15 ms·

I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand".

I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand". There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I don't care if they are VR instead of AR. Should be high enough resolution to be able to use busy Excel spreadsheets and see enough details on a page to do web development 2) Some sort of glove where I could move my fingers to type. It doesn't need to represent an actual keyboard. I could learn whatever new gestures are required for each character. Those two innovations would mean freedom for me. You could effectively work anywhere in any position, laying in a hammock, on a crowded train, at night in bed when inspiration hits without waking your significant other. It would have to be AR to use while running or working out :) If these can be made with enough quality to enable equal productivity to a laptop the creators will have an addressable market of about 3 billion people.

adammenges 9y ago
That's a really good point. I've had friends in the past show my their VR demo with multi screens, and it's been awesome. Of course, resolution is the barrier to it being usable. There're other interesting areas for productivity improvements too, like better interfaces for human computer interaction
tylerlindell 9y ago
There are lots of companies working on AR/VR for productivity. Microsoft Hololens, All of the Windows Mixed Reality headsets, Meta, DAQRI (not so much for your description of productivity. eg word processing), and ODG. If you want a headset that has the best resolution, you should check out the Pimax (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pimax8kvr/pimax-the-worlds-first-8k-vr-headset https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pimax8kvr/pimax-the-wor...). There are mixed reviews on the headset itself, but they have very high resolution (Pimax 8K VR) that's 4K per eye.
- y4mi 9y ago
  4k per eye isn't even close to enough for grandparents wishes... You'd need at least 10k per eye, and would still have a lower resolution than a 24 inch full HD screen at 50 cm
  - tylerlindell 9y ago
    :-P
encrystation 9y ago
Because gaming is quick money, and Serious Users won't bother with it till the gimmicky stigma is wiped away by a few years of "oh yeah, xR is just a thing that exists now" taking the shine of novelty off things. Plus it seems to me that anything related to Productivity is just a sub-set of things you need for gaming, except that gaming prioritises a slick UI in the way that Serious Programs don't. See Second Life compared to other gaming focused 3d worlds.
chisleu 9y ago
The big problem there is resolution and the "Screen door" effect. Text has to be fairly large in order to be readable. We will need an enormous resolution and incredibly low dot pitch to solve those issues and make productivity tools possible. This is the tech space where I dream of working. I have been designing features for developer teams in AR but without the hardware being available, it's all theory.
- IMTDb 9y ago
  That and the whole "how do you make stuff opaque". All the demo show semi-transparent object being added to the real world. Making text legible when you can't fully control the background on which it is display is very hard. My best guess is that if they don't advertise that use-case it is because they don't really feel ready to be judged on it.
  - adventured 9y ago
    Don't you control that by doing text recognition and always placing a frame behind? Let the user customize the color schemes in question (bright white + black text, or off white + off black etc). If the background is a blue wall in your living room, you place a white framing layer behind the text you're looking at. If the real wall is black, you do the same thing. Makes no difference what color the wall is then. Wall -> Frame Layer -> Text Text recognition should be among their easiest chores (which is to say it's still not easy, it's on the lower level of difficulty in what they're trying to do).
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      The issue is that if you have a transparent display for AR, light from the background goes through it. There's no way to just "put a white framing layer behind it" because the light the display puts out is being added on top of whatever light is coming through from behind it. This is what happens with Microsoft's HoloLens headsets. Magic Leap is claiming to have occlusion of background objects working, but hasn't really explained the mechanism. It sounds like it's some sort of "light field" trickery where they let the light through, but your brain knows there's a virtual object in front of it and mentally processes it out. Cool if it works, but I'll need to see this to believe it.
aschampion 9y ago
1. resolution 2. fatigue 3. (for VR) limited input options Beyond these, the main reason is that gaming is a much better exploration and experimentation field than productivity because each app can have far less capital investment, lifecycles are short, and there's no need for a reliable, successful output.
- ashark 9y ago
  > 2. fatigue Do we know the (eye) health effects, yet, of looking at AR/VR screens an inch from your eyes for 6+ hours a day?
  - mod 9y ago
    I can't say for certain about AR/VR screens in particular, but we know some things about doing extended "close work" with your eyes: https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/when-stress-strains-vision https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/when-stress-strain... Nearpoint stress basically can render your eyes permanently damaged. It's definitely to be avoided.
    - smaddox 9y ago
      Existing VR displays have your eyes fixed focused either several meters out, or at the horizon, so the kind of eye strain your talking about is not an issue. MagicLeap supposedly has variable distance focus working.
zer00eyz 9y ago
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Lets look at a similar product that lives on as "productivity", one that did NOT launch with gaming features: google glass. For most of us, and most companies they aren't going to invest 100's or 1000's of dollars on something unproven. We might do that for "entertainment" purposes but not productivity ones until the tech is proven. How do you prove out tech? How do you get those consumer grade productivity tools into the hands of end users quickly and efficiently -- lower cost or raise value. There are plenty of folks who gladly spend $1000 on gaming, look at the mobile space and the insane decisions consumers make there.
- phyller 9y ago
  That was google glasses problem though, they didn't focus enough on productivity. It was a gimmick. Instead of handing it out to techies to play with, they should have made one single useful application, like for doctors or architects, and then only rolled it out to them. Instead of "glassholes" you'd have respected professionals who would come to rely on it for work. More and more applications would be added, and eventually people would use it for gaming and entertainment and daily life. Like, for example, cell phones. And the internet. They both started for productivity purposes and became much more. And anything that increases productivity will always have plenty of money thrown at it. Think about standing desks, for example. My employer is happy to drop $3,000 on a high end laptop so I can be that much more productive.
  - timzentu 9y ago
