Hacker News Reader

Comment by cableshaft | Hacker News Reader

>We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta

>...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops.

Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PCs and laptops, you haven't been watching some of their recent videos about the new headsets and prototype headsets they're working on. He very much is aiming for that market with future devices (not the Quest 2).

Here's a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I

Also he's described their Project Cambria headset as intended for productivity, as in the following article:

"What’s different about Project Cambria?

The most important description we’ve received about Project Cambria comes from The Information; according to the publication, Meta employees have alternately described the headset as a “laptop for the face” or a “Chromebook for the face.” It’s a device Zuckerberg hopes people will use to get work done rather than being aimed primarily at gamers as with previous headsets."

https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-kno...

View on HN

We understand Meta sometimes future projects that their devices will have broad office applications, but we're skeptical it has any teeth.

Consider that Atari tried to compete with office PCs in the early 80s with their 8-bit family, and failed: https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_...

It's hard to focus on multiple things at once, and we're skeptical that the bureaucratic forces in play at a large company like Meta will allow them to do a good job at making their gaming platform also one that people actually want to work in.

And there are plenty of instances of companies that have gone under when a big parent company decides to incorporate your business as a 'feature' in part of their big monster product.

I'm not saying it's going to definitely happen and the company is doomed or anything, it's certainly possible that SimulaVR will come out on top for productivity devices (or peacefully coexist as an alternative alongside Meta's offering). But it shouldn't ignore what Meta is doing either, especially when they're actively saying they're moving into their turf.

At the very least, it looks like Meta will put up a helluva fight.

Of course anything Meta does is a bit worrisome. I just don't think we're in the same niche-- IMO Meta is fundamentally built on data collection, and VR is just a side effect.

Unless Meta decides to abandon that, I think we'll have a niche.

This is similar to saying "Facebook is fundamentally built on data collection, and social networking is just a side effect." Technically true, but not much consolation for all the social networks that didn't go all in on advertising and perished.

Wish you the best of luck either way, this is an exciting area and more competition is great. They definitely are competition though.

Yeah, of course, it's a tough space to be in. Just saying that we need to carve out a niche where Meta can't compete vs try to fight Meta head on.

I am failing to see a separate niche here. There are only so many ways you can break down office productivity focus and still have a market to support you. Your team should accept the facts and stop trying to wiggle out of competing with your--frankly--main rival in this space. It doesn't do any justice to avoid this truth. Honestly, I'd be shocked if you weren't already closely monitoring their work and its reaction in the market.

I think Meta's strategy was the right one. The only execs who would even consider adopting a virtual work model would be gamers who are already familiar with the tool. Gaming was their way to get in the minds of their potential next phase enterprise customers.

Based on comments in this thread, SimulaVR thinks of itself the same way Microsoft did when they made Windows phone.

I totally disagree with this. Early gaming consoles (~70s) took off roughly a decade before early PCs (~80s). Yet many of the people who bought the latter had little interest in the former. They were two completely distinct markets (with some, but clearly not extensive overlap).

We've had many people tell us (often on Hacker News actually) that they're not super interested in VR gaming, but are very interested in VR computing.

(I myself am one of these people BTW; despite working in VR for half a decade now, I have almost no interest in VR gaming, and wouldn't be interested in the field were it not for its enormous potential as a new thinking tool).

Little interest or had they just grown up?

My point is that interest in sci-fi technologies and having some interest (prior or current) in gaming are highly overlapping demographics. Many games explore interactions with future technologies.

Additionally, from a technical perspective of an executive who is looking into VR, "if a headset can provide the fidelity to play games then that would mean it can likely do X and Y complex things my business does"

> IMO Meta is fundamentally built on data collection

Isn’t their whole Metaverse thing a gamble to get away from that? Why does data collection prevent creating a good VR experience. If anything it should align goals well (spend as much time in VR as possible, so as much in VR as possible). Besides, most DataCollection companies offer CollectionFree enterprise contracts… which is where the money for this probably is.

