Comment by agar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by agar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We have a gen 1 technology that you strap on your face and you literally feel like you're somewhere else. You look down and see your hands; glance across the table and see, and talk to, and interact with, another person that's really across the globe; you can build a world and inhabit it.

And we're discussing when to call it a failure. On a site called Hacker News. OK. But that's kind of my point - people can be so focused on "calling failure" that they miss the incredibly transformative development that's right in front of them.

Regarding a "timeline for calling failure" - who knows? Sometimes success comes to the sole believer who labors on long after everyone else abandoned hope. But how often in tech is something truly a failure? Was AI a failure in the 60's? It brought us LISP and defined the space. The 80's? It brought important foundational work to CNNs. The 90's? Would we be here without Deep Blue? Was mobile a failure with WAP? Palm? Newton? Was Internet 1.0 a failure when the bubble burst in 2000?

All were important steps that got us to our ubiquitously interconnected, AI-enabled, device-driven present.

So why the focus on identifying something as a failure, or tagging the moment that "they're not catching on"? How are you defining success? Adoption? If so, based on what metric - and at what ramp - and based on whose expectations? Investment success? For whom?

Even if this generation of VR fails to gain traction, I truly believe it will be viewed as just one more step towards the inevitable. It's that good.

But my point is that such failure will be due more to social issues than technical ones.

But this is not gen 1. Even HMDs we had in 90s were not gen 1. This tech is old. Gen 1 was in early 80s. We are on gen 5 now, probably. It has not taken off before, there is no reason to think it will take off now. We've got better graphics each gen but otherwise it's the same. Televisions had crappy graphics initially but people bought them nevertheless. Game consoles had crappy graphics but people bought them nevertheless. Digital cameras had crappy graphics but people bought them nevertheless. Do you think people did not buy VR before because of crappy graphics but are going to buy them now all of sudden or sometime in the future when graphics will be even better?

it is not about the graphics, it is about the content

Exactly. TVs, game consoles and digital cameras I mentioned were sold as devices to consume and produce content people wanted. The current VR push is "Look how awesome the technology is now! Surely somebody will make a lot of tasty content for it. Any time now. Why would not you buy a set so you are ready when the content hits? It's coming. Get your set now so you won't have to wait in lines when the content will finally appear and everyone will rush the stores. This will happen. Just be prepared. Any minute now."

If you get a chance to play SUPERHOT VR, do. It's the best VR game I've ever played. The only drawback is the cost of the rig needed to play it.

And here is another issue. The content to sell VR cannot be hyped by "try it!". You want to sell VR to someone who has not bought it yet so there is no time/content restricted "demo version" route. You cannot demo it in Bestbuy either (I don't know many people willing to put a public use mask on their faces). If a 2D video does not sell it then the only channel left is through friends and family. Do you have friends coming over just to play SUPERHOT VR?

It's already being demoed in Microsoft stores, actually.

Many companies use disposable covers[1] when doing demos at conferences. I'm not sure if Best Buy uses them for their demos as well (which are available at many stores), but generally companies do address the hygiene problem.

[1] https://vrcover.com/product/htc-vive-disposable-hygiene-cove...

Those who say there is no VR content typically do not own a major headset. There are at least 236 VR apps on Steam[1], well over 300 on the Oculus Store for Rift (I stopped counting after 300 - click "show all" under Browse All at the link below)[2], more for GearVR, and more for PlayStation. Many of these are duplicates, but not all. There are multiple other stores, including WEARVR.com, itch.io, Viveport, the Oculus GearVR store, Google Play store, PlayStation Store, and others.

Numerous 360 video portals and creators present and produce content including BBC, Disney, National Geographic, New York Times, etc. VR tie-ins to feature films include Spiderman Homecoming, John Wick, Games of Thrones, and many others.

Companies such as Volkswagen use VR for training and development. SIs such as Accenture have built practices to support enterprise adoption of VR and AR technology for manufacturing, training, and advertising.

Though a lot of content includes thin "experiences," there are so many high quality, rich applications and games that a backlog (more content than time) is a common problem for working adults. Oculus alone will be publishing a major game each month through the end of the year. Fallout, Skyrim, and other game titles are getting the VR treatment as well.

Content is not the problem. The outdated perception of a lack of content is a huge problem.

[1] http://store.steampowered.com/vr/#p=0&tab=TopSellers [2] https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/ [3] https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/en/detailpage/-/de...

> We've got better graphics each gen but otherwise it's the same.

No it's not. The big differentiator this time is not graphics (though they're vastly improved) but reduced latency and lag and more accurate head tracking. That's the key to making it feel immersive an making it less likely that people will throw up.

