3 ms·

You can run android apps on the quest and I'm not sure people care that much. People sound like they are over-rating how good interacting with 2d apps with gog

by atchoo 3y ago

You can run android apps on the quest and I'm not sure people care that much. People sound like they are over-rating how good interacting with 2d apps with goggles can be. It is "really neat", a really wow experience the first few times but it quickly gets old and things like "scratching your nose" or "drinking coffee" become far more valuable features than anything the goggles can provide. I think we are in for a frustrating few years where the faithful go absolutely bananas over this because of the Apple brand until people quietly admit that they don't actually like having their peripheral vision filled with fake scenary or app windows or whatever. It's much nicer to see your real cat snoozing on your desk instead.

kitsunesoba 3y ago
> You can run android apps on the quest and I'm not sure people care that much. Yes, but these apps aren't native to the interaction patterns of AR/VR. They're adapted touch apps, which makes them as awkward as touch apps adapted to a desktop OS are. Native visionOS apps have full affordances for eye and hand-based navigation and should be a good deal more pleasant to use in AR than emulated touch apps will be.
- atchoo 3y ago
  Interaction has not been the sticking point for me (keyboard aside), it's the lack of a "why". I quite enjoyed browsing the web in various VR headsets, it's a fun novelty experience, but it's not sticky as a tool because it's not adding anything to the experience yet adds the irritation of goggles.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
I’m sure the Android app experience is as thoughtful as Apple’s
tsunamifury 3y ago
Dead on. Vision will attract a bunch of apple die hards that haven’t spent a few years with the quest already and realized why vr still has huge issues road does not fox at all. Namely it’s not AR…
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  FWIW, I've been using a Quest 2 for 7-8 hours per week for the past year and some change and I'm considering a Vision Pro.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Yes, but I think statistically then you'd be considered an extreme outlier who knows what they are getting into, vs a mass market Apple product buyer.
dagmx 3y ago
you’re really glossing over two major elements: 1. The ease of use of installing Android apps. This is the constant flaw of all the “well XYZ also does this” arguments from tech folks that ignore the flow of the process https://www.androidcentral.com/how-sideload-apps-oculus-quest https://www.androidcentral.com/how-sideload-apps-oculus-ques... That’s not exactly something most people will be doing 2. As the person you’re replying to said, the iPad app can adopt visionOS features within the same codebase. The android apps cannot, because there’s no progressive API.
- atchoo 3y ago
  1. That would be relevant if talking about mass adoption but for the enthusiast market, when people want something e.g. custom songs in beat sabre or to play quake, we are delighted to use Sidequest. I'd happily sideload any app that I could experience some value in using with a headset but it's only things like Google Earth that make sense to me. As far as I can tell, for something like a spreadsheet, learning a new keyboard shortcut is more world changing than what a headset can offer. 2. I just don't rate them. The magic of 3d headsets that differentiates them from 2D for me has been "presence". To stand in front of a massive temple in Skyrim or something and feel like you are there, it's special and can't be replicated in 2D to the same extent. As soon as you get into a focussed state e.g. a game loop churning out iron daggers to level a skill, presence doesn't matter. Your area of attention is quite small and having a headset on is just a pain in ass. 2d apps are in the latter category for me. My basic rule of thumb is that if you don't already render the content in 3d on a 2d screen, "spatial" doesn't have much to offer besides gimmickery.
  - kitsunesoba 3y ago
    The annoyances of sideloading combined with the Quest 2's middling SoC (which can make it drop frames or chug in some cases) were enough for me to not even bother. I mostly use my Quest 2 as a dumb headset cabled to my tower with PC link and play the Windows/Steam version of Beat Saber, which is way more mod friendly and never stutters.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Don’t both your points boil down to: “for my use cases, I don’t care” but then you’re applying them to the general use case that the OP is talking about. You’re also oddly fixated on games, which is clearly not what the product is focused on delivering. That’s just incongruent and reductive to the argument at hand. But to your last point, that’s exactly what the progressive APIs let you do. You can integrate 3D elements on top of your windowed iPad. You’re thinking in “either 3D or 2D”, whereas this is allowing developers to progressively adopt the entire gamut within the singular app which can target iOS and visionOS. The quest just can’t do that.

