4 ms·

Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR

by jp555 9y ago

Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR/AR 5 years from now will make today's tech seem. But we probably still needed the PocketPC to pave the way for the iPhone.

falcolas 9y ago
It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.
- whicks 9y ago
  We've had affordable, consumer-grade VR for 20 years? VR that, you know, actually feels like VR? This is coming off a bit snarky, I know, but I've seen this written all over the place and I have to say, the VR we have today is nothing like the VR of twenty or even ten years ago. Not from a consumer standpoint, anyways. I'm not an expert by any means, just some guy on the internet who is excited about the future of VR and has done a bit of reading on this topic.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Just like the Pocket PC "feels like an iPhone"? It's worth keeping the context of the conversation in mind. The tech behind VR has been available for quite some time, the fact that it's still so limited (and has shown so little growth beyond the existing headsets) doesn't encourage "full surround with high resolutions in 5 years" mentalities.
    - jp555 9y ago
      The machine that makes the machine is what hints rapid developments are coming. That machine is the global smartphone component supply chain. It's a very different environment than when VR was build upon the desktop PC component supply chain, which brought things like the automated bank machine and interactive kiosks.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        But that "machine" isn't currently putting a lot of additional effort into moving from 200 DPI displays to 400 DPI displays (most have hit their local maxima of resolution for size); the thing that's sorely needed for a better VR experience. Without that R&D being done by the phone industry, the VR industry will once again stagnate.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  I don't think it actually is worth remembering. That hardware was so completely different from the hardware we have now, in terms of performance and price. Those displays were somewhere around 240x320 pixels at 30hz. The year-old tech we have today is 1080x1200 at 90hz. That's roughly 50x better, a magnitude and a half better. That's not even beginning to consider the several orders of magnitude improvement in the visuals we can push over that display. It also comes at a fraction of the cost. Four headsets plus a cluster of SGI workstations to run them would probably set you back a million dollars. Today, you're looking at about $10,000. 100x improvement in cost. Hell, quantity has a quality all its own. So, without even considering graphics (or ubiquitous and wireless internet access), we're looking at modern VR being at east 500x better than the tech from 20 years ago. I don't know any comparisons to make that are 500x improvements outside of tech. I don't think we can really learn anything meaningful from the VR wave of the 90s. What we have today is just a completely different situation.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    50x in 20 years. I think it's fair to say that another 10 or 20x is required (displays 5x as wide with 4x more pixels per inch), that would be another 10 or so years, not a mere 5. Especially when display tech is not showing a lot of effort in getting beyond the current 200dpi. VR display tech has piggybacked off phone tech, and phones are not actively looking for even higher pixel density. This means specialized research & design into display tech; something I don't see or even hear about being done.
    - Impossible 9y ago
      You may not see it or hear it but it's actively being worked on... That's not including companies like Magic Leap and Avegant whose entire business is founded on custom light field displays for AR.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        Magic Leap, the company who has been repeatedly panned on HN for providing a cool demo idea, with no actual product or research? The "2 million mirrors" in the Avegant Glyph is roughly equivalent to 1080p; about the same resolution as the Occulus and Vive. The tech is also an adaptation of the same DLP technology that's been in use in TVs and projectors for decades.
- jp555 9y ago
  That's true, but is kinda like saying we've had pen computing since the early 1960s - http://www.cadazz.com/cad-software-Sketchpad.htm http://www.cadazz.com/cad-software-Sketchpad.htm. Exponentials are never easy but I think we're about to see huge strides in VR/AR over the next 5 years, which will be built upon the only recently established global smartphone component supply chain. There were no commodity retina OLED screens even 10 years ago.
- ConceptJunkie 9y ago
  I think it's fair to say the tech has improved significantly, but from my perspective, today's VR is about as interesting a proposition as it was in the 1990's. Yeah, it's an interesting gimmick that would get old fast, and there's no killer app. In that respect, I don't think VR has changed at all in 20 years.

