Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonplus | Hacker News Reader

I see a lot of comments on the pricing of this hardware. It's going to be more expensive (for the end user) to build a headset (and FOSS window manager) than a product like the quest. Meta has a suite of products bringing in capitol by selling user PII. Valve has a distribution platform to offset costs.

If you want to see a product that is open end to end and is not part of an ecosystem selling your information, then it has to be funded.

I realize most of the people reading this don't want a moral argument for spending $2k-$4k on a HMD, but thats what I am offering.

We should have multiple openXR compatible headsets to choose from, and specialized window managers that 'just work' in VR. Fund the FOSS projects you want to see in the world so others will follow.

View on HN

I've spent 2k just on a monitor.

I'm more surprised that the quest is so cheap, but then I remember exactly what you said: the quest is not the product, I am the product.

Then I remember why I don't use Meta products anymore.

It is strange that paying for being a product that is sold has become normalized. Then again slavery was common not long ago.

Agreed, it is a bit strange, but I do feel like people are slowly getting wise to the swindle.

Unfortunately, I think socioeconomic pressures are also pushing people to compromise in ways that are not in their best interest, even if they do get it. In other words, they'll get the 'cheap' product that invades their privacy, sells their data, and shows ads to them, because they don't have the money for a product they own (see: television market).

That is right. Being shown a targeted advertisement is exactly the same as being forced to pick cotton in the fields by day under threat of life and limb. As a matter of fact, the real question is whether the slaves suffered even a fraction as much as I did browsing Instagram.

An argument could be made that even thinking about the slave trade is inconsiderate when billions are shown ads on Facebook properties today.

Nobody thinks that.

Firstly what kind of monitor is that? Wtf?

Also the cliche of it’s not the product, you are is cute but played out. If you’re getting your bang for buck on it as a consumer (and I know I am), then moral arguments are useless. As with all things the market makes the ultimate decisions, not the individual.

>If you’re getting your bang for buck on it as a consumer (and I know I am), then moral arguments are useless. As with all things the market makes the ultimate decisions, not the individual.

You could use the same train of thought for Soylent Green.

> the cliche of it’s not the product, you are is cute but played out

Cute, cliche, and played out? If you dismiss it in three different ways are you magically correct?

It might be a losing battle in the face on increasing complacency and bad incentives, but it's not over no matter how many different ways you want to dismiss it.

I haven't spent $2000 but I spent $1500 for a 23" Apple Cinema Display in 2004 (adjust that for inflation!) and about that much for my current 3840x1600 ultrawide Acer.

https://rog.asus.com/us/monitors/32-to-34-inches/rog-swift-p...

I have one of these - a little overpriced but looks absolutely amazing.

It’s not so much that you are the product in meta’s vr offerings, it’s that quest is a loss leader because the rest of meta is so profitable.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Meta forced Oculus users to transition to a Facebook login after they had already bought the device.

They are a surveillance company who collects, correlates and sells personal information. They aren't going to stop at the VR boundary and suddenly change their mission.

Absolutely. I think that proposition was incredibly clear back when they used to offer Oculus for Business, which was like $800-900? Now they don't even offer that.

Yeah the Samsung G9 was a silly amount of money on release, and I bought one.

But it doesn't matter. All of the reasons in the world for how expensive it is don't make a difference to the result: it's still too expensive.

Costs must go down before they'll see the kind of units moving they need to fund development.

It is definitely too expensive for broad adoption, but maybe it doesn't need broad adoption?

I might buy one if I could find a way to experience it first.

We'll be able to have reviewable prototype units in a few months. Depending on how many critical components (displays, primarily) we have we might be able to set up some way to test it for non-reviewers.

Nice!

Based on your wording, seems like you are involved with the project?

If so, I love the idea you all are chasing.

As a software developer, I've often thought about how great it would be to be able to take my setup with me without having to compromise on display. The current generation HMD is obviously not the end-game everyone is looking for, but you all obviously get the paradigm.

Yes, I'm the other co-founder (David)

I'd strongly suggest having a public demo day somewhere, with a note dropped on HN and maybe a couple of other target-rich environments. Even just camping outside of Coupa with a couple of headsets for a workday will get a couple hundred people to see the unit, and I suspect that you'll get better conversion for that effort than most other things you could attempt.

