9 ms·

We had a VR excitement 'bubble' in the 90s. Loads of headsets came out, games supporting them, etc. It all died out within a few years. I guess people like Mark

by 6nf 4y ago

We had a VR excitement 'bubble' in the 90s. Loads of headsets came out, games supporting them, etc. It all died out within a few years. I guess people like Mark thought the reason for the die out was that the tech wasn't there yet. But the reality is that VR is not the future, people just don't want it. Nobody wants to live their entire waking / working life in a VR headset. But that seems to be what Mark is working towards. He's thinking people will choose to work together via VR rather than just plain old video conferencing.

kevmo314 4y ago
> But the reality is that VR is not the future, people just don't want it. Nobody wants to live their entire waking / working life in a VR headset. This keeps getting repeated but aside from "it's not the status quo", I see little evidence for it. I'm sure nobody wanted to spend their entire waking and working life sitting in front of a computer screen back when PCs came out and yet here we are... In the off chance that VR does work out, Meta's going to be a huge benefactor.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  That would be great if Meta was a VC fund placing hundreds of bets in the hopes of a moonshot paying off. But a (formerly) trillion dollar company placing such a big bet on such a small market is very surprising.
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    This is what I have an issue with. This is a side project. Something to make sure FB has a foot in the game for when the technologies make "it all" (whatever that is) possible. Part of me wonders if this is a decoy - look over here! While I do something useful elsewhere.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Using a Quest we're clearly not there yet but we're also clearly far closer than a VirtualBoy. Saying we'll "never" get there, or that we couldn't get this into sunglasses-weight, does seem unrealistic. If joining a meeting was as easy as dropping on a pair of glasses, and I could "focus" on (virtually) further-away objects instead of just a computer screen in front of me, it would be pretty powerfully appealing.
  - 6nf 4y ago
    Joining a meeting right now is as easy as clicking on 'join' on your phone or laptop. I can then see everyone in the meeting and they can see my facial expressions etc. VR doesn't add anything useful and removes a lot of social cues visible on video (or in person). I don't see why I'd accept employees joining a meeting using an avatar instead of showing up 'in person' (on video).
    - majormajor 4y ago
      You're arguing about the experience today, not what it could be. I definitely don't want avatars. I want this meeting to have higher immersion representations of the rest of the people in the meeting than boxes on a screen. I want to be able to shift my view to focus more on individuals. I want to be able to have a meeting with 40 people where I could still focus on a single person and see them with high-fidelity, instead of just having 20 of the boxes at low-res in front of me, with the rest off-screen. I want less eyestrain because I'm not just staring at a flat wall but my eyes are moving and shifting and re-focusing more. I want to have depth to things. I want the ability to have a quiet side convo off to the side. I want the ability to write on a whiteboard off to the side that people can look at when they want instead of taking-over the entire viewport for everybody. All things I could do in the real world, but would be very hard to make seamless without a real-world interaction model. Again, we clearly aren't there yet. But it's easy to imagine something better than what we have today.
      - 6nf 4y ago
        How are you going to wear a headset without compromising face to face video? I can't even imagine a theoretical solution and not a single company is working on this problem. Am I wrong? Obviously on a very long timeline you can solve this problem but the next 5 years? No way. >I want the ability to have a quiet side convo off to the side. I want the ability to write on a whiteboard off to the side that people can look at when they want instead of taking-over the entire viewport for everybody. None of this requires VR and is available in, for example, Jitsi video chats.
- 6nf 4y ago
  >I see little evidence for it. Besides the fact that only 50 people are in the Metaverse right now? Literally nobody is using VR for meetings and work and stuff. Nobody likes being cut off from all real human interactions. At least with a video call I can see your face and you can see mine. VR? it's just voice chat with a stupid headset.
  - zip1234 4y ago
