Why is VR and AR developing so slowly?

Submitted by Neurogence t3_z6s6si in singularity

10 years ago, I remember all the rage/hype behind the oculus kick starter. Back then, we all imagined that by the next decade, we would have 16K photorealistic high field of view VR. A decade later, we still seem to be stuck at 2K VR with 90 degree field of view. And the headsets are still bulky, uncomfortable, and still make people nauseous.

12 years ago, when Google Glass came out, I was convinced it would replace smartphones within just a few years of its release. Of course, over a decade later, AR is still non-existent to consumers for the most part.

VR/AR have so much potential, but things have not been moving as fast as they should be in that space. Hell, at this point I would not even be surprised if we get AGI before full-immersive visual-audio VR.

207

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

BinyaminDelta t1_iy2wj1c wrote

Oculus Rift CV1 came out in 2016. That was only six years ago.

A decade ago was 2012. Nobody I knew had ever seen or used VR.

Current VR headsets while not perfect, are very good. Not sure what timeframe you'd be impressed by?

32

medraxus t1_iy2x3d5 wrote

The hardware isn't there yet

131

Neurogence OP t1_iy2x9iz wrote

Replying to BinyaminDelta (#728,208)

A lot of us enthusiasts were using what we call the "DK1" back in 2012. 10 years later, the quest 2 is an improvement from it, but given 10 years, not drastic at all.

Hopefully this does not happen. But imagine that the dalle 2 you're using now; imagine if 10 years later, it just produces better images and basic animations, you'd be pretty disappointed right? This is how a lot of us feel about the difference between DK1 and Quest 2.

10 years is a very long time.

34

yesbutlikeno t1_iy2xdx9 wrote

This sub has, and for no reason to, stupid high expectations with tech advancement. Like do y'all realize the depth of study research and time it will eventually take to achieve certain things in regards to AR and VR let alone AI.

36

SmileEverySecond t1_iy2xs6d wrote

(Much) greater battery capability that can be manufractured at large scale need to lead first (compared to what we're having), then we will have lighter powerful headset that common people don't mind to wear regularly , and that's an entirely different industry.

27

apinanaivot t1_iy2y0sg wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#728,316)

We are currently in the valley of disappointment: https://i.imgur.com/f11ZDYf.jpeg

Same thing happened with the internet. In the early 90's people thought the internet would change the world very quickly, and were disappointed around 2000 when not much had happened, then in a few years some little companies and websites such as Google, Wikipedia, Amazon and Facebook popped up out of nowhere.

52

enkae7317 t1_iy2yirw wrote

Because VR/AR is one big sham. We are going to eventually skip it all together and go straight to BMI.

−8

butterdrinker t1_iy2yrpt wrote

Optics technology can't improve exponentially like raw calculating power

Look at cameras - lenses technology its practically the same since forever. What has changed was mainly software and whatever surrounds it.

14

HumpyMagoo t1_iy3167u wrote

right now everything is scattered the pieces will go into place shortly

1

AGUEROO0OO t1_iy318sh wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#728,439)

This infographic aligns with everything i’ve learned throughout the years via my own experience, do you know any other infographics like this that can be really useful in life? Please share

11

tuvok86 t1_iy31i3o wrote

while it's true that the "tech is not there yet", the tech would be "there" much more if early products would have shown it as a promising, ubiquitous technology. it has just been missing a killer app, like when before iphone smartphones where just a curiosity for nerds

39

JustinMccloud t1_iy32lrf wrote

The tech is not there, tablet computers came out years before the iPad, but the tech was shitty at best. When the tech gets better so will this

9

aVRAddict t1_iy33o97 wrote

We have good tech you just don't know about it. Look up pimax 8kx and 12k and varjo headsets.

3

CleanThroughMyJorts t1_iy357hc wrote

>Back then, we all imagined that by the next decade, we would have 16K photorealistic high field of view VR

People are working on this. Companies like Pimax already did 8k (well technically around 6k but whatever) and ~170 FOV (near human level) back in 2020 and they are pushing for ~12k and full human-level FOV (200 degrees) with their next headset.

So funnily enough, yes we are actually still on track to hit 16k by 2026; within a decade of the first gen VR launch.

It's just really expensive (thousands of dollars for headset only, and you need top end thousand dollar GPUs to power it), which relegates it to a small enthusiast market, which is the problem: the top end stuff is not the mass market stuff.

​

Facebook switched their focus from this high-end enthusiast market to go for mass market appeal (because their business model relies on getting as big a user base as possible) which ultimately means commoditizing the tech that was ultra-high end yesteryear.

This is what's making it look like the tech has stalled: but if you think about it: their 2020 headset was basically using smartphone hardware to power what needed a top-end gaming PC in 2016, and at a fraction of the price. That's progress.

​

------------------------

​

As for AR, that's also coming. The difficulty with AR is that the way we were going about it needs a quantum leap in display tech to solve being able to display things at variable focal lengths.

Companies like Magic Leap and Microsoft with hololens explored the limits of what we could do given the limitations of current screens. And they were awful.

So research groups like CREAL are now working on this next generation for varifocal AR, while companies like Facebook and Varjo are going the opposite way with scanning the real world in real time and rendering it on screens. Jury's still out on which would work best, but either way it's progress.

​

Point is, there's a lot of progress going on in the VR industry right now. It's just scattered and most of it isn't mass market.

43

jempyre t1_iy36bfu wrote

IMO Bc external input devices (VR helms, vests, glasses) are technological false pretenders; until proper, affordable implants are developed AR and VR are novelties.

