9 ms·

AR/VR is inevitable. I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation. Today's VR

by gabea 4y ago

AR/VR is inevitable. I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation. Today's VR (and even AR via Mobile Phones) is primitive, sure, but the same could be said about desktop computers before the transition to mobile ever was an idea? I expect more comments on how to influence this technology versus dismissing it as not applicable for the human race.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Sure it's inevitable. That doesn't change the fact that the input problem for AR/VR is not solved. Some VR is trying to solve this by integrating back in the mouse/keyboard. Others, like Elon, are trying to leapfrog to human-brain interface. Neither of those efforts change the fact that for current AR/VR your input is lower bandwidth than a smartphone which is already lower bandwidth than mouse/keyboard. This input bandwidth limit means that the applications for the tech are currently very minimal and means that any product being sold today is unlikely to do well.
- WJW 4y ago
  I honestly don't see VR ever really taking off before we manage to solve the "output" problems either. Every sense except vision and hearing gets ignored. Walking is a complete mess, because real life furniture tends to get in the way. Smell and taste are usually completely ignored. Touch tends to fail completely as soon as you "push through" the haptic feedback. VR is just not very "real", and I don't think we can ever make it real enough with the tech path it is on. Human brain interfaces seem like the best bet, but they are so far away that I don't think they'll be commercially available in my lifetime.
  - alexalx666 4y ago
    Killer app for VR is new interface to computer imho
- Groxx 4y ago
  Yeah. AR/VR being future heavyweights seems obvious. Currently though? They're all kinda shit. And there doesn't seem to be a clear incremental step from "current" to "good enough" for a GIGANTIC range of scenarios, so it seems reasonable to claim "it's not coming any time soon". And I say all this as an enthusiast. When resolution and compute power increases a bit, I'll probably make a real effort to use VR (AR seems further away) to replace my desk/monitor(s)/etc for work. But without a ton of effort and severe tradeoffs, it's not really currently feasible.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  I think integrating existing devices and new ones is the way to go. With high resolution, color passthrough you can easily use a keyboard and mouse. Even better will be adding tracking to devices that you can use in VR. This already exists for a small selection of keyboards when using the Quest but could be expanded as needed either with purely visual tracking or base stations ala Vive or even using inertial tracking (like the IMU in your phone). For some applications using the VR controller as a laser pointer is more natural and faster than using a mouse, I'm sure the hardware and UI design will evolve to maximize this utility.
ilamont 4y ago
For some the "VR is inevitable" predictions clash with past experience about the coming VR wave, virtual words, and failed 3D hardware (Google Glass, 3D TV, etc.). For those who invested time and money into these earlier attempts, it's difficult to believe that this will be any different despite some undeniably cool demos and compelling niche use cases.
- berberous 4y ago
  I think you are right based on the media coverage, but I’m bewildered that anyone who has tried these can equate them. My personal experience trying all of these when they came out 1. Google Glass: This is the most underwhelming and lamest thing ever. Tried for 20 seconds and never thought about it again. 2. 3DTV: meh, I’dr rather watch 2D. 3. Magic Leap / HoloLens: this is way less cool than the commercials, tiny field of view, incredibly far way from something actually usable. 4. Oculus DK2: jaw dropped, holy shit moments. WOW! That’s not to say VR is perfect. In fact, it’s far enough away from perfect I currently never use it. But it is so much more impressive and close to being amazing than these other categories.
  - andybak 4y ago
    This is close to my position. I was completely unimpressed by 3D TV but VR made me stop what I was doing and learn Unity. It seems strange to lump them in the same category. There was no grass roots passion for 3D TV. There's still tons for VR/AR.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    Don’t remember the model, but I used a very early Oculus VR headset and came away thinking it was like looking at a blurry image through a screen door.
typon 4y ago
> I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation. You're creating a false dichotomy - probably unintentionally, but I find it's important to point it out. As one of these naysayers, I'm not against VR because I'm somehow skeptical of futuristic/modern technology (nuclear fusion when?), it's because I am specifically against VR/AR in the hands of a megacorp like Facebook. If all this development was happening in the open, like for example the web developed, I would be jumping on this yesterday. As someone who's dreamed of the Star Trek holodeck since I was a child, the thought of becoming an Oculus dev to pursue this dream does not excite me one bit.
ar_te 4y ago
Is it though? Technology is progressing, sure. And it will find its use, but what are the datapoints or other clues that predicts that AR/VR will become mainstream? Not saying it will not, but what makes it, in your opinion, "inevitable"
tootie 4y ago
My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. AR/VR is just UI. It doesn't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect headset will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a phone and much less convenient for a lot of others.
- hexomancer 4y ago
  My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. Smartphones are just UI. They don't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect smartphone will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a laptop and much less convenient for a lot of others.
  - tootie 4y ago
    Smartphones make loads of things possible that weren't possible before. They are extremely portable, have excellent displays for text, can connect to mobile data networks and contain an array of sensors that benefit from mobility.
    - hexomancer 4y ago
      You can connect usb GSM adapters to have the mobile network on a laptop (same for all the other sensors). It is just a lot more "convenient" to have a smartphone in your pocket rather than carry a giant laptop with you everywhere. Which is the point I was trying to make. Yes, technically all thinks VR does is possible with a smartphone but it is a lot more "convenient" to have google maps directions overlayed on top of real world rather than looking at it through a smartphone.
      - tootie 4y ago
        I'm not sure it is more convenient. Google Glass did heads up directions years ago and nobody cared. I don't get lost so quickly that I can't just peak at my phone every minute or two. I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing. The current pinnacle of AR adoption is still Pokemon Go and that was 5 years ago. And it was really just a gimmick.
walleeee 4y ago
AR/VR skepticism is an attempt to influence the tech landscape and imo the most compelling dismissals are not made on grounds of irrelevance or lack of application but principled judgements about how we want to interact with the world is it particularly surprising that people who know what goes into the sausages might be skeptical about feeding them to everyone for every meal?
- bckr 4y ago
  This, extremely this. I wish we were more excited about volumetric displays or programmable matter, instead.
  - walleeee 4y ago
    agreed!
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    Maybe I'm uninformed, but are those technologies not a long way off?
    - bckr 4y ago