    These are all problems that people are working on. There is no reason they cannot be solved.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6nf 4y ago
      >> Nobody likes being cut off from all real human interactions. > There is no reason they cannot be solved. Explain?
      - zip1234 4y ago
        The goal is not to replace human interaction, it is to replace phone calls and video chat. To make the experience better than those things is not an insurmountable task.
    - rurp 4y ago
      A few 10s of billions of dollars along with a bunch of super smart people haven't made much of a dent, so I don't think vague assurances are going to cut it. Nobody can predict what technology will be like in a few decades, but I don't see any reason to be particularly bullish on VR. At this rate, even if it does happen at some point, Meta likely won't be around to see it.
      - ianbutler 4y ago
        They've literally made massive progress inside of 5 years. I don't know that we're watching the same space.
nordsieck 4y ago
> But the reality is that VR is not the future, people just don't want it. Nobody wants to live their entire waking / working life in a VR headset. I think you're wrong. From this[1] great essay about mainframes: > Ultimately, there are only two natural kinds of computers: embedded systems and mainframes. And this is so true. People have moved from personal computers to laptops and are in the process of moving to phones[2]. Smart watches seem to be a promising device; we'll see if people can put enough functionality into them to obviate the need for a phone. Of course, not all tasks are suitable to be done on a phone or a watch. But one way to think of VR is a desk setup with huge monitors that happens to be extremely portable. Of course the promise of VR is much greater than that, but that is a pretty important use case - a use case that would obviate the need for laptops and desktops for many if not most tasks. --- 1. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.html http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.h... 2. This isn't to say that the shift has been complete at all. Many people, including me, continue to use a desktop setup. And laptop use is still quite strong. But the derivative is ultimately what matters.
- 6nf 4y ago
  It's been 20 years and NOBODY is doing business in VR even though the tech is amazing right now. What's missing? At what point do you think normal people will prefer VR over just using video conferencing for work meetings? I don't see it and I'm willing to bet money that we won't have amazing Meta VR with 100 million users in the next 5 years.
  - doerinrw 4y ago
    I think Meta would disagree would disagree with the assertion "the tech is amazing right now." The two easiest problems to point to are a) resolution on most consumer headsets is far too low to read text effectively, and b) the ergonomics just aren't there in terms of weight and size. Pretty big problems - I don't really have any argument either way on how solvable they are in 5-10 years, but I really think the implication that people dislike the concept of working in VR itself is misguided.
    - 4y ago
ianbutler 4y ago
Video conferencing sucks. It's so much worse than a conversation with physical or simulated physical presence. I'd much rather have that sense of presence and having experienced that in VR I can say if the tech improves people will likely go for it. You lose so many cues, tells and deep interactions that you get with a physical presence via video call. I have seen VR start to solve some of these and I think it will be pretty big if we get to the point where the cartoony graphics are ditched.
- VectorLock 4y ago
  What visual cues or tells would you LOSE with a video call, but maintain with an abstract avatar?
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    Body language is the most obvious. You don't even need very expressive avatars before certain things we naturally do in person become useful tells. I've had multiple conversations in VR, they flow much more naturally than video chats based on the sense of presence. The quest pro just added expression tracking as well so now you have body language and normal emotional expressions. Wayyyyyyy more natural feeling than video chats, even if I'm seeing an avatar of someone and not their actual face.
    - VectorLock 4y ago
      Okay Mark. I'm sure body language and facial expression from an avatar is better than video of the actual person...
      - ianbutler 4y ago
        Clearly you've never tried it. You do recognize you get no body language at all with current video chats right? One of the many reasons I think current teleconferencing is terrible. Like you just get a head 95% of the time.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
VR in the 90s sucked pretty hard

