4 ms·

In my opinion you're utterly wrong about VR, it's going to be a transformative technology and will precipitate a massive push for high end real-time graphics. P

In my opinion you're utterly wrong about VR, it's going to be a transformative technology and will precipitate a massive push for high end real-time graphics. People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades. As far as the watch goes, I think it will make money but less than the iPad. It's clearly pitched as a fashion accessory and will find a market. Just not a big enough one to satisfy analysts.

deong 12y ago
> People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades. It's far from clear that they're actually willing to do anything about it. Look at 3D TVs. No one wants to sit on their couch lazily watching whatever's on with special glasses. If VR was a passive technology like HD -- by which I mean you buy a new TV and everything is better without any further action on your part -- I'd be more confident that you're correct. But it's not. I can't see headsets as a thing people are going to wear sitting on their sofa with the family. Game consoles seem like an obvious target with an audience that might be receptive, but otherwise, I just can't envision mass adoption.
- MrScruff 12y ago
  I don't argue that it would be an easier sell if it wasn't so anti-social to use. But it certainly can't be compared to 3D TVs or movies for that matter, which are an awful hack. This generation's VR is the real deal, and while the technology isn't quite there yet, it's within touching distance. People will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience because the experience will be significantly more compelling than anything else they've seen. It will be massive based on word of mouth alone.
  - deong 12y ago
    I think that very much depends on perspective. The technology powering a current-gen headset might be brilliant, but the headset itself -- not the technology but the very idea that I need a headset is still very much an "awful hack". At least to me, and I suspect quite a few others. I could be wrong of course...just my predictions there, but that's my problem with the tech.
    - MrScruff 12y ago
      I guess what I'm saying is that if the experience is 10x more compelling (which is what I think it will be), then people will put up with it. Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.
      - deong 12y ago
        Some people ski, occasionally. I can totally see that future for VR as well, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. For gaming, it's at least potentially very compelling. I just don't see it as a technology people want for more general use. I don't think we'll be using it browsing Facebook or sitting in the park. People don't wear skis around in their daily life. Skis are very much a special purpose item that most people use between never and about once a year, with never the runaway winner, if you consider the fraction of even relatively affluent people who don't ski at all.
        MrScruff 12y ago
        I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing. If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact. Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.
        deong 12y ago
        I didn't really intend that to be literal. I'm going with the "skiing as a metaphor" here. Yes, people will do something arduous and inconvenient for the experience, but they do it rarely. The inconvenience is tolerable when you do it every once in a while to get a unique experience. The same level of inconvenience is not at all tolerable as part of your day to day life. If the argument is that VR will become "an experience", then I'm fine with that. But a capital-E-Experience is the opposite of everyday mass adoption.
- abvdasker 12y ago
  I think it depends on exactly how good this generation of VR technology turns out to be. 3D was really pretty underwhelming and hard to watch for a lot of people. And at the end of the day it didn't look terribly real. The cumbersome nature of VR goggles could potentially be outweighed by the sheer novelty and intensity of the experience.
- leoc 12y ago
  [I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place; it was meant to go https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 here.]
  - deong 12y ago
    I don't see that as being a problem that people are looking for a solution to. You're describing interacting with a very heavy desktop-type computing system, but the headset only solves the output problem. If I need large numbers of application windows arranged in space, I also need much more sophisticated input devices. Head tracking, eye-tracking, Leap Motion style stuff, all of that can be useful, but it's not enough for typing this comment into this input box, for instance. Better voice helps, but it's still not good enough, and it also adds yet another social factor that needs to be overcome, as people don't really like talking to their computers on average. Maybe eventually this is the world we'll be living in. Right now, and for enough of the foreseeable future to worry about trying to predict, people with those needs will want to have a real keyboard and mouse or trackpad, and at that point, they will just use a laptop. Any benefit you get from the VR is, I think, outweighed by the downsides of not being able to just look around the actual physical environment. You don't have to beat the competition on every axis to succeed, but you do have to eliminate any axis for which you are an immediate non-starter. I think the headset makes it an immediate non-starter for widespread general purpose use.
leoc 12y ago
Hee hee. Wait until people twig properly to VR's usefulness as a way of displaying simple virtual 2D screens or application windows. (Nearly) any number of windows of any size, at any position, and at infinite focal length, anywhere you are able to sit down and put on VR goggles, without a particularly high GPU/CPU burden. That makes the VR HMD a disruptive entrant into the small phone/big phone/small tablet/big tablet scrap. It's probably going to take further improvements in resolution, off-centre visual distortion and HMD bulk before it can really take off in that role, but like any disruptive technology it doesn't have to beat the competition on every axis before it can succeed.