      What I care about is that people largely don't talk about them, even though they're at least as plausible as fully immerse VR, which looms large in the collective third eye. The public imagination is bent toward the cyber-dystopian, whereas these two technologies represent other possible futures.
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        great point, I consider the zuckerverse a kind of target fixation, where we are doomed to hit the dystopia because we can't look away / imagine an alternative
        walleeee 4y ago
        I really like this way of thinking about it- if we can't imagine different futures, we won't create them!
AlexandrB 4y ago
For some use cases, AR/VR is already here! There's nothing to be skeptical about. But I think it's healthy to be skeptical of the idea that AR/VR can be shoved into every aspect of our lives and it will make sense. Phones/tablets didn't replace regular computers for productivity. Will VR do it? Who knows, but I kind of doubt it. Will every genre of game make sense in VR? Probably not. Then there's also the history of each recent step forward in technology coming along with increased top-down control and surveillance. Here, it's especially important to be skeptical of Meta's influence on VR specifically. I think Meta's goal is to create a fully walled garden where they can surveil their users freely to sell ads. An App Store for VR, but with even more monitoring and advertising. This is not a future I want, regardless of the benefits of the technology itself.
- andybak 4y ago
  I'm simultaneously a huge advocate of VR/AR as an amazing new medium and at the same time sceptical about it's chance of short or medium term mass adoption. Can't it just be a niche/enthusiast product for another decade or so? There's enough people that care and it to keep our afloat. It doesn't have to shift a billion units
sarsway 4y ago
I used to think so, it just sounds like it would be "the future", right? But realistically, what exactly is the appeal of it? The Metaverse? I mean, if no one can figure out how to make a fun MMORPG these days, what makes you think the "Metaverse" will actually be something people will want to spend time in? And why would Facebook be the one who actually figure out how to build some super appealing virtual world, they have 0% experience in doing this. It's gonna be boring, in immersive VR, still boring. And who really wants to wear these headsets? They always gonna be somewhat bulky. But even if you could make it super immersive, and super fun, and totally appealing, you always gonna be one thing that's holding you back: Your real body, yes unfortunately we are all tied to these meat bags, so our dream of moving into our self created Matrix is always gonna be somewhat limited. I mean you gotta be realistic here, no matter what we do, life will always be best experienced without a VR headset on. It might have some cool fun uses, but that's about it.
- berberous 4y ago
  I think you are just out of touch. Don’t kids already spend tons of time in Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite? Fortnite has concerts by artists like Travis Scott that are massively attended, fashion areas where you can shop virtual clothing, etc. You really think this trend will dissipate as the tech gets better?
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    when I grew up I also spent time in video games, none of which are around today, because they're just activities not ways of life. Fortnite 'concerts' are choreographed just webcasts. fashion areas are just microtransactions. there's nothing new there.
  - shahbaby 4y ago
    I'm sure VR will grow and have its place, it just won't be a game changing revolution like smartphones were.
    - intrasight 4y ago
kashkhan 4y ago
Inevitable like robots driving cars, colonizing mars, flying cars, clones, AGI... Assuming the sun doesn't engulf us first. Reality is VR will always be distinguishable from reality.
gigel82 4y ago
It's not though; it's a gimmick. The scenarios aren't there. In fact, I think the scenarios won't be there for a general purpose AR/VR device even if they make them as thin as glasses. Sure, navigation on a bike is nice, and maybe hololens-like scenarios for manufacturing or high-end industrial support, but that's it. I have an Oculus 2, and before that I've had a couple of Windows VR headsets when Microsoft was doing their push; they're all gathering dust in a box now...
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > Sure, navigation on a bike is nice, It doesn’t just have to be on bike. I would say walking directions are far more valuable. Let’s take what I say is the Peak AR Device: Glasses with Shuttered Camera + LIDAR, Bone Conducting Audio, Haptic Feedback, High Quality Microphones, & Smart Assistant. Often when I’m out in the city and finding a new place I would rely on my phone. Often the GPS on my phone would be screwed since I was underground and I would have to look at the streets on the map to see where I am relative to where I need to face and go. On the newer models of the iPhone I can use it’s LIDAR feature to tell it exactly where I am , but it’s cumbersome to wave your phone back and forth. An AR glasses would already be scanning around, know exactly what direction your facing , and give you visual indicators of where to go the whole trip. Let’s say someone who speaks a different language ask’s you a question like say directions , an often enough encounter where I’m from. With the strides Apple are making in their Translate technology (with much more to go), the translated speech can appear as text right in front on your screen. Let’s say the show you a piece of paper enter in a different language. That same translate technology can show you a translated page. AR , if we get there, will be amazing and all of the technology I said above already exist in mobile form.
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    Why is someone showing me a piece of paper in your ideal AR future? Kidding aside, the scenarios you describe sound closer to a tech demo than a killer feature to me.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Well, no thank you. I have enough problems getting my teens - - especially my son -- to live the real world, to make friends, socialize, get outside, breath fresh air, and get off touch screens and games. I won't let VR goggles enter my home. I'm not the only one. Maybe it's the future, but I'll hold it off as long as I can -- especially if it's Facebook, with all their ethical blindness and attention monopolizing -- that's pushing it.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  while i appreciate what you want for your sun, jumping to "I won't let VR goggles into my home" doesn't seem like a reasonable response either. Will you also ban game consoles and televisions? Will you limit his internet usage to wikipedia, and only non sexual articles? There is a lot of room between 'I don't support meta's endeavours' and 'BAN VR', and you've jumped directly on the extreme end of a scale for seemingly no reason.
  - supernovae 4y ago
    i dunno, sounds reasonable to me. As parents sometimes we just need to say no. And not defend that to randos on internet.
    - l33t2328 4y ago
      Sure you don’t need to defend it but you should be able to.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
muglug 4y ago
I was wowed the first time I put on a VR headset, and I continue to be wowed every time I try it. But lots of regular people aren't sufficiently wowed to pay console-level prices for the experience, which to me indicates that the culprit isn't just immature technology. > AR/VR is inevitable. Calling a given technology "inevitable" shuts down criticism. There's nothing inevitable about a technology that takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing) at once. I think that counts as sensory deprivation to a lot of people.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  > takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing) A quibble with this - the next gen is all about full color high res passthrough and many headsets like the Quest have open ear headphones so you still hear your surroundings. I think it's going to be much less isolating than the "VR is an isolating dystopia" people think.
