9 ms·

Much of this discussion is centered on how the headset will replace theaters and TV. I may be an outlier but in our house the only time we watch shows or movie

Much of this discussion is centered on how the headset will replace theaters and TV. I may be an outlier but in our house the only time we watch shows or movies is a social context--usually Friday or Saturday nights as a family. I'm struggling to see how the headset could replace what is in my experience a mostly social activity. Will it ever be comfortable enough for the binge watcher to watch it all day? I have my doubts. I think it will be a coexistence and replacement of flat screens will be a very long time away.

curiouscavalier 3y ago
I'm in the same boat. The idea of everyone watching TV in isolation defeats the purpose for me. Even (maybe especially) for sports, where for large swaths of a game it is essentially background content to a cultural gathering. Not to mention issues around comfort and battery life.
- agumonkey 3y ago
  Soon they'll add a `presence` feature so that you can see others watching stuff at the same time too
  - nixgeek 3y ago
    It kinda already exists via SharePlay but who knows if the Vision Pro supports that today or will in the future.
SquareWheel 3y ago
For you, VR likely wouldn't be able to replace that social context. However for those kilometers apart, it might allow them to simulate it. See for example Big Screen[1] which lets you enjoy a group watching experience. It might not be as good as sharing real popcorn, but it can be a surprisingly convincing imitation. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/457550/Bigscreen_Beta/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/457550/Bigscreen_Beta/
- aranelsurion 3y ago
  We have tried this with a friend recently with that app, and I can tell you it was miles better (in terms of feeling natural) compared to, say having a video call or Discord. We played a few flat (not VR) games, on a super large screen in a cozy virtual room, with directional audio that is always on. With your attention being taken on what is happening within the game, it's -almost- as convincing as sitting together and playing the same game. I can already say that this is my favourite way of playing couch co-op remotely. Haven't tried movies, yet I wouldn't expect the experience to be any different.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
criddell 3y ago
I don't think anybody believes it will generally replace theaters and TV, just that it will carve out some portion of that. I think it's the same as how in some contexts, watching Netflix on your phone makes a lot of sense. You wouldn't do it on a Friday night with your family, but it isn't absurd to think some TV and movies are watched on a phone screen.
- strict9 3y ago
  That's the vision I see. But I was specifically responding to the article which opens with this quote by Om Malik: >With that caveat, I think both, the big (TV) and biggest (movie theater) screens are going to go the way of the DVD. We could replace those with a singular, more personal screen — that will sit on our face. Yes, virtual reality headsets are essentially the television and theaters of the future. And the rest of the article lays out a mostly supporting case with the missing apps argument.
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    I think that describes the dream-scenario of Apple: Making a controlled AR/VR in front of your eyes so ubiquitous that not only TV-sales and cinemas disappear, but companies no longer advertise on screens and billboards and instead pay Apple to rent advertising real-estate on "personal screens" of their target-group... The scary thing is that noone is better equipped to achieve this dystopian goal than Apple, already entering the space with a fully protected walled garden... If I'd be Netflix (or even Disney), I wouldn't rush to support such a future...
  - criddell 3y ago
    I'm a fan of Om's work, but I don't really believe that's what he really thinks. He also says he doesn't understand why people own televisions. Om has been on many hours of video podcasts (TWiT). Apparently he understands why somebody would watch a podcast but not why they would own a television? I don't buy it.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Family movie night being replaced by everyone sitting plugged in to their headsets sounds very dystopian, something out of Snow Crash. And that’s after you buy a VP for you, your partner and your 2.2 children… only $14,000!
duped 3y ago
I used to work in the space about 6-7 years ago (not directly on XR hardware, but software that was adjacent to it in the content creation world). The phrase I kept hearing from film studio/director types was that they didn't know how to tell a story with VR that could only be told with VR (profitably). Note that didn't stop them from trying and there wasn't a shortage of ideas. The point was that they hadn't figured out what would actually resonate with audiences (and make more money than doing what they already knew). But things are different now. Back then, the problem was that VR in your home was a dead-end. What seemed promising was using it for theme park rides and people at Universal/Disney were super excited about it. So the "story" they were trying to design was something that was mass marketable with IP tie-ins, short enough not to tire the average American and maximize throughput while also minimizing floor space in the places they'd install. That's a very different kind of experience than a film or video game. I think with cheaper/lighter hardware the profit model could be different and the kind of content you consume with it would become different. I don't think people have figured it out yet, but with hardware changes there's a different kind of story that can work and it just needs the right storyteller to figure it out. All that said, the problem all these tech bro led companies forget is that content is king in this space and you can't just make some cool gizmo and expect people to buy it when no one knows how to create for it. For all their flaws, Magic Leap was actually smarter about that than their competition.