5 ms·

Watch movies, play tabletop games, exercise, play existing video games, visualize interior design, attend a virtual concert, etc etc All of those are use cases

Watch movies, play tabletop games, exercise, play existing video games, visualize interior design, attend a virtual concert, etc etc All of those are use cases, and obvious ones. Your argument is “none of these seem compelling to me” (you’re not pulling) which is fine, but don’t ignore the comment’s point that they could soon be compelling to you (which is why they’re being pushed). This is especially true for network effect based use cases like Oculus is shooting for - even Facebook was useless until “everybody” was on it

adverbly 3y ago
> Watch movies, play tabletop games, exercise, play existing video games, visualize interior design, attend a virtual concert, etc etc Literally all of those are possible with your cell phone at slightly lower fidelity. We're not talking about zero to one applications here. Cell phone fundamentally unlocked new applications via mobile connected GPS, computer, camera, screen, accelerometer, internet. Fidelity is not worth as much as people think to as many people as they think. 3D TVs were a flop. People still play and watch low res cell shaded games and movies.
- curiousllama 3y ago
  Yea I mean the point is that all of those already existed in other (worse) forms or were added later Fwiw, I’m a VR bear overall, but the idea that it’s somehow “not new” feels wild to me, like saying ChatGPT isn’t new because we’ve had chatbots for ages. Like, yea man but the preexisting stuff sucked lmao
  - pr0zac 3y ago
    The difference is ChatGPT is objectively better in every possible measure compared to what was available in the past with zero downsides to using it instead of old stuff. It’s also a lot better. VR so far only offers experiences that are moderately better in some ways (bigger screen, more immersive experience) while being objectively worse in others (heavy sweaty headset, lower resolution, nausea/headaches, high cost or be locked into a FB run ecosystem). It won’t explode the way LLMs and other AI has lately until it solves the negative factors it has. I say this as someone who uses VR regularly and figured most of this out from feedback from my normie friends and family.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      Exactly. Revolutions usually happen because the friction to adoption is near-zero. If so, your benefits can even be modest! The cost of using ChatGPT vs older chatbots was... nothing. Once there are downsides, people weigh them and you lose chunks of your potential adoption base.
    - curiousllama 3y ago
      You’re using 2 different measuring sticks. Oculus Pro is objectively better in all possible ways than other VR headsets (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like regular screens). ChatGPT is objectively better in all possible ways than other chatbots (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like google search).
      - pr0zac 3y ago
        That comparison is wrong too though, the importance isn’t the “things” it’s the experiences and use cases those things provide. VR headsets provide “large scale 2D experiences” and “immersive 3D experiences”. The resolutions on all VR headsets means for the first it’s objectively worse in a lot of ways, namely fidelity and detail. I agree the second one is a new experience and use case (I really like VR and have two different headsets I use regularly), but the only actual new thing is the “3D” part. People find plenty of other stuff immersive. Heck books provide that for a lot of people. That 3D part just isn’t enough, you can ask all of my friends and family that have tried my Index, said “wow that’s really cool” and then never buy a headset themselves. ChatGPT provides a bunch of new use cases with regard to chat, text editing/manipulation/analysis, and knowledge recall/generation while also being significantly better and faster than Google with regard to finding answers or information. Meanwhile AI image generation has completely changed art and image creation to a ridiculous degree. I have friends and family asking me how concerned they should be about AI taking their jobs in fields as varied as writing, art/design, law, and medicine. I do think in the future VR could reach the point where it’s that revolutionary, I just don’t feel like the two compare well now. VR is currently more like those old chatbots mentioned.