pmontra 4y ago
It's not inevitable for the masses until the only way to do it is a headset. It will be only a tech for specialized markets and in controlled environments. Gamers, engineers, doctors. You're not going to do AR/VR while walking or when killing some time waiting at the restaurant. One reason is that not many people will carry a cumbersome headset with them. A phone is a better device for those scenarios. Glasses or contact lenses could change that. I can't wear contact lenses anymore but I wear glasses all the time. Light glasses, not heavy ones.
zmmmmm 4y ago
It's a fascinating phenomenon ... I call it "passionate dismissal". You can tell many of these people aren't 100% sincere from the mere fact they showed up to make a comment. "This technology is boring and going nowhere ... so I read an article all about it and then took the time to make a comment about it ..." I'm ready to predict that these people are radically wrong. The VR adoption curve is so sharp now in the 10-15 yr age bracket that people haven't caught up to the fact it is happening yet. I say that as someone with children in that age range and > 50% of their friends suddenly have and use VR routinely. These kids are all super acclimated to spending large amounts of time in VR. These kids are "primed" to become the next wave of tech users. HN folks, get ready to feel really, really old in 5 years from now - probably how all our parents / grandparents felt when we showed up with smart phones.
- orzig 4y ago
  Do you have any stats or other evidence that it’s taking off among kids? I know teachers in our affluent town and have not heard anything about it (though I haven’t asked).
  - zmmmmm 4y ago
    no - for me it's anecdotal and I accept that is weak evidence by any reasonable measure. I guess you can cite things like the Oculus app being the most popular download on iOS last Christmas, etc. But the way I see it rippling through that demographic is pretty crazy ... the kicker is that to join in with multiplayer you need a headset to play. So once a couple of them are doing it there is a pretty strong pull for the whole group to get on board. My theory is that this demographic is a bit "under the radar" and hence we are seeing less reporting on this than you would otherwise.
root_axis 4y ago
This argument is a classic template for enthusiasts when faced with skeptical push back. Comparing your pet-technology with the nascent version of something that went on to be incredibly successful is a very common fallacy that doesn't help your argument.
robotnikman 4y ago
It's more like Meta trying to lead the revolution seems dystopic at best. Purchasing virtual property to live in? I already deal with that in real life, why would I want to deal with that in a virtual world where the possibilities should be limitless and not tied to real life?
- polio 4y ago
  Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR? I think this was just a headline that uninformed people ran with because it was so provocative. There may be a VR equivalent to domain squatting, but probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    >Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR? because its already a thing in virtual spaces. > probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage. oh so now you expect it, but you think its not a lot of money. Seems like you're in agreement with him about purchasing virtual spaces, you just think its worth the money.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      I’ve seen articles about people buying virtual property. Why would you pay for “property” that is limitless?
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        I wouldn't but there are people who will
devoutsalsa 4y ago
When AR/VR is available as an option for my normal eyeglasses at a negligible cost & inconvenience, I’ll agree with you.
smeagull 4y ago
There are so many naysayers because there isn't a compelling use-case. How many UIs are 3D? How many people are using motion controls?
- jimmySixDOF 4y ago
  I think that is exactly the point of the comment you are replying to here. HN is a place where you would think people can see the use case opportunities and extrapolate them into the future based on the featured article's assertions (like getting access to a PPD of 55) and what that all means in the long term. Spatial computing will bring about a fundamental UI/UX design refactoring of established 2D applications we just take for granted as fully baked. It won't replace them, like screens didn't replace books, but it will allow for enhanced functions we didn't know we were missing until they were in front of us and it will be offered in a more delightful human centric experience at the same time. HN dogs can bark but the caravan is rolling.
  - smeagull 4y ago
    I doubt it. Navigation in 3D space is far more awkward than 2D. Depth is hard to get accurate, and you now have to deal with things closer to you obscuring things behind them. It's slow and awkward. Improving this space isn't dependent on new technology either. We don't need more fps for them to solve the UX problems, they could've been solved for 3D navigation on a 2D screen - but they haven't, it has always been easier, faster and more accurate to navigate a 2D space.
itslennysfault 4y ago
Maybe eventually. I agree that it's very fun as a toy. Some of the games are an absolute blast. Most are trash tbh, but that'll change / improve. However, the weird mEtAVeRsE wet dream zuck is pushing is total BS. NOBODY wants to live/work in VR. It's a fun thing to do for short periods of time for entertainment, and AR/VR is a cool tool for certain tasks (e.g. interior design). The idea that we're gonna be flying through cyber space like some kinda Hackers (the movie) scene is just nonsense. It's honestly bad UX that people have been trying to push forever. Windows 95 had this goofy virtual world thing where you were in a room and all your software was on bookshelves and other silly shit that was a fun gimmick, but infinitely less efficient than buttons, menus, and sorted lists. Also, unless headsets get MUCH lighter (and less sweaty) while simultaneously getting much better battery life they aren't going to be a thing people wear for long periods of time any time soon.
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  I fully agree that nobody wants to strap a big set of googles, but I'm also willing to bet that more and more of our lives will take place in "cyberspace". I'm willing to bet in the distant future almost all our lives will be virtual because it is simply so much cheaper than physical things. Our video games will become more immersive, I would not be surprised if a generation or two a family holiday could be a week inside a video game. Our work conference calls are becoming more and more immersive. I would not be surprised if work from home and work in the office eventually meet in the middle where you are physically at home but with a virtual representation sitting in a vertical office, where communication and collaboration are easy.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  A more comfortable strap helps a lot. The quest 2 with a standard strap is just horrible. The quest 1's strap was really great. The 'elite' one for the Q2 is somewhere in the middle..
  - Miraste 4y ago
    The Quest 1 strap was not great if you had long hair. There’s a reason no one else makes their head straps out of rubber.
al2o3cr 4y ago
AR/VR is inevitable Yeah, the folks who sank piles of money into it last time all thought that too. Turns out that "inevitable" might mean "tomorrow" or it might mean "thirty years from now". Pointing that out _is_ an attempt to "influence this technology" by reminding people that thinking gigantic problems will just magically be solved Because This Is The Future is a recipe for disappointment.
