[HN Gopher] Meta Meets Microsoft
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Meets Microsoft
Author : ingve
Score : 180 points
Date : 2022-10-12 11:32 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| bsldld wrote:
| Possibility of Microsoft buying Facebook is not unthinkable.
| Microsoft is already an investor in Facebook. Both HoloLens and
| Oculus are already moving in the same direction with enterprise
| play.
| foobarian wrote:
| Didn't also a lot of Microsofties leave for FB a decade back or
| so? Could be an easy culture meld.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| If love Microsoft to acquire FB for other reasons as well:
|
| 1. MS doesn't need to sell my data to make their services
| profitable.
|
| 2. MS could merge Facebook and LinkedIn so I could have a
| person and professional identity in a single app and switch
| between my networks! I don't have a FB account at all right
| now).
|
| 3. What's App could tie into the existing messaging
| infrastructure and work for Xbox or Personal Teams messaging.
|
| 4. MS could replace the Mixed Reality platform with Oculus. I
| use Mr for VR and the software kind of sucks and many games
| don't have MR controller bindings by default, though that's
| less frequent nowadays.
| [deleted]
| philjohn wrote:
| 1 - nobody, except the data brokers, sell data.
|
| Microsoft though, collects a huge amount (telemetry in
| Windows) and is leaning more heavily into ads in the core
| product.
| randoglando wrote:
| This will not happen, simply because Zuckerberg owns FB.
| Also, this deal makes no sense for FB. They still make a
| large amount of money (10s of billions every quarter) and the
| only advantage they get from this is Microsoft's brand
| (compared to FB's brand, which is currently doggshit).
| vegai_ wrote:
| Slack just released video chat and they've had screen sharing for
| some time. Teams should start feeling a bit nervous.
| skc wrote:
| Which is odd because Slack was the leader in this space just a
| few years ago.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Slack created the category and had a 2 year head start, the
| fact that they are being rapidly replaced by teams in many
| office environments has little to do with specific features in
| teams vs slack. It's entirely because you get teams "free" with
| the e5 office license that you need to buy anyways for outlook,
| excel, etc.
| tkk23 wrote:
| Slack should invest in Libreoffice and offer a better office
| suite.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| An offline locally running office suite has very little
| value in a post-google docs world to corporations.
| tkk23 wrote:
| Doesn't Google use the Libreoffice code on the server
| side?
|
| You still need at least a locally running spreadsheet
| application for the Excel wizards. If I were Google or
| Slack, I would push Libreoffice Calc to be better than
| Excel. Only then will big companies be able to use an MS
| Office alternative.
| dopeboy wrote:
| The Teams moat is bulletproof. This is proven by the fact that
| their product is objectively worse yet will never lose market
| share because it is "free"
| sjellen wrote:
| Microsoft gets it cloud gaming/gamepass on another platform. That
| was the big takeaway for me. Very early Netflix, get your
| streaming service on every platform possible before they see you
| as a threat or opportunity.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Video and phone calls don't give me motion sickness, so I'll
| stick with those. I also happen to enjoy being able to see the
| room I'm sitting in while I work. If anything, AR might have some
| promise over VR, but I'm definitely not convinced yet.
| anonred wrote:
| Good thing both are non-issues if you're sitting in an office
| chair and using AR video passthrough mode.
| nkrisc wrote:
| At that point I'd just rather not have a screen strapped to
| my face and be able to feel the breeze from my window.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A VR system that gives me 3-4 monitors already pays for itself by
| leaps and bounds in a work from home environment.
| anonred wrote:
| Exactly. The cost of my WFH monitor setup alone was more than
| what Meta's asking for the Pro.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| "Then one of the developers moved house, temporarily misplaced
| his headset, and we haven't used it since."
|
| That is basically every real-world (pun intended) story about VR
| I have ever heard. "It's great! We used it once or twice."
| whispersnow wrote:
| What Zack imaging VR will do for us is completely the opposite of
| what I would use it for.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Ok, so a VR version of MS Teams might be "compelling", but does
| anybody really think that companies are going to supply their
| employees with $1k VR goggles just so that they can do a virtual
| meetup instead of just a normal phone or video call?
|
| I think VR has merit and could be very useful in some spaces like
| gaming, exploring new worlds (with good graphics) or maybe even
| prototyping architectural designs etc, but these are too niche
| for whatever Zuck is trying here... for his billion dollar bet to
| succeed nearly everyone would have to be using his VR product.
| rippercushions wrote:
| Yes, happily, if that can substitute for the $20k international
| business trip.
| jackpeterfletch wrote:
| I agree that the additional value add over a video call might
| not be there, though the author did seem to speak of Workroom
| being somewhat compelling.
|
| But remember that a single Telepresence room can cost $60k -
| $600k, plus an ongoing subscription for networking +
| management, without the capacity or flexibility of a virtual
| room. Every meeting room in my office has one.
|
| This is touched on in the article, but remember theres a
| difference between how individuals and corporations spend
| money, especially if it can lead to [percieved?] gains in
| productivity/team cohesion.
|
| https://www.nojitter.com/telepresence-beautiful-and-expensiv...
| yokoprime wrote:
| If at some point goggles replaces monitors, I can see this
| taking off... but i don't see that happening anytime soon. VR
| goggles are way too bulky and uncomfortable now.
| bamboozled wrote:
| You'd really want to be disconnected entirely from your
| surroundings while you're working ? Sounds nauseating to me.
|
| I enjoy looking at friends and loved ones, looking out the
| window occasionally, taking notes, drinking coffee without a
| headset in the way, not having a sweaty face or being
| nauseated.
|
| AR maybe, VR for hours ? No thanks
| blackoil wrote:
| These goggles have pass through color video, some may enjoy
| to work in an immersive environment.
|
| Also, some may enjoy to work from beach in Bali or Swiss
| mountains.
| null_object wrote:
| I know this may come across as saying "who would want to
| carry a telephone in their pocket?", but the idea that we
| would all be required to sit with googles on all day, in a
| virtual 'office' environment, in order to do our work, is
| beyond all dystopian imagining, in my view.
|
| Today I'm coding by my window, with the sun shining outside
| - some birdsong audible from the trees in the yard. One of
| my kids just came home from school, and we chatted for a
| couple minutes. I had a few (too many) meetings today, but
| they were all video-calls and for some of the time I could
| carry on with a current task.
|
| I think the receptiveness of the HN crowd overestimates the
| utility of this technology. It would probably be used to
| enslave underlings into being 'present' at the virtual
| office without pee-breaks for 10-hours every day.
|
| PS: I see everyone else in this thread questioning the idea
| that we should sit in a virtual-reality world with goggles
| strapped to our faces all day is getting downvoted. I think
| people outside the tech-nerd bubble would probably
| disagree.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > Today I'm coding by my window, with the sun shining
| outside - some birdsong audible from the trees in the
| yard.
|
| I'm coding by the windows with the blinds down, sometimes
| birds, or worse, church bells (actually, mostly the damn
| bells) annoy me. I guess it's nice when my wife pops in,
| but I could still interrupt my VR session for that.
|
| Not saying I'm in any way into VR, I don't really see the
| point yet, but I wanted to give a different POV ;)
| bamboozled wrote:
| _I guess it's nice when my wife pops in, but I could
| still interrupt my VR session for that._
|
| This still sounds so bad.
| cush wrote:
| > You'd really want to be disconnected entirely from your
| surroundings while you're working?
|
| People take drugs to achieve this level of focus
| bamboozled wrote:
| you'd still need to take drugs, a VR headset doesn't stop
| you from being distracted .
| tmikaeld wrote:
| Ok, so a PC version of The Office might be "compelling", but
| does anybody really think that companies are going to supply
| their employees with $1k PC just so that they can do a digital
| meetup instead of just a normal phone call and a letter?
|
| I think PCs has merit and could be very useful in some spaces
| like development, exploring new productivity (with good
| keyboards) or maybe even prototyping architectural designs etc,
| but these are too niche for whatever Gates is trying here...
| for his billion dollar bet to succeed nearly everyone would
| have to be using his PC product.
| rrss wrote:
| Can you articulate the benefits of VR meetings that are
| comparable to those of personal computers and that motivate
| equating the two?
| tmikaeld wrote:
| Sure:
|
| - You're able to visibly instruct and teach physical
| objects without being physically on-site.
|
| Now apply that to professions like cooking, teaching,
| repairs, art, entertainment, music, industrial etc.
| fleetwoodsnack wrote:
| I've observed simulations in VR that were compelling-I
| still remember parts of them well even now. However,
| these simulations were pre-recorded or preset and my
| range of inputs were limited to a set of menus from which
| I could select different options to simulate.
|
| When I played various games with a wider range of input
| options, there was a noticeable latency, and the virtual
| environment did not fully capture my real or intended
| motions very well.
|
| I think there are possibilities for VR in certain fields,
| but when it comes to arts and sciences like cooking and
| music, there are some aspects of the physical world that,
| to be captured in a compelling and useful way, will
| require significant progress or significant modification
| to extant VR hardware and software.
|
| In cooking, there is a tangible, tactile difference in
| using a cleaver versus a pairing knife, and there is a
| tangible, tactile difference between cutting a head of
| kale, versus a large tuna. Likewise, there is a tangible,
| tactile component to interacting with instruments, and a
| large part of learning an instrument is developing not
| just the muscle memory of interacting with it, but
| developing the fine muscles involved as well.
|
| In both cases, the learning requires the use of the
| specific instrument, and there is a genuine limitation in
| practical learning when the medium of instruction and the
| instrument of instruction is generalized to a set of what
| are essentially game controllers.
|
| It seems to me the virtualization of physical
| interactions, without proper and necessary modifications
| to hardware and software, will leave VR bereft of the
| instructive capability it is relying on in order to be
| useful in this business/enterprise context in which it
| would like to be considered.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| You're right of course, for VR specifically, it's
| insufficient, but for XR/AR, there are many more
| applications where it fits. I guess that when we also get
| physical scans of real objects, streamed live to others,
| it will make quite a difference.
