6 ms·

Meta's current gen and upcoming stuff out of their R&D lab is pretty impressive, but much like what Apple is rumored to be putting into their headset, it is SO

Meta's current gen and upcoming stuff out of their R&D lab is pretty impressive, but much like what Apple is rumored to be putting into their headset, it is SO expensive that they're limited to large corporations/governments with deep pockets who are also willing to develop a use-case for the technology. I guess my point is: Yes, this stuff is better than Microsoft's Hololens. However, it is also a product targeting the same niche market, and the Hololens hasn't really been successful. Turns out most organizations don't want to buy expensive headsets to then develop most of the key software themselves when any other alternative exists. A lot of people have faith that anything Apple will release will just be successful by the virtue of the Apple-y-ness of it. But realistically how big do you think the market for a $2-3K headset is? Are you going to buy one? I'm certainly not. The Quest 2 ($400) is maybe near the current best case scenario in terms of cost-to-user experience ratio. Anything better has huge diminishing returns, and we'll likely be waiting a few years minimum until technology has advanced enough to be affordable. We know, today, what it will look like since everyone's R&D lab has produced a few demos of it, but we also know, today, what it would cost to put into your hands.

phyrex 4y ago
The quest pro is more tech preview and dev platform than actual consumer product. Meta is planning to release their quest 3 this year, which is supposed to be a lot cheaper
Maursault 4y ago
> A lot of people have faith that anything Apple will release will just be successful by the virtue of the Apple-y-ness of it. Apple is rational. They won't sell this with marketing, they'll try to grow a developer community, just like with Mac, iPhone, iPad. My thing is, no matter what it is, it's a solution without a problem. I honestly can't believe they'll actually release it, and if they do, I won't believe it will be successful until it is. Just because Apple is Apple doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Usually Apple will take what is there and make it better. But with this, there's really nothing there to speak of, just a very small amount of splintered vociferous supporters of VR, and even less with AR. Watch, they'll downvote my comment soon enough. Apple needs to sell this to a lot of people that wouldn't think they needed or wanted it. But this isn't an iPod, so I just don't get how it can possibly be made essential or even sexy. Trying to make VR/AR a successful seller is like trying to fight a land war in Russia in winter.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > But this isn't an iPod, so I just don't get how it can possibly be made essential or even sexy. I mean, people said that about the iPod. Slashdot, famously: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Or Watch. "Younger people don't wear watches any longer." That said, genuinely useful AR in a headset seems challenging as a consumer device.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      There are some obvious genuinely useful AR applications: For those with prosopagnosia, the names of people floating above their head, replete with notes on your first/last interaction with them, how you know them, the company they work for, their net worth/their company's market cap, current pupil size vs normal, breath rate, etc. Be however invasive you want/don't want to. Subtitles underneath the person who said it, for the hard of hearing. Live translation (output as in-ear audio or subtitled) for foreign languages. And the not so great: An X-ray glasses app using deep fake technology to show everyone around you as naked. Replacement of visually undesirable elements with a happy planters (so you don't step on them). Trash and poop and homeless people are no longer things you have to see. (Debuted at the end of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror) ) Assuming this will is all powered by, basically an iPhone 15, these things are within our grasp. For better or worse. The real concern is battery life. An iWatch has such pathetic battery life that I can't believe Apple stands by it as a product. But it gives a floor on how long Apple AR glasses will last on battery power before Apple is willing to release it as a product.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        I find Apple Watch Ultra much more useful as a day to day device than my previous 3G? device. I agree that AR could be very useful (if socially disturbing) in principle. I'm just not sure when it can get there.
chaostheory 4y ago
I largely agree with what you’ve written. I love my Quest 2 even though I own other headsets, but I feel that the Quest Pro is largely a failure. How you market a headset with a PPD of only 22 as a headset for work? 35 PPD is the minimum if you want to read text. The only headset capable of that is the $1999 Varjo Aero. What’s even more puzzling is that there’s currently no good way of extending the Quest Pro’s battery life Edit: The pro new controllers are nice, but I have no clue how they will enhance work when your hands will likely be in front of you compared to either gaming or fitness. They should have kept the focus on the headset itself and saved the controllers for the Quest 3 release. Whether Meta and the other manufacturers will admit it or not, they need Apple to make VR & AR acceptable to the masses and workplaces. Despite the name change, meta still cannot escape its past yet. The Quest 2 is a revolutionary consumer device that is largely ignored because of meta’s poor public image
- dagmx 4y ago
  I would argue the Quest 2 isn’t ignored because of Meta. Most people wouldn’t care imho. The bigger issue is that it targets gamers, and only gamers. The few fitness things on there are gaming related and the social stuff doesn’t appeal to people outside existing users. The problem in my mind, and clearly in Metas given the Quest Pro, is that they need broader appeal.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Nearly every game is a cardio workout though. It’s actually my primary use case for the Quest 2. I’ve never been more fit in my life cardio wise. You still have a point. I know people who are indifferent to meta, yet they still are hesitant to even try it. I feel that they’re intimidated by the headset form factor.
outworlder 4y ago
> Are you going to buy one? I'm certainly not. Probably not. And I say that while having the first commercial Oculus Rift, a HTC Vive and a Quest 2. However, that's not important. When Apple does something, people pay attention. If Apple invests in and releases a product, you know other companies will follow. Companies will be scared and won't want to miss the boat. Samsung will release a design that will be cheaper and look mostly the same. Other manufacturers will try to come up with their own spin on things. All of a sudden, you have a battleground. Think about this: Meta is hemorrhaging cash. They would be widly profitable but are in the red because of VR investments. Apple has plenty of cash (although stock has taken a beating with the rest of the market) and is also dedicating tons of R&D. What are they seeing that we are not seeing? This is the exact sort of thinking that got the Soviet shuttle (the Buran). "The Americans wouldn't be crazy enough to build a spaceship as big as the shuttle for no reason, would they? They must have a pretty good reason we are not seeing, so let's build our own and figure out later." It does not have to be true. Maybe Meta and Apple are way off the mark and high on fumes from Milpitas. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If the worst problem we can think of about this tech is how much it costs, that won't be a problem for much longer. It never is. It may take some time, but it will happen. We forget how much precision is required to make a CPU, an old fashioned hard drive, or a modern display. They all cost millions of dollars not that long ago and had to drop by _several orders of magnitude_. A VR headset costing 3k has to drop to maybe a third of its price to reach cellphone prices. If you drop by one order of magnitude you get to Quest's levels (before the price hike). We need killer apps and comfortable headsets that are accepted by society. That's it. They look dorky today, but so did bluetooth phones until Apple released theirs. Now, they are fashionable.
idaseing 4y ago
The selling point will be that it can put another person in the same room with you. That's a massive leap in communication, on par with the introduction of mobile phones. Originally mobile phones cost thousands of dollars and had a limited market. Everyone wanted them but couldn't afford them till the price came down over time. It'll be the same way with VR headsets that are capable of doing teleportation like the Apple headset is rumored to be able to do. From Mark Gurman: "The headset’s FaceTime software will realistically render a user’s face and full body in virtual reality. Those avatars will allow two people — each with an Apple headset — to communicate and feel like they’re in the same room."
jhaenchen 4y ago
You'd pay that for a laptop. And I think that's part of this, these companies really believe they're looking at the next consumer device on the scale of the iPhone if they can just get the transportability and input interfaces figured out. The quest 2 is so very close, it's just a tad too heavy, a tad too low quality display, and with a mobile operating system. Just replacing the custom android OS on that thing with a fully fledged iOS like interface would go a very long way IMO.

