3 ms·

So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook? (Photos of real lif

So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook? (Photos of real life events, the thoughts and feelings of others, commentary on recent news, memes.) Edit: just because social is a bigger area than gaming, does not mean VR is more likely to take off in that area. It entirely depends on how you actually use it and what experience it gives you. You could argue that video calls would kill voice calls because video calls are "more immersive". Obviously that didn't happen. You could also argue that voice calls would kill text communication, because obviously talking with your voice is more natural. Again, it didn't happen - text communication is bigger than ever, look at WhatsApp. In the space of social, ease and speed of consumption trumps immersion.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
>So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? I have said many times that facebook won the social network wars long before google even released google+. Anything that comes along to kill facebook will look nothing like what we consider social networking today. It looks like facebook may be the one to invent its own killer.
- interpol_p 13y ago
  > Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? Even if it's the same as putting on a pair of sunglasses, it's still too much for me. If it's a matter of me just closing my eyes and experiencing what I want, then I agree with you. But I don't think that's even the same direction as the VR we are discussing. Edit: I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about improvements to VR hardware. However, seeing social networking and VR mesh together — even some hypothetical social networking of the future — seems an odd direction to me. VR is very inhuman in terms of the physical experience, social networking is very brief and notification oriented. I can't see the two a match. VR is great, I use it and love playing with it. I don't want it to be involved in my social experiences unless it's the following: inviting people around to try cool VR demos while watching what they are experiencing on a large screen, that is fun.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  HN is a profoundly conservative community. It's not always obvious, but the horizon here is often very close.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? Why do you think the fact that "next-gen" social networking will look different excuses three massive friction points of VR (buying the VR gear, buying a decent computer, and strapping on an ungainly headset)? It's not short-sighted to see problems, it's short-sighted to ignore them. Unless you have a reason to think you can. Do you? > I have said many times that facebook won the social network wars long before google even released google+. I don't see how that's remotely relevant. > Anything that comes along to kill facebook will look nothing like what we consider social networking today. You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem. VR has huge friction points and dubious value-add outside gaming. Either argue that the friction isn't as bad as we think or argue that the value-add is larger. "The sensation of 'being there' is so powerful that it will make 'virtual family gatherings' possible in a way that video conferencing and facebook haven't" That's an argument (albeit not one I'm convinced by). See the difference?
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    >It's not short-sighted to see problems, it's short-sighted to ignore them. Unless you have a reason to think you can. Do you? And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Why do you think this will be any different? Short-sightedness. >You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem. That statement was to set up the point that Facebook is so forward thinking here that they might be the one to create their own killer. Stop being an ass.
    - jjoonathan 13y ago
      > And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Only the history of technology as understood by someone who puts blinders on to focus on success stories alone. Selection bias. Do you know when the first hydrogen fuel-cell was built? 1851. Before the American Civil War. It took a century to figure out how to get them to output significant power before they found an application on the Apollo missions. It has been another 50 years and nobody has solved the H2 storage problem yet. AI has a bunch of problems that are like this but on a shorter time scale if you want a CS-related example. These aren't isolated incidents; the history of technology sees a constant stream of people hurling themselves against Hard Problems and consistently failing to solve them until someone with the right combination of specialization, drive, timing, and strategy cracks the case. The people that succeed invariably attribute their success to "not letting conventional thinking hold us back," but that's a load of feel-good nonsense, as evidenced by the long string of "forward-thinking" failures that everyone likes to ignore. There may be a steady trickle of breakthroughs coming out the end of the pipeline, but that doesn't mean you can point to a droplet anywhere in the pipe and say "it's about to come out!"
nl 13y ago
"Social Networking" is really about shared social experiences. Instagram became popular because photos are a richer way of saying some things than Twitter. Your point about text messaging misses that this isn't an "either/or" thing. I can imagine a VR app that lets you share your experience of standing in the Grand Canyon or jumping from a plane or being at a concert. The hardware is a big problem though. I can see Google Glass growing quicker because of that.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

>So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? I have said many times that facebook won the social network wars long before google even released google+. Anything that comes along to kill facebook will look nothing like what we consider social networking today. It looks like facebook may be the one to invent its own killer.

interpol_p 13y ago
> Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? Even if it's the same as putting on a pair of sunglasses, it's still too much for me. If it's a matter of me just closing my eyes and experiencing what I want, then I agree with you. But I don't think that's even the same direction as the VR we are discussing. Edit: I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about improvements to VR hardware. However, seeing social networking and VR mesh together — even some hypothetical social networking of the future — seems an odd direction to me. VR is very inhuman in terms of the physical experience, social networking is very brief and notification oriented. I can't see the two a match. VR is great, I use it and love playing with it. I don't want it to be involved in my social experiences unless it's the following: inviting people around to try cool VR demos while watching what they are experiencing on a large screen, that is fun.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
HN is a profoundly conservative community. It's not always obvious, but the horizon here is often very close.
jjoonathan 13y ago
> Why do you think it would look anything like what we currently consider social networking? Why are people so painfully short-sighted? Why do you think the fact that "next-gen" social networking will look different excuses three massive friction points of VR (buying the VR gear, buying a decent computer, and strapping on an ungainly headset)? It's not short-sighted to see problems, it's short-sighted to ignore them. Unless you have a reason to think you can. Do you? > I have said many times that facebook won the social network wars long before google even released google+. I don't see how that's remotely relevant. > Anything that comes along to kill facebook will look nothing like what we consider social networking today. You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem. VR has huge friction points and dubious value-add outside gaming. Either argue that the friction isn't as bad as we think or argue that the value-add is larger. "The sensation of 'being there' is so powerful that it will make 'virtual family gatherings' possible in a way that video conferencing and facebook haven't" That's an argument (albeit not one I'm convinced by). See the difference?
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >It's not short-sighted to see problems, it's short-sighted to ignore them. Unless you have a reason to think you can. Do you? And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Why do you think this will be any different? Short-sightedness. >You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem. That statement was to set up the point that Facebook is so forward thinking here that they might be the one to create their own killer. Stop being an ass.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    > And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Only the history of technology as understood by someone who puts blinders on to focus on success stories alone. Selection bias. Do you know when the first hydrogen fuel-cell was built? 1851. Before the American Civil War. It took a century to figure out how to get them to output significant power before they found an application on the Apollo missions. It has been another 50 years and nobody has solved the H2 storage problem yet. AI has a bunch of problems that are like this but on a shorter time scale if you want a CS-related example. These aren't isolated incidents; the history of technology sees a constant stream of people hurling themselves against Hard Problems and consistently failing to solve them until someone with the right combination of specialization, drive, timing, and strategy cracks the case. The people that succeed invariably attribute their success to "not letting conventional thinking hold us back," but that's a load of feel-good nonsense, as evidenced by the long string of "forward-thinking" failures that everyone likes to ignore. There may be a steady trickle of breakthroughs coming out the end of the pipeline, but that doesn't mean you can point to a droplet anywhere in the pipe and say "it's about to come out!"

nl 13y ago

"Social Networking" is really about shared social experiences. Instagram became popular because photos are a richer way of saying some things than Twitter. Your point about text messaging misses that this isn't an "either/or" thing. I can imagine a VR app that lets you share your experience of standing in the Grand Canyon or jumping from a plane or being at a concert. The hardware is a big problem though. I can see Google Glass growing quicker because of that.