9

Freevoulous t1_iy392c0 wrote

VR and AR is limited mostly by the capabilities of human brain/head/ears/hands.

Fully immersive VR seems not to mesh well with the way human brain works.

Meanwhile, AR is mostly pointless becuse ubiquitous smartphones already cover all the fucntions AR could do, we just don't utilise them to that extent, because nobody cares to.

0

ArgentStonecutter t1_iy39ii4 wrote

Replying to ZaxLofful (#729,688)

That's the same resolution as my Samsung Odyssey Plus from ...2017 I think, and only a 20 degree wider FoV. A slightly higher field of view is just a choice of optical components and means it'll have a lower effective resolution in pixels per inch.

It's no 16k.

2

Depression_God t1_iy39qbv wrote

It's not developing slowly, you're just being impatient. If you really think the problems are that easy to solve quickly then you should be solving them yourself.

2

Quealdlor t1_iy3ab69 wrote

It's progressing very slowly. The $1500 Quest Pro doesn't even have the specs of my $1000 2011 PC.

7

DukkyDrake t1_iy3azz8 wrote

Depends on your end stage expectations for vr. If it's simply PS5 realism in a vr helmet, then you'll get that in Zuck's metaverse time horizon, 3-15 years. I ultimately expect the vr will be a letdown because of the interface, there is nothing on the likely tech roadmap that will make vr interface with the human body as good as fiction. You will need something from an alternate tech tree derived from some future white swan event.

1

RainBow_BBX t1_iy3b3p5 wrote

I'm a VR enthusiast with 3000 hours so far in it It's developing, I am using the same headset and controllers since 2019 (the valve index), it has individual finger tracking, the headset goes up to 144hz it's pretty sweet I also have full body tracking using vive trackers Right now headsets are going for the eyes tracking and face, which vive has hardwares for it The problem is there's not much you can add, it all comes to hardwares getting more powerful and headsets becoming lighter and more compact now

25

TheStargunner t1_iy3bt83 wrote

The comments about hardware challenges are fair. But frankly the scale of use cases needed that get adequate adoption and result in the investment you’re hoping for simply aren’t there.

3

Neurogence OP t1_iy3cbd5 wrote

Replying to For_Endor (#728,486)

Wow, crazy. I was a toddler in the 90's so I don't remember this, but wow.

I do believe in exponential progress but I do think that a lot of technologies are progressing much slower than they could be due to lack of investment and research.

2

apinanaivot t1_iy3d6ev wrote

Replying to ZaxLofful (#730,447)

It absolutely does. Valve Index PPD (pixels per degree) is 13. The human eye is 57 PPD.

Also Valve Index is a really bad bencmark, the Index came out three and a half years ago, and some valve employees have said that it was already two years old technology when it shipped. So it's pretty much 5 year old tech by now. The upcoming Valve Deckard headset is rumoured to have two 4K displays, having almost three times higher resolution than the Index.

2

Neurogence OP t1_iy3dcza wrote

Replying to medraxus (#728,288)

I guess my error is my inclination to try to apply Moore's law to every type of technology. It does seem that things progress very slowly for tech that involves physical hardware. Software is easy but progress in tech where there's physical hardware involve can be frustratingly slow.

I guess it's kinda similar to how smartphones have not changed much at all since 2007. At this point it would not even be surprising if people are still using smartphones in the 2030s. Seems it's mostly software where most of the advancement is taking place.

People like Kurzweil imagine we will have Nanobots in our brains by the 2030s to replace smartphones but that involves serious hardware that we have no idea how to create.

Our best hope for a hard takeoff is AGI.

35

SnooDonkeys5480 t1_iy3dtbe wrote

I think tracked motion controllers, color AR passthrough, pancake lenses, and standalone headsets are a big jump from what was available 10 years ago.

3

ZaxLofful t1_iy3dvco wrote

Replying to ArgentStonecutter (#730,644)

It can already convince the brain so throughly of what is being seen, that people are given vertigo….Others get motion sickness from being on a ship at sea.

The visual part of the game is solved, the problem you are struggling to grasp is that VR as just a headset cannot go much farther.

What is needed now is the rest of it, the ability to touch, feel, and move freely in the VR space.

These techs are being developed, but are extremely expensive.

The least of which would be the Omni One treadmill, supposed to happened sometime next year.

https://omni.virtuix.com/

2

User1539 t1_iy3dvc3 wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#728,439)

perfect answer. We're in the Palm Pilot years of VR, where people know it'll be something everyone wants but somehow it's not quite there. People who grew up imagining pocket computers you take everywhere with you were disappointed.

Then the iPhone happened, the market exploded, and every type of pocket computer you can imagine is on the market and everyone carries one with them.

16

apinanaivot t1_iy3e1w7 wrote

Replying to butterdrinker (#728,554)

Camera tech is progressing very fast. You can now have a similar quality camera in a 200€ smartphone that you would have had in a 600€ camera 10 years ago. The resolution of camera sensors is also increasing at a steady pace. Lenses aren't really the bottleneck, so they don't need to be developed as fast.

7

ZaxLofful t1_iy3e3g7 wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#730,685)

It can already convince the brain so throughly of what is being seen, that people are given vertigo….Others get motion sickness from being on a ship at sea.

The visual part of the game is solved, the problem you are struggling to grasp is that VR as just a headset cannot go much farther.

What is needed now is the rest of it, the ability to touch, feel, and move freely in the VR space.

These techs are being developed, but are extremely expensive.

The least of which would be the Omni One treadmill, supposed to happened sometime next year.

https://omni.virtuix.com/

1

butterdrinker t1_iy3f33a wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#730,817)

> You can now have a similar quality camera in a 200€ smartphone, that you would have had in a 600€ camera 10 years ago.

