Clay Bavor, Google's VP of VR, on His Plan to Make Virtual Reality Amazing | Hacker News Reader

Clay Bavor, Google's VP of VR, on His Plan to Make Virtual Reality Amazing

wired.com

55 pointsT-A47 comments

The technology works; the Oculus Rift is reasonably good, and the dev kit has been available since 2014. Where's the killer app?

Watching full-sphere non-interactive movies? Why? FPS games, fine, but that's not Google's business. Social interaction with or without remote-presence robots? Young people barely make voice calls; mostly they send texts, perhaps with pictures attached. Virtual worlds? Second Life supports the Oculus dev kit, but not the production product. There are some good VR roller coaster simulators, but that gets old pretty fast. Just not seeing a mass market here.

Google being into this seems like the fear of Facebook that led Google into "social" and stuck us with Google Plus.

The killer virtual reality apps are in AR, and will be for some time.

It's probably not here yet since most of the apps focus on gaming, but TiltBrush hints at it: http://www.tiltbrush.com/ I would be surprised if either AutoDesk or Adobe don't already have something in the pipeline.

Of course, most things that you can do in VR, you can most likely do in AR as well minus some immersion.

Media Molecule's Dreams is far far more impressive than TiltBrush in my opinion.

The two big things are ability to make stuff fast, far faster than TiltBrush. And, 6d input controllers (which TiltBrush also has) but Dreams has shown no need for VR for the big change in productivity.

Of course Dream's tech in VR and with a VR interface might be even more amazing but at the moment the current Dreams really runs rings around TiltBrush

Clay is one of the best Product Managers I've ever worked with. Diligent, kind, keen product insight, and with technical depth comparable to many of the best software engineers--this article doesn't even mention the research on AdaBoost he did while at Princeton. Kudos to Google for identifying a star early and promoting him to run something big!

http://foodnetwork.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/food/fullse...

Mostly joking. :) Most of us should be so lucky to have a manager like that, and I hope that I'm at least partially like that myself. :)

Having backed the DK1 and now having my consumer version sitting here for over a week, with a high-end desktop attached I have to say Oculus made a big damn mistake by releasing it without proper controllers and room tracking like the Vive.

I've tried practically anything by now but the only "Killer"-Apps that I've seen so far work better on the GearVR: Porn and other filmed experiences, but mostly Porn.

Elite Dangerous still makes me nauseous and the other games that are available are just not much more fun because of VR, it just gets in the way.

The contending killer apps seem to be on the Vive, f.e. Job Simulator and Tilt Brush to name a few, but they also still are miles away from Platform Sellers.

If i had to bet, my money would be on the GearVR and Porn.

TLDR: the VP is awesome and loves VR and is working on integrating it throughout Google properties, expect some release at I/O.

Unfortunately the revolution seems slow to arrive. Since the official release of Rift --the grand moment we were all waiting for-- VR buzz seems to be going in the wrong direction. Yes it's early, but where's the flood of devs rushing to exploit this new tech? It's miniscule compared to mobile, e.g. when iOS and iPad were released.

I was hoping this article would hit on that main point, but it was only glossed over.

It's tough for me to see the substance behind the hype with VR in general.

If we're supposed to see VR as a revolution similar to mobile, can someone make that argument for me? All I see are some cool video games.

I wouldn't compare it to mobile. IMO, current gen VR is best described as a new content medium. VR is to video what video is to recorded audio what recorded audio is to written language. Written language describes an event to an audience's imagination, recorded audio lets them hear it, video lets them see it (scaled either smaller or larger than real life, and viewed through a flat, square window), and VR astrally projects them there, for lack of a better phrase (I'm hesitant to say "takes them there" until we have haptic feedback). The immediate applications have mostly been gaming-related, but it goes beyond that. Think films that are more like stage plays where the audience member can float around and see events unfold from any angle, conference calls that give you the ability to see body language, CAD modelling done by actually walking around the object in question you're designing and manipulating it with your hands, the ability to walk around on stage at a concert next to your favorite band, to scuba dive or mountain climb or go on a safari without leaving home or being in danger.

That's part of the reason that so many people talk about needing to try VR to understand it. The experience just cannot be fundamentally conveyed via a flat screen (though I think this ad for the Vive does a great job: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYfNzhLXYGc).

VR is the first step to AR, which is generally thought of as what will mature into what will replace mobile.

In the meantime VR is still pretty nascent - we'll see Oculus Touch launched in a couple months, broad PSVR adoption. It is still early days.