(Btw I’m a huge fan of this sort of product and I hope a respectful company wins.. I’m just skeptical that meta can’t fund their way to success. )

> Isn’t their whole Metaverse thing a gamble to get away from that?

Many of us think Meta is trying to gain as much market as they can early, so they can leverage eye tracking and mm wave tech for very invasive biometric collection and ad targeting in the future. Reasonable minds can disagree on that.

Pretty sure Zuck has said outright that the goal is to own the economy of the metaverse… selling digital stuff and digital places with digital ads and (digital?) media.

It could be a gambit to track your eyes but that seems even harder with worse reward than taking a 30% cut as the next App Store.

Maybe eye tracking is the fallback plan for when everyone figures out NFTs are the strongest known combination of expensive and valueless.

> It could be a gambit to track your eyes but that seems even harder with worse reward than taking a 30% cut as the next App Store.

No these are the same thing. Tracking pupil response to stimuli tells advertisers how a human is reacting to what they see. It lets Meta sell a platform to advertisers where they can target humans in particular emotional states, or at certain times when that individual is more likely to make a purchase.

What? They’re doing VR because they think it’s the basis for the next general computing platform, and owning the platform gives you unlimited access to the user’s data. And in VR, that data includes the user’s gaze, height, physical fitness, high resolution 3D model of their gaming area, and other inferred or measured biometrics. As well as every virtual strip club, naughty video, and indiscreet personal message.

…and access to take a 30% cut when people buy and sell things. Which is probably more profitable and less liable to get legislated away.

Enterprise loves data collection so that's really a perfect fit for their next phase customer base. That's why I think the Meta account system was important for them to get done pre Quest Pro launch (and significantly early too so any issues are worked out before enterprise demos start)

Ben Thompson is fairly bullish on Enterprise Metaverses after having used Workrooms: https://stratechery.com/2021/enterprise-metaverses-horizon-w...

> I don’t want to go too far given I’ve only tried Workrooms out once, but this feels like something real. And, just as importantly, there is, thanks to COVID, a real use case. Of course companies will need to be convinced, and hardware will need to be bought, but that’s another reason why the work angle is so compelling: companies are willing to pay for tools that increase productivity to a much greater extent than consumers are.

I’m a lot less important than Ben but just wanted to +1 that it’s pretty compelling use case once experiencing it. It’s not there yet, mostly due to resolution issues and long term comfort issues, but it’s close enough to show it’s absolutely viable.

I bought the quest2 since it was cheap as a pandemic entertainment device and while I never play it, I regularly wish for a VR monitor (eg a high res nreal air)

What about loss of facial expressivity? I guess whispering to your neighbor works a lot better. And how is the whiteboarding experience?

A lot of Quest games can actually turn audio into mouth movements on an avatar. I play Walkabout Mini Golf with my friends a lot and it's incredible how natural the mouth movements seem to match my friends' speech. I'll turn to them complaining about par on a hole and I'll see them speak in response.

The new Quest headsets are supposed to have some features for facial expression tracking for exactly this reason. But yeah, no doubt there's still a ways to go for the experience to be worthwhile.

I think that Meta actually has facial tracking in one of their VR Headsets. They published a bunch of preliminary demos of stuff in video form a few months back, it's worth checking out.

>It's hard to focus on multiple things at once, and we're skeptical that the bureaucratic forces in play at a large company like Meta will allow them to do a good job at making their gaming platform also one that people actually want to work in.

The problem with your assertion is that you over count how many multiple things Meta has to do. What will make for a very good gaming VR Headset will also be a very good professional and productivity headset.

The key aspects which Mark Zuckerberg laid out personally in the recent VR Prototypes unveil pretty universally hit both targets. Comfortable light weight headsets with incredible fidelity is desirable for all VR applications. Not just gaming.

Yea… nothing I’ve seen from them is compelling.

My bet is Mark is going to burn a LOT of money, fail to get mass adoption, cancel the project, and lay the design team off.

