Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mncharity 3223 days ago
> this article and most of the comments here are taking a singular worldview: consumer-focused VR for a western market

Even narrower than that: game VR; on HMDs without (usable) cameras; using particular software stacks.

The usual way I use my Vive, is on an old laptop with integrated graphics, doing ducktaped-on camera-passthrough AR, at 30 fps, in coffeehouses and conference rooms... Let's just say that many people are so focused on the gaming market, that they're unable to see anything else.

I've been through the mass adoption of PC's, the internet and web, cell phones, tablets and touch phones, and now here's consumer VR/AR. I've kind of given up hope of seeing intelligent analysis in the popular press during transitions.

Still, I was surprised by just how bad this article was. Isn't TC based in SV? I'd have thought the author could find people to do a sanity check. Misconceptions like drawing a hard VR vs AR distinction suggests that didn't happen. One can certainly make an argument for a slow takeoff. Even for a very slow and multi-phase one. But this article wasn't that. Perhaps I've just been unlucky to see this post before HN buries it.

2 comments

> Let's just say that many people are so focused on the gaming market, that they're unable to see anything else.

This really annoys me. Actually I just want a good HMD that can replace any standard monitor. A lot of people complain about working in a plane or on a bus because other people can see their screen. People complain about working in open offices where they constantly have other peoples' faces moving in their field of view, distracting them from their screens. People try to build screen walls and wear isolating headphones to shield them from these distractions. People complain that they can't work outside in nice weather because of the glare..

I complain about my laptop because the screen is too small and it's impossible to have an ergonomic posture -- if it's at the right level for typing, the screen is too low and I get neck pain. If the screen is at a comfortable level, it's very difficult to type on. Even when the screen is at a comfortable level, it's annoyingly small for some things. I complain about big screens because they're heavy, take up a lot of desk space, are expensive, and aren't very portable.

There's so many issues that could potentially be solved with a HMD.. but everyone's just completely fixated on immersion in gaming and movies. sigh

A HMD could be a small, lightweight monitor I can keep in my backpack and use to get a desktop-like experience (plus some exclusive benefits) with a few minor disadvantages.

Varjo is working on a foveated display - a panel-plus-microdisplay combo. "Retina"-ish resolution. The development risk isn't small, and it would be expensive. But you could drive it with current hardware. Fingers crossed.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/19/15820336/nokia-varjo-virt... [2] http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/06/varjo-20-20-vr-headset/ [3] http://www.kguttag.com/2017/06/26/varjo-foveated-display-par... [4] http://www.kguttag.com/2017/07/10/varjo-foveated-display-reg... [5] https://www.fastcompany.com/40432203/this-finnish-startup-sa... [6] https://www.wired.com/story/varjo-vr-microdisplay/

Maybe. But even that seems too much focused on VR and brings a host of issues with it (it looks like it needs special software; I don't think it can replace any standard display).

I think something like the Avegant Glyph is a lot more promising for my needs. But that thing works at 720p; I'd say bump it up to 1080p and I might buy it. It's also got a fatal design flaw that allows dust to get behind the lens and it's basically impossible to remove.. without sending the device back to the manufacturer. And the Glyph too is focused a little too much on multimedia; the inclusion of headphones is an obvious giveaway, as are all the comparisons to a big TV.. ten feet away.

Notice that the Glyph isn't fixated on immersing you; it doesn't try to fill your entire field of view. It's just a screen in a head-mount (plus headphones, which I don't want). There's some space around the eyepiece so you can see and find the coffee cup by your laptop. This means it doesn't run in to the same resolution issue that immersion-focused VR has to deal with. Thus piece in front of your eyes is also smaller than the usual VR box that tries to cover all the space around your face balls.

I borrowed a friend's Microsoft Hololens and it basically delivers this. I had a giant floating Microsoft Edge window, playing YouTube, in my dining room. It's able to map out the area you're in, so the Edge window remained in my dining room after I left. Combined with a keyboard I could see it completely replacing my laptop.

However, the field of view is incredibly small and you look like an idiot wearing one. Maybe 10 years from now we'll get there.

It's absolutely correct to draw an hard line between VR and AR. The first one is just a limited technology that has seen some attention just because AR is still not ready today. AR is the bright future, VR is just a gloomy present.