- Underphil 4y ago
  I don't really understand what the OP means by 'inevitable'. Inevitable that most people will own and use it regularly? If so, absolutely no chance.
alexfromapex 4y ago
It needs privacy legislation yesterday
spywaregorilla 4y ago
What is inevitable VR? Is it ready player one? Because that's what companies keep explaining it as. But that's never going to happen. Is it treadmills? Is it just what we have now but with better glasses? The discussion is swamped with people who saw a dumb movie once and don't understand how anything works.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Why is a virtual world like Ready Player One not happening? Maybe not tomorrow, but by 2040?
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Virtual world is easy. Virtual world where you are immersed beyond having the camera on your head is pretty much impossible. We don't have an idea for what tech would be required for that. There's a large gap between moving your character with a control stick and "being" in the game like in the movie implied. We don't have the tech to do massive enormous orders of magnitude larger than typical MMO servers. And of course the movie was some sort of dystopian web3 nightmare without considering the evil tech CEO. It showed the characters having fun going to doom world for PVP with real money and permadeath at stake. The main characters father loses everything because he dies in the game. But it was fine because the main characters were talented so it looked fun. This isn't a requirement for a virtual world of course, but the concept of the VR economy implies the game needs to be a lot less game and a lot more business. Not a spunky playground where you, a non pro gamer, will be able to do anything noteworthy.
bigmealbigmeal 4y ago
I wonder if the reason this community embraced innovation in the early days is because only those who embrace new things are going to be attracted to a site in its early days. In other words, even the act of using Hacker News was an embracement of the new, which filtered out anyone who didn't embrace the new -- so you were only going to find people embracing the new in the comments. Now that the site is established, it moreso attracts people who are interested in the established, and less-so attracts people who are interested in new things. This problem tends to amplify itself, as a community that rejects new things is also going to drive away people who are interested in new things. Now that Hacker News is established, it's just not "it" anymore. "It" is somewhere else. But this is all just a theory. The counter to this argument is that many people on Hacker News in 2007 expressed serious reservations to Dropbox/cloud storage when it was first revealed -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863. So perhaps what we're seeing is that problem-solvers (developers) also tend to be problem-finders.
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
The first desktop computer I and everyone I know used, they could not put it down and dreamed of when they could get on it again. Everyone's VR I know is in a drawer. They aren't remotely the same.
- dougmwne 4y ago
  For me the Quest 2 recreated the excitement of my first Macintosh. The first iPhone was also one of these moments, though a little less jaw dropping.
dougmwne 4y ago
Yes, I also find it quite astonishing. I bought a Quest 2 so that I could explore if this was a gimmick or the real deal. It’s absolutely the real deal and in my mind, the unquestionable future of computing. And if Facebook ends up owning the whole thing, it’ll be specifically because others in the tech industry had lost the plot and were too busy dismissing it to chase for a piece of the prize. An example of this is in game development. The app library is currently so that that it has opened up a huge opportunity for solo indie developers to build simple games and end up at the top of the sales charts. And we’re talking about something that has outsold the new Xbox. Tech people like to wax on about how concerned they are about Facebook, but these comments usually are just a chance for them to take a few swings at a favorite corporate punching bag, not because they have any particular interest in VR. I think in many ways the HN community is going through a deep skepticism cycle where everything new is dismissed. After Zuckerberg’s huge gamble pays off and creates a bigger gold rush than mobile, this same community is going to be posting guides on how to custom program hand tracking gestures and detailed breakdowns on how the distortion correction works.
iLoveOncall 4y ago
3D TVs were unavoidable too buddy.
rsynnott 4y ago
"[Thing A] was bad once, and now everyone uses it, thus everyone will use [Thing B], because Thing B is currently bad", is not, generally, a great argument. For instance, take 3D TVs; those were _not_ good (though they were far more mature than current VR stuff) or, as it turned out, of particular interest to the general public, and now they're gone. While I can't predict the future, I tend to think that VR is more of a 3D TV situation than a smartphone situation; an industry which is hitting market scaling issues ("Argh! Everyone in the world has a HD TV/Facebook account!") is pushing a new thing, to expand its market, and it's not particularly clear that consumers want it. This all feels very top-down; giant companies deciding what consumers will want next, and telling consumers they want it. This works less often than you'd think. Now, this eventually worked for the TV industry with 4K and particularly HDR, but those were both less jarringly different from what people were used to, and had more creative support (your average film director was much more excited about HDR than 3D...)
bborud 4y ago
It is inevitable that the technology will mature. It is not inevitable that it will play the role people think it will play. I think I'd be more enthusiastic if: - VR headsets weren't still so bad. Merely good VR devices is still a long way off. - the existing VR experiences weren't still so bad - the market wasn't completely fragmented and any purchase you make now is very short term - any meaningful degree interoperability is still way off in the future - the dominant player wants a walled garden where you are a powerless guest - at best Headsets will get better, but it'll be a slow, expensive and frustrating journey I'd be happy to let someone else get frustrated with. I've followed VR for about 30 years and if you look at it in that perspective, astonishingly little has been accomplished in terms of building something that even rises to where it isn't a frustrating, nauseating, sad experience. And if Zuck's walled garden is where the action is going to be at, I might sit it out entirely. Why would I invest my time being part of a community where I have absolutely no rights? That would be a really poor choice. There are legitimate reasons why people aren't as enthusiastic as you. And it doesn't make them naysayers.
kiazoz 4y ago
Probably because I am old and it has been inevitable at this point for nearly my entire life. The fundamental flaw IMO is that VR always over promises and under delivers. Meta will make VR indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean smell as part of reality. Indistinguishable from reality but of course we are not talking about going under water, feeling water as being wet and feeling like you are floating in water. Indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean a virtual massage parlor that someone could touch your back and it feels like your back is being touch. We mean we are going to make the tech equivalent jump from a 15 inch CRT monitor to a 27 inch nice LCD monitor and pretend VR is now indistinguishable from reality because that is what the Emperor wants and the Emperor signs my checks. To me, you either need a full body suit, disregard smell and then stand on an underwater treadmill with a motorcycle helmet on or it is all a waste of time until we have a good brain computer interface.

