Hacker News Reader

Comment by KVFinn | Hacker News Reader

Tested hands on impressions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc

Funny thing about the $1500 price point.

If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain. It's basically a laptop with 3 monitors that appear out of thin air whenever you want. Amazing.

To do this it needs to be comfortable enough to wear all day and it needs to be high enough resolution to stare at text all day. It's at least plausible the Pro is comfortable enough for some based on early impressions. But the displays are not cutting it.

I don't think it needs to equal the DPI of a monitor at human viewing distance, but 2160x2160 is still way to low. Maybe 3k would do it with super sampling. Oh and the Quest Pro would need to run any Android app, or else it would only be useful tethered to my computer and lose a lot of the appeal.

So if the Quest Pro can't handle this use case, $1500 seems crazy expensive. A luxury. They have to hope they have a killer game or app that somehow gets people in.

During the height of the pandemic I would have almost paid $1500 if this had a really good 'virtual couch' experience where you can hang out and watch Netflix with friends, passively socializing in a way that felt comparable to the real thing. People love doing this in but it's always so janky.

View on HN

This level of access leads me to worry that the reviewer won't be entirely honest. Is he really going to pan the product when he is interviewing Zuckerberg in the video and getting behind the scenes content? Pretty much renders the video useless to me to understand if the product is good or not.

Well, Carmack is employed by Zuckerberg and he just pooh-poohed Horizon Worlds as well as the Quest Pro (from a strategy perspective). Both seem to be loved by Zuckerberg.

Carmack works one day a week and wants to quit, but keeps getting convinced to stay by Boz

Carmack has fuck-you money, so he says what he wants.

Is there any research (not wild conjecture) on staring at a screen strapped to your face for extended durations? I am already near sighted from having spent a lifetime focusing on a screen an arm's reach away. What happens if there is no chance of errantly focusing on other objects and forcing my eyes even a modicum of daily activity?

The optics put the virtual image (if you remember physics class) of the screen about 1.2 meters in front of your eyes, not inches. Your eyes lens/focus muscles will be set just as if you were focused on something actually 1.2 meters.

are you sure near-sighting is because of monitors and not because of genetics?

research has found a bigger correlation with indoor time in early years than computers

"By the end of this decade we're going to replace our workstations on our desks with a VR setup"

Thanks, I hate it.

It's interesting, I love it, really want to do it, and am waiting impatiently for it.

I have a desk with 3 big monitors on it and the idea of being able to take that workspace with me in my backpack is incredibly appealing. Working on my laptop alone (a 16" MBP) is awful in comparison.

We are far away from actually being able to effectively simulate my full-desk workspace in VR.

But even the Quest 2 was enough to make it easy to imagine how it will be when we get there, and obvious that this is how I want to work in the future. And for me, the future can't come soon enough; I'm ready!

That's why I skipped upgrading my phone this year and ordered the Meta Quest Pro instead. I know it also won't be able to replicate my desk setup (and I really hate giving money to facebook too) but I want to experience for myself how much closer we are.

To me, a VR work environment (with mixed-reality option) is the holy grail, and while its clear we aren't technologically there yet, it is equally clear that we will be within a decade or so (maybe less).

Also, as an aside, I would really like to have six monitors, or 12 even.

But as a practical matter, adding more than 3-4 monitor arms to a physical desk becomes difficult.

So if your startup happens to sell a-grav monitors that can just float in space above my desk, and be re-arranged by waving my hands at them, hit me up in my DMs!

Working in VR often, I’ve realize dI don’t want virtual monitors at all. I want virtual app windows.

Yeah. I think the shape of what that looks like is still TBD, but I think you are right.

I don't yet know personally what I want it to look like (and reserve the right to change my mind many times over the next few years) but there is no reason to stick to the conventional paradigm of "monitors" when in theory you could just let every window or widget float in space, independently or in sets.

Lots of stuff yet to be innovated!

I literally wrote a post above saying this.

