5 ms·

It makes me wonder how the world would be if monitor manufacturers did the same thing, it would be unacceptable. I view VR headsets and their peripherals as no

It makes me wonder how the world would be if monitor manufacturers did the same thing, it would be unacceptable. I view VR headsets and their peripherals as no different than a mouse, keyboard, and display. Companies requiring all this nonsense to use your device, put in that light, is ludacris.

hyuuu 3y ago
comparing it with a monitor is rather unfair, you have to bundle the computing along with it, not to mention the applications to make it an actually fair comparison. At that point, is it still ludacris?
- docmars 3y ago
  To clarify my thoughts on this, I responded here to a similar reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39611122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39611122
TulliusCicero 3y ago
A silly comparison. A standalone VR headset is more comparable to a smartphone or game console than a monitor or keyboard. The latter have little to no compute.
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  So compute requires vendor lock in? That seems silly to me. Edit: Can we just acknowledge that a lot of the bells and whistles are for the companies benefit at the expense of the user? Thats their right, but it's also our right to want something better.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    > So compute requires vendor lock in? That seems silly to me. Correct, it's very similar to game consoles, though it is somewhat more open than those (sideloading is possible, including standard Android apps IIRC, and you can run PC VR games from other stores while tethered). > Can we just acknowledge that a lot of the bells and whistles are for the companies benefit at the expense of the user? It's the same model as XBox or Playstation, seems like. They sell the hardware at cost or at a loss, and make it up via software. A fully open headset with comparable specs would probably cost much more for the hardware. From a business standpoint that would be very stupid for a company like Meta, but this is hacker news, and many commenters here see nothing wrong or silly about asking businesses to commit suicide.
    - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
      > Correct, it's very similar to game consoles This doesn't explain why its _required_. It just means there is precedent. Your other point is better, although I think you mean it would cost the consumer more for the hardware, right? The hardware would cost the same to produce, it's just that the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue. It's a reasonable point, fb would make less money if they made an open headset, possibly to the point that they wouldn't make it all. But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me - the former might even have an edge in that shitty relationships with corporations aren't being encouraged (like they are throughout everything tech related currently). Granted, them blazing the trail has a tiny chance of enabling a reasonable alternative to come along in the future. But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now.
      - TulliusCicero 3y ago
        > the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue. More than likely most of Meta's revenue from the Quest series other than hardware is based off of, y'know, selling games. I doubt tracking what games you play to target ads in the OS is more valuable than the money they make when people actually buy games. In Facebook or Instagram, you're looking at a space that they can shoot lots of ads into, and it's otherwise very hard to monetize. But a gaming-focused VR headset is a different story. Most of the time you're not looking at anything that can have ads in it, but you can actually sell stuff very easily. Maybe this'll change someday if they actually get social media shit in there that's popular, I'm sure Meta would love that, but so far that hasn't happened. > But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me Popularizing the format is useful for pushing the tech forward. A big player pushing lots of devices means that the supply chains feeding the manufacture of those devices bulk up too, not to mention other knock-on effects like greater consumer awareness, and "free research" for whoever copies what the market leader does (at least for things that aren't IP-protected). > But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now. I can hear the sneer from over here, yes.
agar 3y ago
> I view VR headsets and their peripherals as no different than a mouse, keyboard, and display That could be valid when VR headsets were tethered to a PC via a DisplayPort or HDMI connection and essentially mirrored the display. The Quest is closer to an iPhone or Android phone or an all-digital handheld gaming device. With integrated compute, display, battery, text input, pointing devices, mic, and speakers, it bears little functional resemblance to peripherals like a mouse, keyboard, or display with no utility unless slaved to another device. Considering I can use my Quest with no wifi or other network to log in (once initial set up is complete), it seems that the Meta back-end APIs must have broke in some way that confused the headsets into thinking they were available when they weren't.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  It sounds like a server-side bug that forced a log out somehow. Which does really suck, Meta deserves criticism for that, but acting like this means the headset "isn't standalone" is silly, since that's not what "standalone" means in the context of VR headsets.
  - agar 3y ago
    Agree, many posts I read seem like classic "I don't like Meta/VR/big companies/social media so let me use this specific incident to confirm my biases." As you say, there's valid criticism to be made but it's hard to find the signal through the noise.
  - docmars 3y ago
    I think the desire for "standalone" VR headsets to mean offline-capable is totally reasonable. It has its own storage, apps and games get installed on it directly, and none of its core features need to rely on an online connection.
- docmars 3y ago
  Given that it uses its own OS, essentially, is a fair point. I guess what I meant around my monitor analogy earlier is that it has the capability to serve that purpose, possibly without the sophisticated OS that wraps the store experience, the apps/games, and other features -- specifically with being able to use it on SteamVR or your PC in general. This makes it a device that's generally capable of using any supported source for its screens, and can pass its peripheral input to other devices, like a PC, not unlike a mouse and keyboard. VR headsets could treat their "OS" as a minimal experience akin to an OSD on a monitor that lets you switch sources and use the peripherals more generally like a mouse/keyboard with the right drivers on the target machine. I'm more interested in calling out that Meta missed an opportunity here, and that it's confusing that they offer some semblance of these features (wireless linking for SteamVR...) while coupling that so closely to their OS and online-only experience.