No way, camera sensors are and were too small in smartphones

What has improved was, as I said, the software post-processing those images - allowing even low quality cameras as those in phones to take decent photos

Lenses are the bottleneck when a high quality one, required for a good VR visor, costs 200 dollars each

6

ZaxLofful t1_iy3fc5c wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#730,871)

If a person gets motions sickness when on a real boat, how is a VR headset supposed to cancel that?

I’m not talking about the “bug” that some people experience where it makes them sick, just using the headset…I’m talking about immersion.

Either way, I’m excited for the next steps in that article.

1

apinanaivot t1_iy3fypj wrote

Replying to butterdrinker (#731,002)

Except thanks to new lens technology, that's no longer the case. The industry is moving from expensive fresnel lenses towards pancake lenses, the Quest Pro and Pico 4 headsets that were released a few months ago already feature such lenses.

The pico 4 costs 400€, and has a built-in mobile gaming computer, batteries and two 2K displays, there is no way the lenses cost anywhere near 200€, and on top of that the new pancake lenses fix all the issues frensel lenses had, such as terrible light glares, distortion, requiring thick headsets, and no adjustment options for people with myopia (now you don't need to wear glasses in VR anymore).

8

apinanaivot t1_iy3gavj wrote

Replying to ZaxLofful (#731,038)

By directly suppressing the issue inside your brain. You could wear a similar BCI without the display part on a boat and use it to cancel out the sickness.

> The feeling can already be suppressed artificially. “It’s more of a certification issue than it is a scientific issue,” explains Newell.

Basically the problem has to do with ethics and safety when having a direct communication with the brain.

3

phriot t1_iy3gjpd wrote

I think AR would be somewhat further along if the whole "glasshole" backlash thing with Google Glass had never happened. At the same time, it's not like that device added too much utility over just a smartphone.

From what I've seen of Nreal glasses like the Airs, I would buy them today if they worked well with my current devices. But even those aren't really for constant wear, yet.

4

ZaxLofful t1_iy3h2jx wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#731,204)

I think you are reading into it too much, they are talking about the artificial sickness caused by the disassociation of a headset; not actual motion sickness from real life motion.

2

ScrithWire t1_iy3iex6 wrote

It isnt accessible enough to pull a large enough portion of the consumer base to make enough sales to make enough profit to incentivize enough research into the technology to progress it at the speed we've expected

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_iy3inah wrote

Replying to ZaxLofful (#730,826)

> It can already convince the brain so throughly of what is being seen, that people are given vertigo….Others get motion sickness from being on a ship at sea.

That's not because of technology, that's because humans.

I get vertigo playing Descent on a flat screen.

You don't need immersion-level resolution to create vertigo, so vertigo is no indication that your resolution is good enough. And 1440x1600 is absolutely not good enough. Far from it.

2

RainBow_BBX t1_iy3juv2 wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#731,736)

PCVR headsets have huge FOV compared to meta's HMDs, plus resolutions are already insane, look at varjo's HMDs or pimax, even the HP reverb G2 has a nice resolution But the issue are GPUs power, modern VR headsets have way more pixels then you usual 4k monitors

6

botfiddler t1_iy3ktd9 wrote

Maybe ask yourself if you have a tendency towards being unreasonably optimistic and easy to fall for hypes. Also, Meta hired many VR gaming devs, giving them money for doing nothing or building their garbage dystopian monopoly platform.

1

space_spider t1_iy3kumf wrote

Replying to tuvok86 (#728,951)

This is the real answer, OP. Almost everyone I know who has a VR/AR headset doesn’t use it any more. It was novel, but anecdotally I can only use one for an hour before my head hurts. Video games aren’t that fun in it, and industry applications are unreliable because software is usually buggy and over budget.

I got to play with the magic leap, hololens, oculus quest 2, and other headsets when they came out, and the progress is cool, but they’re just not worth the investment to anyone except as a curiosity for those with excess disposable income.

21

botfiddler t1_iy3l7xa wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

VR was obviously here to stay, because of all the monitors we have. Mass output of cheap high resolution screens. Though, these screens aren't 8k or even more. Much less of a mass market, much less demand outside of VR.

10

RoninNionr t1_iy3lfyk wrote

To the remark that hardware isn't there yet, I would add that there is also one aspect of VR that reveals itself only during everyday use - VR is possessive, demanding all of your attention. For example, I no longer watch movies in VR because I don't want to give it 100% of my attention. I want to sit comfortably, eat, drink, check my smartphone from time to time, make comments to my spouse.

VR isolates me completely and I don't want to isolate myself for hours. For this reason, I think VR will never be super popular. Contrary to that, AR will be used by almost everyone because I believe one day it will replace smartphones.

3

botfiddler t1_iy3lndy wrote

Replying to tuvok86 (#728,951)

The kill apps are games and porn, especially with AI companions and NPCs. Obviously. Meta: Let's make it into a place for corporate meetings, mobile games, and no porn allowed (same for everything else that might give us bad PR by mass media bullies).

10

Superduperbals t1_iy3mw17 wrote

Replying to medraxus (#728,288)

Why can’t we just have a little computer with a good GPU and an antenna that locally streams PC content to a lightweight display instead of insisting on packing all our apps onto a piece of shit Android APK?

4

bemmu t1_iy3npsx wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

There has to be enough demand to make it good enough, and it has to be good enough for there to be enough demand.