by gabea 4y ago

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

Sure it's inevitable. That doesn't change the fact that the input problem for AR/VR is not solved. Some VR is trying to solve this by integrating back in the mouse/keyboard. Others, like Elon, are trying to leapfrog to human-brain interface. Neither of those efforts change the fact that for current AR/VR your input is lower bandwidth than a smartphone which is already lower bandwidth than mouse/keyboard. This input bandwidth limit means that the applications for the tech are currently very minimal and means that any product being sold today is unlikely to do well.

WJW 4y ago
I honestly don't see VR ever really taking off before we manage to solve the "output" problems either. Every sense except vision and hearing gets ignored. Walking is a complete mess, because real life furniture tends to get in the way. Smell and taste are usually completely ignored. Touch tends to fail completely as soon as you "push through" the haptic feedback. VR is just not very "real", and I don't think we can ever make it real enough with the tech path it is on. Human brain interfaces seem like the best bet, but they are so far away that I don't think they'll be commercially available in my lifetime.
- alexalx666 4y ago
  Killer app for VR is new interface to computer imho
Groxx 4y ago
Yeah. AR/VR being future heavyweights seems obvious. Currently though? They're all kinda shit. And there doesn't seem to be a clear incremental step from "current" to "good enough" for a GIGANTIC range of scenarios, so it seems reasonable to claim "it's not coming any time soon". And I say all this as an enthusiast. When resolution and compute power increases a bit, I'll probably make a real effort to use VR (AR seems further away) to replace my desk/monitor(s)/etc for work. But without a ton of effort and severe tradeoffs, it's not really currently feasible.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
I think integrating existing devices and new ones is the way to go. With high resolution, color passthrough you can easily use a keyboard and mouse. Even better will be adding tracking to devices that you can use in VR. This already exists for a small selection of keyboards when using the Quest but could be expanded as needed either with purely visual tracking or base stations ala Vive or even using inertial tracking (like the IMU in your phone). For some applications using the VR controller as a laser pointer is more natural and faster than using a mouse, I'm sure the hardware and UI design will evolve to maximize this utility.

ilamont 4y ago

For some the "VR is inevitable" predictions clash with past experience about the coming VR wave, virtual words, and failed 3D hardware (Google Glass, 3D TV, etc.). For those who invested time and money into these earlier attempts, it's difficult to believe that this will be any different despite some undeniably cool demos and compelling niche use cases.

berberous 4y ago
I think you are right based on the media coverage, but I’m bewildered that anyone who has tried these can equate them. My personal experience trying all of these when they came out 1. Google Glass: This is the most underwhelming and lamest thing ever. Tried for 20 seconds and never thought about it again. 2. 3DTV: meh, I’dr rather watch 2D. 3. Magic Leap / HoloLens: this is way less cool than the commercials, tiny field of view, incredibly far way from something actually usable. 4. Oculus DK2: jaw dropped, holy shit moments. WOW! That’s not to say VR is perfect. In fact, it’s far enough away from perfect I currently never use it. But it is so much more impressive and close to being amazing than these other categories.
- andybak 4y ago
  This is close to my position. I was completely unimpressed by 3D TV but VR made me stop what I was doing and learn Unity. It seems strange to lump them in the same category. There was no grass roots passion for 3D TV. There's still tons for VR/AR.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  Don’t remember the model, but I used a very early Oculus VR headset and came away thinking it was like looking at a blurry image through a screen door.

typon 4y ago

> I find it astonishing that there are so many naysayers on HN, a community that in its early days embraced technology innovation. You're creating a false dichotomy - probably unintentionally, but I find it's important to point it out. As one of these naysayers, I'm not against VR because I'm somehow skeptical of futuristic/modern technology (nuclear fusion when?), it's because I am specifically against VR/AR in the hands of a megacorp like Facebook. If all this development was happening in the open, like for example the web developed, I would be jumping on this yesterday. As someone who's dreamed of the Star Trek holodeck since I was a child, the thought of becoming an Oculus dev to pursue this dream does not excite me one bit.

ar_te 4y ago

Is it though? Technology is progressing, sure. And it will find its use, but what are the datapoints or other clues that predicts that AR/VR will become mainstream? Not saying it will not, but what makes it, in your opinion, "inevitable"

tootie 4y ago

My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. AR/VR is just UI. It doesn't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect headset will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a phone and much less convenient for a lot of others.

hexomancer 4y ago
My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. Smartphones are just UI. They don't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect smartphone will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a laptop and much less convenient for a lot of others.
- tootie 4y ago
  Smartphones make loads of things possible that weren't possible before. They are extremely portable, have excellent displays for text, can connect to mobile data networks and contain an array of sensors that benefit from mobility.
  - hexomancer 4y ago
    You can connect usb GSM adapters to have the mobile network on a laptop (same for all the other sensors). It is just a lot more "convenient" to have a smartphone in your pocket rather than carry a giant laptop with you everywhere. Which is the point I was trying to make. Yes, technically all thinks VR does is possible with a smartphone but it is a lot more "convenient" to have google maps directions overlayed on top of real world rather than looking at it through a smartphone.
    - tootie 4y ago
      I'm not sure it is more convenient. Google Glass did heads up directions years ago and nobody cared. I don't get lost so quickly that I can't just peak at my phone every minute or two. I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing. The current pinnacle of AR adoption is still Pokemon Go and that was 5 years ago. And it was really just a gimmick.

walleeee 4y ago

AR/VR skepticism is an attempt to influence the tech landscape and imo the most compelling dismissals are not made on grounds of irrelevance or lack of application but principled judgements about how we want to interact with the world is it particularly surprising that people who know what goes into the sausages might be skeptical about feeding them to everyone for every meal?

bckr 4y ago
This, extremely this. I wish we were more excited about volumetric displays or programmable matter, instead.
- walleeee 4y ago
  agreed!
- denkmoon 4y ago
  Maybe I'm uninformed, but are those technologies not a long way off?
  - bckr 4y ago
    What I care about is that people largely don't talk about them, even though they're at least as plausible as fully immerse VR, which looms large in the collective third eye. The public imagination is bent toward the cyber-dystopian, whereas these two technologies represent other possible futures.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      great point, I consider the zuckerverse a kind of target fixation, where we are doomed to hit the dystopia because we can't look away / imagine an alternative
      - walleeee 4y ago
        I really like this way of thinking about it- if we can't imagine different futures, we won't create them!