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  I've been thinking there could be a market for place-based experiences with XR headsets. Like you go to the Paleontology museum and it gets turned into something like "Jurassic Park". Something like that ought to be a lot cheaper to develop and deploy than a typical theme park ride. I was a little disappointed when I got the MQ3 and found it didn't have the same persistent SLAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_mapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_... that Hololens does, mainly on the pretext of privacy, but that does make it a little harder to make an app bound to a specific place. I see that kind of thing having a window of opportunity between when it is possible and when everybody has an XR headset and there is nothing special about it. The slower XR is to catch on, the wider the window.
pwthornton 3y ago
If you live with other people, the appeal is limited. I can see the appeal for my friends who live alone in small apartments. They can get this and a nice pair of headphones and have a great home theater experience. This is something that would be difficult to do in their current situations. I also see the appeal for people who travel a lot for work. This is probably an amazing way to watch movies on a plane or in your hotel room at night. I have a wife and two small kids, so I will not be buying this to watch movies at home.
- whstl 3y ago
  Putting on my doomer glasses: with the so-called loneliness epidemic and the rising prices of property (forcing people to co-habit with non-family/friends), I can definitely see something like this becoming as popular and perhaps as necessary as mobile phones.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  This is indeed a great use case for people living alone. But then they they'll also get way cheaper options if it's just to watch streaming services. I'd assume devices like the xreal are lighter and cheaper, and the Vision Pro's extra resolution is less an appeal if it's just to watch Netflix.
- FemmeAndroid 3y ago
  I'm hoping there is a better selling point than a really good home theater for single people. When I was single, having a TV and couch was valuable so that even though they were 95% used alone, they could be shared with guests. If I was into media enough to spend $3,500 to have a great experience, it would be a bummer if I couldn't watch a movie with someone else occasionally.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    I mean, you can still have the TV to watch things with guests. Or if you're both into the big screen VR experience, you can both wear headsets. Watching movies in a shared virtual movie theater is already a thing and works great. Even better is that you can be in your home and your romantic partner can be in their home (or traveling) and you can still watch together.
trjordan 3y ago
I don't think you're an outlier, but on the other side, "I watch Netflix on my laptop / iPad" is a _huge_ market. Yes, there's plenty of social watching experiences to be figured out, but solo watching is an entire industry unto itself. I'm a bit like you. I don't watch TV by myself, and the idea of plugging into a VR device to do so seems weird. But I carry my AirPods everywhere and mostly listen to music solo. It's not unreasonable to think that the same happens with TV/movies.
- 0x457 3y ago
  I have a 75" OLED in the living room where I watch things while wearing AirPods Max. Image quality and sound is superb, but I also often watch movies on my iPad Pro in the bedroom (no place to put tv there). I still get Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision on both devices and with iPad being much closer than TV screen size is alright. People that watch movies on their phones and smaller ipads are wild. I tried watching movies on Quest 2 - too bulky.
prng2021 3y ago
I agree with it coexisting with a flat screen. We go movie theaters with friends and family and watch in silence. Simply having people around you rather than being alone seems to be enough. I think VR will be something in between. In your situation, you’re not planning a night out but you’re also not just flipping on the tv because you’re bored. You have a family ritual to watch a show/movie at a designated time. I do something similar and would be fine with putting these on if it makes watching something more immersive.
crazygringo 3y ago
Of course it's not going to replace your family's shared viewing experience. But a lot of people watch a lot of TV solo. And headsets are actually extremely comfortable for binge-watching because you can lie back in your reclining chair or lie totally flat on your bed or long couch. You just drag the virtual screen up to your ceiling. You can also loosen the headband in these cases. There's no reason to sit upright for viewing unless you want to.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ano-ther 3y ago
