'Weak Demand' for VR and AR Causing Concerns for Companies Investing in the Technology

[ipedro]

AR will take off when it's frictionless. Right now, you have to strap a phone to your face or put on a helmet with a visor. That works for people deliberately seeking that experience but not for the average person who can't see the utility. Put it in a pair of normal looking sunglasses and you'll start seeing people find the utility without having them look like giant nerds.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Somebody needs to create a holodeck projector. As someone whom has 3 different sets of glasses for 3 different usage cases, The thought of anything strapped to my head for any reason is fail from the get go.

That's the problem with your line of thinking. That's a crackpot dream that won't happen until a half century or further down. You'll have to get used to wearing it on your head for the time being for immersive experiences. That's what the VR goggles are designed for. You can't get any immersion without them.

You watch too much Star Trek.

Oh and if you want the closest thing to a Holodeck, GO THERE:

https://thevoid.com/

 

[Lesser Evets]

I keep seeing the current SAMSUNG commercial for their VR headset-thingy, starring the usual suspects, and it suffers from one, huge, gigantic-error:

The viewer cannot tell wtf the stupid device does that is worth a penny! Yeah--you can strap a cell phone to your head and look like a horse with a poorly fit feeding bag, but there isn't ONE image in the whole commercial to tell you what that actually does FOR you that is worth a damn.

It's perhaps the stupidest commercial in ages, and it has stiff competition, because it introduces a "new" technology but doesn't give a hint as to what is so beneficial about it. SAMSUNG exists in a bubble where the tech is merely consumed because it exists; that has proven to not be the case, as with the iWatch.

On a lesser note, they have some odd, obese, mustachio'd immigrant loafing on a park bench in a slummy part of a city, wearing the thing that "the kids" gifted onto him. And he is looking around in wonder, looking to the sky like he is nearly insensate, head lolling around. And he is saying, "Ay-ay-ay caramba." Uhg.

I haven't seen anything tangible or beneficial from VR, aside from playing immersive reality games, which aren't my thing. Perhaps people will love that 3D porn... how long with that titillate? AR is probably the better use of such devices, but I wouldn't want to stumble through Tokyo wearing one of those so I could read "bathroom" somewhere while tripping over hydrants and storm drains.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I keep seeing the current SAMSUNG commercial for their VR headset-thingy, starring the usual suspects, and it suffers from one, huge, gigantic-error:

The viewer cannot tell wtf the stupid device does that is worth a penny! Yeah--you can strap a cell phone to your head and look like a horse with a poorly fit feeding bag, but there isn't ONE image in the whole commercial to tell you what that actually does FOR you that is worth a damn.

It's perhaps the stupidest commercial in ages, and it has stiff competition, because it introduces a "new" technology but doesn't give a hint as to what is so beneficial about it. SAMSUNG exists in a bubble where the tech is merely consumed because it exists; that has proven to not be the case, as with the iWatch.

On a lesser note, they have some odd, obese, mustachio'd immigrant loafing on a park bench in a slummy part of a city, wearing the thing that "the kids" gifted onto him. And he is looking around in wonder, looking to the sky like he is nearly insensate, head lolling around. And he is saying, "Ay-ay-ay caramba." Uhg.

I haven't seen anything tangible or beneficial from VR, aside from playing immersive reality games, which aren't my thing. Perhaps people will love that 3D porn... how long with that titillate? AR is probably the better use of such devices, but I wouldn't want to stumble through Tokyo wearing one of those so I could read "bathroom" somewhere while tripping over hydrants and storm drains.

Two things. One, the Samsung thing you saw was designed for the phone. That's not true VR.

The real VR experience has to be done from a more powerful PC kit hooked to actual goggles designed for that reason. The smaller VR units for the phones are so-so but they don't provide the actual VR experience, I suspect. It's a cheaper approach, sure, but lacks the sophisication of the real thing. You gotta level up and use the HTC Vive ( amazing!! ) or Oculus. Or Playstation VR ( I've heard interesting things about it ).

 

[avanpelt]

Heck, I'm into technology and have been for over 20 years and even I laughed when I saw the Samsung VR headset on display a few weeks ago. That thing is a ridiculous monstrosity. VR/AR is not going to take off unless people can't tell that you're wearing anything other than normal glasses, in my opinion. Google Glass was anything but normal looking.

If Apple can strike a deal with eyeglass lens manufacturers to put the tech into the lenses, that will be a game changer in the AR space. Although, Apple will probably just sell the frames and lenses themselves and they'll also start doing eye exams in the Apple Store. You laugh now, but you probably also would've laughed five years ago if someone told you that they'd have watch try-on stations in the Apple Store complete with staff who are trained specifically on watches.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

As of today, nobody cares about these technologies, but tech bloggers and pundits bashing Apple as "not courageous enough" to enter the game.

