4 ms·

Like a fish in water, you just don't know the problems you have, because you never considered it could be otherwise. One problem you have, is that it costs hund

by zmmmmm 2y ago

Like a fish in water, you just don't know the problems you have, because you never considered it could be otherwise. One problem you have, is that it costs hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy a large display and then they are so huge and heavy they are effectively geolocked to where every you put them, forcing you to buy many of them and just go without in many places you would otherwise use them. Another problem you have is you are constantly asked to travel places to be physically present with people because apparently it makes you collaborate with them better. But because there's no other choice you just do it... it's not a problem to be solved, it's just a fact of life. Obviously I'm making assumptions here, but these are the types of "problems" VR solves. By and large people don't acknowledge them because it takes too much imagination to think it could ever be different. I have full confidence that you'll dismiss all these problems right now in your reply - as much confidence as I have that when the tech reaches the right point that it truly solves them in a convenient and comfortable way, you'll embrace it and declare they were obvious all along.

globular-toast 2y ago
There's more: you have to hold your phone/tablet or you have to sit/stand at a desk which can hold the screen, keyboard etc for you. The broader problem here is the somewhat caveman style interaction we have to do with computers/devices, ie. go right up and touch them and be near them. This is quite often bad for our health (see problems with sitting, RSI etc) and means they use up valuable space in our homes.
- ddingus 2y ago
  Wait a minute... Caveman like? That seems way over the top. Essentially making the computing experience part of us is super compelling. I get that. But it all remains in very early, highly speculative days. As for valuable space, whose systems do you really trust? The ones running in my home are known and not a worry, or untrusted and managed appropriately. For it to work like you hint at, we need either: Massive, central systems that people essentially rent and are forced to trust , or Small ones so power efficient they can be implanted and perform in meaningful ways using minimal hardware, ideally communicating along internal channels somehow. Even with those, sharing is a big deal, potentially exposing a now very dangerous and highly personal resource to others. Meanwhile, the cavemen sent people to the moon on far less overall computing than we often carry in our pockets these days.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. You can easily run the computer in a cupboard and communicate with it over the local network. I run my own private "cloud" services today. Of course, that might not be how it turns out because data is too valuable. But the headset should just be a display for the computer in your cupboard. Just for the record, I'm not even a little bit excited by this, nor do I expect I'll ever buy such a device. I'd want the full matrix experience before I went in, so that I could do things I can't do in real life. However, chances are I won't want to do those things any more if/when it ever becomes a possibility. I also share your concerns about how this stuff will likely be implemented (ie. on their cloud). But tbh that's already lost at this point. But I can't deny that getting away from keyboards, monitors, desks etc is hugely valuable.
    - ddingus 2y ago
      Maybe. I don't like the approach. I am not at all sure "should" is the right word to use here. It could be very compelling to operate that way. I think it might be. And I want to try it, same as I have everything else to see what the kryptonite is and how it will matter. The better, higher value way to move past keyboard, mouse and display is to talk up the new paradigm. People will use it because it is new. They will also use it because it nails some use case or other that is super important to them. Leading with our existing interfaces suck sets all the wrong expectations and could actually impact the incoming tech! There is no need to punch down on these things. Setting the security and privacy issues, which are significant, we are left with value potential and what it will take to actualize it. VR mostly sucks unless one is seeking immersive experiences. And there it shines bright indeed. Outside of that, the tech is jarring, high latency, low-fidelity mess when passing the real world through as is often needed. AR eliminates that, while still being both immersive and able to augment what one is doing in various apparently considerable use value laden ways. I think about CAD, as one example I am very familiar with. I have used pretty much everything ever made for CAD too. Buttons and dials, macro pads, light pens, foot controller, space controllers, keyboard, mouse, old school tablet, new school touch and stylus visual tablet, voice input,, and I could go on. My favorite by far is a big, fast display 3D active shutter glasses capable. Modeling becomes more fluid and the user can actually see complex surfaces in an intuitive way. Assembly is fantastic when one