hyuuu 3y ago

comparing it with a monitor is rather unfair, you have to bundle the computing along with it, not to mention the applications to make it an actually fair comparison. At that point, is it still ludacris?

docmars 3y ago
To clarify my thoughts on this, I responded here to a similar reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39611122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39611122

TulliusCicero 3y ago

A silly comparison. A standalone VR headset is more comparable to a smartphone or game console than a monitor or keyboard. The latter have little to no compute.

ifyoubuildit 3y ago
So compute requires vendor lock in? That seems silly to me. Edit: Can we just acknowledge that a lot of the bells and whistles are for the companies benefit at the expense of the user? Thats their right, but it's also our right to want something better.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  > So compute requires vendor lock in? That seems silly to me. Correct, it's very similar to game consoles, though it is somewhat more open than those (sideloading is possible, including standard Android apps IIRC, and you can run PC VR games from other stores while tethered). > Can we just acknowledge that a lot of the bells and whistles are for the companies benefit at the expense of the user? It's the same model as XBox or Playstation, seems like. They sell the hardware at cost or at a loss, and make it up via software. A fully open headset with comparable specs would probably cost much more for the hardware. From a business standpoint that would be very stupid for a company like Meta, but this is hacker news, and many commenters here see nothing wrong or silly about asking businesses to commit suicide.
  - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
    > Correct, it's very similar to game consoles This doesn't explain why its _required_. It just means there is precedent. Your other point is better, although I think you mean it would cost the consumer more for the hardware, right? The hardware would cost the same to produce, it's just that the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue. It's a reasonable point, fb would make less money if they made an open headset, possibly to the point that they wouldn't make it all. But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me - the former might even have an edge in that shitty relationships with corporations aren't being encouraged (like they are throughout everything tech related currently). Granted, them blazing the trail has a tiny chance of enabling a reasonable alternative to come along in the future. But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now.
    - TulliusCicero 3y ago
      > the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue. More than likely most of Meta's revenue from the Quest series other than hardware is based off of, y'know, selling games. I doubt tracking what games you play to target ads in the OS is more valuable than the money they make when people actually buy games. In Facebook or Instagram, you're looking at a space that they can shoot lots of ads into, and it's otherwise very hard to monetize. But a gaming-focused VR headset is a different story. Most of the time you're not looking at anything that can have ads in it, but you can actually sell stuff very easily. Maybe this'll change someday if they actually get social media shit in there that's popular, I'm sure Meta would love that, but so far that hasn't happened. > But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me Popularizing the format is useful for pushing the tech forward. A big player pushing lots of devices means that the supply chains feeding the manufacture of those devices bulk up too, not to mention other knock-on effects like greater consumer awareness, and "free research" for whoever copies what the market leader does (at least for things that aren't IP-protected). > But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now. I can hear the sneer from over here, yes.

agar 3y ago

> I view VR headsets and their peripherals as no different than a mouse, keyboard, and display That could be valid when VR headsets were tethered to a PC via a DisplayPort or HDMI connection and essentially mirrored the display. The Quest is closer to an iPhone or Android phone or an all-digital handheld gaming device. With integrated compute, display, battery, text input, pointing devices, mic, and speakers, it bears little functional resemblance to peripherals like a mouse, keyboard, or display with no utility unless slaved to another device. Considering I can use my Quest with no wifi or other network to log in (once initial set up is complete), it seems that the Meta back-end APIs must have broke in some way that confused the headsets into thinking they were available when they weren't.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
It sounds like a server-side bug that forced a log out somehow. Which does really suck, Meta deserves criticism for that, but acting like this means the headset "isn't standalone" is silly, since that's not what "standalone" means in the context of VR headsets.
- agar 3y ago
  Agree, many posts I read seem like classic "I don't like Meta/VR/big companies/social media so let me use this specific incident to confirm my biases." As you say, there's valid criticism to be made but it's hard to find the signal through the noise.
- docmars 3y ago
  I think the desire for "standalone" VR headsets to mean offline-capable is totally reasonable. It has its own storage, apps and games get installed on it directly, and none of its core features need to rely on an online connection.
docmars 3y ago
Given that it uses its own OS, essentially, is a fair point. I guess what I meant around my monitor analogy earlier is that it has the capability to serve that purpose, possibly without the sophisticated OS that wraps the store experience, the apps/games, and other features -- specifically with being able to use it on SteamVR or your PC in general. This makes it a device that's generally capable of using any supported source for its screens, and can pass its peripheral input to other devices, like a PC, not unlike a mouse and keyboard. VR headsets could treat their "OS" as a minimal experience akin to an OSD on a monitor that lets you switch sources and use the peripherals more generally like a mouse/keyboard with the right drivers on the target machine. I'm more interested in calling out that Meta missed an opportunity here, and that it's confusing that they offer some semblance of these features (wireless linking for SteamVR...) while coupling that so closely to their OS and online-only experience.