    Wow, you must work in a magical office. I work in Tech Support for a large company that is in the Fortune 1000, and they don't spend that much for tech. The engineers don't get that much either. They give us hand-me-down laptops in tech support, and buy mid level machines for the software engineers. The will spend more if there is need, but that would be the server, not the user laptop. Gamers will shellout $1000's though for tech that is limited run, so you can then get items to scale for the majority of businesses/end users to purchase. Also, Google Glass is being used in productivity, the current gen program is being used only in productivity applications. Google Glass was just too new to the market, and with the camera people were worried about being recorded, it needed a LED or a physical closure for the lens to make people comfortable.
shimon 9y ago
There are two reasons why the field is focused on gaming and not productivity: fidelity and familiarity. It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. In gaming, on the other hand, the unfamiliarity of the tech is not a risk but an asset, making the experience more novel. The fidelity doesn't have to be sufficient to overtake an existing process, just to support a fun experience. That's a more scalable business with lower technological barriers to entry, so that's where businesses are focused. Same reason we had Pong before PCs. You might also see major tech advances in products for specific targets, like military use, medical, or advanced manufacturing, that then trickle down to mainstream productivity applications. But until they get the tech good and cheap enough, expect progressively better games!
- phyller 9y ago
  Those are valid points, especially your point about fidelity, current tech is good enough for gaming and apparently not good enough for work (or we haven't figured out how to use it right). So they can sell it for that right now. But this and other comments are vastly underestimating the resources that people would be willing to exchange to make their work better. For what I described, a "reasonable" price point could easily be around $10,000. Apple is selling their new iMac at a starting price of $5,000 and there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it, it's an upgrade of what is already available. When you are spending all day using it, and it is the tool you use to make your money, it is worth a lot.
  - grogenaut 9y ago
    What is the rate of spending in industry on displays vs computers? My general feel is people skimp on displays and over spend on compute. So it would be hard to fight that trend. Secondly with VR as a desktop replacement... This is simple math. A 4k (or higher) 30" monitor will always be easier and cheaper to build and worst case the same. Except it's at 3' from your face. Shrink that monitor massively and stick it inches from your face. More expensive. Now do the trig on how many and how small of pixels would be required to pay that same resolution from 3' to 1"... Massive downscale... But great we'll get there on display density.... Except, and this is the kicker... For a lot less you can just upgrade the 4k monitor. Basically unless something fundamentally changes in display tech or we hit a Max resolution that people care about... Miniture displays will mathmatically lag large displays. Yes smartphones tipped the balance but it all got rolled into desktop displays and tvs. So you lose on econimics and math. A display tech with massive resolution but something that inherently keeps it from scaling would be a big kicker. Or as some people have said... Hitting 16k or so resolution on VR screens per eye and your dream is there. Till then gaming is a massive tech driver... Not people using spreadsheets
ekianjo 9y ago
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming Because gamers are a community well know to spend several hundreds of dollars easily for any kind of upgrade to their existing hardware. At least the core PC gamers, and that's quite a large segment nowadays.
- phyller 9y ago
  Myself and millions of others would spend thousands for this, and thousands more for upgrades. When you consider this is the tool that you use to make your salary, anything that makes me more productive with a better quality of life starts to be worth more than the price of a new car.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
    I think your comment illustrates why they should stick to games, but I'm not quite sure how to say it. It has something to do with less pressure, or reducing the requirements or feature creep. It also has to do with enterprise products suck.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    I think the issue is that you and millions of other more than likely want a lot more assurance it will work well and contribute to their workflow. Gamers are much more likely to make a speculative purchase, or at lease have a smaller set of requirements to consider it a useful purpose. People's workflow is often fairly static, and this would need to fit the existing requirements. Games are very different from each other and transient. This may not work well for most of a gamer's library, but new games might come out that they will buy and utilize. If this doesn't work well (or even just as well as what you currently use) for a browser, terminal, spreadsheet and text editor, are you going to switch to some new software that you don't know that might work better (but still possibly not as well as what you used originally) just to make use of it? I wouldn't.
  - hux_ 9y ago
    Why do you think your productivity is going to spike? There seems to be enough info being pumped into people's heads as it is, without them actually doing anything useful with it. Sure there is a great appearance of productivity but talk to an economist for the real story.
math0ne 9y ago
I think the technology is just not quite there for that yet. When it is we will see innovation and a push towards that.
nabeards 9y ago
For your point 2), have you seen the Tap (no affiliation, just excited about it)? https://www.tapwithus.com https://www.tapwithus.com
- phyller 9y ago
  Wow thanks! That looks very similar to what I was thinking, I will check that out.
AriaMinaei 9y ago
I see this is a popular wish, and I'm afraid it's frustratingly unimaginative. Finally we have a medium that can open up entirely new ways of doing things with computers, yet so many people just wish it could replicate the old ways. Same thing happened when the first display computers were made to emulate paper-based terminals instead of exploring what's possible on a graphical display. We still haven't fully recovered from that. Oh the pink plane.
- wmeredith 9y ago
  What is a paper based terminal?
  - phyller 9y ago
    Instead of a screen, output used to just be typed on paper like a typewriter. And we have basically emulated that as we worked our way up to modern computers. It's a good point.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Planar presentation matches the limitations of our visual input. Isn't that why we appear to have copied former presentation media.
  - kbob 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
  pink plane? I agree it's unimaginative, so I'm imagining programming in VR in picture-forth.
  - Impossible 9y ago
    Is picture-forth an actual thing? Sounds interesting.
gmueckl 9y ago
A lot of money is being poured into professional VR and AR applications right now. It does not happen very publicly. I am aware of a few in-house efforts of big manufacturing companies with rather big team sizes (dozens of developers at least). They are mostly centered around stuff where 3D visualization is beneficial and head tracking allows for that extra bit of interaction and exploration. Think "classic" AR ideas such as information overlays (disassembly instructions for mechanics, etc.). Except that this time around they can make the tracking so good that the overlays are really "there".
