Hacker News Reader

Comment by conductr | Hacker News Reader

I want to believe you but until the price range becomes below $1000 or so there’s virtually no market. It’s a toy. People don’t need a teleportation device. It’s fun to play with, like a toy. It doesn’t really solve enough of a “real” problem to justify the current cost. It’s also too expensive to be given as a holiday or birthday gift by most family members.

I believe the “just give it a few years thing” but only if it has a footnote saying that “few” could mean 10 or 15. I don’t think anyone really knows.

View on HN

> It doesn’t really solve enough of a “real” problem to justify the current cost

Exactly this, for now the minimal use cases for these kinds of high-end VR headsets leave them firmly in the "gimmick" category. I'm pretty sure some mass-market use case will be found for them, maybe even outside of gaming, but the fact that some pretty smart people haven't found this one already is a teensey-tiny bit worrying too.

By what the OP describes, these devices could become a limited but perhaps “profound” replacement for flying thousands of kms to have a holiday.

Or to have “power holidays” similar to a Power Nap, where you use an VR/AR device to relive a holiday for 5/10 mins.

Or to have “preview holidays” to experience a destination before booking a flight there.

If travel agents still existed, then they would be a perfect market for these VR devices but travel agents have long gone the way of the dinosaurs.

That all sounds very depressing to me if I’m being honest.

So are the regular news concerning the destruction of the environment and our human caused climate change.

If a VR set can reduce travel, then that might be something positive for the environment.

I think there’s lower hanging fruit for reducing carbon emissions than swapping the annual family vacation for a bunch of VR headsets.

By all means if you’re willing to make that sacrifice be my guest, but I can’t imagine experiencing Venice through a headset.

I believe the OP was more thinking of all those corporate flights for a one hour talk. But you don't need VR for that. They could hold them over sms if they could read and write.

Real deals aren't made over a zoom call. They just aren't. That's why they still fly there even though they are well aware of how to use zoom.

they fly there and do the deal over email from the hotel.

> lower hanging fruit for reducing carbon emissions

Taking a bike (when possible) instead of a car, for example. I think many things that we can do fail because of our collective convenience: why take public transport when I can have my private space in a car?

There might be low hanging fruits, but there is human convenience to take into account. Making potential low hanging fruit become had to implement.

> I can’t imagine experiencing Venice through a headset

Most certainly it wouldn't be the same however experiencing a Venice during the Renaissance period using a VR device? That would be better than nothing and would also equate to a "type of" holiday (if done well). Its certainly not something that I can do physically.

> experiencing a Venice during the Renaissance period using a VR device

That's not a holiday. That's a game.

Gamification of holidays! /s

Literally: it's an ever-so-slightly more immersive Assassin Creed 2. I mean, great, but worth spending a grand? Probably not.

I’m 100% down the idea that we have individual responsibility to the environment and must make some personal sacrifice. Paper grocery bags are much less convenient than plastic but I’m in support of legislation to ban plastic bags even if all the cost and inconvenience is passed on to the customer. Biking to work is a great choice if you live in range.

Neither of these deprive you of truly transformative experiences like travel. Air travel will never be a green endeavor. It will always be something that we’ll have to compensate for elsewhere in pursuit of being carbon neutral.

I’m not willing to tell someone that they should not fly across the country to see their friend in order to be an environmentally responsible citizen. Not while we still burn coal and gas to keep the lights on.

Apparently global trade via ships is much worse than airplanes - in terms of environmental impact. Apparently container ships burn extremely dirty fuels once they enter international waters.

I guess regardless where humans start, the dependency on fossil fuels is simply too vast to rollback.

Container ships are definitely worse, but also sadly not feasible to electrify. Power plants are a good start. Short range commercial vehicles as well.

Unless perhaps you're severely disabled, holidays are so much more than just your eyes and ears.

Not just all of your five senses, and your ability to interact, but the social and human side as well, and your ability to interact physically with it all.

People said the same kind of things about TV - and while, on the one hand, they perhaps underestimated the profound effects of TV on society, nobody would confuse it with telepresence.

I'm not sure what VR offers here that web panoramas, detailed photos and customer reviews don't.. there's a marginal advantage there perhaps but it feels like a $250-300 peripheral rather than a $kk investment.