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| So: you need to learn how to be a chef. Off you go to VR
| chef school for... a few weeks. Congrats, you qre a chef
| now. Was it worth the hardware yout wont use qgain?
| rrss wrote:
| I don't get the sense that horizon workrooms targets any
| of that. It appears to have a goal of recreating normal
| conference rooms with virtual tables, whiteboards, TVs.
|
| I can imagine that VR in general has some applications
| that are valuable, but this particular article is about
| the potential of replacing normal voice and video calls
| with avatars in a virtual conference room.
| rrss wrote:
| Also
|
| > these are too niche for whatever Gates is trying here...
| for his billion dollar bet to succeed nearly everyone would
| have to be using his PC product.
|
| I don't think Microsoft / Gates had a "billion dollar bet"
| that's comparable to what Zuckerberg is doing with VR and the
| metaverse.
|
| Meta sells ads on a social network and is using money from
| that business to subsidize the development of VR applications
| on the theory that someday meta might make lots of money from
| VR.
|
| Microsoft sold software for personal computers, made a lot of
| money doing it, and used that money to fund the development
| of more software for personal computers. At no point in this
| early history was there a billion dollar bet.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Yes, of course your argument is valid. But i still think the
| functionality gained by VR is more of a smaller incremental
| one, rather than the revolutionary one that the PC was back
| then.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| I think it depend on two things:
|
| - It needs to be light enough to wear 8 hours a day and not
| disconnect too much from reality, like with XR/AR.
|
| - Input devices matter a great deal and writing on a
| keyboard - while in the field - will pose a problem, same
| goes with mouse input devices. The current controllers are
| too large and slow for productive input.
| intrasight wrote:
| Mostly agree. But on "input devices" I don't think the
| keyboard will as we know it will make the transition.
| Anyway, it's a very unnatural input device which only a
| small percentage of humanity has mastered. Steve Jobs
| famously told his designers in the 80s that he didn't
| want the Mac to have a physical keyboard. They said,
| rightly at the time, that a computer needs one. But in
| the end Jobs was correct - 99% of computers now have no
| keyboard.
|
| I have not followed research in this area, but I'm sure
| that some very smart people are trying to figure out the
| ideal virtual keyboard for VR.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| Voice interpretation using AI is very nearly there, it's
| the only input that isn't finicky.
| w0m wrote:
| 'forward two space, no back 1. down 3 and replace inner
| words with... no; undo. cancel. cancel. UNDO'.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| "Nearly" there, the problem with people mumbling or
| having a bad voice for recognition of microphones will
| always be an issue though, no matter how good the AI is..
| Semaphor wrote:
| > 99% of computers now have no keyboard.
|
| And I miss them, every time I use those computers. The
| Keyboard (and mouse, even if the Vi people will probably
| want to lynch me for that) is still the most efficient
| input device. That might eventually change through some
| UI revolution, but all we have so far are UIs with fewer
| features in exchange for making touch usage slightly
| easier.
| intrasight wrote:
| >is still the most efficient input device
|
| And has only existed for last 70 years of human history.
| I doubt it'll stick with us.
| wtetzner wrote:
| The first commercial typewriters became available in the
| late 1800s.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| It's not, though. The company laptop does a lot more than
| do Zoom calls.
| delecti wrote:
| Yeah, today's "unrealistically expensive" is tomorrow's basic
| toolkit. I don't know if a Meta headset will be tomorrow's
| basic toolkit, but I also don't know that I would have
| predicted smartphones being ubiquitous in 2000 or the PC in
| 1970.
| Maakuth wrote:
| Moreover, surely many companies dropped $1k per employee
| for better equipping their workforce to work remotely
| during the pandemic. Yearly IT costs per seat surely exceed
| $1k in many if not most companies, so this is not really
| expensive.
| KidComputer wrote:
| Is that a serious argument? PCs offered tremendous utility
| over phones and letters. What utility does VR provide over a
| regular PC? Oh that's right, virtually none.
| pavlov wrote:
| The PC of 1981 offered so little immediate utility that the
| microcomputer press was desperately pushing "maybe
| housewives can archive their recipes" as a use case for
| personal computers.
|
| Remember, it wasn't networked, and the I/O was limited to a
| crappy matrix printer at best. There was practically no
| software, and most professionals and managers didn't know
| how to type since that was a secretary's task.
| KidComputer wrote:
| Yet VR has none of those limitations and it still hasn't
| taken off like personal computers. Weird, it's almost
| like VR is just an interface and anything you can view in
| it you can just view on a regular screen, which most
| people prefer.
|
| Also the comparison to early computers a little weird. VR
| isn't a platform that can scale out to to handle billions
| of e-commerce transactions or solve computational biology
| problems. Apples to oranges.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| They already provide $1,000+ laptops.
|
| I'd love if the company sent me just a headset that I put on
| and I'm "at work".
| foobarian wrote:
| I don't know, I think as a user this would be pretty awesome.
| The main thing that fills me with dread is not everybody having
| the headset, or having trouble getting it to work. (Remember
| the days with each meeting starting with 10 minutes of futzing
| around with external display settings and resolutions and VGA
| connectors?)
| ianbutler wrote:
| If you spend most of your time working in it? I think so. My
| company provided me a 3.5k laptop, in fact every company I've
| worked for I've used very nice and expensive macs.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Most workers receiving laptops are getting low-tier Dells
| loaded with so much corporate crapware that they barely work
| at all. Including lots of developers--just not the ones at
| fancy tech companies or startups.
| ianbutler wrote:
| Between 25 and 55 percent of enterprise use Macs.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/3562374/mac-
| adoption-i...
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/3604601/macs-
| reach-23-...
|
| And apparently all of the fortune 500
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/11/12/100-of-
| fortune-50...
|
| Your model of "just fancy tech companies and startups" is
| maybe a bit outdated.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > Your model of "just fancy tech companies and startups"
| is maybe a bit outdated.
|
| It's really not. More permit them now or have some
| departments or (perhaps acquired) sub-units that use
| them. Your average office drone and old-corp IT person or
| developer is still issued a Windows machine, and probably
| a low-end one.
|
| [EDIT] Broader point remains either way: issuing $3.5k
| laptops/desktops is _very very_ far from the norm.
| ianbutler wrote:
| Okay, I've provided 3 articles to the contrary and you
| just restated your opinion.
|
| Not sure what you want to happen here but I guess we
| agree to disagree and move on.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Your articles are 1) marketing pieces, so _very_
| untrustworthy, and 2) don 't support the notion that Macs
| are the typical devices issued by enterprises.
|
| I did read them, they're just not very relevant.
|
| [EDIT]
|
| Incidentally, I never even claimed this:
|
| > Your model of "just fancy tech companies and startups"
| is maybe a bit outdated.
|
| I claimed that those are the only sorts of companies
| where one can be pretty sure most workers _aren 't_
| seeing and using lots of mostly-cheap Windows machines.
| Which is a very different claim from those being the only
| places that use Macs _at all_ , or are even the only ones
| that mostly use Macs.
|
| I wrote:
|
| > Including lots of developers--just not the ones at
| fancy tech companies or startups.
|
| I.e. I'm saying that almost no fancy tech companies or
| startups are likely to push cheap Windows laptops on
| their developers, which explains how some people might
| come to think that organizations in general are generous
| with equipment dollars for their workers and are
| sensitive to the costs in lost productivity of issuing
| shitty devices. This is not the case, _even for software
| developers_ , in much of the economy outside that bubble.
| [deleted]
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| Those sources just say that those companies have some
| Apple products somewhere in the company. Not that they
| supply mainly Macs.
|
| I work at a very large company that's probably counted
| here (because the number of Apple devices in the company
| is not 0), and almost everyone is only supplied with a
| mid-range Windows laptop, and a cheap Android phone.
| philote wrote:
| Agreed. With screen sharing, video, and audio, there's nothing
| more that is really needed for distributed people meeting
| together. Meeting in a 3d world seems like it would only
| benefit if you're discussing something that is 3d (some
| architecture design, car design, 3-d assets, etc.). Plus, it
| seems almost less personal in some ways since you're using an
| avatar instead of your actual face.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Companies regularly drop $100K+ on Cisco video conferencing
| gear.
| viraptor wrote:
| There's a big difference between providing the gear to make
| the video conference work well and providing VR gear to make
| the video conference... slightly different?
| cush wrote:
| It's literally the same thing. The market for hardware in
| corporate telephony and video conferencing is massive.
| Think headsets, massive screens, Teams/Zoom rooms, special
| phones, etc etc.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| In my experience Cisco gear provides marginal benefit over
| a good Zoom setup, and according to the article a VR
| meeting using the Quest Pro provides a substantive benefit.
| ttcbj wrote:
| Agreed. I bought a VR headset a few years ago with the idea of
| using iRacing to practice for actual track days. It was a
| plausible use case with a lot of significant practical
| advantages.
|
| But in reality, it was just unpleasant to use. I just didn't
| like having something strapped to my face. Ultimately, 3
| monitors provided an adequately immersive experience for
| learning without the hassle/discomfort of having a headset on.
| Honestly, it was kind of better anyway.
|
| I suspect that what people will quickly find is that although a
| VR meeting might in certain respects have theoretical
| advantages, its just not better enough (or maybe even better at
| all) to overcome the hassle. I don't want to go into a meeting
| room and strap on a headset, especially not the headset
| everyone else has been strapping on for the last month.
| Comparing zoom to a headset, I'd take zoom.
| tmikaeld wrote:
| I think the key here is the passthrough, making it an XR/AR
| experience, thus not disconnecting from reality in the same
| way as full VR is doing.
|
| This has already been deployed in industrial complexes like
| Volvo/SAAB for teaching engineers in car manufacturing.
| w0m wrote:
| 90% of of professional/work 'VR' usage will be through a
| standard interface I think until terminals/IDEs get proper
| usable/silo'd support. We had one work VR event and i spent
| half of it launching rockets at coworkers before my kid walked
| in and i went AFK.
| cush wrote:
| 90% of professional work is done in an IDE...?
|
| There are many other professions besides programming.
| onion2k wrote:
| _does anybody really think that companies are going to supply
| their employees with $1k VR goggles just so that they can do a
| virtual meetup instead of just a normal phone or video call?_
|
| Yes. Spending $1k (probably a lot less if you're buying a
| thousand devices at once) is almost insignificant when it comes
| to kitting out staff to do their job as well as possible. If
| you can make someone you're paying $100,000/year just 1% more
| productive then it's already paid for itself. Plus it's a perk
| "top of the line VR headset for every employee" keeps people
| onside (I'm reluctant to say 'happy'; that would be too much).
|
| If the company I work for decided to get all the staff VR
| headsets for meetings I'd be really cool with that. If we
| switched to Teams though, that might undo the happy vibes..
| ncallaway wrote:
| Does this actually make someone 1% more productive? I'm
| skeptical, but willing to be shown to be wrong.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > ... just 1% more productive
|
| I see this repeated again and again but where are the
| studies? I totally fail to see how putting a VR headset would
| make the corporate world more productive.
|
| I'm not a luddite: for example I can clearly see why AR, when
| I drive my car, can be convenient (say with navigational
| aids) or can provide safety features. I see the use cases
| that'd benefit many people.
|
| But a VR headset making people in the corporate world more
| productive? I mean: it may be the case but it remains to be
| seen.
|
| Heck, I don't even know: are people supposed to do VR
| meetings seeing 3D avatars kinda looking like the other
| persons in the meeting? For I don't see how you could see the
| real person correctly, knowing that it'll have a VR headset
| on its head (so it cannot filmed by any camera correctly).
|
| How are facial expressions going to be represented in the VR
| meetings?
|
| Someone will smile and you'll instead see a 3D model smiling?
| I'd say if that's the case the chance that there's a
| productivity gain has to be weighted with the chance that it
| could also be the biggest flop in the history of flops...
