Facebook has recently changed their name to Meta and it seems that they're going all in on VR/AR.<p>While AR/VR could offer some really nice things like an unlimited amount of virtual monitors or adding information to your surroundings I just can't convince myself that it's going to be the future and replace let's say our phones.<p>The main reason is I find it hard to believe that people who do not need to wear glasses will want to wear them.<p>As someone who started wearing glasses young I remember when I first had to wear them and how annoying it felt. (Despite my glasses being way lighter than any vr headset currently on the market)<p>Also VR feels like a compromise on AR and AR feels like a compromise on actually having real Holograms.<p>What do you think of all of this? Will AR/VR become ubiquitous?
I don't think it's a fad; however, I do thing tech underestimates how culture operates in cycles. Things that are popular today often become unpopular tomorrow. This is easily observable if you study history, especially 20th century American and Western history. Everyone always thinks that the current ethos will continue forever...but it inevitably reverses itself.<p>Approached from this angle, I would guess that an anti-tech, anti-VR counterculture will arise in the late 2020s and last for a decade or two. VR feels like the local peak of hyper-technology-worship to me and I predict that in the coming decades, there will be more of a focus on local, offline, nature-oriented culture. Again, because this is the natural reaction to a hyper-technological culture.<p>I think your point on holograms is essentially correct. No one wants to wear a headset everyday to work. A pair of glasses <i>might</i> be better, but VR/AR will never truly take off until it's indistinguishable from real life.<p>Using my model above, I think we can expect VR/AR to get serious everyday use sometime by the mid 2060s, which is when it will start to be fluid enough to meld with reality.
Not trying to be crass here but if more people knew how good VR porn is they would be much more popular.<p>I would legitimately say its 5x better using VR, even with the current underwhelming FOV/resolution.<p>To the point where I'm worried there's going to be a plight of people addicted to it once the mainstream catches on.
> The main reason is I find it hard to believe that people who do not need to wear glasses will want to wear them.<p>Replace glasses with watches and you will find that Apple is leading the market of smartwatches sold and that remains undisputed and unchallenged for too many years in a row.<p>As for AR or VR, Facebook has the resources to execute both due to Oculus and shrink it into a piece of sunglasses or whatever form of glasses they choose. Same with Apple.<p>They both have the games, the hardware and the billions of users to bring adoption of AR and VR. The difference? Are we going to use sun glasses for AR/VR or remain on smartphones for AR/VR?<p>The future of AR/VR is heading towards the former (glasses) and either of them is going to execute it right. Maybe Google North could try as well. Regardless, that reinforces my point on where AR/VR is heading next and I just don't buy your anecdotes as a convincing argument here.
I recently got an Oculus Quest and it is pretty fun. It's honestly a great experience and the novelty hasn't worn off after 6 months, if your friends have them it's even more fun.<p>It's quite incredible technology, the only thing holding it back is the price of the headsets.
Nope. I see people who are not that much into gaming and stuff getting Oculuses after trying it at friends. They agree that once you trying playing a FPS in VR you don't want to go back to the PC/console.<p>I see it as console substitute as I mean... it's 400 euros... that is nothing for the amount of fun you get from the device.
In my case I use it few times per week for an hour or two. It's also great as when I play a FPS game I also move a lot.
(I do hope that Valve or someone else will release an equally compelling product).
Yes, it's just a fad for now, because it's too expensive and awkward to be anything else.<p>And at best I think it will become a niche platform that has some limited uses, but it will never become ubiquitous like in science fiction. The fact is there are simply too many applications for which existing input methods (keyboard, mouse, etc) are better suited, and to which simulated visual and audio immersion don't add much value.<p>Between the two, though, I think AR will find more uses.
I think it will be ubiquitous in the future. But I am less interested in when it will become mainstream but more interested at which point it will be lucrative to developers and content creators.
Personally I don't think AR/VR will be the future like most people envision it. A long time ago, we thought computers would be so small we'd be using smart watches as our primary device, but fast forward to today they're secondary devices. I think AR/VR will be the same, they will be secondary devices.<p>At least AR/VR has been chugging along these last few years in the shadows. Mostly driven by gaming and business use.
The gaming side doesn't seem super popular though, outside of a game or two that comes out every year that sells the experience (beat saber being a recent example)
VR I find somewhat questionable...<p>AR on other hand depends on definition of it. I could argue that HUD is example of AR. And likely if we reach sufficient displays or glasses it could really expand. The professional use cases seem just so much bigger.
It seems to be more of a stepping stone (as with any other current tech I guess) for what's to come. For now we have to deal with limited responsive/haptic feedback, headset, physical controllers to interface with, etc, but it seems that with time those aspects will blend into something that's more immersive and "invisible", if that makes any sense.<p>The "Playstation 9" commercial from the late 90s comes to mind:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPQVsdCuRk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPQVsdCuRk</a>
As always, the discussion is heavily oriented towards social, consumer or entertainment uses...<p>Ask the military if VR / AR is just a fad. XR tech in the professional world has seen a steady, encouraging growth even with its current limitations.<p>Imo it proves the tech has fundamental value. Will it go mainstream with a breakthrough consumer use case ? Maybe. Will it be as envisioned by Zuckerberg? Probably not.<p>As a side note, I'm really curious about Apple's take on VR / AR. We know they are working on it, but they haven't shared their vision, afaik.
Virtual Reality promises have been around since the 1990s and probably before that.<p>Lawnmower Man (<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/</a>) and The Cell (<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209958/" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209958/</a>) showed us how amazing it could be and how it was going to change our lives.<p>Someday soon we are also supposed to get flying cars.
I don't see any evidence of current implementations or ways of thinking about it suddenly growing exponentially into something we use. It seems right now it's a candidate technology, like the mp3 player or the pda, or the hosted weblog, that still needs the right framing to turn it into something ubiquitous. It's certainly possible, but I'd guess it will be due to some creative leap, rather than just scaling up into something we care about.
IMO, VR/AR’s main issue is that interaction between people is going to be avatar-based (cause nobody wants to see you with that thing on your face). And that’s not going to cut it for most people. It’ll always feel like a game.<p>If you can’t do visio, it’ll never replace phones.<p>If MagicLeap did manage to cram AR in such small devices, then maybe… but visio will be as if everyone you’re talking to has sunglasses on…
AR has the potential of being the next "smartphone" kind of technology.<p>When the hardware is useable and portable enough, it could be a daily-life game changer.
> Facebook has recently changed their name to Meta and it seems that they're going all in on VR/AR.<p>Sure, that's what Mark is saying now. If it doesn't work out, Meta isn't that awful of a name for a holding company. Royal Dutch Shell wins the prize for best name, of course.
Having used the Hololens2, AR with hand interactions is so much better than what we have now with the phone. Smart Glasses will replace them with time and miniaturization.