And of course Apple will enter, and own, the game. This is where Apple's vertical integration and chip design prowess will shine, with competitors years behind.

With this fool on board? I don't think Apple can do VR at all until they BEEF up their hardware specs. The Touchbar on MacBook Pro is NOT enough. Chip design prowess, my a$$. Since you're in Italy, you're probably not paying close enough attention to what's going on here.

 

[BlandUsername]

That's the problem with your line of thinking. That's a crackpot dream that won't happen until a half century or further down. You'll have to get used to wearing it on your head for the time being for immersive experiences. That's what the VR goggles are designed for. You can't get any immersion without them.

You watch too much Star Trek.

Oh and if you want the closest thing to a Holodeck, GO THERE:

https://thevoid.com/

You missed the point, Different glasses for different distances and object sizes and types, Wearing a goggle device infers that all input can be seen with 1 set of eyes. When for all intents and purposes, I have 3 sets with one interface( my physical eyes). Having to remove and switch glasses mid presentation is a waste of time and ruins the effect.

 

[JohnMacCormack]

I know why Sony is not selling their VR system. They are not providing demo units to Best Buy so people can try it out before they buy. If Best Buy had demo units, they probably would be flying off the shelves, especially if they also had supporting TV Commercials.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I was at DreamHack Winter 2016 trying the HTC VIVE along with some pedals playing a racing game in a booth set up by Intel, and it was really, really bad. It's perfectly understandable this doesn't sell - it's not fun.

The display latency was nauseating, the resolution was terrible at 960x1200 per eye, and that's while you're sitting in a race car with your face close to the ground. The road was literally 4-5 pixels tall.

I don't know why anyone would invest in this garbage. I'm certainly not paying 7200kr for the headset alone, plus 5000kr for the pedals, and of course good money for the rendering equipment, too. Not in a million years. The resolution needs to go WAY up first and the latency needs to come down, and we need much, MUCH better motion tracking. It was downright sickening.

Whatever was making it sickening or nauseous for you has to be from a crappy PC kit they hooked it up with. The problem, I suspect, is NOT the VR unit but the PC kit's hardware specs.

I've tried the HTC Vive demo a few months ago in October and have not had any vertigo at all. It was high resolution enough to work smoothly. The tracking was on par and the cameras worked perfectly since I could see myself and others surrounding me in a little corner screen in the goggles.

Oh and headphones can be attached to the goggles for a more immersive experience, but it's optional I believe.

The VR unit is about $700-800 in the USA and requires a PC kit such as Alienware or whatnot with powerful specs.
[doublepost=1480955249][/doublepost]

You missed the point, Different glasses for different distances and object sizes and types, Wearing a goggle device infers that all input can be seen with 1 set of eyes. When for all intents and purposes, I have 3 sets with one interface( my physical eyes). Having to remove and switch glasses mid presentation is a waste of time and ruins the effect.

Did you change the viewing settings? I have astigmatism in my eyes and wear glasses time to time but not always. I have had no issues wearing the HTC Vive goggle and could see perfectly fine in them.

The VR units should be able to provide a manual setting change for those who have various vision issues or wear glasses.

 

[ericwn]

I think the technology is so new, people are unsure where it fits in. Both for consumer usage, but also in a business setting.

And I thought this would be yet another attempt to sell folks some silly looking VR headsets, like we have seen in the past decades emerge and disappear again.

 

[Mildredop]

It was the same with 3D. Film studios, cinemas, TV stations, TV manufacturers all pushed 3D, but people don't want to watch with 3D glasses.

Not to mention the fact that the brain is an incredible thing - it doesn't need hyper-realism for an immersive experience. A good book is more immersive than any film or computer game could ever be, and that's just words on a piece of paper.

As much as I'd love to play GTA in VR, people don't want to wear goggles when playing a game/watching a film. Half of the enjoyment is sharing it with others.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Is there even a standard for things or is it each manufacturer to himself? It seems a jumbled mess with offerings from MS and Samsung and others, but none of them interoperate.

Can someone play a VR game on their XBOX ONE S using their Samsung phone?

 

[Black Magic]

I think the technology is so new, people are unsure where it fits in. Both for consumer usage, but also in a business setting.

I got a PS4 Pro on Black Friday and was entertaining getting the PS VR. After looking at the price (cost as much as the PS4 Pro) and it has the inconvenience of wires. I'll pass. Too expensive and I will have to wait a while to see what I am missing out on.

