bet something like this happens again, so I don't think it will be facebook, google, or apple. Ok maybe apple. But I would rather bet a good working device will come unexpected and will make a huge impact - like the iphone did.
I bet something like this happens again, so I don't think it will be facebook, google, or apple. Ok maybe apple. But I would rather bet a good working device will come unexpected and will make a huge impact - like the iphone did.
[deleted]
Google cannot do anything except search and ads. Every other project they did was a failure. I have absolutely zero trust in any new product they release.
Recently moved from more than a decade on Android to iPhone. Once the Stockholm syndrome wore off I realized how pathetically behind they are on mobile.
Hi! I'm a very happy iPhone user (and Mac + Apple Watch + AirPods, you name it...), but I'm surprised by your comment....could you elaborate? In what way do you think that google is pathetically behind?
I've always seen it as just a different ecosystem with different ideas. I look forward to reading what you have to say!!
I've always seen it as just a different ecosystem with different ideas. I look forward to reading what you have to say!!
I own Android devices, but also deal with iOS at work.
Basically the way they screwed Java developers with their pseudo compatible implementation, an horrible NDK experience, even after 10 years the best you can do to interop between userspace and NDK is via JNI code that you have to write yourself.
Given that they created their own pseudo Java, they could have also created something else other than JNI for Dalvik/ART, but no they didn't.
While Apple provides a full stack development experience, on Android you usually have to go fetch Java, C and C++ libraries to gain productivity back on top of the bare bone APIs that Google provides.
The whole Jetpack libraries effort only started after several years of complaints, it took them until 2020 to finally release a game developers SDK (which is a joke versus something like Sprite/SceneKit).
If iOS and Android were Linux desktops, with iOS you get XFCE/GNOME/KDE dev experience, while Android you are looking forward to something like fvwm instead.
Basically the way they screwed Java developers with their pseudo compatible implementation, an horrible NDK experience, even after 10 years the best you can do to interop between userspace and NDK is via JNI code that you have to write yourself.
Given that they created their own pseudo Java, they could have also created something else other than JNI for Dalvik/ART, but no they didn't.
While Apple provides a full stack development experience, on Android you usually have to go fetch Java, C and C++ libraries to gain productivity back on top of the bare bone APIs that Google provides.
The whole Jetpack libraries effort only started after several years of complaints, it took them until 2020 to finally release a game developers SDK (which is a joke versus something like Sprite/SceneKit).
If iOS and Android were Linux desktops, with iOS you get XFCE/GNOME/KDE dev experience, while Android you are looking forward to something like fvwm instead.
In short, android is a laggy mess. I was so used to it I stopped noticing. Lag while scrolling, lag while switching apps, lag while typing. The UI is also unpolished, and again I was so used to it I didn’t see it. On switching to iPhone, the SE, not a flagship 12 or 13, I realized that nearly every touch had an instant response. The UI also has very fine tuned visual and haptic feedback and overall polish and consistency. I still have my last flagship Moto and the moment I used it again I realized I had a 20% failure rate on UI actions like app switching because they were just badly designed. And lastly, the hardware is just top notch for a midrange phone, excellent camera and the very fast soc loads complex websites near instantly in a way I’ve never seen another phone or even windows laptop do. Android and iOS may do the same things, but iOS runs circles around Android while doing it. This is the premiere product of a trillion dollar company and it absolutely shows.
I had some weird Google loyalty from the good old days. I can’t believe i suffered on their second rate platform for so long. I’m currently still suffering on Voice and Gmail and should probably completely move on. I should probably go ahead and buy one of these M1 MacBooks people have been talking about too.
I had some weird Google loyalty from the good old days. I can’t believe i suffered on their second rate platform for so long. I’m currently still suffering on Voice and Gmail and should probably completely move on. I should probably go ahead and buy one of these M1 MacBooks people have been talking about too.
I'd add email. But your overall point stands.
It seems glasses like these will be inevitable at some point, whether from Google or someone else.
How will we have any privacy at all in a future where anyone could be recording you and uploding that data to some cloud? All it takes is one person with them at a party, or restaurant, or busy city street.
How will we have any privacy at all in a future where anyone could be recording you and uploding that data to some cloud? All it takes is one person with them at a party, or restaurant, or busy city street.
That ship has sailed a long time ago. There is a good chance that everything you do outside of your home is being recorded by someone or something and stored somewhere. Including your neighbors' Ring cameras, traffic cameras, shop cameras, and workplace surveillance. The only saving grace so far is that it's not getting automatically uploaded to YouTube yet, but somebody has access to it.
