5 ms·

What is convincing you that VR will have huge ROI in the near future? We are over 10 years in to the modern VR era and despite even Meta’s strong device sales i

What is convincing you that VR will have huge ROI in the near future? We are over 10 years in to the modern VR era and despite even Meta’s strong device sales it’s still very niche. Apple is trying their hardest and even they had to correct their sales expectations.

const_cast 1y ago
I think everyone is greatly overestimating VR. The thing is, I can imagine some futuristic version of AI that transforms humanity. But with VR, even in my wildest dreams with all the problems solved, it’s still just second best to smartphones and computers. Imagine the perfect headset. Tiny, battery lasts forever, photo-realistic. I would still rather browse the Internet on my phone. I’d rather do my work on my laptop. I’d rather watch movies on my TV. What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done. The only usecase that makes any sense is gaming. But only some games. It’s just too niche.
- imiric 1y ago
  > What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done. It gives you maximum immersion into a digital world. Rather than view it through a rectangular 2D window, it can encompass 360 degrees of your vision in full 3D. If you don't see how this would be appealing for consuming content, work, entertainment, etc., then I can't convince you otherwise. VR adoption has always been held back by what is technically possible and how expensive it is. Nobody other than tech enthusiasts wants to wear a bulky headset for extended periods of time. Once we're able to produce that perfect headset that you mention, so that it's portable and comfortable like a pair of sunglasses, at an affordable price, the floodgates will open, and demand will skyrocket. The same already happened with mobile phones, several times. The cellular phone was invented in the early 1980s. It was heavy, bulky, and expensive, and only business people and enthusiasts used them. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 90s that they got cheap and comfortable for the general public. Then the modern smartphone had several precursors that were also clunky and expensive. It wasn't until the iPhone and Android devices that the technology became useful and accessible to everyone. There's no reason to think that the current iteration is the ultimate design of a personal computer. The same story is repeated for any new technology. VR itself has seen multiple resurgences in the last few decades. We're only now reaching a state where the vision is technically possible. There are several products on the market that come close. VR headsets are getting smaller, cheaper, and more comfortable, and AR glasses are getting cheaper and more powerful. I reckon we're a few generations away from someone launching a truly groundbreaking product. Thinking that all this momentum is just a risky bet on a niche platform would be a mistake.
  - whiplash451 1y ago
    Didn’t people say the same thing about 3D TV?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - Exoristos 1y ago
    "It gives you maximum immersion into a digital world." But then you failed to explain why anyone should care.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > If you don't see how this would be appealing for consuming content, work, entertainment, etc., then I can't convince you otherwise. I don't, legitimately I don't. Okay, maximum immersion. And how does that help? Like even just on the surface having a 360 degree view doesn't do anything. Because my eyes are on the front of my head, so I'm going to be looking forward. Stuff behind me doesn't matter much. Same thing with 3D. Okay... but paper is two-dimensional, you know what I mean? Something being 3D by itself doesn't mean it's better or contains more information or is easier to use. I'd rather read and write on a two-dimensional surface. Reading and writing is the core of a lot of stuff, so there's goes that. The test for me really is imagining some usecase and then imagining how it would be on super advanced VR. If you try that, you'll find that 90% of usecases just fail compared to already existing technology. Like imagine some perfect VR tech 5,000 years from now. Okay, now a usecase: programming. I would rather program with a keyboard and mouse and a monitor. I don't want to talk to VR. I don't want a dumbass virtual keyboard, that's worse. The 3D stuff makes no difference because I'm reading text. So even with alien technology, my current computer right now would beat it. With the phones you mention, when we envision some futuristic technology we can see how the phones would be useful. Same thing with TVs - I mean, people were envisioning wall-wide flat screens in the 60s. But when you do that with VR, the product still isn't very good. That's the difference, in my eyes.
    - imiric 1y ago

const_cast 1y ago

I think everyone is greatly overestimating VR. The thing is, I can imagine some futuristic version of AI that transforms humanity. But with VR, even in my wildest dreams with all the problems solved, it’s still just second best to smartphones and computers. Imagine the perfect headset. Tiny, battery lasts forever, photo-realistic. I would still rather browse the Internet on my phone. I’d rather do my work on my laptop. I’d rather watch movies on my TV. What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done. The only usecase that makes any sense is gaming. But only some games. It’s just too niche.

imiric 1y ago
> What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done. It gives you maximum immersion into a digital world. Rather than view it through a rectangular 2D window, it can encompass 360 degrees of your vision in full 3D. If you don't see how this would be appealing for consuming content, work, entertainment, etc., then I can't convince you otherwise. VR adoption has always been held back by what is technically possible and how expensive it is. Nobody other than tech enthusiasts wants to wear a bulky headset for extended periods of time. Once we're able to produce that perfect headset that you mention, so that it's portable and comfortable like a pair of sunglasses, at an affordable price, the floodgates will open, and demand will skyrocket. The same already happened with mobile phones, several times. The cellular phone was invented in the early 1980s. It was heavy, bulky, and expensive, and only business people and enthusiasts used them. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 90s that they got cheap and comfortable for the general public. Then the modern smartphone had several precursors that were also clunky and expensive. It wasn't until the iPhone and Android devices that the technology became useful and accessible to everyone. There's no reason to think that the current iteration is the ultimate design of a personal computer. The same story is repeated for any new technology. VR itself has seen multiple resurgences in the last few decades. We're only now reaching a state where the vision is technically possible. There are several products on the market that come close. VR headsets are getting smaller, cheaper, and more comfortable, and AR glasses are getting cheaper and more powerful. I reckon we're a few generations away from someone launching a truly groundbreaking product. Thinking that all this momentum is just a risky bet on a niche platform would be a mistake.
- whiplash451 1y ago
  Didn’t people say the same thing about 3D TV?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- Exoristos 1y ago
  "It gives you maximum immersion into a digital world." But then you failed to explain why anyone should care.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > If you don't see how this would be appealing for consuming content, work, entertainment, etc., then I can't convince you otherwise. I don't, legitimately I don't. Okay, maximum immersion. And how does that help? Like even just on the surface having a 360 degree view doesn't do anything. Because my eyes are on the front of my head, so I'm going to be looking forward. Stuff behind me doesn't matter much. Same thing with 3D. Okay... but paper is two-dimensional, you know what I mean? Something being 3D by itself doesn't mean it's better or contains more information or is easier to use. I'd rather read and write on a two-dimensional surface. Reading and writing is the core of a lot of stuff, so there's goes that. The test for me really is imagining some usecase and then imagining how it would be on super advanced VR. If you try that, you'll find that 90% of usecases just fail compared to already existing technology. Like imagine some perfect VR tech 5,000 years from now. Okay, now a usecase: programming. I would rather program with a keyboard and mouse and a monitor. I don't want to talk to VR. I don't want a dumbass virtual keyboard, that's worse. The 3D stuff makes no difference because I'm reading text. So even with alien technology, my current computer right now would beat it. With the phones you mention, when we envision some futuristic technology we can see how the phones would be useful. Same thing with TVs - I mean, people were envisioning wall-wide flat screens in the 60s. But when you do that with VR, the product still isn't very good. That's the difference, in my eyes.
  - imiric 1y ago