- pr0zac 3y ago
  To expand on this, it seems like the majority of people I know actually prefer consuming media on small screens, especially if I include people under 20 in that assessment. On top of that so far VR only offers a bigger screen and can’t actually produce high fidelity images. My 4K TV has more pixels and produces a clearer picture with more detail and resolution. Only offering bigger doesn’t feel like a good selling point or revolutionary change. I think unique games like Beatsaber (which I fucking love and play regularly) are an example of a completely new use case unlocked as a possibility because of VR but those are only compelling to a small percentage of people. VRs big problem is it hasn’t found a similar completely new experience that’s not just a new way to do existing things moderately better (often only in a some areas while being worse in others) and is actually compelling to a large audience. Until it does the potential audience is going to remain small.
  - adverbly 3y ago
    > Beatsaber That's what I'm talking about - this is a clear use case. Another example I can think of would be remote surgery. You're exactly right though - the big problem is that it hasn't found the killer app yet. Something will probably materialize eventually, but it's not clear yet.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      But Beat Saber is not fundamentally different from DDR.
ethbr0 3y ago
Those are all things you can already do! And big, nice screens are already very cheap. The Vision Pro's problem is that it lets you do something you can already do "some percent better." But "some percent better" isn't what any of the companies pushing this need, because that doesn't translate into the volumes they need to sell. "Fundamentally different" does, but no one has described any use case like that. Examples of "fundamentally different" would be "taking the ability to make and receive phone calls with you, wherever you go" or "taking the ability to browse the web with you, wherever you go."
- curiousllama 3y ago
  All things can be described as “some percent better” For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise; now I do; Oculus is why” No fitness > fitness is 0 to 1 In what way was the iPhone “fundamentally different,” by your definition? Its functionality all existed in a blackberry / mp3 player. It was just “some percent better” at everything - especially interaction - that unlocked all the apps we have today, no?
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better." The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON (and that is "fundamentally different"!) The iPhone as initially released isn't the iPhone brand success we see today, looking back: that's the iPhone + iTunes + App Store. Which explains why similarly featured hardware didn't experience iPhone success. That combination was fundamentally different, because it allowed you to easily do the 3 things most people wanted to on their phones (browse the web, listen to music, get a specific app). At the time, 2008, there was no competition for that. It would be until ~2010 that Android even launched rough (very rough) parity: HTC Nexus One/Samsung Galaxy S + Google Music + Android Marketplace Two. Years.
kaashif 3y ago
> play tabletop games I've played hundreds of hours of Tabletop Simulator (a game on Steam, if that's not clear) outside VR and it works great. Tabletop Simulator also supports VR, I tried it a few times but it really didn't add anything. And honestly using a mouse and keyboard to click on board game pieces, select cards, and so on is far more precise and low effort than grabbing things with my hands. I game regularly in VR and I believe in it, but not for board games or tabletop games.

