why is new technology failing to get adopted by the mainstream audience?
smartwatches, virtual reality, google glass, etc
>>52170387
Aren't smartwatches doing.pretty well for what is little more than a gimmick?
VR isn't officially on the consumer market until late 2016
>>52170387
no developers, no free software
>>52170465
You must be thinking of fitness trackers
>>52170627
There is quite a lot of overlap, isn't there?
But you are right I guess, I have seen a hell of a lot more fitbits than pebbles/iwatches.
I think smartwatches are doing okay now.
Google Glass doesn't even feel like something consumers can get their hands on, honestly. Can regular folks actually buy it now?
As for VR, you are spot on. As far as I know you can buy dev kits or whatever else now and I still don't know a single person with a VR headset. I know people who are hype and discuss it a lot and claim to be on board, but they aren't selling well. Maybe people just don't want to spend money on these new kinds of devices just yet.
>>52170737
>Maybe people just don't want to spend money on these new kinds of devices just yet.
is there even any good content for vr? barely any games, almost no porn. why buy a device that has no content?
>>52170387
>smartwatches, virtual reality, google glass, etc
because they're fucking gimmicks.
and unlike most chink consumer tech, quite expensive gimmicks
>>52170737
>VR
>flight/space sim-allows you to look around a coxkpit that you can't interact with
>shooters-allows you to look around but you still interact with world through a controller.
Let us be honest. VR is a useless gimmick just like 3D.
Smartwatches add no value.
Google Glass added no value and make you stick out uncomfortably.
Virtual Reality is not here yet, we will see how it goes.
>>52170776
>>52170776
all we need is better controllers then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrE8bTTQl-I
>>52170792
Prohibitivly expensive and takes up way too much space.
>VR
What do you mean failing?
It's not out yet
Each individual device has different reasons:
1. Smartwatches
Smartwatches are dumb. They don't allow normalfags to access youtube videos, so that's what really stops them. Or rather, youtube videos on them looks stupid.
2. Google glasses
Was way too spooky. It was the physical manifestation of what google was doing to them online. Google doesn't see a problem with google glasses because it's pretty much the exact same thing they're doing already, but a little bit more.
People instinctly responded to it as a breach of privacy because they fundamentally understood the threat.
>>52170776
You haven't tried it.
>>52170763
>>52170776
>no content/lacking content
okay but this issue is like when people say GNU/Linux's issue is software support or lack of popularity (hint: these are essentially the same thing)
It's a catch-22. People don't want to use it because people don't want to use it. It's not going to improve if no one wants to risk it.
Maybe I'm a hypocrite, though, since VR honestly doesn't interest me yet. If our VR was SAO-tier I'd definitely be interested, but controllers just don't seem to work well with the VR thing.
I'm also not really into 3D. I own four 3DSs and I always keep the 3D off.
>>52170737
Then wait for Oculus Touch or a Vive faggot. VR will be bigger than you could dream... In 2+ years. But buying in early will help that time come faster.
Everyone who says its a gimmick hasn't tried it. It's just the same shit that consolefags throw around when they try to bash PC gaming with misinformed opinions. Try it. Rift releases this Q1 2016. Vive Q2. Oculus Touch controllers H2. Certainly you'll have at least one friend with one once the Rift is out. Get a demo with them. It will be worth it.
>>52170815
>I'm also not really into 3D. I own four 3DSs and I always keep the 3D off.
If you really think that's even a similar comparison you clearly haven't tried VR either.
>>52170815
People are going to be buying VR devices. Not in the crazy huge amounts that the fanatics think, but there's going to be a steady interest stream.
Porno producers are making VR porn already and the devices aren't out yet.
Remember VHS? Blu-ray?
>>52170815
The 3DS's 3D really was a gimmick.
The new VR devices are really a leap forward. I'd compare them to color screens. It's a shift.
Lighter and easier to just pop on an off devices will see them almost replace monitors completely.
>>52170829
>>52170783
>>52170507
vr has no mainstream hype
>>52170387
because its all useless gimicy shit. I can see no reason to get a smart watch unless you want to look like an autist.
>>52170843
it will have hype once the facebook marketing train starts rolling
>>52170847
Well that's a good reason that people will know of the devices.
There will be VR facebook games for sure.
>>52170861
VR on the web is not coming any time soon. That would require every browser manufacturer to start working on an API for retrieving head tilt information from USB. Right now the number of browsers that do that is exactly zero. Not even chrome.