I guess the affect of the Internet would have been discounted at the times of books and libraries.

You might also be underestimating the brains ability to conjure a completely new reality. Our imagination can transport us anywhere - hence adventure, travel and crime books. VR/AR experience augmented by our own imagination, hence to discount the affect of VR is also discounting the ability of our imagination.

Of course holidays are much more but why do so many people prefer chatting online than chatting personally with other people? Why are online dating apps and food delivery so popular? I don't know but it definitely does not have something to do with people wanting to go out and interact with random people.

> guess the affect of the Internet would have been discounted at the times of books and libraries.

Not an argument. Besides, like 10-15 years in to WWW companies like amazon, google, facebook, youtube were there. 12 years after oculus rift VR is still a small niche.

> You might also be underestimating the brains ability to conjure a completely new reality. Our imagination can transport us anywhere - hence adventure, travel and crime books. VR/AR experience augmented by our own imagination, hence to discount the affect of VR is also discounting the ability of our imagination.

No, it is not discounting the ability of our imagination. It is more correct to say that you are discounting the ability of our imagination by suggesting that adventure, travel and crime books aren't all we need to immerse ourselves. By going this path of argumentation (if we can call it an argument) you are basically saying that VR is for those, well, lacking in imagination

> Of course holidays are much more but why do so many people prefer chatting online than chatting personally with other people?

Do they? I don't think they do. Chatting with someone they don't know? Maybe. Doing a video call with a friend/partner? No.

> Why are online dating apps and food delivery so popular?

You are conflating meeting (just meeting, once people meet they don't maintain their relationship on the app) someone new and not a social activity with, well, socializing with people that you want to socialize with.

> I don't know but it definitely does not have something to do with people wanting to go out and interact with random people.

You do understand that outsides is not filled only with random people?

What argument are you trying to make for VR? What use case, that would make VR "huge", are you suggesting?

> What argument are you trying to make for VR?

That VR can provide a certain amount of immersive escape from the day to day. Just as the internet replaced certain offline activities and moved them online, I don't understand VR hasn't done the same.

Having used the Quest 2(?) which has automatic boundary detection and cameras that show you the surroundings if you step beyond those boundaries, I no longer had the worry of bumping into things. That made the experience very immersive.

So for me personally, there has been a definite improvement in the experience.

And I agree, the equipment is currently too cumbersome for the general consumer market. In addition to that, stupid vender-lock ideas such as with the Quest where you need a facebook account to use the device, also prevent the general application of the technology. (I would have bought myself a Quest if Facebook account wasn't a requirement. Vision Pro is simply too expensive.)

That doesn't mean that the technology won't one day find general application.

Also content does exist, sites such SketchFab have much free 3D content and with WebGL being generally compatiable with VR tech, it's relative easy to generate more content.

Yeck, I even worked on some code to make programming in 3D possible![1]

> What use case, that would make VR "huge", are you suggesting?

I assume you mean general consumer use-casae, there are definitely a number of use cases that are very niche.

But if I knew that, I most certainly won't share it with a public forum! ;)

[1]=https://flowhub.org/f/5f0c36ed4bd03058

Online dating and food delivery are popular because they're an allegedly more efficient and safer (in the case of dating) way of getting what you're looking for delivered to your door. Online dating is basically pre-screening, and a substitute for various real-world stuff that's increasingly less accepted (the workplace) or normalised (bars.. still a thing, but much less so than they were).

If I could chat in person with the people I talk to online, I would. And sometimes, that happens. But they're typically far away (for various values of far), while also being more interesting (ditto) than many of those more nearby.

Does anyone know the current state of smell-o-vision technologies?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225777

DonHopkins on Nov 15, 2021 | root | parent | next [–]

The iSmell developers were hoping to make money the same way, by selling big smell combination pack cartridges that you have to entirely replace after any one of the smells ran out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell

>The iSmell Personal Scent Synthesizer developed by DigiScents Inc. is a small device that can be connected to a computer through a Universal serial bus (USB) port and powered using any ordinary electrical outlet. The appearance of the device is similar to that of a shark’s fin, with many holes lining the “fin” to release the various scents. Using a cartridge similar to a printer’s, it can synthesize and even create new smells from certain combinations of other scents. These newly created odors can be used to closely replicate common natural and manmade odors. The cartridges used also need to be swapped every so often once the scents inside are used up. Once partnered with websites and interactive media, the scents can be activated either automatically once a website is opened or manually. However, the product is no longer on the market and never generated substantial sales. Digiscent had plans for the iSmell to have several versions but did not progress past the prototype stage. The company did not last long and filed for bankruptcy a short time after.

