6 ms·

AR is going to be bigger than mobile and the PC, and you should be very worried if Facebook succeeds. Dismissiveness is foolish.

by gfodor 5y ago

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> AR is going to be bigger than mobile and the PC AR will be a niche product constrained primarily to industrial applications. There, we've both made our blind predictions, now we get to see who's right!
- gfodor 5y ago
  Mine isn’t blind but based on the emotional connection I’ve seen happen in VR between family members.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    No, that's just a different kind of blindness: not recognizing your own experiences might not extrapolate to others. I'm sure there was pockets of people who thought 3D TV was the greatest thing ever, and look how far that technology has come. Alexa and Siri were once upon a time going to be the greatest things ever, until everyone realized how very meh the experience was in practice. Smart watches were similarly going to change the world and have since largely pivoted to being niche products for health nuts. BTW, I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong! I just don't think there's any reason to believe you're right, either, and a lot of reasons you might not be, including sky-high costs, practical technology limitations, the lack of killer applications, social barriers to adoption (see: Google Glass), etc.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Once I saw a father who was separated from his kids by an ocean get down on the floor with them and draw together in VR, I realized that basic human needs are going to be met by VR technology eventually. The removal of physical proximity as a pre-requisite for social presence is about as disruptive development as they come. It’s not 3D TV, and it’s not about tech: it is about the human experience of being together when physically apart. This is why Facebook is repositioning the whole company behind it. Zuck has understood this for a long time.
      - CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > Once I saw a father who was separated from his kids by an ocean get down on the floor with them and draw together in VR Man, that family must be doing very well for themselves to afford at least two full VR rigs. Look, if VR kit becomes reasonably priced for average consumers (which also means GPU prices have to come down), maybe I could buy into your touching vision, here. But we've got a long way to go before this kind of gear is remotely affordable enough to result in the kind of mass adoption required to realize these purported benefits. As for Zuck, if he sees opportunity here, all the more reason for me to hope it never succeeds...
        gfodor 5y ago
        They were using Samsung S6 phones on GearVR. No hand tracking, even. Quest 2 is light years more capable.
hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
Maybe, maybe not. I'm still waiting on the Segway to revolutionize cities' transportation infrastructure. >Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder, predicted that in future cities would be designed around the device, while Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, also backed the project publicly and financially. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/04/engineering.highereducation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/04/engineering.hi... >John Doerr speculated that it would be more important than the Internet[...] Steve Jobs was quoted as saying that it was "as big a deal as the PC"[...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway#History
- nonfamous 5y ago
  Not to derail the topic at hand, but it was the Segway that proved the concept of dynamic stabilization, which in turn led to drones, bipedal robots, SpaceX’s reentry boosters, and much much more. My point is that the Segway does seem like a silly device in retrospect, but it was actually profoundly impactful.
  - progre 5y ago
    No, it was the cheap, good-enough inertial sensors that made that impact. Segway didn't invent them. Segway was beyond all hope when Weird Al made "White and Nerdy"
  - clairity 5y ago
    that’s exactly the the advancement that the segway represents, but while the sensors, actuators, and engineering were notable, it was mainly the advancement of computing power that enabled dynamic stabilization. before the segway, the computations couldn’t be done in real-time without (relatively) very expensive computers.
- gfodor 5y ago
  The Segway in some ways succeeded, but it came in the form of electric scooters and EUCs. The thesis was right - personal electric vehicles - but you can’t rebuild cities. It is not a useful analogy in any case, for a variety of reasons. The question you need to be asking is if video games will be able to break into reality once a certain level of capability and UX is met. You may be too old: AR may be a young person’s reality.
mechanical_bear 5y ago
