I don't think that's very accurate. The Atari ST had a pretty good following compared to personal computers of the time much like the Amiga... The fact is that most computer companies from back then did not survive far beyond the decade but they had their time. So it's not really accurate to say they failed when Acorn, Amiga, Amstrad...etc, all "failed", in that they didn't produce more than a handful of unique and fairly incompatible computers with no clear future, but that had a market and sold with success in their time frame none the less.
> I don’t want to go too far given I’ve only tried Workrooms out once, but this feels like something real. And, just as importantly, there is, thanks to COVID, a real use case. Of course companies will need to be convinced, and hardware will need to be bought, but that’s another reason why the work angle is so compelling: companies are willing to pay for tools that increase productivity to a much greater extent than consumers are.
I bought the quest2 since it was cheap as a pandemic entertainment device and while I never play it, I regularly wish for a VR monitor (eg a high res nreal air)
The new Quest headsets are supposed to have some features for facial expression tracking for exactly this reason. But yeah, no doubt there's still a ways to go for the experience to be worthwhile.
The problem with your assertion is that you over count how many multiple things Meta has to do. What will make for a very good gaming VR Headset will also be a very good professional and productivity headset.
The key aspects which Mark Zuckerberg laid out personally in the recent VR Prototypes unveil pretty universally hit both targets. Comfortable light weight headsets with incredible fidelity is desirable for all VR applications. Not just gaming.
My bet is Mark is going to burn a LOT of money, fail to get mass adoption, cancel the project, and lay the design team off.
But who knows! Maybe we’ll all be taking work meetings in MetaLife this time next year! Just make sure you login to your meeting 5 minutes early to preview the new season of BigBrother and score an extra 60 seconds of microphone mute time!
From Meta or from SimulaVR?
Because Meta has been selling one of the best VR Headsets for the money thus far. I'd really recommend checking out their VR Headsets announcement [1]. Maybe VR will never actually go anywhere software-wise, but it's clear that the team at Meta has a good understand of the problems of current headsets and what would be necessary to make a generational leap in immersiveness.
I'm certain there will be markets for it.
>My bet is Mark is going to burn a LOT of money, fail to get mass adoption, cancel the project, and lay the design team off.
I don't think they're going to cancel it. It's very much a hail marry here. The Facebook phone was a massive flop and the cumulative result of failing to have their own hardware platform was Apple killing their mobile ads business. I think Meta will do everything in it's power to own it's own hardware so that whatever their business model is, no competitor could just kill it with a flip of a switch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AR_MR_XR/comments/xwjzni/meta_quest...
What you're not seeing: a standalone VR headset running a VR Desktop OS natively with bleeding edge pixel density (i.e., like the Simula One).
We understand that Meta has some cool tools in its app store which can be used to get a feel for VR computing. But analogously, you could also purchase word processors for early gaming consoles too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtariWriter
Our view is that dedicated VR computing devices are what the market actually needs.
My view is the market needs a product that does not require an internet connection, Facebook account, Microsoft account, windows PC, or equivalent restriction-ware.
In that case, "On September 18, 1998, believing that certain statements from Netscape employees reported in Lessons offered succor for its defense, Microsoft subpoenaed the professors' notes, tape recordings and transcripts of interviews, and correspondence with interview subjects. " https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1179769.html
Here is Google subpoenaing Microsoft, https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/microso...
AMD subpoenaing Microsoft, https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/amd-subpoenas-...
Here is a judge standing up an squashing a Microsoft subpoena of Oracle and Sun , https://www.networkworld.com/article/2310247/microsoft-fails...
Oil Price Information Service, a Oil Industry trade publication was subponeaded in a price fixing case to hand over unpublished information, https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/oil-industry-...
> A lot of startups worry "what if Google builds something like us?" Actually big companies are not the ones you have to worry about-- not even Google. The people at Google are smart, but no smarter than you; they're not as motivated, because Google is not going to go out of business if this one product fails; and even at Google they have a lot of bureaucracy to slow them down.
I'm not saying it's going to definitely happen and the company is doomed or anything, it's certainly possible that SimulaVR will come out on top for productivity devices (or peacefully coexist as an alternative alongside Meta's offering). But it shouldn't ignore what Meta is doing either, especially when they're actively saying they're moving into their turf.
At the very least, it looks like Meta will put up a helluva fight.
Unless Meta decides to abandon that, I think we'll have a niche.
Isn’t their whole Metaverse thing a gamble to get away from that? Why does data collection prevent creating a good VR experience. If anything it should align goals well (spend as much time in VR as possible, so as much in VR as possible). Besides, most DataCollection companies offer CollectionFree enterprise contracts… which is where the money for this probably is.
(Btw I’m a huge fan of this sort of product and I hope a respectful company wins.. I’m just skeptical that meta can’t fund their way to success. )
Many of us think Meta is trying to gain as much market as they can early, so they can leverage eye tracking and mm wave tech for very invasive biometric collection and ad targeting in the future. Reasonable minds can disagree on that.
It could be a gambit to track your eyes but that seems even harder with worse reward than taking a 30% cut as the next App Store.
No these are the same thing. Tracking pupil response to stimuli tells advertisers how a human is reacting to what they see. It lets Meta sell a platform to advertisers where they can target humans in particular emotional states, or at certain times when that individual is more likely to make a purchase.
Wish you the best of luck either way, this is an exciting area and more competition is great. They definitely are competition though.
I think Meta's strategy was the right one. The only execs who would even consider adopting a virtual work model would be gamers who are already familiar with the tool. Gaming was their way to get in the minds of their potential next phase enterprise customers.
We've had many people tell us (often on Hacker News actually) that they're not super interested in VR gaming, but are very interested in VR computing.
(I myself am one of these people BTW; despite working in VR for half a decade now, I have almost no interest in VR gaming, and wouldn't be interested in the field were it not for its enormous potential as a new thinking tool).
My point is that interest in sci-fi technologies and having some interest (prior or current) in gaming are highly overlapping demographics. Many games explore interactions with future technologies.
Additionally, from a technical perspective of an executive who is looking into VR, "if a headset can provide the fidelity to play games then that would mean it can likely do X and Y complex things my business does"
I assume you've read?
I don't know if this is even remotely a possibility but it sure would beat dealing with constant CSS (can't see s*t)
VR there has never been exclusively about gaming nor has gaming been the overall goal of VR since their acquisition. The way they talked about it back in the day was, if I recall accurately, that they were focused on three pillars: "The metaverse", "The overlay", and "The future of work". Social presence, real-life AR metadata, and expanding the screens and capabilities of working professionals, respectively.
The direction of their research and implementation has, at least to my knowledge, been oriented literally towards creating a new category of general purpose productivity devices and admitting as much in a very public blog post is a pretty big own-goal if the idea is to try to avoid the subpoena by distinguishing yourselves (assuming you're speaking on behalf of SimulaVR).
Consider that Atari tried to compete with office PCs in the early 80s with their 8-bit family, and failed: https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_...
It's hard to focus on multiple things at once, and we're skeptical that the bureaucratic forces in play at a large company like Meta will allow them to do a good job at making their gaming platform also one that people actually want to work in.