4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - majormajor 4y ago
        My standard for the future (10+ years out) is "if i have to hit the keyboard or click the mouse it's failed." In that case I'll definitely still want to go back to in-person collaboration. > 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. My best guess of what this would look like would be much closer to glasses than a full headset (no "sticking" to the face) with very good ultra-wide cameras + image processing to capture your face and upper body language at the same time. Maybe toss in a desktop-mounted webcam too. Not 100% immersed/blackout, but quite possibly good enough to be better than a flat monitor with also isn't 100% of your FOV.
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.

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.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      My standard for the future (10+ years out) is "if i have to hit the keyboard or click the mouse it's failed." In that case I'll definitely still want to go back to in-person collaboration. > 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. My best guess of what this would look like would be much closer to glasses than a full headset (no "sticking" to the face) with very good ultra-wide cameras + image processing to capture your face and upper body language at the same time. Maybe toss in a desktop-mounted webcam too. Not 100% immersed/blackout, but quite possibly good enough to be better than a flat monitor with also isn't 100% of your FOV.

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.