4 ms·

In my opinion we just haven't reached the tipping point yet. Very few cared about "smart" phones with touch screens until Apple came out with the iPhone. Other

by jcfrei 3y ago

In my opinion we just haven't reached the tipping point yet. Very few cared about "smart" phones with touch screens until Apple came out with the iPhone. Other manufacturers like Nokia or HTC had devices with similar capabilities for years but consumers shunned them. The experience needs to be good enough for people to consider these devices - again Apple's headset could be the first to really establish the category.

tokai 3y ago
The modern VR fad is over 10 years old. Early smartphones to widespread adoption was lighting fast compared.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. There were proto-smartphones in the early 90s, but they couldnt become widespread until the tech was there to deliver the necessary baseline experience. I think we're only just getting to that level of tech now. Nobody wants to cart around a gaming computer with cabled to a headset, especially in an era of smartphones etc. You need a headset that can deliver a solid experience, untethered by cables at minimum, to arrive at the Palm Pilot PDA equivalent point in the XR => widespread adoption timeline.
  - dagw 3y ago
    There were proto-smartphones in the early 90s Which phones are you thinking of? I would consider either the Nokia Communicator in 1996 or the Ericsson R380 from 1999, as the first proto-smartphones. Or are you counting things like Apple Newton as a proto-smartphone?
    - IggleSniggle 3y ago
      I guess your question is the gist of my point. The Apple Newton is a great touchpoint as it points in a particular direction, but it was 1) the wrong form factor, 2) too expensive, 3) emphasized the wrong features. Still, it pointed a clear direction. From Newton to iPhone is 15+ years, but it's not totally unreasonable to consider the Osborne 1 with an acoustic coupler to be the real starting line, given its popularity as a portable comms computer, and really iPhone 3G/3GS is probably a better "we've arrived" point than the first iPhone. Of course, VR tech could be "started" much earlier than the current fad. However, I think DK1 was Osborne 1 in terms of the technology meeting the needs of the medium, maybe Newton-level on the timeline if you're already a VR enthusiast and have enthusiast blinders on. That was 2013, only 10 years ago. Theres still underlying tech that isn't totally "there" in terms of supporting the "right" VR experience, but most people who have tried any modern headset can feel the potential. It's like using a Windows Mobile from 2003; it feels like a glimpse of an inevitable future, even though you can simultaneously recognize that it's time has not yet come.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    The biggest problem of XR is the vision-blocking headset, not the tethering. And since all current XR technologies require a fully vision blocking headset, they have a fundamental problem that building a better vision blocking headset can't really solve. And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. Having something strapped over your eyes for a long period of time (say, an hour) is just fundamentally unpleasant. Even normal glasses are uncomfortable and people avoid them as much as they can.
    - IggleSniggle 3y ago
      That's a very good point. Thank you for the reality check.
    - Philpax 3y ago
      > And since all current XR technologies require a fully vision blocking headset, they have a fundamental problem that building a better vision blocking headset can't really solve. That's not necessarily true. There are several optical passthrough AR glasses today - they're not as light as one would like, they require external compute, and they need quite a lot of UX work - but they exist today. The most recent example is the Xreal Air 2 [0]. > And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. I think that's fine as a solution, if > And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. Having something strapped over your eyes for a long period of time (say, an hour) is just fundamentally unpleasant. Even normal glasses are uncomfortable and people avoid them as much as they can. we can resolve this. The headsets are getting smaller, and the AR glasses are getting more powerful. Meta are working this from both angles with the headsets and their glasses. The glasses seem to be doing alright (more time required) [1], and lighter headsets are possible [2]. My suspicion is that people are willing to tolerate some degree of discomfort - discomfort that will get smaller over time - if it's a sufficient value-add to their life. We're at the very start of that; check back in a year from now when developers have had plenty of time with the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro demonstrating Apple's vision for UX and software. [0]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xreal-air-2 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xreal-air-2 [1]: https://www.theverge.com/23922425/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses-review https://www.theverge.com/23922425/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses... [2]: https://www.bigscreenvr.com/ https://www.bigscreenvr.com/
  - tokai 3y ago
    And VR is from the 60s if we are doing it like that.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  VR from 10 years ago was not "smartphone" level if we take that to mean an independent platform with an app marketplace and essential UI features.