peterjlee 9y ago
Have you tried Samsung Gear VR with Galaxy S8? S8 has the latest and greatest mobile display with one of the highest pixel density in the market. However, when I use it in a VR headset, I can still see the pixels. It may be good enough for some gaming but it's not usable for working with spreadsheets in VR.
- tigershark 9y ago
  Accordingly to the rolling stone journalist he was unable to see any pixel even when specifically looking for them.
m-p-3 9y ago
I see some potential to AR for assisted training of employees. Imagine being able to train someone to a series of tasks that are displayed right in front of the user's eyes. We learn much faster by copying someone, and having this kind of tool would free up resources while you on-board someone.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Copying is helpful, but what about the feedback? I'm not sure there are many tasks that you can learn just by looking, even in 3D.
fsiefken 9y ago
the Pimax 8K X might well be good enough for working inside a virtual office with virtual screens - https://www.pimaxvr.com/en https://www.pimaxvr.com/en
BlueOrbDavid 9y ago
The company I work for is working on a VR productivity app that is focused entirely on using your existing desktop apps in a VR space at speeds similar to what you can do with a keyboard and mouse. We have essentially taken the tech for the orbiTouch[0] and mapped it to the controllers that come with the current headsets. We are always looking for more alpha testers. Should you have a VR setup feel free to contact me at davidn@blueorb.com to try it. [0]https://orbitouch.com/ https://orbitouch.com/
emiliobumachar 9y ago
Agreed. Virtual IMAX-sized screens far away would solve the eye focus strain problem. The health benefits would be very large.
roryisok 9y ago
Those ideals of productivity sound amazing but in practice I can see problems. A floating, non corporeal keyboard with no feedback would be tough to type on for starters.
goshx 9y ago
Check this one out: https://vspatial.com/ https://vspatial.com/
- phyller 9y ago
  They definitely are trying to build what I want. There is even an Excel spreadsheet in the marketing materials! I didn't think the Oculus Rift had good enough resolution though. Has anyone tried this?
TheHeasman 9y ago
Gaming was one of the first markets for the Personal Computer, productivity was a sideshow for a bit.
chrissnell 9y ago
Your post gave me a fun thought: someday, we won't buy desktop and laptop computers anymore. We'll buy hi-res VR goggles and keep our desktop environments in the cloud, using virtual keyboards and hand sensors to interact with them.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  The latency issue makes this essentially impossible since anything that's not trivially close to the local network will have upwards of 40ms of latency, making VR mostly useless unless the local compute does significant processing.
- goatlover 9y ago
  That doesn't sound appealing for me at all outside of entertainment. I'd much prefer a laptop/desktop work environment to wearing goggles and using a virtual keyboard for hours at a time.
tomkinson 9y ago
So totally agree with this. The response too. BUT to me personally, the 'displays on demand' was the ticket.
mrighele 9y ago
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Is it ? If we talk abour VR, yes, but there are a number of companies actually delivering AR products whose focus is on productivity. Some examples (but there are more) are Microsoft with Hololens [1] Epson with Moverio devices [2] Sony [3] Vuzix [4] Their oldest model are simple smart glasses, it seems to me that they are moving towards full AR. As a plus side, they don't look something that I would wear only inside the office of SV startup. [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens [2] https://epson.com/moverio-augmented-reality https://epson.com/moverio-augmented-reality [3] https://developer.sonymobile.com/products/smarteyeglass/ https://developer.sonymobile.com/products/smarteyeglass/ [4] https://www.vuzix.com/ https://www.vuzix.com/
- albinofrenchy 9y ago
  I don't know about the other devices, but the hololens is incredibly underwhelming when used. The marketing CGI for it is the best thing about it. I suspect that is probably true also of the magic leap one.
  - simonhughes22 9y ago
    Have you actually tried it? I know some of the developers and creatives that have worked with it, and they say it's more impressive when used in person than it looks in the 2d promo videos, which is the opposite of most devices.
    - unobtaniumstool 9y ago
      It's absolute magic in person. The limited FOV is kind of a bummer, but tracking is rock solid.
      - robwormald 9y ago
        I did the Mars demo at a conference a while back - the first couple of minutes I was underwhelmed, but at some point, my brain "bought-in" - I noticed this when I crouched down to look under a virtual rock outcropping without a second thought.
PurpleRamen 9y ago
VR is mostly focused on gaming. Because it sells better now and is simpler, cheaper. AR is mostly focusing on produtivity, Google Labs and Microsoft Hololens are known examples. But this is harder to develop, so progress is simply slower. And I assume it's easier to develop for highly specific task then delivering a universal solution. So there is not much to hear about for the normal people.
pfranz 9y ago
They're focusing on gaming because they're pursuing the consumer market. The things you describe sound like a much better fit for the business market (and there are people, likely including Magic Leap, pursuing it). But what you describe isn't quite there technologically; they just don't have the resolution or refresh rate and input methods are still evolving. Another issue with AR is that it's only additive. The lenses make everything darker and they can only add light. Some of the best use-cases I've seen for AR is assistive technology where it walks you through taking something apart labeling each part. Right now that requires an incredible amount of manual resources to generate (or would require a huge investment and significant breakthroughs to make dynamically generated or procedural). That tech is orthogonal to the display and input, but both are necessary for a product.
stesch 9y ago
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Meta is focused on productivity.
omg_ketchup 9y ago
I have this great idea for AR input that would probably replace most mice and keyboards in the future, but I need funding. :-(
simonhughes22 9y ago
I am not sure it's fair to say 'this entire field'. VR is very focused on gaming, but AR has already placed a huge focus on productivity. Hololens and also the Google Glass team (yeah that's still being developed) have placed a lot of focus on business applications, and I believe right now that's the sole focus of glass given it's failure to launch in the consumer space. I think Magic Leap are positioning themselves as the next gen iPhone - they need to get that cool factor to win over the early adopters, and then later will broaden into the productivity space. But from what little information they have released, productivity and non gaming applications is also a large focus of theirs, and I don't think this page indicates otherwise.
brudgers 9y ago
