John Carmack on Developing the Netflix App for Oculus
techblog.netflix.com
techblog.netflix.com
None of this "well I guess I knew a bit of C++, let me find another engineer to work on this Netflix app and offer micromanaging style tips and tricks" which is what I've seen from a lot of managers who used to be technical.
He's also an amazing role model for regular programmers; figure out the requirements, take a crack at it with a prototype and then iterate. The iteration doesn't have to be an overtime week affair.
As an individual contributor I can't imagine giving up my day-to-day coding for a management position. Management responsibilities, sure. I'd wager that most software developers who are given enough autonomy are doing a lot of micro-project management anyway.
Giving up on researching new technology and playing around with stuff? Not a chance.
Of course, if you're lucky enough to be in a job (I'm thinking frontend web) where playing with exciting new tech is part of the job, I can absolutely see how the move to management and the loss of overall hands-on time with the code can be a bad thing. Thankfully for me it's been somewhat liberating.
More of a "Hey guys, we're going in this direction, follow me!" over a "Hey, we're going this way, off you go!"
I'd rather hire someone with management skill who knows how to delegate to those who have the required technical skills, rather than spin constantly trying to be the master of everything and failing at it.
High judgment individual contributors often take on responsibilities that can be considered management, like deciding business and technical strategy, designing products, prioritizing roadmaps, etc., but while these are management functions, taking on these responsibilities does not mean that one is in management.
From the blog post, it sounds like Carmack is a highly productive, high judgment individual contributor with the responsibilities you'd expect of a CTO (technical strategy). I would say that someone is "in management" when their chief function is managing other people. From this post, Carmack seems to be delivering work as an individual contributor and (very senior) technical lead.
Along the same lines, I recommend we discourage phrasing like "move up to management". Management is a different job, not a better or superior one. In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels, such that one does not need to become a manager to "move up", even to CTO level.
Word. At Etsy, we'd occasionally call out people (in a friendly way) for saying "I got a promotion to manager!" Someone (usually a more senior manager who used to be an IC) would say "not a promotion, lateral move." Drove the point home, at least at an IC level, that management is not a move up.
Oh please. Until management is no longer a more profitable career track than staying in engineering, could we stop lying to the younger folks that might believe the nonsense they read on HN?
In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels
Non-management contributors with C-suite pay (and occasionally titles), are still rare enough to be noteworthy. Unless they're on par in compensation and control of the company, pretending traditional corporate management doesn't consider themselves their superiors is just ego-stroking the engineers too dumb to be insulted.
Netflix: "Gee, we're pretty busy, maybe next year..."
Oculus: "We would have John Carmack work on it..."
Netflix: "YES! Yes, yes, yes. Okay, now is good. Can we have him write a guest post on our tech blog when it launches?"
Gee rick!, were pretty busy here ya know? I mean like uhm maybe next year?
This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.
http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916
(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)
It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.
To me, it doesn't need to be so "VR" but that could lead to some cool UI/UX for interaction. I think that this could be something that takes off first for heavy commuters, and second for gamers... It will just come down to marketing this appropriately. If they can get a version for iOS and advertise in the airline magazines, for example, I think it could sell very well.
No sarcasm, really. I would envy you.
I do have to mention that VR + headphones will definitely take my mind out of the flight in a way that a screen held in front of my face doesn't.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhdSozujoRc (video not mine)
As for 3D stereoscopy in movies; that's an inherently limited format (it's limited because of the fixed viewer viewpoint and the edges of the screen). 3D stereo and VR are not comparable by any means. About the only thing that they have in common is that you use two eyes to view them. Here though, the VR cinema adds an advantage - 3D stereoscopic content can be shown perfectly without any cross-talk between images, which helps with the integrity of the effect. Note effect. IMHO 3D on a fixed movie screen is strictly a special effect. When used in such a way, it's great. When overused or used improperly, it sucks.
TL;DR: '3D movies' and VR shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence.