by jcfrei 3y ago

tokai 3y ago

The modern VR fad is over 10 years old. Early smartphones to widespread adoption was lighting fast compared.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
I'm not sure I agree. There were proto-smartphones in the early 90s, but they couldnt become widespread until the tech was there to deliver the necessary baseline experience. I think we're only just getting to that level of tech now. Nobody wants to cart around a gaming computer with cabled to a headset, especially in an era of smartphones etc. You need a headset that can deliver a solid experience, untethered by cables at minimum, to arrive at the Palm Pilot PDA equivalent point in the XR => widespread adoption timeline.
- dagw 3y ago
  There were proto-smartphones in the early 90s Which phones are you thinking of? I would consider either the Nokia Communicator in 1996 or the Ericsson R380 from 1999, as the first proto-smartphones. Or are you counting things like Apple Newton as a proto-smartphone?
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    I guess your question is the gist of my point. The Apple Newton is a great touchpoint as it points in a particular direction, but it was 1) the wrong form factor, 2) too expensive, 3) emphasized the wrong features. Still, it pointed a clear direction. From Newton to iPhone is 15+ years, but it's not totally unreasonable to consider the Osborne 1 with an acoustic coupler to be the real starting line, given its popularity as a portable comms computer, and really iPhone 3G/3GS is probably a better "we've arrived" point than the first iPhone. Of course, VR tech could be "started" much earlier than the current fad. However, I think DK1 was Osborne 1 in terms of the technology meeting the needs of the medium, maybe Newton-level on the timeline if you're already a VR enthusiast and have enthusiast blinders on. That was 2013, only 10 years ago. Theres still underlying tech that isn't totally "there" in terms of supporting the "right" VR experience, but most people who have tried any modern headset can feel the potential. It's like using a Windows Mobile from 2003; it feels like a glimpse of an inevitable future, even though you can simultaneously recognize that it's time has not yet come.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The biggest problem of XR is the vision-blocking headset, not the tethering. And since all current XR technologies require a fully vision blocking headset, they have a fundamental problem that building a better vision blocking headset can't really solve. And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. Having something strapped over your eyes for a long period of time (say, an hour) is just fundamentally unpleasant. Even normal glasses are uncomfortable and people avoid them as much as they can.
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    That's a very good point. Thank you for the reality check.
  - Philpax 3y ago
    > And since all current XR technologies require a fully vision blocking headset, they have a fundamental problem that building a better vision blocking headset can't really solve. That's not necessarily true. There are several optical passthrough AR glasses today - they're not as light as one would like, they require external compute, and they need quite a lot of UX work - but they exist today. The most recent example is the Xreal Air 2 [0]. > And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. I think that's fine as a solution, if > And adding cameras to project the lost vision is not good enough. Having something strapped over your eyes for a long period of time (say, an hour) is just fundamentally unpleasant. Even normal glasses are uncomfortable and people avoid them as much as they can. we can resolve this. The headsets are getting smaller, and the AR glasses are getting more powerful. Meta are working this from both angles with the headsets and their glasses. The glasses seem to be doing alright (more time required) [1], and lighter headsets are possible [2]. My suspicion is that people are willing to tolerate some degree of discomfort - discomfort that will get smaller over time - if it's a sufficient value-add to their life. We're at the very start of that; check back in a year from now when developers have had plenty of time with the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro demonstrating Apple's vision for UX and software. [0]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xreal-air-2 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xreal-air-2 [1]: https://www.theverge.com/23922425/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses-review https://www.theverge.com/23922425/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses... [2]: https://www.bigscreenvr.com/ https://www.bigscreenvr.com/
- tokai 3y ago
  And VR is from the 60s if we are doing it like that.
throwaway4aday 3y ago
VR from 10 years ago was not "smartphone" level if we take that to mean an independent platform with an app marketplace and essential UI features.