Hacker News Reader

Comment by fidotron | Hacker News Reader

This is an intriguing situation because while the "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." comment will always haunt those that criticise Apple product launches this is the first one in years where the product looks more like it's actually the Nomad being mentioned, and the iPod has yet to arrive.

I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run out of ideas that will connect with people. We had a good boom post iPhone, but this kind of thing just doesn't look like there's any point to it.

View on HN

In my opinion you're utterly wrong about VR, it's going to be a transformative technology and will precipitate a massive push for high end real-time graphics. People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades.

As far as the watch goes, I think it will make money but less than the iPad. It's clearly pitched as a fashion accessory and will find a market. Just not a big enough one to satisfy analysts.

> People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades.

It's far from clear that they're actually willing to do anything about it. Look at 3D TVs. No one wants to sit on their couch lazily watching whatever's on with special glasses.

If VR was a passive technology like HD -- by which I mean you buy a new TV and everything is better without any further action on your part -- I'd be more confident that you're correct. But it's not. I can't see headsets as a thing people are going to wear sitting on their sofa with the family. Game consoles seem like an obvious target with an audience that might be receptive, but otherwise, I just can't envision mass adoption.

I don't argue that it would be an easier sell if it wasn't so anti-social to use. But it certainly can't be compared to 3D TVs or movies for that matter, which are an awful hack.

This generation's VR is the real deal, and while the technology isn't quite there yet, it's within touching distance. People will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience because the experience will be significantly more compelling than anything else they've seen. It will be massive based on word of mouth alone.

I think that very much depends on perspective. The technology powering a current-gen headset might be brilliant, but the headset itself -- not the technology but the very idea that I need a headset is still very much an "awful hack". At least to me, and I suspect quite a few others. I could be wrong of course...just my predictions there, but that's my problem with the tech.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the experience is 10x more compelling (which is what I think it will be), then people will put up with it.

Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.

Some people ski, occasionally. I can totally see that future for VR as well, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. For gaming, it's at least potentially very compelling. I just don't see it as a technology people want for more general use. I don't think we'll be using it browsing Facebook or sitting in the park.

People don't wear skis around in their daily life. Skis are very much a special purpose item that most people use between never and about once a year, with never the runaway winner, if you consider the fraction of even relatively affluent people who don't ski at all.

I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing.

If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact.

Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.

I didn't really intend that to be literal. I'm going with the "skiing as a metaphor" here. Yes, people will do something arduous and inconvenient for the experience, but they do it rarely. The inconvenience is tolerable when you do it every once in a while to get a unique experience. The same level of inconvenience is not at all tolerable as part of your day to day life.

If the argument is that VR will become "an experience", then I'm fine with that. But a capital-E-Experience is the opposite of everyday mass adoption.

I think it depends on exactly how good this generation of VR technology turns out to be. 3D was really pretty underwhelming and hard to watch for a lot of people. And at the end of the day it didn't look terribly real.

The cumbersome nature of VR goggles could potentially be outweighed by the sheer novelty and intensity of the experience.

[I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place; it was meant to go https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 here.]

I don't see that as being a problem that people are looking for a solution to. You're describing interacting with a very heavy desktop-type computing system, but the headset only solves the output problem. If I need large numbers of application windows arranged in space, I also need much more sophisticated input devices. Head tracking, eye-tracking, Leap Motion style stuff, all of that can be useful, but it's not enough for typing this comment into this input box, for instance. Better voice helps, but it's still not good enough, and it also adds yet another social factor that needs to be overcome, as people don't really like talking to their computers on average.

Maybe eventually this is the world we'll be living in. Right now, and for enough of the foreseeable future to worry about trying to predict, people with those needs will want to have a real keyboard and mouse or trackpad, and at that point, they will just use a laptop. Any benefit you get from the VR is, I think, outweighed by the downsides of not being able to just look around the actual physical environment.

You don't have to beat the competition on every axis to succeed, but you do have to eliminate any axis for which you are an immediate non-starter. I think the headset makes it an immediate non-starter for widespread general purpose use.

Hee hee. Wait until people twig properly to VR's usefulness as a way of displaying simple virtual 2D screens or application windows. (Nearly) any number of windows of any size, at any position, and at infinite focal length, anywhere you are able to sit down and put on VR goggles, without a particularly high GPU/CPU burden. That makes the VR HMD a disruptive entrant into the small phone/big phone/small tablet/big tablet scrap. It's probably going to take further improvements in resolution, off-centre visual distortion and HMD bulk before it can really take off in that role, but like any disruptive technology it doesn't have to beat the competition on every axis before it can succeed.

"connect with people" is exactly what the apple watch does. This strikes me as the first tech. product launch that the fashion aspect plays at the forefront. Personally, their watch is not for me. But, this strikes me as Apple's next transition from technology company to a consumer fashion brand (making the Beats acquisition somewhat more clear).

Think about it, Apple's 3 watch models are differentiated by the aesthetic desires of the consumer, not the technology differences. This is the next stage of technology fading into the background and our vanity/fashion consciousness driving ahead. -- I suspect that very reason is why you and I as techies are not excited about the device.

Or its a very optimistic push to try and make a new market area which is fraught with difficulties work well?

When you get down to it the fundamental issues of smart watches haven't been fixed. We do not have batteries big enough to give the sort of runtime which would make it acceptable, and people are already burdened from device charging fatigue.

Smartwatches have runtimes measured in under-a-day, depending how they're used. That is nowhere near good enough.

My Pebble lasts a whole week.

I guess this is like saying my Nokia 3310 lasts a whole week compared to a smart phone.

Probably. I often compare the Pebble to being the Palm Pilot of smartwatches.

I disagree on the watches but agree on VR. A phone in your pocket is really absurd when you think about it. It would be far more useful on your wrist for 80% of what you'd use it for. For the remaining 20% (gaming, typing longer texts, etc.) you can still have a larger phone but it would mostly stay in your bag.

As for VR, there is a solid 30+ years of it being "the next" thing and then failing to be. I tried the Oculus recently and it didn't change my mind.

Curious, whats your take on the Oculus? I'm getting a little sick of the paid PR messages and fanboys and am skeptical its going to have mass adoption. How did it feel to you?

I thought the motion and immersion were awesome but the graphics were less stellar than I expected. Obviously that is probably the easiest thing to improve. So for first person shooters it could be the best thing ever, but for general purpose gaming I'm not so sure it is worth the hassle (much like 3D).

It's amazing how similar it is to all the other clunky smartwatches. More polish, sure, but essentially the same thing. I think they really missed an opportunity here. Should have been two things only: sensors and notifications. Fitbit + Pebble in a slim, beautiful package.

It's already an iPhone accessory, not a standalone device. They could have gone all the way with that, but no, instead it's yet another touchscreen gadget to fiddle with.

I went in thinking there's no way it could interest me.

But the payments, the "crown", the haptic feedback, and the gamification of health... I'll probably pick one up.

Again someone who are ignorant to the people already owning a smartwatch. It has literally transformed my life, almost as much as when getting my first smartphone. I will wear one until the next technological paradigm shift happens and makes it obsolete.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com