I'm super, super interested in this type of product, but it's about 4x outside of my casual toy budget. Based on experience with other VR and AR headsets I'm not comfortable putting down the money until I see the optics myself.

Not really, their break even (and by that, I mean ideal bulk pricing of components) for units sold is under 1000 units. The Simula one is not trying to sell 100k units. If you think thats the case, your expectations are wrong.

Re (software) development: Yes it will need funding, but it's there right now https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula and is agnostic/works with any openXR headset.

Simula is working on a paradigm shift of computing. We're looking at the price and comparing it to buying a smartphone or gaming console. The Simula device doesn't aspire to be a secondary device. It wants to be a primary device, replacing your laptop.

The closest device in comparison to this one is not a Quest 2 or even a Valve Index. Those are both secondary devices that do not offer anything other than canned, theme-park-like experiences that sit completely aside the rest of your computer. The closest competing device is actually a HoloLens 2. HoloLens with Windows Holographic is the only device on the market that has support for a general purpose computing interface. And HoloLens 2s are still US$3500/ea.

Whether you agree a VR computer as a primary device is a good thing is a different issue.

Same argument was made against Tesla. Now, nearly every auto maker has a more affordable electric car offering because of them.

But it doesn't matter. All of the reasons in the world for how expensive it is don't make a difference to the result: it's still too expensive. Costs must go down before they'll see the kind of units moving they need to fund development.

Seems to work for Apple. All they have to do is provide a superior product. That's the hard part.

For reference, our breakeven sales target is 892 headsets (or $2.4M in sales). We recently made a blog post outlining our unit cost model in more detail.[1] At the time, we were still planning on using Kickstarter, so the model has changed somewhat. We ultimately decided to host our own campaign to save on Kickstarter fees (passing down a $100 discount on headset prices).

Also: for an additional headset discount, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30441697

[1] https://simulavr.com/blog/kickstarter-pricing/

This is all true, but it also doesn't mean the that the current high price was the only possible approach. I see decisions made in the design that don't look great from cost-benefit standpoint. For example, this is being marketed mainly as a productivity tool. Wireless is certainly important for gaming when you are moving around in your environment, but people using this are primarily going to be in a stationary position either sitting or lying down. Why do they need the computer in the headset, which makes upgrading impossible, and for it to function completely wirelessly?

It seems like prioritizing the integrated computer and the untethered experience increases the cost for little benefit. This is especially true considering this thing likely won't have great battery life so operating completely wirelessly won't be possible for extended periods of time anyway. What would this device cost if the primary design objective was to create an open wired headset and the software to accompany it? Whatever that is, it would be a more attractive value proposition for me personally and therefore likely for other customers too.

It doesn't make upgrading impossible. The compute pack is detachable, replacable, and can even function independently.

The benefit is pretty crucial: friction. If you have a tethered VR headset, the amount of work you need to do to set it up is insane. Especially with lower-level software like Simula.

>It doesn't make upgrading impossible. The compute pack is... replacable

It is only replaceable and upgradable if this company sells these compute modules separately. There is no discussion I saw on that website that they are committing to do this and there is no guarantee they will be around to still sell you one in the future. Even if they do, you are locked into their ecosystem.

>The benefit is pretty crucial: friction. If you have a tethered VR headset, the amount of work you need to do to set it up is insane.

I have never used a VR device on Linux and maybe the work involved there would be truly "insane", but I have used a few on Windows and they are basically completely plug and play after you install the software. Although even with the work involved, this seems to be an enthusiast device aimed at techies. If these customers are looking for a frictionless experience, they probably wouldn't be daily driving a Linux machine in the first place.

The modules are available from Intel. You're locked into some of our custom components, true. But this is miles better than anything else on the market.

The friction is both what we experienced as part of adoption and in my personal experience. Actual personal experiences may vary, of course.

>The modules are available from Intel. You're locked into some of our custom components, true. But this is miles better than anything else on the market.

I didn't realize you were involved in this company until I read your other comments. It is unclear what "You're locked into some of our custom components" means. Can a average techie, maybe someone who is comfortable opening their laptop to add RAM or new storage but wouldn't be comfortable making any other hardware changes, upgrade this with off the shelf parts? If the answer is yes, that should be in your marketing material. If the answer is no and you can't commit to selling these custom modules, then I stick to my original point.

