[HN Gopher] Meta Horizon OS
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Horizon OS
Author : ahiknsr
Score : 511 points
Date : 2024-04-22 15:54 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.meta.com)
| blensor wrote:
| It's going to be interesting if Google/Samsung will win out or
| Meta/etc.
| notRobot wrote:
| What category has Google really succeeded in since the initial
| era of gmail/Android/chrome? I can't think of any recent
| successes off the top of my head.
| EVyesnoyesnoyes wrote:
| 'really succeeded' sounds super crazy dismissive.
|
| Besides android being gigantic huge, you still have google
| maps, chrome, gmail, pixel phones, passkey, yubikeypush/2fa,
| the new cookie aproach, YouTube!!1 etc.
|
| Why would Google need a 'recent' success to be able to win ar
| snail?
| gryn wrote:
| the point is probably about whether google still has the
| ability to go from 0 to 1. instead of 1 to n. from the
| outside they look like they are not so slowing becoming the
| bean counting accountant / MBA type of company.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| What a weird framing? You say this as if gmail, android and
| chrome are all dead now. They're still being used and
| improved. Even if they didn't enter new "categories" they're
| still in a lot of existing ones and very popular -like
| hundreds of million of users- even if alternatives exist.
|
| First of all, Google Search has maintained dominance and
| relevance for decades. That's no easy feat. They have news,
| patents, books, LLMs all added into it.
|
| Google has a hugely popular cloud service. Especially if you
| include Google Workspace.
|
| Obviously YouTube is huge and regularly gets new features.
| There is a YouTube app for almost every piece of hardware
| with a screen.
|
| They have a pretty impressive mapping product suite.
| Everything from Google maps to Google earth and all their GIS
| products and tools (eg solar panels location SaaS).
|
| The play store is huge. AND They have a huge variety of
| extremely popular consumer apps like Photos, Music, Home,
| etc.
| notRobot wrote:
| I meant that it felt like they haven't had any massive
| successes with any recent launches.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Zero chance Google actually supplies Samsung with a real
| operating system they can use. Samsung will for sure release a
| headset with Meta's Horizon OS before anything from Google.
| baby wrote:
| Isn't Samsung going bankrupt at this point?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I wonder if every category has a "winner". When compatibility
| was a determinant, you had winners (Microsoft, obv.). I'm not
| sure winner-takes-all applies any longer.
| mckn1ght wrote:
| > Not an actual product render.
| OJFord wrote:
| It's a silly caption isn't it, why would it be third-person
| view, nobody's going to see those sketches and assume it's an
| actual product render, surely.
| NBJack wrote:
| Some folks stream VR games with a second camera on a green
| screen, which provides a 3rd person perspective for the
| audience. It's pretty incredible.
|
| I can easily see less tech savvy consumers being confused.
| zenlikethat wrote:
| Likely a change requested from legal.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| This is awesome, I'm waiting for a VR manufacturer to add an HDMI
| input. Then I could use it as a monitor without jumping through a
| bunch of hoops.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > Then I could use it as a monitor without jumping through a
| bunch of hoops.
|
| bold of you to assume your hdmi cable won't naturally form some
| hoops.
| jsheard wrote:
| The XREAL glasses are trying to fill the niche of a headset
| that just mirrors a HDMI input on a big virtual screen.
|
| I don't think anyone is currently making an all-purpose VR
| headset which can _also_ do HDMI mirroring though.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I understand, but it seems trivial to add HDMI input here.
|
| Technically you can just remote desktop into a computer from
| your VR headset, but that won't work in every scenario.
| jsheard wrote:
| It's fairly trivial to add a HDMI/DP input which directly
| drives the panels in the headset through a mux (e.g. the
| Pico Neo3 Link could run standalone or from DP input), but
| that's probably not what you want, because in that case the
| HDMI source has to perform all of the 3D rendering and lens
| correction, using software that probably only supports
| Windows. If you want to be able to plug in any random HDMI
| source and have that rendered on a virtual screen then the
| headset needs a SoC with a low-latency HDMI receiver built
| in, so it can ingest the video and process it onboard
| before displaying it, and HDMI input isn't very common on
| these mobile SoCs.
|
| Maybe you could convert the HDMI input into MIPI and feed
| that into the SoCs camera interface, but I think headsets
| like the Quest are already pretty much maxing out the SoCs
| camera capabilities just to read in all the actual cameras
| used for inside-out tracking. There's no bandwidth left to
| shove an extra HD video feed in as well.
|
| tl;dr HDMI input that turns the device into a dumb PCVR
| headset: easy. HDMI input that mirrors arbitrary video:
| hard.
| numpad0 wrote:
| You don't want it. It's disorienting and uncomfortable.
|
| XREAL as well as some drone FPV goggles support
| non-/partially-head-tracked HDMI input, albeit with much
| smaller FOV for comfort reasons.
| int_19h wrote:
| There are quite a few options for non-head-tracked
| wearable display type headsets. Those generally get
| pitched as "portable cinema" though, e.g.:
|
| https://goovis.net/products/g3max
|
| (This particular one uses USB-C for video input, but they
| also sell an HDMI adapter for it.)
|
| Of course, in practice it's just a display and can be
| used for any purpose. I do appreciate the fact that you
| don't have to mess around with all the usual VR setup
| chores with these - it's really very plug and play.
| int_19h wrote:
| For Quest 3 specifically, "remote desktop into a computer"
| actually works surprisingly well if you 1) avoid the stock
| Meta software and use Steam Link instead, and 2) use wired
| connection to maximize bandwidth and minimize latency.
|
| The second part needs some explaining. One undocumented
| feature of Quest 3 is that it supports (some) USB-C
| Ethernet adapters. There isn't really any UI for it that I
| know of; things just work so long as DHCP is there. This
| then gives you a direct wired 1GBps link to the PC, which
| Steam Link will happily utilize.
| StrauXX wrote:
| Imo a good WAP connected directly to your computer works
| just as well as with a high end cable. I have both and
| didn't notice a quality difference either way.
| TrueDuality wrote:
| You're not going to get HDMI (or at least not directly), but
| you can now get DisplayPort with many of the XR headsets.
| They're primarily using the alt-mode of USB-C as the cable is
| re-used for power as well.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Which headsets support this?
| superkuh wrote:
| The original Vive has HDMI input.
| modeless wrote:
| Official blog post:
| https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/introducing-our-open-mixed...
|
| Short video from Zuckerberg:
| https://twitter.com/NathieVR/status/1782436898654273981
|
| This is an interesting move and feels like a response to
| complaints that Meta is hypocritical when complaining about
| closed platforms while running one themselves. But this isn't
| open source. I don't know why any OEMs would want to compete with
| Meta's hardware subsidized by app store revenue when they
| continue to own the store. Maybe there's an app revenue share
| involved?
|
| Wait, at the end of the video he says "We're also as part of this
| going to be opening up our store to give you even more options to
| use whatever experiences you want. So whether they're on Steam,
| Xbox Cloud Gaming, our own App Lab, or even Google Play, if
| they're up for it." The blog post doesn't mention Steam or Google
| Play. It's not really clear what that means. Will they allow
| Steam to sell native Quest apps?
|
| Edit: There's a better blog post that has more detail.
| https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/meta-horizon-os-open-hardwar...
| This one seems to suggest that being "open" to Steam just means
| allowing game streaming which they already do, while being "open"
| to Google Play means that they would allow Google to install the
| actual Play Store app on the headset, for 2D apps only. But
| Google doesn't want to. In any case it seems like they would
| specifically _not_ be open to alternative app stores selling
| native 3D apps directly on the headset itself.
| ejj28 wrote:
| I think this is at least better than nothing for companies who
| want to build standalone headsets and not just headsets that
| are dependent on PCs. Up until now everyone's had to make their
| own OS and store and hope that people care enough to port over
| apps and games.
|
| At the very least, this could lead to more high-end standalone
| headsets being available. Not every 3rd party headset has to be
| competing with the Quest line of headsets, so the lack of
| revenue from the store might not matter to some companies.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| It seems to suggest they're limited to Qualcomm chipsets, and
| Qualcomm don't make a higher end VR chipset so it's hard to
| see where a high end headset would come from.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Displays and optics are a big one, lots of competing
| technologies there like OLED vs LED, pancake vs fresnel,
| movable optics, laser based displays, video pass through vs
| semitransparent or even HUD style for lower res overlays.
| They can also compete on audio quality for microphones and
| headphones, different battery solutions like hot swappable
| packs, corded or built in. Maybe different form factors
| that can distribute weight or higher quality head straps
| for comfort. Tracking options like more cameras for inside
| out or a different system for pairing with controllers or
| full body trackers. Even external dedicated compute that
| works with Air Link. If they're making the hardware they
| can add whatever extra chips or sensors they want.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| That's not even considering the possibilities of using
| eye tracking for foveated rendering to combine high
| resolution and long battery life
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Yeah, if it was "we acknowledge that is bad for hardware to
| have one installation path" and they were allowing itch.io to
| have an indie VR store that might be cool but they are very
| much not.
| mrmetanoia wrote:
| This seems kind of interesting to me, it's a shame it's from
| Meta so I'll likely never touch it because of the toxicity of
| their core products, but I'm glad to see this, as it seems like
| it could stimulate some competition.
| jerlam wrote:
| Feels like Microsoft just tried this with their own VR ecosystem
| not too long ago and it fell flat on its face.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| MS did the entire VR headset partnership thing, got some very
| good headsets out (for the time), and then just dropped the
| project and put it into maintenance mode. If they had kept
| working on it, it would've done well, as it wasn't falling flat
| on its face, it was just getting going when they dropped it.
|
| They made the weird business decision to drop the products they
| had third party cooperation and an enthusiastic userbase for,
| in favor of an experimental product (Hololens) that ended up
| only being affordable to businesses and which afaik has never
| really taken off in the same way as WMR had been.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Microsoft's efforts were pretty half hearted, for example, none
| of their headsets worked with Xbox.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| IMO the issues Microsoft had weren't unexpected. If you look at
| the disaster that was their US military Hololens project it
| turns out a fairly significant portion of the population
| experiences motion sickness and other fundamental issues[0].
|
| This is a hard problem to solve and from what I understand it
| is similar to issues that are screened for in specialties. For
| example - fighter pilots and astronauts are screened for all
| kinds of fundamental things:
|
| - Vision
|
| - Tolerance to motion sickness
|
| - Tolerance to Gs
|
| - Tolerance to claustrophobia (for flight suits, tight
| cockpits, etc)
|
| If you don't have 20/20 vision (or better), puke all the time
| in sims, and freak out when put in a flight suit you're just
| not a fighter pilot, astronaut, etc. Once you make that cut
| then you train on improving what you fundamentally have and
| even then wash-out rates are high.
|
| With the Hololens project the goal was to strap a Hololens on
| pretty much any random soldier. If some fairly large portion of
| the population just can't make it work the utility and value of
| the project drops to zero. Imagine standardizing on a gun sight
| or other key technology that just won't work for even 1/10 of
| your (already limited recruits), potentially even for otherwise
| elite soldiers.
|
| I think they realized they will have similar fundamental issues
| in the enterprise - the utility of a Teams meeting with
| everyone in Hololens drops pretty significantly when a non-zero
| portion of employees get sick after a few minutes.
|
| I'm not sure how these issues with the technology can be
| overcome. Sure, if some gamers can make it work that's cool but
| that doesn't provide the overall value to the technology MS was
| hoping for.
|
| [0] - https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-hololens-fails-us-
| army-te...
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Nobody's tried anything like the broad scale pitch Meta is
| making here. Everyone else has tackled the high end or
| specialized use cases. Meta's really the only company that's
| tried to make a true OS play that is meant to be accessible to
| everyone. Based on that alone I just don't think you can
| extrapolate from "X failed so this has already been tried".
| Nobody has tried what Meta is doing.
| wvenable wrote:
| Microsoft also tried this with phones...
| technotony wrote:
| "we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta
| Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it
| does on other platforms." - I feel like this might be the rub of
| this. Google is way behind in building the android of spatial
| computing, and maybe this can play into the trust busting cases
| where meta can show Google not playing fair?
| meragrin_ wrote:
| It sounds to me Meta is terrified of Apple and they needs apps
| sooner rather than later.
| gryn wrote:
| from what I've read on the internet they've been asking for
| this for a long time but google is blocking it, even before
| there were rumors of the apple headset.
|
| As a user you can already sideload android APKs, I've tried
| it works great, but you also need to install apps that manage
| android permissions since you can't grant them through the
| quest settings.
|
| having the android store there + integrations where android
| app devs can make the app VR ready would be a big plus. But,
| the blocker is that google still has ambitions of making some
| sort of big comeback on the android VR space and therefore
| are in direct competition with meta.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Maybe. So far, Apple's headset isn't particularly impressive
| or compelling, but I suppose it's possible they'll fix its
| issues in a future version.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| > they needs apps
|
| Meta likely has the most apps and most users of any one VR
| platform. Sure everyone needs apps, but they needs apps the
| least, especially from Play Store.
|
| Unless you see using phone apps as 90" virtual screens as a
| killer feature at least.
| rvba wrote:
| Before iphone came out there were smartphones too. But they
| became quite irrelevant when iphone came out.
|
| (Android was like a year later)
|
| Same fate can happen to metaverse - someone can make a
| better VR platform.
|
| Doesnt help them that what they have is shit.
| ketchupdebugger wrote:
| Meta is desperate to get devs to develop apps on their
| platform. It is the only way to get more interest in VR. Devs
| dont want to be on it because there are no customers, consumers
| don't want it because there's no apps. They've been trying to
| market it hard but nothing has worked. They tried to brand it
| as a fitness device, a work device, and a game device, but the
| consumers are not biting.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| They are selling plenty of games. The issue though is that
| the Meta Quest consumer is cheap and would rather buy an MQ2
| at a discount than an MQ3.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| They hit $1b in revenue on their store last quarter. I'm not
| sure how you evaluate that but it's something more than "not
| biting" I think.
| sidcool wrote:
| This sounds like a good idea. Love him or hate him, Zuck knows
| how to ship.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Oh yes, like he shipped the Metaverse.
| baby wrote:
| Have you tried vR chat?
| EVyesnoyesnoyes wrote:
| I would really love to see proper educational content from Meta
| but i bet this is not were the 'next money thing' is.
|
| Imagine a catalog of proper real life skills you can actually
| train reasonable good:
|
| - cooking - soldering - welding - Tons of woodworking things -
| ...
|
| You could also go to a lot of makers of tools and offer them to
| digitalize their products for them so someone can actually
| exercise with a cheap to super high end machine like specific
| CNCs or table saws etc.
| OJFord wrote:
| Where would that fit in between watching others do it on
| YouTube for entertainment, and doing it for real where you can
| hold (or eat) the result at the end?
| graypegg wrote:
| More hassle than a YouTube video, which is already more
| hassle than an article, but considering we're talking about
| mixed reality, the ability to do the soldering, next to a
| detailed 3D model of exactly what you should be doing, in
| your line of sight, is a big selling point to me.
| slyn wrote:
| It seems one of the primary tradeoffs in edutainment is
| between actually learnable teaching and "content porn" where
| you sub content with food, cars, tech, etc.