Lots of technologies had very difficult and drawn-out gestations, where the promise was far greater than the reality. Cars were slower, more expensive and less reliable than horse-drawn carriages for several decades. Several huge advances were required to turn Karl Benz's rattling deathtrap into a practical means of transport. Marconi first made radio transmissions in 1895, but it took until 1920 for practical radio broadcasts to start. Radio was a niche technology for telegraph companies and a weird gimmick for hobbyists until the triode valve arrived.

VR is a much harder problem than the 80s pioneers expected. Previous display technologies "worked" for VR, but they gave you neckache and/or severe nausea after a few minutes. We needed a breakthrough in lightweight, high-resolution, low-persistence, low-cost displays. That breakthrough arrived when Samsung started putting OLED displays in the Galaxy series smartphones.

We finally have headsets that really work - headsets that provide immersive experiences, headsets that can be worn for more than a few minutes at a time. We've got GPUs that can push pixels fast enough to maintain a stable 90fps. We still have a huge way to go, but I think it's far too early to declare VR as vapourware or a technological dead-end. We're only just getting started.

> "Televisions had crappy graphics initially but people bought them nevertheless."

Television emerged as a broadcast medium in the 1920s, but didn't become mainstream until the 1950s. I wouldn't say that's a particular good example of fast adoption (or at least, not significantly faster than VR).

VR has been around at least as long as TV had by the time it became mainstream in the 1950s, without—and with little sign of this changing imminently—equivalent uptake.

Let's call it the first iteration of this generation then. (And incidentally, Gen 1 wasn't in the early 80's, it was in 1968[1]). There have been incremental improvements in VR throughout the history of computer science, much as there has been for many technologies. At some point, the technology catches up to the vision and it becomes viable. That's where we are today.

It's not merely graphics that make today's VR better than VR in the 90's - and actually viable. There has been a confluence of enabling technologies including:

- High bandwidth internet - High DPI OLED screens - Development of VR-specific techniques such as low-persistence pixel strobing, rolling shutters, pre-warped images, asynchronous reprojection, etc. - Computer vision developments for 6 degree of freedom tracking - Submillimeter tracking of room position for the VR user and his/her hands - Fast GPUs to allow for consistent 90 frame per second display - Cheap precision manufacturing for complex systems - Lens technologies - Lightweight materials - Capacitive touch technologies to enable finger tracking - High bandwidth I/O ports (USB3, HDMI) - Fast, cheap CPUs - Widely available Graphics engines and toolkits to accelerate and democratize content development

None of the above were available in 1998.

Yes, one important result is better graphics, but the sum total of the above is an experience where your brain forgets it's inside a simulation. This comes from low "motion to photon" latency such that your movements track 1:1 with the virtual world, "good enough" graphics (but could be better), a wide enough field of view (but could be wider), and so on.

People didn't buy VR in the 80's, or 90's, or 00's, because it sucked. The technology wasn't there. That is no longer the case.

Future iterations in this generation will widen the field of view, further improve pixel density and brightness, lower weight, reduce cost, and increase portability - all important evolutionary steps that incrementally improve the experience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Damocles_(virtual...

No need to list random buzzwords, e.g. finger tracking had been a big deal in 80s, Nintendo even released the Power Glove with it. Same argument applies to every failed technology from the same period. FMV games? Oh, we have Extremely High Bandwidth Video Compression From The Future, 4 Layer Blu-ray, Very Sensitive Cameras, 4k Displays with HDR, Internet (of course) and powerful computers capable of editing video in real time. Surely their revival is around the corner. People did not play them because the looked bad, but now we can make them look better!

The problem is not in the technology. It's in the content. When the current adopters will start using the systems they already have semi-regularly then and only then I can agree it has a chance.

Do you have any VR gear? How often would you honestly say you use it?

Do you have a fliphone? How often would you honestly say you check the weather with it?

Not really a counter-argument.

Flip-flops had tons of adoption (literally billions of people used them) when they were the state of the art.

Heh, flip-phones I meant... (although flip-flops also have a wide adoption)

I have a Rift, and use it two to three times a week. I would use it more, but I have very little discretionary time.

I would say VR consumes about 50% to 75% of my free entertainment time.

If the resolution was a bit higher, I would probably do a few hours of work per day in VR as well. I find I'm fairly focused when working in VR as I have no environmental distractions yet can be in very peaceful surroundings (Mars, space, a balcony overlooking city lights, etc.).

I use an app called Big Screen to bring up my desktop in VR. Interestingly, it's multi-user so others could co-work in the same environment, look over my shoulder at my screen, talk, etc. even from across the world - if I had colleagues with an HMD and wanted to collaborate with them, of course (so much for the focus and serenity part of it!)

This comment thread should be its own HN post.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is that a criticism or a compliment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com