Hacker News Reader

Comment by sixQuarks | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe some people are saying VR is a fad, that it's not going to work, etc, etc. Are you kidding me?

The only real question is how long it's going to take before it's fully integrated into our daily lives, there is absolutely no doubt this will happen (unless we somehow go backwards technologically, due to world war or some other unforeseen event).

It may not happen for another 10-15 years, but it WILL happen.

The term "virtual reality" is actually selling the technology short. Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality, it allows you to defy the laws of physics and expand into new dimensions and "realities". Replicating "reality" is only a small part of what it's capable of.

View on HN

I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you.

You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches.

VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more.

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.

> VR doesn't even replicate reality

What device and apps did you try? Did you try room-scale? VR controllers?

Whenever I watch movies in my virtual living room I drop things on the ground because I try to put them on a table that isn't really there.

> let alone do more

I can watch movies on huge screens. I can take a dive underwater. Go in space. Shoot zombies. Talk to real people around a campfire.

Pay more attention to reality and you will notice that it does way more than current VR gadgets offer.

My computer doesn't perfectly replace reality either, it must be a fad.

My computer doesn't literally claim to be Virtual Reality either though - so that's a bit of a straw man. That's like saying my car doesn't perfectly replace reality either, clearly nobody ever claimed it would...

Well I mean if it was reality it would be called "reality". It's a virtual representation of reality, which is why it's called "virtual reality". A video game isn't the real world, it's a virtual representation of a world, so it's called a "virtual world". And Nintendo's head-mounted video game system from the 90s wasn't a real boy, it was a "virtual boy".

What I'm getting at is this argument stems from semantics. Of course VR is never going to replace the real world. That was never its intent. The goal is to not replace reality but rather to simulate it. That's why the name has "virtual" in it.

Idk dude, VR headsets have already sold to millions of consumers and new applications pop up by the day. Not only that, but unlike most of the technologies you mentioned, VR has massive backing already from some of the most powerful companies in tech.

It has billions in investment already, FB is putting hundreds of millions into Oculus and funding applications/games. HTC has basically pivoted their entire company to the Vive.

This isn't going away, VR/AR is going to replace current keyboard/mouse/screen interfaces, because why wouldn't it? The aforementioned are even further from replicating what I am trying to do on a computer. Why do I have to move a mouse in two dimensions or tap on a flat display to interact with many concepts much easier to work with in 3D?

None of that means it will succeed.

Apple Watch sold millions, and it's about to fail. Same with all the other smartwatches.

VR is going away, since it's such a terrible user experience compared to laptops/desktops/smartphones.

This is a strange post to me.

First, where's the evidence that the Apple Watch is about to fail? Every day I keep seeing more and more Apple Watches in the wild. Just the other day I was getting lunch and noticed that at the table next to me every single person had an Apple Watch on. Every time there's a get-together in my family, I notice one or two extra relatives who've ended up getting one. That's pretty impressive for something that's on the verge of failure. It actually feels comparable with how smartphones slowly started assimilating into our lives years ago.

Second, consumer VR right now is for video games, period. Maybe that will change later on, but that's what VR is all about right now. So comparing it to laptops/desktops/smartphones seems strange. What are the dimensions of this comparison? Turning on Steam VR, then putting on the headset doesn't feel all that different to me from turning on the TV, then sitting down on the sofa.

2016 VR sales were below almost everyone's predictions. Rift and Vive under 500K units. PlayStation under 1M (with market analysts backtracking on their estimates last month).

For FB, I see it as a moonshot project much like the various things Google does. Being a moonshot project doesn't guarantee you success.

As for investments, I think we've entered an era where everyone is afraid of being disrupted by a startup or missing out on a unicorn. Now, you have large companies putting money into VR projects and VCs scrambling to fund anything VR-related. I think a similar thing happened with smart watches and wearables.

I don't know enough about the state of VR interfaces for work, but it seems ideal for specialized industries (medicine, military, etc.).

> "VR doesn't even replicate reality"

if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if.

if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.

See my other comment. That was a specific reply to the notion that:

> Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...

He/she is saying "VR replicates reality and more", while I'm saying "no, VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone anything beyond it"

No need to get pedantic about the grammar.

not trying to be a pedant and i completely understood the context. we're talking about tense, not grammar. there is a huge difference between saying "VR is not good right now" and "VR will never be good".

"Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality"

i'm assuming OP meant "VR [has the possibility to] not merely replicate reality." or "[ideally] VR can not merely replicate reality...".

we're trying to predict a trend- how well developed the technology is now seems less relevant than it's end-game.

The current crop of companies can experience something similar to the video game crash of 1983. I also agree that the "VR will change everything" hype is baseless - 3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications. Though as an entertainment technology the experience is so compelling that it is hard to imagine that it won't become massively popular eventually.

To provide some references for my assertion that "3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications," there are a lot of systems that have been tried in the 1990s and 2000s, most of which you can try out today to see why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) (Free Software clone: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project

The one big non-entertainment application that 3d worlds are good at has been teleconferencing. There are a bunch of what are essentially 3d chat clients around, and many more have gone out of business.

Yes, all of the past technologies you listed, I was bearish on. If you have tried the current crop of VR and don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. Come back to this thread 10 years from now so i can say "I told you so".

> VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more.

Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad.

It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether or this is the point it's viable.

I just got a Gear VR last week and while it's not perfect it feels like the right point and that's just powered by my cell phone.

I was riff'ing off the parent user's comment that:

> Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...

That's a fair point; the entire point of VR is that it isn't reality.

I wouldn't include LaserDisks on that list. It was replaced by DVDs which I believe are close enough in practice to not consider it a failed technology. More of a first iteration.

3D TV didn't last long. I never got one and didn't really see the appeal but I wonder if widespread use of VR headsets would make that technology mute anyway.

> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches.

I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing.

I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2.

This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and not in the way Laserdisc had it's "enthusiasts" - it's the kind of tech that makes people want to switch careers.

I think it's fortunate that VR has coincided with the rise of crowdfunding and the renaissance of indie devs. That is going to help see it through it's difficult early patch.

Laserdisc failed because of cost/competition from competing platforms. 3D TVs were an add-on to a commodity product to help differentiate it in a technologically stagnate market. Google glass was experimental.

VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products.

It seems like there are already enough early adopters to fuel the growth it will require (product-wise) to get mainstream adoption.

As others have mentioned, this has only scratched the surface in the consumer market. But the B2B applications are so wide that this could be huge there alone in terms of simulation, training, and business process automation.

I doubt someones poor experience with some early stage VR tech is enough to discredit the wider potential of the platform. Even if the consumer gaming side is niche for another half decade.

Ok, so what other mainstream product/technology went through a similar evolution as you claim VR is doing now? Recall 2 things:

1. VR has been tried in the past and went nowhere.

2. Adoption of mainstream things is usually pretty steep (cell phones, PCs, TV, Internet access)[1]

If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it.

Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles).

You say niche for half a decade ... he says an "explosion" in less than 2 years. I don't get it.

[1] http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ

> If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it.

I'm not saying that it's a mainframe. In regards to the consumer market I think it is the personal computer but rather a PC with Windows 3.1, while the market is waiting for Windows 95 - and the explosion in software that came with it.

> Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles).

PC's are a commodity product but not the software that runs on them. Which is why one generates trillions more dollars than the other.

Yeah, people are so near sighted. This is basically like people thinking solvent is not going to work. Are you kidding me? 5 years from now solvent is going to be the biggest market ever. I hope food industry survives.. if only for antique sake.

I think VR is just a stepping stone for true mixed reality, which most people confuse with AR but is really a mixture of the two. I doubt we will see VR-only games 10 years from now outside of dedicated arcade-like settings ala The Void, where you go and don the equipment necessary to to do this in a large space with convincing realism and with a group of people. The benefits of room scale pure VR are only properly realized in relatively carefully controlled settings. Mixed reality on the other hand can allow for a much wider range of experiences in a wider range of settings.

Our children are going to look back and laugh at existing headgear just like the transition from CRT to LCD ... hopefully direct brain/retinal input will happen in my lifetime :)

I wish my first thought after this concept hadn't been "not until there's RetinAdblock"

I am not sure what you mean by "happen" but as far as I am concerned, it is already happening. In 10-15 years, it will probably be as pervasive as a smart phone.

IDK, 3D movies have been with us for at least 50 years or more.

People's tolerance for putting stuff on their face seems to amount to a few hours, about once or twice a year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com