I think we're at least a decade or two of battery, processor, and screen development away from making that happen though. IMHO, I'd much rather have a lighter and better headset with a cord than what these two are like.
The Quest Pro looks pretty comfortable but it’s battery is like an hour so it’s not a stand-alone device that can exist untethered to a power cord.
On the other hand, what I'm really looking for there is, my laptop in a virtual screen - and that's all I need. A wired/wireless headset as a peripheral for my laptop is what I need and these exist.
On the contrary. Using virtual screens is a paradigm that chains you to obsolete technology. Nice to interface with traditional computers but in a true VR computing interface free-floating application windows make a lot more sense than virtual screens with Windows inside them. It's just as much a stupid idea as the old Windows 32 Multiple Document Interface that office used to use (having windows within windows and causing frustration with multiple scrollbars etc)
They do this because it's something users know and because computer OSes are made with real displays in mind. But it doesn't take full advantage of what the technology has to offer. Once VR/AR productivity becomes a real thing, we will have to rethink this paradigm. Whether we call it a "Window Manager" or something more snazzy, the research has to happen and I'm really interested to see where Simula are taking this. Because they're the only ones really thinking outside the box so far.
It makes so much more sense to take a pdf document and put it somewhere in my workspace so I can glance at it, instead of having to take a whole virtual display there with perhaps other things in it or blank desktop space wasting my field of view. In a world where your entire environment (either virtual with VR or real with AR) can be overlayed with content, the concept of a "screen" is obsolete and only an artificial constraint and bother. In fact even the concept of a "Window" isn't a great fit. Why restrict yourself to 2D views in a 3D world? UI elements could actually stick out so you can reach out and touch them or the whole app could even take the shape of a 3D object. Of course apps will need to be rewritten but the same was necessary with smartphones. There's a ton of UI stuff like that to figure out.
Another comparison I can make is Windows CE. It was basically a desktop interface crammed into a smartphone. It was super awkward. Smartphones never really took off until a real UI rethink happened with the iPhone and Android. We need that here even more. So yes I think there'll be a lot of work done in this arena.
That said, while I do think the "screen" isn't the unit of graphics we'll end up with, I do think that we'll end up disappointed by how much of VR is still "boxes" of 2D content like computers and tablets and phones before it. Sure there'll be changes, but I suspect that we'll mostly see things like phone app widgets make their way out into the "virtual world". I suspect beyond UI elements, we'll (mostly) end up stuck with floating web-view pages that are still rectangular. I'd love to see a 3D world where I can flip through slack channels like a filing cabinet, but I doubt it'd be mainstream.
> In fact even the concept of a "Window" isn't a great fit. Why restrict yourself to 2D views in a 3D world? UI elements could actually stick out so you can reach out and touch them or the whole app could even take the shape of a 3D object. Of course apps will need to be rewritten but the same was necessary with smartphones. There's a ton of UI stuff like that to figure out.
I said it earlier, but this is where I think the disappointment will come. You mentioned smartphones... a huge chunk of the apps I use are basically web views, or could be (even settings apps are a half step away from a crud web app). Things were rewritten, but largely the only thing that experience wise changed was replacing a mouse with a finger and moving things to portrait.
I will also add that a truly immersive 3D "{content display/window} manager" could easily just create an overwhelming mess of info/text everywhere that wouldn't be very appealing. I think there's a real risk of "content overstimulation" that would need to be managed. The idea of PDFs here and documentation pages there and a browser yet somewhere else could be a mess of swinging your head around looking for content [1]. Today, most of the screens I consume (even at work) are with apps in "fullscreen mode" and the OS just lines it all up (or just browser tabs occupying a vill browser window). I can just tab between them and the OS handles it... and I do it looking straight ahead the whole time. Why would I want to look around a floating orb of windows to find my reference material?
Anyways, I hope I'm wrong, and I hope simula succeeds. I really do - I almost pre-ordered one, but its a little too expensive for me to buy without knowing I'll use the product. It is a full (high spec) computer after all. I really like VR and I really think there's a great future for VR Productivity, and I think it'll make work (and WFH) better. But I see photos like this [1] and I think "thats not it".
[1] https://twitter.com/SimulaVR/status/1557832672998789127/phot...
PS. I think my view on Simula is filled by that tweet. Someone said "i don't know if I want 1 window or a hundred (through VR)" and simula replied with a picture of a hundred and said "why not both". I want simula to show me an experience that looks like both.
Obviously Simula wants to sell themselves and downplay meta for sales purposes, but a lot of their arguments in “ Philosophical Differences” section seemed to just miss the mark. Like, I think they have the wrong philosophy.
For example, simula critiqued the Quest Pro for relying on good wifi, noting you can’t use it at coffee shops. That’s a bad use case. They released a video of someone using simula at a coffee shop and everyone thought it was a joke. Productivity VR isn’t a laptop, it’s a better external monitor. You don’t take a monitor to a coffee shop (or other similar establishments). Maybe, maybe a plane is a good place. Probably hotel rooms, certainly offices and homes. Offices and homes can/will have good wifi.
They also mention window management and the (lack of) it on the Quest. Except no one (outside techies) knows what a windows manager is or has custom workflows. Instead, quest has screen management so you can have a virtual screen, and manager your own windows. I’m no Nostradamus but I doubt the future of technology rests in heavily customized window managers.
Simula also has a few points that are just wrong about the quest, such as the need for a laptop. A laptop helps, but it does have a native browser and Bluetooth keyboard support so you can totally spend your day in Gmail and Google docs and all that browser jazz without a second computer.
I do think an “untethered” future for VR is real though, like simula thinks. Quest is just also positioned to handle it through the real future apps platform (browsers) not a techie dream (Linux desktop).
For what it’s worth I think the real winner of VR productivity in the short term will end up looking a lot closer to NReal instead of either of these two. It’s cheap and comfortable, so it’s a lot easier to start using. It also entirely relies on your host computer so no one has to set up a new computer, IT doesn’t have to extend support of systems (ActiveDirectory etc) to new platforms, etc.