I don't think that VR is the first step to AR. AR (virtual content graphically overlaid on the real world) is a fundamentally different concept and the applications are different. VR puts you in a different world, AR tells you more about (or modifies) the real world.

All the devs I've talked to at demos strike me as fanatics; meaning in my opinion they're obviously obsessed with the tech and unable in a rational way to explain why.

VR, as it is currently, is puzzling in terms of the reality of it compared to the hype.

Even if you think it's 100% hype, which I disagree with but whatever, if you've lived in the world for any amount of time I don't see why you'd find it puzzling.

>> "which I disagree with but whatever..."

Seriously consider how irrational that may sound at the very least to me; which to say if you're able to explain why VR is not hyped or why people being irrational is not puzzling - I'm happy to listen and more importantly, acknowledge that I've been unreasonable.

Otherwise, to me, your just supporting my view of the situation.

Setting aside the irony of demanding an argument considering the, uh, brevity of your post I was responding to, you've still missed my point. Attention disproportionate to substance is hype by definition and hype for new (or "new") things is not remotely uncommon, so shouldn't be puzzling. See: the Hype cycle, etc.

Fair enough, understand.

Not just currently...

The USAF experimented with synthetic-reality environments for piloting in the 1980s with projects such as VCASS. But eventually they settled upon augmented reality, as did the Army.

30 years on the 'how' of synthetic / virtual reality has advanced hugely but have we answered the 'why'?

Appears you're saying that non-commercial use is the same as commercial; disagree, story is about the commercial use of VR by mainstream users. More to the point, cost per unit including the backend costs in way beyond what a consumer would pay.

Appears you're saying that augmented (sythentic) and virtual reality are equivalents, but also state the US military has decided they're not.

Am I missing something?

One success story: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/nasa-shows-the-world-its...

Article is about mainstream commercial use of VR, not non-commercial use that would cost way more than an average consumer would ever be able to afford.

Reply was to parent's comment about Air Force and Army VR projects.

I think your view is completely reasonable because you said "as it is currently", but I think the hype can really be looked at from two angles.

1. There is a lot of hype around "where VR is going", and some people could lump AR into this as well. We can't foresee every new application the future will bring, but we can already see really interesting applications being developed. If you want examples let me know, but there are really cool applications for education, story telling, gaming (of course), and shopping already being demo'd.

2. There is probably too much hype around what we already have. Having an HMD with tracked controllers is incredibly immersive. The SteamVR trailer is probably the best way to show that without trying it, and it still falls short. I will say that without AT LEAST tracked controllers, VR feels like a gimmick.

Yes, if possible, please links to examples that are not just replacements of current user experiences; meaning that without the tech the experience would be completely missing.

Also, while I realize some will disagree, augmented and virtual reality are not the same thing; meaning my comments and the article were on VR, not AR.

On his plan to make virtual reality great again.

I have a suggestion for Wired. Instead of a splash screen that says, "We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for...." How about "Hi, as you can see, our business model is old and busted, and even though we're a publication about optimism and the future, this lame anti-blocker screen is sadly the best we can do right now. Please help us limp along until we can figure out something better by either enabling ads or paying for a subscription."

And what would be the alternative to the "old and busted" business model? I personally think advertising is a great business model. It's not because some technology (with a dubious legality) can render a business model less effective that's it necessarily old and busted.

There is no dubious legality about adblocker software. I can install whatever software I want on my computer to selectively filter whatever information I choose.

Conversely, isn't the content producer free to block or nag consumers who don't contribute back?

Perhaps they're better off not doing so, if it loses viewership, but that's the content producer's choice to make.

Of course the content producer is free to block or nag. I was just commenting on the legality of ad blockers in general (definitely legal).

“Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.” -Tyler Durden

I don't like most advertising, but humans worked to acquire status and assets long before there was advertising. In fact, they even would risk their lives and kill for them.

Do you want to see 80% of existing content creators online to die and the other 20% to keep the lights on through paygates?

Because that's what we're going to get if advertising dies.

Do you have a better business model? People have been seeking a better business model for content for the last two decades. It's not quite so easy as just saying "evolve! innovate damn you!"

Advertising is an immoral business model in the age of constant connectivity and pervasive data collection. The winners are those who do the best job of getting you to come back over and over, and the best way to do that is to addict you. Once you're hooked, they make money by selling changes in your behavior to the highest bidder.