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is weird because VR is the subject of this giant bet by
| Facebook. Really VR is still nascent. I bet you couldn't
| find a really bulletproof study in the 90's that giving
| employees laptops would boost productivity by a measurable
| percentage, but it still seemed like a reasonable thing to
| try out at least.
|
| I believe there's work on getting cameras inside the
| headsets for expressions and gaze-tracking.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Is the productivity gain so big? Mind that it's not only cost
| to acquire the devices, but also all maintenance around them
| etc
|
| And then you have people with different degree of reluctance,
| which you have to encourage and train (see the recent post
| about Facebook/Meta pushing their managers to enforce VR
| meetings ...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Imagine how dumb you're going to feel if you're the only
| person in VR in a teams meeting.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Hah yes. 7 people on low-res webcams and one with a 4k
| Master Chief avatar.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Or the alternative even. I work in consulting. What would
| it be like if my team was geared up in VR and the client
| was not? What would it be like if the client was geared
| up and we were not?
|
| I would imagine... really distracting.
| anonred wrote:
| Isn't that just the definition of network effect? Meta is
| clearly betting that at a certain critical mass _not_
| owning a VR headset in a professional environment will be
| like not owning a webcam.
| kortilla wrote:
| That's a pretty weak bet given that owning a webcam isn't
| even expected for meetings between businesses.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| How do I bet that they're wrong?
| weeblewobble wrote:
| short $META?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| A few years ago when video chat was, if you asked tech
| workers, already the norm for remote meetings, I know for
| a fact that at least one of the big three management
| consulting firms still strongly preferred call-an-actual-
| phone-number voice conferencing.
|
| It struck me as goofy at first but I think they had it
| right, actually. You can join a call like that from
| almost anywhere. Don't need to dig out a laptop, let
| alone VR garbage. Airport, walking down the street on the
| way to another meeting, in the car on speakerphone (like,
| probably don't do this, but of course tons of people do),
| whatever, it all works. No "do I have the service they
| want installed? Is it updated?" No other crap popping up
| and making noise or distracting you. And phone number
| plus code had fewer problems than meeting invites for all
| the hip services.
|
| Maybe not having VR will end up being one of those things
| that signals _either_ low _or_ high status. I can 't
| imagine C-suite types fucking around with VR except for
| big all-hands announcements or whatever.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I think it will come across as unprofessional to join a
| meeting in vr personally. And triply so if not everyone,
| or everyone of a certain class is doing it.
|
| VR is goofy, and it'll continue to be goofy. Like... ok
| so you have an avatar. Are a cartoon? That's a bad start.
| Are they maybe an unreal meta human that looks like you?
| Different than you? Like you, but poorly done? Ok
| whatever let's assume the rendering is fine.
|
| What are you doing in this virtual meeting? Are you
| standing? Because that would be very weird for a business
| meeting. Presumably you're sitting irl because this is
| work, so maybe your avatar is sitting... Do they have a
| table in the virtual room? Because a meeting with no
| table is a bit odd for a business setting. But if you're
| in VR, you probably don't have a table in front of you
| irl. Or at least not the same table that's virtually in
| front of you. What does your body language track? What if
| Carol starts lagging and her avatar starts jerking
| around? What if your facial tracking gets something wrong
| and you just have a weird look on your face? Or more
| realistically your facial tracking is just a pretty
| simplistic thing that vacillates between neutral and
| smiling and you need to convey negative emotions?
|
| In snow crash, the thing that made the metaverse work was
| very strong facial expression mimicry. It's not a
| terrible argument, but we don't have that. We have fake
| expressive facial mimicry that looks emotive but isn't
| actually that nuanced to your own face.
|
| VR Chat for business just seems like a preposterous idea.
| Especially for older folks.
| jayd16 wrote:
| You mean like in real life where people can wear casual
| or dress clothes? Won't it just be that business cultural
| norms develop?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I didn't mean geared up in goofy avatars. I meant
| rendering themselves in VR at all
| r00fus wrote:
| More like real life where you're on screen share but your
| client is literally phoning it in (because they can't run
| webex/zoom or they're on the road).
|
| Lowest common denominator applies for critical attendees.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| 7 people on low-res webcams and one with a 4k avatar he
| was using with his wife the night before who's been out
| of town a lot..
| Tepix wrote:
| With Zuck watching.
| skizm wrote:
| Wait. Now I want this.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| Most companies don't even buy webcams to improve meetings,
| they're not going to spend 100 times more on VR headsets
| crooked-v wrote:
| The problem with that comparison is that only a small
| percentage of people are going to be even 1% more productive
| using VR, and a noticeable percentage will be noticeably less
| productive (e.g. nausea issues)... and with the state of
| current technology you're not going to find out which person
| is in which group until after you've spent the money.
| swalsh wrote:
| As someone who has personally experienced the difference
| presence makes in VR, yeah I think it's worth it. You'll have
| far more productive meetings (and frankly, smaller meetings....
| one of the downside of zoom meetings I've noticed is because
| it's so easy to invite everyone.... people invite everyone. You
| end up with meetings with 10 people on and only 3 people
| partcipating).
|
| But I'll concede that you'll looking at an uphill battle. It's
| not intuitive to a lot of people what the benefits are until
| you've experienced it.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Ask companies how they feel about those expensive conference
| room setups that are rarely used, and when they are used the
| experience is buggy as hell.
|
| VR has applications, but mainstream consumer use is not one of
| them.
|
| I suspect and predict the killer app is simply greater
| bandwidth and bigger screens for ordinary video calls. Some
| marketer will find the right angle and moment to proclaim
| "telepresence is here!" and the mainstream ambitions of VR will
| evaporate. All interest will go to "half rooms" where the
| "other half" of the room is someone else's telepresence half
| room. On demand, of course.
|
| Gaming will always have some type of VR hardware - that's too
| compelling not to try. However, beyond gaming the ordinary
| person does not really need 360 degree immersion for anything
| unless they are learning something complex and VR is used in
| the profession they are learning about.
| anonred wrote:
| What tech and/or societal changes would be needed to reach a
| world where a fair amount of user generated content is
| spatial (as opposed to 2D)?
| bsenftner wrote:
| What's the purpose, and does the purpose make money? Unless
| the ordinary user can make money using VR _somehow_ , I
| don't see it having the essential reason for the tech to go
| mainstream. VR gaming and porn is not _that compelling_.
| cush wrote:
| $1k goggles is pennies on the dollar compared to office real
| estate
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| > for whatever Zuck is trying here...
|
| Zuck read too much cyberpunk as a kid. The Metaverse is lifted
| straight out of Snow Crash, they didn't even change the name
| [0]
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| He's far from alone. Companies have famously dropped Snow
| Crash on a table and said "make this.". He's just the one
| with the most money and people.
| Tepix wrote:
| Neal Stephenson sure makes a compelling case, even if the
| world he describes is in many aspects a dystopia.
| cush wrote:
| Most of these designs are an inevitability. Every Sci fi
| universe has some kind of Metaverse experience - all pointing
| generally in the same direction as they try to answer, "what
| would people do in a world with no limits?"
| jonny_eh wrote:
| They never consider the cost though. They just use it as a
| mechanism to tell story.
|
| Don't underestimate the story telling value of characters
| in a virtual space. Consider how much better The Matrix is
| while they're actually in it.
| cush wrote:
| Cost goes down and ROI only goes up, exponentially over
| time. VR is currently as expensive today as it ever will
| be.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| I was actually considering non-monetary cost. e.g. space
| to store the headset, time to place it over your face,
| time to charge it, etc.
| luckydata wrote:
| just to have a boring meeting about spreadsheets? no.
|
| Performing select activities around design, prototyping etc?
| Yes, but it's a small market. IMHO FB is betting too much on a
| pipe dream, considering nobody thinks "hey let's get my
| enterprise productivity apps from Facebook". Hard, hard sell.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| 90% of human communication is via body language. Unless I've
| missed something and Meta have managed to capture the nuances
| of body language and translate it to the avatars, then this
| tech is useless for "real" meetings.
|
| Anything that could be an email, or a presentation, sure. But
| if you have to trust what other people in the room are saying,
| then this won't work.
| cush wrote:
| In recent interviews with Zuck he talks about important body
| language is. From their research, they found you can get
| really far with only face, posture, and hand reproduction
| (hence why Meta avatars have no legs)
|
| It's early days, but having very accurate face and hand
| tracking will be the next big step
| yrgulation wrote:
| Kids, stop doing drugs or else you risk growing up and thinking
| teams is a great idea, or worse, thinking teams and meta are good
| for you.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Even in that older article he wrote about the Metaverse, it
| seemed like somebody just gave Ben Thompson a really good demo,
| and that made him bullish on the product. He's a very smart
| analyst, typically, but I don't think his prediction about the
| usefulness (or more accurately the adoption) of VR for business
| meetings is going to pan out. Nobody wants this stuff, and the
| cheaper, better solution for an increasingly remote workforce is
| just to have fewer synchronous meetings, not to spend thousands
| of dollars buying every team member a VR headset.
| matt_s wrote:
| A major factor when meeting virtually is there is a threshold of
| "good enough" and I think we are there. Engineers tend to not
| turn on video as it is and they still get our work done.
| Technology is not going to solve people problems (teams
| disagreeing, internal politics, etc.) What is the expected
| outcome/benefit?
| KidComputer wrote:
| They're screwed if they don't make something viable before most
| people get pushed back into the office.
| [deleted]
| ianbutler wrote:
| "Teams is the most obvious manifestation of virtual reality's
| potential from a software perspective."
|
| No one I know likes using Teams, they're forced to. I also
| temporarily used teams for a previous startup and we switched
| back to Slack. Basic things were broken, like search, which is a
| no go from me.
|
| I like VR, am an enthusiast even, but if that's their
| representation of "potential", I think we're headed down the
| wrong path. I understand the spirit of Teams having everything
| integrated and available, but in practice they will have to do
| far better in user experience and functionality, it's not enough
| to say you have a feature, that feature has to at the very least
| not suck in the software world, in the VR world? It better blow
| people away. Most people are still highly skeptical of VR and
| they will need to be amazing.
| badwolf wrote:
| The search in teams is so unbelievably terrible.
| mFixman wrote:
| The tragedy here is that Meta employees internally use
| Workplace, an IMO superior product for big companies than both
| MS Teams and Slack.
|
| The fact that they failed at marketing it properly and was
| pulled from the market is one of the many signs that things
| aren't working right in that company.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| > they're forced to
|
| Key point in the enterprise world.
|
| MS - archetype enterprise longing for consumer love. Meta -
| archetype startup trying to sell its toys to enterprise.
|
| This is just too bad for VR. Making VR corporate friendly will
| leave a bad taste for the young generation. Meaning this
| generation will never fall in love with the possibilities and
| potential of VR.
| uni_rule wrote:
| So is the Mixed Reality suite getting folded into the former
| Oculus platform or vice versa? Or is it neither, and just that
| some tools are being ported to the Facebook side?
| dustedcodes wrote:
| If you thought Microsoft couldn't find a way to make Teams even
| more diabolical they just surprise you with the meta verse.
| lostmsu wrote:
| So what's the best way to use Windows on Quest Pro according to
| their own marketing?
| bheadmaster wrote:
| > the presentation, though, was cringe
|
| Using "cringe" as an adjective immediately makes my mind imagine
| the author as a typical Fortnite-playing, Youtube-watching,
| Discord-using, skinny 12 year old boy with glasses.
| coldpie wrote:
| Welcome to old age, grampa :) Here's your rocking chair,
| there's the lawn, time to start yelling.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Why does this guy quote himself so much? Each article is like 60%
| new content.
| csallen wrote:
| One of the main challenges of these VR headsets is the time-to-
| start for any activity. It's just atrocious.
|
| If someone invites me to an impromptu Zoom call today, I can join
| it quickly and easily, because it's likely I was already on my
| computer. I see the link on my computer, usually in my calendar
| or in Slack. It takes me a second to click it. And boom, I'm in.
| Ezpz.