But who knows! Maybe we’ll all be taking work meetings in MetaLife this time next year! Just make sure you login to your meeting 5 minutes early to preview the new season of BigBrother and score an extra 60 seconds of microphone mute time!

>Yea… nothing I’ve seen from them is compelling.

From Meta or from SimulaVR?

Because Meta has been selling one of the best VR Headsets for the money thus far. I'd really recommend checking out their VR Headsets announcement [1]. Maybe VR will never actually go anywhere software-wise, but it's clear that the team at Meta has a good understand of the problems of current headsets and what would be necessary to make a generational leap in immersiveness.

I'm certain there will be markets for it.

>My bet is Mark is going to burn a LOT of money, fail to get mass adoption, cancel the project, and lay the design team off.

I don't think they're going to cancel it. It's very much a hail marry here. The Facebook phone was a massive flop and the cumulative result of failing to have their own hardware platform was Apple killing their mobile ads business. I think Meta will do everything in it's power to own it's own hardware so that whatever their business model is, no competitor could just kill it with a flip of a switch.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E

ai driven ads that know exactly what your meeting will be about with virtual copies of the employees cheering the product presented and close ups of the CEO (30 years younger) making a thinking face.

"We don't think they're competent enough to be a competitor" is a bad way to judge whether you're competing with someone. It's like Apple laughing at the IBM PC.

Looking at the new videos related to the upcoming Quest Pro that will be announced next week, the simulavr guys are dead wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AR_MR_XR/comments/xwjzni/meta_quest...

What you're seeing: a Meta headset tethered to a laptop over WiFi running Immersed.

What you're not seeing: a standalone VR headset running a VR Desktop OS natively with bleeding edge pixel density (i.e., like the Simula One).

We understand that Meta has some cool tools in its app store which can be used to get a feel for VR computing. But analogously, you could also purchase word processors for early gaming consoles too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtariWriter

Our view is that dedicated VR computing devices are what the market actually needs.

apple would agree

Does Simula's tethered option affect this calculus?

A bit, but not much. Our tethered option is for people who want to connect to beefier hosts because they need the extra GPU power (or want to use our headset's high pixel density for gaming purposes). We've sold very few of them though. Our primary offering is our standalone unit.

If that image is showing what I think it is (because I might have written a part of it if it is), that's not actually tethered.

Is it really fair to call 8 bit Atari computer line (on which AtariWriter runs) gaming consoles? They had built-in keyboards, had built-in BASIC, would let you attach peripherals like a disc drive or a printer and let you program in assembly. And could be expanded with RAM expansions and 80 column cards. Of course the later XEGS blurred the line but it's also a bit like suggesting the Amiga or Macintosh were not computers because of the Commodore CD32 and Apple Pippin were a thing.

> Our view is that dedicated VR computing devices are what the market actually needs.

My view is the market needs a product that does not require an internet connection, Facebook account, Microsoft account, windows PC, or equivalent restriction-ware.

The AR pass through in that clip blows the simulavr pass through wayyyyy out the water!!!

We're working on camera boards now for our AR Mode (it will likely be featured in our an engineering update next week). After our boards are finished (~2-4 weeks), we'll be able to integrate them into our review units for our first integrated camera tests.

That clip is a demo with a heap of demo-magic going on.

Wait, is that demo rigged? The keyboard in passthrough is not the keyboard of the MacBook.

Definitely some demo-only things going on there. Pass through keyboard is different, and this person just happens to go in to a meeting where the table is in the same orientation and size as the one in his house/office?

Imagine if during the Microsoft antitrust case, they subpoenaed Apple, Compaq, Oracle, Sony and some small startups for their entire short- and long-term business strategy documentation. Oh, and all their user metrics and any telemetry.