phyrex 4y ago

The quest pro is more tech preview and dev platform than actual consumer product. Meta is planning to release their quest 3 this year, which is supposed to be a lot cheaper

Maursault 4y ago

> A lot of people have faith that anything Apple will release will just be successful by the virtue of the Apple-y-ness of it. Apple is rational. They won't sell this with marketing, they'll try to grow a developer community, just like with Mac, iPhone, iPad. My thing is, no matter what it is, it's a solution without a problem. I honestly can't believe they'll actually release it, and if they do, I won't believe it will be successful until it is. Just because Apple is Apple doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Usually Apple will take what is there and make it better. But with this, there's really nothing there to speak of, just a very small amount of splintered vociferous supporters of VR, and even less with AR. Watch, they'll downvote my comment soon enough. Apple needs to sell this to a lot of people that wouldn't think they needed or wanted it. But this isn't an iPod, so I just don't get how it can possibly be made essential or even sexy. Trying to make VR/AR a successful seller is like trying to fight a land war in Russia in winter.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> But this isn't an iPod, so I just don't get how it can possibly be made essential or even sexy. I mean, people said that about the iPod. Slashdot, famously: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
- ghaff 4y ago
  Or Watch. "Younger people don't wear watches any longer." That said, genuinely useful AR in a headset seems challenging as a consumer device.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    There are some obvious genuinely useful AR applications: For those with prosopagnosia, the names of people floating above their head, replete with notes on your first/last interaction with them, how you know them, the company they work for, their net worth/their company's market cap, current pupil size vs normal, breath rate, etc. Be however invasive you want/don't want to. Subtitles underneath the person who said it, for the hard of hearing. Live translation (output as in-ear audio or subtitled) for foreign languages. And the not so great: An X-ray glasses app using deep fake technology to show everyone around you as naked. Replacement of visually undesirable elements with a happy planters (so you don't step on them). Trash and poop and homeless people are no longer things you have to see. (Debuted at the end of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror) ) Assuming this will is all powered by, basically an iPhone 15, these things are within our grasp. For better or worse. The real concern is battery life. An iWatch has such pathetic battery life that I can't believe Apple stands by it as a product. But it gives a floor on how long Apple AR glasses will last on battery power before Apple is willing to release it as a product.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I find Apple Watch Ultra much more useful as a day to day device than my previous 3G? device. I agree that AR could be very useful (if socially disturbing) in principle. I'm just not sure when it can get there.