|
| Compare that to a VR meeting. If someone invites me, I'm likely
| on my computer. I have to leave my computer, go find my headset
| because it's bulky and inconvenient to keep on my desk, hope that
| it's charged which 50% of the time it's not, boot it up which
| takes 10 seconds, clear a safe space for me to stand in my
| apartment, put on the headset and draw a safety boundary, open
| the appropriate app and hope it doesn't need an update, and then
| try to figure out where the hell the invite link is that was
| chatted/Slacked/texted/calendar'd to me.
|
| The difference between jumping into something in 5 seconds vs 5
| minutes seems trivial, but it's massive. It ends up being the
| difference between me doing this 5x a week vs 5x a year.
|
| What VR seems to need are more killer apps that are habitual, so
| I use the headset more often, so it's close by + it's charged + I
| keep an open space + occasionally I'm already using it when I get
| an invite to use it in some other way. There are all sorts of
| things that I regularly do on my computer, that I could
| potentially do _better_ in VR if an app existed, but none does.
| bergenty wrote:
| That doesn't sound right. If you use VR for all your meetings,
| it would be sitting on your desk (it doesn't take much more
| space than over the ear headphones), would be wired and takes
| about 2 seconds to slip on.
| csallen wrote:
| It's hard to get to a point where VR is ubiquitous enough to
| use it for all of your meetings, because you must first get
| to a point where VR is useful for a few of your meetings
| before it starts to spread and become popular. And that isn't
| happening for me at least, because it's too much work to
| start.
| enra wrote:
| This is my main problem with Quest 2 as well. I'd like to use
| it more, but each time it's such a chore to set up, navigate,
| open the app, wait it to load etc.
|
| I wish the Quest could just preload with an app, and you
| wouldn't need to redraw the boundary if you use it in the same
| room.
|
| Another issue is that quest doesn't work in dark/dimly lit
| room, you need like bright lights shining to each corner and
| the floor if you like to use it in the night.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| All this metaverse and Oculus garbage and I still see literally
| no reason to use any of it nor make a Facebook account
| mandeepj wrote:
| I guess it's a no-brainer to imagine why Meta did not choose
| FaceTime for VR integration instead of Teams :-)
| totalview wrote:
| I recently played Bone Labs on the Occulus Quest 2, and it
| totally redefines where I thought we were with VR (and with no PC
| to have to play it). Seriously, just check it out if you haven't
| and you have a headset.
|
| I am a huge VR skeptic for many of the reasons that people state
| here. I have also thought that VR's killer app was any dangerous
| professional training situation that you wanted to present as
| accurately as possible without injuries to your staff
| (firefighting, EMS response, etc.). If the road to adoption
| begins with experiences that are decidedly more interactive and
| immersive than screens and monitors, I am starting to see the
| (long) path that leads towards that future.
| numbsafari wrote:
| I can't possibly see myself wanting to share or discuss company
| secrets or details on a Facebook/Meta owned platform. They have
| such a horrible track record when it comes to privacy, and basic
| honesty and integrity, that there's no way it makes sense to use
| as a corporate platform.
| negamax wrote:
| So far I have been rooting for Facebook. With MSFT in the mix, I
| am out. Good luck Zuck
| ferrumfist wrote:
| A myriad of issues with FB is worthy of support but the moment
| they partner with MSFT it's a bridge too far, eh?
| negamax wrote:
| Yeah
| matai_kolila wrote:
| That's wild, I don't think I've ever heard of someone
| having such a specific moral affectation.
| theptip wrote:
| I'd like to note that a lot of people posted yesterday
| complaining about a Meta walled garden - the MS partnership (and
| Zuck's previous comments) to me points to the opposite strategy.
|
| One other thought - since hardware is the limiting factor right
| now, it's clear that Apple will have a massive advantage with
| their vertically integrated hardware capabilities. But _they_ are
| much more likely to go with a walled garden approach, which could
| hold things back.
|
| I think in the short term, the enterprise market is a good way to
| build the installed base and bring down the cost of headsets. And
| especially with a lot of people recently moving to remote work
| due to Covid, I think there is a newfound appetite to try novel
| things to foster interpersonal connection while working remotely.
| (Not to mention that many companies now have a huge reduction in
| OpEx from ditching their office lease.)
| blobbers wrote:
| ... so why can't I watch NBA games in VR?
|
| What's the limitation there? They don't want to put cameras every
| 5ft in the front row in a bunch of stadiums?
|
| The compelling use cases (not horizon worlds) to the general
| public are possible but not even being attempted.
|
| Can I watch a single sporting event in VR? Olympics? College?
|
| It seems like they've tried to do concerts but to be honest I've
| been to concerts in reality and the sweaty heat and blinding
| lights are different. I haven't sat courtside.
| 972811 wrote:
| You can: https://www.oculus.com/blog/go-courtside-in-vr-with-
| nba-leag...
| cercatrova wrote:
| VR meetings want to take the asynchronicity of remote work and
| replace it with the synchronicity of office work, but virtually.
| You lose most of the advantages of remote work (the only one
| retained is lack of commute).
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Innovation isn't very likely to be found in a sterile corporate
| environment.
|
| The attempts by Meta to control so tightly what content ends up
| on the Quest will only end up with results that are a reflection
| of their creators.
|
| I felt like i wanted to throw up with the whole bay area,
| corporate environment vibe this presentation gave off.
|
| I was most excited by the prospect of having Xbox game pass on
| this thing until i found out all it is is a big screen in VR
| (What's the fucking point, guys?). If they have the engineering
| resources to convert even a portion of fan favorites into native
| VR experiences, that's going to kill.
|
| This feels a lot like IBM labs where the technology is "there",
| but these clowns are not the ones who're going to find the killer
| application and yet are hell bent on controlling the whole thing.
|
| Someones going to come around eventually and hook this up with
| porn, native video games, psychedelic experiences in legal states
| etc and push the boundaries of exciting yet controversial content
| that would never get past the committee of corpo minded rats at
| Meta and that will be when it takes off.
|
| For their sake, i hope Meta realize this.
| tkk23 wrote:
| This feels like tablets all over again. Microsoft had them for
| years but couldn't make something convincing.
|
| The core of Facebook is the idea of reinventing Myspace as a
| business app with a formal design. From that point of view, it
| makes sense to let Microsoft reinvent the 3d user experience.
|
| I doubt that it will create the package that will establish 3d
| headsets. For a workplace, it's a feature that the colleagues in
| a meeting are at a distance. On the other hand, we would already
| know if a virtual desktop with a huge spreadsheet would be more
| efficient than a monitor.
|
| Without a Steve Jobs, users have to figure out the purpose of 3d
| headsets by themselves. Meta should follow the model of the PC
| and let every producer of electronics build a compatible product.
| Let everybody use the patents as long as they build a headset
| that fulfills the spec.
|
| They should also avoid any lock-in and choose a free operating
| system. Only then can it be used by enthusiasts to experiment
| until the purpose of 3d headsets is found.
|
| This can still be beneficial for Meta because they can establish
| themselves as the leading market place for 3d apps. Furthermore,
| like ads on the web, there is a need for an ad network because
| all the free apps need to be financed. Meta can ride the network
| effect of being the first mover.
|
| Meta has the chance to create the next platform. I doubt that
| they will take the risk. By locking it down, they can be sure
| that they will never lose whatever they create. Unfortunately,
| they are only on a way to create the precursor to the 3d ipad.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Apple is definitely going to swoop in with their own version of
| the VR/AR headset once the field is basically worked and just
| waiting for a correct implementation.
|
| The question is really whether it is more like personal
| computers, where somebody outshines them, smartphones where
| there's enough room to share the market, or tablets where only
| Apple can seem to make it work really.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Honestly I'm a little disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm for
| what this could be; people shat on all kinds of now-ubitquitous
| tech with similar "nobody will ever replace the typewriter!"
| kinds of arguments.
|
| It would be _cool_ if we could solve the hardest part of
| interacting with others remotely, which is the lost fidelity.
| That 's an interesting and hard problem that we haven't yet
| totally solved.
|
| Meta isn't there yet, but they're trying! I feel like the corpo-
| hate has overshadowed the positivity that used to be more
| prevalent in the tech community.
| kortilla wrote:
| > It would be cool if we could solve the hardest part of
| interacting with others remotely, which is the lost fidelity.
| That's an interesting and hard problem that we haven't yet
| totally solved.
|
| Have you ever considered that's the wrong problem to solve? It
| reeks of the "how do we breed a faster horse" type of
| "innovation" rather than "how do we replace the horse".
|
| Meta is focusing on replicating in-person meetings which are
| one of the worst facets of business. They are slow,
| inefficient, lossy, and require real time interaction to be
| effective.
|
| It's not a criticism of VR. It's a criticism of bringing back
| one of the dumbest aspects of in-office interactions. Perhaps
| the next feature they can tackle is shared bathrooms where you
| listen to your coworkers have diarrhea or strain to pass turds
| that tear their hemorrhoids.
| opportune wrote:
| The technology is cool, but the problem is Meta is working
| backwards from "create a platform where we have total control
| so a company like Apple can't bully us" and not "create a
| product that people want to use". Plus, Zuck himself being
| involved in the marketing is basically instantly making their
| VR products seem uncool and untrustworthy.
|
| You can see this bleed through into all of their demos and
| apps. They are focused on social because it has a larger TAM
| and enterprise customers. They're demoing digital cosmetics
| because they want to create a marketplace for them and skim a
| huge amount off the top. They're not focused on creating
| something that is better than the alternatives or that people
| want to use.
|
| VR/AR are for sure the future. I can't think of a company I'd
| less rather be the main player than Meta (I guess Oracle, but I
| mean companies which realistically could make an AR/VR
| product). And I think that sentiment is common enough among
| early adopters and developers that Meta will really struggle to
| hit the hockey stick growth they need.
| csallen wrote:
| It seems like they're putting a tremendous amount of work
| into Horizon Workrooms, at least, and trying to nail the
| experience to make it great. And they're seeing what other
| kinds of apps people like, and supporting them in big ways.
| For example, exercise apps like Supernatural were kind of an
| unexpected hit.
|
| I don't think there's really an _either-or_ situation here,
| where they have to choose between defending their company
| strategically vs making experiences that people want to use.
| To succeed, they have to do both, and it seems like they are.
| opportune wrote:
| Depends on your definition of success. Their burn rate is
| tremendous to match. FB engineers are not cheap.
|
| Sure, they have apps, but no killer app that will make non-
| nerds want to use their product yet. Workrooms IMO is a
| solution in search of a problem. Would anybody really
| rather use that than a regular video chat?
| ratg13 wrote:
| Until there are cameras and holograms this will all be a
| gimmick.
|
| I'm not strapping something on my face to talk to a virtual
| representation of another person.
| nluken wrote:
| The negativity runs rampant because the goodwill tech folk gave
| these companies was crushed when they demonstrated that they
| didn't actually have good intentions. After so many
| transgressions why should anyone trust Meta with anything? Even
| if this was the solution to all my problems, should I just let
| them off the hook and forget about the past? Maybe I would be
| more optimistic if this was coming from a company without a
| history of disrespecting its users.
|
| I don't know if VR is the path to bridging the fidelity gap you
| mentioned, but even if it was Meta's "round out any potential
| rough edge" approach represents a step backward from what we
| already have. Why use their game, which infantilizes its users
| to avoid alienating potential advertisers, as opposed to VRChat
| or something else where you might actually have a meaningful
| interaction?
| moffkalast wrote:
| There used to be more positivity because it was genuinely about
| making great products that people will like and want to buy,
| instead of making something people will like just enough to let
| you datamine them for all they're worth.
|
| Is this seriously anything beyond Facebook trying to get
| companies to mandate using these so they can get high fidelity
| 3D video footage of every living person's house and apartment,
| their gait and all other possible biometrics? I certainly
| wouldn't put it past them. Quest headsets are cheaper than all
| other headsets for a reason.
| majjam wrote:
| Agreed, I used to be excited about tech developments, now Im
| scared of them.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| One could argue this is exactly the corpo-hate I was
| referencing earlier. What do we get out of being so cynical?
| moffkalast wrote:
| We get to keep some of our privacy by being cynical I
| suppose.
|
| As they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice -
| can't get fooled again.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| I would trade a lot of my privacy in an instant if it
| meant full fidelity remote human interactions (I already
| trade a lot of my privacy for much less), but I guess I'm
| an optimist.
