
John Carmack on Developing the Netflix App for Oculus - vquemener
http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/09/john-carmack-on-developing-netflix-app.html
======
omouse
John Carmack is a good role model for any techies that move up to management.
If you want to keep in touch with the base tech that your devs are using, you
have to dive into a project like this where all your tech knowledge is brought
to bear on a problem and you learn lots of new things.

None of this "well I guess I knew a bit of C++, let me find another engineer
to work on this Netflix app and offer micromanaging style tips and tricks"
which is what I've seen from a lot of managers who used to be technical.

He's also an amazing role model for regular programmers; figure out the
requirements, take a crack at it with a prototype and then iterate. The
iteration doesn't have to be an overtime week affair.

~~~
Pyxl101
Why do you say that Carmack is in management? I don't get the impression that
he's a people manager. A CTO does not necessarily have people reporting to
them in a people management sense. From what I've read, I would assume he does
not. (I could be wrong - I don't really know.)

High judgment individual contributors often take on responsibilities that can
be considered management, like deciding business and technical strategy,
designing products, prioritizing roadmaps, etc., but while these are
management functions, taking on these responsibilities does not mean that one
is in management.

From the blog post, it sounds like Carmack is a highly productive, high
judgment individual contributor with the responsibilities you'd expect of a
CTO (technical strategy). I would say that someone is "in management" when
their chief function is managing other people. From this post, Carmack seems
to be delivering work as an individual contributor and (very senior) technical
lead.

Along the same lines, I recommend we discourage phrasing like "move up to
management". Management is a different job, not a better or superior one. In
well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at
all seniority levels, such that one does not need to become a manager to "move
up", even to CTO level.

~~~
ramidarigaz
In some of his recent keynotes (especially the later quakecon ones) he focuses
a lot on how he's changed his mind and that he now believes that software
development has a lot of "social science" aspects to it. I think he's given a
lot of consideration to how one manages a software team, and even though he
sometimes disappears into his office to write something like this Netflix app,
he still does manage people.

~~~
blazespin
In theory a CTO should only have employees that self manage.

------
zach
Oculus: "Hey Netflix, how about we work together on getting your service on
our platform?"

Netflix: "Gee, we're pretty busy, maybe next year..."

Oculus: "We would have John Carmack work on it..."

Netflix: "YES! Yes, yes, yes. Okay, now is good. Can we have him write a guest
post on our tech blog when it launches?"

~~~
Namrog84
That first gee from Netflix made me read the rest as mortys voice.

Gee rick!, were pretty busy here ya know? I mean like uhm maybe next year?

------
Strom
It's a real shame that DRM once again stifles progress and limits the video
resolution to 480p in this VR app.

~~~
MichaelGG
Yeah the moment I read about casting lighting based on screen contents, I was
thinking "things you can't do with 'secure' output". Sad.

This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever
need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.

------
Kapura
The depth of thought that Carmack is able to apply to every detail of a
problem is astounding. Granted, he's been working on VR for years now and
pioneering realtime graphics before that, but his perception about what the
end user wants out of a product is second-to-none.

------
jerf
It's your living room, _but on a computer!_

[http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916](http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916)

(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for
VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)

It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing
to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good
movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.

~~~
sigmar
Re:the novelty

Is there any practical use for this? My understanding is that movie theaters
are preferred to home theaters because the distance from your eyes to the
screen is far enough that you can focus to infinity, which is easier on the
eyes. Could a vr environment make viewing Netflix 'easier' on the eyes? Anyone
have an opinion or link?

~~~
metasean
This is along the lines of why I'm interested in it. I actually want a mock
environment (e.g. a living room) in the virtual environment that I can watch
tv on OR code on.

I'm extremely nearsighted – age and my already excessive use of computers are
exacerbating this. Because of the design of the VR Gear, I can _almost_ see
clearly at the highest correction level (similar to what I would see if I wore
my 2-4 year old glasses).

Since the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that looking at
'near' things (e.g. computer screen, books, tv across a small room)
exacerbates myopia, I'm hoping that doing my normal activities on (a) a screen
with infinite distance and (b) a device which allows me to change the
correction of the lenses, means I _might_ be able to reverse _some_ of my
myopia. I _don 't_ think it will _cure_ my myopia, but if I could stagnate or
reverse the loss I've had over the last few years (or dare I hope, decades),
it would be a blinkin', technological miracle! ;-)