I'm hoping that Apple releases theirs using LIDAR instead, and that sets the tone for the rest of industry.
Google doesn't really build things or have product management. They need to acquire. So I expect them to do that if/when things get serious and they realize how far behind they are. There will probably be money to be made if we can identify the best fit names for them.
They could call it StARdia!
Good joke but perhaps offloading some of the video to the network could be a good move
I have about as much faith in this as a Twitter API.
No it isn't. Google is playing. Just like Microsoft in the early 2000's with prototypes that others look at, copy, and release.
No thank you! They already harvest enough personal data and I'm not giving them direct access to my eyeballs.
r/nottheonion
Again?
It seems that Google Glass was not ready for prime time when it launched. Now, as in the next couple of years, seems to be the inflection point for the whole ecosystem. Apple is also supposedly preparing for a launch of their glasses.
I see tremendous use cases for these glasses in all sorts of workplaces from surgery, dermatology, hair stylists, factory assembly, horticulturists to potentially nefarious uses cases like the police and military.
Welcome to the brave new meta world.
I see tremendous use cases for these glasses in all sorts of workplaces from surgery, dermatology, hair stylists, factory assembly, horticulturists to potentially nefarious uses cases like the police and military.
Welcome to the brave new meta world.
Those glasses have been used in elderly care here in Denmark for quite a while. Nurses who treat wounds use a set of glasses to document the process so they don’t have to switch in and out of gloves a million times.
I wouldn’t too much about the big American advertisement companies getting a lead on it, considering how little they are trusted outside the US in anything related to enterprise.
Those glasses I mentioned are actually Google glass if I recall correctly, but with some completely different software because naturally you can’t use Google software to document patient data in the EU.
I wouldn’t too much about the big American advertisement companies getting a lead on it, considering how little they are trusted outside the US in anything related to enterprise.
Those glasses I mentioned are actually Google glass if I recall correctly, but with some completely different software because naturally you can’t use Google software to document patient data in the EU.
> I wouldn’t too much about the big American advertisement companies getting a lead on it, considering how little they are trusted outside the US
Given how much Apple is leaning on healthcare, they might actually be able to break into this market if they ever release their own glasses.
Given how much Apple is leaning on healthcare, they might actually be able to break into this market if they ever release their own glasses.
You mean the brave new meta walled garden?
Yeah let me know when the designer drugs that build the cognitive awareness of AR, without all the dumb gadgets, are available.
I’m sure we could simulate experience through detailed hallucinations, methods that leave behind the neural structures, reinforcing belief through social story telling. That’s how religion worked.
Everyone is obsessed with making experience happen through technology as if it’s more real to our memory down the road, when it never happened for anyone who wasn’t there.
I’m sure we could simulate experience through detailed hallucinations, methods that leave behind the neural structures, reinforcing belief through social story telling. That’s how religion worked.
Everyone is obsessed with making experience happen through technology as if it’s more real to our memory down the road, when it never happened for anyone who wasn’t there.
Can they fix Android first? Since years I don't have LTE internet when Android connected to a Wifi but I haven't signed in.
Are you kidding? How is that going to get me a promotion to L7?
Considering how Google’s treated AR and VR in the last 10 years, hyping people up then quietly pulling back support and finally cancellation after just 2-3 years, I don’t see this going well.
They had a toehold 6-10 years ago which they could have easily kept iterating on and making small marketshare gains, but I guess that wasn’t good enough. Now instead of entering 2022 with 10-20% marketshare, a mature platform, and developer/user mindshare, they’re starting the new year with none of that and the idea “Hey maybe we should try AR/VR stuff again.”
Get bent Google. You shouldn’t have cancelled Daydream and killed the small amount of goodwill you were starting to cultivate. Lenovo got burned, developers got burned, users got burned. And they still want to try again?
Instead of taking your Google Glass ball and running home with it after everyone was mean about the idea, maybe listen to the feedback and change the product? But no, despite Glass being introduced almost purely around consumer-targeted ideas and concepts, it’s now an “Enterprise” product out of reach of us mere mortals.
ARCore, with its many naming and branding changes, has also failed to catch on like Google hyped.
Google, you’re charging into battle with Apple and Zuck and you got a dildo made of American cheese. Good luck.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkXnLUpXgAEz6Yg.jpg (via HBO's Succession)