Allegedly some of the VR desktop environments support app windows although the one which looked most promising is Quest-only.

I find it baffling that MSFT cannot figure out how to give arbitrary apps their own window in WMR and have to be written specifically to do that. Also: How is their virtual desktop app so bad compared to even the free Desktop+ on Steam?

in your backpack to where? Sit in a coffee shop with that humongous thing on your face? to the backyard veranda enjoying the sun? Well you ain't seeing the sun, nor the backyard

So where to?

Yes, literally to the coffee shop, as one example.

And that's why the (optional) mixed-reality feature is mandatory.

I wouldn't be self-conscious about wearing a headset at a starbucks (just like I wasn't about using an in-ear bluetooth headset for my phone ~20 years ago when people thought that looked weird) — but I don't want to not be able to see the people around me in a public space even if I look at them.

I think within 10-15 years you will see about as many solo customers at a typical starbucks using a mixed-reality headset as you see using wireless earbuds today.

(However, I wouldn't invest the time and money to build out a cloud-powered VR engineering workspace just to be able to take it to the coffee shop. I mainly mean taking it on trips abroad, taking it home when I visit my family, etc.)

I'm with you .... it's fascinating how hard it seems to be for people who aren't bought into this vision to accept there is even a low probability of it happening. But it seems almost completely obvious to me that this is where things will end up. Once an AR headset can render a high fidelity / resolution monitor virtually in front of you it will seem insane to go and buy a giant physical rectangle that is geolocked to your office or where ever you put it.

The timeline is unpredictable but that's the excitement of getting in early to these types of things, because we can start to experience and anticipate what the future will look like before others even have the chance.

Why are you in a coffee shop using VR? Go somewhere else if you want to be somewhere else!

If I owned a coffee shop I'd ban VR headsets. You are in my coffee shop to be in my coffee shop. Go home to use VR or sit in the park or something!

I have heard a dozen variants of this question. But I don't quite get what is hard to understand about it.

In this scenario, I am using a headset (VR, with mixed reality so I can see the real world around me also as needed) for the exact same reason people use a laptop computer in a coffee shop.

The difference would be that I have many big screens instead of one small screen.

Like most people who go to a coffee shop alone in the city, I am not going there to... be in the coffee shop. I am going there to get a seat and get some work done (with the added bonus of a coffee, and possibly a sandwich or pastry).

You don't seem to grok why Google's glasses failed so miserably - they were creepy as f*k to so many people, running around with camera only owner knows if its on or not. Absolutely nothing changed for the better, in fact this would be so much worse - now nobody else would be able to see where you are looking at, an if you are filming them while they want to have some quiet alone time.

Personally I would never ever want to spend money in any food-providing business that would allow such people around us. There is a world of difference between laptops and this. Don't expect mass adoption in cafes soon, I can imagine some SF tech-friendly cafes allowing it as an experiment but overall it would be taking too much risk as an owner at least in this decade.

It also begs the question why you would actually sit in café if you completely shield yourself from whole environment. At home you can usually create much more comfortable place.

Pretty sure that ship has sailed, dude.

The last time I was in a starbucks (in Tokyo) well over 50% of the people were holding highres video cameras in their hands, swiping away in solitude. I couldn't see what they were looking at, nor could I know if they were recording — but who gives a shit? It's a public place. If I cared about that, I'd have to play it safe and assume they all were.

So I think you have it backwards. It's 2022; if you want to make sure you aren't recorded while out in public, then you stay home. (That starbucks also has its own cameras, mounted on the ceiling.)

P.S. Google Glass failed because it didn't provide sufficient utility and value to its users. Not because it freaked out a certain subset of the population, or because John Gruber called them glassholes.

If it had provided real enduring value, then tons of people would wear them and nobody would give a shit about some subgroup's Luddite anxieties — my great grandpa and some of his buddies had similar feelings about the Sony Walkman. But nobody stopped using walkmans because those old guys didn't like them shutting out the outside world with their headphones; they stopped because eventually minidisc players and ipods were invented.