Microsoft subpoenaed MCI, AOL, Intel, Novell others, including all email messages related. https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/amd-subpoenas-... https://cyber.harvard.edu/msdoj/archive.html

In that case, "On September 18, 1998, believing that certain statements from Netscape employees reported in Lessons offered succor for its defense, Microsoft subpoenaed the professors' notes, tape recordings and transcripts of interviews, and correspondence with interview subjects. " https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1179769.html

Here is Google subpoenaing Microsoft, https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/microso...

AMD subpoenaing Microsoft, https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/amd-subpoenas-...

Here is a judge standing up an squashing a Microsoft subpoena of Oracle and Sun , https://www.networkworld.com/article/2310247/microsoft-fails...

Oil Price Information Service, a Oil Industry trade publication was subponeaded in a price fixing case to hand over unpublished information, https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/oil-industry-...

Just want to clarify that I would never characterize Zuckerberg or Meta as "incompetent". Quite the contrary. I would instead more characterize the situation as Paul Graham did in one of his essays[1]:

> A lot of startups worry "what if Google builds something like us?" Actually big companies are not the ones you have to worry about-- not even Google. The people at Google are smart, but no smarter than you; they're not as motivated, because Google is not going to go out of business if this one product fails; and even at Google they have a lot of bureaucracy to slow them down.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/startuplessons.html

To be honest, Meta seems pretty afraid of going out of business if their metaverse-pitch ends up failing - in fact, I'm pretty sure the whole metaverse push just happened because FB was (is) loosing ground fast.

I think Zuckerberg is afraid of his core beliefs breaking, that a man has a face and his name. None of existing VR platforms are made that way and are successful at the same time.

"Do a good job" is different from intent to compete. Horizon Workrooms, keyboard passthrough, and multi-app support screams non-entertainment functionality. And that's just what's been released pre-Quest Pro...

> Consider that Atari tried to compete with office PCs in the early 80s with their 8-bit family, and failed

I don't think that's very accurate. The Atari ST had a pretty good following compared to personal computers of the time much like the Amiga... The fact is that most computer companies from back then did not survive far beyond the decade but they had their time. So it's not really accurate to say they failed when Acorn, Amiga, Amstrad...etc, all "failed", in that they didn't produce more than a handful of unique and fairly incompatible computers with no clear future, but that had a market and sold with success in their time frame none the less.

I don’t think he meant the computers as a whole were unsuccessful, but the bid to enter the business sector was. The common consensus is they failed because Atari was so strongly associated with games. I assume there are possibly greater reasons, but it is true Tramiel and others tried the pivot and it failed.

https://twitter.com/jasuminsui/status/1577867376522973185?t=...

I assume you've read?

I haven't read. Will check it out!

As a very nearsighted programmer suffering from increasing age-related farsightedness, I often fantasize about a VR headset that would allow me to comfortably focus (say 6 feet away while wearing contacts) on a huge virtual tmux session for coding.

I don't know if this is even remotely a possibility but it sure would beat dealing with constant CSS (can't see s*t)

Prescription inserts (we're working with vendors on this) are possible, and the focus distance of our headset (and most headsets, I think) is in that region.

IIRC, Nreal Light is 2 m focus distance. Crisp 1080p. Weight/fit... I'd perhaps diy a hat or strap for long-duration use, depending on face shape. Reddit suggests newer Nreal Air is 4 m.

As someone who used to work there, I would be significantly more afraid.

VR there has never been exclusively about gaming nor has gaming been the overall goal of VR since their acquisition. The way they talked about it back in the day was, if I recall accurately, that they were focused on three pillars: "The metaverse", "The overlay", and "The future of work". Social presence, real-life AR metadata, and expanding the screens and capabilities of working professionals, respectively.

The direction of their research and implementation has, at least to my knowledge, been oriented literally towards creating a new category of general purpose productivity devices and admitting as much in a very public blog post is a pretty big own-goal if the idea is to try to avoid the subpoena by distinguishing yourselves (assuming you're speaking on behalf of SimulaVR).

Mark wants to be able to sell apps and ads on his end-to-end controlled platform, that is it.