As it gets better in each generation, there will be increased incentive and competition to make the hardware even better, in a nice virtuous cycle. As demand grows, there will be ever more VR titles for every niche, helping the growth further.

Personally I have high hopes for Quest 3 in 2023 and Quest 4 in 2025 (?) each being a big multiplier (1.5-2x?) for adoption.

12

Experience_Far t1_iy3oaf4 wrote

It is coming on I got my first headset in 2016 just a plastic version of the cardboard headset about a year later got the gear headset thought it was great now have the quest 2 like it very much and plenty of content but I believe its gradually getting better would love some feed back on the quest pro when it comes out but it's very expensive

1

earthsworld t1_iy3pgza wrote

Replying to ArgentStonecutter (#730,134)

Yeah, people don't understand that we've been here before and failed. As long as VR/AR is a mounted headset, it'll never go mainstream. Personally, i think there's a way to transmit directly to the optic nerve through the temple without surgery.

2

Experience_Far t1_iy3pwhq wrote

Replying to BinyaminDelta (#728,208)

They are good alright but are also quite limited in their content for none gamers or none porn users although they are slowly improving but when you want to play games motion sickness can be a problem

1

Experience_Far t1_iy3q9xb wrote

Replying to User1539 (#730,799)

True bluetooth was also a big help shure you can make a phone call with your smartwatch or car now. I can remember growing up it was a minor miracle to get our car started.

1

apinanaivot t1_iy3qsa3 wrote

Replying to earthsworld (#732,900)

> It's still a headset and no one is going to be leaving their house wearing one.

That's not the point of VR, which is for "escaping" the real reality. What you are describing would be AR (augmented reality).

> Nor will people be sitting around on their couch for hours doing the same.

There are literally tons of people right now who are spending more time in virtual reality than in actual reality, I recommend checking this video out. I personally have spent over 500 hours in VR, and the only thing stopping me from playing more right now is the shortage of high-quality VR experiences.

2

vernes1978 t1_iy3r2j1 wrote

Replying to medraxus (#728,288)

Too cumbersome.
The mobilephone fits in the hand, and we have grown to accept the desktop computer.

It needs be 0% cumbersome.
No wires, no weight, and cheap enough.

Until it become as mainstream as cocacola, the gameing industry will keep treating as a niche.
That's why you only find new game mechanics in indie games.
The big publishers only go for sure wins.
So another Doom, another OverWatch (I think OverWatch is already another something else).

54

PoliteThaiBeep t1_iy3rbfi wrote

Motion sickness is a fundamental problem that doesn't have a fix.

But I disagree I think quest 2 was massive leap forward given it's price. It's resolution is ~2.7x that of original Oculus Rift and 120hz vs 90hz and it doubles down as standalone all at half the price of original Oculus rift.

From price/performance perspective with Quest 2 we got a device that gives us at least 6x better value.

Look at the GPUs in comparison.

A person who paid $200 for 1060 3Gb in 2016 paid same dollar for a unit of performance as a person buying $1200 4080 today or $850 3080 yesterday. Roughly same price/performance as 3060/3070 and even 3050. Only 3060 Ti offers somewhat better value for money but still not that much.

Their price/performance barely changed.

VR changed dramatically. Just not hype worthy.

4

Tip_Odde t1_iy3s2e9 wrote

Its not, people just have a horrible sense of time.

3

botfiddler t1_iy3s9hq wrote

Replying to WilsonJ04 (#731,465)

It's related to hardware being used, produces and sold for other reasons and in the many millions. GPUs -> AI, LEDs / LED screens everywhere -> VR

But demand slowed down in both cases. Many people don't crave 4k, gamers prioritize refresh rates first. many decent games don't need the newest GPUs. Interestingly, together it's more attractive again. Better GPUs -> higher screen resolution -> better VR.

3

botfiddler t1_iy3syid wrote

Replying to RainBow_BBX (#731,841)

Yes, VR is the reason I realized that the 4090 is actually interesting for gamers and we didn't reach the top already. (Not my own experience, just observing the market)

6

User1539 t1_iy3uuy6 wrote

Replying to Experience_Far (#733,019)

Honestly, I think it's the always on cellular internet connection.

I had a Palm back in the day, flashed it to Linux, had a web browser and could get WiFi through a Cartridge that looked like a Gameboy Advance game. The whole setup was bigger than my phone is now, and only made any sense at all because, at the time, I was living near a campus where wifi was everywhere.

I had the old Nokia unbreakable phone and that thing with me at all times. Each one weighed more than my phone does now, and together they were 1/10th as capable, but putting the two together was what changed the game.

2

World_May_Wobble t1_iy3w5ts wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

Consider commercial aviation. It has seen no gains in 40 years. In fact, it slid back with the death of Concorde. Sometimes things stagnate because there's a lack of imagination, or the economics is bad, or there just physically is no way to do the thing we envision.

Stagnation has been the norm for most of human history, and we should expect more of it with things that aren't closely linked to some kind of feed-forward loop. Smaller transistors help us make smaller transistors. Better AI can help us make better AI. Better VR ... Is just better VR.

Edit: Airliners have seen some gains in fuel efficiency, and they've obviously become more computerized but these are not the kind of exponential transformations we have become used to in computing.

14

FiFoFree t1_iy3w98s wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

Rapid iteration/advancement of hardware isn't quite here yet, but we do have reason to believe it's possible (cf. additive manufacturing/3D printing). We can pump out software quickly because we've removed a lot of the bottlenecks for doing so (e.g. using IDEs with keyboards and mice rather than punch cards or manually toggling switches) and made the ability to code widely available (allowing for massively collaborative software projects).