Not sure how it will be bigger than mobile. In public I won’t be donning one of those headsets, but I will pull my phone out to comment on hacker news, or scroll news articles, etc. I don’t think my scenario is unusual.
- gfodor 5y ago
  Eventually it will be on contact lenses. The point isn’t the hardware but the software stack whose outputs are “all visual and audio sensory perception” and inputs are “all body state.” This will be the all enveloping abstraction of interactive computing. Everything we have today will run within that context. The headsets today are a transitional tech and will also on their own get very small, thin, light, and culturally accepted to wear in public. And no, they won’t be ugly or hide your face. For many, not being seen via an avatar will be akin to feeling unclothed. It will be strange and unlikely to be fully accepted by people who are above a certain age.
- istorical 5y ago
  that's sorta like saying 'I can't see how computers will be bigger than pen and paper. In public I won't be using a mainframe computer, but I will pull my journal out of my pocket to take a note'. the implicit premise is that the category (AR/VR/XR) remains the same but the technology improves until its better for pretty much all usecases we currently use 2d screens.
  - mechanical_bear 5y ago
    I can see your point, and admittedly I see how mine might come across a bit heavy on the Luddite. That said, I feel like this is one of those things that has been “just around the corner” for some time.
    - istorical 5y ago
      that's fair, and it does remain to be seen if the 'truly good VR/AR' is a few years away or several decades. I'm not optimistic about solving for virtual 'touch'/kinesthetic sense.
PaulHoule 5y ago
That will take a while. AR isn't going to get big unless Facebook recruits other firms to make investments in content. Those investments are going to happen until a decent AR dev kit exists, but for now very expensive $2500 headsets are not good enough in terms of * image quality * brightness * size * drop a pair on anybody right now for a demo https://kguttag.com/ https://kguttag.com/ points out the problems are difficult; industry badly wants full color, but a green-only design helps on all of those fronts. AR for the military is a real thing. The U.S. spends over $1 million to train an infantry soldier, it can afford to equip one with a $2500 headset. Consumers will be sick and tired of metaverse promises long before Facebook can deliver.
- gfodor 5y ago
  I wasn't referring to a specific hardware stack when I was referring to AR. I was referring to a software stack which also includes experiences that do not incorporate physical reality. And in my opinion the holographic transparent AR glass tech track is largely a dead end. I think passthrough AR devices like the Lynx-R are the best proxy for future consumer devices that incorporate the physical world. I feel pretty strongly we'll see a good Passthrough AR device from Apple in 2022.
neartheplain 5y ago
The point of AR is to layer one's reality with additional information, while the point of VR is to escape reality entirely. I think the latter is more compelling for most people, and the products for VR are here now.
- gfodor 5y ago
  No these terms are going to end up being dropped - the key capability is being able to override visual and auditory perception fully. Physical reality is one of the inputs and can be used or discarded to the degree necessary. For example, a fully immersive VR app that takes into account objects and other things in the room to ensure the virtual experience generated doesn’t lead to a person walking into things. This will, in many cases, be a knob a user can turn or the software will turn on their behalf: how much do I want the real world to leak into my eyeballs and ears? If I am walking down the sidewalk with a friend, we may be experiencing a quiet forest path, with other strangers we pass in the real world appearing as elves or animals to cue us of their presence, but as I approach the curb and go into the street, due to increased hazards, the real world will become more apparent and the forest will dissolve away so I can remain safe while I cross.
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    >For example, a fully immersive VR app that takes into account objects and other things in the room to ensure the virtual experience generated doesn’t lead to a person walking into things. This already exists and works very well, in the form of the SteamVR and Oculus VR play area guardian systems: https://support.oculus.com/guardian/ https://support.oculus.com/guardian/ >If I am walking down the sidewalk with a friend, we may be experiencing a quiet forest path, with other strangers we pass in the real world appearing as elves or animals to cue us of their presence How will the system cue used hypodermic needles?
    - gfodor 5y ago
      I’m aware of guardian - it is the hello world example of what I’m talking about. Currently VR apps are not meatspace aware, guardian is just a safety tool.