He missed the boat on browsers and smartphones, so he is aiming for total monopoly of what he believes is the next-big-thing™.

I'm still skeptical that it is The Next Big Thing.

I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!

Then again, however, a 100b size company — like meta —inevitably has to go for moonshots when their primary source of revenue is steadily declining.

Seems like he has no choice. Even if it doesn’t work or we’re all skeptical — he better play along and go for it.

I think you're right, but I disagree that he has no choice — he can find some other “moonshot”. Pushing VR (or AR) seems like something he thinks will play well with the stock holders; and if he is as skeptical as some of us then he's kind of playing them for rubes.

Hearing them describe their own product as “Chromebook for the face” just reconfirms my suspicious that this is a doomed product.

Even if it’s the next big thing you know a better iHeadset will follow months later and be a much better product with less privacy and data theft built in.

Except it will have no games, cost $4k and will probably be difficult to port anything to. Great for Apple’s current mbpro market but ignored by everyone else.

Apple shipped support for WebXR in iOS 16. OpenXR is pretty good standarď and they would greatly benefit from supporting it. Which I think will happen.

(My guess is that Unity (& Blender) will have an on-stage demo when the headset comes out. Unity: “just tick this box and your game will run on Reality Pro”)

People will still line up to buy it, probably me included, I'm a super keen Linux user too.

My bet would be more on AR than VR, and maybe it's not the next big thing but the big thing after the next one.

But that's fine for Meta. Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp might all be running out of growth, but they are all big enough that Meta can afford to invest in something that will only pay off in a decade or two, as long as the payoff is big enough. Gaming-VR headsets are just a good way to get the technology into people's hands right now, and iterate on it.

You can argue that Meta is at the very head of the pack with AR.

See this demo of Quest Pro pass-through AR: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/xvzxj2/new_footage_...

It doesn't matter if it is the next big thing, or a large flop.

Meta is in trouble, and it needs to do something to retain relevance. This is something, and Meta is doing it.

It's a very different experience to how we currently consume media, and I am not really sure it has mass appeal even with some kind of perfect execution. I am prepared to be totally wrong mind you.

It's an incredible tool and way to engage with virtual worlds, but the question we should be asking isn't "Is VR technology good enough" which I think people get stuck on. Really the question is "Does everyone want to be in a virtual world regularly?" and my intuition having spent a good amount of time in VR is that the answer to that is actually no.

I love video games, so much so that I even try to make them. I spend many hours playing in virtual worlds, but I very, very rarely want to use VR. I'm the perfect candidate for the technology, and it's honestly mindblowing when I do use it, but it's just not a casual experience. Even if we had the perfect, unobtrusive and lightweight technology, you are still choosing to disconnect from your current environment and spend time fully engaged with a different world in a way that games and TV don't. That can be really exhausting.

Personally, I think that both TV and movies are going to be driving VR adoption. The Netflix of VR movies could be huge if they were able to offer the right content. A fully virtual theatre that gets new releases could also be big. The edge that VR had in these areas is that it essentially gives you a private theatre that you can enjoy with your friends and family. Leveraging a social network so that you can deliver notifications like “X is currently watching Y. Click to join” would be big. People already kind of do this with watch parties and discord.

I love VR, but it is terrible for things like watching movies. Imagine sitting on your couch and putting on a movie. How often do you do that? If it is more often than 'once in a while', are you actually sitting and watching it intently the entire timee? Are you eating, or drinking anything, or petting your cat or dog, or snuggling on the couch with your SO or kids? You can't do that with a VR headset on because you can't see anything else at all. If you grab for a glass you have to switch to pass-through mode and back again, or take off the headset. You also can't do anything but look at the screen.

It isn't really something that people want to do.

Exceptions of course would be to do it with someone remotely, like a friend or a family member -- it is a good way to potentially 'hang out' with people who aren't physically there. But the same caveats apply.

Well, I do watch movies with others in VR on a fairly regular basis and it’s great. Could be better, headsets need to be more comfortable and pass through has room for improvement but both of those things are on the very near horizon.