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| You give them an inch, they'd take a mile.
| dado3212 wrote:
| I'm so confused by this argument. Why do people think that
| gait and biometrics data is so valuable for running ads?
| Trust me, there are millions more features that are more
| closely predictive that top ML models are just leaving on the
| table before you get to "what's your eye saccade rate". Also,
| while Meta's track record is horrendous, they actually have
| done an okay job at locking down how data is used internally.
| New use cases are very heavily scrutinized, it's the old
| grandfathered ones you should focus on, not new ones from VR.
|
| Also, Quest isn't cheap because it will eventually collect
| ads data, it's cheap because social VR, the main Meta
| argument, requires adoption. It's a multibillion dollar bet
| that enough people will have it that it'll be less friction.
| losvedir wrote:
| Seriously. I'm pretty stoked to see what happens here. I was an
| early backer of the Rift and have been just gobsmacked by how
| far it's come since then! I bought myself a Quest a few years
| ago and was so impressed by it I bought one for my family
| across the country. We hung out online a couple times in Eleven
| Table Tennis, in RecRoom, and a couple other apps, and I
| totally get it: there's real presence there that's lacking in
| other modes. Unfortunately, everything _else_ about it was so
| clunky (keeping the thing charged, updated, joining these apps,
| etc) that we never really got a habit of it and haven 't met up
| like that for a while.
|
| Still, I think it's a really cool problem and there's awesome
| progress being made. I don't know if Meta will pull it off, but
| I'm pretty glad they're throwing billions of dollars at it. I'm
| pretty impressed with Zuckerberg for having the fortitude to do
| that; we'll see what comes of his company...
| coldpie wrote:
| Facebook owns it. If it was any other company, I'd be
| uninterested and indifferent, like 3D TVs. But since it's a
| Facebook company, I treat it with active contempt.
| kasajian wrote:
| It was, "like", "cringe".
|
| Seriously?
| xdavidliu wrote:
| the author is a self-important dilettante
| blackbear_ wrote:
| Can't wait to have hybrid meetings in these. It's sitll a hustle
| getting a mic and cam working
| jtr1 wrote:
| It's an admittedly squishy heuristic, but my gut feeling about
| whether a technology will stick or not is usually driven by how
| people outside the tech world talk about it. Most of my community
| is outside of the tech world at this point.
|
| For the iPhone and Apple watch, just about every I knew wanted
| one as soon as it was announced. Google glass? People were joking
| about how they'd rip one off of someone's face if they caught
| them filming. Uber/Lyft? Everyone who was pumped to ride at 10
| bucks shrugged and found something else at 50.
|
| I'm sure Meta has made huge strides in leveling up immersive VR
| technology overall. But apart from people with a vested interest,
| I only hear about the metaverse as the butt a joke. There are
| lots of cool applications for VR. I'm just not betting on this
| particular one.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| VR headsets look dorky and isolate you from other people in the
| real world. I'm inclined to agree with you that's probably
| enough to mean it will fail to ever go mainstream.
|
| Ironically, AR/some better Google Glass might be a hit, if it
| didn't look so stupid and the people pushing it were less
| hated. Wait until TikTok makes an AR headset and gets K-pop
| groups to promote it.
| anonred wrote:
| You might be underestimating normalization of deviance in
| society. Meta's already demonstrated that the younger
| generation will adopt VR headsets for gaming. "Dorkiness" is
| very unlikely to be a sufficient barrier here.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I have no interest in the metaverse, or socializing at all in
| VR. I just want to play games and use fitness apps, which I
| find value in.
|
| That said, there is nothing wrong with trying to expand into
| the consumer/enterprises.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| This is the first time I see someone mention Teams in positive
| way.
|
| If the future of VR is like Teams, I guess I'll pass
| muglug wrote:
| I know that VR is compelling, and FB's VR headsets succeed in
| providing some level of immersion, but I don't think people will
| go from remote-working-with-Zoom to remote-working-with-headset,
| because it's a trade the most aren't willing to make.
|
| If I'm on a Zoom call with 8 other people and the conversation
| shifts to something that doesn't concern me, I can bring up a
| code editor and continue hacking away at something without
| advertising that to my colleagues. But if I started in VR, I'm
| basically stuck there.
|
| The whole thing still feels like "we built this great piece of
| technology but we're struggling to find its killer app". It feels
| very Segway-ish.
| intrasight wrote:
| > I'm basically stuck there
|
| Right. So the first extension to this platform will be avatar
| automation - to make it look like your are "engaged" while you
| in fact are doing something else.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Yes, the VR equivalent of mouse nudging that maintains a
| green 'active' dot in corporate collaborative environments.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| You know you can set your status to stay active without
| mouse nudging, right?
| badwolf wrote:
| I wish that were the case
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| This sounds very over-engineered. We should just go back to
| Skype conference calls.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Put it on a lazy large dog or cow, if available, as they
| don't have issues with VR apparently.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Segways sold a total of ~140,000 units across nearly 20 years
| of production[0]. The original Quest sold more than twice that
| in the first 6 months of it's release[1], and Quest 2 sales
| have well exceeded 10 million units. While I agree that VR is
| still a nebulous proposition from a software perspective, the
| hardware is apparently ready and the demand is there.
|
| [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/90517971/exclusive-segway-the-
| mo...
|
| [1] https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/superdata-xr-update
| mhb wrote:
| Sure. It's the same situation of a solution in search of a
| problem as video in phone calls before that capability existed.
| "In the future, we'll be able to see people instead of just
| talk to them on the phone!"
|
| It turns out that that's not always/often so desirable.
| muglug wrote:
| Yeah that's a really great comparison! Video calls are great
| for transatlantic calls with family and friends I haven't
| seen in ages, and a good VR version of that might be even
| better, but I likely wouldn't use it more than a few times a
| month.
| gausswho wrote:
| For me video calls add negative value even in this
| situation. I have a hard time accommodating the compromise
| in fidelity and latency and resent the miracle. I'd rather
| use textual mediums and wait (even a long time) to get the
| full experience in person. Current technology for
| videoconferencing reduces my relationship with people
| rather than grows it. Pretty sure I'm a minority here.
| randoglando wrote:
| > But if I started in VR, I'm basically stuck there.
|
| That's not entirely true. You can still pull up screens and
| hack away in Workrooms. However, I don't think they let you
| hide your screens from others yet. I presume that feature will
| soon come.
| boh wrote:
| VR is going to be a niche product even for gaming. It's fun and
| definitely a novel experience, but onerous for extensive use.
| It's way easier to sit in a comfortable chair and play on a
| traditional machine--particularly for any lengthy game (it's
| also cheaper and has more to offer).
|
| The myth of the "killer app" just assumes progress is
| inevitable regardless of practical utility. No one needs
| "immersion" for a zoom call. The awkward, and not completely
| comfortable, VR sets are acceptable when you're doing something
| fun but--and I can't stress this enough--completely
| demoralizing when you need to put it on to "immerse" yourself
| in the banal confines of a business meeting.
|
| Investors pretty uniformly don't have high hopes for what seems
| to be a desperate Hail Mary for a company that's no longer
| capable of organic growth. Meta just doesn't have enough time
| to cultivate a Meta-verse with enough adopters to stall its
| decline. I'm sure there will be benefits to this research but
| the level of optimism we're getting from Meta is more hopeful
| than reasonable.
| andreilys wrote:
| Unless you use gpt-3 and a text-to-voice synthesizer to
| automate your attendance of unimportant meetings in VR.
| anonred wrote:
| Surprise: you can already do this in Meta's Workrooms. Opening
| a private interactive window to your computer while in a VR
| meeting works as expected, although it's just as obvious as
| when you do it in a video call...
| helen___keller wrote:
| > If I'm on a Zoom call with 8 other people and the
| conversation shifts to something that doesn't concern me, I can
| bring up a code editor and continue hacking away at something
| without advertising that to my colleagues. But if I started in
| VR, I'm basically stuck there.
|
| This is simultaneously a criticism and a big selling point
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Not for employees. In fact, I can't see a single reason why
| workers will want VR environments for remote work.
| headsupftw wrote:
| They can easily provide a feature where the employee could
| flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself,
| signaling that she is currently occupied with something
| else. Yes, in a Zoom setting, she doesn't have to broadcast
| that. But that's just cheating.
| philjohn wrote:
| Install Oculus Virtual Desktop - gives you access to your
| computer, on compatible keyboards is able to bring it virtually
| onto your desktop in front of you, and mute your mic.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| > If I'm on a Zoom call with 8 other people and the
| conversation shifts to something that doesn't concern me, I can
| bring up a code editor and continue hacking away at something
| without advertising that to my colleagues. But if I started in
| VR, I'm basically stuck there.
|
| This is exactly why in person meetings are awful, and VR is
| trying to recreate those conditions.
| franciscop wrote:
| Wait but we _have_ found a killer app for it, 3D videogames,
| isn 't it? It's just not a market big enough for Meta since
| they want everyone to be using it so they are looking for
| bigger markets? But it seems to me there is a very clear and
| pocket-deep sector there.
| muglug wrote:
| 3rd-person video games can be fun -- I really enjoyed playing
| Lucky's tale back in the day:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLantPfNRIY, but first-person
| games don't map half as well.
| nomel wrote:
| The HL 1/2 and Doom 1/2 ports severely disagree.
| TillE wrote:
| That's the really funny thing about Meta's angle. VR is
| pretty exciting for games, there's a lot of potential there.
| A metaverse of games is actually an incredibly cool concept,
| with lots of possible ways to conceptualize that.
|
| But they're not at all interested in that! They're betting
| big on some dubious niche productivity / social uses for VR.
| Even if you enjoy VR meetings, how is Meta going to make
| billions from that?
| blobbers wrote:
| They haven't really started trying. Half Life Alyx is still
| on the top of everyone's list, but mac/quest2 users can't
| play it.
|
| Most quest 2 games feel like phone games. Super shallow, and
| not amazing.
|
| Meta should bid for world of Warcraft. MMORPGs are the most
| successful form of metaverse to date.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| I don't know if the smoldering wreckage of Activision-
| Blizzard could make the next WoW..
| swalsh wrote:
| So your main issue with VR meetings is you can't sit there and
| ignore the meeting?
|
| You can say "Hey, it sounds like i'm no longer needed here, do
| you mind if I leave?".
