As for investors, it's important to remember that when you're swinging at a pitch, it's no more productive to swing too early than to swing too late. They're both strikes.
And we're discussing when to call it a failure. On a site called Hacker News. OK. But that's kind of my point - people can be so focused on "calling failure" that they miss the incredibly transformative development that's right in front of them.
Regarding a "timeline for calling failure" - who knows? Sometimes success comes to the sole believer who labors on long after everyone else abandoned hope. But how often in tech is something truly a failure? Was AI a failure in the 60's? It brought us LISP and defined the space. The 80's? It brought important foundational work to CNNs. The 90's? Would we be here without Deep Blue? Was mobile a failure with WAP? Palm? Newton? Was Internet 1.0 a failure when the bubble burst in 2000?
All were important steps that got us to our ubiquitously interconnected, AI-enabled, device-driven present.
So why the focus on identifying something as a failure, or tagging the moment that "they're not catching on"? How are you defining success? Adoption? If so, based on what metric - and at what ramp - and based on whose expectations? Investment success? For whom?
Even if this generation of VR fails to gain traction, I truly believe it will be viewed as just one more step towards the inevitable. It's that good.
But my point is that such failure will be due more to social issues than technical ones.
VR is a much harder problem than the 80s pioneers expected. Previous display technologies "worked" for VR, but they gave you neckache and/or severe nausea after a few minutes. We needed a breakthrough in lightweight, high-resolution, low-persistence, low-cost displays. That breakthrough arrived when Samsung started putting OLED displays in the Galaxy series smartphones.
We finally have headsets that really work - headsets that provide immersive experiences, headsets that can be worn for more than a few minutes at a time. We've got GPUs that can push pixels fast enough to maintain a stable 90fps. We still have a huge way to go, but I think it's far too early to declare VR as vapourware or a technological dead-end. We're only just getting started.
No it's not. The big differentiator this time is not graphics (though they're vastly improved) but reduced latency and lag and more accurate head tracking. That's the key to making it feel immersive an making it less likely that people will throw up.
It's not merely graphics that make today's VR better than VR in the 90's - and actually viable. There has been a confluence of enabling technologies including:
- High bandwidth internet - High DPI OLED screens - Development of VR-specific techniques such as low-persistence pixel strobing, rolling shutters, pre-warped images, asynchronous reprojection, etc. - Computer vision developments for 6 degree of freedom tracking - Submillimeter tracking of room position for the VR user and his/her hands - Fast GPUs to allow for consistent 90 frame per second display - Cheap precision manufacturing for complex systems - Lens technologies - Lightweight materials - Capacitive touch technologies to enable finger tracking - High bandwidth I/O ports (USB3, HDMI) - Fast, cheap CPUs - Widely available Graphics engines and toolkits to accelerate and democratize content development
None of the above were available in 1998.
Yes, one important result is better graphics, but the sum total of the above is an experience where your brain forgets it's inside a simulation. This comes from low "motion to photon" latency such that your movements track 1:1 with the virtual world, "good enough" graphics (but could be better), a wide enough field of view (but could be wider), and so on.
People didn't buy VR in the 80's, or 90's, or 00's, because it sucked. The technology wasn't there. That is no longer the case.
Future iterations in this generation will widen the field of view, further improve pixel density and brightness, lower weight, reduce cost, and increase portability - all important evolutionary steps that incrementally improve the experience.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Damocles_(virtual...
The problem is not in the technology. It's in the content. When the current adopters will start using the systems they already have semi-regularly then and only then I can agree it has a chance.
Television emerged as a broadcast medium in the 1920s, but didn't become mainstream until the 1950s. I wouldn't say that's a particular good example of fast adoption (or at least, not significantly faster than VR).
[1] https://vrcover.com/product/htc-vive-disposable-hygiene-cove...
Numerous 360 video portals and creators present and produce content including BBC, Disney, National Geographic, New York Times, etc. VR tie-ins to feature films include Spiderman Homecoming, John Wick, Games of Thrones, and many others.
Companies such as Volkswagen use VR for training and development. SIs such as Accenture have built practices to support enterprise adoption of VR and AR technology for manufacturing, training, and advertising.
Though a lot of content includes thin "experiences," there are so many high quality, rich applications and games that a backlog (more content than time) is a common problem for working adults. Oculus alone will be publishing a major game each month through the end of the year. Fallout, Skyrim, and other game titles are getting the VR treatment as well.
Content is not the problem. The outdated perception of a lack of content is a huge problem.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/vr/#p=0&tab=TopSellers [2] https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/ [3] https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/en/detailpage/-/de...
I would say VR consumes about 50% to 75% of my free entertainment time.
If the resolution was a bit higher, I would probably do a few hours of work per day in VR as well. I find I'm fairly focused when working in VR as I have no environmental distractions yet can be in very peaceful surroundings (Mars, space, a balcony overlooking city lights, etc.).
I use an app called Big Screen to bring up my desktop in VR. Interestingly, it's multi-user so others could co-work in the same environment, look over my shoulder at my screen, talk, etc. even from across the world - if I had colleagues with an HMD and wanted to collaborate with them, of course (so much for the focus and serenity part of it!)
Flip-flops had tons of adoption (literally billions of people used them) when they were the state of the art.