Look at the cambria demos, they’re already doing mixed reality by blending the room with the experience. No reason that can’t be used to put your couch, coffee table and SO in the virtual theatre. You also have to consider that a lot of the younger people using these won’t have dogs or kids to worry about.

Sure, it has use cases, but the fact is that something like a phone, or a tablet, or a TV can be used and not used within a fraction of a second as required. Putting on a headset is like going to a movie theater -- it is fine for occasions but it isn't something I can see people wanting to do regularly.

You are thinking with present limitations and I mostly agree.

I can actually take a drink with the headset on but the bulk does make it odd. But these next gen headsets are much more compact. Check out the vive flow, and then the nvidia prototype holographic displays.

If I live in a small apartment or dorm or just don’t have a tv in my room and want to watch anything then that becomes a better choice than holding my extremely heavy iPhone or iPad very soon.

I look forward to the improvements -- like I said, I love VR.

My issue is specifically that it has great use cases (which we have gone over, like gaming and immersion) and mediocre use cases (like socializing) and poor use cases (like replacing a computer for general and work use).

Big leaps in technology that shifted paradigms have been catalyzed by a killer app (ex. spreadsheets for desktop computing) or have been incredibly obvious (ex. long distance real-time communication for telegraph/phone).

Trying to force a technology onto the larger population without one of these things by only advancing the technology itself is not only a waste of money, but tends to backfire and set the public against it for a non-trivial period of time.

I have able to buy Quest 2s locally for a pittance in 'like new' condition because people get them based on the promise of some general utility and end up realizing they are only great at gaming and media consumption, and a lot of people just don't want to wear a headset for those activities.

> Exceptions of course would be to do it with someone remotely, like a friend or a family member -- it is a good way to potentially 'hang out' with people who aren't physically there. But the same caveats apply.

An increasing number of relationships are happening purely remotely. My company went fully remote due to the pandemic and I've started building working relationships, and yes a friendship even, with new employees completely remotely. And I'm a millenial who remembers a distinct separation between the online and offline (and the modem tones lol). (Though I was a very online kid and have made many internet friends over the years.)

Younger relatives of mine don't see as strong a separation and they have friends who they made in primary school that they stayed in touch with despite families moving a long ways away because of how easy remote communication is these days; when I was a kid moving locales meant a new set of friends. It's this demographic and this world that I think is poised to enter VR experiences en masse. Gen X and older Millenials probably still have too strong concepts of "offline" and "online" (and usually prioritize "offline" over "online") to break this barrier down (as you say, a quintessential part of the "offline" experience is snuggling with your dog or an SO) but I'm pretty confident that younger folks won't see this distinction as pronounced. I might be wrong of course.

> younger folks won't see this distinction as pronounced

But they will see it as pronounced because it is pronounced, for all the reasons mentioned.

People love real spaces, real objects, real venues, smells, and atmosphere. The physical characteristics of friends and strangers, from subtle facial cues to outrageous clowning around. In VR, all that is stifled or non-existent; substituted with digitally representation, crafted by unknown processes. Cold origins. Black boxes.

> enter VR experiences en masse

Really? I wouldn't bet on it. The warmth of remote communication you mentioned, is coming from that which we already have. Phones, screens, coffee next to the laptop, simple face to face chats on the screen of your choice. Show me your new house! Cool, walk around carrying phone. Not a VR headset!

Strapping on a headset and embracing rendered distractions while you communicate? I don't see that happening en masse. You'd need to literally get real before VR takes off. Each headset commanding a tiny 360 drone camera, flying wherever you like without incident. See you at Burning Man! From your couch. In this impossible "RR" (remote reality?) future, a typical music festival or live event would have both real people and a bunch of VR drones - somehow inter-mingling, silent without collision, without any issues. Until then, VR is a device strapped to your head, dishing out pre-renders. Your real cat limits the VR experience, and into the bottom drawer goes your headset, right next to the DJI drone you got for Xmas.