Fully agree. Just using it for consumption is also very unimaginative. I look forward to seeing developers explore the potential of spacial interactions that are different than just strapping a 2d display on your head.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
There are lots of people living by themselves or at least spending a lot of time consuming content by themselves. As for comfort wearing this for extended periods of time, we'll have to see. I think that will be the key deciding factor. There was a lot of marketing speak in the original announcement suggesting that they did work quite hard on this issue and made some progress. A light enough device that can provide the experience of having a ginormous screen in front of your nose without inducing headaches, motion sickness, etc. could be a nice thing to have. If somebody delivers such a thing, people will be reluctant to turn them off possibly. As for replacing existing things, there's a long history of people thinking about new products in terms of how the old one worked. The more interesting question to ask is what new content will emerge for this thing.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  > There are lots of people living by themselves or at least spending a lot of time consuming content by themselves. Is this great? It's a market, maybe, but it is it one we want to incentivize and grow? Increasingly I feel like we, as an industry, lean too hard into providing lesser-resistance substitutes for mentally and socially healthier lifestyles, and that "we are not making the choice for them, the root problem has to be solved somewhere else" is a cop-out. The massive amount of effort we spend on boyfriend/girlfriend replacement tech, meet-up-with-friends replacement tech, experience-interesting-places replacement tech is starting to worry me.
  - notamy 3y ago
    It’s depressing. It feels like we keep making technological solutions to maximise profit at the expense of people’s mental/emotional health.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      That's exactly what they're doing. And as a side effect, everyone wanting to maximize profit means that everything costs money, and that means everyone wants money, and that means money is hard to get! At least, it's hard to get for people who don't happen to already be at the top of some empire.
jandrese 3y ago
I'm not sure what the killer app for this headset will be, but watching movies/tv shows on it is not it. The most obvious reason being that a passive movie/tv watching experience is already possible on a much cheaper Quest headset and it has not been a success. For me a killer app needs to make use of the AR capabilities of the headset to justify the cost.
gwbas1c 3y ago
> I may be an outlier but in our house the only time we watch shows or movies is a social context--usually Friday or Saturday nights as a family. There's a very clear cultural divide here. You missed a very important point in TFA: > If you live in Asia, like you live in Taiwan, people don’t have big homes, they don’t have 85-inch screen televisions. Plus, you have six, seven, eight people living in the same house, they don’t get screen time to watch things so they watch everything on their phone. (Emphasis mine.) Basically, the point is that watching TV in VR will probably be very popular in Asian markets.
kemayo 3y ago
Perhaps worth considering that the Nintendo Switch is the best-selling game console of the last several console generations (#3 all-time!), and a core part of its appeal is that you don't have to take over the TV when you're using it. In fact, it really shines as a "people are watching TV, but I want to do something else" device. (Particularly for kids, of course, which isn't a market that works well with the $4k price of the current Vision Pro. But a hypothetical cheaper future generation...) I'll admit that some of my perspective here comes from being extremely not a TV-watcher, so "the social joy of watching a show" mostly fails to motivate me. :D
- antifa 3y ago
  > a core part of its appeal is that you don't have to take over the TV when you're using it It's also the lets-play-a-2-player-game-on-the-couch console!
lcfcjs 3y ago
[dead]
dwaite 3y ago
I think if the price comes down there will be a low double-digit percentage of people who have a Vision Pro and no television. This would not be too surprising based on the portion of people who do not own a TV today, watching media on laptop, tablet or desktop computers or on their phone. I suspect there will be a larger portion of people who have both a Vision Pro and a television, and use the Vision Pro for some portion of their viewing. The "replaces TV" is likely a mental connection between the cost of a higher end TV and the cost of a higher end AR headset being in a similar range where media consumption is a major feature of both. One could maybe justify the price of a 85" OLED or justify the price of a Vision Pro, but not both.
Towaway69 3y ago
I assume everyone said the same about television, especially as the VCRs came out - no more theater and cinema. But: the iPhone did replace the rotatry phone! /s
1over137 3y ago
>I'm struggling to see how the headset could replace what is in my experience a mostly social activity. Going out to eat at restaurants used to be a social activity, now people just sit together but stare at their phones.