|
| When I think of truly learnable cooking videos the first
| thing that comes to mind is Kenji's POV cooking videos /
| streams. Seems like something that could be relatively
| adaptable to a AR / MR format in a way that would
| differentiate it from other (still valid) content like the
| relatively educational food porn from Alex /
| @FrenchGuyCooking.
| crmd wrote:
| I'm actually making a version of Kenji's macaroni and
| cheese (except with shredded baby back rib meat added) for
| lunch as we speak! His channel is great.
|
| I would also be interested in a Chef Jean Pierre simulator,
| where you learn classic French recipes in a subtly deranged
| metaverse with a butter-based economy.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| As cheap to perform in as YouTube video, almost as vivid as
| the real thing, but again with most of the bullshit ("reality
| has a lot of detail") removed, just like with a YouTube
| video. Ideally, it would be suitable for experimenting with
| something you might want to then try out for real, but which
| would be too risky (time, money, embarrassment) to _start
| with_ for real.
| inopinatus wrote:
| That would be Ender's Game. Please don't eat the egg, though.
| lvspiff wrote:
| This the gap that the porn websites will need to figure out
| how to fill for it to be a success.
| graypegg wrote:
| I really want some good VR train sims. It's vaguely
| educational! A standalone quest train sim would be an instant
| buy for me. Probably not for many other people.
| stetrain wrote:
| Derail Valley is a good one on Steam. Obviously that isn't
| standalone but it works pretty well with SteamVR streamed to
| a headset.
| sph wrote:
| I used to play Derail Valley on Steam, which has optional VR
| support.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/588030/Derail_Valley/
|
| But I agree with the sentiment. Sim games are the killer app
| of VR and I just want more sims. Where's my Das Boot
| simulator?
| graypegg wrote:
| Oh damn! I'll take a look! Thanks!!
| haiku2077 wrote:
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/552080/IronWolf_VR/
| sph wrote:
| Time to hook up my Quest 3 to my PC. Cheers
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| Virtual welding training is already a thing:
|
| https://www.lincolnelectric.com/en/education/training-progra...
|
| https://www.fronius.com/en/welding-technology/our-expertise/...
| danavar wrote:
| A previous company I worked at was using mixed reality years
| ago (>4) to train manufacturing operators on manufacturing
| processes.
|
| It ended up looking like a simulated workbench with low-detail
| models of CAD parts that needed to be assembled - it was pretty
| cool. Engineering companies are very ready for this technology.
| lagniappe wrote:
| A local school here trains nurses in a VR environment that is
| situated inside a fully built out wing of a hospital. The
| headsets come down from the ceiling, all the equipment is
| real, but there are dummies in the beds, and some observation
| screens for others who supervise.
| abraxas wrote:
| Yeah, we could call that the... Job Simulator ;)
| paxys wrote:
| Why would you want to see it "from Meta"? There's no way a
| single company, that isn't even in the education business, can
| product that kind of content and keep it up to date. Meta's
| play is the right one - make an OS and software platform and
| let people build whatever they want on it.
| yunohn wrote:
| Coincidentally, I saw Meta ads plastered all over London today
| - showcasing a welder who claims she practiced/learned welding
| with a Meta Oculus sitting at home.
| kypro wrote:
| Meta playing 3d chess here. Opening up the OS to other hardware
| providers is a great strategic move imo. Excited to see what
| innovations other hardware manufactures add.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Not to devalue their engineering departments, but I really
| don't remember any innovations in the _software_ space from
| ASUS, Lenovo or alike hardware vendors. To me they 're all
| essentially the same stuff, with different kind of junkware
| (or, in case of Lenovo, malware) bundled.
|
| What I read is "we reached out to a bunch of vendors who
| dabbled in VR/AR/XR/whateveryounameit but failed to produce
| anything outstanding, so we made a deal of licensing them some
| software so maybe they'll fare better". Meta did the right
| thing in a sense that they made some sales, but I wouldn't hold
| my breath as a end-consumer.
| mvkel wrote:
| > OS by Horizon by Meta Horizon OS by Meta.
|
| Why not just call it Horizon OS?
| mebazaa wrote:
| Meta has a lot of work to do on DevEx for non-gaming experiences.
| Say what you want with the Vision Pro, but it comes with a lot of
| niceities like SwiftUI. When you develop with the Quest, you're
| stuck with Unity or Unreal Engine -- it's almost too much freedom
| to develop simple productivity apps.
| pavlov wrote:
| OpenXR Mobile SDK is the native development option for the
| Quest devices:
|
| https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/native/android/mo...
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Don't they also have a web view wrapper for 2D tools?
| gryn wrote:
| for 2D you can also plain old android apps, they work here.
| the point though is that there's not that much room for 3D
| stuff without going through either unity or unreal or writing
| everything yourself from scratch.
|
| if your goal is to make some sort of `spatial computing`
| tool, well there nothing here you can use. each app is it's
| own little silo that has little room for interaction. I'd
| love to be able to write my own custom apps that can exist in
| the home screen/environment and that can interact with each
| other in non trivial ways. it would make it feel more like a
| personal space rather than a 3D slideshow that I can use to
| launch games.
| bschmidt1 wrote:
| It's all going to end up in JavaScript anyway.
|
| I say this as a joke, yet: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-
| unity-webgl Simply rendering your Unity
| Application within your React Application is just the
| beginning! The Unity Context exposes a lot more fun functions
| and properties to play around with such as two way
| communication or requesting fullscreen or a pointerlock. The
| possibilities are endless, what's next is up to you!
|
| Love it or hate it. Everything ends up in JavaScript!
| zmmmmm wrote:
| A video about their upcoming spatial SDK ("augments") already
| leaked [0] and you are correct, it's based on JavaScript,
| using their Spark toolkit [1] which is hardly surprising -
| when the company already ships a production AR dev kit, why
| would they not use it?
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svlL_ndNdj0
|
| [1] https://spark.meta.com/
| gorbypark wrote:
| At one point in time the React/React Native teams put out a
| blog post devoid of any actual details about "multi platform"
| support and mentioned VR in it. I'm surprised I haven't hear
| anything else about it since.
| btown wrote:
| Reposting a comment I wrote on a comparison with Vision Pro
| here, which is very relevant here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39830713
|
| > The biggest innovation with Vision Pro is visionOS. visionOS
| provides native app frameworks, so developers can build apps
| for it. That sounds ridiculously obvious, and yet its something
| Meta have failed to offer for years. Every app on Quest has to
| reinvent how buttons work, how a scroll view works, how far
| away from the user the content should be etc.. and every app
| works differently. On visionOS, all of this is handled by
| Apple, and every app looks and feels the same.
|
| Meta does have standardized utilities for translating movement
| to touch/drag/etc. interactions on arbitrary virtual surfaces:
|
| https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2022/11/22/buildin...
|
| https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-isdk-...
|
| But it doesn't seem (AFAIK) to answer the other side of this,
| which is the UI design system so apps have a consistent look
| and feel. Which is perhaps more common coming from a game
| development perspective, but ever since the Mac OS shareware
| days, Apple's understood that it's empowering to a certain kind
| of developer if you make it easy/the default path for them to
| build experiences that match a standardized look and feel. I'm
| honestly surprised that Meta didn't at least make an optional
| SDK for this.
| atrus wrote:
| You can also use Godot (although def has the too much freedom
| issue) and a-frame as well. The latter might be more attractive
| to webdevs
| nailer wrote:
| Is this 'open' as in 'we have partners' or actual open source?
| OJFord wrote:
| It says 'to more device makers', not all, and anyway it
| wouldn't even have to be open source but just public releases?
| I expect it's a case of applying and meeting whatever standards
| though.
| LatticeAnimal wrote:
| The fact that you still have to apply as a developer is a bit
| discouraging. (though that might change...). I can't seem to
| find anything on github.
|
| Hoping that this is an oversight and that they will open-source
| the core platform in the next few months/years. It would be so
| awesome to hack/build on this platform
| not_your_vase wrote:
| Is it based on some prior art (BSD, Linux...), or a new
| proprietary OS written from scratch? The post is not too rich in
| actual information, beside that now other tech-giants can use it
| too...
| seydor wrote:
| Isn't it based on android?
| reactordev wrote:
| A flavor of android
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Ooof that's a bummer, I hope that doesn't translate to the
| typical "Android developer experience".
| kingforaday wrote:
| "This long-term investment that began on the mobile-first
| foundations of the Android Open Source Project has produced a
| full mixed reality operating system used by millions of
| people."
|
| Hopefully they stick to a proper license model with AOSP as a
| cornerstone.
| not_your_vase wrote:
| Ahh, indeed, thanks all. Apparently I managed to glance over
| it.
| asveikau wrote:
| I can't recall when I first heard the name "OS" used to mean
| just another linux distro, whereas my increasingly old-man
| brain expects the term OS to mean a unique kernel, not a
| repackaging of a different one. Certainly by the 2010s that
| usage was common.
|
| I feel like these days some would even call something an "OS"
| if it's running in a docker container, without providing any
| kernel at all. Which is to say the meaning of the term is
| expanding.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| I do like the fact that you just accepted the evolution of
| the term rather than having a rant about how it changed and
| eventually being accused in the replies of gatekeeping the
| term os
| dmayle wrote:
| From personal experience as far back as the 80's (and from my
| understanding going back before that as well), OS has never
| meant kernel.
|
| An Operating System is the collection of software that allows
| you to operate a computer, so that means kernel, program
| loader, simple text editor, simple disk management, etc.
|
| As computer users became more savvy, and hardware became more
| powerful, more and more functionality was included in the OS
| (graphical interfaces, utility apps, etc.).
|
| I don't think many people would have trouble calling Android
| an operating system, and that's just the Linux kernel with
| utility apps, loader, and app libraries, yet very different
| from something like Redhat.
|
| I don't think it's a stretch in the least to call Horizon an
| OS.
| asveikau wrote:
| > From personal experience as far back as the 80's (and
| from my understanding going back before that as well), OS
| has never meant kernel.
|
| I definitely heard it used to literally mean only the
| kernel. Circa 20 years ago and earlier.
|
| For example, if we look at "Operating system" on Wikipedia
| from 2006:
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operating_syst
| em&...
|
| > Most current usage of the term "operating system" today,
| by both popular and professional sources, refers to all the
| software that is required in order for the user to manage
| the system and to run third-party application software for
| that system.
|
| Note it says "most current usage". That is because the
| usage was changing at that time, or had only recently
| changed. (I picked 2006 because I remember it changing
| around then.) If we go back another 2 years:
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operating_syst
| em&...
|
| > In computing, an operating system (OS) is the system
| software responsible for the direct control and management
| of hardware and basic system operations ...
|
| Sure sounds like that doesn't include userland. Definitions
| which include userland are marked as "colloquial".
|
| Famously in the 1990s, Microsoft tried to argue in court
| that an OS included a web browser, and that discussion is
| cited in these old articles... Many reasonable people at
| the time thought that position was bullshit.
| bradjohnson wrote:
| > I definitely heard it used to literally mean only the
| kernel. Circa 20 years ago and earlier.
|
| You're correct that people have been conflating the
| kernel and the operating system as the same thing for a
| long time, but it's not technically correct to call
| "Linux", for example, an operating system. Stallman would
| appreciate that people stop doing that ;)
| wzdd wrote:
| > I definitely heard it used to literally mean only the
| kernel. Circa 20 years ago and earlier.
|
| You may have, but it was a nonstandard usage. Even your
| 2004 Wikipedia article distinguishes between OS and
| kernel. Userland is certainly part of it.
|
| AmigaDOS, 1991, manual p22: "Each AmigaDOS process
| represents a particular process of the operating system--
| for example, the filing system [...] AmigaDOS provides a
| process that you can use, called a Command Line Interface
| or Shell. (https://archive.org/details/1991-baker-jesup-
| et-al-the-amiga...)
|
| MS-DOS 6.22 (1994) concise user's guide consistently
| refers to the entire thing including command.com as the
| operating system (the kernel here is named msdos.sys.) (h
| ttps://ia801204.us.archive.org/33/items/msdos_manual_622/
| ms...)
|
| Hell, the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux thing, which has been
| around since 1992 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linu
| x_naming_controversy), was explicitly about the fact that
| "Linux" is just the name of the kernel.
| steventhedev wrote:
| > This long-term investment that began on the mobile-first
| foundations of the Android Open Source Project has produced a
| full mixed reality operating system used by millions of people.
|
| Which gives some context to the calls for Google to bring the
| play store content library to Horizon.
| crmd wrote:
| I wonder if this "opening" of the operating system is their way
| of putting the metaverse project out to pasture - analogous to
| donating it to the Apache Foundation - without admitting that the
| company burned $36 billion on a misadventure.
| soared wrote:
| Seems more aligned with trying to achieve what android is to
| mobile phones but with mixed reality.
| persolb wrote:
| Exactly this. Facebook makes money by network effects. They
| are incentivized to grow network engagement, more than they
| are to make direct money off new network members.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Which, I guess, makes sense. I think it is absolutely nuts
| that people would buy an OS developed by an ad company that
| relies on user profiling for their whole business. But then
| again it works for Google.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It actually _is_ Android, just customized for XR.
| romanhn wrote:
| I'm guessing it's the opposite. Meta is trying to establish the
| same OS-level foothold/control that Microsoft, Apple and Google
| have.
| nicce wrote:
| Is there better place to place ads than Metaverse ;)
| exe34 wrote:
| It's great isn't it! All ads should go there. In fact ads
| should be banned everywhere else!