I think the focus is on gaming because gaming purchases are made with disposable income on disposable items. Selling goggles to a gamer just requires convincing the gamer that goggles are cool. On the other hand, selling into business means developing business solutions and making business cases for purchase of the solution. On the third hand, your use case is almost certainly smaller than the gamer market and has many of the same business case features as the business market...which means it pretty much is a business case in that "viewing virtual displays in high definition" is a business solution involving Excel and web development and hammocks and trains. Unlike the game market, the developers of the tools you want to use are not chomping at the bit to work with MagicLeap.
georgewsinger 9y ago
Check out [SimulaVR](https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula) which is trying to do EXACTLY THIS on the Linux platform. We're in need of developers and test users if anyone is interested in joining the fight.
alasdair_ 9y ago
>I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Probably for the same reasons that Tesla built expensive sports cars first, before focusing on delivering a (comparatively) more boring commuter sedan.
platz 9y ago
3D is most obvious when it'd used to visualize physical objects or environments. Abstract information spaces are hard; being non-physical and having many more dimensions. The added interface complexity usually doesn't justify the gain, from only throwing away 23 dimensions, instead of 24. There might be useful ways to represent clusters of information related to a non-physical task effectively; there hasn't been a clearly successful one yet. and no, if you are trying to jam a bunch of 2D screens in a 3D environment, you are not "representing physical objects or environments" as identified as the core strength above.
alanbernstein 9y ago
You might be interested in https://www.tapwithus.com/ https://www.tapwithus.com/, although the typing speed seems to be a bit low.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Because more people like to play games than work with abstract information, so that's where the money is. I think your notion that the sale of 3bn laptops means 3bn want to work at all hours is a little naive.
brandonmenc 9y ago
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Literally half - if not more - of the site is showing non-game applications.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sytelus 9y ago
Have you tried out HoloLens, Oculus etc? Technology is simply not there yet. Field of view is very limiting. Resolution is very low. Hardware is highly optimized for graphics, not high performance computation. None of the devices I have tried could be worn for more than 30-45 mins before you start having headache (because your brain is seeing depth but your eyes are on different focus plane). VR/AR tech probably needs 5 more years of advancements (if not more) before your scenario becomes reality - but even then there are significant physics barriers to cross.
baybal2 9y ago
>I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity Because they think that gamers will pay. Unfortunately, I see that they got a wrong idea. It has a vibe of a semibotched Kickstarter project, except backers here are not private individuals, but gigacompanies. A type of a gamer who spends 15k usd on a gaming rig to crush opponents in Quake 3 in ultracompetitive environment, will not care a bit about this toy. The founder of the company comes from a socioeconomic strata whose people have that characteristic. A Boston "old money family (R)" born man may see that selling gaming stuff to quite a lot of relatively rich people dumping 15k on a gaming rig is a good business idea, proceeds to build a company built around that idea with all audicious bold claims being received with accolades from other people like him, but never actually bothers to figure out what things matter in a gaming gear. If you have read his personal blog from naughties before he deleted it, you will get that his ways can be said to be well beyond "nebulous". He wrote stuff like "solving global problems" while maintaining that tone you usually see from people who flood the internet with something very insubstantial like "saving African children with Agile, innovation, and seven sigma framework..." Ok, back to the botches kickstarter line. As happens often with such projects, original claims performance get scaled down, company barely manages to deliver a downrated product after missing the delivery deadlines multiple times, product works so so, and in the end it ends in your drawer for good. A year down the line the company simply shuts down the cloud service for the widget and you are left with an expensive paperweight. I expect magic leap to follow this route.
ksk 9y ago
That sounds doable. How much are you willing to pay?
intrasight 9y ago
I fully agree. But remember that gamers are passionate folk who are willing to throw their hard-earned money away at this hobby. That revenue will be used, we hope, to develop the next generation of displays which will have sufficient foveal resolution to be used as a monitor replacement. I would love to leave my dual 27" monitor desk behind and travel the world while doing my work. That day will come. But I'm afraid that it'll be too late for me - I'll have already retired.
kurthr 9y ago
Why, because AR needs to be bright enough to not be drowned out (even with Magic focus cues) by background light. Right now, that means that they project a small field of view. It appears that both MagicLeap and HoloLens are ~35deg FOV. A typical max resolution would be 30-60pix/deg (neither achieves this!). This means that you can get at most a single FHD resolution monitor in view at a time. If you want to have something like a seemless experience, you need something closer to 90deg field of view and several thousand linear pixels (e.g. 5-10Mpix per eye) at near retina resolution. That is VERY hard even for the biggest GPUs (that don't fit on your belt) even at 60Hz. If you want to avoid dizzyness, then you want >90Hz and <10ms latency.
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
The real thing will be Virtual Decorations.. Once this is ready- ikea and the various picture and poster sellers will have a real hard time.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
If you want to reach HD resolution displays at a "virtual" 50 cm distance (for example) you'd need a VR display resolution at like 10K or something, very high in any case. And even then, would it be more ergonomic than a regular screen? It would only pay off if it was something you could use for hours a day, like you can with regular screens atm. Same with the gloves, if it doesn't have good feedback then I'm going to nope out. Good for tech demos and sci-fi movies, but in real life you need the feedback and physical object. (you know, like how in real life I need a keyboard and mouse instead of just an awesome mechancial keyboard and vim / emacs mastery).
- phyller 9y ago
  Yea, but if the display was a "virtual" 50cm away, it could be a much lower resolution, or a much bigger size. The pixel density doesn't need to depend on the resolution of the virtual screen, it just needs to be good enough so the user can't distinguish the pixels of the VR itself. Then any resolution can be accurately simulated in the VR.
keithnoizu 9y ago
I bought a Pimax 8K-X on kickstarter for this. I use my vive and rift but the screen door effect and pixels make it hard to write too much code unless im in the right mood.

