5 ms·

I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you. You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past

I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you. You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.

Raphmedia 10y ago
> VR doesn't even replicate reality What device and apps did you try? Did you try room-scale? VR controllers? Whenever I watch movies in my virtual living room I drop things on the ground because I try to put them on a table that isn't really there. > let alone do more I can watch movies on huge screens. I can take a dive underwater. Go in space. Shoot zombies. Talk to real people around a campfire.
- 31reasons 10y ago
  Pay more attention to reality and you will notice that it does way more than current VR gadgets offer.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    My computer doesn't perfectly replace reality either, it must be a fad.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      My computer doesn't literally claim to be Virtual Reality either though - so that's a bit of a straw man. That's like saying my car doesn't perfectly replace reality either, clearly nobody ever claimed it would...
      - freehunter 10y ago
        Well I mean if it was reality it would be called "reality". It's a virtual representation of reality, which is why it's called "virtual reality". A video game isn't the real world, it's a virtual representation of a world, so it's called a "virtual world". And Nintendo's head-mounted video game system from the 90s wasn't a real boy, it was a "virtual boy". What I'm getting at is this argument stems from semantics. Of course VR is never going to replace the real world. That was never its intent. The goal is to not replace reality but rather to simulate it. That's why the name has "virtual" in it.
carlosdp 10y ago
Idk dude, VR headsets have already sold to millions of consumers and new applications pop up by the day. Not only that, but unlike most of the technologies you mentioned, VR has massive backing already from some of the most powerful companies in tech. It has billions in investment already, FB is putting hundreds of millions into Oculus and funding applications/games. HTC has basically pivoted their entire company to the Vive. This isn't going away, VR/AR is going to replace current keyboard/mouse/screen interfaces, because why wouldn't it? The aforementioned are even further from replicating what I am trying to do on a computer. Why do I have to move a mouse in two dimensions or tap on a flat display to interact with many concepts much easier to work with in 3D?
- mozumder 10y ago
  None of that means it will succeed. Apple Watch sold millions, and it's about to fail. Same with all the other smartwatches. VR is going away, since it's such a terrible user experience compared to laptops/desktops/smartphones.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    This is a strange post to me. First, where's the evidence that the Apple Watch is about to fail? Every day I keep seeing more and more Apple Watches in the wild. Just the other day I was getting lunch and noticed that at the table next to me every single person had an Apple Watch on. Every time there's a get-together in my family, I notice one or two extra relatives who've ended up getting one. That's pretty impressive for something that's on the verge of failure. It actually feels comparable with how smartphones slowly started assimilating into our lives years ago. Second, consumer VR right now is for video games, period. Maybe that will change later on, but that's what VR is all about right now. So comparing it to laptops/desktops/smartphones seems strange. What are the dimensions of this comparison? Turning on Steam VR, then putting on the headset doesn't feel all that different to me from turning on the TV, then sitting down on the sofa.
- callmeed 10y ago
  2016 VR sales were below almost everyone's predictions. Rift and Vive under 500K units. PlayStation under 1M (with market analysts backtracking on their estimates last month). For FB, I see it as a moonshot project much like the various things Google does. Being a moonshot project doesn't guarantee you success. As for investments, I think we've entered an era where everyone is afraid of being disrupted by a startup or missing out on a unicorn. Now, you have large companies putting money into VR projects and VCs scrambling to fund anything VR-related. I think a similar thing happened with smart watches and wearables. I don't know enough about the state of VR interfaces for work, but it seems ideal for specialized industries (medicine, military, etc.).
catshirt 10y ago
> "VR doesn't even replicate reality" if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if. if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.
- callmeed 10y ago
  See my other comment. That was a specific reply to the notion that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ... He/she is saying "VR replicates reality and more", while I'm saying "no, VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone anything beyond it" No need to get pedantic about the grammar.
  - catshirt 10y ago
    not trying to be a pedant and i completely understood the context. we're talking about tense, not grammar. there is a huge difference between saying "VR is not good right now" and "VR will never be good". "Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality" i'm assuming OP meant "VR [has the possibility to] not merely replicate reality." or "[ideally] VR can not merely replicate reality...". we're trying to predict a trend- how well developed the technology is now seems less relevant than it's end-game.
sedachv 10y ago
The current crop of companies can experience something similar to the video game crash of 1983. I also agree that the "VR will change everything" hype is baseless - 3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications. Though as an entertainment technology the experience is so compelling that it is hard to imagine that it won't become massively popular eventually.
- sedachv 10y ago
  To provide some references for my assertion that "3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications," there are a lot of systems that have been tried in the 1990s and 2000s, most of which you can try out today to see why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) (Free Software clone: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project The one big non-entertainment application that 3d worlds are good at has been teleconferencing. There are a bunch of what are essentially 3d chat clients around, and many more have gone out of business.
sixQuarks 10y ago
Yes, all of the past technologies you listed, I was bearish on. If you have tried the current crop of VR and don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. Come back to this thread 10 years from now so i can say "I told you so".
wvenable 10y ago
> VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad. It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether or this is the point it's viable. I just got a Gear VR last week and while it's not perfect it feels like the right point and that's just powered by my cell phone.
- callmeed 10y ago
  I was riff'ing off the parent user's comment that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...
  - wvenable 10y ago
    That's a fair point; the entire point of VR is that it isn't reality.
wj 10y ago
I wouldn't include LaserDisks on that list. It was replaced by DVDs which I believe are close enough in practice to not consider it a failed technology. More of a first iteration. 3D TV didn't last long. I never got one and didn't really see the appeal but I wonder if widespread use of VR headsets would make that technology mute anyway.
andybak 10y ago
> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing. I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2. This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and not in the way Laserdisc had it's "enthusiasts" - it's the kind of tech that makes people want to switch careers. I think it's fortunate that VR has coincided with the rise of crowdfunding and the renaissance of indie devs. That is going to help see it through it's difficult early patch.
- dmix 10y ago
  Laserdisc failed because of cost/competition from competing platforms. 3D TVs were an add-on to a commodity product to help differentiate it in a technologically stagnate market. Google glass was experimental. VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products. It seems like there are already enough early adopters to fuel the growth it will require (product-wise) to get mainstream adoption. As others have mentioned, this has only scratched the surface in the consumer market. But the B2B applications are so wide that this could be huge there alone in terms of simulation, training, and business process automation. I doubt someones poor experience with some early stage VR tech is enough to discredit the wider potential of the platform. Even if the consumer gaming side is niche for another half decade.
  - callmeed 10y ago
    Ok, so what other mainstream product/technology went through a similar evolution as you claim VR is doing now? Recall 2 things: 1. VR has been tried in the past and went nowhere. 2. Adoption of mainstream things is usually pretty steep (cell phones, PCs, TV, Internet access)[1] If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it. Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles). You say niche for half a decade ... he says an "explosion" in less than 2 years. I don't get it. [1] http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ