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| Exactly, at the root a lot of this about ATT.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| Having a personal computer at home was a game-changer,
| though. "The Metaverse" has been around for a couple years
| now, and yet consumer VR (which has been around for eight
| years now) is still just a "gimmick", rather than a must-
| have.
|
| The IBM Personal Computer released in 1981. By 1989... yeah.
|
| iPhone came out in 2007. By 2015, smartphones ruled the
| world.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > iPhone came out in 2007. By 2015, smartphones ruled the
| world.
|
| Advanced phones with proper os, apps, camera had been
| around for years, and personal digital assistants before
| that. Tablets, too. iPhone got the form factor and ui
| exactly right and triggered an explosion, but it was far
| from the first. We might still be in the "smartphone, pre-
| iPhone" years.
| crowcroft wrote:
| I don't know what exactly is the right analogy for this,
| but two other points of context which make me discredit
| this line of thinking.
|
| 1. Feature/smart 'Phones' were around before the iPhone
| *and* were already pretty much ubiquitous. VR headsets
| don't do much but sit on shelfs (either in people's
| houses or in distribution centres not being sold).
|
| 2. VR has arguably existed in some ways before the Quest,
| Nintendo Virtual Boy was from the mid-90s.
|
| Maybe the iPhone comparison isn't right, but if we're
| decades into developing this technology and still very
| early in development I think we should assume we're a
| LONG way off these things becoming mainstream consumer
| devices and we should be wary of any company that brings
| them to the consumer market.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| > VR headsets don't do much but sit on shelfs (sic)
|
| Quest has 6+ million monthly active users. Steam 2-3
| million. Sony doesn't publish numbers but a good guess is
| 3-4 million active players.
|
| If you allow for some overlap, that's roughly ten million
| monthly users, and in sales VR is already more successful
| than a lot of computer platforms of the past.
| herculity275 wrote:
| > Sony doesn't publish numbers but a good guess is 3-4
| million active players.
|
| I find it really hard to believe that 3 million people
| put on PSVR2 every month. That thing gets basically no
| content.
| mnahkies wrote:
| Before the iPhone we had palm pilots, blackberries, etc. I
| prefer to think of it as consumer VR simply hasn't had its
| iPhone moment yet
| baby wrote:
| It's crazy because if you try the Quest it's quite insane
| how good it is already. If I were to guess what could
| give it an iPhone moment:
|
| - lighter/more comfortable
|
| - faster to get started when you put the headset on
|
| - more social experiences and event organized in VR
|
| - shorter time from headset on to hanging out with your
| friends in VR
|
| A number of years ago I convinced a bunch of my friends
| to buy the Quest after being blown away by board games in
| VR, but turns out Catan only worked for the Go and it was
| a lot of work to do something together in VR.
|
| IMO there needs to be some sort of lobby that does not
| take you away from hanging out with your friends when
| you're in between games. I should be able to easily join
| a lobby or pause a game to go to a lobby and wave at my
| friend who's playing to pause and join me in the lobby
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| There is a nee version of Catan for Quest 2/3
| imzadi wrote:
| There is, but it is kind of crappy. It's crossplay, but
| not in a meaningful way. You can't create a room and
| share a room code. The best you can do is invite a
| friend, but only if they are on the same platform.
| They've never done anything to improve it or make it more
| player friendly. They released it and forgot about it.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| > - lighter/more comfortable
|
| It's this and one other point: Games that people aren't
| bored of in an hour.
|
| To me, very few games have come out for VR that don't
| feel like gimmicky experiences. Even Half Life Alyx, as
| advanced as it was, kinda felt like a theme park ride
| after a while. I'm not sure if there's technical reasons
| for it, but it feels like nobody is taking VR development
| seriously.
|
| It's hard to justify strapping a TV to my face and
| feeling uncomfortable for one-off experiences. Even if
| there was a game with some depth and replayability, I
| would be even more annoyed to play it on such an
| uncomfortable headset.
|
| Almost everyone I know is not using their VR headset
| anymore. I'm not sure it will ever move past that phase,
| because people want it to be smaller and, simultaneously,
| more technically immersive. So we're in some weird in
| between zone where it's neither.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >I'm not sure if there's technical reasons for it, but it
| feels like nobody is taking VR development seriously.
|
| The "technical" reason for it is very very very simple:
| Nearly no video games are actually improved by "increased
| immersion" to an extreme. Chess won't be more fun because
| you have to physically move digital chess pieces around a
| virtual board, people playing Call of Duty do not want to
| physically move their arms around to aim, and don't want
| to jump around to move, and if you aren't doing those
| things you don't want the downsides that are inherent to
| a VR system, like extreme seclusion of wearing a headset,
| physical ability being an inherent filter, clunky UI,
| nausea etc.
|
| The TWO areas where VR is useful, flight simulators and
| driving simulators, haven't even fully adopted VR simply
| because it's too much hassle.
|
| VR is only a gimmick unless you can benefit from that
| extra immersion, and most things cannot.
|
| The Wii sold gangbusters because everyone and their
| grandma could understand "swing remote to swing tennis
| racket", but you couldn't actually build a hyperaccurate
| tennis sim off of that because a Wiimote is NOT a tennis
| racket and you cannot get beyond that. VR is the same
| way. Everyone can experience the "Oh VR is soooo coool"
| gimmick but very few genres inherently benefit from what
| VR provides.
| wvenable wrote:
| Where VR shines, in my opinion, is in fitness. Where the
| goal is ultimately to move around in a gamified way.
| That's effectively how I use my Quest 2 and I'm not
| alone. Recently I've been trying to increase my table
| tennis skills.
| LordShredda wrote:
| But why does it need a heavy screen attached to your
| head? Just get some shorts and go outside, and if you can
| afford a quest 2 then surely you can afford a tennis
| table
| int_19h wrote:
| I think part of the problem is this weird insistence that
| VR means having to physically move arms around etc. For
| most games, the _visual_ experience of VR can vastly
| improve immersion, but control schemes nearly universally
| suck. Simulators work so much better largely because they
| don 't fall into the same trap - if you're playing a
| flight sim, say, you're still probably using the same
| stick/throttle/pedals as you would without the headset.
| For space sims, I find that headset + mouse combo works
| amazingly well (End Space is a good showcase of what can
| be done there). And so on.
|
| But for some reason there's practically no uptake on any
| of this outside of sims. I would love to see a first-
| person shooter that is fully VR enabled while still
| allowing me to use WASD + mouse. In fact, I already kinda
| sorta do that by using 2D theater mode with games like
| Insurgency: Sandstorm, but that doesn't give you the
| actually useful VR stuff like the ability to turn your
| head to look around etc. If somebody were to make an FPS
| that did all that, they'd have my money in a heartbeat.
| numpad0 wrote:
| That some reason is motion sickness. There has to be
| consistency with your perception, else it develops into
| compounding vection feelings. It tend not to apply for
| vehicular controls hence sim usage.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| Skills based games -- baseball, cricket, golf, tennis
| almost have infinite game play
| vundercind wrote:
| I game quite a bit and had access to multiple headsets at
| home because of the work my wife did, for a couple years.
| Official permission to use the hardware for whatever.
|
| I tried beat saber for like 10 minutes and never bothered
| with anything else. The headset's just too big a hassle,
| and blocking out the world sucks _a lot_.
|
| Plus I can't help but think of the VR headset guy from
| the Pearl Jam video "Do the Evolution" when I look at the
| damn things.
|
| Kinda like how I think of the dad from Serial Experiments
| Lain any time one of my kids walks in and I'm in front of
| a glowing screen.
|
| Gross.
| christianqchung wrote:
| Speaking of Serial Experiments Lain, there is also the
| guy walking around the street in the AR headset which
| everyone thought was weird. Funny that it's still weird
| 27 years later.
|
| I have access to a Vive headset for school project right
| now and do not find it very fun to use, Beat saber
| remains the only VR game that is at least on the same
| tier of replayability as osu.
| jayd16 wrote:
| They actually do have cross game party chat these days,
| just FYI. Just make the party and then hop into the game.
| Support is a little inconsistent as games are not forced
| to support the feature, though.
| maxsilver wrote:
| The Quest is insanely good, _for a single person in
| isolation, once it 's up and running_. But there's a
| _ton_ of friction that shouldn 't exist before that
| happens, and Meta hasn't nailed most of the UX here yet.
| For example:
|
| - App sharing / libraries doesn't work properly yet. (The
| owner has to secretly log in to each individual app
| themselves, before anyone else can use it on the device.
| There is no documentation informing anyone of this
| requirement)
|
| - Add/ons or DLC also don't work properly yet. (You have
| to 're-unlock' each individual DLC, for it to share to
| anyone else on device in something like Beat Saber, for
| example)
|
| - Child permissions don't work properly yet. (The
| notification does work, but a parent is not allowed to
| approve an app from that notification, the child has to
| _entirely shut down and restart the whole device_ ,
| before an approval takes effect)
|
| - Screen sharing doesn't work, at all. (If you have a
| child, you just can't ever mirror their view onto a TV or
| Tablet -- full stop, no exceptions. Which also means,
| there's no way to help a child who is wearing a headset
| -- ever). Note that "taking the headset off" triggers a
| state reset, so a child can't hand the headset over to
| their parent for help, since the face sensor will kill
| state the second a face is removed.
|
| - Windowing UI doesn't really work yet. (You can have
| windows, but only three, and only side-by-side, and only
| for a select few apps) -- it's more usability-restricted
| than even stage manager on an iPad. You can tell the
| Quest is designed around the expectation that you will be
| in one-and-only-one full-screen game, pretty much the
| entire time your wearing the headset.
|
| - Online sharing is app-dependent, a bunch don't work.
| Many more don't work at _first_ , you have to spend 30 to
| 60 minutes "unlocking" the right to match-make. (making
| the online/networking more seemless is critical because
| of the nature of the device -- you can't both look at it
| the way you might with a TV or PC or Laptop or Tablet,
| since it's a worn device)
|
| None of this is dealbreaking stuff, none if it needs any
| kind of "new invention" or anything to fix. But _as a
| product_ , friction is still really high here, and I can
| see why it's not necessarily super popular outside of
| techie/gaming scenes yet.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Even as a kid before the iPhone came out, it wasn't hard
| to see the appeal of a smartphone. People loved their
| Blackberries and Palm Treos. Having internet access
| wherever you go was incredibly appealing even before the
| hardware, software, and infrastructure were ready to make
| that mass marketable.
|
| VR makes a ton of sense for video games, but I just don't
| see how it could enhance the rest of my day-to-day life.
| I don't see it becoming a good general purpose computing
| platform that most people use all day. I see it being
| useful for specific niche tasks like CAD, but I'll never
| put on a headset just to send an email, file my taxes, or
| browse the internet.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I see tons of appeal for headsets in day-to-day life.
| Maybe Im unique but I spend a solid hour a day lying in
| bed reading or on my tablet, I think this experience of
| using a computing device while lying down could be vastly
| improved with the right headset and thats an hour every
| day straight away.
| scrame wrote:
| I'm still a little nonplussed. i don't like apple stuff,
| but did a couple demos at work with the vision elite or
| whatever its called.
|
| Came away very impressed with the technology, but really
| didn't like having the damn thing strapped to my head for
| 15-20 minutes.
|
| it reminds me of getting the original 3ds that could do
| some cool AR stuff, and could do 3d without glasses, but
| ultimately was an impressive tech demo that I mostly
| didnt use.
|
| I already spend too much of my day in front of phones and
| monitors, I'm not sure if the answer is moving the
| screens closer to our eyes and shutting out more of the
| world.
|
| industrial applications for sure can have a niche with
| this, but as a mass market device I think there's a long
| way to go, even if the experience looks good.
| skhameneh wrote:
| Consumer VR hasn't had it's Blackberry moment yet!
|
| Coincidentally, someone I interacted with mentioned "I
| never thought I'd get rid of my Blackberry" in passing,
| which reminded me of the term once popular term
| "Crackberry".
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| VR headsets can be fun for some games, but the hardware and
| software still have a lot of maturing to do, it's not like
| smartphones where it feels very developed and there's not
| much more room for obvious growth/improvement.
| MyFirstSass wrote:
| Yesterday i was close to buying a Pico 4 (Cheaper non
| meta Quest 3 equivalent), then i realised there has been
| zero fully triple a games since my friend blew me away
| with a Half Life Alyx demo 4 years ago.
|
| I find it incredible there's still only 1 actual
| "serious" VR game - lots of people then recommended
| Skyrim VR, a game from 2011.
|
| Is VR gaming in an absolute standstill?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's not at all, no. There's plenty of compelling games,
| there just aren't any AAA games (not ones built for VR
| only anyway) because the market simply isn't big enough
| to justify the incredible production costs.
|
| If you're dead set on only AAA games then yeah, it's not
| a useful purchase, but that doesn't mean it's "standing
| still".
| jamilton wrote:
| I think there are few to zero new AAA games, but I don't
| think that means VR gaming is at a standstill, or that
| there are no great, fun games.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yes. Meanwhile:[0]
|
| 0: https://medium.com/@nemchan_nel/vrchat-breaks-records-
| with-9...
| rvba wrote:
| IMHO when you talk about PCs "becoming the big thing" - it
| is more Windows 95 time.
|
| In 1989 market was still fragmented and PCs were weak (286,
| amiga, mac + old 8bits like atari and commodore).
| babypuncher wrote:
| The difference here though is I don't think AR/VR will ever
| become as ubiquitous for general purpose computing as laptops
| and smartphones.
| r00fus wrote:
| It's both. Meta can be "giving it away" and "hoping to
| establish an OS foothold" but if there is no major interest
| in playing in this space, it's going to be a very empty
| metaverse.
| graypegg wrote:
| Using the name << horizon >> without showing Horizon Worlds at
| all definitely hints at Horizon Worlds being a side social
| feature of the Horizon OS, versus this being an OS specifically
| FOR the horizon worlds metaverse.
|
| Meta/Facebook really has trouble with focus, I hope they can
| pick 1 vision for VR.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| I think they have the most focus out of any big tech company.
| They have like 4 products.
|
| They're trying to build a platform to build VR experiences
| on. That's clearly their goal. Horizon Worlds is "just an
| app" to show that off. It's a "hero use case".
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I looked at it seriously for content authoring but gave it
| up.
|
| The big problem is you cannot import images, textures, 3-d
| models and such from ordinary tools. You have something
| like constructive solid geometry to work with but only so
| much and there is a slider you can use to set the number of
| players and the more players the less geometry you can use.
|
| I want to make worlds based on photographs (particularly
| pano and stereo) and art. McDonalds needs to put a Coca-
| Cola logo on the side of the cup. Either way it is a non-
| starter.
|
| HW supports collaboration (more than one person shares the
| world) but https://aframe.io/ lets me make the content I
| want. If I have to choose one or the other I am going to
| pick the second.
|
| My take on Meta Quest is that it seems highly successful as
| a gaming environment based on an app store but is skews
| towards single-player experiences. Like a lot of AAA games,
| the excellent _Asgard's Wrath 2_ has some multiplayer
| tacked on but it is all meaningless like leaderboards and
| the occasional ghost that shows up in a procedurally
| generated dungeon.
|
| Of course, Meta wants to make multiplayer experiences but
| somehow they just can't do it.
| pnw wrote:
| The most popular gaming experiences on Quest are all
| social - Gorilla Tag, Rec Room, VR Chat, Population One,
| Contractors etc.
|
| It makes sense that expensive AAA experiences like
| Asgard's Wrath are single player since that's a fairly
| dominant model in gaming. The Quest doesn't have the
| player base to support a AAA multiplayer model at this
| point.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Not really. There is no money in VR/AR headsets. All the money
| is in the services that back them. Even further, the less money
| is in making headsets, the more money is in the services.
|
| To say nothing about your data, which is Facebook's primary
| revenue driver.
| swatcoder wrote:
| It reads more like they're smartly stepping away from the
| hardware game they're not really optimized for and focusing on
| the software and connectivity features that they are.
|
| I'm not keen on more headsets having a Meta data vacuum built-
| in, but this isn't the opposite of putting the metaverse stuff
| to pasture.
|
| They're just shifting from an Apple strategy of full-control
| vertical integration to a Android/Windows strategy of platform
| ubiquity.
| sgift wrote:
| > It reads more like they're smartly stepping away from the
| hardware game they're not really optimized for and focusing
| on the software and connectivity features that they are.
|
| Which would be weird cause the hardware (Quest 3/Quest Pro)
| is top notch, while Metas software for it is garbage.
| Everything good is provided by 3rd party companies.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Pixel phones are great too, but Google would be a radically
| different company if they tried to saturate the demand for
| Android hardware on their own.
|
| Making flagship/reference hardware on the Oculus legacy is
| a much better strategy for Meta and lets them focus on
| platform vision and data collection, which is _exactly_ the
| company they spent the last 15+ years building.
| baby wrote:
| I really hope Meta keeps making hardware. I want a Quest 4
| sgift wrote:
| Yeah, me too. It would be really sad if Meta stopped
| hardware development and left it to other companies.
| andybak wrote:
| "Garbage" is harsh. It's flawed but they are streets ahead
| of Pico or Vive.
|
| Ironically Google Daydream was also very polished and now
| Google is starting again but with a gigantic dent in their
| credibility.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| 1. Zuck always wanted to own a platform. He was a developer at
| heart and wants a product that developers can build on. He's
| personally invested in this.
|
| 2. I'm pretty sure a lot of the cost quoted for their
| "Metaverse" stuff included their CapEx for a ton of GPUs which
| probably have a lot of other uses within the company.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I wonder how 1. works. Won't any developer tell you that
| _platforms are traps_ , to be avoided unless necessary (or
| unless you're prepared in advance to jump off it at any
| time)? I feel platforms are only interesting to business
| folks, particularly those selling access to them.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Platforms are a trap, except Windows launched a revolution.
| Platforms are a trap, but iOS made companies (like
| Facebook) billions.
| abraae wrote:
| Animals usually realise there is something off about a
| trap. They interact with it extremely cautiously,
| sometimes leaving it for a few nights and then coming
| back.
|
| Eventually their desire for whats in the trap overcomes
| their caution and they put their head in.
| zem wrote:
| as a developer at heart he should have thought back to how
| interested he would have been in sharecropping on someone
| else's locked down platform!