Is there any practical use for this? My understanding is that movie theaters are preferred to home theaters because the distance from your eyes to the screen is far enough that you can focus to infinity, which is easier on the eyes. Could a vr environment make viewing Netflix 'easier' on the eyes? Anyone have an opinion or link?
Having tried it, nicer to have the screen attached to your head. At least until the doorbell rings.
I'm extremely nearsighted – age and my already excessive use of computers are exacerbating this. Because of the design of the VR Gear, I can almost see clearly at the highest correction level (similar to what I would see if I wore my 2-4 year old glasses).
Since the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that looking at 'near' things (e.g. computer screen, books, tv across a small room) exacerbates myopia, I'm hoping that doing my normal activities on (a) a screen with infinite distance and (b) a device which allows me to change the correction of the lenses, means I might be able to reverse some of my myopia. I don't think it will cure my myopia, but if I could stagnate or reverse the loss I've had over the last few years (or dare I hope, decades), it would be a blinkin', technological miracle! ;-)
---
Short question:
> Now I read about this HMD Oculus Rift, which claims that you are always focused on the "distance" which I assume is the same as infinity focus in photography.
The short answer:
> In the same way as a telescope eyepiece, they create a virtual image at infinity.
> In the HUD the objective lens focus the image from a display (on the left in the diagram) and the lens at the front of the HUD reimages it at infinity.
The full answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47390/how-do-head...
---
Which may cause other eye muscle problems... https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2hxfku/eye_muscle_f... (which does mention that the LFD is a better option)
---
But the key for me is someone who isn't myopic noticing that ...
> I've been able to see far away objects much sharper than I was able before, as if my sight was getting trained at infinity focus (which makes sense, I guess).
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2wpccf/measuring_th...
That said, it is of the DK2, which is clearly different than the DK1. Which leads me to wonder what the focal distance is for the Gear VR (Note4) and the new Gear VR.
Sadly, I'm so nearsighted at this point, that I have a hard time reading anything more than ≈4 inches away (things are out of focus at ≈2 inches away, but it's good enough and there are typically enough clues in the 2~4 inch range that I can still read normal text). In other words, if I'm only training my eyes at a distance of 30.5 inches for the next half decade, I suspect it will still be enough to lead to an improvement, and there will be even more improvements in tech (both in the VR & optometry) during that time frame.
I've always dreamed of having a ceiling mounted TV for this purpose, but VR headsets can accomplish the same goal with much less hassle and have other uses.
Can't find a video, but: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/94/94dbooks.phtml
And I think "novelty" is the magic word here. Stereoscopic 3D has had several waves of popular enthusiasm, including 1850s stereoscopes, the ViewMaster in the 1940s, 3D movies in the 1950s, VR in the 1990s, and 3D movies again recently. Every time it has been an amazing thing that will change the world right up until the time the bubble pops and it is recognized as a cute novelty.
It'll be very interesting to see if this wave makes it past the novelty stage. But so far I've seen nothing to make me think it will.
In terms of 3D, I watch people's minds get blown by simple apps, when much better stuff is in development. When my Mom asks, did I bring that funny headset so that she can see Paris again? this is something different.
This will be really great with 4K displays and improved content.
These are the Carmack gems I was looking for.
Maybe it is a getting used to it thing, but it can be overwhelming.
I'm sure all these kinds of things can come later, it just seems odd to me that simulating being on a couch is the first take...
Maybe they had a virtual living room ready to go too.
That said, shouldn't virtual reality free us to do more than replicate real life environments? It looks like VR will have its own period of skeuomorphism until better UI is invented. I'd love to be a designer at Facebook right now.
Skeuomorphism is a mapping of real world 3D physical objects to a more constrained space, like a 2D phone screen, ostensibly to aid usability in an otherwise unfamiliar space by invoking recognition and instinct.
In theory at least no mapping like this is necessary at all for VR, things just look and act however they do, in a recreated 3D space. Of course there will be 'skeuomorphism' insofar as objects from the real world will be copied 1:1 into the VR environment, but it's kind of a redundant term at that point.