adverbly 3y ago

> Watch movies, play tabletop games, exercise, play existing video games, visualize interior design, attend a virtual concert, etc etc Literally all of those are possible with your cell phone at slightly lower fidelity. We're not talking about zero to one applications here. Cell phone fundamentally unlocked new applications via mobile connected GPS, computer, camera, screen, accelerometer, internet. Fidelity is not worth as much as people think to as many people as they think. 3D TVs were a flop. People still play and watch low res cell shaded games and movies.

curiousllama 3y ago
Yea I mean the point is that all of those already existed in other (worse) forms or were added later Fwiw, I’m a VR bear overall, but the idea that it’s somehow “not new” feels wild to me, like saying ChatGPT isn’t new because we’ve had chatbots for ages. Like, yea man but the preexisting stuff sucked lmao
- pr0zac 3y ago
  The difference is ChatGPT is objectively better in every possible measure compared to what was available in the past with zero downsides to using it instead of old stuff. It’s also a lot better. VR so far only offers experiences that are moderately better in some ways (bigger screen, more immersive experience) while being objectively worse in others (heavy sweaty headset, lower resolution, nausea/headaches, high cost or be locked into a FB run ecosystem). It won’t explode the way LLMs and other AI has lately until it solves the negative factors it has. I say this as someone who uses VR regularly and figured most of this out from feedback from my normie friends and family.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Exactly. Revolutions usually happen because the friction to adoption is near-zero. If so, your benefits can even be modest! The cost of using ChatGPT vs older chatbots was... nothing. Once there are downsides, people weigh them and you lose chunks of your potential adoption base.
  - curiousllama 3y ago
    You’re using 2 different measuring sticks. Oculus Pro is objectively better in all possible ways than other VR headsets (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like regular screens). ChatGPT is objectively better in all possible ways than other chatbots (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like google search).
    - pr0zac 3y ago
      That comparison is wrong too though, the importance isn’t the “things” it’s the experiences and use cases those things provide. VR headsets provide “large scale 2D experiences” and “immersive 3D experiences”. The resolutions on all VR headsets means for the first it’s objectively worse in a lot of ways, namely fidelity and detail. I agree the second one is a new experience and use case (I really like VR and have two different headsets I use regularly), but the only actual new thing is the “3D” part. People find plenty of other stuff immersive. Heck books provide that for a lot of people. That 3D part just isn’t enough, you can ask all of my friends and family that have tried my Index, said “wow that’s really cool” and then never buy a headset themselves. ChatGPT provides a bunch of new use cases with regard to chat, text editing/manipulation/analysis, and knowledge recall/generation while also being significantly better and faster than Google with regard to finding answers or information. Meanwhile AI image generation has completely changed art and image creation to a ridiculous degree. I have friends and family asking me how concerned they should be about AI taking their jobs in fields as varied as writing, art/design, law, and medicine. I do think in the future VR could reach the point where it’s that revolutionary, I just don’t feel like the two compare well now. VR is currently more like those old chatbots mentioned.
pr0zac 3y ago
To expand on this, it seems like the majority of people I know actually prefer consuming media on small screens, especially if I include people under 20 in that assessment. On top of that so far VR only offers a bigger screen and can’t actually produce high fidelity images. My 4K TV has more pixels and produces a clearer picture with more detail and resolution. Only offering bigger doesn’t feel like a good selling point or revolutionary change. I think unique games like Beatsaber (which I fucking love and play regularly) are an example of a completely new use case unlocked as a possibility because of VR but those are only compelling to a small percentage of people. VRs big problem is it hasn’t found a similar completely new experience that’s not just a new way to do existing things moderately better (often only in a some areas while being worse in others) and is actually compelling to a large audience. Until it does the potential audience is going to remain small.
- adverbly 3y ago
  > Beatsaber That's what I'm talking about - this is a clear use case. Another example I can think of would be remote surgery. You're exactly right though - the big problem is that it hasn't found the killer app yet. Something will probably materialize eventually, but it's not clear yet.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    But Beat Saber is not fundamentally different from DDR.

ethbr0 3y ago

Those are all things you can already do! And big, nice screens are already very cheap. The Vision Pro's problem is that it lets you do something you can already do "some percent better." But "some percent better" isn't what any of the companies pushing this need, because that doesn't translate into the volumes they need to sell. "Fundamentally different" does, but no one has described any use case like that. Examples of "fundamentally different" would be "taking the ability to make and receive phone calls with you, wherever you go" or "taking the ability to browse the web with you, wherever you go."

curiousllama 3y ago
All things can be described as “some percent better” For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise; now I do; Oculus is why” No fitness > fitness is 0 to 1 In what way was the iPhone “fundamentally different,” by your definition? Its functionality all existed in a blackberry / mp3 player. It was just “some percent better” at everything - especially interaction - that unlocked all the apps we have today, no?
- ethbr0 3y ago
  There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better." The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON (and that is "fundamentally different"!) The iPhone as initially released isn't the iPhone brand success we see today, looking back: that's the iPhone + iTunes + App Store. Which explains why similarly featured hardware didn't experience iPhone success. That combination was fundamentally different, because it allowed you to easily do the 3 things most people wanted to on their phones (browse the web, listen to music, get a specific app). At the time, 2008, there was no competition for that. It would be until ~2010 that Android even launched rough (very rough) parity: HTC Nexus One/Samsung Galaxy S + Google Music + Android Marketplace Two. Years.

kaashif 3y ago

> play tabletop games I've played hundreds of hours of Tabletop Simulator (a game on Steam, if that's not clear) outside VR and it works great. Tabletop Simulator also supports VR, I tried it a few times but it really didn't add anything. And honestly using a mouse and keyboard to click on board game pieces, select cards, and so on is far more precise and low effort than grabbing things with my hands. I game regularly in VR and I believe in it, but not for board games or tabletop games.