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Meta reality does a TON of research.
| burnte wrote:
| This is them doing that but also trying to do what Android did,
| capture the bulk of the market and leave the ultra-
| ridiculously-high-end to Apple.
| criddell wrote:
| So create a big market where nobody makes much money to
| compete with Apple's smaller market that captures absurd
| margins?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Do _devs_ really capture absurd margins? Or does Apple,
| leaving the dev with a pittance?
| criddell wrote:
| I thought _ultra-ridiculously-high-end_ was referring
| mostly to Apple hardware and bundled software.
| awad wrote:
| While we can debate plenty on what the right amount of
| App Store fees might be, it is objectively true that
| developers absolutely care about the market of available
| consumers on the high end platform.
| Culonavirus wrote:
| > the company burned $36 billion on a misadventure
|
| Watch out, the VR mafia is gonna get ya!
|
| Seriously though, any well informed and level headed person
| could see this coming a mile away. Apparently, such people are
| in short supply at Meta.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| The number of employees who can see failure coming does not
| matter when they are organized by hierarchy and coerced to
| work toward failure under threat of losing their wage.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Plenty of people inside Google also thought that
| splitting(/replacing) Hangouts into Allo and Duo was
| monumentally stupid.
| smm11 wrote:
| That was the thing that turned me off Google permanently.
| I deleted my G account and have never looked back.
| nradov wrote:
| Meta kind of doesn't have a choice. The major platforms are
| now owned by Apple, Google, and Microsoft (and also to a
| lesser extent IBM and Amazon). The strategic risks of being
| dependent on other companies' platforms are _huge_. Meta is
| desperately hunting for a disruptive innovation that will
| allow them to control the next major platform. A lot of
| people are betting that will be AR /VR but it could be
| something completely different.
| imzadi wrote:
| Speaking from the perspective of a person who is very into
| VR. There are a lot of things that have gone wrong. First,
| Facebook/Meta pushing hard with low-end hardware that caused
| the existing VR gaming to take leaps backward. PCVR was
| progressing fine before Zuckerberg intervened. Now the VR
| space is just cluttered with so many low effort, low res
| games. None of the big players want to get involved, because
| everyone is so convinced it is too "niche." Meanwhile, you
| have people who really want to spend money on VR and there's
| nothing worth spending the money on.
| baby wrote:
| Why would they shut down the Metaverse? It's clearly the future
| and Zuck brought it up again in the last podcast that people
| are linking to. Apple just release a bad headset that just
| confirmed the bet that Meta took
| araes wrote:
| How does any company burn $36 billion on a headset they got
| handed a prototype for?
|
| At a reasonable $100k/yr and 50% overhead, that's 240,000 years
| of labor. ~5000 human lifetimes. At a .gov labor rate of 2080
| hrs/yr, that's 500,000,000 hrs of work wasted? For mediocre
| "not a product rendering" that looks like 90's Second Life? I'm
| not usually the graphic resolution crowd, yet that was rather
| underwhelming. Could'a just taken a picture of the inside of
| the Quest view and it would have been better.
|
| Trying to avoid humble bragging, yet last year I put in four
| government proposals (one 20-pager, rest were 5-10), wrote a
| web app, converted a NIST matrix package to a different
| language, and wrote a mixed Android / Windows app for cross-
| communication. I may have observer bias, and not be
| representative. However, that was one year, not 5000
| lifetimes... You'd think they would have more than a single
| game as their killer app. Not even Pokemon Go or similar? It's
| such an obvious previous idea.
| azinman2 wrote:
| 100k/yr is not reasonable for Bay Area, let alone top talent.
| There are people working on it making $1M/yr+. Junior
| developers straight out of college are making more at Meta.
| You're also assuming everything went to just engineering
| payroll, which is obviously not true.
| araes wrote:
| Then FB/Meta's throwing money out the door on people who
| demonstrably do not deserve $1M+/yr.
|
| And on that topic, same with Wikipedia, why "must" you have
| your development base in the most expensive place on the
| West Coast?
|
| Per https://www.gamedevmap.com/ there are Many other, less
| expensive, locations. America has a bunch, even Africa has
| gamedevs. They're an International megacorp, with 3 billion
| monthly active user (probably still a lot of dupes). India
| has the largest FB audience (366 million, 2024), not
| America (100 million). Will an Indian developer make you a
| launch app for less than $1M+/yr? New Dehli has 17 game
| studios (including Riot Games) and Mumbai has 33 (Ubisoft
| Mumbai and Pune).
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| How is it demonstrable that they aren't worth $1m per
| year?
|
| While in many cases folks are overpaid in big tech, some
| of them are insanely talented people who can do things
| others simply cannot.
| bobsomers wrote:
| > How is it demonstrable that they aren't worth $1m per
| year?
|
| Probably because of this:
|
| > How does any company burn $36 billion on a headset they
| got handed a prototype for?
| throwup238 wrote:
| The numbers aren't all that much more palatable at 24,000
| man-years, assuming $1M average TC.
|
| That's equivalent to the amount of labor it took to build
| some of the minor Egyptian pyramids.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I want to make a snarky comment about how any reasonable
| person would want 10x that to work for Facebook but 500 human
| lifetimes is still a wild amount of time for what they've
| gotten.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| They didn't and they didn't.
| drdaeman wrote:
| "Opening" what? I can't think of anything here that even
| remotely resembles opening something to a public or donating a
| project to any foundation.
|
| They realized they have an asset, and they made some money by
| licensing it. Sales department did their job, story at 11. But
| it would've been a boring non-story, so a copywriter used the
| corporate brandbook - and "open" is the buzzword of the last
| few years when it comes to the technology.
|
| Someone need to make an LLM SaaS to de-bulshittify the news.
| mvkel wrote:
| Agreed. Zuck on Dwarkesh's podcast definitely seemed to be
| doing some aggressive retconning, making it seem like AI was
| always the plan, and the metaverse never was. Of course the
| opposite was true.
| seydor wrote:
| I hope at some point they expand to devices beyond goggles, like
| i dont know a holodeck or something
| smeej wrote:
| Am I the only weirdo who does not want, under any circumstance,
| to move to a world where head-mounted computer systems are
| normal? It's bad enough we have the things in our pockets. I
| don't want mine mounted in front of my eyes.
|
| I can hear the replies already, "If you don't want one, don't use
| one," but if something becomes normal _enough,_ the outside world
| does change around it. Why invest in street signs, for example?
| Who prints maps or encyclopedias now? Or why make anything
| _actually_ aesthetically pleasing if 98% of the people who are
| going to interact with it will see it through a digital lens,
| where you can change your designs on the fly and for so much less
| cost?
|
| It's not just that _I_ don 't want to use it. I don't want it to
| become normal among other people either.
| parl_match wrote:
| For what it's worth, we are many decades away from this being
| the new normal in daily life. It'll more likely start to chip
| away at iPad and computer sales though.
|
| As for your examples, such as maps/encyclopedias, they still do
| even in the smartphone age.
|
| >Or why make anything actually aesthetically pleasing if 98% of
| the people who are going to interact with it will see it
| through a digital lens, where you can change your designs on
| the fly and for so much less cost?
|
| There's a great movie called Virtual Nightmare that is
| basically about this. But I don't think it's such a bad thing,
| to be honest. We'll have a world where art can be more easily
| exchanged and public spaces become more collaborative. And the
| flip side is that hopefully, "offline" will have less ads and
| there will be a renewed focus on more indie and subversive
| decoration.
|
| Change isn't always bad, and it isn't always good.
| Sol- wrote:
| I fondly remember the times where Glassholes were rightfully
| mocked. Now it's cool to drive around in your Tesla wearing an
| Apple Vision. It really seems to have become very normalized.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Now it's cool to drive around in your Tesla wearing an
| Apple Vision.
|
| This may have more to do with your particular social circle
| (or mine) than a general trend in pop culture. I don't know
| anyone who thinks any of those are cool.
| tantalic wrote:
| Being cool and getting a lot of views/clicks should not be
| confused.
| talldayo wrote:
| It's funny to me because pretty much every single issue that
| the Google Glass had still persists:
|
| - it's too damn expensive (you look like a rich klutz wearing
| one)
|
| - the content is mostly just normal games and videos that you
| watch in stereo
|
| - the FOV and camera resolution are too poorly miniaturized
| to do anything serious with
|
| Why doesn't it surprise me that public perception did a 180
| when they saw the brushed-aluminum model with an Apple logo
| on it? At this rate Apple should sponsor a second Hindenberg
| just to check if their luck's run dry.
| svachalek wrote:
| Are you thinking of the Quest or something? Google Glass
| didn't have content or a FOV.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Part of the difference is that Glass was uploading images
| (and audio?) to Google for them to use however they like.
| That was the asshole invasion of privacy. People trust Apple
| more, right or wrong.
| adastra22 wrote:
| No, you're not the only one, or even in the minority (outside
| of the terminally online tech bubble). I feel the same way.
|
| But I also see the value of AR/VR to a number of industries
| that need more visual interaction metaphors. CAD/CAM,
| architecture, and real estate come to mind. I could totally see
| buying a house across the country "sight unseen" based on a 3D
| scan (if regulatory guards are in place to prevent modifying
| the scan).
|
| Having an open OS architecture for AR/VR apps is key to making
| this happen. Current offerings all fall short in various ways,
| so I'm curious to try this out.
| me551ah wrote:
| It's only a natural extension of the things that we have in our
| pocket. I would rather be immersed in the whole virtual world
| rather than stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my
| day.
|
| Lets face it, we spend considerable amounts of time in front of
| a screen. A bigger and more immersive screen will be a better
| experience for everyone.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| > I would rather be immersed in the whole virtual world
| rather than stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my
| day
|
| I would rather do neither of these things.
| taway789aaa6 wrote:
| Well said.
|
| I would rather _not_ be immersed in the whole virtual world
| AND _not_ stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my
| day.
|
| (written from a 16 inch laptop that I stare at for work)
|
| I've been trying to exist more (in terms of "time-spent")
| without my phone in my pocket as it seems to be primarily a
| driver of distraction.
| yayr wrote:
| if it takes a similar course as the form factors of mobiles
| from the 1990s to today it may become quite convenient to
| use... Also many including me prefer Wikipedia over printed
| encyclopedias. Getting that context while navigating the world
| may even become a necessity to collaborate or compete with AIs
| efficiently in the future.
|
| On the other hand I do appreciate beauty in nature and design.
|
| But why not have both?
| jeffbee wrote:
| I am fairly sure that 90% of people are on your side and only
| emotionally stunted weirdos like Zuck think this is a good
| idea.
| flkiwi wrote:
| It feels like a competition to own a comparatively narrow
| market (if we're talking about VR). And, within that context,
| it may indeed be a good idea. But I just cannot see VR
| headsets being anything approaching common, primarily because
| people do not like tech accessories they cannot put away
| unless they have a high fashion value or effectively look
| like something else. VR headsets, today, check none of these
| boxes. AR might end up being a different story.
| loudmax wrote:
| The Vernor Vinge novel Rainbows End famously presents a future
| in which people's interaction with the world is mediated by
| augmented reality via contact lenses. It's not presented as a
| necessarily bad thing, but who actually controls access to
| information is a very important consideration.
| candlemas wrote:
| VR makes me sick. Don't know about mixed reality but I've read
| that also causes nausea.
| ciwolsey wrote:
| You have no choice, so no point worrying about it.
| jjcm wrote:
| Just giving an anecdotal response that I am very much the
| opposite. I'm absolutely thrilled for that future. There's
| something magical about that blend of real + digital that to me
| feels more human than sitting behind a desk and staring at a
| screen.
|
| It will definitely be a cultural change though, and I totally
| get how that can be almost repulsive from a different
| perspective. I just want you to be aware though that there are
| people who at least are interested in that future.
| wredue wrote:
| If we had lightweight reality augmenting glasses (as in not
| much more than a pair of reading glasses), I'd have that in a
| heartbeat depending on use.
|
| But yeah, I'd personally not want much beyond that.
|
| Of course, to each their own.
| swozey wrote:
| This is interesting, hopefully it gets more HMD options out
| there, but even better get more developers making ar/vr games.
|
| Was the OS a limiting factor in any of this, though? I've only
| used a Vive and my Oculus 2 and 3 so I'm not sure what other HMDs
| use, I assumed some Android distro that just connects to
| steamvr/openxr/whatever.
|
| Are Asus, Lenovo and Xbox really trying to get into the vr/ar
| ecosystem? Are they going to be Oculus clones? Their own r&d? Is
| this all a pipedream?
| aprilnya wrote:
| the advantage of using meta's OS is that you get the whole Meta
| Quest Store library (or, i guess, Meta Horizon Store) meanwhile
| before, you'd have to convince devs to manually publish for
| your platform
| api wrote:
| With this and Llama I'm starting to wonder if Meta is making a
| pivot toward openness similar to what Microsoft did under
| Nadella.
|
| It's not altruism of course. It's a strategy. But it's a
| different strategy from the closed pure walled garden strategy
| they have executed previously.
| joshmarinacci wrote:
| Smells like competition.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Given React and PyTorch I'd say they've always been doing that.
| Also they've been releasing open source models for years and
| pretty much from the beginning.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| "Open platform" my ass. I still have to jump through ridiculous
| hoops to mod BeatSaber (which is the only way to make it worth
| playing for more than a few minutes). Quest 3 makes modding even
| harder. This announcement is trying to frame App Lab as an open
| app distribution platform; it isn't. Those "basic technical and
| content requirements" apps have to meet are basically the same
| ones that Apple or Google or Meta themselves enforce for their
| app stores. Entire classes of applications, particularly those
| that undermine platform-owners' business models are not allowed.
|
| Additionally, Horizon is generally a terrible operating system.