Raphmedia 10y ago

> VR doesn't even replicate reality What device and apps did you try? Did you try room-scale? VR controllers? Whenever I watch movies in my virtual living room I drop things on the ground because I try to put them on a table that isn't really there. > let alone do more I can watch movies on huge screens. I can take a dive underwater. Go in space. Shoot zombies. Talk to real people around a campfire.

31reasons 10y ago
Pay more attention to reality and you will notice that it does way more than current VR gadgets offer.
- freehunter 10y ago
  My computer doesn't perfectly replace reality either, it must be a fad.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    My computer doesn't literally claim to be Virtual Reality either though - so that's a bit of a straw man. That's like saying my car doesn't perfectly replace reality either, clearly nobody ever claimed it would...
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Well I mean if it was reality it would be called "reality". It's a virtual representation of reality, which is why it's called "virtual reality". A video game isn't the real world, it's a virtual representation of a world, so it's called a "virtual world". And Nintendo's head-mounted video game system from the 90s wasn't a real boy, it was a "virtual boy". What I'm getting at is this argument stems from semantics. Of course VR is never going to replace the real world. That was never its intent. The goal is to not replace reality but rather to simulate it. That's why the name has "virtual" in it.

carlosdp 10y ago

Idk dude, VR headsets have already sold to millions of consumers and new applications pop up by the day. Not only that, but unlike most of the technologies you mentioned, VR has massive backing already from some of the most powerful companies in tech. It has billions in investment already, FB is putting hundreds of millions into Oculus and funding applications/games. HTC has basically pivoted their entire company to the Vive. This isn't going away, VR/AR is going to replace current keyboard/mouse/screen interfaces, because why wouldn't it? The aforementioned are even further from replicating what I am trying to do on a computer. Why do I have to move a mouse in two dimensions or tap on a flat display to interact with many concepts much easier to work with in 3D?

