Google Open-Sources Cardboard • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#111

Post by lwansbrough » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 9:40 AM UTC

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #68

moron4hire wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flat-screen AR on phones and tablets, absolutely. It's just about impossible to design a good experience that takes advantage of the technology without too much compromise. Headsets, I think the current devices are just a preview. I'm skeptical that transparent displays are strictly necessary for AR headsets, and I have seen some industry speculation that the HoloLens 2 is probably at the limit of what can be done wi…

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…

Well first off I'll say if your phone is giving you sensory overload, some sort of AR device is not gonna be something for you.

A futuristic AR device that would work seamlessly would truly "disappear" into the environment. No HUD necessarily (at least in terms of what Google Glass was trying to accomplish) but imagine if people, places and things could register actions in the real world, sort of like "Press X to open door" in a video game.

Imagine a sort of DNS-type registry for registering ownership of physical space tied to geospatial mapping data. When you walk into such a space, your AR device could unobtrusively indicate that there is something interactive where you are, and who owns it/what it is.

Perhaps your city owns public basketball courts. They could register a virtual fence around it and when you're on the court you're presented with the option to start basketball stats tracking and a tutorial with a pro from the city's NBA team.

Or something more commercial could be: you walk into Starbucks and your drink is ordered for you automatically and you can see the estimated wait time.

These aren't some sort of experience designed for entertainment value, they're truly small improvements which augment your life. Your choice whether or not you think such a thing would be necessary or good for you, but a lot of it already exists with phones. AR used this way would simply make phones obsolete.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#112

Post by OnlineGladiator » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

beenBoutIT wrote: post #87

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What kind of elitist nonsense is this? The reason AR isn't taking off isn't because the users aren't good enough for AR, it's because AR isn't good enough for the users.

> It takes time for new technologies to become widely adopted and utilized.

My point is some technologies just end up not being very useful, ever.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#113

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 9:46 AM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #61

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

flat-screen AR on phones and tablets, absolutely. It's just about impossible to design a good experience that takes advantage of the technology without too much compromise. Headsets, I think the current devices are just a preview. I'm skeptical that transparent displays are strictly necessary for AR headsets, and I have seen some industry speculation that the HoloLens 2 is probably at the limit of what can be done wi…

> so we need to either shift to pass-through-camera displays or invent a whole new display technology.

Did you miss the recent Five Tilt Kikstarter?[1] It is a new display technology, that I'm eager to try next summer if they manage to deliver. It needs a reflective screen somewhere in the room, so it won't work as mobile; but for anything room based (games, teaching and office stuff) it gets a lot of bullent points right, and I think it could replace a lot of use cases for VR as well.

[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tiltfive/holographic-ta...

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#114

Post by fragmede » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

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…

On other other hand, Star Wars Disney Land, with "location based experiences" baked into an app, isn't faring as well as analysts hoped. Outside of my mom, I don't know anyone who wants to pay to follow me around Disneyland just to watch me play with my phone (not that I've asked my mom in years).

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#115

Post by Doxin » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

ElonMuskrat wrote: post #106

amanzi wrote: post #14

For what it is, Cardboard is pretty cool technology that opens up the VR world to a lot of people that would never be able to afford the high end equipment needed for real VR. I had a couple of cheap Cardboard viewers and then upgraded to the Samsung VR goggles which are also surprisingly good for the money.The Samsung/Oculus partnership seems to still be strong, for now at least.

Google Cardboard provides me the convenience of hands-free induced vomiting. I recommend Google Cardboard to all my other bulimic friends.

Google Cardboard is pretty bad, but then that's rather the point of it. It's "minimum viable product" taken to an extreme: how cheap can you make VR and still have it be somewhat interesting. Google cardboard demonstrated that you can make VR incredibly cheaply and still have it be an eye-opening experience. Of course you don't use cardboard for hours on end, I'd be surprised if anyone used it for more than a couple minutes on-end. It's still a great introduction to VR though since it definitely demonstrates the potential of vr for nearly no cost.

If not for google cardboard I'd never have invested in a vive, and probably written the whole thing off as a gimmick.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#116

Post by meheleventyone » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:05 AM UTC

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #88

meheleventyone wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misunderstand I mean people meet up in real life (IRL) to take part in shared VR experiences where the other people are in the same physical space as you (and in the same VR space) exactly like getting together to play basketball or soccer. Think more of a holodeck kind of thing.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#117

Post by meheleventyone » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:09 AM UTC

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.

Not really other than Cardboard most of Google’s VR output has been lacklustre. Same with their scrabble to copy Apple with AR.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#118

Post by fsiefken » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:18 AM UTC

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…

I second that. With the Oculus Rift S you can see the snowy grey world around you while using Oculus Dash with large screens, It would be nice if one could have a transparency knob, dial or slider like in Snow Crash, so you could shift your attention between worlds easily. It wouldn't surprise me if the Quest will get app alpha transparency with the real world or AR features in future iterations.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#119

Post by sytelus » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:24 AM UTC

unlinked_dll wrote: post #32

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.

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.

XR is very much tech a problem. Wearing headsets have induced headaches for me within 30 mins. The resolution is choppy. Field of view makes everything non-convincing. There is actually ton of content which is good for 5 minutes of demo-surprise factor but failing to have much of stickiness. I expect games to be major play for XR but they have to compete with 4K OLED which will now be ray casted. Adding 3D to limited field of view + low res pixelated scenes just doesn't compensate enough. XR today is like what neural networks used to be in 90s or like what TVs used to be 1950s.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#120

Post by dvfjsdhgfv » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 10:30 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

I agree. It reminds me of the 3D TV hype. Yes, they exist, and yes, some people use them, but it's still marginal.

On an unrelated node, I still can't believe MS killed Kinect. It is fun, it is social, it's safe if you're careful, and you can be very free with your movements if you have enough space. You can both play games and get healthier. I bought most Kinect titles ever released and it kills me there will be no more.