~~~
colordrops
You are still focused on a nearby screen. It just looks like a large screen at
a distance due to the stereoscopic effect. The Oculus' lenses simulate a focal
distance of 1.3 meters, which is not much better than a tablet in your lap.
Another problem is that Oculus' focal distance is fixed, so you are not
exercising your eye's ability to change focus. This isn't directly a problem
that you wish to address in your comment above, but you may want to consider
it. A technology that will better address these issues is the light field
display. See: [https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-
field...](https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field-
displays)

~~~
metasean
My understanding is that the optics are designed to actually be at an infinite
focus.

\---

Short question:

> Now I read about this HMD Oculus Rift, which claims that you are always
> focused on the "distance" which I assume is the same as infinity focus in
> photography.

The short answer:

> In the same way as a telescope eyepiece, they create a virtual image at
> infinity.

> In the HUD the objective lens focus the image from a display (on the left in
> the diagram) and the lens at the front of the HUD reimages it at infinity.

The full answer: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47390/how-do-
head...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47390/how-do-head-mounted-
displays-simulate-infinite-focus)

\---

Which may cause other eye muscle problems...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2hxfku/eye_muscle_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2hxfku/eye_muscle_for_focus_is_not_being_stimulated/)
(which does mention that the LFD is a better option)

\---

But the key for me is someone who isn't myopic noticing that ...

> I've been able to see far away objects much sharper than I was able before,
> as if my sight was getting trained at infinity focus (which makes sense, I
> guess).

\-
[https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=2833](https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=2833)

~~~
colordrops
Check this thread, which has a video of a guy actually using a camera to
measure the focal distance, and finds it around 1m:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2wpccf/measuring_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2wpccf/measuring_the_focal_distance_of_the_rift_with_a/)

~~~
metasean
Thank you, colordrops! I looked for official, or at least more definitive,
information on the focal distance to no avail. This definitely qualifies!

That said, it is of the DK2, which is clearly different than the DK1. Which
leads me to wonder what the focal distance is for the Gear VR (Note4) and the
new Gear VR.

Sadly, I'm so nearsighted at this point, that I have a hard time reading
anything more than ≈4 inches away (things are out of focus at ≈2 inches away,
but it's good enough and there are typically enough clues in the 2~4 inch
range that I can still read normal text). In other words, if I'm only training
my eyes at a distance of 30.5 inches for the next half decade, I suspect it
will still be enough to lead to an improvement, and there will be even more
improvements in tech (both in the VR & optometry) during that time frame.

------
hyperion2010
> This gives the somewhat surprising result that subtitles cause a noticeable
> increase in power consumption.

These are the Carmack gems I was looking for.

~~~
ferongr
It's not actually all that surprising for people that use styled subtitles
with antialiased edges. In extreme cases (lots of glyphs on the screen) you
can end up with a noticeable framerate reduction.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
It shouldn't need to hurt your framerate too much, considering that the font
rendering only needs to happen once every few seconds. A new subtitle can be
rendered, kept in memory as a texture, and then just blended by the GPU as
pixels. The titles are also known ahead of time, so it's possible to set up a
pipeline with no sudden increases in processing load.

------
jameshart
Why on earth simulate a living room with a TV on the wall? Why not simulate
being in the best seat in a concert-hall sized movie theater with a massive
screen? How about a little old fashioned movie theater, or a 50s drive-in?

I'm sure all these kinds of things can come later, it just seems odd to me
that simulating being on a couch is the first take...

~~~
jlas
The skeuomorphic living room design immediately reminded me of the Packard
Bell Navigator:
[http://toastytech.com/guis/pbnav35.html](http://toastytech.com/guis/pbnav35.html)

~~~
joshkpeterson
Came here to say this! First thought was "Why god why return to this
interface??"

------
6stringmerc
Reading John Carmack's thought processes to approaching, addressing, and
moving on from individual challenges is so fun and refreshing to me. Granted,
the matter-of-fact tone is inherently humble, but it does seem like a tone of
making the complex sound simple, intrinsically for the audience's benefit.
Just a line like "unfortunate waste of memory...but it gives me the timing
control I need" is a succinct demonstration of trade-offs and explanation
without, well, seeming to have many outside constraints - well, I mean there's
the pursuit of the functioning program, sure, but I get the sense freedom in
this environment is used studiously.

------
pazimzadeh
This is an interesting proof of concept, and it's cool to know that you can
carry a "pocket living room" around with you.

That said, shouldn't virtual reality free us to do more than replicate real
life environments? It looks like VR will have its own period of skeuomorphism
until better UI is invented. I'd love to be a designer at Facebook right now.

~~~
davnicwil
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think there's necessarily a
concept of skeuomorphism in VR.

Skeuomorphism is a mapping of real world 3D physical objects to a more
constrained space, like a 2D phone screen, ostensibly to aid usability in an
otherwise unfamiliar space by invoking recognition and instinct.

In theory at least no mapping like this is necessary at all for VR, things
just look and act however they do, in a recreated 3D space. Of course there
will be 'skeuomorphism' insofar as objects from the real world will be copied
1:1 into the VR environment, but it's kind of a redundant term at that point.

It's indeed an interesting question if we'll discover better 'UX' for virtual
3D environments than the physical ones we've built for ourselves in the real
world. I'd venture yes, including but not limited to discovering tweaks that
break the laws of Physics to allow greater convenience. Like wormholes that
act as hyperlinks for 3D space, or something.

It'll be fascinating to see if things like this are experimented with and
accepted from the get-go, or if there will be a 'skeuomorphism-like' era of VR
where we play it safe and just copy our existing world for a while, until we
collectively 'find our feet' in VR and learn to make tweaks that expand the
possibilities. I'd hope and actually somewhat expect the former.