It's indeed an interesting question if we'll discover better 'UX' for virtual 3D environments than the physical ones we've built for ourselves in the real world. I'd venture yes, including but not limited to discovering tweaks that break the laws of Physics to allow greater convenience. Like wormholes that act as hyperlinks for 3D space, or something.
It'll be fascinating to see if things like this are experimented with and accepted from the get-go, or if there will be a 'skeuomorphism-like' era of VR where we play it safe and just copy our existing world for a while, until we collectively 'find our feet' in VR and learn to make tweaks that expand the possibilities. I'd hope and actually somewhat expect the former.
People in general aren't ready for scaleable space (sizes changing orders of magnitude instantly), varying measurements (say: X is normal, Y is logarithmic, Z is sinusoidal), warping space (various Einstein's Dreams scenarios here like consequences of "speed of light is 15 MPH", or Interstellar scenarios), varying or nonexistent notions of "up" (see Ender's Game arena), absence of normal gravitational phenomena, etc.
Early on in the 3D game realm, game writers explored lots of variations on non-skeuomorphic scenarios (Descent II comes to mind, a 3D flying maze game devoid of any sense of "down"). Many years later, with endless technology & imagination available, 3D games are dominated by soldiers running around battlefields little different from reality.
People will have enough trouble with entering/exiting VR. Having seen other technologies bloom, I assure you it will be years before advancing beyond paradigms based in the real world.
I do wonder what the point is of spending lots of energy making alternate universes if we end up replicating thing we’re doing now. In a world where we can only walk, we'd like to be able to fly. In a world where we can only fly, we'd like to teleport. But then we’d probably make the environment bigger to ‘keep it fun’ so what’s the point? Do we all just want to be floating points of light?
Maybe the only real benefit of VR is having the undo button.
All in all, maybe it's not so bad that we haven't had much choice in the design of our species and world so far. Super tangentially related: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34151049
AR may become a commonplace, useful layer on social interaction. For people with compatible hardware... AR that could aid daily life will always signal social detachment for some, but for a younger generation it may be as natural of a tool of rich expression as a whiteboard.
We have somehow managed to understand that wearing headphones and sunglasses means you don't want to talk to people, or that you don't want to be interrupted. Wearing headgear around will die off like Bluetooth headsets if it doesn't allow for clear distinction between local and digital interaction. The phone to ear gesture is well known. Talking to thin air remains dubious to those around you.
Source for that claim?? strapping on a headset doesn't seem like a great way to share a movie with friends, but that's just me.
* 360 film doesn't work well, with not being able to move around.
I would be the first to say that of course seeing people in real life would be superior, but with the internet I'm finding that some of my closest friends are sometimes thousands of miles away. This is a way to keep in contact that's as good or better than something like facetime and far, far superior to buying a plane ticket just to hang out.
If I were working on any kind of VR software in the next five years, it would be a game, absolutely no question about it. (A game that does not involve the character walking around, by the way.) As long as the hardware requirements for a good VR experience are high, anything else is a novelty.
Serious PC gamers are your audience. Period. Alternative hardware that doesn't rely on a beefy GPU will (for now) be extremely limited and uninteresting.
And even after a few years, you're still going to need a very good reason to spend at least a few hundred dollars on a VR set. I will be very surprised if home users are buying them for something other than games.
PS: Yes I get you could integrate the notifications stuff into VR. In fact if you want to get silly show a virtual tablet on your virtual coffee table in front of your virtual TV. Replying though will be an issue, at least for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUyg6cUfcw
for those who prefer text summaries:
http://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-talks-difficulty-mobile-pos...
EDIT:
But the real answer is that the question isn't that different from "why would you want to play a video game on a VR headset?" The answer, of course, is immersiveness. Existing video games (and film/TV) may not be optimized for VR, but future content might be.
Imagine being able to look around 360 degrees in a film. It will be a totally different experience from a traditional film where the director precisely frames every shot, and may or may not be more enjoyable for certain types of content.
When you do this with HD content, it actually looks quite good in spite of the resolution of the actual HMD due to the subtle movements of your POV. The in-game camera tracked by your head is always barely moving, so the pixels you actually see in the source media are always being transposed and blended differently.