by 6nf 4y ago

kevmo314 4y ago

> But the reality is that VR is not the future, people just don't want it. Nobody wants to live their entire waking / working life in a VR headset. This keeps getting repeated but aside from "it's not the status quo", I see little evidence for it. I'm sure nobody wanted to spend their entire waking and working life sitting in front of a computer screen back when PCs came out and yet here we are... In the off chance that VR does work out, Meta's going to be a huge benefactor.

rsj_hn 4y ago
That would be great if Meta was a VC fund placing hundreds of bets in the hopes of a moonshot paying off. But a (formerly) trillion dollar company placing such a big bet on such a small market is very surprising.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  This is what I have an issue with. This is a side project. Something to make sure FB has a foot in the game for when the technologies make "it all" (whatever that is) possible. Part of me wonders if this is a decoy - look over here! While I do something useful elsewhere.
majormajor 4y ago
Using a Quest we're clearly not there yet but we're also clearly far closer than a VirtualBoy. Saying we'll "never" get there, or that we couldn't get this into sunglasses-weight, does seem unrealistic. If joining a meeting was as easy as dropping on a pair of glasses, and I could "focus" on (virtually) further-away objects instead of just a computer screen in front of me, it would be pretty powerfully appealing.
- 6nf 4y ago
  Joining a meeting right now is as easy as clicking on 'join' on your phone or laptop. I can then see everyone in the meeting and they can see my facial expressions etc. VR doesn't add anything useful and removes a lot of social cues visible on video (or in person). I don't see why I'd accept employees joining a meeting using an avatar instead of showing up 'in person' (on video).
  - majormajor 4y ago
    You're arguing about the experience today, not what it could be. I definitely don't want avatars. I want this meeting to have higher immersion representations of the rest of the people in the meeting than boxes on a screen. I want to be able to shift my view to focus more on individuals. I want to be able to have a meeting with 40 people where I could still focus on a single person and see them with high-fidelity, instead of just having 20 of the boxes at low-res in front of me, with the rest off-screen. I want less eyestrain because I'm not just staring at a flat wall but my eyes are moving and shifting and re-focusing more. I want to have depth to things. I want the ability to have a quiet side convo off to the side. I want the ability to write on a whiteboard off to the side that people can look at when they want instead of taking-over the entire viewport for everybody. All things I could do in the real world, but would be very hard to make seamless without a real-world interaction model. Again, we clearly aren't there yet. But it's easy to imagine something better than what we have today.
    - 6nf 4y ago
      How are you going to wear a headset without compromising face to face video? I can't even imagine a theoretical solution and not a single company is working on this problem. Am I wrong? Obviously on a very long timeline you can solve this problem but the next 5 years? No way. >I want the ability to have a quiet side convo off to the side. I want the ability to write on a whiteboard off to the side that people can look at when they want instead of taking-over the entire viewport for everybody. None of this requires VR and is available in, for example, Jitsi video chats.
6nf 4y ago
>I see little evidence for it. Besides the fact that only 50 people are in the Metaverse right now? Literally nobody is using VR for meetings and work and stuff. Nobody likes being cut off from all real human interactions. At least with a video call I can see your face and you can see mine. VR? it's just voice chat with a stupid headset.
- zip1234 4y ago
  These are all problems that people are working on. There is no reason they cannot be solved.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6nf 4y ago
    >> Nobody likes being cut off from all real human interactions. > There is no reason they cannot be solved. Explain?
    - zip1234 4y ago
      The goal is not to replace human interaction, it is to replace phone calls and video chat. To make the experience better than those things is not an insurmountable task.
  - rurp 4y ago
    A few 10s of billions of dollars along with a bunch of super smart people haven't made much of a dent, so I don't think vague assurances are going to cut it. Nobody can predict what technology will be like in a few decades, but I don't see any reason to be particularly bullish on VR. At this rate, even if it does happen at some point, Meta likely won't be around to see it.
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      They've literally made massive progress inside of 5 years. I don't know that we're watching the same space.

nordsieck 4y ago

> But the reality is that VR is not the future, people just don't want it. Nobody wants to live their entire waking / working life in a VR headset. I think you're wrong. From this[1] great essay about mainframes: > Ultimately, there are only two natural kinds of computers: embedded systems and mainframes. And this is so true. People have moved from personal computers to laptops and are in the process of moving to phones[2]. Smart watches seem to be a promising device; we'll see if people can put enough functionality into them to obviate the need for a phone. Of course, not all tasks are suitable to be done on a phone or a watch. But one way to think of VR is a desk setup with huge monitors that happens to be extremely portable. Of course the promise of VR is much greater than that, but that is a pretty important use case - a use case that would obviate the need for laptops and desktops for many if not most tasks. --- 1. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.html http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.h... 2. This isn't to say that the shift has been complete at all. Many people, including me, continue to use a desktop setup. And laptop use is still quite strong. But the derivative is ultimately what matters.

6nf 4y ago
It's been 20 years and NOBODY is doing business in VR even though the tech is amazing right now. What's missing? At what point do you think normal people will prefer VR over just using video conferencing for work meetings? I don't see it and I'm willing to bet money that we won't have amazing Meta VR with 100 million users in the next 5 years.
- doerinrw 4y ago
  I think Meta would disagree would disagree with the assertion "the tech is amazing right now." The two easiest problems to point to are a) resolution on most consumer headsets is far too low to read text effectively, and b) the ergonomics just aren't there in terms of weight and size. Pretty big problems - I don't really have any argument either way on how solvable they are in 5-10 years, but I really think the implication that people dislike the concept of working in VR itself is misguided.
  - 4y ago

ianbutler 4y ago

Video conferencing sucks. It's so much worse than a conversation with physical or simulated physical presence. I'd much rather have that sense of presence and having experienced that in VR I can say if the tech improves people will likely go for it. You lose so many cues, tells and deep interactions that you get with a physical presence via video call. I have seen VR start to solve some of these and I think it will be pretty big if we get to the point where the cartoony graphics are ditched.

VectorLock 4y ago
What visual cues or tells would you LOSE with a video call, but maintain with an abstract avatar?
- ianbutler 4y ago
  Body language is the most obvious. You don't even need very expressive avatars before certain things we naturally do in person become useful tells. I've had multiple conversations in VR, they flow much more naturally than video chats based on the sense of presence. The quest pro just added expression tracking as well so now you have body language and normal emotional expressions. Wayyyyyyy more natural feeling than video chats, even if I'm seeing an avatar of someone and not their actual face.
  - VectorLock 4y ago
    Okay Mark. I'm sure body language and facial expression from an avatar is better than video of the actual person...
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      Clearly you've never tried it. You do recognize you get no body language at all with current video chats right? One of the many reasons I think current teleconferencing is terrible. Like you just get a head 95% of the time.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

VR in the 90s sucked pretty hard