Well, dude, not every nation is like Japan, when it comes to technology I dare to say no country is like Japan, nor it strives to be (maybe South Korea but not even them). So taking the most extreme example (and not really the same example by any stretch of imagination) and stating whole mankind across whole globe is like that is not even stretching it, its a plain lie.

Since you seem completely oblivious about other cultures - there are still whole cultures where taking a picture without asking for permission is highly offensive. We talk about billions of people. And even in other places, like most Europe, you try something like that in cafe and you will be asked to put it down. I also mentioned current decade, things change but not that fast as some kids project it to be.

I think it would benefit tremendously to basically everybody to actually travel a bit like backpackers as far culturally as possible to challenge themselves and their worldviews a bit.

OK, but I'm originally from California and was there just a couple months ago. Same story at starbucks there: cameras on the ceiling, camera phones in tons of peoples' hands.

Sorry if you don't like it, but smartphones are everywhere now, and that's not gonna change. You might feel like sitting alone wearing a headset is somehow fundamentally different than sitting alone using a smartphone, but it really isn't. It is precisely the same in all respects that matter — you just aren't used to it yet.

However, we might be talking about a different kind of "coffee shop". I'm talking about corporate coffee shops like starbucks. They mainly offer industrial coffee and food, wifi, and a place to work, while you are in between things or in transit. I haven't been to Europe since before COVID ,but IIRC it was already pretty much the same there, too, even three years ago. I saw hundreds of people using iPhones, and pretty sure I didn't see anybody get asked to put it down.

Completely different. Your face and ears are covered, so the staff or anyone else can't interrupt your special virtual bubble. Not without tapping you on shoulder.

Perhaps you could place a doorbell on the table. When pressed it gives you a notification in your eye screens. You could rig up automated contextual replies "yes you can borrow the sugar". Saving you the bother of being human.

Sitting there with laptop or phone, you are not faceless like you are with VR headset.

We seem to be talking about different things.

Anybody could walk up and ask me a question, and I'd both see and hear them. In fact, that is one of the main points of today's announcement. The new "mixed reality" feature means exactly that.

(You could always hear people around you in VR (if you wished), but seeing your surroundings didn't work well at all, unless you used developer mode hacks, and even then the cameras were bad.)

With Meta's previous headset, I wouldn't contemplate using it in a starbucks.

Not because I prioritize people walking over and interrupting me, or them being able to see every inch of my face, but because I want to be able to see them.

Sitting in public without being able to hear and see what is going on around me does seem like a very weird thing to me. But that's not what's being talked about here.

Agree, I honestly don't understand the level of optimism shown here. To me this sounds like exactly the opposite of how I would like to work in the future. The fact that Facebook fully controls the software and hardware platform is just a huge additional turnoff.

> The fact that Facebook fully controls the software and hardware platform is just a huge additional turnoff.

I'm actually quite optimistic: I don't see a reason why Meta will be the only player in VR.

I don't think long term they can maintain a moat on a hardware level - other headset producers will pop up once the tech is better understood and we may end up with a situation similar to what we currently have in the console world (2-3 big players and a few niche ones).

I think Meta sees that and are trying to build a moat on a social-networking level and, honestly, I don't know how well that will work.

I don't like Facebook any more than you but to be fair, they're not as bad as they could be. For on-device software sideloading is available and SideQuest makes it pretty functional. Additionally, the device supports OpenVR and can be used with any software you'd like to run on your desktop PC.

It's more the Google approach to the ecosystem than it is the Apple approach, though I don't believe the OS is open-source.

Does that mean I don't need to create an account if I want to use the headset only with OpenVR stuff?

You need a Meta account. Not a Facebook (social network) account.

Meta accounts only require an email address. There is no real name requirement, which they explicitly state in their help page[1] so this isn't a violation of the TOS.