curiouscavalier 3y ago

I'm in the same boat. The idea of everyone watching TV in isolation defeats the purpose for me. Even (maybe especially) for sports, where for large swaths of a game it is essentially background content to a cultural gathering. Not to mention issues around comfort and battery life.

agumonkey 3y ago
Soon they'll add a `presence` feature so that you can see others watching stuff at the same time too
- nixgeek 3y ago
  It kinda already exists via SharePlay but who knows if the Vision Pro supports that today or will in the future.

SquareWheel 3y ago

For you, VR likely wouldn't be able to replace that social context. However for those kilometers apart, it might allow them to simulate it. See for example Big Screen[1] which lets you enjoy a group watching experience. It might not be as good as sharing real popcorn, but it can be a surprisingly convincing imitation. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/457550/Bigscreen_Beta/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/457550/Bigscreen_Beta/

aranelsurion 3y ago
We have tried this with a friend recently with that app, and I can tell you it was miles better (in terms of feeling natural) compared to, say having a video call or Discord. We played a few flat (not VR) games, on a super large screen in a cozy virtual room, with directional audio that is always on. With your attention being taken on what is happening within the game, it's -almost- as convincing as sitting together and playing the same game. I can already say that this is my favourite way of playing couch co-op remotely. Haven't tried movies, yet I wouldn't expect the experience to be any different.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

criddell 3y ago

I don't think anybody believes it will generally replace theaters and TV, just that it will carve out some portion of that. I think it's the same as how in some contexts, watching Netflix on your phone makes a lot of sense. You wouldn't do it on a Friday night with your family, but it isn't absurd to think some TV and movies are watched on a phone screen.

strict9 3y ago
That's the vision I see. But I was specifically responding to the article which opens with this quote by Om Malik: >With that caveat, I think both, the big (TV) and biggest (movie theater) screens are going to go the way of the DVD. We could replace those with a singular, more personal screen — that will sit on our face. Yes, virtual reality headsets are essentially the television and theaters of the future. And the rest of the article lays out a mostly supporting case with the missing apps argument.
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  I think that describes the dream-scenario of Apple: Making a controlled AR/VR in front of your eyes so ubiquitous that not only TV-sales and cinemas disappear, but companies no longer advertise on screens and billboards and instead pay Apple to rent advertising real-estate on "personal screens" of their target-group... The scary thing is that noone is better equipped to achieve this dystopian goal than Apple, already entering the space with a fully protected walled garden... If I'd be Netflix (or even Disney), I wouldn't rush to support such a future...
- criddell 3y ago
  I'm a fan of Om's work, but I don't really believe that's what he really thinks. He also says he doesn't understand why people own televisions. Om has been on many hours of video podcasts (TWiT). Apparently he understands why somebody would watch a podcast but not why they would own a television? I don't buy it.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Family movie night being replaced by everyone sitting plugged in to their headsets sounds very dystopian, something out of Snow Crash. And that’s after you buy a VP for you, your partner and your 2.2 children… only $14,000!

duped 3y ago

I used to work in the space about 6-7 years ago (not directly on XR hardware, but software that was adjacent to it in the content creation world). The phrase I kept hearing from film studio/director types was that they didn't know how to tell a story with VR that could only be told with VR (profitably). Note that didn't stop them from trying and there wasn't a shortage of ideas. The point was that they hadn't figured out what would actually resonate with audiences (and make more money than doing what they already knew). But things are different now. Back then, the problem was that VR in your home was a dead-end. What seemed promising was using it for theme park rides and people at Universal/Disney were super excited about it. So the "story" they were trying to design was something that was mass marketable with IP tie-ins, short enough not to tire the average American and maximize throughput while also minimizing floor space in the places they'd install. That's a very different kind of experience than a film or video game. I think with cheaper/lighter hardware the profit model could be different and the kind of content you consume with it would become different. I don't think people have figured it out yet, but with hardware changes there's a different kind of story that can work and it just needs the right storyteller to figure it out. All that said, the problem all these tech bro led companies forget is that content is king in this space and you can't just make some cool gizmo and expect people to buy it when no one knows how to create for it. For all their flaws, Magic Leap was actually smarter about that than their competition.