deong 12y ago

> People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades. It's far from clear that they're actually willing to do anything about it. Look at 3D TVs. No one wants to sit on their couch lazily watching whatever's on with special glasses. If VR was a passive technology like HD -- by which I mean you buy a new TV and everything is better without any further action on your part -- I'd be more confident that you're correct. But it's not. I can't see headsets as a thing people are going to wear sitting on their sofa with the family. Game consoles seem like an obvious target with an audience that might be receptive, but otherwise, I just can't envision mass adoption.

MrScruff 12y ago
I don't argue that it would be an easier sell if it wasn't so anti-social to use. But it certainly can't be compared to 3D TVs or movies for that matter, which are an awful hack. This generation's VR is the real deal, and while the technology isn't quite there yet, it's within touching distance. People will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience because the experience will be significantly more compelling than anything else they've seen. It will be massive based on word of mouth alone.
- deong 12y ago
  I think that very much depends on perspective. The technology powering a current-gen headset might be brilliant, but the headset itself -- not the technology but the very idea that I need a headset is still very much an "awful hack". At least to me, and I suspect quite a few others. I could be wrong of course...just my predictions there, but that's my problem with the tech.
  - MrScruff 12y ago
    I guess what I'm saying is that if the experience is 10x more compelling (which is what I think it will be), then people will put up with it. Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.
    - deong 12y ago
      Some people ski, occasionally. I can totally see that future for VR as well, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. For gaming, it's at least potentially very compelling. I just don't see it as a technology people want for more general use. I don't think we'll be using it browsing Facebook or sitting in the park. People don't wear skis around in their daily life. Skis are very much a special purpose item that most people use between never and about once a year, with never the runaway winner, if you consider the fraction of even relatively affluent people who don't ski at all.
      - MrScruff 12y ago
        I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing. If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact. Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.
        deong 12y ago
        I didn't really intend that to be literal. I'm going with the "skiing as a metaphor" here. Yes, people will do something arduous and inconvenient for the experience, but they do it rarely. The inconvenience is tolerable when you do it every once in a while to get a unique experience. The same level of inconvenience is not at all tolerable as part of your day to day life. If the argument is that VR will become "an experience", then I'm fine with that. But a capital-E-Experience is the opposite of everyday mass adoption.
abvdasker 12y ago
I think it depends on exactly how good this generation of VR technology turns out to be. 3D was really pretty underwhelming and hard to watch for a lot of people. And at the end of the day it didn't look terribly real. The cumbersome nature of VR goggles could potentially be outweighed by the sheer novelty and intensity of the experience.
leoc 12y ago
[I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place; it was meant to go https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 here.]
- deong 12y ago
  I don't see that as being a problem that people are looking for a solution to. You're describing interacting with a very heavy desktop-type computing system, but the headset only solves the output problem. If I need large numbers of application windows arranged in space, I also need much more sophisticated input devices. Head tracking, eye-tracking, Leap Motion style stuff, all of that can be useful, but it's not enough for typing this comment into this input box, for instance. Better voice helps, but it's still not good enough, and it also adds yet another social factor that needs to be overcome, as people don't really like talking to their computers on average. Maybe eventually this is the world we'll be living in. Right now, and for enough of the foreseeable future to worry about trying to predict, people with those needs will want to have a real keyboard and mouse or trackpad, and at that point, they will just use a laptop. Any benefit you get from the VR is, I think, outweighed by the downsides of not being able to just look around the actual physical environment. You don't have to beat the competition on every axis to succeed, but you do have to eliminate any axis for which you are an immediate non-starter. I think the headset makes it an immediate non-starter for widespread general purpose use.

leoc 12y ago

Hee hee. Wait until people twig properly to VR's usefulness as a way of displaying simple virtual 2D screens or application windows. (Nearly) any number of windows of any size, at any position, and at infinite focal length, anywhere you are able to sit down and put on VR goggles, without a particularly high GPU/CPU burden. That makes the VR HMD a disruptive entrant into the small phone/big phone/small tablet/big tablet scrap. It's probably going to take further improvements in resolution, off-centre visual distortion and HMD bulk before it can really take off in that role, but like any disruptive technology it doesn't have to beat the competition on every axis before it can succeed.