4 ms·

It’s the story of VR all over again: - Awesome technology. - Strong “wow” moment. - Doesn’t do anything particularly better than the devices you already have

It’s the story of VR all over again: - Awesome technology. - Strong “wow” moment. - Doesn’t do anything particularly better than the devices you already have. It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche.

m3kw9 2y ago
AR isn’t a technology in search of a problem. It’s solving a problem, one of them is allowing you to bring 5 screens without hauling 5 screens.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Not really. Even on Apple Vision Pro, the text quality is lower than native pixels and less comfortable to read. In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, who can do only one thing at a time. It saves a few clicks for most, not much more; and certainly not enough convenience to wear a brick on your head. If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers.
  - user_7832 2y ago
    > If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers. While I mostly agree... I partially disagree. IMO, the problem isn't so much about screens not proving to be helpful - but about good screens. Here in The Netherlands it's very common to find assistants/secretaries having multiple monitors. Heck, (some of?) the staff at the court in The Hague have curved ultrawide monitors. Evidently people recognize the benefits of screen real estate. The big problem, IMO, is that "standard" portable screens - 99% of which are 16:9 - are simply not tall enough. My 13.5" FW13 screen (3:2 ratio) is about as tall as a 15" 16:9 screen, but is much smaller than a 15" laptop. Windows particularly is excellent/terrible at having a ton of horizontal bars, making usable vertical height terribly little. Why would someone bring another monitor to see more bars?
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      I don’t know what to tell you, but an Apple Vision Pro isn’t going to help you. Right now, the individual pixels are about the size of a human blood cell(!), and yet, the panels for each eye are not quite 4K. Not quite 4K, for your entire FOV. As iFixit notes, for a virtual desktop inside that FOV, forget about it looking anything like a good 4K monitor. The Vision Pro can have 3,386 PPI and it’s still no monitor substitute. https://www.ifixit.com/News/90409/vision-pro-teardown-part-2-whats-the-display-resolution?srsltid=AfmBOooSVMxmLrAUD1i5JEZ_5LR7nSNo3TMxUW6UblYK8Wp7vhqeK2QG https://www.ifixit.com/News/90409/vision-pro-teardown-part-2...
      - user_7832 2y ago
        Just to clarify, I wasn’t commenting so much on the AVP than on small monitors often being shitty in general. It’s probably also a mini rant- my ideal monitor would probably be 1:1 lol.
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      > curved ultrawide monitors I have a 32:9 curved ultrawide monitor that I bought for games but has ended up invaluable for work (software dev). It's nigh perfect to divide into 3-4 full-size panes and gives enough space to have 6+ documents open and easily readable simultaneously, in a way I think would take three separate monitors to awkwardly emulate otherwise (and even then you'd lose the benefit of being able to go from 3 to 4 main groupings and back as needed). The downside is, of course, the thing weighs over 30 pounds and is completely ungainly. Good luck setting it up or moving it without two people.
  - leptons 2y ago
    >In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, This is nonsense. I have essentially 6 screens on my desk, it it absolutely is very useful. Just because you can't imagine it being useful doesn't mean other people can't or don't take advantage of the extra screen real estate. That said, I'd never use a VR/AR headset strapped to my face 8 hours a day to replace my 6 high-resolution screens. And I don't need to move my screens from place to place. If I'm not at home, that mean's I'm doing something else that isn't working, and that's a good thing.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      I'm not saying it isn't useful, but refer to my original post: > It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche. 6 screens is "elusively niche." It will never be a mass-market attraction that convinces people to strap on a headset.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  Is it really bringing 5 screens? Most of the apps I've seen tend to be gimicky apps that I wouldn't commit to a single screen. Some of which I wouldn't even have maximized to access via Cmd+Tab. Even if they're all useful, most users typically never use beyond 2-3 screens, and you typically don't look at more than 2 via AR anyways. Instead of virtual desktops, you put apps in spaces where you have to redirect your attention.
- butlike 2y ago
  What a UI failure to require 5 screens for optimal use.
crooked-v 2y ago
I would say that mine is just plain better for solo movie watching than any display I've ever had. If the hardware was less cumbersome, I'd give serious thought to never buying a bigger TV again and maybe actively downsizing the one I have. On a similar note, it's almost but not quite good enough to replace the displays of my working/gaming desk setup, and a version 2 or 3 with a slightly denser display - if it was actually comfortable enough to wear sitting up for more than an hour or two - would be a serious contender to replace several high-end monitors plus my audio setup. To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The UX and the display quality are already 75-100% of the way to filling that role. The basic problem is that the hardware is just too heavy and uncomfortable, so the value prop vanishes because you can't actually use it comfortably for 8-16 hours a day.
- gumby 2y ago
  > To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The problem is that, at the end of the day, that's just a feature, not a benefit. It reminds my of the ongoing push for speech interfaces. Supposedly they are "more natural" but in reality, even when you have a screen, the keyboard is still significantly better (even if it's virtual like on a phone)
  - reidjs 2y ago
    speech interfaces have gotten amazing in certain contexts, especially now that speech to text is decent. Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar while you are moving and aren't able to stop to type. I know that some people even use voice assistants to do things like set timers, reminders, or initiate calls
    - gumby 2y ago
      Yeah, "some people" -- my partner for one. But efficacy is low, even with all her practice. And there aren't many such people -- look at what's happening to Amazon's alexa unit. I do mainly use voice to control my watch, which means in practice it's pretty much a read-only device (which is just fine for me). > Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar. Aren't these precisely cases where speech doesn't work? Too noisy to hear you; too noisy for you to hear the message.
nickthegreek 2y ago
My #1 use for my Quest 3 is fitness. It provides me a legitimately new and engaging experience.
- solardev 2y ago
  Can you explain? (I'm curious, as someone who's trying to lose weight.) Is it the same rhythm & movement games like first-gen VR (slicing fruits, hitting beats, etc.) or is there something new and better these days?
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    I prefer shadow boxing experiences. The pacing on this fitness first apps is way better than a generic rhythm game. One big player is Les Mills BodyCombat. This is a 1 time fee, generic music experience. It checks all the boxes and will work fine. The other big player is Supernatural. This is a monthly sub but has an extensive and growing catalog of boxing workouts with top notch music and impressive environments. If you are going to be serious and put in the time in a vr workout app, the sub price is a good deal.
    - evanjrowley 2y ago
      +1 for Supernatural. It's a valuable exercise app for VR.
    - solardev 2y ago
      Awesome, thank you for the suggestions! I train kickboxing IRL, so this might be a good way to supplement that at home. Appreciate it :)
pipeline_peak 2y ago
> It’s technology in search of a problem Great way of putting it. It’s the shiny new iThing that nobody asked for. Feels more like a poor excuse to fill their quota of releasing something as significant as the iPhone. Especially considering everything else is just a rehash of iPhone technology.