I'm the other co-founder.

Yes, about as easy as opening a laptop. Unscrew some screws, lift a cover, install a new M.2 SSD or whatever. This is a picture of the "standard" assembly: https://i.kane.cx/NFIpf4 -- compute element slots into a connector, and there's the standard M.2 slot etc. Ours won't be too different, just a different form factor/connectors/additional features.

We're committing to selling all custom parts for at least a few years, but I can't give a hard number on how long. I'd say 4 years for sure.

That is great. This should be stated on your website and not deep in the comments of a HN thread.

I'll relay it to George. Thanks for the feedback, this kind of thing is always what falls through the cracks when you write sales copy.

Yeah I get the concern. Following the project for the past 3 months one knows this information; but unless you're following development on discord/matrix or GitHub there's no way to know upgradability is a cornerstone of this project. Seeing 0 upgradability from Apple makes you leery of everyone.

I think the freedom of an untethered headset is a big selling feature, at least for people who have used both tethered and untethered VR headsets. Since the Simula has full color passthrough, it should be easy to get up and make a cup of coffee while still wearing the headset. This is a big deal, taking a headset off and putting it back on again is annoying and focus breaking. It adds inertia that isn't there when using a non-wearable device. Minimizing the number of times you have to do that in a day is a win.

Untethered also allows you to be much more active, you can change seats or switch to standing as easily as if you were just holding a phone or tablet. It'd be nice to stretch my legs while I catch up on email or check a dashboard or flop on the couch while I watch a video or read an article.

If the battery life isn't great, you only need to be plugged in while your sitting at your desk and can easily unplug the cable when you want to get up. Hopefully they made the port easy to find while wearing the headset.

I don't have a problem with the price - I have a problem with being sure what I'd be getting for that money. If it was guaranteed to live up to the claims that are being made then it's in the ballpark of a good laptop, which I have no problem dropping all sorts of money on. This device has several potential problems though, that can render it completely unusable rather than a laptop that mostly works fine except for a nit or two: - If it's too heavy/uncomfortable, you can't use it for long enough to warrant switching your compute medium to VR - If the battery doesn't last long enough, then you're tethered to a wall outlet. - If the display has distortion or artifacts, the eyestrain may render it unusable over time.

Some of which can be addressed by being able to try before you buy, and the rest will come out in the product reviews....but right now there are no product reviews, and signing up for a preorder at this price is taking a lot on faith.

I wish this team all the success in the world, but I'll probably wait for V2.

Yeah, unfortunately that's the annoying thing with preorder products. A fully integrated unit that would be representative of a final device will take a while for sure. My timeline is roughly 2 months for a reviewable VR-only unit, another 1-2 for VR+AR, and then integrate the compute pack.

As someone who's used a Quest 2 for hours and hours with a heavy 3rd party head strap, over-the-ear headphones, and a battery pack strapped to my head I wouldn't worry about the weight too much. Even playing intense games where I had to move my head a lot it was never my neck/back that hurt--it was always my arms, haha.

That's really going to be the new RSI waiting to happen: Moving your hands in the air constantly. Try this: Pretend you're scrolling a really long web page a little bit at a time by holding your hand in the air (in front of your face) and doing a pinch with your fingers like you're grabbing something, lifting it up, then dropping it again. Do this motion very slowly (like you're reading) for like 10 minutes straight, over and over again. Now do the same thing, pretending you're looking up at a VR "window" or down at one. How do you think your arms will do after existing in this VR environment for hours at a time? :D

As long as we can scroll/navigate with the keyboard everything should be good though

Well said. If and when I can try it out before ordering, then I'll seriously consider it. I'm skeptical that a non-retinal display will ever been good enough for this kind of application.

There was a pretty strong pivot in the first hour of this being posted from everyone saying "that's to much money!" to other concerns. I felt compelled to respond. I don't think the 1000 of these or so that are made are for everyone, and I have no doubt a v2 will be better.

I'm just ready to give my money to someone who wants to build on openXR, has a vr window manager in development, and the chops to build ambitious hardware (on Linux).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com