Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Weak Demand' for VR and AR Causing Concerns for Companies Investing in the Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The largest potential market for this technology right now is porn and video games.
But in an age where porn is widely available for free. That creates porn addicts accustomed to their hobby being inexpensive ( not accounting for relationship and other potential issues).
Gamers are accustomed to spending a lot of money on games and technology. So that does provide a market, but a small market when compared to the size of the smartphone market.
While almost everyone has a smartphone, not everyone is into gaming.
Personally, until we get to the point of holographic television shows that basically appear to be physically taking place in the living room, I have no interest. So it's possible that I'll never be a consumer in this market in my lifetime.
But in an age where porn is widely available for free. That creates porn addicts accustomed to their hobby being inexpensive ( not accounting for relationship and other potential issues).
Gamers are accustomed to spending a lot of money on games and technology. So that does provide a market, but a small market when compared to the size of the smartphone market.
While almost everyone has a smartphone, not everyone is into gaming.
Personally, until we get to the point of holographic television shows that basically appear to be physically taking place in the living room, I have no interest. So it's possible that I'll never be a consumer in this market in my lifetime.
At this point, general demand is focused on things like food, housing, a car, and gas. That's great for those government lobbying bodies because they sell essentials that don't care about minimum wage because demand won't change no matter what. You always need to eat. You always need to drive to work. In order to have any mass demand for expensive entertainment devices, there has to be a mass of people who can afford to demand non-essential purchases. Everyone I show the Vive to really likes the technology, but most wouldn't spend $800 and get a system with a good GPU to get it.
Right now, VR is an experience for young adults with good jobs and no student debt and their friends. That's not a big demographic right now. I know pockets of friends who like to go over to other friends' houses to share the VR system. In this economy, VR isn't something that each individual consumer purchases for themselves like they would a phone or a laptop.
Those darn kids and their books. They only entertain the 'I'm not doing hard labor' generation.
Those darn kids and their radios. They only entertain the 'listen to the wavey wavey' generation.
Those darn kids and their TV's. They only entertain the 'look at the shiny shiny' generation.
PSVR has a way to go before it can really be considered full-featured VR. It's limited, and its price tag relative to something like the Vive reflects that. I'd assume that you didn't invest that much in games if you returned it the next day, and most of the PSVR games worth anything right now are in the $20-30+ range.
You also don't get the same games you do with full VR like the Vive and Vanishing Realms as PSVR doesn't let you crouch behind a rock to hide from something or bend down to look underneath a desk for items and then literally walk over, and hide under it.
If you turn around and block the glowing balls on the motion controllers with your body, they lose tracking. That limits most PSVR experiences to just looking toward the camera and interacting, which isn't that different from a big 3D TV. With the Vive, you usually lose your real-world orientation by the time you're done. The first time that you have a half-robot fall right on top of your head in Raw Data on a Vive, you'll definitely be able to tell the difference between a flat-screen tv and VR.
If PSVR makes it to a 2nd gen with better tracking and a larger area for playing, then it might be able to incorporate some gameplay mechanics that are better in VR. I would argue that being able to physically position yourself like the character in your game would will always be more immersive than just grabbing a controller and seeing your character do it on the screen.
I don't think that VR will have the same long-term issues as 3D. My mom can enjoy it, and she can't handle RealD 3D in theaters or the 3DS due to motion sickness, so it won't have that barrier for entry. VR will become a mature and possibly mainstream market when you can buy it like you buy a monitor; one headset for every VR experience you want to have. If Vive-quality headsets and controllers were suddenly sold with a system that can handle it for $400, I would expect the outlook on VR to change overnight.
Last edited:
But if you're one of the 50 million people who already have a PS4, especially one of the people who had one on launch day or bought one in the first year or two, this is a tempting option if you want to try out "real" VR and don't want to have to deal with a gaming PC to do it.
Yes, a phone-based headset can be kind of cool too, but it's not anything like what these full blown systems are like. If you're going to pay under $100 for VR, you're going to get what you pay for and will have a very bad representation of what true VR can be like.
Very, very well written. It still makes me so sad sometimes to think of what amazing things we could've had if he were still here. Not just entertainment-wise of course -- health tech, transportation tech, and tech to improve efficiency are all approached so timidly and with a focus mainly on profits since he's been gone, and it's just tragic.
Technology advances are 1/10 tech and 9/10s human. That human element is always ignored by tech people every time. VR is a failure for many reasons that were well predicted by most casual observers. Sure it's immersive and captivating but that's not enough. The biggest factor in my view will always be the content, it's what mostly killed 3D as it's just too hard to make 3D with hardly any benefit. VR is even harder to make content for.