>>52170815
With GNU/Linux is a mad circle
>people don't want to use it because there's no hardware support they get on windows and no software support they get on windows
>hardware manufacturers don't want to spend money getting the support for linux because there's no market in linux,
>software companies don't port their shit to linux because the cost of porting and supportr would be greater than possible income from linux users.
repeat ad infinitum
which pretty much offloads all costs and work of making linux somehow work on the community which instead of improving the quality of linux waste their lifes on reverse engineering radeon drivers because amd doesn't want to pull their heads out of their asses.
>>52170840
>Lighter and easier to just pop on an off devices will see them almost replace monitors completely.
Wow. You just blew my mind. seriously. I would actually fucking love this. Monitors have been around forever. Maybe it's time we bring the screen to our eyes instead of our eyes to the screen. Sitting down at a desk and popping on my headset sounds pretty fucking comfy.
>>52170884
Regardless, there will be facebook VR games.
The head tilt information doesn't need to interact with the browser, it only needs to interact with the game that the browser is running- so the browser is just for getting the game rather than running it.
>>52170899
Just needs to get as easy as putting on headphones. We already do a sitting down routine with our sound devices.
Then it'll be virtual desktops, possibly with kinect-style motion tracking so you can interact with the desktop, although that sounds like crap so it'll mostly be mouse operated.
Like with cameras on the device you could even see your mouse and keyboard.
>>52170387
Coz apple didn't join the game yet (okay the watch and it did relatively well compared to other watches)
>>52170906
>it only needs to interact with the game that the browser is running
It really doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. That doesn't make any sense.
>>52170923
>motion tracking
no thanks senpai, I'm held back enough by needing a mouse a lot of the time
>see your mouse and keyboard
I honestly am not concerned about this. I can touch type just fine, and it's not like you look down at your controls while playing a game.
I heard text readability in VR is improving, which is good since it's probably literally the only part of VR I care about.
Something about wearing goggles or a headset and seeing my terminals sounds super neat.
>>52170940
I mean the browser launches the game in another process.
Sounds like a fucking security nightmare though. But it is already possible, like how a magnet link can be passed to your torrent client.
Smartwatches are doing okay-ish, and that's the only one in your list that is actually available for consumers. Only consumer VR available now is the Gear VR, and that niche as it's only working for the newest Samsung phones. Wait a year until Oculus Rift, Vive and more have been released and gain foothold.
Same with google glass, their earlier prototype was just that: a prototype/dev kit, not meant for mass consumer adoption.
>>52170948
>I honestly am not concerned about this
Neither am I, but normies will be. For functionality considerations you have to think like a VR headset developer. They will be developing for the average person, god help us all.
>>52170387
This has been the case for a long time, not many want to use junk. Pic related, seems like a annoying and complicated whizzbang.
>>52170896
>waste their lifes on reverse engineering radeon drivers because amd doesn't want to pull their heads out of their asses.
Uh.. Did you mean Nvidia? AMD releases their own open source drivers.
>>52170936
I hate the thought of an Apple VR headset, mostly because I worry they'll treat it as a mobile thing and make it very limited somehow.
>>52170387
>why is new technology failing to get adopted by the mainstream audience?
give it time. same thing happened with smartphones, computers, etc.
we're currently in the golden age of VR with tons of innovation by indie developers. the community is tight-knit and every month there's something that hasn't been done before.
just wait until the first AAA+ title comes out on Oculus and the masses get hold of 3D porn. what happened on the apple app store will happen again on all the VR app stores with cash-shop bullshit killing off quality content and starving indie developers to death.
embrace it while it lasts! by 2020 you're all going to be begging to go back in time.
>>52170923
do these VR devices track eye movement or head movement?
>>52170776
>VR is just fancy 3D
You are so wrong I don't even know where to start, but I'll try anyways
It's not just "3D", its exactly accurate, real-to-life 3D. But that's the boring part since the Rift works fine for people with one eye. It's a subtle, realistic effect, not " lets throw shit at your face for no reason because 3D"
Next, you have head tracking with zero (or near zero on the Vive because it lacks prediction) latency. This tricks your brain in a way that you can't quite get without trying it. It creates a feeling of presence within your game. Sure, controls are slightly limited, but if you're scared of heights IRL, similar situations take very active inner dialogue to get over in VR. Of course you consciously know you're in VR but the monkey parts of your brain don't really get that. I've felt it on the DK2 and on Crescent Bay demos.
Can't forget that true HRTF audio runs on the Rift through its audio SDK and Oculus's internal DAC and headphones. Binaural audio in VR has full specialization in X, Y, and Z axes. This isn't 7.1 surround, it's perfect real surround that works vertically as 360. If you don't believe me, get a demo at CES. I went to the Crescent Bay demo last year and the audio in the scene with robot arms fighting over a fuck and shooting magic and shit sounded real, and I could pinpoint sounds that weren't visible.