adammenges 9y ago

That's a really good point. I've had friends in the past show my their VR demo with multi screens, and it's been awesome. Of course, resolution is the barrier to it being usable. There're other interesting areas for productivity improvements too, like better interfaces for human computer interaction

tylerlindell 9y ago

There are lots of companies working on AR/VR for productivity. Microsoft Hololens, All of the Windows Mixed Reality headsets, Meta, DAQRI (not so much for your description of productivity. eg word processing), and ODG. If you want a headset that has the best resolution, you should check out the Pimax (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pimax8kvr/pimax-the-worlds-first-8k-vr-headset https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pimax8kvr/pimax-the-wor...). There are mixed reviews on the headset itself, but they have very high resolution (Pimax 8K VR) that's 4K per eye.

y4mi 9y ago
4k per eye isn't even close to enough for grandparents wishes... You'd need at least 10k per eye, and would still have a lower resolution than a 24 inch full HD screen at 50 cm
- tylerlindell 9y ago
  :-P

encrystation 9y ago

Because gaming is quick money, and Serious Users won't bother with it till the gimmicky stigma is wiped away by a few years of "oh yeah, xR is just a thing that exists now" taking the shine of novelty off things. Plus it seems to me that anything related to Productivity is just a sub-set of things you need for gaming, except that gaming prioritises a slick UI in the way that Serious Programs don't. See Second Life compared to other gaming focused 3d worlds.

chisleu 9y ago

The big problem there is resolution and the "Screen door" effect. Text has to be fairly large in order to be readable. We will need an enormous resolution and incredibly low dot pitch to solve those issues and make productivity tools possible. This is the tech space where I dream of working. I have been designing features for developer teams in AR but without the hardware being available, it's all theory.

IMTDb 9y ago
That and the whole "how do you make stuff opaque". All the demo show semi-transparent object being added to the real world. Making text legible when you can't fully control the background on which it is display is very hard. My best guess is that if they don't advertise that use-case it is because they don't really feel ready to be judged on it.
- adventured 9y ago
  Don't you control that by doing text recognition and always placing a frame behind? Let the user customize the color schemes in question (bright white + black text, or off white + off black etc). If the background is a blue wall in your living room, you place a white framing layer behind the text you're looking at. If the real wall is black, you do the same thing. Makes no difference what color the wall is then. Wall -> Frame Layer -> Text Text recognition should be among their easiest chores (which is to say it's still not easy, it's on the lower level of difficulty in what they're trying to do).
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    The issue is that if you have a transparent display for AR, light from the background goes through it. There's no way to just "put a white framing layer behind it" because the light the display puts out is being added on top of whatever light is coming through from behind it. This is what happens with Microsoft's HoloLens headsets. Magic Leap is claiming to have occlusion of background objects working, but hasn't really explained the mechanism. It sounds like it's some sort of "light field" trickery where they let the light through, but your brain knows there's a virtual object in front of it and mentally processes it out. Cool if it works, but I'll need to see this to believe it.

aschampion 9y ago

1. resolution 2. fatigue 3. (for VR) limited input options Beyond these, the main reason is that gaming is a much better exploration and experimentation field than productivity because each app can have far less capital investment, lifecycles are short, and there's no need for a reliable, successful output.

ashark 9y ago
> 2. fatigue Do we know the (eye) health effects, yet, of looking at AR/VR screens an inch from your eyes for 6+ hours a day?
- mod 9y ago
  I can't say for certain about AR/VR screens in particular, but we know some things about doing extended "close work" with your eyes: https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/when-stress-strains-vision https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/when-stress-strain... Nearpoint stress basically can render your eyes permanently damaged. It's definitely to be avoided.
  - smaddox 9y ago
    Existing VR displays have your eyes fixed focused either several meters out, or at the horizon, so the kind of eye strain your talking about is not an issue. MagicLeap supposedly has variable distance focus working.

zer00eyz 9y ago

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Lets look at a similar product that lives on as "productivity", one that did NOT launch with gaming features: google glass. For most of us, and most companies they aren't going to invest 100's or 1000's of dollars on something unproven. We might do that for "entertainment" purposes but not productivity ones until the tech is proven. How do you prove out tech? How do you get those consumer grade productivity tools into the hands of end users quickly and efficiently -- lower cost or raise value. There are plenty of folks who gladly spend $1000 on gaming, look at the mobile space and the insane decisions consumers make there.

phyller 9y ago
That was google glasses problem though, they didn't focus enough on productivity. It was a gimmick. Instead of handing it out to techies to play with, they should have made one single useful application, like for doctors or architects, and then only rolled it out to them. Instead of "glassholes" you'd have respected professionals who would come to rely on it for work. More and more applications would be added, and eventually people would use it for gaming and entertainment and daily life. Like, for example, cell phones. And the internet. They both started for productivity purposes and became much more. And anything that increases productivity will always have plenty of money thrown at it. Think about standing desks, for example. My employer is happy to drop $3,000 on a high end laptop so I can be that much more productive.
- timzentu 9y ago
  Wow, you must work in a magical office. I work in Tech Support for a large company that is in the Fortune 1000, and they don't spend that much for tech. The engineers don't get that much either. They give us hand-me-down laptops in tech support, and buy mid level machines for the software engineers. The will spend more if there is need, but that would be the server, not the user laptop. Gamers will shellout $1000's though for tech that is limited run, so you can then get items to scale for the majority of businesses/end users to purchase. Also, Google Glass is being used in productivity, the current gen program is being used only in productivity applications. Google Glass was just too new to the market, and with the camera people were worried about being recorded, it needed a LED or a physical closure for the lens to make people comfortable.