PaulHoule 3y ago
I've been thinking there could be a market for place-based experiences with XR headsets. Like you go to the Paleontology museum and it gets turned into something like "Jurassic Park". Something like that ought to be a lot cheaper to develop and deploy than a typical theme park ride. I was a little disappointed when I got the MQ3 and found it didn't have the same persistent SLAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_mapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_... that Hololens does, mainly on the pretext of privacy, but that does make it a little harder to make an app bound to a specific place. I see that kind of thing having a window of opportunity between when it is possible and when everybody has an XR headset and there is nothing special about it. The slower XR is to catch on, the wider the window.

pwthornton 3y ago

If you live with other people, the appeal is limited. I can see the appeal for my friends who live alone in small apartments. They can get this and a nice pair of headphones and have a great home theater experience. This is something that would be difficult to do in their current situations. I also see the appeal for people who travel a lot for work. This is probably an amazing way to watch movies on a plane or in your hotel room at night. I have a wife and two small kids, so I will not be buying this to watch movies at home.

whstl 3y ago
Putting on my doomer glasses: with the so-called loneliness epidemic and the rising prices of property (forcing people to co-habit with non-family/friends), I can definitely see something like this becoming as popular and perhaps as necessary as mobile phones.
makeitdouble 3y ago
This is indeed a great use case for people living alone. But then they they'll also get way cheaper options if it's just to watch streaming services. I'd assume devices like the xreal are lighter and cheaper, and the Vision Pro's extra resolution is less an appeal if it's just to watch Netflix.
FemmeAndroid 3y ago
I'm hoping there is a better selling point than a really good home theater for single people. When I was single, having a TV and couch was valuable so that even though they were 95% used alone, they could be shared with guests. If I was into media enough to spend $3,500 to have a great experience, it would be a bummer if I couldn't watch a movie with someone else occasionally.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  I mean, you can still have the TV to watch things with guests. Or if you're both into the big screen VR experience, you can both wear headsets. Watching movies in a shared virtual movie theater is already a thing and works great. Even better is that you can be in your home and your romantic partner can be in their home (or traveling) and you can still watch together.

trjordan 3y ago

I don't think you're an outlier, but on the other side, "I watch Netflix on my laptop / iPad" is a _huge_ market. Yes, there's plenty of social watching experiences to be figured out, but solo watching is an entire industry unto itself. I'm a bit like you. I don't watch TV by myself, and the idea of plugging into a VR device to do so seems weird. But I carry my AirPods everywhere and mostly listen to music solo. It's not unreasonable to think that the same happens with TV/movies.

0x457 3y ago
I have a 75" OLED in the living room where I watch things while wearing AirPods Max. Image quality and sound is superb, but I also often watch movies on my iPad Pro in the bedroom (no place to put tv there). I still get Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision on both devices and with iPad being much closer than TV screen size is alright. People that watch movies on their phones and smaller ipads are wild. I tried watching movies on Quest 2 - too bulky.

prng2021 3y ago

I agree with it coexisting with a flat screen. We go movie theaters with friends and family and watch in silence. Simply having people around you rather than being alone seems to be enough. I think VR will be something in between. In your situation, you’re not planning a night out but you’re also not just flipping on the tv because you’re bored. You have a family ritual to watch a show/movie at a designated time. I do something similar and would be fine with putting these on if it makes watching something more immersive.

crazygringo 3y ago

Of course it's not going to replace your family's shared viewing experience. But a lot of people watch a lot of TV solo. And headsets are actually extremely comfortable for binge-watching because you can lie back in your reclining chair or lie totally flat on your bed or long couch. You just drag the virtual screen up to your ceiling. You can also loosen the headband in these cases. There's no reason to sit upright for viewing unless you want to.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ano-ther 3y ago