can fly around the thing with a space controller while still being able to pick, trigger macros and just build. Many would call a setup like that advanced. Truth is it is a nice Samsung 3D plasma in my living room and a laptop with a 3D controller and mouse plugged in, often on my couch for comfort. Despite how compelling that is, few people do it. Now, take away keyboard. How do we input specifics? Voice input? Waggle flanges at virtual keyboards and other devices? We could develop more precise language, and borrow from the sciences and describe things letting the system create them. Maybe. But there remains a ton of details to contend with. Let's say I remain skeptical. But does any of this make keyboard and mouse out dated, caveman like, or just bad? Nope. The way I have always done it is to just use the new stuff and see what comes. Weave that into my process and gain value without also increasing costs and risks. Heck, I have even used a system with a full haptic interface! The software was called "Freeform" the company was sensable or something close to that. Basically, it was all about clay and one could carve and paint on it using the haptic! One fun thing was to carve a hole, then set the tool into it, get up for a drink, with the haptic floating jn mid air just as if it were placed into a real block of clay! I loved that thing and when I put little kids on it, they made surprising stuff. But it was no real answer for much outside it's killer value proposition. Few things are. Maybe I will put this another way: Every UX device has both a super power and one or more kryptonites to deal with. Which explains why VR is not going to boom. And it explains how AR might too. And should that happen, it won't be how shitty one may feel keyboard mouse is. Nope. It will be the superpower, and with AR that is the ability to overlay information onto our already keen senses
9dev 2y ago
Im not convinced. For the price of a Vision Pro, I can drop a few large displays at the places I frequent often. Or just use smaller screens; it’s not that big of a problem in the first place. In regards to traveling—the same argument could be made for online conferencing tools, but especially high value representatives will choose to meet in person, because in addition to improved collaboration, meeting in person is about signaling, too: Being there means you took the time and effort to do so, because you value your interlocutor, and because you can. It’s a power play, one that VR by definition never can get you. I know these were just examples, but my point is the problems you’re presenting are really contrived compared to stuff like being able to listen to a lot of music on the go, having a phone with an internet browser in your pocket, or a well-made digital watch that can monitor your health without efforts on your end. All those products had an extremely clear, immediate value proposition, and didn’t require a new viewpoint on my understanding of technology. The Vision Pro, especially after reading comments like yours, kind of feels like a product designed by people that should have lifted their VR glasses a bit more often and just have taken a walk in the forest instead.
- hiq 2y ago
  > For the price of a Vision Pro, I can drop a few large displays at the places I frequent often. What about other places, like hotels? What about trains and planes? Even at home, I wish I could get rid of my TV and make it disappear when I don't use it. These new display glasses already take way less space to store than monitors. If they get the tech to the point that it's as comfortable to watch as a TV and just barely more expensive, I could see myself getting rid of my TV and saving the space, making my living-room nicer. I'd also get a screen size I'd never consider for my living-room because of how much space it takes. And that's for entertainment only, for which I'm usually reluctant to spend much. If these devices become good enough to do long work sessions on them, I could have exactly the same setup everywhere which would be huge for me. I could also get rid of my monitors and reclaim my desk space. I think that's when I'd buy such a device. See also the comments from 3 days ago from people already doing just that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859012 So in a way it's already here. Maybe not everyone will have one, so it won't be like mobile phones. I've never had a tablet either, that doesn't mean they haven't been successful enough.
consteval 2y ago
VR doesn't solve number 1 because we already solved this. Yes, it's a real problem but then we got screen on use 24/7 - phones. You can make an argument about the size of the screen but remember! VR is, at least, a few orders of magnitude worse to use than mouse/keyboard. Having a big screen wherever is cool - now use it. Do you want to use a floating touch keyboard or voice commands to use Excel? Probably not, so best to just carry around a laptop. For number two, we don't actually "know" what makes in person collaboration good (if at all). And we all disagree. But if there's a human aspect to it, then VR falls flat once again. Why not just use Zoom, and then we got a ton of other tools? If we're not gonna bother to be face to face, then okay, let's lean into better technologies that already exist.