AlexandrB 4y ago

For some use cases, AR/VR is already here! There's nothing to be skeptical about. But I think it's healthy to be skeptical of the idea that AR/VR can be shoved into every aspect of our lives and it will make sense. Phones/tablets didn't replace regular computers for productivity. Will VR do it? Who knows, but I kind of doubt it. Will every genre of game make sense in VR? Probably not. Then there's also the history of each recent step forward in technology coming along with increased top-down control and surveillance. Here, it's especially important to be skeptical of Meta's influence on VR specifically. I think Meta's goal is to create a fully walled garden where they can surveil their users freely to sell ads. An App Store for VR, but with even more monitoring and advertising. This is not a future I want, regardless of the benefits of the technology itself.

andybak 4y ago
I'm simultaneously a huge advocate of VR/AR as an amazing new medium and at the same time sceptical about it's chance of short or medium term mass adoption. Can't it just be a niche/enthusiast product for another decade or so? There's enough people that care and it to keep our afloat. It doesn't have to shift a billion units

sarsway 4y ago

I used to think so, it just sounds like it would be "the future", right? But realistically, what exactly is the appeal of it? The Metaverse? I mean, if no one can figure out how to make a fun MMORPG these days, what makes you think the "Metaverse" will actually be something people will want to spend time in? And why would Facebook be the one who actually figure out how to build some super appealing virtual world, they have 0% experience in doing this. It's gonna be boring, in immersive VR, still boring. And who really wants to wear these headsets? They always gonna be somewhat bulky. But even if you could make it super immersive, and super fun, and totally appealing, you always gonna be one thing that's holding you back: Your real body, yes unfortunately we are all tied to these meat bags, so our dream of moving into our self created Matrix is always gonna be somewhat limited. I mean you gotta be realistic here, no matter what we do, life will always be best experienced without a VR headset on. It might have some cool fun uses, but that's about it.

berberous 4y ago
I think you are just out of touch. Don’t kids already spend tons of time in Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite? Fortnite has concerts by artists like Travis Scott that are massively attended, fashion areas where you can shop virtual clothing, etc. You really think this trend will dissipate as the tech gets better?
- LegitShady 4y ago
  when I grew up I also spent time in video games, none of which are around today, because they're just activities not ways of life. Fortnite 'concerts' are choreographed just webcasts. fashion areas are just microtransactions. there's nothing new there.
- shahbaby 4y ago
  I'm sure VR will grow and have its place, it just won't be a game changing revolution like smartphones were.
  - intrasight 4y ago

kashkhan 4y ago

Inevitable like robots driving cars, colonizing mars, flying cars, clones, AGI... Assuming the sun doesn't engulf us first. Reality is VR will always be distinguishable from reality.

gigel82 4y ago

It's not though; it's a gimmick. The scenarios aren't there. In fact, I think the scenarios won't be there for a general purpose AR/VR device even if they make them as thin as glasses. Sure, navigation on a bike is nice, and maybe hololens-like scenarios for manufacturing or high-end industrial support, but that's it. I have an Oculus 2, and before that I've had a couple of Windows VR headsets when Microsoft was doing their push; they're all gathering dust in a box now...

Jcowell 4y ago
> Sure, navigation on a bike is nice, It doesn’t just have to be on bike. I would say walking directions are far more valuable. Let’s take what I say is the Peak AR Device: Glasses with Shuttered Camera + LIDAR, Bone Conducting Audio, Haptic Feedback, High Quality Microphones, & Smart Assistant. Often when I’m out in the city and finding a new place I would rely on my phone. Often the GPS on my phone would be screwed since I was underground and I would have to look at the streets on the map to see where I am relative to where I need to face and go. On the newer models of the iPhone I can use it’s LIDAR feature to tell it exactly where I am , but it’s cumbersome to wave your phone back and forth. An AR glasses would already be scanning around, know exactly what direction your facing , and give you visual indicators of where to go the whole trip. Let’s say someone who speaks a different language ask’s you a question like say directions , an often enough encounter where I’m from. With the strides Apple are making in their Translate technology (with much more to go), the translated speech can appear as text right in front on your screen. Let’s say the show you a piece of paper enter in a different language. That same translate technology can show you a translated page. AR , if we get there, will be amazing and all of the technology I said above already exist in mobile form.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  Why is someone showing me a piece of paper in your ideal AR future? Kidding aside, the scenarios you describe sound closer to a tech demo than a killer feature to me.
  - Jcowell 4y ago

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Well, no thank you. I have enough problems getting my teens - - especially my son -- to live the real world, to make friends, socialize, get outside, breath fresh air, and get off touch screens and games. I won't let VR goggles enter my home. I'm not the only one. Maybe it's the future, but I'll hold it off as long as I can -- especially if it's Facebook, with all their ethical blindness and attention monopolizing -- that's pushing it.

LegitShady 4y ago
while i appreciate what you want for your sun, jumping to "I won't let VR goggles into my home" doesn't seem like a reasonable response either. Will you also ban game consoles and televisions? Will you limit his internet usage to wikipedia, and only non sexual articles? There is a lot of room between 'I don't support meta's endeavours' and 'BAN VR', and you've jumped directly on the extreme end of a scale for seemingly no reason.
- supernovae 4y ago
  i dunno, sounds reasonable to me. As parents sometimes we just need to say no. And not defend that to randos on internet.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    Sure you don’t need to defend it but you should be able to.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago

muglug 4y ago

I was wowed the first time I put on a VR headset, and I continue to be wowed every time I try it. But lots of regular people aren't sufficiently wowed to pay console-level prices for the experience, which to me indicates that the culprit isn't just immature technology. > AR/VR is inevitable. Calling a given technology "inevitable" shuts down criticism. There's nothing inevitable about a technology that takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing) at once. I think that counts as sensory deprivation to a lot of people.

zmmmmm 4y ago
> takes charge of our two most important senses (sight and hearing) A quibble with this - the next gen is all about full color high res passthrough and many headsets like the Quest have open ear headphones so you still hear your surroundings. I think it's going to be much less isolating than the "VR is an isolating dystopia" people think.