| Useless and intrusive "social" features out the wazoo, laden with
| tracking/spyware, and it isn't even good for anything beyond
| launching apps that take over the whole environment. Want to use
| your fancy headset to open up apps in 3d space and do some
| multitaking work? Well I sure hope you're happy with exactly 3 2d
| apps (all equally sized) lined up in a row in a fixed location,
| because that's all you're getting. If you want to do anything
| real you need to install an app that launches its own environment
| for multitasking, but of course then you can only pull in windows
| from a remote PC, so if you want to run any local applications
| it's back to basics for you. Oh, and of course you can't mix
| those remote PC windows with local apps. As poor as Apple's
| Vision OS is in the multitasking department Horizon falls far
| behind even it.
| hackcasual wrote:
| Modded beat saber is the only reason I still have kept my
| original quest
| zem wrote:
| I was half tempted to get a quest after playing beat saber on
| a friend's device. it's kind of amazing how much better it is
| than the next best thing you could do on one, some team just
| knocked it out of the park designing and implementing that
| game
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Pistol whip is pretty good too. Those two get your light
| saber sword fight fantasy, and the Matrix Gun-Fu fantasy :)
|
| And though I haven't an athletic bone in my body, the
| fitness / boxing apps are actually a great way to get some
| exercise in.
|
| Generally, quest 2 was one of the things I haven't had any
| interest whatsoever until after a year's campaign, my
| friend basically forced me to try it during a visit :-). I
| have one now, largely for those 3 apps.
| NBJack wrote:
| This is ultimately what they want: their owned walled garden,
| where they get to be the decider, hold the power, track the
| user's as first party data, etc. It makes perfect sense. They
| want this to be the next Android OS (with Play Store equivalent
| of course).
|
| This is really the only move that gets them back in (perhaps
| only somewhat) with the dwindling ads market.
|
| Much as I don't like it, it is a legitimate tactic. I just
| don't see it being effective in the current market, even with
| Apple as a player.
| znpy wrote:
| > They want this to be the next Android OS (with Play Store
| equivalent of course).
|
| Or the next Apple with the next iOS ?
| johnmaguire wrote:
| iOS can only run on Apple hardware.
|
| Google famously made Android "open source" and allows third
| party manufacturers to run it.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| Dwindling Ads market? Which planet do you live?
| freedomben wrote:
| If what they ultimately want is their own walled garden, then
| wouldn't opening things up be the opposite of what they
| should do? I mean, it's a lot harder to re-take control that
| you previously released than it is to hold onto it from the
| start. Look at Apple's difficulties tighteninng up control on
| the mac for example. It has to be a very long game. Compare
| that to the iPhone, iPad, vision OS that have been tightly
| controlled from the start and they have no difficulties
| (other than regulatory) holding the reins tightly.
| jonplackett wrote:
| What control are they actually giving up here though? Seems
| like they're just adding reach.
| cies wrote:
| > If what they ultimately want is their own walled garden,
| then wouldn't opening things up be the opposite of what
| they should do?
|
| The are only opening things up in their marketing speak.
| There is not actual opening up happening. "Open" sounds
| cool, inclusive, and like you are creating a stable
| platform for others to build on top of (IBM opened up x86,
| Linus opened up Linux, etc).
|
| Judge by what they do not what they say -- most valid
| advice in this age of lies.
| bagels wrote:
| Why can't you play BeatSaber without mods?
| yuck39 wrote:
| The out of the box track selection is quite weak. The game
| depends on community made tracks to make it playable in the
| long term.
| munk-a wrote:
| You can - it's just far less fun than BeatSaber with mods.
| The biggest improvement is from being able to select from the
| community list of songs that are available that may better
| suit your taste than the songs that come built in. It's a
| rhythm game so using a rhythm you like makes it much more
| fun.
| jsheard wrote:
| Besides song choice, the community also produces higher
| quality charts than the official ones, and offers
| difficulty that scales much higher.
|
| Lunatics like these can't be sated by the official songs:
| https://youtu.be/CKwX349aV98 https://youtu.be/sJQSy3KG-
| oQ?t=33
|
| That first chart averages _12 notes per second for 5
| straight minutes_ and the player only missed a single note.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Scaling even higher?? Lol I can't even play on medium
| difficulty on the built-in ones. I don't know how people
| keep up with the high tracks.
| munk-a wrote:
| I assume there are sort of natural skill ceilings but if
| you practice with more difficult scenarios and really
| push yourself you'd be amazed at what you can do. I've
| got an essential tremor[1] and I usually play on Expert+
| for the vanilla tracks which is usually do-able for me.
|
| 1. On that note - my tremor does hurt me here too but
| unlike twitch shooters (which I loved before my tremor
| got bad) and things like guitar hero (which require
| comparatively precise movement) beat saber is usually
| pretty forgiving about precision of placement and angles
| - so long as your rhythm is correct you can go pretty far
| with it.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Lack of any songs I actually care about, and the actual note
| mapping from the devs has been pretty bad up until recently.
| The modding community has had them beat for ages. Without
| mods the game would be a breif curiosity before I got bored
| with the provided songs, most of which don't suit my taste.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Mind that "mods" includes "custom tracks".
|
| OG BeatSaber comes with a small-ish selection of tracks, most
| of them obscure and not generally known. Good or bad, they
| get boring quickly. Modding lets you expand to arbitrary
| number of tracks, including pretty much all the ones you
| like. It's what makes it fun and worth returning to. Not
| being able to add your own music, makes BeatSaber not worth
| the sticker price (much less if you're getting Oculus just to
| play it).
|
| Also note that people were used to this capability, because
| before BeatSaber became a poster child for Oculus, it was
| streamed to other headsets from PC, where adding custom
| tracks was tacitly allowed.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| because they want to use songs they didn't pay for
| bowsamic wrote:
| How do you know that??
| idle_zealot wrote:
| No, that's basically correct. Mods are primarily for
| downloading community-made tracks/maps for songs not
| included with the game. There are also officially
| licensed DLC song packs, but they're quite pricy and
| still only provide access to a limited selection of
| tracks.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| That's literally what the mods do :).
|
| There's moral discussions to be had I'm sure, but the
| _purpose_ of the beat sabre mods is pretty factual :).
| prophesi wrote:
| Not quite; piracy of the paid DLC is one thing, but
| modding is to add songs (which should be read as, entire
| Beatsaber custom-made tracks) that otherwise are not
| available through any other avenues.
| tarxvf wrote:
| More likely because they want to use songs that aren't
| _offered_ except by modding.
| waffleiron wrote:
| If I paid for the song (even somewhere else, even on a
| subscription like spotify/apple music), I should be able to
| dance/move to it. I don't think one should have to re-buy
| every song in a videogame. Especially when the work is done
| for free to put in the dance moves by modders.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| You don't pay for the song when you pay for streaming
| services, you pay to stream it. You have no rights beyond
| streaming the song.
| stale2002 wrote:
| There are lots songs for which it is fully legal to listen
| to without paying for. Many people release songs for people
| to listen to for free!
|
| This is especially true within the rhythm game community,
| for which many fans simply like to make rhythm songs and
| for people to play them.
|
| That is absolutely a valid usecase that should be allowed.
| kotaKat wrote:
| And I'm still forced to have some form or variant of a
| Facebook-touched account, even if they want to change the front
| company behind it.
|
| I don't want to sign in to use a headset, period.
| prab97 wrote:
| But you do sign in to use an Android phone, or iPhone.
| Although, I agree with the point that someone would never
| want to sign in with their Facebook account there, with FB
| account holding so much personal information about them! For
| gaming, somebody would rather prefer to use an alias like
| dungeonmaster669 instead of their verified actual identity.
| rrdharan wrote:
| You don't _have_ to sign in to use an iPhone or Android
| phone, though you to have to sign in to use their app
| stores. Presumably with the advent of DMA though you can
| avoid creating an Apple ID or Google account if using a 3rd
| party store (though probably you'll need some other account
| for that store, that's how it always goes...).
|
| Fe: gaming - yes, this is why Apple had separate IDs for
| gaming center.. and I think Microsoft does this too for
| Xbox vs Microsoft account?
| wredue wrote:
| I also basically have to have a smartphone, and smartphones
| are entirely self contained devices.
|
| On a scale of trust for how companies are handling my data,
| Apple, and to a much lesser extent, Google, are still more
| trustworthy than Facebook, I feel.
| freedomben wrote:
| On Android at least, you don't _have_ to sign in. You
| obviously "miss out" on some "features" that way, but it
| is usable.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| Plus, it doesn't have the Apple logo.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| Hey, at least it supports webXR and there's no way to control
| that content.
| cma wrote:
| They mention Steam Link but don't mention it isn't allowed to
| sell in-app purchases (maybe a decision on Steam's side to be
| fair; they dont want games on Steam themselves having a "remote
| desktop" overlay workaround where you buy DLC without paying
| the 30% revenue tax).
| bodge5000 wrote:
| > I sure hope you're happy with exactly 3 2d apps (all equally
| sized) lined up in a row in a fixed location, because that's
| all you're getting.
|
| To be fair that is all I really want. Regardless, its still a
| privacy nightmare which makes it a no-go for me, combined with
| the fact that the most powerful ("productivity") app I can
| expect to run on it would be something like excel which makes
| me not really need anymore than 1 window, at which point its no
| better than a regular laptop.
|
| I'm waiting for the Simula One, or maybe XReal Air support for
| linux
|
| EDIT: To be clear, the kind of apps I'd want to be running
| (what I run on my regular laptop) that I doubt would be
| available on Meta OS include things like: Godot, Blender,
| VSCode, terminal windows, probably a bunch of other stuff but
| those are the main ones
| ru552 wrote:
| With this and Llama, looks like Zuck is trying to be the Linux of
| whatever the next big wave is
| brevitea wrote:
| There exists a severe deterioration of trust with respect to
| Zuckerberg. I don't believe people are as eager to jump on his
| bandwagon today.
| mousetree wrote:
| I think he is working on turning that trend around (see
| Llama).
| waynesonfire wrote:
| Yeah right, he's donating all those GPUs to rebuild his
| reputation. It has nothing to do with trying to be relevant
| as a non-market leader.
| talldayo wrote:
| Whatever the purpose is behind it, I'm just glad that
| their work benefits me for once. I could not tell you the
| last time Tim Cook or Bill Gates sponsored something that
| genuinely improved my day-to-day life.
| jayzalowitz wrote:
| I see the day to day for you, but bill gates is probably
| gonna get statues made of him for some of the things he
| is doing, especially in africa.
| renewiltord wrote:
| On the podcast with Dwarkesh Patel, he was quite explicit
| that he believes that open-sourcing has worked out for
| them in the past and they're interested in it in the
| future but they'll only do it so long as it helps them.
| If they make something awesome that it would be worse for
| them to release he won't release it. And the license is
| anti-competitor (if you have 700 million users or more,
| you can't use Llama) so he's quite clear that this is a
| business decision.
| bogwog wrote:
| I wonder if there is a limit to this strategy? How many
| LLMs would it have taken Epstein to release for HN to
| forgive him?
| etrautmann wrote:
| Is that still true?
| cairhart wrote:
| > We're also developing a new spatial app framework that helps
| mobile developers create mixed reality experiences. Developers
| will be able to use the tools they're already familiar with to
| bring their mobile apps to Meta Horizon OS or to create entirely
| new mixed reality apps.
|
| Like porting my whole android app + spatial features or...?
| tasoeur wrote:
| My guess is that they saw how nicely Apple made basic app
| development (read 2.5D planes with list views and spatial UX)
| and they are gonna try their best to shape their "app
| framework" in a similar fashion.
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "Meta Horizon OS devices will also use the same mobile
| companion app that Meta Quest owners use today--we'll rename this
| as the Meta Horizon app."_
|
| Churning through so many VR brands. The app that used to be
| called Oculus and is now called Meta Quest will soon be called
| Meta Horizon.
|
| If Meta really believes in the Metaverse, why do they need the
| Horizon brand? Why not just the Meta OS?
| what_ever wrote:
| Because their whole company is called Meta?
| sangnoir wrote:
| > If Meta really believes in the Metaverse, why do they need
| the Horizon brand? Why not just the Meta OS?
|
| Perhaps for the same reason why Apple OS, Google OS or
| Microsoft OS don't exist as customer OSes - each OS is scoped
| to a specific function/device-class, and maybe superceded in
| the future.
| blululu wrote:
| This is actually a really cool move. Not sure about the business
| case, but building an os for AR/VR is challenging. A naive port
| of Android or Linux will not really work (without inducing
| massive motion sickness). Having a framework that allows a
| hardware oem to quickly create a decent AR/VR headset could
| really open up the market.
| lucideer wrote:
| pivoting some underlying metaverse tech? scant on detail
| unfortunately
| spintin wrote:
| I think linux would be the obvious choice.
|
| VR is being gatekept by Valve and Meta.
|
| How likely is Valve to use Android?
| jsheard wrote:
| > How likely is Valve to use Android?
|
| Not likely, unless they make a headset which doesn't do much of
| anything by itself and is just meant for streaming from a PC.
| To make a standalone headset which can draw on the Steam
| catalog they would almost certainly want to use a variant of
| their SteamOS Linux distro.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Valve already has its own OS for a mobile device: Steam OS
| (based on Arch) on the Steam Deck. My bet is that they'd just
| modify that for a standalone headset.
| amluto wrote:
| I wonder if this will allow full use of Meta's hardware without
| an account.
| pavlov wrote:
| It's the other way around: you can get the Quest's software on
| hardware not made by Meta.
| ein0p wrote:
| Doesn't seem very "open" actually. Open to ASUS and Lenovo !=
| Open.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is open in the sense of POSIX Open Group.
| neural_thing wrote:
| Very strange how many people are here to dunk on Zuck. He's
| opening up an OS. THAT'S AWESOME! We should celebrate that in
| principle, no matter how we feel about him or VR in general.
| Oras wrote:
| Oculus still requires a Facebook login; don't you see the
| conflict?
| purge wrote:
| it requires a meta sign-in, which isn't a facebook account.
| Oras wrote:
| potato <=> potato (sounds on)
| aprilnya wrote:
| no, those are completely different... a facebook account
| is an account on a social network that requires you to
| use your real name or else you get banned. a facebook
| account links you to your real life identity and your
| real life social circles
|
| a meta account is an account that you can optionally link
| to their social medias, but it isn't required
|
| meta accounts are basically just oculus accounts
| aeonik wrote:
| I don't need an account to use my monitor or my TV. Why
| do I need one for a VR Headset?
| aprilnya wrote:
| Because these aren't dumb headsets that just plug into
| your PC. These are standalone headsets that handle the
| whole thing -- they aren't just a display and
| controllers, they take the role of the PC too.
|
| So, needing an account for these is more comparable to
| needing an account to use Steam
| aeonik wrote:
| I don't need Steam to run my games or to pipe data into
| my Valve Index either.
|
| It's still unclear to me why an account is needed. I
| mean, I get the profit and control motive, I just don't
| understand the technical reasons.
| baby wrote:
| Because you need to buy apps to make use of your VR
| headset. Lets put it this way, do you need an account to
| use your Iphone?
| kotaKat wrote:
| No, in fact, I don't.