I realize you disagree with my take, but if you want to understand it at least, I would suggest trying to steelman my position. The examples you bring up are probably the absolute worst cases for VR and if you judge a technology by its worst cases then nobody would use a technology. Judge an argument by its strongest interpretation, not its weakest.

> People love real spaces, real objects, real venues, smells, and atmosphere. The physical characteristics of friends and strangers, from subtle facial cues to outrageous clowning around. In VR, all that is stifled or non-existent; substituted with digitally representation, crafted by unknown processes. Cold origins. Black boxes.

This same argument could have been used to argue against the Internet, against using the Web to replace real services (how can you replace the minutiae of human voice interaction with a screen??), against the mobile revolution even. Yet mobile phones are here to stay and even developing countries with bad public infrastructure rely heavily on mobile phones to stay connected. Overly broad philosophical arguments never have explanatory power. I think you can make the argument that the experience of VR would make it too cumbersome to use no matter the streamlining, but to attribute some mystical quality to physical connections neglects the sheer growth of the internet, web, and mobile that are extant.

> See you at Burning Man! From your couch. In this impossible "RR" (remote reality?) future, a typical music festival or live event would have both real people and a bunch of VR drones - somehow inter-mingling, silent without collision, without any issues. Until then, VR is a device strapped to your head, dishing out pre-renders. Your real cat limits the VR experience, and into the bottom drawer goes your headset, right next to the DJI drone you got for Xmas.

It's not like mobile phones took over every aspect of our society. My relatives that kept in touch with their young school friends throughout their lives over mobile phones also as adults meet up with their friends IRL. Friends that met partners while playing WoW live with their partners and have started families with them. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition and suggesting so seems absurd given the prior art we have of digital technologies.

If VR becomes a default way to communicate and collaborate, that's all it will take to "win".

> This same argument could have been used to argue against the Internet

No because we didn't have anything else before the internet other than landline phones, one per household.

In my comment where I said "we already have it", that's the key point. VR is not an incredible shift like mobiles and internet were, and yet your last line flirts with the word "default". Of course it will be popular and clever, and will do well for the special times we want VR by placing a thing on our heads. But like drone cameras, VR will not elbow out the default cameras we already have that work better in most cases.

> but to attribute some mystical quality to physical connections neglects the sheer growth of the internet

Some mystical quality? You say that like "meh, real life"! The internet isn't trying to be "reality", it's just the internet. VR literally has the word reality in its name. Obviously comparisons will be made to actual reality for technologies that use the same word in the name.

> The internet isn't trying to be "reality"

> Obviously comparisons will be made to actual reality for technologies that use the same word in the name.

You are getting distracted by a naming convention. If we called VR something else, without the word "reality" those points don't even make any sense.

VR is not a reality replacement. Like all technology it augments reality.

(I hope my intentionally interesting word choice of "augments reality" doesn't distract you from what the sentence means. As with VR, the meanings of words interpreted as a phrase, vs. interpreted individually, often mean related but different things.)

Virtual reality will be judged based on its own use cases. Given the ergonomics of VR hardware and software are rapidly advancing, seemingly compelling new use cases are being identified with interesting beta's and preliminary-shipping demos, and we haven't even seen a platform that delivers seamless navigation or co-navigation across apps (as the web provides for sites), I would say the potential has hardly been tapped.

This sounds like an argument against TV or movies or the internet. Those things are also substitutes for real life experiences and yet people still spend huge amounts of time with them. VR doesn’t have to preclude the rest of the world. It’s an addition to it. When you don’t have the money or the time or the energy to go out it’s nice to be able to jump into something like VR and have fun with others from the comfort of your home.

If we had to strap our TV to our heads, we'd gravitate to something that didn't require that.

As it stands a "TV" can be a screen of many different sizes and configurations, it can even be a projected image. VR can't be anything but a headset strapped to our heads. That's the point I was making about it's uptake woes... It's obviously fun and will have plenty of users dipping their toe in, or should I say customers, but "en masse" was the point I was replying to and doubting.