m3kw9 2y ago

AR isn’t a technology in search of a problem. It’s solving a problem, one of them is allowing you to bring 5 screens without hauling 5 screens.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Not really. Even on Apple Vision Pro, the text quality is lower than native pixels and less comfortable to read. In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, who can do only one thing at a time. It saves a few clicks for most, not much more; and certainly not enough convenience to wear a brick on your head. If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers.
- user_7832 2y ago
  > If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers. While I mostly agree... I partially disagree. IMO, the problem isn't so much about screens not proving to be helpful - but about good screens. Here in The Netherlands it's very common to find assistants/secretaries having multiple monitors. Heck, (some of?) the staff at the court in The Hague have curved ultrawide monitors. Evidently people recognize the benefits of screen real estate. The big problem, IMO, is that "standard" portable screens - 99% of which are 16:9 - are simply not tall enough. My 13.5" FW13 screen (3:2 ratio) is about as tall as a 15" 16:9 screen, but is much smaller than a 15" laptop. Windows particularly is excellent/terrible at having a ton of horizontal bars, making usable vertical height terribly little. Why would someone bring another monitor to see more bars?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I don’t know what to tell you, but an Apple Vision Pro isn’t going to help you. Right now, the individual pixels are about the size of a human blood cell(!), and yet, the panels for each eye are not quite 4K. Not quite 4K, for your entire FOV. As iFixit notes, for a virtual desktop inside that FOV, forget about it looking anything like a good 4K monitor. The Vision Pro can have 3,386 PPI and it’s still no monitor substitute. https://www.ifixit.com/News/90409/vision-pro-teardown-part-2-whats-the-display-resolution?srsltid=AfmBOooSVMxmLrAUD1i5JEZ_5LR7nSNo3TMxUW6UblYK8Wp7vhqeK2QG https://www.ifixit.com/News/90409/vision-pro-teardown-part-2...
    - user_7832 2y ago
      Just to clarify, I wasn’t commenting so much on the AVP than on small monitors often being shitty in general. It’s probably also a mini rant- my ideal monitor would probably be 1:1 lol.
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    > curved ultrawide monitors I have a 32:9 curved ultrawide monitor that I bought for games but has ended up invaluable for work (software dev). It's nigh perfect to divide into 3-4 full-size panes and gives enough space to have 6+ documents open and easily readable simultaneously, in a way I think would take three separate monitors to awkwardly emulate otherwise (and even then you'd lose the benefit of being able to go from 3 to 4 main groupings and back as needed). The downside is, of course, the thing weighs over 30 pounds and is completely ungainly. Good luck setting it up or moving it without two people.
- leptons 2y ago
  >In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, This is nonsense. I have essentially 6 screens on my desk, it it absolutely is very useful. Just because you can't imagine it being useful doesn't mean other people can't or don't take advantage of the extra screen real estate. That said, I'd never use a VR/AR headset strapped to my face 8 hours a day to replace my 6 high-resolution screens. And I don't need to move my screens from place to place. If I'm not at home, that mean's I'm doing something else that isn't working, and that's a good thing.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I'm not saying it isn't useful, but refer to my original post: > It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche. 6 screens is "elusively niche." It will never be a mass-market attraction that convinces people to strap on a headset.
bdcravens 2y ago
Is it really bringing 5 screens? Most of the apps I've seen tend to be gimicky apps that I wouldn't commit to a single screen. Some of which I wouldn't even have maximized to access via Cmd+Tab. Even if they're all useful, most users typically never use beyond 2-3 screens, and you typically don't look at more than 2 via AR anyways. Instead of virtual desktops, you put apps in spaces where you have to redirect your attention.
butlike 2y ago
What a UI failure to require 5 screens for optimal use.

