4 ms·

I think: "I get headaches from using it, and there isn't enough reason to be in VR" is probably the same reason oculus didn't really penetrate the Apple/tech/t

I think: "I get headaches from using it, and there isn't enough reason to be in VR" is probably the same reason oculus didn't really penetrate the Apple/tech/trendies. The target the author sets for them trying it again is basically meta's roadmap. the _hilarious_ thing is that meta cannot coherently deliver/demostrate baby steps to those targets, or explain through the medium of snootynosed PR/marketing hyperbole the potential of the oculus platform. Put it this way, the reason the iPhone succeeded is because a lot of people gave apple the benefit of the doubt. It had two things: music and well engineered smooth scrolling. _Everything_ else was sub par. No 3g, terrible batterylife, no GPS, no apps, no sideloading and no flash. Fucking slow proc (but the interface was always given priority.) If VR is going to succeed with apple, it will be because people gave them the benefit of the doubt for v1/v2. Most of the reviews are a lot of "It will be" "when x is delivered" and "when x makes content in y". Meta doesn't have that good will to draw on, they have to deliver first time They can't because the head of VR/AR is someone who ships features not releases coherent products. You know the best fucking part? the quest pro could have been a 95% AVP. If they managed to ship the depth sensor, then passthrough would have worked. If they had planned their shell properly, not wasted many many people-years fucking porting react to VR, then they might have had time to design a coherent UX. But thats the problem with most competitors, they shitout features, rather than release coherent experiences. Apple: I want a VR headset that anyone can use, requires no hand controllers, and doesn't block out the world Meta: Lets ship eyetracking and hand based controllers, but only release 4 pages of documentation on all of it. something something metaverse, something something playing poker in a room together.

jwells89 3y ago
Something else that’s hurting Meta is how compared to Apple, it doesn’t have as robust of a platform (SDK, UI paradigms, etc). Quests run plain old Android in 3D with some AR bits bolted on, which is fine for games but not as compelling for other types of apps. Devs could probably look past that if apps developed for the Quest had a possibility of running on competing headsets, with Meta offering to license their flavor of Android to other manufacturers and establishing Quest OS the “Windows” of AR/VR. They’re not doing that though, they’re instead going for a more Apple-like strategy, but without the platform chops to back it up. Eventually, there will be a company that builds a “Windows” of AR that they license out and becomes dominant, but I wouldn’t bet on it being Meta. Maybe it’ll instead be Valve, given their recent work on SteamOS.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  Meta also suffers from their views on privacy. I refuse to buy a meta quest and risk letting them monetize my whole life.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    Same. I’m not buying the Vision Pro because that’s a crazy price. But I wouldn’t even use a free Oculus because I do NOT trust Meta at all.
    - gorjusborg 3y ago
      Meta being involved is a complete dealbreaker for me, no matter what it is.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  Is Vision Pro SDK better than Android SDK? What about UI paradigms?
KerrAvon 3y ago
> the reason the iPhone succeeded is because a lot of people gave apple the benefit of the doubt No. Maybe you're too young to remember, but the iPhone was a revelation at the time. It was clear that everything that had come before was obsolete. Seems to be hip to trash it now based on the original specs (2G! No camera! No copy and paste!) but the alternative at that time was either a landline or a plasticky junk phone with awful software (or a BlackBerry, which could sure message a whole lot but that was about it).
- TheCleric 3y ago
  Yeah I had a smartphone before the iPhone (HTC Wizard) and it was clear it had gone from geeky toy to mainstream tool.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  <<Aslan do not speak to me of this magic, I was there meme>> The revelation was that you could talk on your ipod, and that ipod had a really really slick interface. It was running at 60hz, vs the ~20hz of the rivals. The rest, was all marketing fluff. Apart from the itunes store, the only other thing that the iPhone had was google maps, buttery buttery smooth maps. This is kinda what I'm hinting at before. Nokia had this great roadmap to basically deliver what essentially was the ipad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet) However they fucked up the software, had internal teams at war, a conflicted road map, and a chronic inability to deliver. Meta, if they had different leadership could actually make a better, cheaper AVP. probably even with content, as there are so many streaming services out there trying to get a USP. They won't, because meta can't execute. At best meta is going to be the cheapy android of VR, at worst nokia.
  - Brendinooo 3y ago
    Mobile Safari and multitouch were both revelations and revolutionary. If you were there, surely you remember WAP?
    - KaiserPro 3y ago
vonwoodson 3y ago
"Meta doesn't have that good will to draw on" this is literally what drove my purchase. I just don't trust FB to respect me as a human, let alone as a paying customer. I think, "Yeah, Apple is over-priced. But, I'm paying to be a customer and not a product" Of course, I'm not confident that is actually true. At all.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  that's the power of great marketing!
adriancr 3y ago
> Put it this way, the reason the iPhone succeeded is because a lot of people gave apple the benefit of the doubt. It had a clearly superior capacitive screen with glass when competitors were still doing shitty resistive screens with plastic... or worse small screens and buttons. It looked great and worked ok. The rest could be ignored due to that. It wasn't benefit of the doubt, it was a clearly superior product that competitors took years to catch up to some extent.

