[HN Gopher] Meta's Reality Labs prototype hardware
___________________________________________________________________
Meta's Reality Labs prototype hardware
Author : dagmx
Score : 63 points
Date : 2023-08-02 21:31 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.meta.com)
| flatline wrote:
| > There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change
| the world--and those who haven't tried it yet.
|
| > While there are few things as magical as your first VR
| "a-ha"moment
|
| That first moment for me was Cardboard. I have since used Vive
| and Oculus and they are cool, but I'm not left wanting to come
| back for more. Maybe the Cardboard experience conveyed the wrong
| thing to me, that this is a fun one-off type experience and not
| something that fits into my life in a bigger way. I'm sure some
| of the tools have, or could have, real world practical
| applications, and I would use them if needed, but I just don't
| want to strap on a headset and be forced to tune out the rest of
| the world for longer than necessary.
| erulabs wrote:
| > As with Butterscotch Varifocal, the goal of Flamera isn't to
| show something that's viable for a consumer product--at least,
| not yet.
|
| A bit surprising that these seem so far away from production. I
| think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product
| people really want, even if its very far into the future and may
| possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the
| feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's
| developed.
|
| Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former
| HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC. Potentially vital R/D happening in
| such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a
| product.
|
| I can't be excited for Butterscotch or Flamera, because they're
| not products I can buy, and they explicitly never will be. If I
| managed to get a demo, I'm sure I'd be NDAed to hell and back. I
| am excited for Vision Pro because it's something I will actually
| be allowed to purchase in the future.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| * * *
| megaman821 wrote:
| There is virtually no market for a $3,500 headset made by Meta.
| These demos don't seem like things that can't do at all, just
| things they can't do affordably. What can be done in a $500
| consumer device will only increase each year. It is probably
| smart for Meta to keep slow and steady.
| capableweb wrote:
| > I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product
| people really want, even if its very far into the future and
| may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use
| the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's
| developed.
|
| Do note that doing it like that is not what Apple commonly
| does. Usually work happens in silence and secrecy, then the
| product is available within like 6 months to purchase (in the
| US, not necessarily all over the world)
| lancesells wrote:
| Isn't that what they are doing with the Vision Pro but more
| like 12 months to purchase? Then they annually iterate on
| their products with differing success?
| nomel wrote:
| > Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have
| almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.
|
| My assumption, of this early work, is to scoop up important
| patents.
|
| Related to important patents, varifocal is almost certainly the
| future of HMDs.
|
| Having fixed focus, as all HMDs do now, is fatiguing and
| strange. A really interesting example of this is, in VR, hold
| something close to your eyes. You'll see that it gets blurry.
| Now close one eye. You'll see that it's clear. It's not that
| it's actually blurry, it's that your eyes are refusing to put
| up with the physical nonsense of a fixed focus 3d world.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > to scoop up important patents
|
| Or perhaps to refine that, to _scoop_ important patents
|
| Apple is aggressively out there patenting obvious things that
| have been basic public knowledge / in use for years to try
| and lock up the field (eg: [0]). You can try and get your own
| patents but if you aren't strategically dependent on the IP
| for your own needs it is much easier and quicker to just nuke
| the field by putting as many things in public as possible so
| it's much harder for Apple (or others) to retro-patent broad
| classes of obvious features.
|
| [0] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-
| public/print/downloa...
| w-ll wrote:
| The Apple Vision is way more akin to the Meta Quest and you can
| buy that today for $300, not Apples $3,000 price tag.
| throw2291 wrote:
| [dead]
| dangus wrote:
| That's like saying Ferrari is a two-seater sports car just
| like a Miata.
| throw2291 wrote:
| [dead]
| Kilenaitor wrote:
| I'm confused on your phrasing of "they explicitly never will
| be."
|
| Those prototypes, of course, aren't going to themselves be
| shipping. But they are for R&D and to provide example of a
| nascent technology that one day should end up in a consumer
| product.
|
| You absolutely can disagree with the approach of showing this
| too early or not trying hard enough to incorporate this into an
| (albeit expensive) consumer product today/soon.
|
| But my read is Meta wants this stuff to one day be in consumer
| headsets. Just not there yet.
| erulabs wrote:
| I don't disagree with them showing this off, just them
| avoiding making an actual product. Always be embarrassed by
| v1 and all that. I understand Meta has the cash to bankroll a
| decade of R/D (like XEROX used to), but iterating actual
| products actual people use is a far safer bet, and as a
| result the world actually gets products. "Explicitly never
| will be" only because of the bit I quoted and that these are
| two quite different products. One would imagine the final
| product would combine these two experimental headset's
| technologies.
|
| It's not like Facebook, as a product, was some hidden away
| R/D project. It was iterated on in public.
|
| Anyways, I didn't mean to poopoo the awesome work done here.
| I just want to actually use some of this stuff.
| n4te wrote:
| If you need the public to help you develop something, it's an
| indicator you don't have the wisdom to build the right thing.
|
| Anyway I don't think that's what Apple is doing. The are just
| being expensive, exclusive ass clowns, like usual.
| jkaptur wrote:
| > There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change
| the world--and those who haven't tried it yet. > > It's an old
| saying, sure, maybe even a little cliche. And yes, there are
| skeptics out there--but we'd argue they just haven't found the
| right VR experience to make them a convert []-)
|
| Yep, I'm a skeptic. I tried it, and it was fine! Pretty fun, not
| that fun. Like going to Disney, I'm perfectly comfortable knowing
| that it's there, other people love it, and I'll go once every 20
| years or so and have a decent time.
|
| Maybe I just haven't had the right experience yet (I went to
| Epcot, not Star Wars World), but you could argue that about
| literally anything.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| I'm actually someone that believed in VR until I tried it, and
| then I lost interest because I found it so underwhelming. In my
| opinion it just kinda sucks and certainly isn't worth the
| awkward inconvenience of strapping something on to your face. I
| think it even has limited appeal for niche applications like
| simulations and personally I'd prefer a multiscreen setup.
|
| To each their own. I was someone that was excited to try VR for
| years and then said "that's it?" when I finally got a chance.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and
| Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its
| lab, shows off their latest advances in academia (including all
| the limitations and problems). Meanwhile Apple works for 10 years
| in secrecy and even after they publicly announce are making
| anybody with access to the device use it in SCIF-like environment
| with a draconian NDA.
|
| And then, Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything
| other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1
| at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating
| exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.
| photonerd wrote:
| It's more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currebtky
| not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy.
|
| Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs
| return era). They demonstrate what their intention is... then
| release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-
| between.
|
| Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta
| (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User
| Consumption focused.
|
| Neither is _wrong_ , they're just aiming at different goals.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs
| return era).
|
| Apple Maps.
|
| I still remember the hilarity.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-
| fail....
| dougmwne wrote:
| Is it a coincidence that the light field lens resembles the
| compound eye of an insect? Could a similar process be happening
| in the insect's visual cortex to reproject multiple views?
| Insects can't move their eyes like humans, but apparently fruit
| flies can move their retinas. That seems very similar to the
| single focal point they demonstrated in the video.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-02 23:00 UTC)