crooked-v 2y ago

I would say that mine is just plain better for solo movie watching than any display I've ever had. If the hardware was less cumbersome, I'd give serious thought to never buying a bigger TV again and maybe actively downsizing the one I have. On a similar note, it's almost but not quite good enough to replace the displays of my working/gaming desk setup, and a version 2 or 3 with a slightly denser display - if it was actually comfortable enough to wear sitting up for more than an hour or two - would be a serious contender to replace several high-end monitors plus my audio setup. To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The UX and the display quality are already 75-100% of the way to filling that role. The basic problem is that the hardware is just too heavy and uncomfortable, so the value prop vanishes because you can't actually use it comfortably for 8-16 hours a day.

gumby 2y ago
> To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The problem is that, at the end of the day, that's just a feature, not a benefit. It reminds my of the ongoing push for speech interfaces. Supposedly they are "more natural" but in reality, even when you have a screen, the keyboard is still significantly better (even if it's virtual like on a phone)
- reidjs 2y ago
  speech interfaces have gotten amazing in certain contexts, especially now that speech to text is decent. Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar while you are moving and aren't able to stop to type. I know that some people even use voice assistants to do things like set timers, reminders, or initiate calls
  - gumby 2y ago
    Yeah, "some people" -- my partner for one. But efficacy is low, even with all her practice. And there aren't many such people -- look at what's happening to Amazon's alexa unit. I do mainly use voice to control my watch, which means in practice it's pretty much a read-only device (which is just fine for me). > Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar. Aren't these precisely cases where speech doesn't work? Too noisy to hear you; too noisy for you to hear the message.

nickthegreek 2y ago

My #1 use for my Quest 3 is fitness. It provides me a legitimately new and engaging experience.

solardev 2y ago
Can you explain? (I'm curious, as someone who's trying to lose weight.) Is it the same rhythm & movement games like first-gen VR (slicing fruits, hitting beats, etc.) or is there something new and better these days?
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  I prefer shadow boxing experiences. The pacing on this fitness first apps is way better than a generic rhythm game. One big player is Les Mills BodyCombat. This is a 1 time fee, generic music experience. It checks all the boxes and will work fine. The other big player is Supernatural. This is a monthly sub but has an extensive and growing catalog of boxing workouts with top notch music and impressive environments. If you are going to be serious and put in the time in a vr workout app, the sub price is a good deal.
  - evanjrowley 2y ago
    +1 for Supernatural. It's a valuable exercise app for VR.
  - solardev 2y ago
    Awesome, thank you for the suggestions! I train kickboxing IRL, so this might be a good way to supplement that at home. Appreciate it :)

pipeline_peak 2y ago

> It’s technology in search of a problem Great way of putting it. It’s the shiny new iThing that nobody asked for. Feels more like a poor excuse to fill their quota of releasing something as significant as the iPhone. Especially considering everything else is just a rehash of iPhone technology.