pmontra 4y ago

It's not inevitable for the masses until the only way to do it is a headset. It will be only a tech for specialized markets and in controlled environments. Gamers, engineers, doctors. You're not going to do AR/VR while walking or when killing some time waiting at the restaurant. One reason is that not many people will carry a cumbersome headset with them. A phone is a better device for those scenarios. Glasses or contact lenses could change that. I can't wear contact lenses anymore but I wear glasses all the time. Light glasses, not heavy ones.

zmmmmm 4y ago

It's a fascinating phenomenon ... I call it "passionate dismissal". You can tell many of these people aren't 100% sincere from the mere fact they showed up to make a comment. "This technology is boring and going nowhere ... so I read an article all about it and then took the time to make a comment about it ..." I'm ready to predict that these people are radically wrong. The VR adoption curve is so sharp now in the 10-15 yr age bracket that people haven't caught up to the fact it is happening yet. I say that as someone with children in that age range and > 50% of their friends suddenly have and use VR routinely. These kids are all super acclimated to spending large amounts of time in VR. These kids are "primed" to become the next wave of tech users. HN folks, get ready to feel really, really old in 5 years from now - probably how all our parents / grandparents felt when we showed up with smart phones.

orzig 4y ago
Do you have any stats or other evidence that it’s taking off among kids? I know teachers in our affluent town and have not heard anything about it (though I haven’t asked).
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  no - for me it's anecdotal and I accept that is weak evidence by any reasonable measure. I guess you can cite things like the Oculus app being the most popular download on iOS last Christmas, etc. But the way I see it rippling through that demographic is pretty crazy ... the kicker is that to join in with multiplayer you need a headset to play. So once a couple of them are doing it there is a pretty strong pull for the whole group to get on board. My theory is that this demographic is a bit "under the radar" and hence we are seeing less reporting on this than you would otherwise.

root_axis 4y ago

This argument is a classic template for enthusiasts when faced with skeptical push back. Comparing your pet-technology with the nascent version of something that went on to be incredibly successful is a very common fallacy that doesn't help your argument.

robotnikman 4y ago

It's more like Meta trying to lead the revolution seems dystopic at best. Purchasing virtual property to live in? I already deal with that in real life, why would I want to deal with that in a virtual world where the possibilities should be limitless and not tied to real life?

polio 4y ago
Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR? I think this was just a headline that uninformed people ran with because it was so provocative. There may be a VR equivalent to domain squatting, but probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  >Why do you expect to have to purchase property in VR? because its already a thing in virtual spaces. > probably nothing that would require you to get a mortgage. oh so now you expect it, but you think its not a lot of money. Seems like you're in agreement with him about purchasing virtual spaces, you just think its worth the money.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    I’ve seen articles about people buying virtual property. Why would you pay for “property” that is limitless?
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      I wouldn't but there are people who will

devoutsalsa 4y ago

When AR/VR is available as an option for my normal eyeglasses at a negligible cost & inconvenience, I’ll agree with you.

smeagull 4y ago

There are so many naysayers because there isn't a compelling use-case. How many UIs are 3D? How many people are using motion controls?

jimmySixDOF 4y ago
I think that is exactly the point of the comment you are replying to here. HN is a place where you would think people can see the use case opportunities and extrapolate them into the future based on the featured article's assertions (like getting access to a PPD of 55) and what that all means in the long term. Spatial computing will bring about a fundamental UI/UX design refactoring of established 2D applications we just take for granted as fully baked. It won't replace them, like screens didn't replace books, but it will allow for enhanced functions we didn't know we were missing until they were in front of us and it will be offered in a more delightful human centric experience at the same time. HN dogs can bark but the caravan is rolling.
- smeagull 4y ago
  I doubt it. Navigation in 3D space is far more awkward than 2D. Depth is hard to get accurate, and you now have to deal with things closer to you obscuring things behind them. It's slow and awkward. Improving this space isn't dependent on new technology either. We don't need more fps for them to solve the UX problems, they could've been solved for 3D navigation on a 2D screen - but they haven't, it has always been easier, faster and more accurate to navigate a 2D space.

itslennysfault 4y ago

Maybe eventually. I agree that it's very fun as a toy. Some of the games are an absolute blast. Most are trash tbh, but that'll change / improve. However, the weird mEtAVeRsE wet dream zuck is pushing is total BS. NOBODY wants to live/work in VR. It's a fun thing to do for short periods of time for entertainment, and AR/VR is a cool tool for certain tasks (e.g. interior design). The idea that we're gonna be flying through cyber space like some kinda Hackers (the movie) scene is just nonsense. It's honestly bad UX that people have been trying to push forever. Windows 95 had this goofy virtual world thing where you were in a room and all your software was on bookshelves and other silly shit that was a fun gimmick, but infinitely less efficient than buttons, menus, and sorted lists. Also, unless headsets get MUCH lighter (and less sweaty) while simultaneously getting much better battery life they aren't going to be a thing people wear for long periods of time any time soon.

jay_kyburz 4y ago
I fully agree that nobody wants to strap a big set of googles, but I'm also willing to bet that more and more of our lives will take place in "cyberspace". I'm willing to bet in the distant future almost all our lives will be virtual because it is simply so much cheaper than physical things. Our video games will become more immersive, I would not be surprised if a generation or two a family holiday could be a week inside a video game. Our work conference calls are becoming more and more immersive. I would not be surprised if work from home and work in the office eventually meet in the middle where you are physically at home but with a virtual representation sitting in a vertical office, where communication and collaboration are easy.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
A more comfortable strap helps a lot. The quest 2 with a standard strap is just horrible. The quest 1's strap was really great. The 'elite' one for the Q2 is somewhere in the middle..
- Miraste 4y ago
  The Quest 1 strap was not great if you had long hair. There’s a reason no one else makes their head straps out of rubber.

al2o3cr 4y ago

AR/VR is inevitable Yeah, the folks who sank piles of money into it last time all thought that too. Turns out that "inevitable" might mean "tomorrow" or it might mean "thirty years from now". Pointing that out _is_ an attempt to "influence this technology" by reminding people that thinking gigantic problems will just magically be solved Because This Is The Future is a recipe for disappointment.