I think we can conclude it's not going to catch on once they have delivered on the promise of VR and then the market goes meh.
The Rift and Vive (the only VR worth anything) are both very far towards the early adopter side of the spectrum and I think everything follows from that. They are expensive, difficult to set up and keep working, and have expensive dependencies. Prototype hardware already exists that shows all those problems are tractable.
So to me the question is only does VR run out of money before it develops a viable product. Sure there is some small question of what the market will think of what VR has to offer, but when you offer it to people for "free" the reaction is uniformly positive. The only barrier is cost and convenience and whether those lines intersect with the cost to produce VR in time (or ever).
I think those lines will intersect as you can do it on hardware that is O(mobile phone) in cost. Just not actual mobile phones. Those are trash for VR.
I think it's really unlikely that the in four years the market will be so small as to support zero VR. I think it's comparable to the first iPhone which was really not that great.
I know I will use and keep buying VR displays forever even if they freeze at the current level of technology. Even when someone is offering me 16k OLED 2d displays with 240hz refresh rates. There is no substitute for a fully tracked POV and proper depth perception.
So your expectation of what existing VR hardware costs is probably a little off. Let's say that you have a BOM of 500$ to make a Rift. That's 100-300$ to spend on a battery, mobile GPU/CPU and memory, cameras, and associated cooling and packaging. It's within the realm of reason at the 800$ price point.
I think the reality is that BOM will shift around quite a bit. VR might stall at the current level of fidelity for a while (which is fine IMO), but ease of use and price can be improved quite a bit.
Even since launch the cost of the full Rift setup has decreased quite a bit. 1/2 to 1/3rd although I would have to really think harder about what a realistic number is.
VR may take 4 year or 40 years to mature, or it may never take off at all, it's not something we can judge either way.
- It needs to be at a price point akin to a tablet computer
- It needs to be able to run for more than an hour without overheating
- It needs full 6dof head tracking and ideally 6dof controller tracking with motion to photon latency comparable to vive/rift
- It needs to be comfortable to wear for an hour for most people
- It needs to deliver a graphical experience on par with something like a PS2 or PS3
- It needs to be portable and wireless so it can be passed around and shown off to others easily
- Most importantly, it needs to be simple to set up and use. Ie, no external computer, no wires, no mounting of sensors on walls, no need to plug or unplug devices before/after use, etc.
No such device exists on the market today but many of them will exist soon. Choose any one VR device out there today and it will meet a subset of these but not all of them.
If devices meeting these specs don't have some form of mainstream appeal a year of the first release then I'll be revisiting my assumptions about VR. (I have been working in VR for the last 3 years)
Maybe, but most MVPs also don't go anywhere, and lots of markets are fads and die. The question is why this is different for VR?
(And I've lived the previous VR fad, when it was going to revolutionize stuff back in early/mid 90s. What we have left from that era is the Lawnmower Man).
Lots of hobbyists (or rather say: gamers) were keen on getting a decent soundcard or 3D acceleration card - until it became very mainstream.
it is not like a futuristic product that for now is too big or battery doesn't last, etc. it is by definition something nobody wants because it is exclusive, in the sense that only one person at a time can experience it and be completely cut off from the surroundings. and there is no way to solve that even in infinite interactions.
it migth work for teenager gamers and porn. who knows. but definitely will never see a huge adoption because it is inherently anti-social.
Last night I could have been alone after my wife and kids were in bed. Instead, I was in a 5-on-5 person zero-G battle akin to the Battle Arena in Ender's Game. Communication, coordination, and just trash talking are critical.
The night before I went on Star Trek missions with three friends (only one I had met in person). Despite them being from 3 different parts of the world, I could look around the bridge and see them right there. We may as well have been in the same room, with eye contact, body language, and hand gestures.
Facebook bought Oculus because of the pro-social opportunity to connect people worldwide. Though Spaces is early and a bit rough, it clearly demonstrates how compelling it is to have face-to-face talks with people inside and outside of VR.
Echo Arena: https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/22/lone-echos-vr-multiplayer...
Star Trek Bridge Crew: https://uploadvr.com/star-trek-bridge-crew-review/
Facebook Spaces: https://www.facebook.com/spaces
If quality VR were available at a price point similar to a phone, comfortable to wear for hours at a time, I have no doubt many people would get one. If it also comes with quality AR, most will probably never take them off.
Except many of these people are using their phones to connect with other people. Literally the opposite of "antisocial technology".
That's why I believe VR will become mainstream as soon as the technical challenges are solved, just like phones.
To look at today's initial products and call the industry dead, or disappointing, is like looking at an MVP app release and deciding that an entire market does not exist because the initial solution is not perfect.
This type of contrarianism is seductive, and often results in many clicks for the media and the reinforcement of curmudgeonly opinions by those with unrealistic expectations for short-term change (and often who underestimate long-term impacts).
But it's important to evaluate today's VR with the same eyes as when looking at an MVP: does it meet its goals? Does it provide value? Does it show potential if developed further? Is there a product-market fit?
The answer to all of the above is a resounding "yes." Try it if you haven't. VR and AR have the potential to be truly revolutionary technologies. Yes, there is some distance to the goal, but it's eminently achievable - if the tech is not killed off by mis-set expectations, tribalism, paranoia, pessimism, and negativity.