AR is going to be bigger than mobile and the PC, and you should be very worried if Facebook succeeds. Dismissiveness is foolish.

by gfodor 5y ago

AR is going to be bigger than mobile and the PC, and you should be very worried if Facebook succeeds. Dismissiveness is foolish.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> AR is going to be bigger than mobile and the PC AR will be a niche product constrained primarily to industrial applications. There, we've both made our blind predictions, now we get to see who's right!

gfodor 5y ago
Mine isn’t blind but based on the emotional connection I’ve seen happen in VR between family members.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  No, that's just a different kind of blindness: not recognizing your own experiences might not extrapolate to others. I'm sure there was pockets of people who thought 3D TV was the greatest thing ever, and look how far that technology has come. Alexa and Siri were once upon a time going to be the greatest things ever, until everyone realized how very meh the experience was in practice. Smart watches were similarly going to change the world and have since largely pivoted to being niche products for health nuts. BTW, I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong! I just don't think there's any reason to believe you're right, either, and a lot of reasons you might not be, including sky-high costs, practical technology limitations, the lack of killer applications, social barriers to adoption (see: Google Glass), etc.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Once I saw a father who was separated from his kids by an ocean get down on the floor with them and draw together in VR, I realized that basic human needs are going to be met by VR technology eventually. The removal of physical proximity as a pre-requisite for social presence is about as disruptive development as they come. It’s not 3D TV, and it’s not about tech: it is about the human experience of being together when physically apart. This is why Facebook is repositioning the whole company behind it. Zuck has understood this for a long time.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > Once I saw a father who was separated from his kids by an ocean get down on the floor with them and draw together in VR Man, that family must be doing very well for themselves to afford at least two full VR rigs. Look, if VR kit becomes reasonably priced for average consumers (which also means GPU prices have to come down), maybe I could buy into your touching vision, here. But we've got a long way to go before this kind of gear is remotely affordable enough to result in the kind of mass adoption required to realize these purported benefits. As for Zuck, if he sees opportunity here, all the more reason for me to hope it never succeeds...
      - gfodor 5y ago
        They were using Samsung S6 phones on GearVR. No hand tracking, even. Quest 2 is light years more capable.

hoppyhoppy2 5y ago

Maybe, maybe not. I'm still waiting on the Segway to revolutionize cities' transportation infrastructure. >Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder, predicted that in future cities would be designed around the device, while Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, also backed the project publicly and financially. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/04/engineering.highereducation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/04/engineering.hi... >John Doerr speculated that it would be more important than the Internet[...] Steve Jobs was quoted as saying that it was "as big a deal as the PC"[...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway#History

nonfamous 5y ago
Not to derail the topic at hand, but it was the Segway that proved the concept of dynamic stabilization, which in turn led to drones, bipedal robots, SpaceX’s reentry boosters, and much much more. My point is that the Segway does seem like a silly device in retrospect, but it was actually profoundly impactful.
- progre 5y ago
  No, it was the cheap, good-enough inertial sensors that made that impact. Segway didn't invent them. Segway was beyond all hope when Weird Al made "White and Nerdy"
- clairity 5y ago
  that’s exactly the the advancement that the segway represents, but while the sensors, actuators, and engineering were notable, it was mainly the advancement of computing power that enabled dynamic stabilization. before the segway, the computations couldn’t be done in real-time without (relatively) very expensive computers.
gfodor 5y ago
The Segway in some ways succeeded, but it came in the form of electric scooters and EUCs. The thesis was right - personal electric vehicles - but you can’t rebuild cities. It is not a useful analogy in any case, for a variety of reasons. The question you need to be asking is if video games will be able to break into reality once a certain level of capability and UX is met. You may be too old: AR may be a young person’s reality.

mechanical_bear 5y ago

Not sure how it will be bigger than mobile. In public I won’t be donning one of those headsets, but I will pull my phone out to comment on hacker news, or scroll news articles, etc. I don’t think my scenario is unusual.

