Meta buys Within, the studio behind VR fitness app Supernatural
roadtovr.com
roadtovr.com
Guys, you’re just drawing correlations based on when you started paying attention. This is some serious cognitive bias going on.
I actually could complain a crap ton about running setups. With the 'death' of mp3s and the rise of streaming services, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get music on your runs without some sort of phone/smart watch. I really miss the days where it was just an iPod shuffle. They have the Mighty, which is basically Spotify playlists in iPod shuffle form, but it's poorly made. Smart watches are cool, but needs Bluetooth headphones, which are less comfortable (heavier) than wired headphones and just add complications to something I'd rather keep simple.
That being said, there are many more contact points with a VR headset, so I could see it being a bigger issue. Plus many of them are padded, which will absorb sweat and are hard to clean without considerable effort.
The VRChat team must be salivating.
If they can't buy VRChat, they'll go after the furry VR app Neos.
Not to mention its a security nightmare given that by default your client will run arbitrary GPU shader code that is uploaded by other users. People can and do take advantage of that, even as a full-time hobby.
The third-party developer community that claims to combat said security issues, really misses the mark. Their approach is to attempt to centralize the governance of all third-party tools (which are badly needed because VRChat proper fails to protect its users or provide a decent UX). Then they demonize virtually anyone who doesn't get on board with their ultimatums. They even require all users of their third-party tools who want any kind of technical assistance to submit detailed log files to a bot that will sound an alarm if that user uses an "unapproved" program. The criteria for this is, to put it simply, to flag anything that wasn't created by someone named on their whitelist of developers. And if you want to see salivation, there's plenty of it there. It's a spectacle just seeing people jump on these users like dogs, quite rudely at times, for daring to download something that the gestapo didn't approve of. For a community that claims to be about creativity, they do a poor job of fostering it.
Anyone who wants to have an entrepreneurial spirit in the development of such tools better have some kind of copy-protection as the tools tend to only be implemented in the form of distributed binaries that tend to require no server, or a microservice at the most. Problem is, the same group mentioned above is requiring that developers on its whitelist implement process-wide hooks that will break the copy-protection but nothing else. All in the name of keeping the children safe, I shit you not, but what it's really about is control. A determined hacker can easily defeat this measure by distributing a forked version of the mod loader with their own tools. Here's the kicker: Apparently this was all the result of some kind of back-room deal between the developer cartel and VRChat's admins, the timing of which was conspicuously not long before their $80M Series D round.
Timeline of events
March 30: VRChat does a large ban wave of apparently as many mod creators as they can find, by cross-referencing social media and Github names of developers of third-party tools with their own database of users. VRChat demands to the developers to take down their Github repositories if they wish to be unbanned and to get connected back with their VR social life.
March 31: VRChat "admits a misstep". The accounts get unbanned, the developers may put their repositories back online, but now they "intend to start a dialogue" with said developers. https://web.archive.org/web/20210401015645/https://twitter.c... - In the meantime however, the developers are not distributing their software for the time being.
April 8: The list of whitelisted mods completes an overhaul, basically an audit, then distribution opens back up. Additionally on this date, the modding cartel says they won't be sharing any details with the public about the subject-matter of the discussions with the VRChat admins.
April 24: A rogue developer ragequits the community and pushes an update to their software that amounts to prankware. Letting no crisis go to waste, the modding cartel writes a 250 word announcement to signal boost this incident, even archiving the link to the commit so they can show you how much you are at risk if you don't only install what they say you can install.
June 16: MelonLoader 0.4.0 is released, and many of the tools on the whitelist are simultaneously released with 0.4.0. They also spill the news on this very day, that it is no longer backwards compatible with the previous version of the loader. So any developers who weren't colluding with the group were given no time to decide if it was a good idea to switch to 0.4.0. They weren't really given a real choice as the software became effectively unusable without adopting this version. Conspicuously absent from this announcement was the additional security measures I mentioned above, to prevent copy-protection. You'd think it would be a good opportunity to announce the supposed safety measures they implemented, but instead it seemed they were trying to avoid discussing that at first for whatever reason.
June 28 (just 12 days later): VRChat raises $80M Series D. A major focus of this fundraising round relates to the implementation of a creator economy.
A Machiavellian scheme to exert control under dubious pretenses is not the foundation of creativity. The above scheme did nothing substantial to mitigate the risks of piracy in the context of such a planned market. I'm not sure if a VC would have been wise to it though as it looks good enough on paper to someone who doesn't truly understand the ecosystem or the security factors involved.
This to me is solid evidence that VRChat as a company likely has a top-level strategy of putting lipstick on the pig rather than building a good product. Therefore, VRChat is a toxic, toxic, poison pill, and Facebook would be wise to take notice of this and instead compete with them head on. Otherwise it would be a missed opportunity to break the stockholm syndrome that is currently widespread in its future target audience.