This Wired Magazine article is a classic Marc Canter interview. I'm surprised they could smell the output of the iSmell USB device over the pungent bouquet from all the joints he was smoking:

You've Got Smell!

https://www.wired.com/1999/11/digiscent/

>DigiScent is here. If this technology takes off, it's gonna launch the next Web revolution. Joel Lloyd Bellenson places a little ceramic bowl in front of me and lifts its lid. "Before we begin," he says, "you need to clear your nasal palate." I peer into the bowl. "Coffee beans," explains Bellenson's partner, Dexster Smith. […]

>"You know, I don't think the transition from wood smoke to bananas worked very well." -Marc Canter

The failed quest to bring smells to the internet (thehustle.co)

https://thehustle.co/digiscents-ismell-fail

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476460

DigiScent had a booth at the 1999 Game Developers Conference, with scantily dressed young women in skunk costumes.

I told them about a game called "The Sims" I had been working on for a long time, and was hoping to finish and release some time soon.

They unsuccessfully tried to convince me to make The Sims support the iSmell, and even gave me a copy of the SDK documentation, because they thought it would enrich the player's experience of all those sweaty unwashed sims, blue puddles of piss on the floor, stopped up toilets in the bathroom, and plates of rotting food with flies buzzing around on the dining room table.

Exactly. The sun on your skin, the breeze in your hair, sand in your toes, clean saltwater air ... good luck.

sounds like we might enjoy a wind machine and a heat lamp

how didnt porn run this over? honestly porn did advances the internet because it, and gaming, was THE usecase for most people. youtube etc wasnt there at the time it was porn and games. And porn and games should be the reason why VR shall sell

Apple Pro has an advantage of having no controllers to get in the way of holding your joystick.

I am waiting for the 2P version which replace your partner’s image with somebody else’s.

Meta quest does the same thing…

when porn advanced the internet did it cost 2000 dollars to get entry to the porn? I don't remember that. I think when this advancing happened it was pretty cheap, in some ways cheaper than buying a bunch of magazines.

Porn advanced the internet because it was a cheaper delivery mechanism for a cheap commodity, games expanded the internet because it was a technologically innovative platform for high end products.

Inflation calculator says Vision Pro price today is $1730 in 1995 dollars.

That is in the range of what a pc cost back then, I think? Like middle to high end but not out of the ballpark.

PCs costs much around year 2000. and porn and email and messenger where the bonus to games. its was like “hey look counter strikes etc .. nice games” “hmm not sure” “ there is also porn” “bought”

I bought PCs around year 1998, and I don't remember porn being in the selling point, furthermore everyone I knew in 2000 had PCs because they had to use office. PCs had already infiltrated the market at the point the internet became a going concern.

In other words the internet was relatively cheap for people.

Evercrack, I knew a number of people who bought 3000 dollar computers in the mid nineties to play Everquest.

I wasn't a PC gamer but I bought a Dell in late nineties for near $3k. I think that was just the going rates for anything near max on RAM or CPU, even going big on disk space could drastically up the cost back then. I think I ended up adding a upgraded GPU to that PC that cost a good deal extra, and I wasn't even a gamer! I think I just wanted to edit or watch a certain video format/quality/etc and the stock GPU card wasn't able to handle it.

I don't remember exactly, but I do remember I used to collect videos of live performances from a handful of my favorite bands back then so think it might have been related to that hobby. As a side note, I had dozens of the 100 pack CD-R stacks full of these burned videos because HDD cost too much and I didn't need them to be available on demand.