I'm going to CES again this year, so I'll be trying the first consumer version of the Rift, and hopefully Vive and maybe PSVR. This time, unlike the 90s, VR is fucking real. It may not be at SAO levels, but it's close enough to provide compelling experiences beyond demos. Devs are still figuring things out, so don't expect insanely complex actioney games for the first two years (no Just Cause or Tomb Raider or Elder Scrolls in VR yet outside of meh injection drivers), but more ambitious games will come as devs figure out good ways to do increasingly complex things in VR, and as gamers get more used to those things.
>>52170959
VR does not sound like a thing for normies to me. I hate to think enthusiasts will get punished once again due to something being developed for normies.
>>52170975
The OR and Vive track head movement. Eye movement- they don't need to track it because how they work is by producing a 'field of view'.
>>52170983
Give it time. Normies are never early adopters, but VR will be mainstream eventually. Just look at movies and other storytelling media, that's as mainstream as things can possibly get, and VR has the potential to do storytelling much better. It's not true that normies are not interested in VR because they don't want escapism, everyone loves escapism in some way or another.
>>52170993
>>52170975
There's also at least one VR headset that will have eye tracking though I don't know for what purpose.
>>52170884
Nope, that can be handled fine in a JavaScript library
Webvr.info
Here's how facebooks strategy to the OR should work:
Release the headset at near cost. Make it feel good as a product, but don't bother thinking about profiting from the device itself.
Release VR content that does not require a supercomputer but does benefit from the superior functionality of an OR or vive like device (over the google cardboard shit). Like video. The porn industry is currently releasing VR porn, so by the time the devices come out there will be a massive database. I'm hoping that more fetishy producers will make VR porn. Anyway; Content will be there.
Personally I think VR 'simulations' will be a niche usage of the device and most people will use it to watch videos and some light-graphical requirement games or virtual desktops.
But you need to get the devices onto people's heads before they'll consider buying desktops for the more graphically demanding applications.
VR is going to make all those 'PC IS DEAD' faggots wrong AGAIN. I've been hearing the PC is dead for 20 years, they're not going to stop being wrong.
>>52170993
Great. So it looks like the flappy bird VR games will involve people nodding heads.
>user interface
>would you like to learn more
>nod head
>you chose YES
>shake head
>you chose NO
I can see head tracking headsets versus eye tracking ones to be like the VHS vs betamax thing. The worse technology will win out because its easier for retards to grasp. Yes, No commands versus if they waited with the technology and we could widen eyes and text would automatically get larger.
>>52170980
This defensive fawning is exactly why people hate VR now.
It's a product with a lot of promise, but also a whole 50% chance of single-handedly with bursting the tech bubble considering the insane amount of investment in the field for a completely market unproven development.
>>52171033
>tfw no JS library that'll find me a gf
>>52171041
I'm worried more about
>shake your head to skip this ad
The ads you take more time to shake your head towards will be naturally selected to be displayed to you more.
>>52171019
>tfw VR consists of two screens strapped to your heaf with an arduino tracking head movement
>tfw it will be a one size fits all solution because need to cater to every snowflake headshape and fatfucks thereby making it shit for everyone
>>52171044
Again, you just need to try it. VR has an absolute shit-ton of potential. But I don't see that tech bubble popping since the investment seems go be going mostly just to research (aside from the big three), and just a bit to first party games. If nothing else, indies will be able to sustain the medium fine until the big players start getting their games out.
>>52171061
don't worry anon there will be a VR ublock
>>52170507
You mean the 1Q of 2016 right? The Rift will be out before April.
>>52171074
The streets are paved with the graves of bankrupted companies that produced products with "a lot of potential" and "just try it, it's amazing".
The technology industry in particular has an awful track record in regards to picking winners - the products that techies think are amazing end up dead, while those that techies think are terrible end up succeeding.
Just be warned - in a market there are a lot of factors at play. Facebook's involvement in VR appears to signify a belief that the technology will have mainstream success (because that's Facebook's domain) - if this doesn't pan out there will be a lot of financial causalities - even if VR finds a profitable niche for hardcore gamers and military simulations.
>>52171033
>The WebVR API is currently available in Firefox nightly builds with an Oculus Rift enabler installed, or in experimental builds of Chrome.
That doesn't look handled to me. I'm not even counting firefox because you need third party middleware and that VR support has been in experimental builds of chrome for over a year. It's not very close to done.
