4 ms·

Our customers for VR training are not particularly tech savvy and not part of the Silicon Valley bubble but we don't find any of the issues you raise to be conc

Our customers for VR training are not particularly tech savvy and not part of the Silicon Valley bubble but we don't find any of the issues you raise to be concerns with our customers. VR probably won't have a place in every home, just as TV or Alexa type devices don't have a place in my home. I think the market can ultimately be as big as those technologies however.

zapzupnz 8y ago
> Our customers for VR training What sort of company do you work for, for what purpose are your customers getting VR training, and what are they (or their companies, if applicable) paying? > VR probably won't have a place in every home, just as TV [...] I think the market can ultimate be as big as [that technology] however. Nobody needs training to watch a TV.
- giggles_giggles 8y ago
  I could be wrong but I think you've misunderstood the comment that you're replying to. It sounds like the comment is talking about a company that uses VR to train employees to do certain tasks, not a company that trains people to use VR.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    Even then, it still demonstrates that people need to become accustomed to the technology in a safe environment, a space for "training". As opposed to training people to use computers, where their visual faculties are still intact, you couldn't just release VR to the mass market and expect everybody to jump on board. Television was an easy sell. Radio you could see? Great. Smartphones and tablets were an easy sell. Computers you could put in your pocket? Computers that even your nana and grandad could operate? Brilliant. VR? I don't know what the sales pitch would be that someone in Best Buy could give to a technologically illiterate person, at least without that conversation devolving into a bunch of technobabble and an offer to come do some training in an environment and social context likely to be completely unlike where the customer would be likely to use theirs.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "Computers that even your nana and grandad could operate" Hmm no. My grandad had worked out the video recorder, my nan not so much. She has a dumb phone, but never turns it on, nor charges it. Agree with your final paragraph. Wonder if 'Surround' cinema would work as a marketing term?
    - hombre_fatal 8y ago
      You seem to have different goal posts for VR and you also seem to take existing tech for granted. Like television, VR sells itself. If someone has never seen television before, you don't need to draw up a sales pitch to convince them that it can enrich their life. You just need to have a television on display tuned to an action movie and that person can see for their self. It immediately entertains. Same with VR. Ever seen VR on display in the wild? People, young and old, are naturally drawn to it. It immediately fascinates people. Your post makes it seem like you would've poo-pooed computers and video games because keyboards and gaming controllers are too complicated. Yet the VR interface is much simpler than those. Watch a tech-illiterate person strap on VR for the first time. The first thing they do is look down at their hands and wave them around. Like the person seeing an action movie on television for the first time, they don't need a sales rep to tell them how this might be entertaining.
      - zapzupnz 8y ago
        > If someone has never seen television before [...] you don't need to draw up a sales pitch to convince them that it can enrich their life Indeed, because they can see a television. They enjoy it immediately. They don't have to put on a headset, they don't have to engage in sensory deprivation, they don't need to think about software, they don't need to think about use cases. The point I'm making is that TV was a bogus analogy. > Your post makes it seem like you would've poo-pooed computers and video games because keyboards and gaming controllers are too complicated Not at all. Game controllers don't require me to take myself out of my environment to enjoy them. > Watch a tech-illiterate person strap on VR for the first time. The first thing they do is look down at their hands and wave them around. They then say "wow, this is cool, I wish I had one". They don't say "I want to buy one of these and put it in my living room". To think they do is, again, that disconnect between Silicon Valley and ordinary people in full force; that because we think it might be cool, somehow we know everybody wants it, and we'll happily ignore all the reasons why people don't or, more condescendingly, dismiss them and anybody who mentions them. Such hubris should be the lesson of Google Glass and Snap.
  - mattnewport 8y ago
    Oh, yes, I didn't notice that potential misunderstanding. Correct, we use VR for surgical training, we don't train people to use VR (except incidentally as part of our onboarding for new users).
- mattnewport 8y ago
  I'm cofounder of a company building a VR surgical training platform. Currently we're focused on orthopedics and our primary customers are some of the largest medical device manufacturers. Our revenue last year was 7 figures. > Nobody needs training to watch a TV. I'm not sure what your point is here. Training/education is one big application of VR, entertainment is another. TV is also used for training/education as well as entertainment. Using VR doesn't require much more training than using a TV, although you don't find many adults who don't already know how to use a TV.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    > VR surgical training platform [...] our primary customers are some of the largest medical device manufacturers Alright, so people who are already quite unlike most of the rest of the general population, and doing things in a work environment rather than at home. > I'm not sure what your point is here. Training/education is one big application of VR I'm not disputing that, but we're all talking about general uptake by the wider population, not niche uses. Andreessen is talking about the mass market, given the assertion that (apparently) only 99% of people live in uninteresting places where VR would apparently spice our lives up. > Using VR doesn't require much more training than using a TV I don't think there were ever seven figure companies (weird flex, but okay) teaching people how to tune a TV. You turn the TV on, you watch it. Couldn't be simpler.
    - mattnewport 8y ago
      You seem to think we're training people to use VR? We train people to do orthopedic surgery, using VR. Those people are not particularly tech savvy (surgeons are smart people, but not necessarily particularly tech enthusiasts) but don't have much trouble using VR.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
VR will have a place in every home, pretty much in gaming and possibly entertainment. Once they make it a really great experience, I'll bet most games go 3D. But for other things ... not so much.