|
| My device is not signed into any Apple services right now
| or any Apple IDs. Anything my company needs to deploy
| gets pushed by MDM or via enterprise-signed applications.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| you really should be factually correct when dunking on
| something
|
| It hasn't been called Oculus for ages and it doesn't require
| a Facebook login. Meta accounts are stand alone and
| completely different, you can create as many as you want
| without giving your identity, just an email address, you
| don't need to link it to anything.
| croes wrote:
| to third-party hardware makers.
|
| And it's still based on Android.
|
| The reason will be the same as for Android by Google: Control
| the market.
| alt227 wrote:
| Dont be fooled by the marketing language.
|
| All they are doing is allowing some companies to pay them
| billions of dollars to put meta onto their own headsets.
| Similar to how Valve allowed a few companies to put SteamOS
| onto their own hardware to create 'Steam Machines'.
|
| I cant think of a single time in history when this tactic has
| worked. and made a product or brand more successful. Please
| correct me if I am wrong.
| woopsn wrote:
| I know I'm fighting the overwhelming tide here, but what the hell
| is "mixed reality"? What is "the metaverse"? For that matter what
| is "artificial intelligence"? Stop trying to dazzle and just use
| words, if the technology is revolutionary then it will be. An
| automobile is not the magic carpet, a cell phone is not a
| soulmate, etc. Otherwise fuck it -- TV is virtual reality,
| getting high augmented reality, TI-84 calculators are artificial
| intelligence, libraries are the metaverse, ...
| neverokay wrote:
| We are like gamers that no longer perceive the improvement in
| graphics across generations.
|
| Talk to Siri and then talk to ChatGPT if you are feeling that
| clueless.
| woopsn wrote:
| I do. I've said it before too -- I like that they called it a
| "generative pretrained transformer" aka GPT.
| neverokay wrote:
| You can make gpt be an imaginary friend for children if you
| want to.
|
| The technology is the technology, the application of it is
| the magic.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| Meta are trying to dazzle you with words because there is
| nothing fundamental behind any of this metaverse stuff
| idle_zealot wrote:
| These are not complex or dazzling terms. Artificial
| intelligence is software that seems intelligent. Virtual
| reality is a simulated environment that you can immerse
| yourself in through small screens and head tracking. Mixed
| reality is virtual reality overlayed on your real environment.
| See also "augmented reality". The metaverse is the web, but
| replace websites with 3d environments and add some sort of
| personal avatar, perhaps with some persistent identity.
| woopsn wrote:
| People seem to think I have trouble understanding what the
| terms refer to. That's not my point -- you're right in that
| they are not complex.
|
| But why is virtual reality associated with small screens and
| head tracking? Why wasn't Everquest on a CRT "virtual
| reality"? A lot of software calculates probabilities over
| some distribution, why isn't all that "artificial
| intelligence"? Why isn't my Subaru's cruise control and lane
| keeping technology "autopilot" or "self driving"? Why isn't
| the elevator controller an "agent"? Why aren't my own servers
| "clouds"?
|
| I don't need the terminology explained, I'm just tired of it.
| And I do think in many cases it's meant to be dazzling and
| marketable rather than mean anything.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| These terms have a way of burning people out. I hesitate to
| use blockchain and A.I. in the same sentence because that's
| a sure sign the person doesn't have anything to say.
| andygeorge wrote:
| > why is virtual reality associated with small screens and
| head tracking?
|
| ...because that's what it is? surely you understand that
| the difference between 3D, near-eye displays and
| traditional 2D screens warrants a different label
| johnfn wrote:
| > But why is virtual reality associated with small screens
| and head tracking?
|
| Because this improves the quality of VR.
|
| > Why wasn't Everquest on a CRT "virtual reality"?
|
| It is an extremely limited form of VR.
|
| > why isn't all that "artificial intelligence"?
|
| It is an extremely limited form of AI.
|
| > Why isn't my Subaru's cruise control and lane keeping
| technology "autopilot" or "self driving"?
|
| It is an extremely limited form of "self driving". (To be
| more precise, it's Level 1 self autonomy.)
|
| > Why isn't the elevator controller an "agent"
|
| It is an extremely limited form of an agent.
|
| > Why aren't my own servers "clouds"?
|
| They are extremely limited forms of a cloud. (Though I
| would argue that a cloud needs to be provided by a third
| party.)
|
| > I don't need the terminology explained, I'm just tired of
| it.
|
| It sounds like you are refusing to understand how
| experiences fall somewhere on a spectrum. Is me and my
| friend tossing a ball around in my backyard "baseball"?
| What if we get 7 more friends and stand on a diamond and
| run around the bases? If I come back afterwards and say "we
| played baseball", even though it wasn't an MLB-regulated
| official game adjudicated by umpires, are you going to get
| really upset at me and say that I'm lying and I didn't
| really play "baseball"? The same principle applies to
| everything else you've listed here.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| Limited says you. I'll pick on your example of VR. Tell a
| blind person that Everquest is a limited form of VR.
| You've just bought into "progress". These other
| experiences likely still haven't been beaten when
| strictly speaking about real depth as opposed to the
| superficial.
| johnfn wrote:
| A blind person can still hear the spatial audio in
| Everquest. I think they would get the point.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think asking questions like that for rhetorical effect
| works in other places, but people here prefer to treat all
| questions as actual good-faith questions. Even ones that
| are clearly intended as rhetorical, like yours.
|
| So, I don't think they are misunderstanding you. It is
| almost like calling your bluff.
|
| It is an interesting convention.
|
| I don't dislike these kinds of questions normally. But they
| do typically lead to a little bit of back and forth. On
| this site, most interactions are typically only 2-3 posts
| long. So I think it is better to just state your opinions
| directly.
| wvenable wrote:
| > But why is virtual reality associated with small screens
| and head tracking?
|
| Because it's supposed to simulate reality -- and it does a
| great job of it. Everquest on a CRT doesn't simulate
| reality; it's nothing like reality. As the capability of
| something increases it becomes something else. Cruise
| control on a car that is sufficiently able to drive a car
| eventually becomes autopilot. Your own server isn't a cloud
| but put a large enough of them acting together in a way
| where each individual machine is entirely redundant and
| replaceable is a cloud. These words describe actual things.
| You are a person but why isn't any random clump of cells a
| person?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Why is a laptop not desktop? Aren't GNU/Linux desktop OS?
| Why is Android a phone OS? I thought it was supposed to be
| a camera firmware GUI toolkit?
| woopsn wrote:
| I'm not concerned about trademarks. I'm concerned about
| what isn't trademarked -- language which instead we are
| all supposed to adopt and throw around as much as
| possible. As I said: * reality, AI, cloud, etc.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I get that loosely thrown around buzzwords are annoying,
| that sentiment I sympathize with, but your examples seem
| to contain multiple category errors e.g. HUD is a type of
| AR device, using cloud(noun) is outsourcing(verb) but
| outsourcing is definitely not appropriate term for cloud
| tech stacks, and so on.
|
| Digital computer technologies aren't continuously
| differentiable so made up terms for grouping each
| distinct tech stacks is unavoidable. AI is linear algebra
| but grouping up all AI/ML/RL/perceptron into "electronic
| linear algebra technology" is not helpful.
| alanbernstein wrote:
| I hated the terms "blog" and "podcast" when they were new.
| I thought they were so dumb and unnecessary. But they are
| useful to describe actual things happening in the real
| word. This is just how the intersection of words and
| technology works.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| I think "mixed reality" is the marketing term for augmented
| reality. Easier to understand for some people.
| creativenolo wrote:
| Typically "mixed reality" is used to mean mixing your vision
| with virtual content. Whereas, "augmented reality" has
| typically meant displaying a live video feed on a single
| screen.
|
| They are two quite different experiences and use cases. Once
| both are common it would make sense to call both augmented
| reality but I haven't heard any better terms for describing
| the difference to people yet.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I think usage is exactly the opposite of what you
| described.
| creativenolo wrote:
| I haven't yet seen a phone Augmented Reality app
| described as Mixed Reality. I have seen HoloLens, Meta
| Quest 3 and Apple Vision Pro described as Mixed Reality
| and Augmented Reality.
| woopsn wrote:
| "Mixed" versus "augmented" reality have no real meaning,
| which is why there is confusion about which of the two
| modalities you're referring to.
|
| My question is why avoid the terms overlay, superposition,
| display and even vision? Why instead purport to have
| altered reality?
|
| Traditionally in aviation and the military they said "heads
| up display", because they can't afford to be obtuse. The
| display allows the pilot literally to keep their head up,
| instead of pointed down at their instruments. And I'm sure
| there was no truck for anyone who would have called it
| mixed or augmented reality.
| baby wrote:
| The Metaverse is what the Internet is if you add VR. It's not
| hard to understand.
| creativenolo wrote:
| It can also mean just plain olde 2D 3D (according to
| companies selling metaverse services)
| woopsn wrote:
| I understand. I read Snow Crash. Besides the Metaverse there
| was also a nuclear powered dog.
|
| My point is this -- by _allusion_ to some concept with which
| an inventor wishes to form an association in the consumer 's
| mind, their products are to be thought of as something
| different than they are, something too grand for plain
| language. This doesn't serve anyone but the inventor.
|
| The "Internet with head-mounted display" is actually pretty
| cool technology, I'm not against it. My concern is that it
| shouldn't be sold or even referred to as an alternate form of
| reality. For the benefit of product sales, or else the egos
| of certain technologists, language becomes muddied and the
| very idea about what makes someone "a person" is bastardized.
| I think this is wrong and very short sighted.
| wvenable wrote:
| If you use a term like "Virtual Reality" to describe things
| it eventually just becomes what people describe. Everybody
| knows what a VR headset is now. Everyone knows what VR is
| now. That is VR. The _allusion_ is completely gone.
|
| It's like describing snow to someone who has never seen it.
| No matter what they allusions they have about snow before
| they see it, once they've seen it, they know that is snow.
| And everyone they talk to will have the same meaning.
|
| Same with Augmented reality, mixed reality, whatever. Once
| it becomes mainstream one of these terms will stick and
| that's just what it will be. Or it'll be so ingrained in
| the experience that we no longer even use a separate term
| to describe it.
| wvenable wrote:
| What the hell is "cloud computing"? What is "big data"? What is
| the "Internet of Things" or "SaaS" or "SEO"? For that matter
| what is "agile development"?
|
| Just use words to describe technology? Every time I want to say
| "cloud computing" do I have to say "a service where you use the
| internet to access software, storage, and processing power
| that's run on a bunch of server located far away in data center
| that are owned and managed by a company that specializes in
| providing these services" instead?
| woopsn wrote:
| In business you would traditionally call that sort of
| arrangement "outsourcing". The Internet of Things is okay --
| it could have been worse, The Omninet or something.
| wvenable wrote:
| "outsourcing" is a broad term. Building your widgets in
| China is also outsourcing.
| woopsn wrote:
| That's the point though. Manufacturing, logistics,
| payroll, research, advertising, legal services, ... --
| outsourcing certain functions to specialist, often (but
| not always) cheaper or more efficient companies is a
| _typical_ business practice. The term is broadly
| applicable and used where ever this is the case. Since
| there are well-known business and organizational risks
| associated with outsourcing, it is conspicuous that we
| "migrate to the cloud" instead.
| wvenable wrote:
| Migrate to the cloud has specific meanings. How would you
| even adequately define it using "outsourcing"? That's
| just one part of it.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| A new OS will be interesting ONLY if Meta commits to certain
| policies that Microsoft and Apple have violated. Users should be
| able to use their devices without any telemetry or phoning home.
| They should be able to install any software they want from any
| source. They should not be forced to make payments only through
| Meta's services. Etc.
| willi59549879 wrote:
| wouldn't trust meta with anything for sure not running a whole
| os.
| Closi wrote:
| Did they consider the UK market when naming this?
|
| Horizon is synonymous with a computing scandal involving buggy IT
| code.
| pavlov wrote:
| Shades of Apple licensing the Mac OS to clone hardware vendors in
| 1995 - 1997. It seems like Meta will be controlling the software
| experience quite closely, just like Apple did back in the day.
|
| There's an important difference though: Apple made all their
| money on Mac hardware margins which the nimble clone vendors
| could undercut. Whereas for Meta, the Quest hardware has always
| been sold at breakeven or even as a loss leader (a few years ago
| they actually raised the price of the Quest 2 to cut further
| losses).
|
| So there's no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but it
| remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring anything
| relevant to the table either.
| samspenc wrote:
| Like other comments have pointed out, I think of this as
| similar to how Google controls the Android OS. While
| theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of Android
| (Google services etc) require a license from Google along with
| their Play store, so Google makes revenue from there.
|
| Certainly more open (edited) than the Apple ecosystem, but
| still controlled by one (big) player, with a little bit of
| flexibility but not a whole lot.
| ec109685 wrote:
| You're discounting the huge number of android devices that
| use it as a base OS. E.g. Amazon and Peloton use android
| without Google services for consumer devices.
| babypuncher wrote:
| These are devices built with a specific use case in mind
| that need an operating system that is easy to develop for.
| Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make much
| headway in markets like smartphones. Even Amazon's own
| phone flopped pretty hard.
| indymike wrote:
| Kindle tablets on the other hand have done well.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Non-Google versions of Android have struggled to make
| much headway in markets like smartphones
|
| You may have forgotten about China: Huawei smartphones
| are doing very well on an AOSP-based OS.
|
| Edit: Google was concerned about a Chinese fork of
| Android flourishing, they wrote to congress at the time
| the tech-transfer ban was being condidered
| rchaud wrote:
| The thing about Android is that a device doesn't have to
| make headway by selling 100 million units plus to
| continue being adapted to many different types of
| devices.
|
| In any case, the Play store can be sideloaded on every
| Android device even if it isn't officially supported.
| bsharper wrote:
| Amazon used AOSP to create tons of their products. Even if
| most Android devices have the Play Store, there are
| successful variants that don't. And I'd even include Meta's
| Quest line here: every headset since the Go has the ability
| to sideload apks using standard Android tools.
| hadlock wrote:
| My quest (1) I bought on launch day got an OS update and
| now I have to find my old credentials to log in (and thus
| accept some (probably) draconian EULA, just to enable
| developer mode to side load apps on there. You can't just
| plug a USB stick in the side and copy paste them to
| "side_loaded_apps" dir it's still a ridiculous task of
| doing backflips through flaming hoops to use it as an open
| device. And it may yet again reset my login.
| talldayo wrote:
| > A bit more open than the Apple ecosystem
|
| It is not "a bit more open" than iOS, it is a completely
| different approach to OS development that enables wildly
| different results.
|
| > While theoretically open, the real useful stuff on top of
| Android
|
| That stuff is by no means necessary; I've run Android without
| Google services for years and it just feels like a normal
| tablet OS. Again, it is not "theoretically open" but in fact
| practically usable without any first-party services, unlike
| iOS.
| samspenc wrote:
| :D Fair, I didn't want to be yelled at by the Apple fanbase
| that comes out in defense to comments like this, have
| edited my original post with a note.
| bonton89 wrote:
| > So there's no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but
| it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring
| anything relevant to the table either.
|
| Why would I, as a potential hardware maker, wish to compete in
| a market where the existing main producer is a mega wealthy
| entity that is already dumping product below cost and is
| capable of doing so indefinitely?