| croes wrote:
| Answer: "the meeting is mandatory, so you can't leave"
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Just say you have to go to another meeting
|
| Bonus points, you can schedule a bunch of long meetings on
| your calendar that are actually just time to work
| kortilla wrote:
| That's a good way to get left out of the occasional
| actual important meeting.
| ianbutler wrote:
| dont ask, leave and see if anyone cares, that's what I do
| cush wrote:
| Why would being in VR make you stuck? You can still miltitask
| alkonaut wrote:
| > If I'm on a Zoom call with 8 other people and the
| conversation shifts to something that doesn't concern me, I can
| bring up a code editor and continue hacking away at something
| without advertising that to my colleagues.
|
| Isn't this one of the reasons face to face meetings are more
| effective? Your colleagues in a physical meeting can see and
| react to expressions of others, which makes the conversation
| more likely to stay on track.
|
| If VR meetings don't solve the "disconnected feeling" problem
| of talking-video-heads meetings then it's just a worse form of
| talking -video-heads meetings. Just being an avatar in 3D
| doesn't significantly improve anything, something else must
| also fundamentally improve. It has to feel like "being there"
| to improve the quality of meetings. I'm not saying I think VR
| will solve that problem, but who knows.
| bombcar wrote:
| Meetings that _need_ to be done are more effective face to
| face.
|
| But something like 80-90% of meetings don't qualify, and in
| those cases zoom is a godsend.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Even blockchain has more purpose than the "Metaverse". At least
| Blockchain serves as a speculative asset for gambling addicts.
| rwmj wrote:
| One problem seems to be that either everyone on your call has
| VR headsets, or you can't use VR at all. A huge outlay in
| hardware, or nothing. Is there a way for people to join a VR
| meeting without hardware and still have a decent experience?
| doophus wrote:
| Yeah. In workrooms non-VR people can still join in. They
| appear as a video feed in the environment, and they see a
| rendering of the meeting from that perspective. It's still
| quite rich for everyone, eg you can tell when VR people are
| listening to you because they instinctively all turn their
| heads to look at your video.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's not that much different of a problem compared to real
| life hybrid calls between conference rooms and other
| conference rooms / remote workers.
| blobbers wrote:
| Segway! Yes! Great analogy!!!
| cheriot wrote:
| Does going to the office feel Segway-ish? This is the same
| problem as an in person meeting.
| jayd16 wrote:
| If jumping in and out of VR is the desired business case, apps
| would just let you switch to audio only mode, when you pull off
| the headset or alt-tab or if you disable body language sharing.
|
| Why are we expecting these tools to be built as painful as
| possible when there's plenty of work arounds?
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| This whole thing screams "What problem does this solve?"
|
| It doesn't solve the lack of real face-to-face communication
| from remote work, I'd argue it's way worse because now you're
| face-to-face with a bad simulation of a face.
|
| Are displays particularly bad for zoom meetings? Is having
| something hanging off your face, hurting your neck better?
| Probably not.
|
| Tech has moved way past actually solving problems and this is
| the best screaming example.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| It's not a bad simulation, though. It gives your monkey brain
| the visceral feeling that you're in the same room with these
| other people
| yuliyp wrote:
| The problem isn't that I don't feel like I'm in the same
| room with the other people, it's that I can't look around
| the room and understand what the vibe is, or make eye
| contact with someone else to communicate something.
| csallen wrote:
| You can though? At least I've had the experience of
| making eye contact.
|
| As for vibe, the tech is getting better for recognizing
| facial expressions, so that's just a matter of time.
| Spatial sound makes "local conversations" possible, where
| people sitting near each other can talk while other
| people in the room talk, and you get the effect of a buzz
| of conversation, which can't happen on Zoom. And ofc
| avatars face wherever their users would like, so you can
| tell when everyone is focused on the speaker vs doing
| their own thing.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > This whole thing screams "What problem does this solve?"
|
| I know! Let's put it on the Blockchain!
|
| /me ducks
| randoglando wrote:
| > It doesn't solve the lack of real face-to-face
| communication from remote work, I'd argue it's way worse
| because now you're face-to-face with a bad simulation of a
| face.
|
| For now, it's a bad simulation. But, this needs to be thought
| of on a 5-10 year scale. Might still be useless, but can't
| judge it on a 1 year scale.
| muglug wrote:
| > can't judge it on a 1 year scale.
|
| Facebook wants us to, though.
|
| This isn't a lab demo that they're showing us -- it's meant
| to be a product you can use today.
| randoglando wrote:
| Good point, that's where I think they are screwing up.
| Making this their centre of attention.
| ac29 wrote:
| VR was not invented in 2021. Hell, I remember trying it out
| in the 90s.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Why not? Previous attempts at VR have not kept up their
| momentum for that long
| randoglando wrote:
| This is the most money & investment that has ever been
| put into VR by a single company by far.
| elisbce wrote:
| If one day the next-gen avatars are so realistic, would you
| say the same? The whole point of VR/AR/MR is to push the
| boundaries of immersive virtual worlds that eventually reach
| or even exceed the realism of the physical world. 20 years
| ago the 3D first-person shooter games were laughable and you
| can say the same "what's the point of building a 3D first-
| person game with this janky graphics and slowass computer? We
| should stick to 2D." Now look at what we have today.
| chihuahua wrote:
| Not to nitpick, but Doom was launched 29 years ago. And it
| was pretty good, not janky.
|
| And by a strange twist of fate, the same John Carmack of
| Doom fame is working on Quest-related stuff today. I'm
| inclined to pooh-pooh Meta's VR efforts, but John Carmack
| is not a fool.
| md5madman wrote:
| How do you exceed the realism of the physical world? Isn't
| it perfect realism?
| kortilla wrote:
| > say the same "what's the point of building a 3D first-
| person game with this janky graphics and slowass computer?
| We should stick to 2D."
|
| But it was even fun and entertaining then. Quest is not.
| lukevp wrote:
| VR is super fun for early adopters, just like early
| games. A ton more people play games now than they did 20
| years ago.
| kortilla wrote:
| What Quest is pitching (meetings), is not fun. I've tried
| it.
|
| VR games are fun, Quest is not.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| > Are displays particularly bad for zoom meetings?
|
| The bandwidth of the conversation is a fraction of that IRL,
| gestures, mannerisms and directional audio allow multiple
| levels of communication and meetings are literally over twice
| as fast as a zoom call where only one person can communicate
| at once and every interaction has a perceptible delay.
|
| Will VR solve this? Remains to be seen, but Zoom calls are
| bottom of the barrel in terms of communication and I'd
| literally rather wait a day and have the conversation IRL
| these days if that's an option.
| outworlder wrote:
| > hurting your neck better?
|
| Modern headsets are pretty light and the weight is balanced.
| They aren't going to hurt your neck. This tells me you
| haven't actually used one.
|
| We can complain that they are still bulky, that putting on
| and removing is not as seamless as it should be, that they
| can get hot and sweaty, that resolution is still not there,
| and many other things.
| seydor wrote:
| That's a meetings problem, not FB's problem. Well tbh , work
| from home can be lonely and this virtual meeting does make the
| meeting slighty more exciting, and considering that it has very
| good pass-through, it would work OK in teams as well
|
| https://twitter.com/ImmersedVR/status/1579925595441762305
| outworlder wrote:
| > If I'm on a Zoom call with 8 other people and the
| conversation shifts to something that doesn't concern me, I can
| bring up a code editor and continue hacking away at something
| without advertising that to my colleagues.
|
| I think in-person meetings are compelling, but it's a trade
| that most aren't willing to make.
|
| Snark aside, VR meetings have similar benefits and similar
| drawbacks to in-person meetings. Besides, this is covering for
| the uselessness of many meetings. If you are not contributing
| to the point that you are actually working on something else,
| you shouldn't have been there (or the meeting doesn't have an
| agenda, or invited too many people, etc).
|
| No tech can fix dysfunctional companies.
| idontpost wrote:
| Robotbeat wrote:
| You wouldn't have to be stuck there if coding in VR was
| feasible.
|
| ...but actually, the fact that people can and do just check out
| of online meetings while pretending to still be present is kind
| of a drawback of online meeting Vs in-person meetings. Lack of
| focus is a killer for productivity.
|
| And if people are doing that, they should be allowed to leave
| the meeting anyway.
| kortilla wrote:
| > while pretending to still be present is kind of a drawback
| of online meeting Vs in-person meetings. Lack of focus is a
| killer for productivity.
|
| Have you been in meetings before online? People were on their
| phones and laptops all of the time then too.
|
| If strapping horse blinders to your employees' heads during
| all meetings is the solution to keep their attention, you
| have bigger cultural issues at hand.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I was on the laptop doing stuff in plenty of in person
| meetings as well.
| jetbalsa wrote:
| Jokes on you, I check out in meetings in-person as well. Just
| hacking away on my laptop in a corner without a care in the
| world.
| sottol wrote:
| A problem with online meetings? Any meeting I've been to with
| more than about 4 participants had most attendants present
| but checked out.
|
| Maybe the point is that participants should just be able to
| leave but that seldom happens imo for various reasons.
| picsao wrote:
| dougmwne wrote:
| It very much depends on your meeting culture. I suppose in
| the ideal world, everyone should be intently paying attention
| because the meeting was relevant and focused. In my world,
| meetings go on for hours, everyone invites the kitchen sink,
| and long egotistical monologues are the norm. Trapping me in
| VR for all that would be unpleasant to say the least.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I agree, which is why I think we should normalize leaving
| meetings.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Ironically, VR might help with this, because you can
| leave your VR avatar listening for you :)
| danwee wrote:
| You don't need an avatar for that. Just leave
| (phisically) your laptop while but stay connected (camera
| off).
| dylan604 wrote:
| yeah, but if you leave your avatar, it just goes limp and
| is obvious you're not there. or, it just stands there
| doing that NPC awkward flailing of the
| arms/sighing/whatever when not doing something specific
| which is just as obvious.
|
| it would be my preference where you could just make it
| super obvious the meeting is boring AF and do a magician
| smoke burst when you exit the meeting. make your avatar
| hold up a sign that says "Why Am I Here?". maybe have
| your avatar start throwing money at the presenter so they
| can buy a clue? like, if we're going to use VR and live
| in the metaverse, let's do things there that we can't do
| IRL.
| chihuahua wrote:
| Maybe Meta's monetization strategy is that for $1/minute,
| you can put your avatar on autopilot so it moves as if
| you were there, while you're in the kitchen tempering
| chocolate.
|
| For $2/minute, it responds to questions addressed to it
| with GPL3 generated speech.
|
| (Zuck_make_it_rain.gif)
| dylan604 wrote:
| I kind of want to do something similar but without meta.
| If it weren't for morals/ethics/whatever about sending
| company data to 3rd parties, I would love to have GPL3
| respond to a subset of my emails for a few weeks just to
| see if anyone would notice.
| beowulfey wrote:
| Could be worth trying to change that culture, as it is a
| waste of time that applies whether meetings are virtual or
| in person.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Sure, the moment I am promoted to CEO of this Fortune
| 500, I will send along all staff a pamphlet on effective
| meetings.
| lupire wrote:
| Will you get fired if you share that pamphlet today?
| chihuahua wrote:
| No, but by releasing that vital information, they would
| lose their leverage and potentially miss out on that
| promotion. It's like releasing a hostage before the
| ransom has been paid.