[1] https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/, see "Setting up your Meta account with email" section.

No, unfortunately to use it with a PC you need to have their app installed on the PC as well and be signed in on both.

Imagine buying a monitor and being forced to install the manufacturer’s app just to display stuff on it.

Eh. No.

This isn't a monitor though, it's another standalone computer that you're streaming an image to. The wired connection option isn't using DisplayPort or HDMI signaling over USB-C, it's establishing a network connection over the USB link and then streaming video over that in the same way as it would over WiFi.

VR headsets that don't contain their own processing on the other hand do in fact work like a normal monitor. Usually they'll go in to a "direct mode" that does not appear as a monitor when their drivers are installed for both performance and convenience reasons, but they can be configured to just appear as yet another monitor.

You must be young, that was exactly how things were for decades. Its just that it was called a driver, not an app but in effect it was same piece of software that unlocked the device for use. For monitors, often without proprietary driver, it would work only on some default vesa resolutions, not support all available refresh rates etc.

A monitor driver, at least in the form most people remember dealing with on Win32 systems, wasn't even a piece of software. It was just a .INF file containing the Windows equivalent to X modelines describing what modes and was only necessary if you either didn't have working EDID for whatever reason or wanted to go outside the range the monitor advertised working at.

Before these "drivers" had to be signed it was common for various graphics tweak tools to provide a method for building your own custom INF to "overclock" a monitor that only officially supported 60 Hz or whatever.

Embrace, extend, extinguish

Because we desperately need something to keep the party going, computers/internet tech can't have fully matured, that means the war for market share and labor will have finished and we'll all be where mechanical engineers are today in terms of compensation.

Curious what you don't like about it. So many of the people who say this are basing on assumptions that are either solved or on a clear path to being solved.

For example people say it's uncomfortable : solved now by Quest Pro. People say resolution isn't high enough. Clear path to being solved as display tech and foveated rendering takes over. Don't like being isolated? Solved by Quest Pro with high quality pass through and open side profile. Can't type without seeing your hands? Solved by Quest Pro. Experienced nausea once upon a time using VR? I will bet 80% chance its solved because the tech has gotten vastly better.

> uncomfortable : solved now by Quest Pro.

For a lot of people the very fact you have a device on your head is what's uncomfortable. Screens in front of your eyes, your senses boxed in. That's the point of VR, which is why it won't be adopted as widely as some are hoping.

I guess I just don't see what the benefit would be in the first place. I can see the benefit fine for video games and similar, but not really for using microsoft word or coding. But then again I haven't tried it

Is the "owned by an ridiculously evil corporation that makes it's money by creating social strife, ruining society, destroying lives and brainwashing people"-problem on the path to being solved?

They probably disagree that it's solved. I"ve used Quest 2 and the idea of having to do my job with it is excruciating.

I would say you kind of exemplify the problem then.

The Quest Pro is aimed like a laser at fixing all of these issues (with the exception of resolution, my main gripe). But your willingness to extrapolate your experience on a $300 headset to infer the limit of everything that will ever be possible is way over-reaching.

Of course, I am over-reaching in the sense that I haven't tried the Quest Pro yet so who knows how real any of the improvements are. But I don't have any trouble believing the tech will get there whether it's this product or future ones.

I wouldn’t be surprised if open hardware is gone for good. There is too much money to be made with SAAS.

Why? We'll only replace it if it's actually better. In which case you'll probably love it.

For real, monitors are ugly and take up space and become super expensive quick.

If we actually manage to come up with something better then monitors, then amazing. If we don't, they won't be replaced.

> Why? We'll only replace it if it's actually better. In which case you'll probably love it.

If it's better for businesses mandating what their WFH users use.

And then, even, it's more like "if salespeople convince some managers it's better", which isn't the same thing as is-in-fact-better.

Nausea, sweaty forehead, weight on my head giving cramps in my neck, disconnect from the world around me (I work at home with kids), visual inaccessibility (I need to wear computer glasses).