| distortedsignal wrote:
| The low end of the market is taken - but (from an outsider
| perspective) the high end appears free.
|
| The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people who
| want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially) the same
| parts.
|
| Let's say that, tomorrow, Gucci or Dolce and Gabanna (or
| however you spell that) want to make a VR headset (why? who
| knows?). They don't have the tech acumen to compete with
| Facebook on experience, but they have the brand to compete on
| "people who want to be seen in Gucci."
|
| Is there a market for that? I don't know. But this opens
| Facebook up to the possibility of making that deal.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Or more like those Lamborghini and Porsche branded phones.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| Someone teach this man how to spell "Gabbana".
| theptip wrote:
| Don't agree with this take. I'm sure Meta would be fine
| with other vendors taking over the low-end, if that meant
| there was a vibrant platform they controlled (ie the OS).
| They will lead with flagship models to push the boundaries
| of what the OS/tech can do.
|
| Why would they want to sell at/below cost forever? The
| reason they do this now is to make the platform viable.
|
| The only reason they are focusing on cheaper devices now is
| to build the platform and try to get more users, to in turn
| get more data on what the killer usecases will be.
|
| Think of this as a play like Android. Google doesn't care
| what goes on in the commodified end of the spectrum, as
| long as there is one. Google does ship flagship phones (in
| competition with eg Samsung) and that is fine.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| My point is that there is more to "VR Headset Market"
| than just "low end" - low end is one part of the market,
| but (right now) Facebook has that part locked up.
|
| It may be that there are more places to compete in the VR
| Headset Market that people on HN don't know about.
|
| Like you said, this is probably something like an Android
| play. Everyone was talking about the Apple Vision Pro as
| the VR Market's "iPhone moment" when it came out - maybe
| Meta Vision OS (or whatever they're calling it) is
| Facebook's Android moment.
|
| And yeah, Facebook would probably be ok with others
| taking the low end of the market if they do it well.
| Right now, Facebook is the only company willing to take a
| loss on their own platform. So they do.
| williamcotton wrote:
| _Don't agree with this take._
|
| Is this a command or an opinion that left out the subject
| of the sentence?
| potatolicious wrote:
| It feels less like low vs. high-end and more like
| specialized vs. general hardware.
|
| For example, if you're selling VR headsets for the purposes
| of industrial training, you may not want the consumer-grade
| hardware Meta is selling. You may need weather-sealing to
| allow outdoor operation. You may need vastly higher-
| resolution screens for industrial applications. The list of
| specializations goes on.
|
| The specialized businesses tend to have wider moats and
| bigger margins. The TAM is smaller - too small for a mega-
| cap company like Meta to care about, but nonetheless can
| contribute to the health of the ecosystem.
|
| This play gives influence over these niche, specialized
| uses of AR/VR without having to commit the entire company
| to it.
|
| For example think of a medical instruments company that
| trains on VR headsets. Their choices right now are to use
| consumer-grade hardware which may not hit all of their
| needs, or become a full-on AR/VR company with all the
| requisite R&D that involves.
|
| This allows these companies to exist in the middle ground -
| having the core R&D being done by another party, but having
| sufficient control to ship specialized hardware.
| mdasen wrote:
| I feel like this is a bit off. There have been things like
| Porsche phones, but those are so niche that I don't think
| they're really worth considering. They happened, but they
| haven't been a long-standing product. They were a cash grab
| where they licensed a brand.
|
| Now, Hondas and Acuras are different products. You can say
| "oh, they're essentially the same" and if you truly believe
| that, I'll sell you a Core i3 processor for the price of a
| Core i7. Yea, they're essentially the same, but it's the
| differences that make one better than the other. The point
| is that the high end isn't about branding. The high end is
| about capability. Apple has shown that their iPhone will
| outsell any luxury-branded Android phone to rich people
| because some things are about capability, not a logo.
| Samsung's flagships will way outsell some luxury logo
| smartphone too. The high end here is really about devices
| with better capabilities and it allows companies with good
| hardware businesses (like ASUS and Lenovo) to build
| something in the Meta VR ecosystem.
|
| It's also possibly a way for Meta to stop dumping Quest
| devices. They'd rather just own the ecosystem rather than
| doing the hardware. If they can get ASUS, Lenovo, and
| others to do the low-margin hardware work and pick up the
| tab for a lot of the marketing, that's a win for Meta.
| Maybe Meta simply backs out of hardware over the next 5
| years if a nice third party hardware ecosystem arises.
|
| But I think this is going to be tough with VR. When you're
| trying to make an immersive experience, you need a baseline
| of hardware. It's also easier when you know the hardware
| you're trying to target. Android development can be
| frustrating because there's so much variance in speed and
| capabilities. One of the reason gaming consoles exist is
| that targeting a small set of hardware/capabilities makes
| things easier. That's not to say that PC gaming doesn't
| exist, but it can be hard because gamers need to spend a
| lot of money on hardware and there's a variance in
| capabilities that you need to account for - and who you
| might simply exclude. With a phone, it's less of an
| immersive experience for most apps which are just
| displaying something. They might display it slower, the UX
| might be laggier, etc. but it works. VR can't be laggy.
|
| In some ways, it feels like Meta is trying to become a game
| console company without having to subsidize the console.
| That would be big if they can pull it off. I guess in many
| ways this is what Steam pulled off on the PC - taking a 30%
| cut without having to subsidize any hardware. We'll see if
| Meta can do the same for VR.
| s0rce wrote:
| Reminds me of the Vertu cell phone, which the iPhone
| basically killed.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people
| who want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially)
| the same parts.
|
| Nit, but as an Acura driver (chooser), I can tell you that
| they are definitely not essentially the same parts. The
| irrelevant parts are the same, but everything that matters
| to the driver (suspension/drivetrain, interior materials,
| technology, etc.) all all different and better in the
| Acura. I get what you're trying to say, but that was not a
| good metaphor.
| rokkitmensch wrote:
| I strongly disagree that the low end of the market is
| taken. XReal's Air/2 are awesome and Moore suggests we'll
| see awesome displays in that form factor, not even
| necessarily from XReal.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Yes, but also there are currently so few components to pick
| from. SoC is definitely some kind of variation of
| Snapdragon XR2 unless you're Apple.
|
| Can't go into high-end because for a device to make sense
| either an existing ecosystem around it or high confidence
| in one appearing. If you tell me that I can buy a 3k dollar
| vr headset that can run current quest library, I would
| pretend you're joking.
|
| Mid-end is where we're at right now has/had very small
| margins because despite it being mid-end - you still have
| to use high-end components due to lack of options.
|
| I can see someone like Porsche Design making a "high-end"
| headset (in terms of price, components would be the same).
| The only option for low-end is to use components previously
| used in mid-end that would need to compete with used
| previous gens since they would be nearly identical on the
| hardware level.
| __s wrote:
| Because you want to use it as a basis for military VR or
| something
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Are they capable of selling hardware loss leaders
| indefinitely? If so, can they do it at a scale that matches
| the company's digital presence? The Google Daydream headset
| sitting on my shelf is skeptical.
|
| Regardless of whether they _can_ sell the hardware at a loss
| forever, they probably won 't _need_ to.
|
| Third-party hardware is engineering labor that Meta doesn't
| have to pay for. In fact, it's engineering labor that will
| pay Meta through royalties. Cost-cutting measures developed
| by those third parties can easily be copied by Meta's own
| product, reducing the cost of future versions of the
| hardware. Cheaper options in the marketplace also help Meta
| gain market penetration without their own hardware developing
| a reputation for poor quality.
|
| After a couple generations, vendor lock-in will start to set
| in, and they'll be able to charge more without losing
| customers. The aforementioned cost-cutting techniques start
| to pile up, too.
| ryanbrunner wrote:
| Google did this early on with android - originally the Google
| devices (Nexus) were lower end, and high end devices were
| left to other manufacturers. They've flipped around recently,
| but I think the Nexus line was a decent enough idea at the
| time.
| richardw wrote:
| its partly in the article. Companies like Xbox and Lenovo
| want different experiences for their clients. This allows
| them to share the basic platform but specialise for their
| customer segments, eg professional or Xbox owners or
| whatever. Architects and civil engineers and doctors might
| not want normal game controllers and the default resolution.
| Cheap devices used in developing countries can have a lower
| resolution and no hand tracking. Meta wins because they can't
| build 100 versions themselves, all they care about is growth
| of the market. Nothing is locked up yet, think of a market
| 100x bigger.
| wvenable wrote:
| Seems like without some kind of software revenue sharing
| model it doesn't make sense. These things are consoles --
| sold a cost or below cost in order to make it back on
| software sales.
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| Why should it be different than Google and Android?
|
| Google makes medium and high cost devices, but actually doesn't
| compete too much on margins.
|
| If the OS catches up, meta will do the same move, allowing
| other vendors to proliferate.
| giuseppe_petri wrote:
| > So there's no kind of existential danger to Quest here, but
| it remains to be seen if the hardware licensees can bring
| anything relevant to the table either.
|
| How does Meta make its money? Advertising. Licensees bring
| actual eyeballs to the table and eat the hardware costs
| fighting amongst themselves selling commodity hardware and Meta
| re-position Quest as a 'premium' product that they might
| actually make a little money on.
| brink wrote:
| This all looks incredibly lonely.
| gausswho wrote:
| I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the upside-down
| language that Meta is trying to execute here with the repeated
| use of 'open' to describe any of this. This is an invitation for
| other corporations to drink from their social spigot and join
| their walled-off app store. The word 'open' really is under
| multiple fronts of diffusionary attack lately.
|
| Is the Overton Window now a mobius strip?
| b_d98 wrote:
| While good, Meta is likely to attempt to form a walled-garden in
| the vein of IOS and even Android to an extent. What I'd really
| hope for is a general-purpose computing platform with root access
| for the user, As I believe that mixed reality headsets have the
| potential to overtake both the smartphone and the PC as the
| default compute device of choice.
| squigz wrote:
| Is there any such solution in the VR space, even if not state-
| of-the-art?
| b_d98 wrote:
| There's SimulaVR. https://simulavr.com/
| modeless wrote:
| > And we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta
| Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it
| does on other platforms.
|
| It sounds like they are specifically _not_ open to third party
| app stores selling native AR /VR ("3D") apps. I can see why
| Google might not want to participate if they're not allowed to
| compete.
|
| This feels like a response to complaints that Meta is
| hypocritical when complaining about closed platforms while
| running one themselves. But they aren't open sourcing the OS. I
| don't know why any OEMs would want to compete with Meta's
| hardware subsidized by app store revenue when they continue to
| own the exclusive store for native AR/VR apps. Maybe there's an
| app revenue share to sweeten the deal for hardware partners?
| bsimpson wrote:
| I think you're overindexing on "2D."
|
| The Play store is full of flat apps, designed for phones and
| tablets. There are a gajillion of them, and FB wants them in
| their headsets.
|
| It's not about not wanting competition - it's about wanting
| people to have more than 100 apps available when they use a
| Meta headset.
| int_19h wrote:
| But why would I as a user want to use those flat apps in VR,
| when I already have a phone and a tablet?
| modeless wrote:
| On current headsets, just because it's annoying to have to
| take the headset off to do things, and also to be able to
| use those apps in conjunction with other services like
| meetings in Horizon Workrooms.
|
| On future headsets with higher resolution and better
| comfort, because it would be a legitimately better
| experience in many cases.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Have you seen the Apple Vision demo(s)? Now imagine being
| able to have wall sized versions of Android apps like
| Netflix or even word processing apps like Google Docs.
| wvenable wrote:
| Is that what the majority of Vision Pro users are doing in
| VR? Projecting flat monitors around.
| modeless wrote:
| That's what it's about for Meta, sure. But for Google it
| would be about selling apps on a headset, and being
| prohibited from selling the native type of app for the
| platform would be pretty bad!
|
| Meta wants to have their cake and eat it too. If it's their
| intention to allow third party stores to sell native Quest
| AR/VR apps on the headset in competition with their own
| store, they should state that explicitly because what's
| written here pretty carefully doesn't imply that. I don't
| think we can just assume what isn't stated here.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| This seems like trying to come up with an answer to Apple
| Vision's ability to run iOS apps. If you can install apps from
| Google Play then you could, if you wanted to, check your email
| from inside your headset.
|
| I'm not sure many people would want to do that, but if Apple
| thinks it's a good idea, blah blah blah.
| modeless wrote:
| Sorry for the double post. One of my comments was moved here
| from a different submission so now there are two top level
| comments from me, and I can't edit or delete them because the
| edit window has closed.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Notable by it's absence: ML/AI
| wearhere wrote:
| I was hoping to open this and see screenshots of what the OS
| looked like--I have never had a sense of what the OS for Meta's
| headsets is, only what individual games look like.
|
| Instead, we get five (5) "Not an actual product render"
| illustrations.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Its Android with a VR quick action bar and app launcher grid.
| You can select an immersive skybox "desktop" or a use
| passthrough. There's not much to show seeing as the passthrough
| is still fairly new. There are no built in 3d widgets or
| anything atm so there's really not much to show besides apps.
|
| Anyway, this seems like a licensing deal announcement, not a
| big software release.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| I don't care what these people do, I'll never use one of their
| products unless it is to literally save someone's life.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| what a sad hill to die on
| t1c wrote:
| I don't think it's a particularly sad hill to die on - Meta
| has proven themselves to be exploitative, invasive, and
| downright malicious time and time again.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| I feel very sorry for people who feel that way and have
| their identity tied to hating Facebook/Meta
| gretch wrote:
| No one is dead on a hill.
|
| If anything, not using VR makes you much more "alive".
|
| A real misapplication of this metaphor.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| once again, I feel very sorry for people who haven't
| enriched their lives with VR experiences and skills
| building. No different than people who poo-pooed computers
| and internet
| vonwoodson wrote:
| I remember when Facebook released an "OS" for the phone (it was
| really just a skin for Android). While I'm really happy to see
| that FB is making another stab into the field with the Quest, and
| I'm very happy that we're finally getting some real development
| in VR, I'm even _more_ skeptical of them now as I was then: I
| just don 't trust FB with my data.
|
| Part of what makes me so skeptical is how "cheap" the Quest 3 is.
| There's no way they're not loosing [literally
| billions](https://fortune.com/2023/10/27/mark-zuckerberg-net-
| worth-met...) of dollars developing VR tech and, given their
| track record, only have one way they know to make that money
| back.
| joshmarinacci wrote:
| "Open" in the same way Android is, with complete control and app
| store by Meta. I think we have to accept that an 'open hardware
| platform' the way PCs were was an anomaly. We will never have
| anything like that again.
| andygeorge wrote:
| i think that ship sailed when smartphones became ubiquitous.
| given how heavily subsidized mobile devices are (especially
| compared to PCs), there's no incentive to produce an actually-
| open hardware or software platform. Google and Apple want you
| re-upping every 2 years and to stay locked into their
| ecosystems. i agree this is sad, but definitely not new
| drdaeman wrote:
| I don't think it's in the same way. I see "we licensed some
| software to ASUS, Lenovo and Microsoft (and may license to
| others - serious inquiries only)", not "we are releasing
| something under a free software license".