The main social reason is convenience, you can't do VR anywhere but at home and you have to do it solo ignoring others in the room. It's rude enough just glancing at a watch or phone whilst socialising, adding a headset kills the idea of it becoming accepted even worse. 3D TV and cinema had the same issue, it's uncomfortable to wear glasses and our eyes don't like being fooled. Glasses were also poorly styled and we're difficult to keep and inconvenient to carry and get in the way when not watching TV. Another huge issue is there is nothing you can do in VR you can't do other ways. VR has also been around for many years before now, the limits are not technological.
The main social reason is convenience, you can't do VR anywhere but at home and you have to do it solo ignoring others in the room. It's rude enough just glancing at a watch or phone whilst socialising, adding a headset kills the idea of it becoming accepted even worse. 3D TV and cinema had the same issue, it's uncomfortable to wear glasses and our eyes don't like being fooled. Glasses were also poorly styled and we're difficult to keep and inconvenient to carry and get in the way when not watching TV. Another huge issue is there is nothing you can do in VR you can't do other ways. VR has also been around for many years before now, the limits are not technological.
I was considering an occulus to use with my 1080 on my PC but there is nothing that really grabs me game wise. I already spend maybe £50-£300 per month on games and kit at the mo depending on release schedules but I'm going to wait till the next generation of VR or until the killer app arrives for it now.
I personally don't care where this technology leads, I just can't justify attaching this to my head. It looks ridiculous.
How myopic are you? A lot of us are interested in expanded technology scopes, and how they may relate in the future.
And then you go on to give the justification for VR.
As consumers strive for ever bigger & higher resolution screens, there will (akin to shifting from "more higher capacity CDs" to "streaming cellular media") be market for full field of view coverage in a tiny lightweight package.
What you're stumbling on is akin to how crappy MP3 players were pre-iPod. VR headsets are improving, but still haven't hit that magic moment. Someone will eventually find the breakthrough.
Personally, I see AR / VR like the old day PALM Devices.
It will be interesting to have but never will be a mainstream product.
It will be interesting to have but never will be a mainstream product.
I'm getting déjà vu! People had the same conversation about VR back in the early 1990's! Big awkward headsets, cost lots, etc, etc. The tech doesn't seem to be moving forward at all!
Last edited:
Why don't you ask Apple how myopic they are? They are the ones making rubbish computers that can not handle VR...and clearly have no interest making any.
Maybe when VR Emojis are a thing they will get onboard.
I do hope the DNA is at Apple to truly create something truly purposeful of AR/VR. Right now, I just not seeing it, I am not getting that "s***ing" my pants feeling when Jobs demoed Aqua with photo realistic icons, swiping the lock screen, taking the air out of the manila envelope. Of course, Jobs story is a unique one, the idea that you have to perfect whatever you do from the inside out is not something everyone can and wish to strive to. Jony Ive certainly carries a large percentage of that trait, but at the same time, he has his own personal experiences.
I had been in the VR business from about 2001 through a few years ago. By VR I mean 360x180° panoramas. All that time the new people who entered the business thought they discovered the next big thing. I always thought it was interesting but would remain a niche item. Granted I haven't been exposed to high end gaming so I don't know if that is compelling. I'll leave that for others.
My current interest is to try out a VR headset with my panoramas. I'm waiting for my iPhone 7 plus and will then plunk down $50-$60 for a headset but don't see putting much more into it than that. To me it is just a glorified Viewmaster but without the 3D as my panoramas are not stereoscopic.
I'm older and never got into gaming. My nieces and nephews are into it and I asked them what attracts them to gaming. They like the aspect of being what you want to be. For me, I'd rather be hiking with my dog. As they say, you should go outside. The HD view is incredible.
My current interest is to try out a VR headset with my panoramas. I'm waiting for my iPhone 7 plus and will then plunk down $50-$60 for a headset but don't see putting much more into it than that. To me it is just a glorified Viewmaster but without the 3D as my panoramas are not stereoscopic.
I'm older and never got into gaming. My nieces and nephews are into it and I asked them what attracts them to gaming. They like the aspect of being what you want to be. For me, I'd rather be hiking with my dog. As they say, you should go outside. The HD view is incredible.
If you've ever had the chance to try TiltBrush on the HTC Vive, you'll probably agree that VR is pretty transformative. It's certainly the best experience I've had in VR, and Ive been lucky enough to try a number of them. It's also not ready for mass consumers. VR does not have a "killer app". It has a number of impediments including price, the amount of space required for a good experience (about 4x4 feet), and the bulkiness of the headsets. I'm not a gamer, so for me, the social angle is more exciting. Being able to meet far away friends in any location we can dream up. I'm also kind of intrigued by fully customizing my own avatar and meeting strangers in virtual worlds — 2nd Life taken to the extreme. I could be anything I wanted, from a little bit taller to a knight to a giant to a bird. For all its setbacks, an actual good VR experience is extremely compelling.