| lumost wrote:
| I bet Language models will soon be a key feature of zoom.
| The Language model will serve as an auto-pilot for
| pointless meetings where it uses your previous history to
| predict when to say "nice" or "<insert rant on RAII here>",
| a paging system will be in place if the content of the
| meeting reaches a high enough perplexity that your frontal
| cortex is required.
| dougmwne wrote:
| While I'm unsure if this is satire, I am all in! A pre-
| sentient language model would do a great job attending
| meetings on my behalf. It could also probably do a better
| job chatting about sports than I can and could send me a
| daily summary each evening.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| This reminded me of the episode of Silicon Valley where
| Gilfoye and Dinesh build chat bots to take their place
| for all the boring work chats. Then, the bots end up
| chatting with each other causing a feedback loop that
| overloads the building's power.
|
| I find the idea of two bots having a conversation on Zoom
| while both people are doing actual work hilarious.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Silicon Valley, the show, is surprisingly prescient. It
| is too real sometimes even.
| chihuahua wrote:
| Mike Judge is an underrated genius: Beavis & Butt-head,
| King of the hill, Office Space, Idiocracy, Silicon
| Valley, etc.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > Lack of focus is a killer for productivity.
|
| Killer new feature: virtual monitors are anchored to your
| head. You cannot look away!
| chihuahua wrote:
| Plus eye-tracking can detect when you're not looking at the
| right thing, and deliver electric shocks to your temples.
| eptcyka wrote:
| There's nothing stopping me from checking out in real world
| meetings too. But in a remote meeting, when I check out, I
| can at least be productive.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| Actually, the fact that people can check out of online
| meetings has improved productivity vs in-person meetings.
| time_to_smile wrote:
| > Lack of focus is a killer for productivity.
|
| You're implying that the "lack of focus" is in the people
| attending the meeting not paying attention. The real place
| focus is lacking is in the things the meeting, which is not
| engaging to its attendees, is taking away from. Good
| meetings, whether remote or in person, have everyone engaged
| because the content is immediately relevant and pressing to
| all attendees. Personally I've found that short, small,
| highly focused meeting are easier to have than in person.
|
| In an online environment it's not too bad if you invite more
| people than really need to be at the meeting precisely
| because if you need to be there "just in case", you can keep
| the tab open while you work on other stuff.
|
| The equivalent of this in-person is just more painful, not
| more productive. It's the meeting where you consciously
| struggle to pay attention to something that doesn't really
| concern you because it would be rude to just walk out.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| The solution is to fix the fake culture where people
| pretend it's more rude to walk out than mentally check out.
| croes wrote:
| Lack of necessity of a meeting is the real killer of
| productivity.
| triceratops wrote:
| I work in a company where I'm allowed to leave meetings that
| aren't interesting to me.
|
| The problem is with "status update" or "brainstorming"
| meetings where I'm expected to contribute but only
| fleetingly, or intermittently. I know I'll be needed for
| about 2 minutes at some point, but it's not clear when.
| picsao wrote:
| bamboozled wrote:
| Honestly, you've never hacked during a real life meeting ? I
| used to bring my laptop into the board room all the time.
| bamboozled wrote:
| For some if my super early morning meetings, I'm in bed with
| headphones on listening. Don't want this to go away :)
| roody15 wrote:
| Meta's metaverse honestly may be gearing up to be one of the
| biggest financial tech failures in decades. Still after all these
| billions poured into the metaverse... still no compelling reason
| to use. Already they are pitching it as a "marketplace" of
| digital sorts before they even have an audience.
|
| VR done wrong. Requiring a Facebook account. Utilizing a
| marketplace run by Facebook. It honestly is astounding how much
| money is being spent here... and to say underwhelming at best is
| an understatement.
| randoglando wrote:
| > Already they are pitching it as a "marketplace" of digital
| sorts before they even have an audience.
|
| Good point, that's Carmack's _exact_ criticism!
|
| > Requiring a Facebook account.
|
| No longer true as of a few months ago.
| greenthrow wrote:
| VR is not compelling. I have tried it and it is tedious. This is
| the reaction of by far most people I know who have tried VR.
|
| VR is one of those things where the concept and possibilities are
| way more exciting than the reality of the thing. Like flying
| cars. The difference is Mark Zuckerberg made way too big of a bet
| on VR so they won't let it go.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe theZuck should be more googly and willing to just end of
| life things that are not immediately profitable.
| phailhaus wrote:
| I'm surprised he just glossed over one of the biggest issues:
|
| > Then one of the developers moved house, temporarily misplaced
| his headset, and we haven't used it since.
|
| Meta's vision is all-or-nothing. Either everyone has it and they
| can Do The Thing, or someone is missing it and nobody can. Meta
| seems to be making no effort to create an on-ramp into the
| metaverse, and is demanding that everyone jump in whole-hog. It
| can't work, except in niche cases where the job _is_ in VR. And
| nobody 's going to work all day in VR if they can't glance at
| their phone. Full-color passthrough is close, but not good
| enough.
| chatterhead wrote:
| The simple truth of yesterday is the same as today.
|
| The wrong people are defining what progress means and leading us
| towards it for profit not because they have a real vision.
|
| Meta is lame. Facebook wasn't special; the approach Zuckerberg
| took to create a network effect was. That's it.
|
| Microsoft wasn't special. The tactics Gates used to destroy his
| competition and adopt their technology was. That's it.
|
| What I'm excited about is the day people who have the ability
| realize that gives them the power and all they need to do is
| unite to create an actual digital future for humanity. Not these
| absurd assholes with dreams of a virtual Oompa Loompa army.
| nojvek wrote:
| I remember the moment when I used iPhone4. It was the first phone
| with retina display, the touch and crip rendering was very
| responsive. It was the moment my perception of smartphone quality
| changed.
|
| VR is great. I don't think the hardware is there for mass
| adoption. VR hasn't had its iPhone4 retina moment yet. When it
| does, it will take off.
|
| We need ~100 pixes per degree of vision to fool the eye. Assuming
| 120d horizontal and vertical display per eye, we are looking at
| 12,000x12,000 pixel display for each eye. Current meta headsets
| have 1800 x 1920 px per eye. We need 10x that.
|
| There's more: accurate head and hands tracking, 90hz high
| fidelity rendering, affordable pricing, entertaining worlds,
| e.t.c.
|
| It will take a while, but we'll get there. I hope Meta doesn't
| give up so easily.
| hrbf wrote:
| Upon reading news like that, I'm convinced I have made the right
| choice following my gut feeling and intuition to move away from
| the tech world. It's absurd. This is adding yet another layer of
| needless complexity, just for the sake of earning yet more money.
| It does not solve any real issue, it benefits very few people at
| the expense of most. In this regard, it's like the cryptocurrency
| of business applications. Late-stage capitalism in fully swing
| indeed.
| gary_0 wrote:
| I'm of the same mind, but I worry that the total failure of the
| VR Meta-whatever is wishful thinking on my part -- because even
| if it succeeds, I want no part of it. If that means I end up
| living in a hut in the woods while everyone goggles into the
| Zuckerverse, then so be it.
|
| At least with cryptocurrency, I could kind of admire the
| anarchist techno-optimism of it (who doesn't hate banks?), so I
| felt like I wasn't emotionally invested in it failing when I
| realized it wasn't going to work.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| The VR stuff has me thinking I really need to start a
| business before I'm subjected to this dystopian horse-shit as
| a condition of employment.
|
| Everyone fake-emoting at the wall-o-faces in video chat apps
| is already pretty bad. Blocking out the world with a spying-
| on-you headset so you can work in a bad knock-off of Second
| Life is too far.
| swalsh wrote:
| It's funny how the "I see the value in crypto" and "I see the
| value in a metaverse" have turned into exactly the same group.
| There seems to be this bisection of groups, 1 group of people
| who seem just fine with technology as it is today. And another
| group that wants to launch into the next phase of
| digitalization.
|
| Although both seem okay with using AI.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| I see the value in crypto, but as a chronological consensus,
| not as a currency.
|
| I see the value in the metaverse, but as a cheaper lower
| fidelity alternative for the real world, not a more
| productive version of it. The metaverse as a replacement for
| the real world, IMO, will always be a cheap copy, and only
| suitable for things which in the real world are uneconomical,
| impractical or impossible.
|
| Neuralink-style HMIs on the other hand I see as a potential
| alternative to working with computers. Who needs goggles when
| you're part of the machine?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I mean I want to launch into the next phase of
| digitalization, I just don't want it to be this stupid.
| bliteben wrote:
| What did you move towards?
| kortilla wrote:
| > Late-stage capitalism in fully swing indeed.
|
| Businesses making poor products has little to do with late-
| stage capitalism. That's been a theme of both capitalism and
| socialism for as long as people have had different ideas on
| what's important.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I work in medical simulation and there is incredible potential
| for remote training with this sort of tech.
| jmeister wrote:
| In manufacturing training too. Basically any training that
| involves physical handling.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Both fantastic applications that make sense, but not
| mainstream. It almost makes sense the strategy is to create
| any type of consumer VR industry to reduce the extremely
| high expense VR would have if only training and simulation
| were it's main applications.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| I see high dollar but limited market as well - I've seen
| the course plans for below and RN level and it's a lot.
| Adding tech at that level seems rife for issues, but at
| the high tier (re: same places that buy multi million
| dollar MRI machines) where the money is there, sure!
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Mainstream is mmorpg, it's inevitable
| _nalply wrote:
| Perhaps to train robots?
|
| I really don't know anymore whether I was snarky or half-
| serious.
| coldpie wrote:
| I'm getting there, myself. All tech is converging on the single
| goal of making the rich richer by serving ads and influencing
| elections. I'm tired of it.
|
| I hear the local public transit company is hiring bus
| maintainers, training included.
| jmeister wrote:
| Tech is the only sector that is actually even borderline
| competent these days.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-lockdowns-on-silicon-
| vall...
|
| "Without technology to keep the economy from imploding,
| they(lockdowns) wouldn't have lasted."
|
| I say a prayer to Bezos every time Amazon delivers something
| perfectly, come rain, shine, war or pestilence.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| ???
|
| Plenty of other sectors managed to be competent before,
| during, and after the lockdowns.
|
| And your example of tech doing things right is...logistics.
| Not tech. Logistics has been doing its thing for over a
| century, long before computers were a thing.
| togs wrote:
| Agreed. People really don't appreciate Bezos or Amazon
| enough
| coldpie wrote:
| This guy looks like a crank:
| https://www.wsj.com/news/author/andy-kessler
| weberer wrote:
| http://35.185.30.157/wp-
| content/uploads/2015/04/Grahams_Hier...
| pavlov wrote:
| Appreciating the American Psycho vibes in his bio:
|
| "He is the author of several books including Wall Street
| Meat and Eat People."
| jmeister wrote:
| >just for the sake of earning yet more money.
|
| >It does not solve any real issue,
|
| Contradiction detected. Who will buy this tech then?
| falcolas wrote:
| That's a hard one. One part of this deal with Microsoft is
| making the Microsoft Game Pass available to the new Quest
| headset purchasers. But due to the price point, they're
| marketing the new headset at businesses, not end consumers.
|
| It's like none of the departments within the Quest group are
| talking to each other.