by zmmmmm 2y ago

globular-toast 2y ago

There's more: you have to hold your phone/tablet or you have to sit/stand at a desk which can hold the screen, keyboard etc for you. The broader problem here is the somewhat caveman style interaction we have to do with computers/devices, ie. go right up and touch them and be near them. This is quite often bad for our health (see problems with sitting, RSI etc) and means they use up valuable space in our homes.

ddingus 2y ago
Wait a minute... Caveman like? That seems way over the top. Essentially making the computing experience part of us is super compelling. I get that. But it all remains in very early, highly speculative days. As for valuable space, whose systems do you really trust? The ones running in my home are known and not a worry, or untrusted and managed appropriately. For it to work like you hint at, we need either: Massive, central systems that people essentially rent and are forced to trust , or Small ones so power efficient they can be implanted and perform in meaningful ways using minimal hardware, ideally communicating along internal channels somehow. Even with those, sharing is a big deal, potentially exposing a now very dangerous and highly personal resource to others. Meanwhile, the cavemen sent people to the moon on far less overall computing than we often carry in our pockets these days.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. You can easily run the computer in a cupboard and communicate with it over the local network. I run my own private "cloud" services today. Of course, that might not be how it turns out because data is too valuable. But the headset should just be a display for the computer in your cupboard. Just for the record, I'm not even a little bit excited by this, nor do I expect I'll ever buy such a device. I'd want the full matrix experience before I went in, so that I could do things I can't do in real life. However, chances are I won't want to do those things any more if/when it ever becomes a possibility. I also share your concerns about how this stuff will likely be implemented (ie. on their cloud). But tbh that's already lost at this point. But I can't deny that getting away from keyboards, monitors, desks etc is hugely valuable.
  - ddingus 2y ago
    Maybe. I don't like the approach. I am not at all sure "should" is the right word to use here. It could be very compelling to operate that way. I think it might be. And I want to try it, same as I have everything else to see what the kryptonite is and how it will matter. The better, higher value way to move past keyboard, mouse and display is to talk up the new paradigm. People will use it because it is new. They will also use it because it nails some use case or other that is super important to them. Leading with our existing interfaces suck sets all the wrong expectations and could actually impact the incoming tech! There is no need to punch down on these things. Setting the security and privacy issues, which are significant, we are left with value potential and what it will take to actualize it. VR mostly sucks unless one is seeking immersive experiences. And there it shines bright indeed. Outside of that, the tech is jarring, high latency, low-fidelity mess when passing the real world through as is often needed. AR eliminates that, while still being both immersive and able to augment what one is doing in various apparently considerable use value laden ways. I think about CAD, as one example I am very familiar with. I have used pretty much everything ever made for CAD too. Buttons and dials, macro pads, light pens, foot controller, space controllers, keyboard, mouse, old school tablet, new school touch and stylus visual tablet, voice input,, and I could go on. My favorite by far is a big, fast display 3D active shutter glasses capable. Modeling becomes more fluid and the user can actually see complex surfaces in an intuitive way. Assembly is fantastic when one can fly around the thing with a space controller while still being able to pick, trigger macros and just build. Many would call a setup like that advanced. Truth is it is a nice Samsung 3D plasma in my living room and a laptop with a 3D controller and mouse plugged in, often on my couch for comfort. Despite how compelling that is, few people do it. Now, take away keyboard. How do we input specifics? Voice input? Waggle flanges at virtual keyboards and other devices? We could develop more precise language, and borrow from the sciences and describe things letting the system create them. Maybe. But there remains a ton of details to contend with. Let's say I remain skeptical. But does any of this make keyboard and mouse out dated, caveman like, or just bad? Nope. The way I have always done it is to just use the new stuff and see what comes. Weave that into my process and gain value without also increasing costs and risks. Heck, I have even used a system with a full haptic interface! The software was called "Freeform" the company was sensable or something close to that. Basically, it was all about clay and one could carve and paint on it using the haptic! One fun thing was to carve a hole, then set the tool into it, get up for a drink, with the haptic floating jn mid air just as if it were placed into a real block of clay! I loved that thing and when I put little kids on it, they made surprising stuff. But it was no real answer for much outside it's killer value proposition. Few things are. Maybe I will put this another way: Every UX device has both a super power and one or more kryptonites to deal with. Which explains why VR is not going to boom. And it explains how AR might too. And should that happen, it won't be how shitty one may feel keyboard mouse is. Nope. It will be the superpower, and with AR that is the ability to overlay information onto our already keen senses

9dev 2y ago

Im not convinced. For the price of a Vision Pro, I can drop a few large displays at the places I frequent often. Or just use smaller screens; it’s not that big of a problem in the first place. In regards to traveling—the same argument could be made for online conferencing tools, but especially high value representatives will choose to meet in person, because in addition to improved collaboration, meeting in person is about signaling, too: Being there means you took the time and effort to do so, because you value your interlocutor, and because you can. It’s a power play, one that VR by definition never can get you. I know these were just examples, but my point is the problems you’re presenting are really contrived compared to stuff like being able to listen to a lot of music on the go, having a phone with an internet browser in your pocket, or a well-made digital watch that can monitor your health without efforts on your end. All those products had an extremely clear, immediate value proposition, and didn’t require a new viewpoint on my understanding of technology. The Vision Pro, especially after reading comments like yours, kind of feels like a product designed by people that should have lifted their VR glasses a bit more often and just have taken a walk in the forest instead.

hiq 2y ago
> For the price of a Vision Pro, I can drop a few large displays at the places I frequent often. What about other places, like hotels? What about trains and planes? Even at home, I wish I could get rid of my TV and make it disappear when I don't use it. These new display glasses already take way less space to store than monitors. If they get the tech to the point that it's as comfortable to watch as a TV and just barely more expensive, I could see myself getting rid of my TV and saving the space, making my living-room nicer. I'd also get a screen size I'd never consider for my living-room because of how much space it takes. And that's for entertainment only, for which I'm usually reluctant to spend much. If these devices become good enough to do long work sessions on them, I could have exactly the same setup everywhere which would be huge for me. I could also get rid of my monitors and reclaim my desk space. I think that's when I'd buy such a device. See also the comments from 3 days ago from people already doing just that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859012 So in a way it's already here. Maybe not everyone will have one, so it won't be like mobile phones. I've never had a tablet either, that doesn't mean they haven't been successful enough.

consteval 2y ago

VR doesn't solve number 1 because we already solved this. Yes, it's a real problem but then we got screen on use 24/7 - phones. You can make an argument about the size of the screen but remember! VR is, at least, a few orders of magnitude worse to use than mouse/keyboard. Having a big screen wherever is cool - now use it. Do you want to use a floating touch keyboard or voice commands to use Excel? Probably not, so best to just carry around a laptop. For number two, we don't actually "know" what makes in person collaboration good (if at all). And we all disagree. But if there's a human aspect to it, then VR falls flat once again. Why not just use Zoom, and then we got a ton of other tools? If we're not gonna bother to be face to face, then okay, let's lean into better technologies that already exist.