 

[bladerunner2000]

The devices are expensive as crap, as are the computers required to run them. Then comes the fact that the only "games" available are really nothing more than tech demos, which completes the circle as to why people aren't interested.

Bingo.

I tried the HTC Vive with a short Star Wars demoand it was awesome. I thought about Battlefront being playable or something else but there's really nothing out there to blow away $1,000 on the headset, plus another $500 minimum for a solid GPU.

Games like GTA IV or L4D would be a ton of fun to play but it seems like almost nobody has tried VR even those within the industry to really give it any future. Those short demos are fun for 5 minutes but we need real options.

 

[Mildredop]

I own the HTC Vive and it is truly a remarkable experience. I love demoing it to my friends and family that have never tried VR before. However, when I am not demoing I barely play it because there isn't much replayability to it. But if they can find cheaper hardware than VR would take off for sure. Also, many people that haven't tried VR may feel it's just a gimmick.

So you bought it purely to show off to your friends and family? Why?

 

[ericwn]

Decade Long LOL Apple got totally taken by suprise by VR/AR thats why they have no hardware to show for whatsoever and thats why Crook's trying to play it down. What a loser.

And who is this Crook you are talking about?

 

[pat500000]

Why is this related to Apple? They don't even make a VR capable computer!

It's Tim Cook's self reflection article.

 

[MacLawyer]

So I guess I won't be handing out Google goggles and Apple Watches for Xmas!

 

[Zirel]

Google's daydream view will be one to watch over the next year (its only been out for less than a month and only runs on the Pixel at this point which, has only been out for a month or so), since it requires a new tech standard on Android to support it). It's $70 and after the latest Galaxy S and the rest of the Android high end supports it over the next year could sell very well - since its down in tech impulse pricing and much nicer than cardboard. But we'll have to wait till there are enough phones that can use it before saying its not selling.

Most other things are expensive without a compelling use case. Cheap without a compelling use case but novel experience might sell okay.

These Android fans never learn, do they?

Do you really think that DayDream will have any chance just because it's Google and not Samsung?

When Samsung is giving away theirs for early buyers...

 

[Porco]

AR and VR have awesome potential, but it's still not ready for the 'bigtime' yet, IMHO.

But remember when mobile cellphones first came out - hilarious analogue briefcase-sized bricks you held to your head, and look where smartphones are now. This stuff will become small enough to wear as contact lenses or part of your prescription spectacles/sunglasses, and then it'll be compelling.

Good luck to the early(ish) adopters who are enjoying it already though.

On Apple particularly, they have often waited until a product category has been tried by others, then capitalise on getting it right. See computers, MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, watches(?) ... it's their M.O. to a tee. When Apple launch a VR product, if they get it right, it might be a sign the market is maturing towards a more compelling stage.

 

[jlo1158]

So again, aside from gaming, what is the mass market use case for this kind of thing? I'm specifically referring to VR, because I believe AR will be huge in 15 years as a way to add to your every day life (once a mass market hardware breakthrough occurs), so what's the use case for VR other than complete escapism?

My son is looking to buy a house. He will walk through it using a VR headset. Won't even have to drive to where they are located.

 

[macTW]

The weaker-than-expected demand is very likely due to prices of headsets and prices of equipment (computers capable of powering them).

 

[thatanonymoususer]

I think the problem comes down to 3 issues:

1. Price.
*Great* VR costs at least $2,000. You need a good gaming PC, a good headset (something like a Vive or Rift), and good controllers like the Oculus Touch or the Vive.

*Good* VR costs ~$900 for a PS4, controllers, and a headset.

While you do get *an* experience with Cardboard, Daydream, or Oculus Gear VR, you don't get the full room-scale experience. An iPhone put in the cardboard is nothing compared to a Vive.

The other problem with the price is its limited utility. I already had the $1200 computer, but someone that wants to experience VR is more likely to go with the (crappy by comparison) $5 Cardboard rather than the $2,000 setup just because the $1200 desktop computer might not have other utility in their life. (*soapbox* With a shrinking middle-class and increasing wealth and income inequality, there are fewer people who can afford to buy such expensive tech products as entertainment-only */soapbox*)

2. Setup
*Good* VR is not a plug and play experience. To set up my Vive, I had to Drill holes, mount my lighthouses, trace my play area, install all the software, and then install games. It's easy for me, but it's more steps than just putting on a headset. I would also need to re-do these steps every time I want to move to a new location. Playstation VR needs you to get the camera juuuuuuust right to really get an effective play area.