Hardware has a pipeline, and that pipeline is pretty constricted at the moment in comparison to software, but that doesn't mean it will be that way forever.

3

genshiryoku t1_iy3x6rq wrote

Replying to medraxus (#728,288)

Yeah Moore's Law has essentially ended. The fastest silicon computers we'll ever build will only be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude faster than current computers.

We need to find out smart ways to conserve computing power like making an AI render images less accurately or faking complexity in other ways.

Unless we move to graphene CPUs or any other substrate different from Silicon we'll probably never get very good VR.

0

jozephl t1_iy3ytvc wrote

I feel like its better just to invest in AR anyhow, it’s the next goal after VR

1

JenMacAllister t1_iy40rka wrote

Anyone predicting anything more than 3 months out is simply going to be wrong. We can't see the future anymore than we can change the past.

It's been 7 years since I was supposed to get me hover board! Still waiting.

0

temporvicis t1_iy41lfi wrote

Honestly, two things. First, the ubiquity of networked devices that are relatively cheap but provide robust connectivity. Second, gaming as a service - or MMORPGs. The hardware exists and can be had, but the price isn't there yet for consumer level purchase. So to get some sense of VR and AR you have to have a server process for the device you're using. They are doing A LOT of processing.

Once the retail price for the hardware is withing reach of average consumers, it'll start to become commonplace.

1

OhSeymour t1_iy4378d wrote

Because VR is a novelty, and because humans don’t really want to have something strapped to their face for very long.

AR has so much more potential than VR ever did. But, AR is so much more complex than VR is. And, AR will never get big until the hardware is right first (think about mobile phones VS iPhones). When the hardware is powerful and beautiful (like the iPhone), the developers will pile on and start creating apps.

2

machidaraba t1_iy43sxs wrote

Literally a company spending billions called Meta

0

soulmagic123 t1_iy43tum wrote

Facebook buys every game developer that is innovating , puts a stop to any further innovation.

1

SeaWolf24 t1_iy4b4mg wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,532)

Every blockbuster had a Nintendo VR in the early 90s. I know it’s not oculus but the expectation 30 years ago was that by 99-00 we’d all have headsets at home with unreal VR like at the malls. Fun times, but I agree OP, wth

3

tedd321 t1_iy4ee7a wrote

It’s literally all there. Apple and big tech are prioritizing the iPhone 67 and MacBook 15790 because they think we care.

0

Bakoro t1_iy4f77f wrote

Replying to tuvok86 (#728,951)

The iphone had marketing and inserted itself as a piece of conspicuous consumption, a showy status item. The first iphone was a piece of shit.

The entire first few generations of smart phones were terrible, slow, awful products across the board. The overwhelming usefulness of smartphones are what kept people using them, and pushed the whole industry forward to the point they got good.

VR doesn't have obvious, overwhelming usefulness for the average person, and you generally can't go to Starbucks and loudly show off your new VR headset, or casually take it out of your pocket/bag and be like "Oh, this? Yeah I got the newest consumerist item, it's sooo good, no big deal (they think I'm cool now right?)."

3

naossoan t1_iy4gtd9 wrote

I don't think anyone thought we'd have 16K photorealistic high field of view VR....

There are basically two reasons.

  1. Expensive R&D
  2. Small / Niche market

Companies want to make profits. Most companies are focused on short-term over long-term profits. Not all, but most.

Companies like this likely see VR development as too risky. So the only companies you see investing in the long term are those with leaders who are truly passionate about VR and the future of VR / AR.

Creating expensive products for a very small market is very risky, and a lot of people / companies are not willing to take that risk.

1

[deleted] t1_iy4hwgb wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

Machine learning will do wonders for many industries (VR included) even before AGI coalesces.

The trend in cost of computing is clear, but it's not occurring in an isolated environment. Countries around the globe have been experiencing some pretty major issues in the past few years.

VR continues to be a "nice to have" product. It needs more investment and time dedicated to it before it can become as ubiquitous as the smartphone. This has been made a bit more difficult due to the various socioeconomic issues occurring recently. Companies like Meta can no longer allocate as many funds to VR as when they first bought Oculus.

We will bounce back. We will create better VR. It will just take some more time.

8

Same_Mirror3641 t1_iy4hzdt wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

Yea Kurzweil is way too optimistic, the guy thought (maybe still does?) That he is gonna live forever. No man. I'm 31, I'm not even gonna live forever...Ray is like 70 already??

−6

thegoldengoober t1_iy4hzyg wrote

Because the problems are hard. When we first were getting the advanced VR setups we were getting in 2014 the tech was living its best life piggybacking off of smart phone R&D.

These days XR has its own problems that need to be solved that are mostly unique to it, and that lack of intersecting with other industries is going to make it take longer.

That's why Meta is needing to invest so hard into it, to solve these problems, and so there's an XR market to sustain funding to those solutions.

Tested was able to see behind the scenes at Meta's reality lab to see demonstrations of the kind of things I'm talking about https://youtu.be/x6AOwDttBsc

2

grafixcoder t1_iy4kpz4 wrote

Replying to Superduperbals (#732,353)

You already have that with Virtual Desktop and AirLink on these Mobile VR HMDs.

The issue is that it requires a somewhat decent gaming PC (with a reasonable gaming GPU) and newer Wifi hardware (Wifi 6 compatible router).

The market of those users is small right now, so most devs focus on the Android/APK apps since it's a much larger addressable market.