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| I won't touch VR/AR until the technology progresses to the point
| where its nealry indistinguishable from regular sunglasses/eye-
| glasses.
|
| I have yet to use any VR device that made me want to purchase it,
| its all felt insanely gimmicky, so far the only time a headset
| seems nice is on a plane ride.
|
| I can see the potential, still seems a long way off imo.
| zooq_ai wrote:
| Feel sorry that you feel that way. There are many experiences
| (especially ball games that require hand/eye co-ordination)
| that has made my game / fitness / skill improve at least 80%
| with very minimal amount of time I spent (compared to real
| world training). If you are into Fitness, nothing like training
| in VR for literally no money (compared to Gym / personal
| trainer)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If "cool" people insist on only wearing Ray Bans that will
| keep VR fun. It will keep VRChat safe for furries, kemonomini
| and animekin.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Typically frames are made very light, so they won't make too
| much pressure on one's ears and nose. Unless someone runs a
| fiber to a frame, then keep the rest in a backpack or belt bag
| or something, I doubt it's physically possible to pack all the
| necessary additional hardware keeping it nearly
| indistinguishable from a frame without it.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| That CPU or battery puck for Apple Vision Pro, Magic Leap,
| and some others is a real killjoy. It makes it certain you
| won't be using fitness apps.
| drdaeman wrote:
| I'm skeptical about working out with a headset, at all.
| There are probably some good use cases, but I'm just
| mentally going through the stuff I'm doing at a gym, and I
| think that typically a headset would be either a hazard or
| a gimmick of questionable usefulness.
| slfnflctd wrote:
| I've found some great cardio apps on the Quest and
| they're one of the top things I go back for.
| echoangle wrote:
| Can you share the apps? I'm very happy with Thrill of the
| fight and pistol whip but I'm always looking for more.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Try Supernatural. It's like a dance, boxing, or martial
| arts workout. My VR lab is a little small and has slanted
| ceilings so I have to be careful not to hit the tips of
| my fingertips but it is a real workout that is reasonably
| safe.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Battery tech is likely to prevent that within our lifetimes,
| even if the displays and electronics can be miniaturised to
| that level.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| So you are ready to go then:
|
| https://www.rayneo.com/products/rayneo-air-2-xr-glasses
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >And we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta
| Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it
| does on other platforms.
|
| Did they get told to shove it by Google when they asked through
| back channels? To even come out and essentially say publicly
| "they can still get their 30% cut" is just wild to me.
|
| Also of note, they don't mention any license. Is the hope they
| can avoid the Google antitrust concerns Google is running into
| that Apple is somehow avoiding?
| potatolicious wrote:
| I'd speculate the two things have a lot to do with each other.
| It's easier to avoid accusations of monopolizing software
| distribution on a platform when you've openly invited other
| parties to participate.
| traek wrote:
| Google asked Meta to switch to AndroidXR for their Quest
| devices. Meta said no and suggested Google offer Play Store on
| Quest, which Google rejected.
|
| Google then went on a PR offensive accusing Meta of fragmenting
| the VR/AR ecosystem.
|
| Meta is including this in the announcement to head off
| criticism by Google aimed at creating pressure on Meta to
| consolidate on AndroidXR.
|
| https://www.roadtovr.com/meta-google-android-xr-quest-reject...
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Isn't it built on Android?
| lyu07282 wrote:
| Almost exciting, if the software wasn't just this shitty hacked
| together proprietary android fork. It's just an app store and
| game launcher, there is nothing there that I would imagine a
| metaverse operating system to be, like interoperability between
| vr apps. This would have to be built from the ground up around
| the VR paradigm on open standards and hackable.
|
| If the Internet started on today's proprietary app stores and
| nailed-shut operating systems it would've never innovated this
| quickly. This is what AOL/MSN desperately attempted, but it all
| failed (thank god).
|
| Meta's dream of the metaverse is nothing but laughable, hold back
| by nothing but terrible software.
| haytamoptika wrote:
| i love rivals on tech, hope like ios vs android
| xandrius wrote:
| Never wished something would quickly fail already at its
| announcement as much as this.
| bschmidt1 wrote:
| Long plane rides and TV before bed - 2 things it would be
| better at than what we have now. Imagine watching a 27" screen
| from across the room in the dark vs a screen that moves with
| your vision... No more awkward pillow adjusting to make a
| makeshift couch etc. your neck can finally just relax and you
| can stare at the screen however you're laying. In these cases
| you're not doing anything else anyway.
|
| But yeah, the Tesla Airpod people who talk to themselves all
| loud outside will no doubt have a full UI of the world 24/7,
| gesturing like maniacs in the middle of stores, in crosswalks -
| just a news and stock ticker streaming across the top of their
| field of vision at all times. And there will of course be
| junkies in the streets, with - instead of smartphones - goggles
| on their faces, crumbled up in a brick corner just like the
| dystopian art showed us.
|
| For Pareto's 20%, it's an Apple Watch, or Airpods++.
| DotaFan wrote:
| Quite dislike Quest 2 dependency on Meta, would probably never
| buy their hardware again.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah my CV1 doesn't work anymore, I think Meta added some
| account requirement. I feel like Facebook stole some money from
| me, in the sense that it wasn't obvious when I bought the thing
| that I'd need to buy into their ecosystem. But it is basically
| first gen hardware, so I guess it isn't worth anything.
|
| I was pretty excited about VR (enough to drop a couple hundred
| on what was then a top of the line headset) but overall this
| experience killed all interest for me.
|
| Maybe good open source options will come out in a couple years.
| RainaRelanah wrote:
| A friend of mine has been working this year on getting the
| CV1/Rift S running without the Oculus app/Meta account, which
| also means continued support for these two discontinued
| headsets. I don't think she has publicly released it yet, but
| good progress is being made.
|
| https://github.com/BnuuySolutions/ReLinked
|
| https://twitter.com/BunniKaitlyn/status/1756580547768279466
| a13o wrote:
| The bridge to nowhere doesn't need more features, it needs a
| somewhere
| DragonMaus wrote:
| Would this be the logical extrapolation of the "it's not the
| destination, but the journey to get there" mindset?
| spxneo wrote:
| feels like US tech companies are running on fumes
|
| just as the AI bubble starts to fizzle its one last push at AR
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I disagree to an extent. I think AI is the real deal, VR though
| is indeed an evolutionary dead-end that we've been down and
| retreated from before.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| That's a bad name collision, "Horizon" is the name of the OS on
| the Nintendo 3ds and switch.
| _joel wrote:
| And also for people following the UK news, the name of the
| Fujitsu/Post Office software that led to a not insignificant
| number of sub-postmasters being falsely convited in the largest
| miscarriages of British justice ever (maybe anywhere).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
| darkhorse13 wrote:
| Literally nobody knows this though. Even searching for "Horizon
| OS" only returns Meta stuff already.
| xcdzvyn wrote:
| Yeah - while I've never dived too deeply, I have modded my
| 3DS a fair bit and didn't know what the OS was codenamed.
| I've always just seen it called 3DS OS, native firm, etc.
| sb8244 wrote:
| Eh, I don't think this is a bad name collision. Nintendo
| doesn't really talk about stuff like this publicly, and
| searching for it is pretty much reddit + hacker news threads.
|
| I'm sure there's a lot of internal code name collisions.
| lsllc wrote:
| There's precedent, when Apple named iOS, Cisco had (and still
| has) IOS. They just came to some licensing settlement for
| Apple's use of the name [0].
|
| Actually, it looks like Apple also licensed the iPhone
| trademark from Cisco too!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS#:~:text=In%20June%202010%
| 2....
| superkuh wrote:
| This entire thing is newspeak. Every headline means the opposite.
| For example, "A More Open App Ecosystem" means a more closed
| application ecosystem. By switching to a proprietary OS and
| setting up a walled garden where they have to approve all
| software you can run. This is part of the coming war on general
| computation.
| inanutshellus wrote:
| Does this page even load for y'all in Firefox? For me CORS
| protection blocks the whole site from loading.
| asabla wrote:
| Nah, the same issue here as well
| coryfklein wrote:
| Wow that spam bot is quite creative! Looks like they've figured
| out how to create a green account, and perhaps bypassing the spam
| detection by having each new account only post one spam message.
|
| I'm sure dang is really busy right now.
| macintux wrote:
| Yeah, the flood of spam is killing the server's performance.
| librasteve wrote:
| not sure Horizon is a great name for a software project
| riffic wrote:
| great, another Android.
| taylorbuley wrote:
| While the web trends away from open, Facebook is zigging where
| others are zagging and supporting the resistance technology-wise.
| slim wrote:
| This will (thankfully) fail because meta will not be able to
| harness the chinese industrial firehose because 1. US
| protectionism 2. chinese people are not stupid, they won't let a
| company whose business model revolves around selling attention,
| acquire a monoply on attention of human beings
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Imagine being banned from Facebook due to not complying with the
| community guidelines and being unable to use your computer.
|
| Community guidelines that can change at any moment at any time
| and are enforced by random people who can make mistakes.
|
| A Facebook OS as a daily driver is an idea that is vomitive in
| every way.
|
| Imagine ads that track you eyes and that you cannot look away
| from. Ads that track your face muscles so they know exactly how
| you react to them. Like being connected to a lie detector 24/7.
|
| This is pure evil, everyone should reject this.
| askafriend wrote:
| What you wrote makes doesn't sense because Horizon OS doesn't
| require a Facebook account or any account on social media.
| bschmidt1 wrote:
| Meta is smartly capturing the MR developer market like they
| captured the web developer market with React.
|
| In terms of Vision vs Quest - I wonder if there will be a "React
| Native" parallel that allows developers to write React for both
| Vision and Quest apps. A lot of the developer market comes down
| to languages: Python for AI/ML, Obj-C (Swift) for iOS, Java
| (Kotlin) for Android - but JavaScript always seems to weasle its
| way into these native platforms and a lot of companies end up
| just writing React for anything front-end.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Making any multiplatform real-time 3D for Apple is such a pain.
| Even simply using Xcode is a nightmare.
| bschmidt1 wrote:
| Agree with you there! I don't particularly love Facebook and
| haven't even used it since 2009, but I can't deny how world-
| changing React has been for not only front-end (in terms of
| state management etc.) but also for building cross-platform
| native UIs on various platforms like TVs and mobile devices -
| and being able to do it with a (mostly) common codebase.
|
| I probably would have never built for iOS if I had to use
| Xcode and their entire ecosystem, luckily in RN you usually
| just need to install their command line tools and never open
| the software.
| gorbypark wrote:
| There is react native for VisionOS already and the react team
| has hinted at react native for Quests/VR in the past..
| bschmidt1 wrote:
| I didn't know, thanks for letting me know! Just found this:
| https://www.npmjs.com/package/@callstack/react-native-
| vision...
|
| > This is a full fork of [React Native] with changes needed
| to support visionOS.
|
| Awesome.
| guiomie wrote:
| At least I can build VR apps for free on Meta Quest with Unity,
| as opposed to 200$ a month with Apple Vision Pro.
| paulspl wrote:
| I don't think anyone cares.
| w0mbat wrote:
| Otherwise known as Linux.
| gnuser wrote:
| fyi I'm working on a GPLv3 competitor and intend to outshine
| whatever this is
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I've got to hand it to Zuckerberg : when he spouted the "open" vs
| "closed" rhetoric earlier in the year, I said it was nice words
| but meaningless unless he put his money where his mouth was and
| makes Quest OS available to others as well as put firm guarantees
| around side loading etc. But in the same breath I said I doubted
| he would do that. And now he has done exactly that. However much
| antipathy people have towards him and his past, he keeps putting
| meat behind his words and actually doing the things he says.
|
| At the same time, important to recognise here that this is still
| to some extent "open washing" what is a totally controlled OS.
| This is not like AOSP where you can go download the source code
| and compile it yourself. So far it is not even like Windows where
| you can download an installer and run it on a computer yourself.
| A manufacturer will have to form a business partnership with Meta
| to even get access to this "open" OS - I assume. But since I keep
| under estimating Zuckerberg maybe he will exceed my expectations
| on that front too.
|
| Nonetheless, this is a huge step forward and a genuine challenge
| now for Google/Samsung. The bar is now very very high for them to
| deliver something compelling enough that manufacturers will jump
| on board instead of building on Horizon OS with an existing
| install base of 25M+ users and thousands of apps.
|
| All up, this is pretty exciting news in the XR space and really
| sets the stage for an epic battle in the next couple of years as
| these platforms go head to head.
| weinberg wrote:
| Somewhat surprised to not see Valve in there, especially after
| Steam Link showed up a handful months ago.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Dude they already have a new grift, AI, why are they still
| pouring money in this failed project? Zuckerberg is trying so
| hard to not be Elon 2.0
| webninja wrote:
| It's funny that Horizon is named after Horizon in the Amazon
| Prime TV series "Upload". Good TV series btw.
| Grimeton wrote:
| Funny what they call an OS nowadays. I'd say it's another Linux
| distribution.
| fragmede wrote:
| Depends on if you consider Android, ChromeOS, and Ubuntu to be
| the same OS or not.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| As usual I get quite hopeful when I hear about a new operating
| system. We so absolutely need paths to move away from what we
| have today.
|
| I didn't even know what "mixed reality operating system" was so
| that made me hopeful. May include some nifty quantum processing.
|
| Alas, it is just stuff built on top of Android, which is built on
| top of the Linux kernel.
|
| Perhaps "Meta Horizon SDK for Android" would be a better label?`
| 2genders42803 wrote:
| hi are u lonely want ai gf?? https://discord.gg/elyza
| prEAzOgsSTKHvGQAm
| hatthew wrote:
| Joel Spolsky's "Commoditize your Complements" [0] seems relevant
| here. From that perspective, it seems like Meta is trying to
| commoditize the hardware and monopolize the OS (and likely the
| app store and payment system), similar to Android.
|
| [0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
| 2genders20059 wrote:
| Are you lonely? Do u want an AI girlfriend?
| https://discord.gg/candyai EipKmkyBtBQMDhvqo
| w10-1 wrote:
| If hardware manufacturers actually wanted this, Meta would be
| announcing a licensing deal.
|
| This is a threat to Apple: if Apple doesn't relent on
| advertising/privacy in VisionOS, then Meta will do to VR what
| Google did for smartphone's: sell the market to maintain
| advertising access.
|
| Meta doesn't care about money or mindshare on VR. They just want
| ad access.
| 2genders6827 wrote:
| hi are u lonely want ai gf?? https://discord.gg/elyza
| fAEKiweHrPrJWvYBj
| 2genders9727 wrote:
| Are you lonely? Do u want an AI girlfriend?
| https://discord.gg/candyai GxAYPRSOBSgSwhfUq
| 2genders43006 wrote:
| Are you lonely? Do u want an AI girlfriend?
| https://discord.gg/elyza cpAIBPKmoPoXVruhl
| 2genders12206 wrote:
| hi are u lonely want ai gf?? https://discord.gg/candyai
| KDRpUmiKlAzqtWoTL
| 2genders49566 wrote:
| hi are u lonely want ai gf?? https://discord.gg/candyai
| LevakLgsMUrlSxMry
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-22 23:00 UTC)