461–470 of 1001 posts
There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually changed the pronouns once I saw the video that was pointed out and which multiple people pointed out was news to them (like seemingly everyone else, I don’t follow their channel and it was announced only 2 weeks ago so it’s not like it’s common knowledge yet), but I’m not the one that literally dead named them along with using their old pronouns. Could you possibly be more misguided here? Like come on.
(you missed one of the pronouns, which might be the issue here)
But that’s still apparently not enough. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…
A far better screen real estate to hardware size ratio than you can get if you dont put something on your head.
Most office workers have been using two or more 22 inch or far larger monitors for a decade now. People buy the largest televisions in their budget and are impressed when their buddy gets a new bigger one. Movie theatres 1) exist when television ownership is common and 2) advertise it when they have particularly big screens.
Laptops make up like half of all computer sales. Plenty of people have been trying to make working on tablets work to shave down a bit more size. Phones are frequently used for media consumption.
If I wasn't a person who existed in the world and used devices, it'd still be perfectly obvious to me that people want to see a lot of stuff at once but they also don't want to lug around the things necessary to do that. I am a person who exists in the world though and therefore have this very problem. I carry a phone everywhere I go and sometimes find myself giving up on tasks, or it not even occurring to me to try them, because I know they'll be a lot easier when I have my laptop. I carry it to less places and find myself doing the same thing, leaving off tasks until I'm at my desk, which I carry nowhere.
I keep seeing people mention an aha moment or killer app needed to make these devices make sense and I honestly dont get it. It doesn't need to satisfy some new want to be incredibly successful. It just needs to be a laptop with far more screen real estate than any actual laptop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like a technology that will be ‘ready’ in ten (twenty?) years, but to dismiss it now a) feels unimaginative and b) precludes that from ever happening. Do I want to wear big goggles? No. Do I, one day, want a device that can magically project anything I want on to my field of vision, and for it to be as realistic as my actual vision? Hell yeah I do! And we can’t get there unless we go through the ski goggle…
I alreday feel exhausted when I walk my town because there's so many information to process: front of shops, advertising, road signs, people, cars, bikes, nice buildings,... If I had to add yet antoher layer of information on top of that, it would be exhausting. Now, if I was someone who works in construction, I'd be happy to have glasses that add the position of eletrical wire in the wall where I'm going to drill a…
> The introduction of Apple’s headset marks a major competitive threat." An idiot like me thinks the opposite: it validates the market and thus justifies further spending to Facebook investors.
Precisely. Apple has validated this product category and Meta has already established being a viable competitor in XR.
Even if Apple prices it high, Meta is going to win on quantity and price, just like Google did for Android, and Microsoft did for Windows.
Not even the Apple fanboys would buy this, unless they are developers or having this as a collectable who think that every product Apple releases is going to be an instant hit like the iPhone. I don't think it is this version of the Vision product line. It will probably be the third generation that comes in the slimmed down glasses form factor and slightly cheaper.
>could be the vision of the future of computing, but like, it’s not the one that I want. We'll have to wait and see with Vision Pro, but it's already pretty clear that Zuckerberg's vision is not one that anyone wants.
20M people bought Quests. More than x-box in the same period. I find this writing off of their sales achievements as really superficial. Whatever else you want to say, they shifted units and the people buying them wanted something he was selling.
But I do appreciate VR evangelists, without whom the technology wouldn't progress at all. Despite being a gimmick for now, I have to concede it's pretty cool tech.
There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…
I share similar thoughts. If we go back in time to the mobile phone era, just before the iphone was released, the mobile market was actually flourishing and very solid: companies like nokia, motorola and blackberry managed to make mobile phones something as common as a TV, almost everyone had one. At the time Apple introduced the iphone with its touchscreen and virtual keyboard, forever game changers to the whole mob…
If we go further back in time, mobile phones were bricks used only by business people and tech enthusiasts. They didn't have mass market appeal because the technology wasn't there yet. Once devices got to be more powerful, compact and capable, everyone wanted one and the market exploded.
I suspect the same is happening with XR. Nobody wants to strap on a giant and clunky headset. But do you really not see the mass appeal in a pair of smart sunglasses that augments computing in a way we haven't experienced before?
The technology has the potential to disrupt computing as we know it, but it's _really_ hard to get right, which is why the experimental stage has lasted for so long. XR is _much_ more complicated than any computer interface we've had so far, and requires advancements in several cutting edge tech to align: display, battery, computer vision, voice recognition, miniaturization, etc., and, of course, the price to come down.
There's a reason all these companies are pushing so hard for this. We're still a few years away from reaching the iPhone-like boom, but Apple getting into the field is a sign that this is not a fad. This first generation is obviously not a mass market product, but the tech and price will improve until it becomes one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Mark was actually counting on it. It doesn't make it a good idea, but Apple tends to set the bar for status symbols. Smartphones existed before the iPhone. PC laptops existed before MacBooks. Portable digital music players existed before iPods. While not always successful, they actually add legitimacy to many of the markets they get into. Time will tell if it happens here; I'm not holding my breath.
Of course these devices existed but every time Apple raised the bar. MP3 players existed before Ipod but with limited storage. The first Ipod was really usable with its HDD. Smartphone were a thing but touch interface is what made the Iphone something unique. Let see if Apple is really bringing something new here, the jury is still out.
There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…
Why can't more immersive entertainment be an exciting goal and vision? That alone is amazing. To have an entire movie theater in any room in your house or in an airplane. Or gaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Quest 3 will outsell Vision Pro by 10x because of this. I doubt it. If any of them will ever sell well it's because of an application that people care about. None of them will succeed if all they can offer is just Beat Saber in higher resolution and existing apps in 3D. I am sure it would be cool to have screens floating around, but virtual desktops do the job as well and to me the difference doesn't seem worth…
They sold 15m Quest 2 since release. Apple doesn't even think they will sell a million Vision Pros. You can't compare VR/AR to Phones. Phones are used by almost everyone in the world on a daily basis. VR/AR is still completely new to the vast majority of people in the world. Phones have been around for decades even before the iPhone they had calling, messaging and internet. iPhone just made the interface better. The…
Because the Vision Pro is mainly a dev kit and has zero third-party apps right now. Apple would never say "this won't sell" about a product they deem finished and ready for the consumer market.
> VR/AR is still completely new to the vast majority of people in the world.
Because the tech has been completely uninteresting aside from a small gaming niche and shortlived tech demos, which makes it a pure luxury product for people who already have high-end gaming hardware able to drive it.
> Quest marketing it better because it aimed towards a demographic that has the most experience with VR, gamers.
Sony's PSVR has been targeting gamers for 6+ years and aside from that one horror game I don't think it ever got decent content. It does not matter who you target if your product has nothing that interests people in the long term. Name one big feature of the Quest 3 that's more interesting than anything possible with the original Oculus Rift a decade ago.