Yeah and porn advances were specifically because the market leaders of the old school industry (publishers/distributors) could have their market stolen. So there was a large carrot out there, and it warranted market disruption. Just like dozens of other industries as the Internet and computing became widely available. The old guard of playboy and hustler and such did not invest heavily in the advances. It was small operators looking for an advantage in scale. Producers looking to cut out distributors, etc. I don’t think vr specifically offers that level of treasures and it’s not like any Joe can start a vr porn shop now. The internet originally offered the ability of a single person to sell millions of copies of their films. It (vr) probably actually consolidates it further again as larger investment in production equipment and editing is needed. But, it’s a tiny market so nobody really cares to be a first adopter. A lot of people are skeptical of Vr ever being widely available any time soon. That skepticism was optimism in early days of PC usage. Everyone knew computers were the future and we’d all be using them daily, in the home, etc. It was worth investing in for the porn industry.

I think porn prefers open tooling so that it is less likely to be banned. Going inside Apple's walled garden is probably more risky in that regard and also there's only a small consumer base.

There are plenty of VR apps in this category available for PC-connected headsets. You can find tons of them on Steam or Patreon.

Small consumer base for porn or for the current $3000 apple headset?

The immersion is really good.

Apple would never allow it in their ecosystem, but OnlyFans + immersive VR could sell very well.

yeah i think apples no porn policy is ruining their vr headset and the future of vr ;). not that i am into vr porn. i only think the market for that should be huge

TBH I feel like if I am into VR porn then I am definitely addicted and I'd need help from professional. Usually porn is like a quick dopamine hit, or a quick release for a biological need. For VR, you'd beed to be really really into porn, to spend all the setup time AND then still be in the mood ...

yes true. but isnt using addicted people for the own benefit the whole premise of most social media and alike. apple is maybe not into social media but I cant imagine zuckerberg not wetting his pants from joy if he thinks about million more people crippled to his attention gathering devices.

Porn can't make the big ticket sales needed to prop up VR. It's hard enough to get a payment processor because of how often charges get disputed and fears about touching the money for illegal and abusive material.

You can't be discreet about VR porning because it leaves you oblivious to your surroundings. You gotta plan ahead and really commit to the time and place.

Aren't all of them propped up by being tethered to some FAANG? I highly doubt they are interested in hiring the best and brightest to build VR porn devices.

I also suspect that the "kick" from porn is a voyeuristic one; i.e. most consumers would rather watch it than be in it.

  until the price range becomes below $1000 or so there’s virtually no market.

Probably because it's cheaper to fly and literally be somewhere and actually enjoy it rather than exist there for a minute or two and then get bored.

I mean, once for one place, if you are able bodied and have a week of vacation.

I feel like there's a difference...

  I feel like there's a difference...

You're getting close to my point

At this point is basically quantity vs quality.

And plus, visiting again some places could lead to ruin the previous good memory.

That's the reason to take photos, is not like someone would argue that for them..

Where can you vacation for $1000?

The fidelity of a real local $1000 experience vs a fake one is a lot different even if you can’t travel as far.

That doesn’t really answer the question. What real local experience can you have for $1000 that isn’t in your back yard?

I got curious and looked. I'm from Sweden and for $1000 I could get to Cabo Verde, Madeira and or course most parts of Europe (like Italy, Greece, France). That is for flight and hotel. You need to eat as well of course, but that you need to do at home as well.

I wouldn't call Africa my back yard.

I took a 4 day holiday to Athens from the UK for <$200 all-in (including flights and accomodation)

OK, if you live in (Western) Europe, you can go, say, from Netherlands or Sweden to fabulous places like Barcelona or Rome or Istanbul, all very different, picturesque, and not hugely expensive. A flight, if you time it well, could cost less than €100, or even €60..

we in europe are lucky. i got a flight for 20€ to portugal and was staying there for a week for around 50€ a day. thats not even 500 bucks. this vr headset would be 5-8 weeks of holiday worth

I went a week a Norway from Germany, everything included for 4 people was less than 1k

So many options in Europe if you don't mind discomfort. From the UK, I'd maybe take a cheap flight to Poland or even the long distance bus. Once there, YHA hostels, camping etc.

Another option is fly to Greece and island hop on the ferries. Or Portugal and northern Spain. Buses are the cheapest way to get around there and fairly flexible although not quick. Sometimes you can hire a car for a week for $250, or some places hire mopeds for way less.

A lot of "meanwhile in Europe" replies here, but even within the United States there are great places you can fly to pretty cheap. Or make a road trip out of it.