Today's advertising industry is all about addiction and coercion. Celebrate its death.

> Do you want to see 80% of existing content creators online to die and the other 20% to keep the lights on through paygates?

YES, emphatically so and I will happily help build the coffins. They cannot die soon enough, we have massive over-coverage and not nearly enough darwinism when it comes to news websites, which is what causes clickbait headlines and shoddy quality.

I'm hoping for more around 95% death toll but that's just me.

Jon, given your history at both Ars and Wired, I'm amused that your "limp along" plan is the (current) Ars model (some pay, some small amount in block the ads, most use an ad blocker and/or private browsing).

So what constitutes something better that you've seen remotely take hold? Google Contributor? Direct per-article micropayments? Events or sponsored research? (au revoir gigaom). I'm honestly curious.

I'll accept nothing less than the holodeck on Startrek. I'm not too eager to slap a monitor on my face at this time.

If you haven't tried VR you should. It's nothing like what you'd imagine.

Speaking as an avid gamer, every VR headset looks like pure garbage next to my 4K monitor and to add insult to injury you need to beef up your machine for the privilege of a worse experience.

Screw it. They're expensive, you look incredibly stupid wearing one, you'll beat the crap out of your machine to make it work all for the joy of watching the same thing you would've been watching from a comfortable chair in 1/4 the resolution and detail on a screen rubber banded to your face.

You guys have fun, I'm sticking to the couch.

Edit: My plan is to save all the money Oculus and company want to make me spend on their rubber band screens and save it for the day the legit holodeck comes out. Everything less is just a sad imitation.

As a gamer with a 4k monitor... no.

The closest to a feeling of presence you can try right now with little effort and at lost cost is to setup track-IR with a webcam and see what you are missing out on.

"Speaking as an avid desktop user, every smartphone looks like pure garbage next to my 3 GHz processor and 16 gigs of RAM and to add insult to injury you need to power it from a battery that can run out, for the privilege of a worse experience. They're expensive, you look incredibly stupid using one, you'll beat the crap out of the processor to make it work all for the joy of running the same programs you would've been running from a comfortable chair on a superior machine, on a screen less than a quarter the size."

VR headsets are fundamentally different from a screen strapped to your face, and provide a fundamentally different experience. Rotational and positional tracking with low latency mean that your view matches how you rotate your head, as if the entire environment around you is a screen. And tracked inputs give you ways of communicating 3D data that otherwise aren't really done on computers.

The Virtual Boy was a sad imitation, and while the Rift and Vive aren't legit holodecks, you're doing yourself a disservice by writing them off completely right now. I'd recommend trying a demo if you can find someone who has them!

Ignoring whatever the hell Oculus is trying to do until their motion controllers come out, roomscale VR experiences are fundamentally different from anything that can be done on a 2D (or 3D) monitor. VR isn't at the stage where it can replace monitors for standard computer usage, but it isn't trying to do so.

I never said it was, it's routinely billed as the next generation of gaming (so much so that Steam won't shut up about it) and I think it's hooey. It's meh at it's best.

Well let's see how the Playstation VR goggles compare to Rift and Vive. I own a PS4 and preordered it, mostly because that's the setup that doesn't cost me anything extra in hardware.

Worst case it's going to be a strange looking extra monitor so the floor is pretty high imo. My network connection isn't good enough to stream 4k so for movies that's overkill and VR goggles basically give me an extra movie monitor.

> every VR headset looks like pure garbage next to my 4K monitor and to add insult to injury you need to beef up your machine for the privilege of a worse experience

if you have enough computer to drive even a relatively recent game at 4K you have plenty of machine to run VR.

> Speaking as an avid gamer, every VR headset looks like pure garbage

Have you tried any headsets? I got a free GearVR with my S7 and comparing the experience to a monitor just doesn't make any sense. With VR you get a sense of scale that a monitor just can't convey. In VR I feel that an object is right there in front of me. I can estimate its distance from me, as in 'that table is about 1 meter away'. It's a surreal feeling.

> you need to beef up your machine for the privilege of a worse experience.

Again. This doesn't make sense. The experience isn't worse. It's just different. It's so different that it's difficult to even compare monitor to HMD.

I gave my dad a demo and the sense of presence was so strong for him that he lost his balance just looking around in one of the lobbies. He's not a gamer and he had an ear to ear grin just looking around in the Oculus video lobby.

> They're expensive, you look incredibly stupid wearing one

That's true. I felt like an idiot wearing the headset.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com