Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#81

Post by gman83 »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #75
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

>It is anti-social that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride." Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty aweso…

I could see a revival of video game arcades based around VR, but again the social barriers to communication pose problems here too.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#82

Post by Animats »

moron4hire wrote: post #73
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is focused entirely on the technology though. What are the applications that make it useful? I already feel like my phone is giving me sensory overload - I really don't want anything remotely resembling a HUD while I walk around. I'm not convinced it would make for better videogames or regular day-to-day computing, either. I am guessing there are uses for it in industry, although I'm not sure where it would find…

I did an experiment where I tried to use the HoloLens as a "general purpose computer", replacing my desktop for a few days. Obviously, the processing power wasn't up to the task. It was a bit like trying to go back to an 800x600 CRT for work. But the HoloLens is a 3.5 year old AR headset by now. What I did get out of it was a glimpse into what "could" be, for some value of "AR headset". First of all, I wasn't tied to…

"There's no need to keep a dedicated space for it."

That's what John Carmack now says is the argument for VR. It's not about virtual reality. It's about virtual screens. Now, you can have a wide-screen theater experience even if you're in some tiny apartment in Guangdong or San Francisco. And hang out with your friends, even. Think Sunday Night Football, not Doom VR.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#83

Post by russellbeattie »

moron4hire wrote: post #55
russellbeattie wrote: post #35

I spent $69 on a Daydream headset a month or so ago just to play with it, only to find out it didn't work with my phone. I kept it just in case. Then Google cancelled it. It'd be nice if they opened up that code as well...

Where did you buy the headset that they didn't list the phones that are compatible with it?

Why would I have ever thought that Google would artificially limit compatibility? It never crossed my mind. I just assumed the listed phones were popular examples - and since mine had the same version of Android as the Pixels/Galaxies, I didn't worry about it.

When did you decide to become an internet troll?

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#84

Post by meheleventyone »

gman83 wrote: post #81
unlinked_dll wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is anti-social that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride." Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty aweso…

I could see a revival of video game arcades based around VR, but again the social barriers to communication pose problems here too.

Also IRL clubs like sports and other hobbies where groups meet up in halls to play shared experiences. With headsets like the Quest this is much more attainable now.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#85

Post by TeMPOraL »

kayoone wrote: post #36
unlinked_dll wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not. The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

> lack of any outside visibility, (...) space restrictions

Oculus Quest has managed to solve both of them, even though they do their best not to exploit it. Because it's an untenthered headset, you have to designate a "play area" for safety - and to do that, you get to see the world through headset's cameras[0], and paint it with your controllers! Even though the view is monochrome and grainy, you can see enough to walk around and do tasks. I've frequently interrupted my play to do something, without taking the headset off - as soon as you walk out of the designated play area, you get the camera feed back.

Currently, Oculus is using this view only as a safety feature, and AFAIK you can't access it as an app developer. Moreover, using the headset outside is discouraged (perhaps because direct sun focused on the optics could burn holes in the screen). But Quest is essentially a working proof of concept, showing that the possibilities are there.

--

[0] - Apparently they're used for controller tracking.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#86

Post by evan_ »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #85
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

> lack of any outside visibility, (...) space restrictions Oculus Quest has managed to solve both of them, even though they do their best not to exploit it. Because it's an untenthered headset, you have to designate a "play area" for safety - and to do that, you get to see the world through headset's cameras[0], and paint it with your controllers! Even though the view is monochrome and grainy, you can see enough to w…

The cameras are used for controller tracking as well as headset tracking. It’s a 6dof optical mouse.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#87

Post by beenBoutIT »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #28
ipsum2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

> One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo. It's entirely plausible that AR ends up being a dead end. It's 5 years later and still not really a big market.

True, although you could say the same thing about jpegs back when chatting online involved reading descriptions and guessing what the OP looked like. It takes time for new technologies to become widely adopted and utilized. The difference is that any sighted person can view and appreciate pictures, while there's an IQ requirement of some kind for a person to understand and appreciate what's going on spatially with AR. There's some chunk of society that isn't mentally tall enough to ride and messing with it will just frustrate them.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#88

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

meheleventyone wrote: post #84
gman83 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see a revival of video game arcades based around VR, but again the social barriers to communication pose problems here too.

Also IRL clubs like sports and other hobbies where groups meet up in halls to play shared experiences. With headsets like the Quest this is much more attainable now.

I imagine that the social aspect of team sports or hobbies in groups are a big driver for participants and could not be replicated entirely with XR. There's a reason humans meet in person at e.g. a restaurant for talking instead of using a video call.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#89

Post by easytiger »

ipsum2 wrote: post #6

For those out of the loop: Google has gradually shut down and in some cases, open sourced their VR projects (Daydream, Mirage, VR180, Seurat, etc) over the last 6-12 months to be more focused on their mobile AR projects (ARCore, Google Streetview AR, Lens, etc). A sad day for VR.

Google is a hyperscale version of my often ephemeral attention span

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#90

Post by TeMPOraL »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

Problems from "one IO device to rule them all" standpoint? Sure. Problems for capturing a huge chunk of the market and being generally useful? Not really.

> The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social.

Come on. This way you could say most of gaming is antisocial, because a lot of interesting games (most of them, to me) are single-player experience. There are many people, people with families, for whom playing games (or watching movies for that matter) is about games (and movies), and not about an excuse to be with other people.

Also, you can always stream the game to another device for other family member(s) to watch.

> Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR.

I guess it depends on how old they are, but my wife and I divide forces: one of us watches the kid, the other plays, then we switch.

> Pets can't really be near you.

My pet doesn't mind. It understands that the person standing there in the middle of the room (which is weird behavior) with a box on their head is ignoring it, and making sudden moves.

> It's very difficult to share your experience with other people.

Experience? Not really. You just stream the game. Interacting with other people while playing, Twitch-like? That's more difficult, so the showbusiness part of the gaming market has a problem, but this doesn't affect people who want to actually play a game.

> I also question the accessibility of VR. At what severity of physical impairment does VR become unusable?

VR requires sight, and some control over hands; depending on the game, this may expand into total motor control. The requirements for most games is fundamentally the same as for "regular" games you play with mouse+keyboard / gamepad.

----

Working AR will obviously have more total utility than VR, so it's good to pursue it. But VR exists here and now, while AR is still science-fiction (HoloLens beginning to scratch the surface, and no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR). However, VR can be used to simulate, experiment with and prototype future AR applications, so it's weird to just abandon it.

Post reply on HN