No magic engineering from Meta are going to fix these issues.

Those are all already fixed, or easily fixable.

Nausea only occurs (as far as I can tell) when the motion you see in the headset doesn't match your motion in real life. That's not a problem for a simulated desktop experience.

Sweaty forehead typically only occurs if you're getting a work out in VR, which wouldn't be a problem for office work. But for those who have that issue even when not exercising it seems easily solvable with better ventilation. Hardly an impossible engineering challenge.

Neck cramps are solvable by balancing the weight on your head better. Quest Pro has this.

Disconnection from the world is solved by high resolution video passthrough. Quest Pro has this.

Visual accessibility is solved by prescription lens inserts. That's been a thing since the Rift 1.

That doesn’t match my experience. I know that’s not very objective, but that’s the best I can give you here.

Just putting on a VR headset, makes my head sweaty within a minute or two, even when I’m just sitting down and doing nothing strenuous. Just different biology I guess I generally don’t like wearing hats for the same reason, it makes my head and hair, sweaty.

Speaking of hats, I generally don’t like wearing construction hard hats either, because it makes my neck sore at the end of the day. And that’s just having a little bit of balanced weight on the top of my head. Balancing isn’t the issue, it’s a higher center of gravity, especially when you rotate the head as you are prone to do in VR.

Nausea I get consistently, no matter what I am doing. Even if stationary, any bit of lag can cause nausea. I can’t imagine doing development work and not causing the machine to lag a little bit here and there, when I run a test, suite or something. Thankfully for me, it’s only mild, but if I were to do this, all day would be a large impact on quality of life. I don’t wanna spend half my day mildly nauseous.

And all of this only so that I don’t have to have a couple of high resolution monitors on my desk? I just really don’t get it. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

I don't doubt that your experience is valid, but it's not everyone's.

For instance, I use the old busted Quest 2 headset every single day, and I don't get any nausea, or neck soreness. (I do definitely get the sweaty head, though. Largely because I use a boxing exercise app with it, which gets really sweaty, but in non-exertion use cases, too. (I also tend to sweat in hats and over-ear headphones.)

The sweat problem will gradually get better over time, as headsets get lighter and more breathable.

Unlike a lot of VR enthusiasts, though, my own interest is almost exlcusively in replicated an expansive, multi-monitor setup for sofware engineering.

Why? I have an XXL desk from GeekDesk with 3 large high-res monitors. It's fantastically productive. So much so that it makes working on a laptop, or even a desktop with only 1 monitor, super annoying.

But I want to be able to take that workspace with me.

(Even to work; I work at home mainly and when I do go into the office and get stuck with a single busted-ass low-res 4K display, it sucks. But I want to take my workspace other places, too.)

I'll put up with some minor annoyances, like sweat, to be able to do that. In your case, it sounds like they will need to solve more problems to make it usable — or you might just decide to stick with a real desk and monitors, and that portability isn't worth the tradeoffs.

> Disconnection from the world is solved by high resolution video passthrough.

This one will go into my treasure trove of HN quotes.

To be fair, hearing aid is a similar device now used

It completely missed the point though, by a mile.

I took the point as being that you can't see your physical surroundings, so you don't know what's going on outside the headset. Passthrough solves that, at least when it's turned on (which for office work it almost always would be).

If we're talking about disconnection from the world in a more abstract sense then I agree passthrough doesn't solve that. But that's not really a problem unique to VR either.

Me being able to see my wife when she comes in the room, or my kids playing in the room next door is only half the issue. They need to be able to see, and emotionally connect with my face without me having pull off all my gear every time something needs to be said or confirmed. They need to feel like I'm not off in my own separate world, and I don't want to feel that either. As a parent and a work-at-home spouse, and even just as a company founder I'm always multitasking at every given moment. And that means juggling things in the real world as well as the virtual.