I think it was VC Marc Andreesen who said "the world is divided between those who think VR is a waste of time and those who have tried it". There's a threshold of immersion reached when you see your hands and there's no lag. It changes your reference point from "I'm controlling a game camera with my head" to "oh... this is the holodeck from Star Trek".
A couple other missing pieces: a very good vrOS so you're not switching between applications and wearing it, the social angle I mentioned, a retail presence so people can actually try it out somewhere, apps that are better than tech demos (I actually think serialized content would be good). And again, the bulkiness.
While AR most certainly has a brighter future, it is even further away. The HoloLens demos on YouTube deceptively well. The AR image is actually a tiny postage stamp in the middle of an otherwise useless glass face mask.
All of these companies are trying to beat Apple to the punch. They all want to be the next iPhone of whatever is after mobile and in doing so, they've done the technology a massive disservice. This stuff would have been ready in 3 years, but now the burned public won't give it a chance for another 8. No one has innovated because the tech wasn't ready. They've faked innovation by showing lab work.
They're right to fear Apple. Reducing bulk, hardware in general, retail presence, building a dedicated OS, media partnerships, a developer network. Apple was right not to pull the trigger early on this, but they're uniquely positioned to succeed with it. Hopefully they can salvage some pretty awesome potential. It really could be the next big thing. Just needs a couple more years to mature on the tech side. Everyone needs some patience.
I think it was VC Marc Andreesen who said "the world is divided between those who think VR is a waste of time and those who have tried it". There's a threshold of immersion reached when you see your hands and there's no lag. It changes your reference point from "I'm controlling a game camera with my head" to "oh... this is the holodeck from Star Trek".
A couple other missing pieces: a very good vrOS so you're not switching between applications and wearing it, the social angle I mentioned, a retail presence so people can actually try it out somewhere, apps that are better than tech demos (I actually think serialized content would be good). And again, the bulkiness.
While AR most certainly has a brighter future, it is even further away. The HoloLens demos on YouTube deceptively well. The AR image is actually a tiny postage stamp in the middle of an otherwise useless glass face mask.
All of these companies are trying to beat Apple to the punch. They all want to be the next iPhone of whatever is after mobile and in doing so, they've done the technology a massive disservice. This stuff would have been ready in 3 years, but now the burned public won't give it a chance for another 8. No one has innovated because the tech wasn't ready. They've faked innovation by showing lab work.
They're right to fear Apple. Reducing bulk, hardware in general, retail presence, building a dedicated OS, media partnerships, a developer network. Apple was right not to pull the trigger early on this, but they're uniquely positioned to succeed with it. Hopefully they can salvage some pretty awesome potential. It really could be the next big thing. Just needs a couple more years to mature on the tech side. Everyone needs some patience.
I am consumed by capitalism? I am now an Apple fanboy? I am in denial? I am experiencing nostalgia?
You truly have lost the plot, take a break from the forum for your own sake. Or actually do carry on, haven't seen a looney posting for a while, this is funny. I just hope you are being serious and not trying to pull my leg, because this is gold.
On a serious note, get your nose out of Steve Jobs' behind, man is dead, he ain't going to give you free electronics for raving about him.
Xerox started the GUI fire. And it was getting out, even if Apple had never seen and used it. Xerox developers left and spread it to many places. GEM was an example.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. They smartly gave it a music store. Even then, it was a niche product until they made it work with PCs.
He wasn't the first to think of an easy webpad, not by at least a decade. However, yes, he hit the market at the right time. This was his forte: knowing when the time was ripe.
From trial evidence, we know that Eddie Cue... who had used a small Samsung tablet and realized it was a market they were missing... claimed internally that Jobs eventually began to be open towards Cue's suggestions for Apple to make a similar size.
From others at Apple, we know that Jobs was often initially against things that later became popular products or features. Multi-touch, for example, according to Ive.
I agree with the overall intent of your post.
Engineers and many executives usually design by committee and want to throw in the kitchen sink. Jobs was all about making things simple to use, and good looking. He instinctively knew that those attributes made highly marketable products.
(Which is why many of us think he would never have approved confusing things like the multiple Watch input methods.)
Last edited:
And the advance of technology is driven by profit not making something that works well, will last, and be friendly and understandable to the user.
It's one thing to use technology when you have been using it intimately for 20-30 years. But for the average person who, technology is seen as something that costs a lot of money, is confusing, and breaks or is otherwise unreliable.
Tech is moving fast because of competition, that hurts us, because the people creating this tech, barely understand it at first. Things need time to be done right, most people won't even take the time to read this post.
It was set up by Intel. I was dealing with a GTX 1080 and some 12 core unreleased Xeon processor. It ran pretty smoothly, the resolution was just terrible.
We did have a headset on, though it was separate from the headset itself.