Yeah, you've gotta budget it, but it's not impossible to get somewhere, have a great time, and get back for under $1000.

Especially when that hallmark moment is left behind by Tim Cook deciding the format or platform legacy and no longer supported.

Many many places of the world, if you are ok with not having all the comforts and more.

Usually the most expensive thing is the flight, so you've got to time that well. Go to places for more than 2 weeks and in the lowest season and you can make that $1000 last a while.

The limitations are generally on the traveller's side.

Of course, if you're looking for a full paid cruise, with kids and must have perfect everything in the "best" season then you pay like the rest.

From Europe, a 1 week package holiday in Thailand with flight+resort hotel included is $1000.

Link?

I really doubt this is true, I'm European and check this kind of stuff often.

https://www.pepper.pl/share-deal-from-app/881457

$700 - flight + hotel for a week

There are dozens of options for me and I don’t even have to leave the state.

Spend a week camping at a state park nearby with the family. About $40 in transportation costs round trip for the whole family. Maybe $200 in food/snacks/other consumables. $70 for the yearly parks pass+ $15/night for campsite = $175. If I don't already have camping supplies, I can get decently kitted out for the family for this kind of camping for like $400. It'll last me a bunch of trips but let's assume you've got nothing. So that's like $815 for the first time, $415 every other time.

It would be a smart, albeit self serving political move for VR headset makers to be advocating for carbon pricing to make their offerings more competitive with that of the travel industry.

If Apple could make the UX of the physical device a bit better and had a larger library of places to explore I would absolutely give it to my grandma. She’s mostly stuck in a her flat alone all day. Walking is hard. She FaceTimes and calls people, but going to see beauty is mostly something she doesn’t get to experience anymore. If she could watch a sunrise in Hawaii instead of worrying about political news I think her day to day would be much better and I would be happy to spend the money to give her that QoL improvement.

GoPro Fusion devices to record walking videos and serve in Vision Pro would be amazing for location bound people

> Until the price range becomes below $1000 or so there’s virtually no market. It’s a toy. People don’t need a teleportation device. It’s fun to play with, like a toy. It doesn’t really solve enough of a “real” problem to justify the current cost.

This argument seems valid to anyone that hasn't browsed "The Sharper Image" catalog in the back of an airline seat, or even the "high end" showroom at a Best Buy.

There's been a huge market for >70" TVs since mid 2010s, costing $3,500 - $10,000 US for much of that timeframe. Today you'd have to compare to 100" class: https://www.amazon.com/100-inch-tv/s?k=100+inch+tv&s=price-d...

All your objections would certainly apply. It's a toy. People don't need it. It's fun, but doesn't solve a "real" problem. It's too expensive to be given as a gift.

AVP offers a >240" screen, and fully immersive 3D. It needs very little to make movie watching a shared experience in the same room, or with friends far away.

Priced solely against a TV, people have proven happy to pay for entertainment toys. If the initial OOTB release had supported "seeing" someone watching the same content "with" you in Disney's theater or the VR spaces, this buying segment would have taken more interest.

> AVP offers a >240" screen, and fully immersive 3D. It needs very little to make movie watching a shared experience in the same room, or with friends far away.

It actively gets in the way of cuddling in person, and doesn't help when away. Meanwhile I've had great experiences watching things together on a phone screen. If away, bluntly, with good friends a laptop screen and a shared stream via Jellyfin works _amazing_.

Like c'mon. The size of the screen is a fetish for people who think it's the screens fault that their hangout isn't emotionally impactful.

Well you need something entertaining to do with it. Right now the use cases seem to be just looking at pictures and watching videos alone. Or extending your computer monitor. There isn't even that much 3D content. Nobody really seems to care about movies and shows being in 3D. It's basically a $3000 portable monitor. Not entertaining.