What you see now very obviously isn’t the end game of this tech. Here’s what a virtual screen can look like: https://www.nreal.ai/

Sorry, I just don't get the consumer application. I see a bunch of people sitting around a living room wearing dorky glasses, when they could be sitting around the same living room with a TV, and it's much more convenient. Was there something else I was supposed to see from that landing page?

I think there are transformative / killer applications of AR to certain industries like traditional engineering, aviation, construction, logistics, etc. Microsoft Hololens could be a killer product if they could get it under $1k and open up the software stack a bit.

But as a consumer device, outside of gaming? Or a productivity tool? I don't see it. Keep in mind just how difficult a sell 3D movies were, and that just required putting on some plastic sunglasses.

That form factor, and the real-world-pass through, refutes literally every one of your points…

I guess we’ll have to see how it goes!

You don't get nausea from experience where you don't move around in VR. Virtual monitors should not cause any nausea. Same for the sweaty forehead.

The weight issue is lesser with the Quest Pro (since the weight is balanced at the back) and will get better with time with newer devices.

> visual inaccessibility (I need to wear computer glasses)

Quest 2 provides spacers for glasses. I assume Quest Pro will as well.

The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.

Merely the minutest lag when rotating your head can cause nausea in a statistically significant number of people.

Any VR absolutely does cause sweaty forehead symptom for me. It’s just my different biology I guess.

> The disconnect from the world is the only one that doesn't have a solution yet AFAIK.

The solution is AR. I would use a Microsoft hololens, if it was available at a reasonable price point.

> Merely the minutest lag when rotating your head can cause nausea in a statistically significant number of people

Do you have a source for that? The lag issue seems entirely solved now, on a device like the Quest 2, it was an issue only in earlier days with slower hardware.

There were lots of different theories early on, but now the cause of nausea seems to be entirely based on motion over a large field of view, which causes a disconnect between your inner ear telling you you're not moving, and your eyes telling you you are. Hence why VR games generally default to teleporting rather than walking/running.

(There can be separate issues such as eyestrain if your IPD doesn't match or relating to wearing glasses, but those are device-specific.)

> The solution is AR. I would use a Microsoft hololens, if it was available at a reasonable price point.

Interesting, the Quest Pro is I believe aimed at the same audience as the HoloLens, but at a lower price point. Though, not fully AR - more like MR I believe.

Pass-through VR headsets will never, ever meet the use cases I have in mind, like integrated virtual HUDs for pilots or machinery operators, or even construction workers on large building sites. Going blind due an equipment failure while operating tons of moving machinery is not a reasonable failure mode.

And speaking personally, I just don't want to be disconnected from the environment in which I am presently existing. Projected overlays on glasses could be useful, I'll grant, but not a vision-restricting, self-isolating VR headset.

> Projected overlays on glasses could be useful, I'll grant

That's what they are aiming for long-term. Zuckerberg said in the Connect talk that glasses would be the ideal form factor.

My experience is that spacers or not, using these with glasses is uncomfortable. Adding prescription inserts are more comfortable and provide a better visual experience. I bought some very cheap glasses and 3d printed the inserts. They have magnetic mounts and you can remove them easily.

Why? Because your virtual monitors will exist in Meta's dogshit virtual survaillence world.

Why do you think Meta will be the only one making hardware?

There are plenty of head mounted displays that don't have any smarts built in.

You can buy a phone that isn't powered by iOS or Android too, but you probably won't.

If you just want virtual monitors, I think there will be many "dumb" headsets available. If you want a full standalone experience, then sure, maybe not. But, I think those are, potentially, different markets.

Don’t worry, it won’t happen. This is just a desperate attempt by Facebook to not be the website where your insane Aunt posts QAnon stuff. It’s not appealing enough to last. It’s just like crypto, a solution searching for a problem to solve. Eventually it will spike and then fade when people realize they get no real benefit from it.