shimon 9y ago

There are two reasons why the field is focused on gaming and not productivity: fidelity and familiarity. It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. In gaming, on the other hand, the unfamiliarity of the tech is not a risk but an asset, making the experience more novel. The fidelity doesn't have to be sufficient to overtake an existing process, just to support a fun experience. That's a more scalable business with lower technological barriers to entry, so that's where businesses are focused. Same reason we had Pong before PCs. You might also see major tech advances in products for specific targets, like military use, medical, or advanced manufacturing, that then trickle down to mainstream productivity applications. But until they get the tech good and cheap enough, expect progressively better games!

phyller 9y ago
Those are valid points, especially your point about fidelity, current tech is good enough for gaming and apparently not good enough for work (or we haven't figured out how to use it right). So they can sell it for that right now. But this and other comments are vastly underestimating the resources that people would be willing to exchange to make their work better. For what I described, a "reasonable" price point could easily be around $10,000. Apple is selling their new iMac at a starting price of $5,000 and there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it, it's an upgrade of what is already available. When you are spending all day using it, and it is the tool you use to make your money, it is worth a lot.
- grogenaut 9y ago
  What is the rate of spending in industry on displays vs computers? My general feel is people skimp on displays and over spend on compute. So it would be hard to fight that trend. Secondly with VR as a desktop replacement... This is simple math. A 4k (or higher) 30" monitor will always be easier and cheaper to build and worst case the same. Except it's at 3' from your face. Shrink that monitor massively and stick it inches from your face. More expensive. Now do the trig on how many and how small of pixels would be required to pay that same resolution from 3' to 1"... Massive downscale... But great we'll get there on display density.... Except, and this is the kicker... For a lot less you can just upgrade the 4k monitor. Basically unless something fundamentally changes in display tech or we hit a Max resolution that people care about... Miniture displays will mathmatically lag large displays. Yes smartphones tipped the balance but it all got rolled into desktop displays and tvs. So you lose on econimics and math. A display tech with massive resolution but something that inherently keeps it from scaling would be a big kicker. Or as some people have said... Hitting 16k or so resolution on VR screens per eye and your dream is there. Till then gaming is a massive tech driver... Not people using spreadsheets

ekianjo 9y ago

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming Because gamers are a community well know to spend several hundreds of dollars easily for any kind of upgrade to their existing hardware. At least the core PC gamers, and that's quite a large segment nowadays.

phyller 9y ago
Myself and millions of others would spend thousands for this, and thousands more for upgrades. When you consider this is the tool that you use to make your salary, anything that makes me more productive with a better quality of life starts to be worth more than the price of a new car.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
  I think your comment illustrates why they should stick to games, but I'm not quite sure how to say it. It has something to do with less pressure, or reducing the requirements or feature creep. It also has to do with enterprise products suck.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I think the issue is that you and millions of other more than likely want a lot more assurance it will work well and contribute to their workflow. Gamers are much more likely to make a speculative purchase, or at lease have a smaller set of requirements to consider it a useful purpose. People's workflow is often fairly static, and this would need to fit the existing requirements. Games are very different from each other and transient. This may not work well for most of a gamer's library, but new games might come out that they will buy and utilize. If this doesn't work well (or even just as well as what you currently use) for a browser, terminal, spreadsheet and text editor, are you going to switch to some new software that you don't know that might work better (but still possibly not as well as what you used originally) just to make use of it? I wouldn't.
- hux_ 9y ago
  Why do you think your productivity is going to spike? There seems to be enough info being pumped into people's heads as it is, without them actually doing anything useful with it. Sure there is a great appearance of productivity but talk to an economist for the real story.

math0ne 9y ago

I think the technology is just not quite there for that yet. When it is we will see innovation and a push towards that.

nabeards 9y ago

For your point 2), have you seen the Tap (no affiliation, just excited about it)? https://www.tapwithus.com https://www.tapwithus.com

phyller 9y ago
Wow thanks! That looks very similar to what I was thinking, I will check that out.

AriaMinaei 9y ago

I see this is a popular wish, and I'm afraid it's frustratingly unimaginative. Finally we have a medium that can open up entirely new ways of doing things with computers, yet so many people just wish it could replicate the old ways. Same thing happened when the first display computers were made to emulate paper-based terminals instead of exploring what's possible on a graphical display. We still haven't fully recovered from that. Oh the pink plane.

wmeredith 9y ago
What is a paper based terminal?
- phyller 9y ago
  Instead of a screen, output used to just be typed on paper like a typewriter. And we have basically emulated that as we worked our way up to modern computers. It's a good point.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Planar presentation matches the limitations of our visual input. Isn't that why we appear to have copied former presentation media.
- kbob 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33
0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
pink plane? I agree it's unimaginative, so I'm imagining programming in VR in picture-forth.
- Impossible 9y ago
  Is picture-forth an actual thing? Sounds interesting.

gmueckl 9y ago

A lot of money is being poured into professional VR and AR applications right now. It does not happen very publicly. I am aware of a few in-house efforts of big manufacturing companies with rather big team sizes (dozens of developers at least). They are mostly centered around stuff where 3D visualization is beneficial and head tracking allows for that extra bit of interaction and exploration. Think "classic" AR ideas such as information overlays (disassembly instructions for mechanics, etc.). Except that this time around they can make the tracking so good that the overlays are really "there".

peterjlee 9y ago

Have you tried Samsung Gear VR with Galaxy S8? S8 has the latest and greatest mobile display with one of the highest pixel density in the market. However, when I use it in a VR headset, I can still see the pixels. It may be good enough for some gaming but it's not usable for working with spreadsheets in VR.