Is the VRChat dev community angry? Would they consider moving to Neos or another platform?
Facebook is making their own social vr platform, why would they want a separate platform, they cannot make use of the tech and the player base is not large enough to matter.
Not to mention that they would be forced to check every single uploaded piece of content that has ever been uploaded for copyright as they would quickly be hit for those things after being acquired
Just… Do people genuinely think that the average popular party girl/jock you knew in high school who loves going to parties and drinking, or playing sports/shopping with their friends is going to put on a bulky VR headset to do a cut-down, laggy, buggy, low res version of the same thing, getting VR sickness and a imprint on their face in the process?
The way I see it, it any of this meta verse shit is going to succeed with the masses—I.e., not geeks who are already into VR—it will need to:
* Be imperceptible or almost-imperceptible from real life in ALL senses (including things like touch, smell, proprioception etc.)
* Have completely seamless and bug-free Software. a bug on facebook is annoying, a bug in the Metaverse—depending on the hardware—could cause serious injury or death. This is literally a plot point in Hypospace Outlaw, which is arguably the first game about metaverses.
* Have hardware on the AR glasses side that is either fashionable enough for the masses to offset the bulkiness of a micro-computer on your face, or unnoticeable from regular, non-tech-filled glasses. Notice how the Apple Watch is not much larger than a regular one. (Indeed, there are regular watches larger than the Apple Watch—have a think about who wears them.)
* Even if you have perfect AR glasses, some people aren’t going to want to wear glasses, so you’ll need AR contacts. If regular-looking AR glasses would be a miniaturisation marvel, then AR contacts?!…
I feel like an old man yelling at clouds with this stuff, but I genuinely don’t see how it can become anything other than a gimmick.
If you were going to buy something Citrix is probably the most cost effective but I doubt you are getting much there either other than existing contracts. There is a good reason Zoom was able to take so much market share from Citrix in the first place.
So what are you going to do about it to compete or stop them?
Maybe Peloton is next?
With existing products built on network effects, I can at least see the rationale: where else can you go where everyone else is at scale? But, for new product categories like this, why would anyone follow them? I understand they have advantages there, based on their existing properties, but it's still an opportunity to say "hell no" to FB.
In particular, with this product: the idea that we are to spend increasingly more time in a simulated universe is dystopic enough. But, one controlled by a man who has proven himself time and again to be immoral at best and sociopathically evil at worst? I mean we're really just gonna' slow walk ourselves into this sci-fi movie?
I don't understand this sentiment. Why do we need to care how moral the man at the helm is? A leader is temporary: today's leader can be immoral, while tomorrow's leader can be moral. Or vice versa. Or a leader can be moral in such a way that you would wish he wasn't. If end users can exercise their moral choices themselves, if they can refrain from lying, or bullying, or bragging, or trolling, then so much the better. If they can't, well, then we are screwed either way.
It's interesting that you raise that question in the FB context, because Zuckerberg has very specifically structured his company such that this isn't the case. He can't be removed.
More broadly, we should care because such leaders accrue outsized power and can thus have outsized influence/impact on large numbers of people.
>If end users can exercise their moral choices themselves,
End users don't always have the info they need to choose not to participate in immoral schemes or to know that they are victims of the same.
>a leader can be moral in such a way that you would wish he wasn't
That argument vaguely evokes nihilism. Societies organize themselves around generally accepted moral principles, many of which are codified. Largely, we can quantify morality.
It's the same way people have gone along with 100s of acquisitions from Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon.
But I've already made up my mind on it, and I can assure you not everyone goes along with Facebook.
Maybe we need something like an http/html standard for the metaverse?
Heck, even commercial offerings built on top of Ethereum sounds much better then built on top of Facebook.
To me it's like Microsoft in the 90s trying to claim they can build a better proprietary Internet... In that sense its actually pretty scary, so let's hope Zuckerberg and his unethical leadership isn't the one to succeed since given past track record its not gonna be pretty.
But then, restaurants and other businesses relying on Facebook exclusively to have an online presence (often inaccessible to those with no account) seems like a bad idea to me, but it happens.
Are you saying that the "masses" lump all of these social effects into esoteric "tech issues" since they are enabled by tech?
Have you seen the Tyler the Creator cyberbulling tweet? That's how most people actually feel deep down.
-- Polychrome @ Mastodon
The details of how data gets passed are technical, and users might not be aware of them. However, the end result is the same.
Targeting is on the basis of metadata.
Hair-splitting this point is disengenuous.
It feel like big over engineering BS, sport is one of such a basic thing.
Just buy a pair of shoes and go for a run. Buy a bike and go for a ride. Practice any sport in a club, take a gym membership and go deadlifting.