by atchoo 3y ago

kitsunesoba 3y ago

> You can run android apps on the quest and I'm not sure people care that much. Yes, but these apps aren't native to the interaction patterns of AR/VR. They're adapted touch apps, which makes them as awkward as touch apps adapted to a desktop OS are. Native visionOS apps have full affordances for eye and hand-based navigation and should be a good deal more pleasant to use in AR than emulated touch apps will be.

atchoo 3y ago
Interaction has not been the sticking point for me (keyboard aside), it's the lack of a "why". I quite enjoyed browsing the web in various VR headsets, it's a fun novelty experience, but it's not sticky as a tool because it's not adding anything to the experience yet adds the irritation of goggles.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

I’m sure the Android app experience is as thoughtful as Apple’s

tsunamifury 3y ago

Dead on. Vision will attract a bunch of apple die hards that haven’t spent a few years with the quest already and realized why vr still has huge issues road does not fox at all. Namely it’s not AR…

kitsunesoba 3y ago
FWIW, I've been using a Quest 2 for 7-8 hours per week for the past year and some change and I'm considering a Vision Pro.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Yes, but I think statistically then you'd be considered an extreme outlier who knows what they are getting into, vs a mass market Apple product buyer.

dagmx 3y ago

you’re really glossing over two major elements: 1. The ease of use of installing Android apps. This is the constant flaw of all the “well XYZ also does this” arguments from tech folks that ignore the flow of the process https://www.androidcentral.com/how-sideload-apps-oculus-quest https://www.androidcentral.com/how-sideload-apps-oculus-ques... That’s not exactly something most people will be doing 2. As the person you’re replying to said, the iPad app can adopt visionOS features within the same codebase. The android apps cannot, because there’s no progressive API.

atchoo 3y ago
1. That would be relevant if talking about mass adoption but for the enthusiast market, when people want something e.g. custom songs in beat sabre or to play quake, we are delighted to use Sidequest. I'd happily sideload any app that I could experience some value in using with a headset but it's only things like Google Earth that make sense to me. As far as I can tell, for something like a spreadsheet, learning a new keyboard shortcut is more world changing than what a headset can offer. 2. I just don't rate them. The magic of 3d headsets that differentiates them from 2D for me has been "presence". To stand in front of a massive temple in Skyrim or something and feel like you are there, it's special and can't be replicated in 2D to the same extent. As soon as you get into a focussed state e.g. a game loop churning out iron daggers to level a skill, presence doesn't matter. Your area of attention is quite small and having a headset on is just a pain in ass. 2d apps are in the latter category for me. My basic rule of thumb is that if you don't already render the content in 3d on a 2d screen, "spatial" doesn't have much to offer besides gimmickery.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  The annoyances of sideloading combined with the Quest 2's middling SoC (which can make it drop frames or chug in some cases) were enough for me to not even bother. I mostly use my Quest 2 as a dumb headset cabled to my tower with PC link and play the Windows/Steam version of Beat Saber, which is way more mod friendly and never stutters.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Don’t both your points boil down to: “for my use cases, I don’t care” but then you’re applying them to the general use case that the OP is talking about. You’re also oddly fixated on games, which is clearly not what the product is focused on delivering. That’s just incongruent and reductive to the argument at hand. But to your last point, that’s exactly what the progressive APIs let you do. You can integrate 3D elements on top of your windowed iPad. You’re thinking in “either 3D or 2D”, whereas this is allowing developers to progressively adopt the entire gamut within the singular app which can target iOS and visionOS. The quest just can’t do that.