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

Meta Horizon OS

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 813 posts

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#621

Post by RockRobotRock »

int_19h wrote: post #404
999900000999 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have xreal glasses and a Quest 3. There's so much friction in using Steam Link/Quest Link/Virtual Desktop that it's barely worth using over the xreal airs. You need to use controllers to turn them on, and if you lose tracking or exit your guardian, the display turns off and you have to grab your controllers again to make any adjustments.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#622

Post by danielmarkbruce »

bobsomers wrote: post #484
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it demonstrable that they aren't worth $1m per year? While in many cases folks are overpaid in big tech, some of them are insanely talented people who can do things others simply cannot.

> How is it demonstrable that they aren't worth $1m per year? Probably because of this: > How does any company burn $36 billion on a headset they got handed a prototype for?

That's confusing the decision to work on something with the quality of the folks working on it. Brilliant engineers often work on things which are risky from a market perspective. It doesn't make them less brilliant at engineering when it turns out there isn't a market for the thing.

John Carmack appears to be brilliant. I'd guess he would admit the VR market didn't turn out as hoped.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#623

Post by r0m4n0 »

woopsn wrote: post #236
idle_zealot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not complex or dazzling terms. Artificial intelligence is software that seems intelligent. Virtual reality is a simulated environment that you can immerse yourself in through small screens and head tracking. Mixed reality is virtual reality overlayed on your real environment. See also "augmented reality". The metaverse is the web, but replace websites with 3d environments and add some sort of personal avata…

People seem to think I have trouble understanding what the terms refer to. That's not my point -- you're right in that they are not complex. But why is virtual reality associated with small screens and head tracking? Why wasn't Everquest on a CRT "virtual reality"? A lot of software calculates probabilities over some distribution, why isn't all that "artificial intelligence"? Why isn't my Subaru's cruise control and…

Everything is an evolution and everyone wants to be the next form of that evolution, even if it’s not. Marketing is always going to be one step ahead and once we actually do achieve what the last generation is selling, someone new will be selling you on the next step. Today’s “VR” will look extremely different from 2050 VR. That doesn’t mean today we don’t have some form of VR though. I don’t mind it, it’s a conceptual bucket for today’s expectations. And those of us who keep up with things (like all of us on HN for example) understand one another. What would you recommend we call all these things?

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#624

Post by int_19h »

wvenable wrote: post #534
int_19h wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would I as a user want to use those flat apps in VR, when I already have a phone and a tablet?

Is that what the majority of Vision Pro users are doing in VR? Projecting flat monitors around.

I can see the point of projecting a huge flat monitor in VR to, say, write code on it.

A mobile app, not so much.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#625

Post by RockRobotRock »

int_19h wrote: post #386
numpad0 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't want it. It's disorienting and uncomfortable. XREAL as well as some drone FPV goggles support non-/partially-head-tracked HDMI input, albeit with much smaller FOV for comfort reasons.

There are quite a few options for non-head-tracked wearable display type headsets. Those generally get pitched as "portable cinema" though, e.g.: https://goovis.net/products/g3max (This particular one uses USB-C for video input, but they also sell an HDMI adapter for it.) Of course, in practice it's just a display and can be used for any purpose. I do appreciate the fact that you don't have to mess around with all th…

I would be worried about forking over $1000 to a fly by night company for a product which could easily break.

(xreal is also in this category imo but at least its a bit cheaper)

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#626

Post by int_19h »

RockRobotRock wrote: post #621
int_19h wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have xreal glasses and a Quest 3. There's so much friction in using Steam Link/Quest Link/Virtual Desktop that it's barely worth using over the xreal airs. You need to use controllers to turn them on, and if you lose tracking or exit your guardian, the display turns off and you have to grab your controllers again to make any adjustments.

I agree; I use Goovis G3 Max myself when I need this kind of thing (which is bulkier and not AR, but has better FOV and higher resolution). But for people who already have a Quest 3, it can still be a useful trick sometimes.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#627

Post by hooloovoo_zoo »

w10-1 wrote: post #549

If hardware manufacturers actually wanted this, Meta would be announcing a licensing deal. This is a threat to Apple: if Apple doesn't relent on advertising/privacy in VisionOS, then Meta will do to VR what Google did for smartphone's: sell the market to maintain advertising access. Meta doesn't care about money or mindshare on VR. They just want ad access.

Apple and to a lesser extent Google have high trust. Nobody trusts Meta at all. So who would adopt their OS?

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#629

Post by mcmcmc »

theptip wrote: post #358
distortedsignal wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don’t agree with this take. I’m sure Meta would be fine with other vendors taking over the low-end, if that meant there was a vibrant platform they controlled (ie the OS). They will lead with flagship models to push the boundaries of what the OS/tech can do. Why would they want to sell at/below cost forever? The reason they do this now is to make the platform viable. The only reason they are focusing on cheaper devic…

I think it really depends on if you think Meta wants to be a hardware company or if they want to continue being a data/advertising company.
Post reply on HN