Why do they need to spend billion of dollars en VR development and then the user will have to spend hundred (thousand ?) of dollars to buy the VR headset, expensive computer just to have an activity that will be worse than a jog.
It depends where you live, sadly. In some places it can be downright dangerous to exercise outside.
> Why do they need to spend billion of dollars en VR
It's a very fresh market and early investors will dominate it. They're probably just trying everything, because even if most of these investments fail, the few that work out may have enormous ROI, I think.
Where is it so dangerous(or really bad weather) than you can go for a run or to any gym/club ? (and add to that you can still do burpees or jump rope in an appartment)
I don't think they are developing VR fitness for people living in the middle of Sahara desert or Himalaya.
Gyms are expensive, and there is a pandemic.
If you cannot imagine where exercising outside is very hard in some parts of the world, watch some travel shows or something. There are many parts of Istanbul where density is so high and safe places to run are so sparse that indoors VR could be preferable for many if their living spaces can accommodate it.
Also, many VR fitness apps are quite engaging and appealing in their own right. Supernatural in particular has nice scenery, music, a huge variety of challenge types and levels, dynamic full-body exercise, and a general game-like feel that many enjoy.
People have all sorts of concerns, strengths, and preferences. Dismissing or trivializing them with "just do what I find comfortable" is an attitude that practically never serves anyone - including the speaker - very well. In fact, any sentence beginning with "just" is a bit of a red flag.
For better or worse, most athletes even at the college level are more interested in doing entertaining workouts than actually getting better at their sports. And among non-athletes who just want to stay in shape, it's even worse.
I personally agree with you, but at the same time this kind of thing is clearly what people want and are willing to pay for.
VR has evolved since then since now. For example, you can connect it to stationary bikes, rowing machines, etc., compete with others, adding a whole new dimension.
Video games and fitness are multi-hundred billion-dollar industries. So why not combine the two? As someone who used to be an avid gamer but no longer has the time, I would love a way to combine my favorite hobby (gaming) with fitness, especially during the winter or other times when exercising outside is inconvenient.
But the boxing adjusts to your strength level, so it gets quite challenging the further you go requiring a strategy to manage your stamina, or you flame out swinging hard for a knock-out early on. It's exhausting.
The activity is absolutely not worse than a jog. It's easier on my knees (less impact), more fun (as in I'll actually do it), uses more of my body (things like dodging objects requiring engaging a lot more muscles than the few ones I use over and over when biking or jogging), isn't hampered by the weather (as in I'll actually do it in the winter), and has the potential to be more social.
It's like sports in a lot of ways, except cheaper, easier to organize, and not requiring commuting to a shared facility to play them.
All your criticisms could apply to any exercise equipment, not just VR. Your gym membership almost certainly costs more than VR, and at least speaking for myself, I would make a lot less use out of it.
VR training is amazing and after one year I'm still excited for every workout. The recent development in apps such as FitXR shows that we've just seen the start of this movement. In my opinion fitness is the killer app for VR.
I can’t run, my knees are too bad. I can’t to the gym easily, since it’s hard to find someone to care for my young kids (my other half works crazy lawyer hours). But I can do an hour of exercise before the kids wake up, and the Quest 2 is much more enjoyable than doing a set of regular exercises (though I do mix those in too). I get a good workout from doing a mix of shadow boxing with FitXR (or the Thrill of the Fight if I have enough space), Beat Saber and Pistol Whip, and it barely feels like exercise while I’m doing it. It’s been particularly helpful during the recent lockdowns.
Mostly just a game of Pistol Whip but also the noted Supernatural app helps a lot. I also put on 360 1st person biking videos on YouTube while I ride my exercise bike and the whole range of options expands my desire to work out exponentially...
Does the sweat mess with the gear? How is the weight of the equipment?
Also if you are prone to motion sickness in VR you might not like it. You're always at the position of the cameras of whoever was filming so that's a bit odd - but I find it's good enough for me to get into it.
Any 180 video is probably fine too, but I like turning fully around like I'm on a real bike, seeing what was behind behind cyclist.
The weight of the Quest 2 doesn't bother me as long as it's adjusted properly on my head and yeah it gets sweaty but I don't personally care much as long as I take breaks.
[1] https://quest.vrworkout.at [2] https://github.com/mgschwan/VRWorkout
It's a gateway "drug" into fitness. You just played a game, then you increased the intensity and did it a bit longer and suddenly you did a 30 minute cardio workout sweating like mad and most importantly the endorphins your body releases during exercise are real as well. So you are very likely to do it again, and again. And that's the important part, sticking with it.
The second thing is that in the headset time feels different so you are more likely to workout for longer than you would have while doing crunches staring at your living room wall.
And there are already several multiplayer experiences that can be counted as a workout (Blaston, FitXR, VZFit, Holodia and also our game VRWorkout) which adds a whole different level of exercising together.