by jp555 9y ago

falcolas 9y ago

It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.

whicks 9y ago
We've had affordable, consumer-grade VR for 20 years? VR that, you know, actually feels like VR? This is coming off a bit snarky, I know, but I've seen this written all over the place and I have to say, the VR we have today is nothing like the VR of twenty or even ten years ago. Not from a consumer standpoint, anyways. I'm not an expert by any means, just some guy on the internet who is excited about the future of VR and has done a bit of reading on this topic.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Just like the Pocket PC "feels like an iPhone"? It's worth keeping the context of the conversation in mind. The tech behind VR has been available for quite some time, the fact that it's still so limited (and has shown so little growth beyond the existing headsets) doesn't encourage "full surround with high resolutions in 5 years" mentalities.
  - jp555 9y ago
    The machine that makes the machine is what hints rapid developments are coming. That machine is the global smartphone component supply chain. It's a very different environment than when VR was build upon the desktop PC component supply chain, which brought things like the automated bank machine and interactive kiosks.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      But that "machine" isn't currently putting a lot of additional effort into moving from 200 DPI displays to 400 DPI displays (most have hit their local maxima of resolution for size); the thing that's sorely needed for a better VR experience. Without that R&D being done by the phone industry, the VR industry will once again stagnate.
moron4hire 9y ago
I don't think it actually is worth remembering. That hardware was so completely different from the hardware we have now, in terms of performance and price. Those displays were somewhere around 240x320 pixels at 30hz. The year-old tech we have today is 1080x1200 at 90hz. That's roughly 50x better, a magnitude and a half better. That's not even beginning to consider the several orders of magnitude improvement in the visuals we can push over that display. It also comes at a fraction of the cost. Four headsets plus a cluster of SGI workstations to run them would probably set you back a million dollars. Today, you're looking at about $10,000. 100x improvement in cost. Hell, quantity has a quality all its own. So, without even considering graphics (or ubiquitous and wireless internet access), we're looking at modern VR being at east 500x better than the tech from 20 years ago. I don't know any comparisons to make that are 500x improvements outside of tech. I don't think we can really learn anything meaningful from the VR wave of the 90s. What we have today is just a completely different situation.
- falcolas 9y ago
  50x in 20 years. I think it's fair to say that another 10 or 20x is required (displays 5x as wide with 4x more pixels per inch), that would be another 10 or so years, not a mere 5. Especially when display tech is not showing a lot of effort in getting beyond the current 200dpi. VR display tech has piggybacked off phone tech, and phones are not actively looking for even higher pixel density. This means specialized research & design into display tech; something I don't see or even hear about being done.
  - Impossible 9y ago
    You may not see it or hear it but it's actively being worked on... That's not including companies like Magic Leap and Avegant whose entire business is founded on custom light field displays for AR.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Magic Leap, the company who has been repeatedly panned on HN for providing a cool demo idea, with no actual product or research? The "2 million mirrors" in the Avegant Glyph is roughly equivalent to 1080p; about the same resolution as the Occulus and Vive. The tech is also an adaptation of the same DLP technology that's been in use in TVs and projectors for decades.
jp555 9y ago
That's true, but is kinda like saying we've had pen computing since the early 1960s - http://www.cadazz.com/cad-software-Sketchpad.htm http://www.cadazz.com/cad-software-Sketchpad.htm. Exponentials are never easy but I think we're about to see huge strides in VR/AR over the next 5 years, which will be built upon the only recently established global smartphone component supply chain. There were no commodity retina OLED screens even 10 years ago.
ConceptJunkie 9y ago
I think it's fair to say the tech has improved significantly, but from my perspective, today's VR is about as interesting a proposition as it was in the 1990's. Yeah, it's an interesting gimmick that would get old fast, and there's no killer app. In that respect, I don't think VR has changed at all in 20 years.