Fully agree. Just using it for consumption is also very unimaginative. I look forward to seeing developers explore the potential of spacial interactions that are different than just strapping a 2d display on your head.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

There are lots of people living by themselves or at least spending a lot of time consuming content by themselves. As for comfort wearing this for extended periods of time, we'll have to see. I think that will be the key deciding factor. There was a lot of marketing speak in the original announcement suggesting that they did work quite hard on this issue and made some progress. A light enough device that can provide the experience of having a ginormous screen in front of your nose without inducing headaches, motion sickness, etc. could be a nice thing to have. If somebody delivers such a thing, people will be reluctant to turn them off possibly. As for replacing existing things, there's a long history of people thinking about new products in terms of how the old one worked. The more interesting question to ask is what new content will emerge for this thing.

sho_hn 3y ago
> There are lots of people living by themselves or at least spending a lot of time consuming content by themselves. Is this great? It's a market, maybe, but it is it one we want to incentivize and grow? Increasingly I feel like we, as an industry, lean too hard into providing lesser-resistance substitutes for mentally and socially healthier lifestyles, and that "we are not making the choice for them, the root problem has to be solved somewhere else" is a cop-out. The massive amount of effort we spend on boyfriend/girlfriend replacement tech, meet-up-with-friends replacement tech, experience-interesting-places replacement tech is starting to worry me.
- notamy 3y ago
  It’s depressing. It feels like we keep making technological solutions to maximise profit at the expense of people’s mental/emotional health.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    That's exactly what they're doing. And as a side effect, everyone wanting to maximize profit means that everything costs money, and that means everyone wants money, and that means money is hard to get! At least, it's hard to get for people who don't happen to already be at the top of some empire.

jandrese 3y ago

I'm not sure what the killer app for this headset will be, but watching movies/tv shows on it is not it. The most obvious reason being that a passive movie/tv watching experience is already possible on a much cheaper Quest headset and it has not been a success. For me a killer app needs to make use of the AR capabilities of the headset to justify the cost.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> I may be an outlier but in our house the only time we watch shows or movies is a social context--usually Friday or Saturday nights as a family. There's a very clear cultural divide here. You missed a very important point in TFA: > If you live in Asia, like you live in Taiwan, people don’t have big homes, they don’t have 85-inch screen televisions. Plus, you have six, seven, eight people living in the same house, they don’t get screen time to watch things so they watch everything on their phone. (Emphasis mine.) Basically, the point is that watching TV in VR will probably be very popular in Asian markets.

kemayo 3y ago

Perhaps worth considering that the Nintendo Switch is the best-selling game console of the last several console generations (#3 all-time!), and a core part of its appeal is that you don't have to take over the TV when you're using it. In fact, it really shines as a "people are watching TV, but I want to do something else" device. (Particularly for kids, of course, which isn't a market that works well with the $4k price of the current Vision Pro. But a hypothetical cheaper future generation...) I'll admit that some of my perspective here comes from being extremely not a TV-watcher, so "the social joy of watching a show" mostly fails to motivate me. :D

antifa 3y ago
> a core part of its appeal is that you don't have to take over the TV when you're using it It's also the lets-play-a-2-player-game-on-the-couch console!

lcfcjs 3y ago

[dead]

dwaite 3y ago

I think if the price comes down there will be a low double-digit percentage of people who have a Vision Pro and no television. This would not be too surprising based on the portion of people who do not own a TV today, watching media on laptop, tablet or desktop computers or on their phone. I suspect there will be a larger portion of people who have both a Vision Pro and a television, and use the Vision Pro for some portion of their viewing. The "replaces TV" is likely a mental connection between the cost of a higher end TV and the cost of a higher end AR headset being in a similar range where media consumption is a major feature of both. One could maybe justify the price of a 85" OLED or justify the price of a Vision Pro, but not both.

Towaway69 3y ago

I assume everyone said the same about television, especially as the VCRs came out - no more theater and cinema. But: the iPhone did replace the rotatry phone! /s

1over137 3y ago

>I'm struggling to see how the headset could replace what is in my experience a mostly social activity. Going out to eat at restaurants used to be a social activity, now people just sit together but stare at their phones.