zapzupnz 8y ago

> Our customers for VR training What sort of company do you work for, for what purpose are your customers getting VR training, and what are they (or their companies, if applicable) paying? > VR probably won't have a place in every home, just as TV [...] I think the market can ultimate be as big as [that technology] however. Nobody needs training to watch a TV.

giggles_giggles 8y ago
I could be wrong but I think you've misunderstood the comment that you're replying to. It sounds like the comment is talking about a company that uses VR to train employees to do certain tasks, not a company that trains people to use VR.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  Even then, it still demonstrates that people need to become accustomed to the technology in a safe environment, a space for "training". As opposed to training people to use computers, where their visual faculties are still intact, you couldn't just release VR to the mass market and expect everybody to jump on board. Television was an easy sell. Radio you could see? Great. Smartphones and tablets were an easy sell. Computers you could put in your pocket? Computers that even your nana and grandad could operate? Brilliant. VR? I don't know what the sales pitch would be that someone in Best Buy could give to a technologically illiterate person, at least without that conversation devolving into a bunch of technobabble and an offer to come do some training in an environment and social context likely to be completely unlike where the customer would be likely to use theirs.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "Computers that even your nana and grandad could operate" Hmm no. My grandad had worked out the video recorder, my nan not so much. She has a dumb phone, but never turns it on, nor charges it. Agree with your final paragraph. Wonder if 'Surround' cinema would work as a marketing term?
  - hombre_fatal 8y ago
    You seem to have different goal posts for VR and you also seem to take existing tech for granted. Like television, VR sells itself. If someone has never seen television before, you don't need to draw up a sales pitch to convince them that it can enrich their life. You just need to have a television on display tuned to an action movie and that person can see for their self. It immediately entertains. Same with VR. Ever seen VR on display in the wild? People, young and old, are naturally drawn to it. It immediately fascinates people. Your post makes it seem like you would've poo-pooed computers and video games because keyboards and gaming controllers are too complicated. Yet the VR interface is much simpler than those. Watch a tech-illiterate person strap on VR for the first time. The first thing they do is look down at their hands and wave them around. Like the person seeing an action movie on television for the first time, they don't need a sales rep to tell them how this might be entertaining.
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      > If someone has never seen television before [...] you don't need to draw up a sales pitch to convince them that it can enrich their life Indeed, because they can see a television. They enjoy it immediately. They don't have to put on a headset, they don't have to engage in sensory deprivation, they don't need to think about software, they don't need to think about use cases. The point I'm making is that TV was a bogus analogy. > Your post makes it seem like you would've poo-pooed computers and video games because keyboards and gaming controllers are too complicated Not at all. Game controllers don't require me to take myself out of my environment to enjoy them. > Watch a tech-illiterate person strap on VR for the first time. The first thing they do is look down at their hands and wave them around. They then say "wow, this is cool, I wish I had one". They don't say "I want to buy one of these and put it in my living room". To think they do is, again, that disconnect between Silicon Valley and ordinary people in full force; that because we think it might be cool, somehow we know everybody wants it, and we'll happily ignore all the reasons why people don't or, more condescendingly, dismiss them and anybody who mentions them. Such hubris should be the lesson of Google Glass and Snap.
- mattnewport 8y ago
  Oh, yes, I didn't notice that potential misunderstanding. Correct, we use VR for surgical training, we don't train people to use VR (except incidentally as part of our onboarding for new users).
mattnewport 8y ago
I'm cofounder of a company building a VR surgical training platform. Currently we're focused on orthopedics and our primary customers are some of the largest medical device manufacturers. Our revenue last year was 7 figures. > Nobody needs training to watch a TV. I'm not sure what your point is here. Training/education is one big application of VR, entertainment is another. TV is also used for training/education as well as entertainment. Using VR doesn't require much more training than using a TV, although you don't find many adults who don't already know how to use a TV.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  > VR surgical training platform [...] our primary customers are some of the largest medical device manufacturers Alright, so people who are already quite unlike most of the rest of the general population, and doing things in a work environment rather than at home. > I'm not sure what your point is here. Training/education is one big application of VR I'm not disputing that, but we're all talking about general uptake by the wider population, not niche uses. Andreessen is talking about the mass market, given the assertion that (apparently) only 99% of people live in uninteresting places where VR would apparently spice our lives up. > Using VR doesn't require much more training than using a TV I don't think there were ever seven figure companies (weird flex, but okay) teaching people how to tune a TV. You turn the TV on, you watch it. Couldn't be simpler.
  - mattnewport 8y ago
    You seem to think we're training people to use VR? We train people to do orthopedic surgery, using VR. Those people are not particularly tech savvy (surgeons are smart people, but not necessarily particularly tech enthusiasts) but don't have much trouble using VR.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

VR will have a place in every home, pretty much in gaming and possibly entertainment. Once they make it a really great experience, I'll bet most games go 3D. But for other things ... not so much.