[flagged]
@dang
[deleted]
Meta Horizon OS
401–410 of 813 posts
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#402Wow that spam bot is quite creative! Looks like they've figured out how to create a green account, and perhaps bypassing the spam detection by having each new account only post one spam message. I'm sure dang is really busy right now.
[deleted]
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#403Does this page even load for y'all in Firefox? For me CORS protection blocks the whole site from loading.
[deleted]
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
The XREAL glasses are trying to fill the niche of a headset that just mirrors a HDMI input on a big virtual screen. I don't think anyone is currently making an all-purpose VR headset which can also do HDMI mirroring though.
I understand, but it seems trivial to add HDMI input here. Technically you can just remote desktop into a computer from your VR headset, but that won't work in every scenario.
For Quest 3 specifically, "remote desktop into a computer" actually works surprisingly well if you 1) avoid the stock Meta software and use Steam Link instead, and 2) use wired connection to maximize bandwidth and minimize latency.
The second part needs some explaining. One undocumented feature of Quest 3 is that it supports (some) USB-C Ethernet adapters. There isn't really any UI for it that I know of; things just work so long as DHCP is there. This then gives you a direct wired 1GBps link to the PC, which Steam Link will happily utilize.
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. Why would I, as a potential hardware maker, wish to compete in a market where the existing main producer is a mega wealthy entity that is already dumping product below cost and is capable of doing so indefinitely?
The low end of the market is taken - but (from an outsider perspective) the high end appears free. The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people who want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially) the same parts. Let's say that, tomorrow, Gucci or Dolce and Gabanna (or however you spell that) want to make a VR headset (why? who knows?). They don't have the tech acumen to compete with Facebook on expe…
I feel like this is a bit off. There have been things like Porsche phones, but those are so niche that I don't think they're really worth considering. They happened, but they haven't been a long-standing product. They were a cash grab where they licensed a brand.
Now, Hondas and Acuras are different products. You can say "oh, they're essentially the same" and if you truly believe that, I'll sell you a Core i3 processor for the price of a Core i7. Yea, they're essentially the same, but it's the differences that make one better than the other. The point is that the high end isn't about branding. The high end is about capability. Apple has shown that their iPhone will outsell any luxury-branded Android phone to rich people because some things are about capability, not a logo. Samsung's flagships will way outsell some luxury logo smartphone too. The high end here is really about devices with better capabilities and it allows companies with good hardware businesses (like ASUS and Lenovo) to build something in the Meta VR ecosystem.
It's also possibly a way for Meta to stop dumping Quest devices. They'd rather just own the ecosystem rather than doing the hardware. If they can get ASUS, Lenovo, and others to do the low-margin hardware work and pick up the tab for a lot of the marketing, that's a win for Meta. Maybe Meta simply backs out of hardware over the next 5 years if a nice third party hardware ecosystem arises.
But I think this is going to be tough with VR. When you're trying to make an immersive experience, you need a baseline of hardware. It's also easier when you know the hardware you're trying to target. Android development can be frustrating because there's so much variance in speed and capabilities. One of the reason gaming consoles exist is that targeting a small set of hardware/capabilities makes things easier. That's not to say that PC gaming doesn't exist, but it can be hard because gamers need to spend a lot of money on hardware and there's a variance in capabilities that you need to account for - and who you might simply exclude. With a phone, it's less of an immersive experience for most apps which are just displaying something. They might display it slower, the UX might be laggier, etc. but it works. VR can't be laggy.
In some ways, it feels like Meta is trying to become a game console company without having to subsidize the console. That would be big if they can pull it off. I guess in many ways this is what Steam pulled off on the PC - taking a 30% cut without having to subsidize any hardware. We'll see if Meta can do the same for VR.
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't need an account to use my monitor or my TV. Why do I need one for a VR Headset?
Because you need to buy apps to make use of your VR headset. Lets put it this way, do you need an account to use your Iphone?
No, in fact, I don't.
My device is not signed into any Apple services right now or any Apple IDs. Anything my company needs to deploy gets pushed by MDM or via enterprise-signed applications.
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#407> And we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it does on other platforms. It sounds like they are specifically not open to third party app stores selling native AR/VR ("3D") apps. I can see why Google might not want to participate if they're not allowed to compete. This feels like a response to complaints that Meta is hypocritical when co…
I think you're overindexing on "2D." The Play store is full of flat apps, designed for phones and tablets. There are a gajillion of them, and FB wants them in their headsets. It's not about not wanting competition - it's about wanting people to have more than 100 apps available when they use a Meta headset.
But why would I as a user want to use those flat apps in VR, when I already have a phone and a tablet?
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#408Shades of Apple licensing the Mac OS to clone hardware vendors in 1995 - 1997. It seems like Meta will be controlling the software experience quite closely, just like Apple did back in the day. There’s an important difference though: Apple made all their money on Mac hardware margins which the nimble clone vendors could undercut. Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always been sold at breakeven or even as a loss…
> So there’s no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything relevant to the table either. Why would I, as a potential hardware maker, wish to compete in a market where the existing main producer is a mega wealthy entity that is already dumping product below cost and is capable of doing so indefinitely?
Are they capable of selling hardware loss leaders indefinitely? If so, can they do it at a scale that matches the company's digital presence? The Google Daydream headset sitting on my shelf is skeptical.
Regardless of whether they can sell the hardware at a loss forever, they probably won't need to.
Third-party hardware is engineering labor that Meta doesn't have to pay for. In fact, it's engineering labor that will pay Meta through royalties. Cost-cutting measures developed by those third parties can easily be copied by Meta's own product, reducing the cost of future versions of the hardware. Cheaper options in the marketplace also help Meta gain market penetration without their own hardware developing a reputation for poor quality.
After a couple generations, vendor lock-in will start to set in, and they'll be able to charge more without losing customers. The aforementioned cost-cutting techniques start to pile up, too.
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#409[flagged]
Re: Meta Horizon OS
#410[flagged]