chaostheory 4y ago

I largely agree with what you’ve written. I love my Quest 2 even though I own other headsets, but I feel that the Quest Pro is largely a failure. How you market a headset with a PPD of only 22 as a headset for work? 35 PPD is the minimum if you want to read text. The only headset capable of that is the $1999 Varjo Aero. What’s even more puzzling is that there’s currently no good way of extending the Quest Pro’s battery life Edit: The pro new controllers are nice, but I have no clue how they will enhance work when your hands will likely be in front of you compared to either gaming or fitness. They should have kept the focus on the headset itself and saved the controllers for the Quest 3 release. Whether Meta and the other manufacturers will admit it or not, they need Apple to make VR & AR acceptable to the masses and workplaces. Despite the name change, meta still cannot escape its past yet. The Quest 2 is a revolutionary consumer device that is largely ignored because of meta’s poor public image

dagmx 4y ago
I would argue the Quest 2 isn’t ignored because of Meta. Most people wouldn’t care imho. The bigger issue is that it targets gamers, and only gamers. The few fitness things on there are gaming related and the social stuff doesn’t appeal to people outside existing users. The problem in my mind, and clearly in Metas given the Quest Pro, is that they need broader appeal.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Nearly every game is a cardio workout though. It’s actually my primary use case for the Quest 2. I’ve never been more fit in my life cardio wise. You still have a point. I know people who are indifferent to meta, yet they still are hesitant to even try it. I feel that they’re intimidated by the headset form factor.

outworlder 4y ago

> Are you going to buy one? I'm certainly not. Probably not. And I say that while having the first commercial Oculus Rift, a HTC Vive and a Quest 2. However, that's not important. When Apple does something, people pay attention. If Apple invests in and releases a product, you know other companies will follow. Companies will be scared and won't want to miss the boat. Samsung will release a design that will be cheaper and look mostly the same. Other manufacturers will try to come up with their own spin on things. All of a sudden, you have a battleground. Think about this: Meta is hemorrhaging cash. They would be widly profitable but are in the red because of VR investments. Apple has plenty of cash (although stock has taken a beating with the rest of the market) and is also dedicating tons of R&D. What are they seeing that we are not seeing? This is the exact sort of thinking that got the Soviet shuttle (the Buran). "The Americans wouldn't be crazy enough to build a spaceship as big as the shuttle for no reason, would they? They must have a pretty good reason we are not seeing, so let's build our own and figure out later." It does not have to be true. Maybe Meta and Apple are way off the mark and high on fumes from Milpitas. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If the worst problem we can think of about this tech is how much it costs, that won't be a problem for much longer. It never is. It may take some time, but it will happen. We forget how much precision is required to make a CPU, an old fashioned hard drive, or a modern display. They all cost millions of dollars not that long ago and had to drop by _several orders of magnitude_. A VR headset costing 3k has to drop to maybe a third of its price to reach cellphone prices. If you drop by one order of magnitude you get to Quest's levels (before the price hike). We need killer apps and comfortable headsets that are accepted by society. That's it. They look dorky today, but so did bluetooth phones until Apple released theirs. Now, they are fashionable.

idaseing 4y ago

The selling point will be that it can put another person in the same room with you. That's a massive leap in communication, on par with the introduction of mobile phones. Originally mobile phones cost thousands of dollars and had a limited market. Everyone wanted them but couldn't afford them till the price came down over time. It'll be the same way with VR headsets that are capable of doing teleportation like the Apple headset is rumored to be able to do. From Mark Gurman: "The headset’s FaceTime software will realistically render a user’s face and full body in virtual reality. Those avatars will allow two people — each with an Apple headset — to communicate and feel like they’re in the same room."

jhaenchen 4y ago

You'd pay that for a laptop. And I think that's part of this, these companies really believe they're looking at the next consumer device on the scale of the iPhone if they can just get the transportability and input interfaces figured out. The quest 2 is so very close, it's just a tad too heavy, a tad too low quality display, and with a mobile operating system. Just replacing the custom android OS on that thing with a fully fledged iOS like interface would go a very long way IMO.