$1500 isn’t bad at all. An apple watch can cost $800 and a base spec MBP is like $1400. If it was the price of hololens ($3k?) then it’d be a concern

I think it needs higher resolution to be able to be directly comparable to a MBP. Can I stare at VSCode all day in this thing or not?

Then again it's a different platform. Can a MBP compare to a 5K desktop monitor?

I get they are trying to make this a productivity tool, but there's a lot of productive use cases outside of directly editing text.

It's not the same thing. Each of these products have tiered versions targeted at different income levels. If there was only one iPhone version being sold at $1500 then it would probably be dead by now.

It is the same, with the quest Pro being the highest tier, as plainly stated by Zuckerberg.

That's like saying I would only release iPhone 14 Pro Max and if you can't efford that there is always two year old iPhone 12. Not very appealing, IMO.

Quest 2 is at $400, and from a quick search that's cheaper than a refurbished iPhone 11.

Are you aware of the Quest 2 that is $399?

Also: despite the frequent comments by folks here that did not watch the announcement, this is a business-focused device first. It is not targeted towards consumers or gamers. That is the Quest 2, which will continue to be sold.

> If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain. It's basically a laptop with 3 monitors that appear out of thin air whenever you want. Amazing.

It won't. The form factor is still too clunky and you will most likely get eye strain.

Btw, another commenter posted a link to these Nreal Air glasses (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8hMtWeTUg ). I'd never heard of them before, but they look like a much better approach to a monitor replacement device. They're lighter and more comfortable because they try to do fewer things (no controllers, no battery, no VR).

I tried Nreal Air, its resolution is great even for reading text, but FOV isn't good as a primary monitor. Maybe it's tradeoff.

HoloLens had same price point and this price point is where consumer products go to die. I think they are currently looking for early adopters and may be built up volume in 2-3 years (a la iPhone). HoloLens hade strategy which didn't work because utility of AR was far less than utility of mobile computer in your pocket. It looks to me the whole bet here is that VR's killer app would be virtual meetings and it will fix this critical issue. Unfortunately, doing meetings requires two people to have this device and that would be tremendous barrier for adoption. Is no one at Meta thinking of these stuff and learn from history?

If it's meetings they are targeting, then it's not a consumer product. They probably want to sell it to enterprise clients and that changes completely the approach for them. You don't have to sell it to a picky consumer with many opinions and few money, but to a corporate buyer with a huge budget, many incentives for innovating a the ability to purchase them in multiples.

For me I don't see how any vr device will be comfortable. I don't even like wearing my glasses for too long.

Replacing 3 monitors is a start.

The real dream of VR work IMO is app windows floating all around, more windowing system than virtual displays.

Or - a re-imagining of how productivity looks like in 3 dimensions. Imagine a spreadsheet app with more than 2 dimensions worth of cells! Or a code editor which diagrams our your functions in 3d space to see the dependencies.

(/me Makes "Minority Report" style swoosh hand gestures)

An unstated benefit of real monitors is that you can stop looking at the monitors.

But because of its 1-2 hour battery life you would have to keep it wired and hope it doesn't suffer from the same issue that Quest 2 suffers from where even wired it slowly looses battery life.

However, the Quest 2 could still last a whole work day while wired, the Quest Pro might not.

No human will ever enjoy the feeling of a giant block on their face. Even if the quest was 100x higher res it will never be "default" since it limits peripheral awareness, motion, causes eye strain.

I get Zuck's philosphy on upping the human-computer paradigm to the natural next step but imo horizontal screens at a comfortable 1-10 feet from your eyes will remain unchallenged until seamless brain controlled holograms become a thing.

People thought similar things about reading stuff on mobile phones too.

> If the Quest Pro could replace my triple monitors, $1500 is a bargain.

If it could drive me to work, it’d replace the subway. $1500 is a steal.

That video doesn't include the quest pro

That video was for the prototype. Same channel just uploaded a video of the real hands-on for Quest Pro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNYpD212HQA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com