4

tatleoat t1_iy4kv47 wrote

The Adept utility AI that's going to help us program and troubleshoot more quickly and effectively using prompt engineering is going to come out 2023 and hopefully that's going to exponentially explode the development of VR and AR tech

1

rixtil41 t1_iy4lx1y wrote

Replying to Superduperbals (#732,353)

We could but stream gaming to the other side of the world with as low latency as a 1 millisecond monitor will never be possible. The speed of light to other half of the world and back will be over 100 milliseconds which is unacceptable. To get streaming as good as a millisecond monitor the server or data center would have to be no father than about 93 miles or 149 kilometers away from where your streaming.

0

7Killumi7 t1_iy4m1i0 wrote

This was supposed to be the year of the release of Sword Art online in the anime (6 November 2022)

7

clearbrian t1_iy4m8q9 wrote

Minority Report was on tv the other night. I foolishly googled the year. Twenty years old this year. SO IM GUESSING AR WILL BE HERE ..by 2054! :P

1

ParryLost t1_iy4pl0n wrote

Another perspective: while new technological advances can certainly create their own demand, technology is also part of a complex web with social, cultural, and economic forces. It's not enough for a technology to just become possible; there also has to be a need, a demand for it. What problems do VR and AR actually solve?

The entertainment potential is tremendous, but entertainment is a luxury, and also has to be actually enjoyable first and foremost; both comfort and affordability are big factors there, and as others have pointed out, the hardware isn't yet good enough to consistently provide both to users just looking to play around with the tech for fun.

And other than that... It's mostly niche uses. You can come up with lots of specific cases where AR or VR could be useful, but not a lot of reasons for just everyone, like, average people, to need to use these technologies on a daily basis.

Smartphones, say, are useful as heck; convenient, practical, lots of reasons for the average person to want to always have one with then. Society as a whole might simply not have a use for AR or VR that's as broadly compelling. If the tech was mature to the point of it being affordable and easy to use and convenient, maybe some people would use this tech "just because." But then again, maybe not! Google Glass failed, in part, because most people seemed to not actually want to wear the tech (or to be around people who did...) And, it also works the other way around: with less demand for the tech, there's less of a drive for engineers and inventors to work on pushing it forward.

2

priscilla_halfbreed t1_iy4pt7y wrote

The physical headsets with eye lenses have a very rapidly approaching ceiling on how much we can improve them...

I think we won't see anything truly mindblowing until we get into neuralink territory and able to involve other senses besides sight/sound, such as taste/smell/touch, smell being humongous factor in our memory part of brain

1

Netwelle t1_iy4satv wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

It seems that dedicated chips for AR glasses are only now being developed and close to manufacturing. I believe ARM has a chip designed from scratch for this application. I believe with the big push for web3 and Metaverse that now is the time. Before this point there has not been corporate backing for the application. Now that every big company wants to push into this market, the funding is available.

I bet we see it accelerate heavily in the next 2-3yrs.

2

World_May_Wobble t1_iy4tufx wrote

Replying to Seek_Treasure (#740,155)

Likewise airfare seems to have halved at least once.

It's not transformational, and we'd be disappointed if the biggest improvement in VR between now and 2050 was that it was cheaper -- but it is something.

3

Seek_Treasure t1_iy4uulu wrote

Replying to World_May_Wobble (#740,679)

Airplanes will transition to electric eventually. There's some really hard challenges to this, but the progress is being made. More immersive VR and true usable AR will come. There's some really hard challenges to solve (some, like batteries and heat are shared with aviation), but the progress is there. It's not just hardware, software also helps. For example, fast ML computer vision for eye tracking helps foveated rendering, and we're far from done here.

1

Adventurous_Whale t1_iy4vnla wrote

The hardware is nowhere near where it needs to be. It also is just too “clunky” for broad adoption in a sustained way.

2

xshoeless_hobox t1_iy4w8ir wrote

It has to be something easily adopted for the masses; something not cumbersome to wear and also affordable with practical uses. Part of it was waiting for technology to evolve with it, Qualcomm was finally able to make a chip set for smaller form factors this year which will be used in niantics open sourced AR headset if I'm not mistaken. Give it some time, this isn't something that can be rushed. Also on your full immersion comment, that isn't something that will be easy. It involves the human brain which we are still figuring out; I'd be surprised if we even get proper full immersion in my lifetime like SAO.

1

Inous t1_iy4zurd wrote

slow adoption rate, expensive barrier to entry, some VRs require a decent rig to run if you want high fidelity. With a relatively low ROI for the current technology investors are probably not as interested at the moment. Once we fix the barrier to entry, the VR sickness, and other issues then we might see more investor money and the platforms take off.

1

sourpickles1979 t1_iy50jla wrote

The power needed isn't there. I'm not sue how them contact lenses are supposed to work but it's really about battery power more then anything

1

Blox4Blocks t1_iy54bdf wrote

Tiny classified ads. No one wants the clutter. Now a HUD on life may be better, but you know that $.30 ad might get a click, so SPAM or TREET it is.

1

KeltisHigherPower t1_iy5d5e1 wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

Also, I can't help but think if someone like Facebook for instance had a huge advance, that they would shelve it and keep the advances at a drip pace because that will feed sales. If they jumped right to something that skipped over all of their other research they would lose out on years of revenue just edging out others. But maybe not.

1

grimjim t1_iy5lako wrote

This may seem cynical, but an initial hurdle is creating apps that will sell to a military-industrial complex, which is willing to pay more per unit for small errands batches. That would bootstrap a supply chain that can be leveraged for consumer VR/AR. Silicon Valley would not be what it is today without military-industrial complex investment.

0

butterdrinker t1_iy5mson wrote

Replying to apinanaivot (#731,144)

Are you sure its a new type of lens? By a quick search pancake lenses were also present in the 70s.