I think tv usage is a hard comparison as it’s so well integrated into our lives and social fabric. These people are likely either just outfitting their house so it is more like furniture than a toy and they likely know exactly what value it adds for them (movie nights, sports gatherings, etc). Things people place great value on. And, I don’t think they’d see a vr experience as a substitute. Maybe in time they will. Once they get enough exposure to it, most likely by owning it, but that isn’t likely to happen if prices remain high. And there’s still something that’s missing, nobody is coming to your Super Bowl party just because you have an Apple Vision Pro. So it’s only useful if everyone that you’d invite also has a similar technology to have a shared virtual experience. So that further requires the prices to be lower. Beyond that is the question, does anyone actually want those types of experiences to be virtual? Would people just simply prefer that event to be IRL? I think the answer is going to be Yes for a very long time for a majority of folks. It will slowly penetrate the meatspace but will hit a fairly low ceiling at some point.

A 386 PC cost $3000+ after the 486 was released. Sometimes I think our expectations for dirt cheap supercomputers are out of whack.

The context matters a lot. Early PCs were released at a time when there wasn’t really anything else like these products. That early pricing reflected the creation of a brand new category.

The Vision Pro is a remarkable piece of tech, but isn’t required to achieve many of the use cases it supports, and people are primarily paying for the immersive experience.

Given that, spending $3K on immersion in a market where a few hundred dollars will buy you most of the non-immersion capabilities is quite different than spending $3K on an early PC.

Around the time of the 386, weren’t there a bunch of lesser options that did a bunch of similar use cases well? I’m thinking Commodores, Amigas, even a NES.

There was a huge delta between what these systems could do.

e.g. the Commodore 64 was an 8-bit 1 MHz processor vs. the 386's 32-bit 12-40MHz, could not run a full operating system, had 64 KB RAM vs. 1MB or more on the 386, etc.

In terms of raw computing capability, the 386 was a significant advance over those cheaper systems and represented capabilities that just weren't yet on the market, and those capabilities unlocked entire worlds of possible use cases and unlocked general purpose computing.

The Amiga 1000 is closer to the 386 in terms of capability, but was ~$1,600 (with a monitor) and was still significantly slower, i.e. if your use case benefited from raw processing power, there was a clear value proposition for the 386.

I'd still put this in a very different category than what is effectively an iPad with + VR/AR interface.

This isn't a "supercomputer". It's not even a computer. It's a locked-down device, with very few tailored apps and content (for now anyway).

Yeah, but that's because it's Apple. If the same hardware was made by pretty much anyone else, I'd probably be interested. It's like the iPad Pro. It could probably replace my laptop if it could run real Linux.

If the community had free reign to do whatever with the hardware, it would be much more than a toy. Someone would port SimulaVR (or a different window manager) and it would feel like a real computing device.

I can imagine a world where I travel with one of those headsets and a wireless keyboard. Then I can setup shop anywhere and do development work in a cloud environment. The headset just being a dumb terminal to render the terminal or whatever.

It really feels like we are only a few years away from that being reality. I really want the apple headset to succeed, so that other companies invest in open/hackable hardware.

Every multi-GHz multicore computing device today would place on the Top500 in the 90s. Your phone is a handheld supercomputer.

I pretty much feel like the vision pro is overkill for the tasks it wants to do.

For a newbie a meta quest 3 is more than enough.

Index or meta quest pro? That's the shit.

But i liked the battery begin a separate thing from the headset himself, i think that's good user design.

I think it will have a market at $2000.

MacBook Pros are 50% of Mac sales and they start at $2000.

What % of those sales are companies buying them for their employees? It's almost a B2B market. Whereas the Vision Pro is overwhelmingly B2C, at least it will be with the current state of the technology. Hence very different pricing dynamics.

I didn’t say it will sell as much as MacBook Pros as soon as it hits $2000.

I’m saying there will be a market.

They need to get the weight and price down substantially.

> I’m saying there will be a market.

Perhaps, but how is the price or popularity of MacBook pros particularly related to that?

That a fairly large market exists for $2000+ Apple device.

You can use them (MBPs) to actually make money. AVPs mostly make money to 2-bit YouTube influencers making videos about it…

Well, a $5000 80” TV doesn’t make you money either.

I think the Vision Pro needs to be as comfortable and convenient to use as a TV, or it needs to be cheaper. And/or it needs a new killer app.

It's sitting in a weird place right now where it's too expensive for what you get, but it's fairly easy to imagine how it could improve to become something much more attractive/popular.

MBP returns you the investment pretty soon

MBPs are overwhelmingly bought by businesses for their employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com