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| Training STE fields could use this.
| metacriticcap wrote:
| https://metacriticcapital.substack.com/p/meta-wants-to-disru... I
| wrote on it. Meta is trying to disrupt the PC market and
| Microsoft is taking notice and hedging their bets. It's a
| slightly different opinion to Ben
| aphroz wrote:
| Facebook and Teams teaming up together is literally my nightmare.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| Metasoft.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| Don't forget that LinkedIn and Instagram will tag along for
| that ride.
| seydor wrote:
| Faceteam
| cmos wrote:
| I've always had this dream of taking doom and building a map like
| the workplace.. but still with the occasional zombie. We all see
| each other, and meet up in the conference room to join a 'group
| zoom call' or something like that. There would also be a
| 'minecraft' room that puts us all on the same server to build
| prototypes and brainstorm together.
|
| I wouldn't bet the farm on VR.
| philote wrote:
| That raises a good point. We've had virtual worlds for ages
| now, but how often do companies do Minecraft meetings? Or
| Gary's Mod meetings? Or hell, even VR chat, that doesn't
| require VR. Is there really that much gained by adding a heavy
| headset and some hand tracking?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Personally I don't think VR has applications other than games.
|
| AR on the other hand will eventually be ubiquitous and important.
| HUDS in real life with context assistance is absolutely a killer
| app.
| theknocker wrote:
| jmull wrote:
| > Microsoft's shift to Teams as its de facto OS
|
| Just one example, but I think this guy has lost the thread and is
| not worth reading.
| criddell wrote:
| That line also stood out to me and I had the exact opposite
| reaction.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Depends on which world you live in. If you did anything
| corpate during lockdown, yeah, "defacto" OS strikes a chord.
| Man, so much time in teams, and they only keep throwing
| things in it.
| jmull wrote:
| I just don't know what about it says OS to anyone.
|
| To me its just the latest iteration of crappy corporate
| communication software we only use because the people who
| sign our checks bought it.
|
| "Yet Another Lotus Notes" from my perspective.
| intrasight wrote:
| Invest billions. Get traction. Establish a moat.
|
| Obviously Meta may not succeed. Probably won't succeed. This
| Microsoft thing will be one of many "throw it on the wall and see
| what sticks". I do applaud their gumption. And I believe that AR
| and VR will have a very important role for humanity in the near
| future.
| mberning wrote:
| All they need is their Steve Ballmer "developers developers
| developers" moment. Nobody wants this garbage. Nobody wants to
| "work in the metaverse". They don't even want to visit.
|
| People do not even like turning on their webcams for meetings
| with people they talk to every single day. Do you think they are
| going to want to don a goofy headset to do the same?
|
| The moment my employer tells me I need to wear a VR headset for
| some meeting is they day I put in my notice.
| matt_s wrote:
| If their approach is Enterprise and work environments, how does a
| VR headset deal with ADA (American Disabilities Act) and
| accessibility? Employers cannot discriminate against those with
| hearing/vision or other impairments and I don't know how a
| technology like VR can compensate for that.
|
| Assuming the headset doesn't help at all in those areas then it
| can't be something an employer mandates people to use. This type
| of device might uncover even more physical impairments people are
| unaware of, like those warnings in video games about flashing
| lights - photosensitive seizures and epilepsy.
|
| Are the benefits of a meeting technology going to far out-weigh
| potential employment lawsuits?
| Dr_Birdbrain wrote:
| This take is surprising to me, because it actually seems to me
| that it would be easy-ish to auto-generate accessibility aids,
| for example in the form of automatic caption generation for
| hearing impairments.
| anonred wrote:
| You'll be happy to learn that people are actively thinking
| about and working on accessibility for AR/VR. And if it's
| something you feel strongly about, there's companies and teams
| that are hiring specifically for this role.
| bioemerl wrote:
| It would be a real shame if this held technology back in a
| substantial way. VR offers a ton of opportunity for a more
| productive work environment. Infinite space to work in, an
| active working day instead of sitting in a chair, etc etc etc.
|
| Imagine working at a customer service desk where instead of
| tickets in a tab you can have 3d stacks of them all across the
| room you're in. Or a control environment with knobs and bobs
| surrounding you like an old 1970s control panel, with none of
| the cost.
|
| Imagine designing a web page, except your screen doesn't have
| an edge.
|
| I think a big part of the skepticism here is that we have coded
| for 2d screens for so long that we don't even begin to realize
| the possibilities yet. I'm convinced that the future of most
| office is while wearing some sort of headset.
|
| Not meetings though. Those will remain 2d. Corny half done
| avatars and badly recreated 3d rooms don't cut it.
| sy7ar wrote:
| Uh why is a 3d stack better than a list? It might be more fun
| for the first few minutes but it's less efficient. When
| something is your job and you need to get things done, you'll
| eventually choose the efficient route instead of the fancy
| option.
|
| If 3D UI is superior than 2D then 3D video games shouldn't
| need 2D UI at all and yet they all do.
| bioemerl wrote:
| 3D UI doesn't work when you are playing a video game
| because you are ultimately using a 2D interface.
|
| Navigation through 3D worlds is clumsy and terrible in
| video games, but with VR it's just like your everyday life.
|
| I don't expect people to be doing much in terms of fine
| detail work in VR without some sort of tool like a mouse or
| keyboard accessible to them, but things like the ability to
| design web pages that are bigger than a screen, have depth,
| be able to integrate a full room into the experience, is
| going to be pretty incredible.
|
| Your baseline experience, what's going to start is having
| basically virtual monitors so that you can have windows all
| over the place, from there It will probably evolve into
| something more native to VR.
| icapybara wrote:
| The screen is still limited by your eyepiece field of view.
| You have to scroll and zoom if the page is too big. We can
| already do that in browsers.
| matt_s wrote:
| I just don't see any actual daily professional worker
| problems being solved. I see solutions in search of problems.
| People with PC's have a control environment in front of them
| everyday with a keyboard and mouse, 100's of controls and
| combinations. Keyboards are really cheap.
|
| I see VR enabled work environments like touch-screens in
| cars. They suck. You have little to no sensory input on your
| fingers and can't feel your way around to do things without
| looking.
|
| Is having 3d stacks in a virtual room going to allow a
| customer service person to better do their job? As in having
| measurable financial impact? If I'm running a call center
| with 100 people, is spending $150k on VR headsets going to
| help materially?
| bioemerl wrote:
| The beauty of it is, you use pass through cameras and you
| can see your keyboard and you can see your mouse directly,
| while still having access to the full virtual experience.
|
| I expect people to be using a mouse with this stuff, and a
| keyboard.
| washywashy wrote:
| I remember as a kid at the dentist office they had these headsets
| you could watch a movie on while you received treatment. In my
| opinion it made the experience worse because wearing a headset
| for that long always ends up being either annoying or slightly
| painful. I've used an oculus and I will say, it's not that bad to
| wear, but I can't imagine wearing one of these things for any
| meeting going longer than 30 minutes, whatever the perceived
| benefits might be.
| croes wrote:
| Next step of evolution: This VR-meeting should have been an email
| SilverBirch wrote:
| So the obvious conclusion from this is that Meta continue sinking
| billions into hardware, Microsoft build the actual application
| and get it sold into enterprise. Meta share price continues to
| tank, and then Microsoft acquires Meta and spins off Facebook
| keeping the VR stuff that they actually want. (I realise the dual
| class shares prevent this, but it would be very funny)
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is there some Facebook:IBM, Microsoft:Microsoft analogy here?
| grnmamba wrote:
| I think in the near future we'll have deep neural nets that
| create and puppet an VR avatar for us, while we're sitting
| normally in front of our PCs. Kind of like a recursive version of
| a v-tuber: you pretend you're wearing a VR headset and listen to
| the pointless rambling during meetings, while your boss pretends
| that everyone is being so much more productive.
| ryanianian wrote:
| This is already happening. NVidia's Maxine thing takes a still
| photo and animates it according to your video feed. The leap to
| a VR version feels rather incremental.
| smcl wrote:
| > Microsoft's shift to Teams as its de facto OS
|
| Ugh, I think we all want _less_ MS Teams in our life, not more :-
| /
| rbanffy wrote:
| I've been using a Windows laptop as my work computer for about
| a year now and I'd love to have less MS in my life.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| 6 months for me also for work. Just naturally started using
| my personal 2012 macbook for everything non work.
| smcl wrote:
| Honestly I really don't mind _parts_ of the Microsoft
| experience. Visual Studio is a pretty good IDE, and VS Code a
| lighter, more extensible alternative for some specific cases
| (I use it to fiddle with our Angular frontend apps). The .NET
| ecosystem is pretty good, and the Windows UI on its own would
| be pretty good even if I prefer a tiling window manager like
| xmonad. I can use cygwin and get a decent enough set of
| Unix-y tools that feel more "right" to me than Powershell
| (which I don't think I'll ever enjoy).
|
| So that sort of stuff allows a decent enough, but not
| perfect, developer experience. But there's enough other
| fucking irritating bullshit that drives me up the wall - like
| Outlook is cluttered and annoying, and yeah Teams can fuck
| right off.
| yalogin wrote:
| There is so much skepticism in the community about this tech. Is
| it because there is genuinely no compelling use cases or is it
| because of the current implementation?
| randoglando wrote:
| IMO people are thinking on a time scale that is too short. VR
| is different from crypto, and though it may not succeed, it can
| solve real problems.
|
| One example: Reducing inequality. With the purchase of a
| headset (~400$), everyone can have a 60" TV, and learn how to
| play the piano, and have access to 100s of board games (the
| last one hasn't been implemented yet, but possibly soon).
|
| Crypto OTOH provides no real value, and has been out as long,
| if not longer.
| postexitus wrote:
| Tilt Five is promising an amazing solution to the board game
| problem - IMHO, it's better than what Oculus provides.
| https://www.tiltfive.com/
| h4n1 wrote:
| How do you learn to play the piano without real physical
| feedback when pressing the keys? The "experiences" you can
| have through sight and sound alone are quite limited. A glove
| to emulate something as simple as piano keypresses would be a
| very complicated device.
| kortilla wrote:
| Learning how to play the piano is a joke on VR. 75% of piano
| playing is the muscle memory that requires real keys.
|
| A $50 keyboard from the thrift-shop + youtube will be bounds
| better for learning piano than VR.
|
| +1 to board games though assuming it's precise enough that
| you don't constant bump all of the pieces.
| dntrkv wrote:
| The "community" is not a good gauge as to which tech will
| succeed or fail. Go back to the early HN days and read the
| comments on the iPhone release posts.
| r00fus wrote:
| Just as an aside, I was very skeptical of tech even like zoom
| rooms. It's simply a camera mounted on the display that has AI
| that focuses on people in the room and splits the display so you
| see everyone in the room individually. Why would you need this?
| Isn't it creepy?
|
| The reality is that our remote meetings without zoom rooms are
| definitely less engaging, so we try to find the rooms in our
| office where those are enabled/installed.
|
| However, the difference between that and what Meta and Microsoft
| are attempting is that the zoomrooms are an incremental
| improvement to an existing collaboration mode. Can you imagine
| mixed-mode meetings with VR?
|
| Unless you have tons of people who WANT to VR meet then it's
| going be a flop.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| A bit off-topic, but is there any good "open" VR headset
| available? (open in sense of FOSS, or at least OSS firmware and
| software)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-12 23:02 UTC)