tigershark 9y ago
Accordingly to the rolling stone journalist he was unable to see any pixel even when specifically looking for them.

m-p-3 9y ago

I see some potential to AR for assisted training of employees. Imagine being able to train someone to a series of tasks that are displayed right in front of the user's eyes. We learn much faster by copying someone, and having this kind of tool would free up resources while you on-board someone.

icebraining 9y ago
Copying is helpful, but what about the feedback? I'm not sure there are many tasks that you can learn just by looking, even in 3D.

fsiefken 9y ago

the Pimax 8K X might well be good enough for working inside a virtual office with virtual screens - https://www.pimaxvr.com/en https://www.pimaxvr.com/en

BlueOrbDavid 9y ago

The company I work for is working on a VR productivity app that is focused entirely on using your existing desktop apps in a VR space at speeds similar to what you can do with a keyboard and mouse. We have essentially taken the tech for the orbiTouch[0] and mapped it to the controllers that come with the current headsets. We are always looking for more alpha testers. Should you have a VR setup feel free to contact me at davidn@blueorb.com to try it. [0]https://orbitouch.com/ https://orbitouch.com/

emiliobumachar 9y ago

Agreed. Virtual IMAX-sized screens far away would solve the eye focus strain problem. The health benefits would be very large.

roryisok 9y ago

Those ideals of productivity sound amazing but in practice I can see problems. A floating, non corporeal keyboard with no feedback would be tough to type on for starters.

goshx 9y ago

Check this one out: https://vspatial.com/ https://vspatial.com/

phyller 9y ago
They definitely are trying to build what I want. There is even an Excel spreadsheet in the marketing materials! I didn't think the Oculus Rift had good enough resolution though. Has anyone tried this?

TheHeasman 9y ago

Gaming was one of the first markets for the Personal Computer, productivity was a sideshow for a bit.

chrissnell 9y ago

Your post gave me a fun thought: someday, we won't buy desktop and laptop computers anymore. We'll buy hi-res VR goggles and keep our desktop environments in the cloud, using virtual keyboards and hand sensors to interact with them.

Daishiman 9y ago
The latency issue makes this essentially impossible since anything that's not trivially close to the local network will have upwards of 40ms of latency, making VR mostly useless unless the local compute does significant processing.
goatlover 9y ago
That doesn't sound appealing for me at all outside of entertainment. I'd much prefer a laptop/desktop work environment to wearing goggles and using a virtual keyboard for hours at a time.

tomkinson 9y ago

So totally agree with this. The response too. BUT to me personally, the 'displays on demand' was the ticket.

mrighele 9y ago

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Is it ? If we talk abour VR, yes, but there are a number of companies actually delivering AR products whose focus is on productivity. Some examples (but there are more) are Microsoft with Hololens [1] Epson with Moverio devices [2] Sony [3] Vuzix [4] Their oldest model are simple smart glasses, it seems to me that they are moving towards full AR. As a plus side, they don't look something that I would wear only inside the office of SV startup. [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens [2] https://epson.com/moverio-augmented-reality https://epson.com/moverio-augmented-reality [3] https://developer.sonymobile.com/products/smarteyeglass/ https://developer.sonymobile.com/products/smarteyeglass/ [4] https://www.vuzix.com/ https://www.vuzix.com/

albinofrenchy 9y ago
I don't know about the other devices, but the hololens is incredibly underwhelming when used. The marketing CGI for it is the best thing about it. I suspect that is probably true also of the magic leap one.
- simonhughes22 9y ago
  Have you actually tried it? I know some of the developers and creatives that have worked with it, and they say it's more impressive when used in person than it looks in the 2d promo videos, which is the opposite of most devices.
  - unobtaniumstool 9y ago
    It's absolute magic in person. The limited FOV is kind of a bummer, but tracking is rock solid.
    - robwormald 9y ago
      I did the Mars demo at a conference a while back - the first couple of minutes I was underwhelmed, but at some point, my brain "bought-in" - I noticed this when I crouched down to look under a virtual rock outcropping without a second thought.

PurpleRamen 9y ago

VR is mostly focused on gaming. Because it sells better now and is simpler, cheaper. AR is mostly focusing on produtivity, Google Labs and Microsoft Hololens are known examples. But this is harder to develop, so progress is simply slower. And I assume it's easier to develop for highly specific task then delivering a universal solution. So there is not much to hear about for the normal people.

pfranz 9y ago

They're focusing on gaming because they're pursuing the consumer market. The things you describe sound like a much better fit for the business market (and there are people, likely including Magic Leap, pursuing it). But what you describe isn't quite there technologically; they just don't have the resolution or refresh rate and input methods are still evolving. Another issue with AR is that it's only additive. The lenses make everything darker and they can only add light. Some of the best use-cases I've seen for AR is assistive technology where it walks you through taking something apart labeling each part. Right now that requires an incredible amount of manual resources to generate (or would require a huge investment and significant breakthroughs to make dynamically generated or procedural). That tech is orthogonal to the display and input, but both are necessary for a product.

stesch 9y ago

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Meta is focused on productivity.

omg_ketchup 9y ago

I have this great idea for AR input that would probably replace most mice and keyboards in the future, but I need funding. :-(

simonhughes22 9y ago

I am not sure it's fair to say 'this entire field'. VR is very focused on gaming, but AR has already placed a huge focus on productivity. Hololens and also the Google Glass team (yeah that's still being developed) have placed a lot of focus on business applications, and I believe right now that's the sole focus of glass given it's failure to launch in the consumer space. I think Magic Leap are positioning themselves as the next gen iPhone - they need to get that cool factor to win over the early adopters, and then later will broaden into the productivity space. But from what little information they have released, productivity and non gaming applications is also a large focus of theirs, and I don't think this page indicates otherwise.