I mean, yeah companies are trying different techniques to build better VR visors - but its not there are major technological breakthroughs in the optics research side

2

jaketocake t1_iy5o1ea wrote

I just don’t think there’s that high of a demand for it to change so quickly. I mean, it’s nowhere near being as popular as consoles, tablets, or computers. Most people I know view it as a “fun thing to try”, just not something that they would use everyday compared to what I mentioned.

1

Agreeable_Sun3754 t1_iy5sugw wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

>my error is my inclination to try to apply Moore's law to every type of technology.

Nah your error is not understanding how exponentials work. Doubling every couple of years still means at the begining it takes 20-50 years to hit the inflection of the exponential curve.

2

purple_hamster66 t1_iy5y4w2 wrote

PROs: Occulus (before FaceBook) solved 6 of the 8 issues of VR that made people get sick within a few minutes of use. That follows Moore’s Law, right? Miniaturization of components has also been proceeding at a nice pace.

CONs: What’s needed is content that inspires... a killer app. Like the PC became commonplace with spreadsheets, and the web was mostly inspired by porn (as far as video standards were concerned), and e-tail later. VR is simply an evolution of monitors & phones displays in that the 3D world is easily simulated enough by them. Games are not all that amazing in 3D over 2D. Even flight simulators are too hard to use to train real pilots. It’s also still way too hard to write apps and the differences between coding on various headsets is significant, still.

AR is actually fairly mainstream now, with GPS HUDs (Head Up Display) on car dashboards, Pokémon, apps like the iPhone Measure app that craftsman use to measure rooms, and real estate agents use to capture 3D room views to support potential sales. Note that AR should be thought of as including 3D scanning and printing, IMHO.

2

CCrypto1224 t1_iy5zfac wrote

Too much money for public investment to take off. And the people they do invest are finding the content and support for the expensive equipment and apps lackluster. Now if Porn got a hold of it and made some quality with it, then it would reach for the sky.

1

Akashictruth t1_iy64y0e wrote

It is because there is no space for VR in most people’s lives. We have computers, mobiles and consoles, that is more than enough for most people and the majority dont even have two of these and once you get one you have to constantly buy the new model that drops every year or so, people wont buy a new headset over a new phone.

Another issue is VR has zero uses outside of games, working in VR is a meme no matter how much facebook pushes it so i dont see any growth in that sector for the foreseeable future

1

Ohigetjokes t1_iy69mcj wrote

It's useless tech, that's why.

It's faster and more efficient to go to a website than fuss with a 3D environment, and when you're done you don't have to "leave", you can just close the tab. And you can have multiple tabs open at once and flick between them. VR is stupid slow and clumsy in comparison.

And AR us even dumber. I mean really, just what I want: MORE pop-up ads in my life, only now in real life!

0

Science_is_Greatness t1_iy6gzo2 wrote

I have a hard time wearing VR headsets because I need to wear thin framed glasses that bend easily when put under a headset. I wish VR headsets would come with more comfortable form factors for people like me who can't wear thicker framed glasses.

1

nomoreprocrastin8ing t1_iy6i7gc wrote

Replying to medraxus (#728,288)

You could probably get an incredibly sophisticated AR system using a big brand new workhorse of a GPU and a fancy camera if you don’t mind wearing a 5kg skullcap, but you won’t be walking anywhere with it so you might as well just get a cheap 2nd/3rd/nth monitor and another HDMI port.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the hardware is compact enough for on-the-go semi-reliable AR in 10-15 years, but there’s probably a lot of more complicated issues than moore’s law such as batteries and thermal issues

1

nomoreprocrastin8ing t1_iy6ipya wrote

Replying to Bakoro (#737,654)

360 degree FoV for all 1000 of active tabs for analysing data, writing reports, and doing a literature review that would make a computer cluster come to a screeching fiery halt each time you press “new tab” on chrome?

1

UncertainAboutIt t1_iy6v66g wrote

Replying to FiFoFree (#734,135)

> We can pump out software quickly

Cardboard is there for many years now. How easy and quick to develop Linux VR desktop for smartphones? I'm waiting for it long time, even ordinary GNU/Linux - AKAIK only one modern smartphone runs it (pine), whereas all desktops/laptops I now run Linux more or less (for less I mean Mac).

E.g. even for pine it now takes years for make e-ink reader with Linux, AFAIK they sell still for developers only.

1

UncertainAboutIt t1_iy6w7rc wrote

Replying to RainBow_BBX (#731,841)

> plus resolutions are already insane,

I doubt it is more than normal human eye can see (I mean angle resolution). For stable image (to take GPU speed out of the picture, can you disable tracking?), do you perceive visual VR quality not less than reality? I doubt it, do you?

0

DrGenetik t1_iy75jrb wrote

Replying to phriot (#731,253)

Glass wasn’t intended to be VR/AR, it was intended as a hands free productivity tool and for ambient, non-interruptive notifications like what we often use smart watches for now. Brin wanted to play with his kids more and play with his phone less. I don’t understand why people often try to conflate Glass with AR.

1

giveuporfindaway t1_iy78n91 wrote

Reasons for lackluster advancement:

- Porn is a driver of VR (perhaps the biggest driver). As a porn-only user (no gaming), I value comfort/convenience over bleeding edge specs. I don't want to hook up my headset to a computer. I don't want to build a crazy gaming computer. So you can thank lazy (and horny) people like me for pushing companies toward less powerful standalones. I believe the shift towards standalone is in part a silent acknowledgment of supporting smut users (though they won't ever say it).