gfodor 5y ago
Eventually it will be on contact lenses. The point isn’t the hardware but the software stack whose outputs are “all visual and audio sensory perception” and inputs are “all body state.” This will be the all enveloping abstraction of interactive computing. Everything we have today will run within that context. The headsets today are a transitional tech and will also on their own get very small, thin, light, and culturally accepted to wear in public. And no, they won’t be ugly or hide your face. For many, not being seen via an avatar will be akin to feeling unclothed. It will be strange and unlikely to be fully accepted by people who are above a certain age.
istorical 5y ago
that's sorta like saying 'I can't see how computers will be bigger than pen and paper. In public I won't be using a mainframe computer, but I will pull my journal out of my pocket to take a note'. the implicit premise is that the category (AR/VR/XR) remains the same but the technology improves until its better for pretty much all usecases we currently use 2d screens.
- mechanical_bear 5y ago
  I can see your point, and admittedly I see how mine might come across a bit heavy on the Luddite. That said, I feel like this is one of those things that has been “just around the corner” for some time.
  - istorical 5y ago
    that's fair, and it does remain to be seen if the 'truly good VR/AR' is a few years away or several decades. I'm not optimistic about solving for virtual 'touch'/kinesthetic sense.

PaulHoule 5y ago

That will take a while. AR isn't going to get big unless Facebook recruits other firms to make investments in content. Those investments are going to happen until a decent AR dev kit exists, but for now very expensive $2500 headsets are not good enough in terms of * image quality * brightness * size * drop a pair on anybody right now for a demo https://kguttag.com/ https://kguttag.com/ points out the problems are difficult; industry badly wants full color, but a green-only design helps on all of those fronts. AR for the military is a real thing. The U.S. spends over $1 million to train an infantry soldier, it can afford to equip one with a $2500 headset. Consumers will be sick and tired of metaverse promises long before Facebook can deliver.

gfodor 5y ago
I wasn't referring to a specific hardware stack when I was referring to AR. I was referring to a software stack which also includes experiences that do not incorporate physical reality. And in my opinion the holographic transparent AR glass tech track is largely a dead end. I think passthrough AR devices like the Lynx-R are the best proxy for future consumer devices that incorporate the physical world. I feel pretty strongly we'll see a good Passthrough AR device from Apple in 2022.

neartheplain 5y ago

The point of AR is to layer one's reality with additional information, while the point of VR is to escape reality entirely. I think the latter is more compelling for most people, and the products for VR are here now.

gfodor 5y ago
No these terms are going to end up being dropped - the key capability is being able to override visual and auditory perception fully. Physical reality is one of the inputs and can be used or discarded to the degree necessary. For example, a fully immersive VR app that takes into account objects and other things in the room to ensure the virtual experience generated doesn’t lead to a person walking into things. This will, in many cases, be a knob a user can turn or the software will turn on their behalf: how much do I want the real world to leak into my eyeballs and ears? If I am walking down the sidewalk with a friend, we may be experiencing a quiet forest path, with other strangers we pass in the real world appearing as elves or animals to cue us of their presence, but as I approach the curb and go into the street, due to increased hazards, the real world will become more apparent and the forest will dissolve away so I can remain safe while I cross.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >For example, a fully immersive VR app that takes into account objects and other things in the room to ensure the virtual experience generated doesn’t lead to a person walking into things. This already exists and works very well, in the form of the SteamVR and Oculus VR play area guardian systems: https://support.oculus.com/guardian/ https://support.oculus.com/guardian/ >If I am walking down the sidewalk with a friend, we may be experiencing a quiet forest path, with other strangers we pass in the real world appearing as elves or animals to cue us of their presence How will the system cue used hypodermic needles?
  - gfodor 5y ago
    I’m aware of guardian - it is the hello world example of what I’m talking about. Currently VR apps are not meatspace aware, guardian is just a safety tool.