I do wonder if they will also add the full-screen experience. That could be interesting ...
I'm sorry, why did you include that hyperbole?...
In the last five years, there have been three incidents of criminal violence in US theatres, killing 14 people and wounding up to 78.[1]
In the US/Canadian theatre market, 1.27 billion tickets were sold in 2014 alone.[2]
Movie theatres sound pretty safe to me.
1 https://www.thewrap.com/a-history-of-violence-at-the-movie-t...
2 http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatric...
Convince the general public they are unsafe and boom you have a market ready to buy your replacement experience.
Don't try to use facts and numbers against the average citizen. They won't have it.
You're sitting on your couch with the MST3K avatars and you can see them laugh as they deliver their Rifftrax.
And tons of other creative possibilities that we couldn't possibly think of today once people start getting used to consuming a movie in a simulated environment.
I saw a demo of the GearVR which was pretty believable, and if this thing is higher resolution, more immersive, etc., I might honestly find myself questioning why I need to decorate my living room if I have VR goggles on all the time at some point in the not to far future.
When VR becomes ubiquitous, and you can have shared experiences, expect that to be a very real thing.
http://i.imgur.com/ofChTKt.png
I wanted more from Carmack.
When I think about it, even low income individuals in the US have access to cheap enough flat screen TVs to have a nicer real life living room than a virtual one afforded by Oculus
What they will do is ignore the state they live in, and that is already happening today, mostly along with prescription pills, hard drugs and video games. This is what VR is capable of doing, nothing worst that we already have. Therefore VR is not a concern by itself.
Initially, the tech simply won't be good enough to blur that line sufficiently or to have it be "always on." So it will be a temporary thing you put on and experience.
When it is more immersive, and devices are more like glasses or contacts, you'll likely start seeing people spend more time with some form of VR component being "always on." Things like artwork on the walls, lighting, upholstery, paint colors, etc.
Taken to the extreme, if you are a poor person living in a shipping container at some point in the future, and you can afford a device like this, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that person to spend a disproportionate amount of their time in the virtual experience. That said, they will know it is virtual--it will still just be preferable to reality.
It all comes down to escapism and how that works. This is just a better form of it that will be more widely accessible down the line. I've never argued that VR is a new concern for that--it is just a new tool to facilitate existing approaches.
If you don't have a TV and all you have is the oculus, then why try to re-create such an environment at all? You loose the immersive qualities of the oculus to begin with.
To me the point of oculus is having content made directly for it... where it is 180-360 degrees, and you can't see it all without looking around. Repurposing standard Netflix movies doesn't give much an advantage.
VR has some limited cool potential uses, but it's utility is being overblown by the community similar to the 90s.
Coming next, in-app popcorn and pizza ordering?
Imagine watching Batman while perched up on a ledge in Gotham... when the Joker comes flying down the street to the right and you look right to watch, while someone else viewing the movie looks left to see Batman flying down.
Awesome.
i was intrigued by the virtual theatre concept, but i found watching a film was too much for comfort's sake
ignoring resolution issues, or strain, the goggles pressing against my face was the source of the most discomfort
when i took off the goggles my face was hot and sweaty and my eyes had white circles around them where the blood had been kept out
these current vr headsets are goggles with elastic and as long as that is the case i think they will fail to attract a consistent, returning, user base
your eyes are unable to breathe or receive blood
imagine watching a movie while wearing ski goggles, then have those goggles shine bright lights into your eyes
it is an uncomfortable experience
MSFT's holo lens are glasses that sit off your face, allowing circulation below the lens,this sort of design is certainly the way forward
http://www.theonion.com/video/warcraft-sequel-lets-gamers-pl...
"You could even go all the way to a face-locked screen with no distortion correction, which would be essentially the same power draw as the normal Netflix application, but it would be ugly and uncomfortable."
This is what his post is about - the work to accomplish a screen surface that exists in 3d space independent from your head. What goes around the screen is a secondary issue.