brudgers 9y ago

I think the focus is on gaming because gaming purchases are made with disposable income on disposable items. Selling goggles to a gamer just requires convincing the gamer that goggles are cool. On the other hand, selling into business means developing business solutions and making business cases for purchase of the solution. On the third hand, your use case is almost certainly smaller than the gamer market and has many of the same business case features as the business market...which means it pretty much is a business case in that "viewing virtual displays in high definition" is a business solution involving Excel and web development and hammocks and trains. Unlike the game market, the developers of the tools you want to use are not chomping at the bit to work with MagicLeap.

georgewsinger 9y ago

Check out [SimulaVR](https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula) which is trying to do EXACTLY THIS on the Linux platform. We're in need of developers and test users if anyone is interested in joining the fight.

alasdair_ 9y ago

>I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Probably for the same reasons that Tesla built expensive sports cars first, before focusing on delivering a (comparatively) more boring commuter sedan.

platz 9y ago

3D is most obvious when it'd used to visualize physical objects or environments. Abstract information spaces are hard; being non-physical and having many more dimensions. The added interface complexity usually doesn't justify the gain, from only throwing away 23 dimensions, instead of 24. There might be useful ways to represent clusters of information related to a non-physical task effectively; there hasn't been a clearly successful one yet. and no, if you are trying to jam a bunch of 2D screens in a 3D environment, you are not "representing physical objects or environments" as identified as the core strength above.

alanbernstein 9y ago

You might be interested in https://www.tapwithus.com/ https://www.tapwithus.com/, although the typing speed seems to be a bit low.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Because more people like to play games than work with abstract information, so that's where the money is. I think your notion that the sale of 3bn laptops means 3bn want to work at all hours is a little naive.

brandonmenc 9y ago

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Literally half - if not more - of the site is showing non-game applications.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sytelus 9y ago

Have you tried out HoloLens, Oculus etc? Technology is simply not there yet. Field of view is very limiting. Resolution is very low. Hardware is highly optimized for graphics, not high performance computation. None of the devices I have tried could be worn for more than 30-45 mins before you start having headache (because your brain is seeing depth but your eyes are on different focus plane). VR/AR tech probably needs 5 more years of advancements (if not more) before your scenario becomes reality - but even then there are significant physics barriers to cross.

baybal2 9y ago

>I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity Because they think that gamers will pay. Unfortunately, I see that they got a wrong idea. It has a vibe of a semibotched Kickstarter project, except backers here are not private individuals, but gigacompanies. A type of a gamer who spends 15k usd on a gaming rig to crush opponents in Quake 3 in ultracompetitive environment, will not care a bit about this toy. The founder of the company comes from a socioeconomic strata whose people have that characteristic. A Boston "old money family (R)" born man may see that selling gaming stuff to quite a lot of relatively rich people dumping 15k on a gaming rig is a good business idea, proceeds to build a company built around that idea with all audicious bold claims being received with accolades from other people like him, but never actually bothers to figure out what things matter in a gaming gear. If you have read his personal blog from naughties before he deleted it, you will get that his ways can be said to be well beyond "nebulous". He wrote stuff like "solving global problems" while maintaining that tone you usually see from people who flood the internet with something very insubstantial like "saving African children with Agile, innovation, and seven sigma framework..." Ok, back to the botches kickstarter line. As happens often with such projects, original claims performance get scaled down, company barely manages to deliver a downrated product after missing the delivery deadlines multiple times, product works so so, and in the end it ends in your drawer for good. A year down the line the company simply shuts down the cloud service for the widget and you are left with an expensive paperweight. I expect magic leap to follow this route.

ksk 9y ago

That sounds doable. How much are you willing to pay?

intrasight 9y ago

I fully agree. But remember that gamers are passionate folk who are willing to throw their hard-earned money away at this hobby. That revenue will be used, we hope, to develop the next generation of displays which will have sufficient foveal resolution to be used as a monitor replacement. I would love to leave my dual 27" monitor desk behind and travel the world while doing my work. That day will come. But I'm afraid that it'll be too late for me - I'll have already retired.

kurthr 9y ago

Why, because AR needs to be bright enough to not be drowned out (even with Magic focus cues) by background light. Right now, that means that they project a small field of view. It appears that both MagicLeap and HoloLens are ~35deg FOV. A typical max resolution would be 30-60pix/deg (neither achieves this!). This means that you can get at most a single FHD resolution monitor in view at a time. If you want to have something like a seemless experience, you need something closer to 90deg field of view and several thousand linear pixels (e.g. 5-10Mpix per eye) at near retina resolution. That is VERY hard even for the biggest GPUs (that don't fit on your belt) even at 60Hz. If you want to avoid dizzyness, then you want >90Hz and <10ms latency.

WillReplyfFood 9y ago

The real thing will be Virtual Decorations.. Once this is ready- ikea and the various picture and poster sellers will have a real hard time.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

If you want to reach HD resolution displays at a "virtual" 50 cm distance (for example) you'd need a VR display resolution at like 10K or something, very high in any case. And even then, would it be more ergonomic than a regular screen? It would only pay off if it was something you could use for hours a day, like you can with regular screens atm. Same with the gloves, if it doesn't have good feedback then I'm going to nope out. Good for tech demos and sci-fi movies, but in real life you need the feedback and physical object. (you know, like how in real life I need a keyboard and mouse instead of just an awesome mechancial keyboard and vim / emacs mastery).

phyller 9y ago
Yea, but if the display was a "virtual" 50cm away, it could be a much lower resolution, or a much bigger size. The pixel density doesn't need to depend on the resolution of the virtual screen, it just needs to be good enough so the user can't distinguish the pixels of the VR itself. Then any resolution can be accurately simulated in the VR.

keithnoizu 9y ago

I bought a Pimax 8K-X on kickstarter for this. I use my vive and rift but the screen door effect and pixels make it hard to write too much code unless im in the right mood.