mozumder 10y ago
None of that means it will succeed. Apple Watch sold millions, and it's about to fail. Same with all the other smartwatches. VR is going away, since it's such a terrible user experience compared to laptops/desktops/smartphones.
- nilkn 10y ago
  This is a strange post to me. First, where's the evidence that the Apple Watch is about to fail? Every day I keep seeing more and more Apple Watches in the wild. Just the other day I was getting lunch and noticed that at the table next to me every single person had an Apple Watch on. Every time there's a get-together in my family, I notice one or two extra relatives who've ended up getting one. That's pretty impressive for something that's on the verge of failure. It actually feels comparable with how smartphones slowly started assimilating into our lives years ago. Second, consumer VR right now is for video games, period. Maybe that will change later on, but that's what VR is all about right now. So comparing it to laptops/desktops/smartphones seems strange. What are the dimensions of this comparison? Turning on Steam VR, then putting on the headset doesn't feel all that different to me from turning on the TV, then sitting down on the sofa.
callmeed 10y ago
2016 VR sales were below almost everyone's predictions. Rift and Vive under 500K units. PlayStation under 1M (with market analysts backtracking on their estimates last month). For FB, I see it as a moonshot project much like the various things Google does. Being a moonshot project doesn't guarantee you success. As for investments, I think we've entered an era where everyone is afraid of being disrupted by a startup or missing out on a unicorn. Now, you have large companies putting money into VR projects and VCs scrambling to fund anything VR-related. I think a similar thing happened with smart watches and wearables. I don't know enough about the state of VR interfaces for work, but it seems ideal for specialized industries (medicine, military, etc.).

catshirt 10y ago

> "VR doesn't even replicate reality" if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if. if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.

callmeed 10y ago
See my other comment. That was a specific reply to the notion that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ... He/she is saying "VR replicates reality and more", while I'm saying "no, VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone anything beyond it" No need to get pedantic about the grammar.
- catshirt 10y ago
  not trying to be a pedant and i completely understood the context. we're talking about tense, not grammar. there is a huge difference between saying "VR is not good right now" and "VR will never be good". "Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality" i'm assuming OP meant "VR [has the possibility to] not merely replicate reality." or "[ideally] VR can not merely replicate reality...". we're trying to predict a trend- how well developed the technology is now seems less relevant than it's end-game.

sedachv 10y ago

The current crop of companies can experience something similar to the video game crash of 1983. I also agree that the "VR will change everything" hype is baseless - 3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications. Though as an entertainment technology the experience is so compelling that it is hard to imagine that it won't become massively popular eventually.

sedachv 10y ago
To provide some references for my assertion that "3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications," there are a lot of systems that have been tried in the 1990s and 2000s, most of which you can try out today to see why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) (Free Software clone: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project The one big non-entertainment application that 3d worlds are good at has been teleconferencing. There are a bunch of what are essentially 3d chat clients around, and many more have gone out of business.

sixQuarks 10y ago

Yes, all of the past technologies you listed, I was bearish on. If you have tried the current crop of VR and don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. Come back to this thread 10 years from now so i can say "I told you so".

wvenable 10y ago

> VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad. It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether or this is the point it's viable. I just got a Gear VR last week and while it's not perfect it feels like the right point and that's just powered by my cell phone.

callmeed 10y ago
I was riff'ing off the parent user's comment that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...
- wvenable 10y ago
  That's a fair point; the entire point of VR is that it isn't reality.

wj 10y ago

I wouldn't include LaserDisks on that list. It was replaced by DVDs which I believe are close enough in practice to not consider it a failed technology. More of a first iteration. 3D TV didn't last long. I never got one and didn't really see the appeal but I wonder if widespread use of VR headsets would make that technology mute anyway.

andybak 10y ago

> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing. I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2. This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and not in the way Laserdisc had it's "enthusiasts" - it's the kind of tech that makes people want to switch careers. I think it's fortunate that VR has coincided with the rise of crowdfunding and the renaissance of indie devs. That is going to help see it through it's difficult early patch.

dmix 10y ago
Laserdisc failed because of cost/competition from competing platforms. 3D TVs were an add-on to a commodity product to help differentiate it in a technologically stagnate market. Google glass was experimental. VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products. It seems like there are already enough early adopters to fuel the growth it will require (product-wise) to get mainstream adoption. As others have mentioned, this has only scratched the surface in the consumer market. But the B2B applications are so wide that this could be huge there alone in terms of simulation, training, and business process automation. I doubt someones poor experience with some early stage VR tech is enough to discredit the wider potential of the platform. Even if the consumer gaming side is niche for another half decade.
- callmeed 10y ago
  Ok, so what other mainstream product/technology went through a similar evolution as you claim VR is doing now? Recall 2 things: 1. VR has been tried in the past and went nowhere. 2. Adoption of mainstream things is usually pretty steep (cell phones, PCs, TV, Internet access)[1] If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it. Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles). You say niche for half a decade ... he says an "explosion" in less than 2 years. I don't get it. [1] http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