What I was trying to communicate in my original post was that VR is not like those mediums on this specific point. It completely removes you from the environment, it provides a lot more immersion but then also takes a lot more commitment to dive into. It only takes me 30 seconds to get the headset on and be in a game, so that's not the issue, it's just an entirely different level of engagement. I almost feel a little guilty when I use VR, because it feels like I'm forgoing the real world. I don't feel that way about games or movies.

That’s odd because I have the opposite feeling. I almost never play regular computer games anymore because I see it as a time sink. I also avoid watching things by myself for the same reason. Playing a VR game or spending time with others in VR feels much more rewarding because I’m using my body instead of sitting in a chair and I feel more engaged with the people I talk to when they are embodied in an avatar and we are present in a space together vs just hearing their voice through headphones.

This almost describes my experience and perspective perfectly.

I thought the idea of future vr is mixed reality, so you could be "present" while experiencing an AR like experience

But what does that mean for movies and games, the type of media most people are likely to consume while in VR? You wouldn't really want your reality mixed with a game you're playing, with exceptions being AR games which vastly limits the possible experiences. It might help for movies, but it also kind of defeats the benefits of VR if you're just watching a flat screen in an AR version of your room.

Well I don't think it's just limited to playing games, the Quest Pro night introduce something like this for example: https://uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Quest-Pro-im...

I can actually see something like that taking off if VR eyewear becomes quite fashionable, and not just in the sense that it looks good, but it becomes trendy to use it.

I think it's more to be used in the home with other vr users online, the pro is supposed to introduce features such as eye, mouth and emotion tracking to make avatars more "real"

He probably believes he has the unique ability to make it the next big thing.

I think this is mixing up the mythology of Zuckerberg with the reality. There's no indication that he is exclusively or even primarily driven by money or power.

Go watch any long-form interview with him, such as with Lex Fridman. It becomes rather clear that he wants to be more like how Steve Jobs is seen by the wider public: as an innovator and pioneer, not as a power-hungry moneymaker.

He isn’t doing a great job at that. I see him as a rather analytical CEO. Nothing of the charisma or clarity of ideas that Steve Jobs had. Steve Jobs was rather ruthless when it came to quality (source : Guy Kawasaki) and no idea how Zuckerberg is irl, but my impression it isn’t favorable.

What I am trying to say is, with how Facebook is managed isn’t at all like Apple.

I think you're mixing up the reality of Zuckerberg and his PR.

If we're defining "missed" as "things released by companies while Facebook was growing to 500k MAUs" :D

>> >...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops.

> Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PCs and laptops, you haven't been watching some of their recent videos about the new headsets and prototype headsets they're working on. He very much is aiming for that market with future devices (not the Quest 2).

It sounds like they're saying that Meta doesn't currently sell anything that competes with what they're currently selling, and the info you give doesn't seem to contradict that. I'd question the premise that releasing a marketing video for a product that doesn't exist counts as being "in competition". They might be in competition in the future, but it doesn't seem like they are right now.

There is a segment that uses the virtual desktop with the oculus quest 2 quite extensively, so you still have that argument with their current lineup of devices IMO.

This is a weird take considering that simulavr is still taking preorders and doesn't plan to ship until 2023. They both have non-existent products right now

Or maybe I'm wrong and they are already selling a product? I didn't see it on the website.

If I am not wrong, this is an antitrust suit, meaning it is about what they are selling, not what they are developing. If the product has been launched, there literally cannot be a monopoly.

They are both selling VR headsets. Claiming they are not competitors is like trying to claim electric cars are not in competition with gas powered cars because they are different technology.

Well.... I mean... we do consider trucks and cars to be different markets. And they are often the same technology. Same for passenger trucks to long haul trucks. Fundamentally same technology, but very different markets.

You can also build mountains made out of dogshit, but as it turns out the target market for that is zero. Zuck can’t make it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com