jwells89 3y ago

Something else that’s hurting Meta is how compared to Apple, it doesn’t have as robust of a platform (SDK, UI paradigms, etc). Quests run plain old Android in 3D with some AR bits bolted on, which is fine for games but not as compelling for other types of apps. Devs could probably look past that if apps developed for the Quest had a possibility of running on competing headsets, with Meta offering to license their flavor of Android to other manufacturers and establishing Quest OS the “Windows” of AR/VR. They’re not doing that though, they’re instead going for a more Apple-like strategy, but without the platform chops to back it up. Eventually, there will be a company that builds a “Windows” of AR that they license out and becomes dominant, but I wouldn’t bet on it being Meta. Maybe it’ll instead be Valve, given their recent work on SteamOS.

D13Fd 3y ago
Meta also suffers from their views on privacy. I refuse to buy a meta quest and risk letting them monetize my whole life.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  Same. I’m not buying the Vision Pro because that’s a crazy price. But I wouldn’t even use a free Oculus because I do NOT trust Meta at all.
  - gorjusborg 3y ago
    Meta being involved is a complete dealbreaker for me, no matter what it is.
lostmsu 3y ago
Is Vision Pro SDK better than Android SDK? What about UI paradigms?

KerrAvon 3y ago

> the reason the iPhone succeeded is because a lot of people gave apple the benefit of the doubt No. Maybe you're too young to remember, but the iPhone was a revelation at the time. It was clear that everything that had come before was obsolete. Seems to be hip to trash it now based on the original specs (2G! No camera! No copy and paste!) but the alternative at that time was either a landline or a plasticky junk phone with awful software (or a BlackBerry, which could sure message a whole lot but that was about it).

TheCleric 3y ago
Yeah I had a smartphone before the iPhone (HTC Wizard) and it was clear it had gone from geeky toy to mainstream tool.
KaiserPro 3y ago
<<Aslan do not speak to me of this magic, I was there meme>> The revelation was that you could talk on your ipod, and that ipod had a really really slick interface. It was running at 60hz, vs the ~20hz of the rivals. The rest, was all marketing fluff. Apart from the itunes store, the only other thing that the iPhone had was google maps, buttery buttery smooth maps. This is kinda what I'm hinting at before. Nokia had this great roadmap to basically deliver what essentially was the ipad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet) However they fucked up the software, had internal teams at war, a conflicted road map, and a chronic inability to deliver. Meta, if they had different leadership could actually make a better, cheaper AVP. probably even with content, as there are so many streaming services out there trying to get a USP. They won't, because meta can't execute. At best meta is going to be the cheapy android of VR, at worst nokia.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  Mobile Safari and multitouch were both revelations and revolutionary. If you were there, surely you remember WAP?
  - KaiserPro 3y ago

vonwoodson 3y ago

"Meta doesn't have that good will to draw on" this is literally what drove my purchase. I just don't trust FB to respect me as a human, let alone as a paying customer. I think, "Yeah, Apple is over-priced. But, I'm paying to be a customer and not a product" Of course, I'm not confident that is actually true. At all.

KaiserPro 3y ago
that's the power of great marketing!

adriancr 3y ago

> Put it this way, the reason the iPhone succeeded is because a lot of people gave apple the benefit of the doubt. It had a clearly superior capacitive screen with glass when competitors were still doing shitty resistive screens with plastic... or worse small screens and buttons. It looked great and worked ok. The rest could be ignored due to that. It wasn't benefit of the doubt, it was a clearly superior product that competitors took years to catch up to some extent.