- Leading on from the point above, the focus right now is on pancake lenses. So expect more comfort but less power gains in the short term.

- If we assume the logic that porn drives VR then any bottleneck in porn creates a bottleneck in vr. Currently there are no native VR video recording cameras that go above 8k. So a 12k VR headset has little upgrade value to a porn user.

- Perhaps the biggest issue of all is that VR is so lopsided towards vision that it should just be called "VV" or "Virtual Vision". It's not "virtual reality". If it was virtual reality this would recreate all the senses, not just vision. We've have little to no advances in touch, taste, smell, temperature in the last decade. This brings down excitement for the entire category.

1

Superduperbals t1_iy7f16h wrote

Replying to rixtil41 (#738,992)

I mean streaming locally. Just a few meters from a box in your living room to the headset on your face. The box being a computer with better specs than a 2012 android phone.

2

sorgan71 t1_iy7gskz wrote

vr still is a pain to use. My 1000 dollar valve index is fun yeah- but its a pain to use for more than 2 hours.

1

UncertainAboutIt t1_iy7jqlf wrote

Replying to RainBow_BBX (#755,759)

Well, I'm seeing it on my computer screen and cannot compare to reality. OP stated btw "Back then, we all imagined that by the next decade, we would have 16K photorealistic high field of view VR.",

I welcome you to confirm (if you personally believe so) your VR see-through looks to you same as w/out headset on your head.

1

RainBow_BBX t1_iy7y0gi wrote

Replying to UncertainAboutIt (#759,007)

Who cares anyway, 12k is coming soon and gpus aren't powerful enough away, wait for the 6000 series and you'll be able to run the next 16k vr headsets in 4 years, right now it's good enough but the problem aren't vr headsets but GPUs so blame it on computers, not the VR

1

phriot t1_iy80e95 wrote

Replying to DrGenetik (#756,767)

To an outside observer, any smart glasses will remind them of Google Glass, even if the actual things the wearer is seeing are more than, but not excluding, the things Glass had. It doesn't matter if Glass wasn't explicitly AR. People were more worried about the camera, anyway. But we're 10 years past that now, so Glass probably no longer has the same impact. My point was just that the reception probably put a damper on related tech for a while.

1

Prayers4Wuhan t1_iy817yd wrote

Replying to Neurogence (#730,722)

  • blackberry and Nokia introduced in 1998 and 1999

That was the beginning of the cell phone movement.

  • The first iPhone wasn’t launched until 2007
  • Galaxy S was launched in 2010

That was the beginning of the smartphone movement.

But smartphones didn’t really become polished until 2017-2022

The iPhone X released in 2017 and the android pixel 4 released in 2019 appear to me to be “peak smartphone technology”

It took a full 20 years to go from a Nokia to an iPhone X.

But it only took 10 years to go from an iPhone to an iPhone X.

  • Cardboard VR was released 2014

  • Oculus rift introduced 2016 (not the dev version)

  • Oculus quest released 2019

  • valve index 2019

  • The expensive oculus 2022

Seems right on schedule honestly. Cardboard VR is the Nokia and valve index and oculus quest are the iPhone and android versions etc.

I think the sticker shock of the expensive meta vr is due to zuck price gouging the quest to try to create market dominance. VR will probably be as expensive as new iPhones.

Apple still needs to make a VR.

By 2034 VR should be fully polished for consumers.

VR gloves, walking/running and of course visual quality indistinguishable from real life.

1

RainBow_BBX t1_iy8isp2 wrote

Replying to UncertainAboutIt (#766,254)

Wireless headsets who use your pc power already exist, this whole thread is full of people stuck in 2016 that's silly, also pc powered headsets are 50 times more powerful then headsets using smartphone cpu

2

FezNt t1_iy8shvq wrote

Replying to Sieventer (#767,758)

Well, not exactly... The ideal situation offloads just the GPU to the cloud/edge/local box, with the applications still running on the headset. Therefore no change to applications already designed to run on the headset (except that they can be developed assuming more GPU is available!) Check out the last diagram in the article for what I mean.

1

dewmen t1_iy8x3jk wrote

Hey we went from plug in to stand alone in that time thats id say equal to the jump from from the 2600 to the game boy ,remember with exponentials most of the progress happens in the last few few doubles with half at the last doubling alone and its not perfect every year but a general trend

1

Desperate_Donut8582 t1_iy94g8w wrote

Because when people want to watch a show they want to sit down and relax not do a lot of movements

1

SSJ3 t1_iy9ydsl wrote

Honestly, a huge part of it is purely economic. The Quest 2 demonstrated that there's a significant market just waiting for an accessible price point, and it's not just that the headset was cheap but also the fact that you didn't need a gaming PC because it has standalone capability. And of course the convenience factor is very important for mass adoption.

Hitting these price points and competing in this niche market is absolutely holding the hardware back immensely. Innovation is more likely to be punished by unrecoverable R&D costs than sticking to tried-and-true repurposed phone screens and such. Meta is hemorrhaging money to gain the market share they have, to the tune of billions of dollars most companies don't have.

It's really up to publicly funded research to push the boundaries. I was hoping to see something revolutionary coming out of DoD research, but they're apparently more interested in flushing money down the drain with dead-ends like Hololens and XTAL. Still, I'm keeping a close eye on some very promising avenues like metamaterial lenses and lightfields. I just don't expect them to achieve the economy of scale necessary to become affordable consumer products any time soon.

1

HydrousIt t1_iyf909u wrote

We're moving to that stage, once the technology is there I think there will be a big boom?

1