"And I had argued for it a long time. I wrote so many of these multi-page emails about how important it was. But once we had it so people could see and see that it really does work, then Samsung went and wrote a proper interface for it."<p>Wow, I really have to admire his patience. While reading this I was even thinking "They are arguing with John Carmack about what he needs to get the graphics right? Who do they think they are?!" and I am not him. I would never have the patience for this. That must be like my grandma arguing with me about programming.
> Gear VR's been in development for around 1.5 years now<p>Wow. That puts it not too long after the Oculus Rift kickstarter, which was in October 2012. I wonder how the Gear project came to start. Were there some graphics enthusiasts with moving power at Samsung that went "this. we need to get on this"?
I'm confused. I know Carmack joined Oculus, but what's this about Samsung? I take it they're working together now? It's still two different pieces of hardware, right? This article is leaving out some crucial context here.
So, I've been working on making it easy to make WebGL VR demos: <a href="https://github.com/capnmidnight/VR" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/capnmidnight/VR</a>
I truly do not understand this. Why would you want to dilute presence? Why would you want to create an expensive phone accessory when the hardware changes constantly and the software is extremely fragmented? There are plenty of scenarios where I can see usinga Rift, but very very few where I am 'mobile' and want to experience VR. Of those cases I can't see any where a dedicated and occasionally updated set of hardware isn't a better development experience than trying to deal with VR hassles on top of all the standard android ones. Please someone point out what Carmack gets here that eludes me.
2014 and there are still websites that auto start videos? At the bottom of the page no less? I pretty much ctrl+q out of fear at this point. Autoplaying videos = virus/phishing website in my head.