I'm a WebGL developer by profession, you can trust me here. It's probably another year off for native VR support in just chrome and god knows how many more after that for everyone else.
>>52171090
WHERE'S MY FUCKING VIVE, VALVE?
YOU SAID NOVEMBER
No but seriously I was looking forward to reviews.
>>52170387
It's shit. It solves unexisting problems.
>>52171098
Well the direction it's going is to put the entire desktop in VR, and have the browser (or whatnot) window just be displayed to you as-is in a virtual environment.
Not sure how easy the text will be to read though.
>>52171098
>I'm a WebGL developer by profession
you mean a three.js developer
Which VR is most likely to win so I can start developing for it?
>>52171178
There are open VR standards that most devices will share most functionality with. Shit like
>>52171019
And the vive have extra gimmicks but if you support the core functionality of the OR you have a wide compatibility base regardless of 'which wins'.
Personally I think the cheapest will win
>>52171187
I've created apps and I'm figuring these devices already have extensive libraries.
I just want to create shit since I don't like being the consumer.
>>52171226
Oh right. Then use the OR libraries.
>>52171178
>Which VR is most likely to win so I can start developing for it?
None of them. VR will almost certainly flop. The VR industry is still in a state of pre-release euphoria (which will be followed by more delusion "2017 will finally be the year of VR!") but eventually reality will come crashing down.
Expect a lot of suicides in 2018 from people that have invested their life savings into developing VR applications / games and not seen a cent of a return, and instead received crushing debt.
>>52171236
thanks. facebook VR pleb games here I come
>>52171261
>VR will almost certainly flop.
Why?
>>52171178
Look into OSVR. I imagine all the headsets will work together at some point.
>>52171099
CAN'T WAIT. BRING IT ON ALREADY, MY WALLET IS READY
>>52171271
>Why?
There are a litany of reasons, but the first warning bell is that it has almost the strangest product release cycle ever seen in the industry.
This is a series of modern VR products that have supposedly been *functional* and *affordable* for about 5 years now, and yet never seen open-to-the-public release, only a limited release to developers (who are not so much developing, but acting as little evangelical PR agents - for free).
Typically when a new technology or standard comes out, every company around cannot release it fast enough (even if its a little under-baked at launch). With VR, companies are acting extremely un-confidently with it, enormously aware of the huge losses that would be incurred if it failed. Usually there can be significant losses on releasing a product early to mainstream consumers - but the feedback gathered helps refine the product for when its truly ready.
With VR every company has essentially put their eggs into one basket - one big release - they are un-confident about their products alone - but believe in market security in numbers - SATURATE the market with VR and it will surely succeed, right?
Except history has shown that doesn't work if consumers aren't receptive to it.
>>52171178
oculus has facebook, hive has valve. pick your poison.
>>52170387
Vr will be relevant only when consoles and laptops with integrated graphic can run the content smoothly. So 2021+
>>52170387
>smartwatches
does not everything your phone already does but worse, have to wear it, watches have been more jewelry items for along time (since cell phones became ubiquitous.) That's something Apple correctly identified.
>virtual reality
many really bad products in the past
causes nausea and are uncomfortable
>google glass
you look like the biggest dipshit in the world wearing them
massive creeper concerns also
>>52170811
People are scared of others with Google glass recording them without them knowing. Yet this happens all the time with cellphones or normal cameras. They got scared over nothing.
>>52172727
>They got scared over nothing.
They got scared because they saw what google was doing to them for a change. It was in a form they could understand.
This is what I mean, it IS practically the same thing that's happening with smartphone cameras, it's just the glasses pounds what this actually is into their caveman brains.
>>52172750
>They got scared because they saw what google was doing to them for a change
explain
>>52172986
Google glasses don't do anything different than the rest of google's services. Except when you talk about how google records everything you do online people are like 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' but as soon as the glasses come out they do a 180 and scream about their privacy, as if anything really changed.
>>52170387
>smartwatches
meme
>virtual reality
STILL no oculus release, ridiculously expensive, not enough advertising of alternatives (Cardboard and whatnot)
>google glass
Released never, mostly because of a never ending list of issues (no 3D AR, pathetic battery life, etc)
>>52170387
>smartwatches
Literally just a shittier smart phone.
>virtual reality
No real VR kit has even hit the market yet. Won't go mainstream until a mainstream console picks it up.
>google glass
Literally just a shittier smart phone. AR has a future once the technology for it catches up, though.
>>52170387
Because VR in the current form is still a bulky shit for basement dwelling retards. You faggots, need to bring some Steve Jobs into your life to detect shit like that.
>>52171098
>WebGL developer by profession
Pfffhahahahahah
