Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnTHaller | Hacker News Reader

Curious why a user would opt for this over a Google daydream given that it's near certain they already have a mobile device. Granted for iPhone users or mid/low end Android users with lower resolution screens it would be more cost effective than buying a mobile device with a good qhd screen.

View on HN

Possibilities: * User has an iPhone * User has a lower-end phone that can't run this * User has a different phone OS (Windows Phone, Sailfish OS, etc) * User's phone doesn't have long enough battery life while running 3d apps

Mine would be “user doesn’t trust Google”

I don’t trust they’ll support it, develop it, focus on it, iterate on it, etc

and that’s without getting into trusting their ecosystem and privacy issues.

I trust google less than I trust almost any other large tech company.

"user doesn't trust Google but trusts Facebook" is a very slim slice of the population

As I said - that's without getting into the Privacy angles.

Facebook hasn't burned their trust in their support of their new products like Google has. In fact, if anything, they have a better track record for that (granted, via acquisition, but still).

I know many non-technical types that refuse to adopt Google's new products because they don't trust them to stick around. Outside of their core Google Docs suite they have a real perception problem.

The fiasco that was Google Glass hurt them too. Android support is... weak at best (and yes, that's not all Google's fault but they own the brand so they own the backlash).

They just aren't a company you can trust in their products.

Facebook killed Parse, so it’s not all roses

True, didn’t mean to imply that, but to be fair: Parse was much much less known as a product than glass/reader/wave/igoogle/buzz/talk/zeitgeist/answers... etc

Not having to surrender your phone to use it is a big motivating factor. Setup is much quicker, and when you're done with it you plug it in and go back to your (still charged) phone. Or, you know, you could let your kids use the headset and watch cat videos on your phone at the same time.

when i was working at fb, i specifically got a s7 as a work phone to use with gear vr to dogfood and i found the phone-insertion experience to be rather annoying. it was so annoying, in fact, that i would just leave my s7 in the gear vr and continued to use my personal phone, an iphone, for everything. the only reason i took it out was to charge it when it died after an hour of use.

i used to be deeply skeptical of the idea of these standalone vr units, but it's good to see oculus exploring it.

Because they already have an Andorid phone, but it isn't one of the expensive few that are compatible with Daydream.

https://vr.google.com/daydream/smartphonevr/phones/

Daydream quality compared to even the Gear VR isn't great. And here is a complete stand-alone system for $100 more -- it seems like a great deal.

Facebook. Although an open platform the goal here is to sell you advertisements. They can sell this platform much like a console. In ad revenue you could be worth the cost of the headset. They could give these things away if they wanted to own the VR gadget space forever.

And that's supposed to make me want to get this thing?

Of its tracking is true 6D -Daydream motion tracking lacks in few directions. One wrong move inside daydream and instant nausea for me for rest of the day. I.e. try moving your head laterally sideways inside daydream...

They cover this target group already with the Samsung Gear VR

But as you said. Not everybody has a 1000$ phone.

Google Daydream works with phones like the Axon 7 ($380) and the Moto Z ($450) as well as the original Pixel ($549). It hardly requires a $1000 phone. It just requires something with a resolution better than 720p (mid/low end Android phones and the iPhone for that matter).

Does Daydream immersion feel like your looking through a box like cardboard does due to the fov?

I guess this will be similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com