3. Content / Stigma
Good VR experiences do exist now, but they are drowned out by the loads of 5-minute vomit-inducing experiences that you can get on Cardboard or poorly-optimized experiences with low frame rates.

Raw Data, Job Simulator, Vanishing Realms, and others are games can be played for multiple hours at a time.

VR NEEDS to be advertised differently. Room-scale, sitting down, and rotational-only are very different experiences, and advertising Google Cardboard as VR and Vive as VR does a huge disservice to what VR can be. If someone experiences Cardboard and then expects all VR to be that way, then they'll never get to experience something like the Vive, PSVR, or Rift (with the newest interaction system) before signing off on VR altogether.

 

[NT1440]

My son is looking to buy a house. He will walk through it using a VR headset. Won't even have to drive to where they are located.

So the mass market appeal for these devices are extremely niche use cases. I don't see how you build mass market demand that way.

 

[lincolntran]

AR & VR are just capitalism creating solutions looking for a problem. Its where Steve Jobs is missing significantly. The guy just had a knack for creating things we wondered how we ever lived without them. Pioneering the graphical user interface - it was just ridiculous to think we could really type in archaic commands for the rest of our lives. If Steve did not start that fire, Bill Gates would be pushing MS-DOS 16.0 on us right now.

He pushed the need to make computers look good for a change, its not about dull, beige boxes sitting in a corner. The iMac really inspired the industry to take aesthetics seriously and create computers that didn't just focus on beauty, but functionality too.

Honestly, could you imagine carrying around 60 CDs with you in 2016? The iPod was just a logical means of carrying and easily accessing your music wherever, whenever you wanted.

Look at smartphones pre-2007; they were the hottest things, yet I never desired to own one. When Jobs demoed the iPhone in 2007, it was a eureka moment, you immediately knew this is what you wanted in a phone for a change.

The MacBook Air was a revision of what an everyday notebook computer for the masses was all about. Initially an expensive luxury for a few, it would eventually come down in cost due to efficiency in manufacturing and economies of scale. Which computer do you think is the most popular among Mac users today? Its the MacBook Air of course. Certainly, no one would predict that in 2008.

Steve Jobs rightly saw that, not everyone honestly needs the full power and complexity of a MacBook Pro, Air or MacBook. Hence the iPad, because we all have that friend or family member who simply just wants to check email, browse the web, use social media, basically just consume content. An obvious market was there all along and it was tapped into.

The iPhone 4 was really about making a better smartphone: Retina display, FaceTime, A4 performance etc.

The Retina MacBook Pro which was probably in the pipeline focused on what we are we doing with computers and what are we planning to do with them 5 years from now. When was the last time you really used an optical drive. If you are a creative/professional user, what do you want out of staring at your screen all day. So, there was obviously a market.

The iPhone 6 Plus was really about tapping into market demand, responding to the competition and this was obviously a smart strategic move. We don't know if the iPhone 6 designs and the iPad Mini were ever blessed by Steve Jobs, but they did find a niche.

When we arrive at present day, we see more solutions looking for problems. We now have a glorified notification wrist band. The rest of the industry is gung ho on stuff that honestly has no mass market appeal. AR/VR are not a recent holy grail, this is something the industry has been tackling for ages.

I am sure Steve Jobs had access to it before anyone. If he saw a potential for mass market appeal, he would have already designed a vision for where it would make sense when the technology was ready. He didn't and he didn't tackle everything, like the TV and smart watch, home automation or vehicles. He was narrow in his focus. Not denying he experimented with the ideas, but that's not different from keeping x86 versions of OS X in development for 5 years without anyone outside of Apple knowing.

I don't know what Jobs would have done today (I wish he had done the surgery from early then we would have found out). Its just, we are going through a period of doldrums right now. I sense, if we were to know the real truth, everybody: Microsoft, Facebook, Apple and Google are all panicking. They are throwing everything at the wall hoping it sticks but the reality is, we are back to the days of 1985 to 1996. The industry is truly rudderless.

One of the obvious things you learn from Steve Jobs and Silicon Valley is that engineers are at their core tasteless and talentless. Jobs pragmatism and lack of ability to write code balanced things out, not to mention the vision and logical common sense. This gave Jobs the ability to see both sides of the coin and to really use it to put both sides under manners, the engineers and the consumers. This is something the industry lacks right now. As much as Jony Ive might have been Jobs soulmate at Apple, he is consumed too much by design and aesthetics and fails to balance it out with being practical.

Shut the front door! A person with common sense on MR!