Underphil 4y ago
I don't really understand what the OP means by 'inevitable'. Inevitable that most people will own and use it regularly? If so, absolutely no chance.

alexfromapex 4y ago

It needs privacy legislation yesterday

spywaregorilla 4y ago

What is inevitable VR? Is it ready player one? Because that's what companies keep explaining it as. But that's never going to happen. Is it treadmills? Is it just what we have now but with better glasses? The discussion is swamped with people who saw a dumb movie once and don't understand how anything works.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
Why is a virtual world like Ready Player One not happening? Maybe not tomorrow, but by 2040?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Virtual world is easy. Virtual world where you are immersed beyond having the camera on your head is pretty much impossible. We don't have an idea for what tech would be required for that. There's a large gap between moving your character with a control stick and "being" in the game like in the movie implied. We don't have the tech to do massive enormous orders of magnitude larger than typical MMO servers. And of course the movie was some sort of dystopian web3 nightmare without considering the evil tech CEO. It showed the characters having fun going to doom world for PVP with real money and permadeath at stake. The main characters father loses everything because he dies in the game. But it was fine because the main characters were talented so it looked fun. This isn't a requirement for a virtual world of course, but the concept of the VR economy implies the game needs to be a lot less game and a lot more business. Not a spunky playground where you, a non pro gamer, will be able to do anything noteworthy.

bigmealbigmeal 4y ago

I wonder if the reason this community embraced innovation in the early days is because only those who embrace new things are going to be attracted to a site in its early days. In other words, even the act of using Hacker News was an embracement of the new, which filtered out anyone who didn't embrace the new -- so you were only going to find people embracing the new in the comments. Now that the site is established, it moreso attracts people who are interested in the established, and less-so attracts people who are interested in new things. This problem tends to amplify itself, as a community that rejects new things is also going to drive away people who are interested in new things. Now that Hacker News is established, it's just not "it" anymore. "It" is somewhere else. But this is all just a theory. The counter to this argument is that many people on Hacker News in 2007 expressed serious reservations to Dropbox/cloud storage when it was first revealed -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863. So perhaps what we're seeing is that problem-solvers (developers) also tend to be problem-finders.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

The first desktop computer I and everyone I know used, they could not put it down and dreamed of when they could get on it again. Everyone's VR I know is in a drawer. They aren't remotely the same.

dougmwne 4y ago
For me the Quest 2 recreated the excitement of my first Macintosh. The first iPhone was also one of these moments, though a little less jaw dropping.

dougmwne 4y ago

Yes, I also find it quite astonishing. I bought a Quest 2 so that I could explore if this was a gimmick or the real deal. It’s absolutely the real deal and in my mind, the unquestionable future of computing. And if Facebook ends up owning the whole thing, it’ll be specifically because others in the tech industry had lost the plot and were too busy dismissing it to chase for a piece of the prize. An example of this is in game development. The app library is currently so that that it has opened up a huge opportunity for solo indie developers to build simple games and end up at the top of the sales charts. And we’re talking about something that has outsold the new Xbox. Tech people like to wax on about how concerned they are about Facebook, but these comments usually are just a chance for them to take a few swings at a favorite corporate punching bag, not because they have any particular interest in VR. I think in many ways the HN community is going through a deep skepticism cycle where everything new is dismissed. After Zuckerberg’s huge gamble pays off and creates a bigger gold rush than mobile, this same community is going to be posting guides on how to custom program hand tracking gestures and detailed breakdowns on how the distortion correction works.

iLoveOncall 4y ago

3D TVs were unavoidable too buddy.

rsynnott 4y ago

"[Thing A] was bad once, and now everyone uses it, thus everyone will use [Thing B], because Thing B is currently bad", is not, generally, a great argument. For instance, take 3D TVs; those were _not_ good (though they were far more mature than current VR stuff) or, as it turned out, of particular interest to the general public, and now they're gone. While I can't predict the future, I tend to think that VR is more of a 3D TV situation than a smartphone situation; an industry which is hitting market scaling issues ("Argh! Everyone in the world has a HD TV/Facebook account!") is pushing a new thing, to expand its market, and it's not particularly clear that consumers want it. This all feels very top-down; giant companies deciding what consumers will want next, and telling consumers they want it. This works less often than you'd think. Now, this eventually worked for the TV industry with 4K and particularly HDR, but those were both less jarringly different from what people were used to, and had more creative support (your average film director was much more excited about HDR than 3D...)

bborud 4y ago

It is inevitable that the technology will mature. It is not inevitable that it will play the role people think it will play. I think I'd be more enthusiastic if: - VR headsets weren't still so bad. Merely good VR devices is still a long way off. - the existing VR experiences weren't still so bad - the market wasn't completely fragmented and any purchase you make now is very short term - any meaningful degree interoperability is still way off in the future - the dominant player wants a walled garden where you are a powerless guest - at best Headsets will get better, but it'll be a slow, expensive and frustrating journey I'd be happy to let someone else get frustrated with. I've followed VR for about 30 years and if you look at it in that perspective, astonishingly little has been accomplished in terms of building something that even rises to where it isn't a frustrating, nauseating, sad experience. And if Zuck's walled garden is where the action is going to be at, I might sit it out entirely. Why would I invest my time being part of a community where I have absolutely no rights? That would be a really poor choice. There are legitimate reasons why people aren't as enthusiastic as you. And it doesn't make them naysayers.

kiazoz 4y ago

Probably because I am old and it has been inevitable at this point for nearly my entire life. The fundamental flaw IMO is that VR always over promises and under delivers. Meta will make VR indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean smell as part of reality. Indistinguishable from reality but of course we are not talking about going under water, feeling water as being wet and feeling like you are floating in water. Indistinguishable from reality but of course we don't mean a virtual massage parlor that someone could touch your back and it feels like your back is being touch. We mean we are going to make the tech equivalent jump from a 15 inch CRT monitor to a 27 inch nice LCD monitor and pretend VR is now indistinguishable from reality because that is what the Emperor wants and the Emperor signs my checks. To me, you either need a full body suit, disregard smell and then stand on an underwater treadmill with a motorcycle helmet on or it is all a waste of time until we have a good brain computer interface.