~~~
ctdonath
Of course there's a concept of skeuomorphism. Everyone expects their POV about
2m off the "ground". Objects are of a common range of sizes, 3D space is even
& regular in each direction, etc. "Floating" is kinda nifty but likewise just
an extension of our real-world 3D experience.

People in general aren't ready for scaleable space (sizes changing orders of
magnitude instantly), varying measurements (say: X is normal, Y is
logarithmic, Z is sinusoidal), warping space (various _Einstein 's Dreams_
scenarios here like consequences of "speed of light is 15 MPH", or
_Interstellar_ scenarios), varying or nonexistent notions of "up" (see _Ender
's Game_ arena), absence of normal gravitational phenomena, etc.

Early on in the 3D game realm, game writers explored lots of variations on
non-skeuomorphic scenarios ( _Descent II_ comes to mind, a 3D flying maze game
devoid of any sense of "down"). Many years later, with endless technology &
imagination available, 3D games are dominated by soldiers running around
battlefields little different from reality.

People will have enough trouble with entering/exiting VR. Having seen other
technologies bloom, I assure you it will be years before advancing beyond
paradigms based in the real world.

~~~
pazimzadeh
I couldn't have said it better myself.

I do wonder what the point is of spending lots of energy making alternate
universes if we end up replicating thing we’re doing now. In a world where we
can only walk, we'd like to be able to fly. In a world where we can only fly,
we'd like to teleport. But then we’d probably make the environment bigger to
‘keep it fun’ so what’s the point? Do we all just want to be floating points
of light?

Maybe the only real benefit of VR is having the undo button.

All in all, maybe it's not so bad that we haven't had much choice in the
design of our species and world so far. Super tangentially related:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34151049](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34151049)

------
concernedctzn
John Carmack overcame all of these technical issues and wrote up this blogpost
in the past month with all of his other responsibilities at the same time.
Humbling.

------
nthitz
> Despite all the talk of hardcore gamers and abstract metaverses, a lot of
> people want to watch movies and shows in virtual reality.

Source for that claim?? strapping on a headset doesn't seem like a great way
to share a movie with friends, but that's just me.

~~~
MBCook
You could share it with a friend who wasn't physically there if they had a
similar setup, but I"m guessing they're talking about the fact people who are
by themselves like watching TV and movies in VR compared to on a standard TV
screen in a real room.

~~~
iwillreply
I did this on a flight. It was much more pleasant than inflight entertainment.

* 360 film doesn't work well, with not being able to move around.

------
corysama
Here's a great conference hallway conversation with Carmack from yesterday. He
covers a lot of fun topics with the random folks in the hall.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUyg6cUfcw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUyg6cUfcw)

for those who prefer text summaries:

[http://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-talks-difficulty-mobile-
pos...](http://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-talks-difficulty-mobile-position-
tracking-relationship-google/)

------
Arjuna
In case you're interested, John's scheduled to speak at Oculus Connect 2 at
13:00 PDT / 16:00 EDT / 20:00 UTC today.

[http://www.twitch.tv/oculus](http://www.twitch.tv/oculus)

------
stusmall
Am I missing something? This lets you watch a movie in a virtual living room
on a virtual TV? Why would I want that?

~~~
aianus
I would use it lying on my back in bed or in the fetal position. Sometimes
sitting up straight to watch a screen is just too much work ;)

~~~
metasean
For a while after a bad leg injury, I had to lay in bed, on my back, with my
leg elevated. Either I watched tv and got a crick in my neck (from the odd
angle) before a 30 minute show was done, or I tried holding a book up and in
the air and reading it, but I never made it more than a few pages before my
arms started to feel like very, heavy, looming weights. I ended up listening
to a lot of podcasts and phoning a lot of friends. I would have _loved_ to be
able to watch tv from my back during that recovery period!

------
tonydiv
What I was hoping for from the Carmack speech:

[http://i.imgur.com/ofChTKt.png](http://i.imgur.com/ofChTKt.png)

I wanted more from Carmack.

------
chaostheory
When I think about it, I feel that this would mainly appeal to people like
factory workers who live in horrible dorms (windowless closets), prisoners,
parapalegics, the homeless; in other words people who are trapped in a
specific environment. The problem is that most of them can't afford this
setup... yet.

When I think about it, even low income individuals in the US have access to
cheap enough flat screen TVs to have a nicer real life living room than a
virtual one afforded by Oculus

~~~
Raphmedia
I'm thinking about the guys in the NAVY stuck in small metal rooms with no
windows in the middle of huge ships. VR theaters would be a boon for them!

~~~
chaostheory
Good point. I forgot about the submarines and the lily pad bases through out
the world.

------
azinman2
As others have mentioned a bit, while being a cute demo this really isn't
advantageous. The constant brightness gets irritating with lights 3" in front
of your face beaming directly into your eyes, and good luck trying to eat
pizza and drink something while doing this. On the pro side, well, um.... not
very clear what that would be over having an actual TV.

If you don't have a TV and all you have is the oculus, then why try to re-
create such an environment at all? You loose the immersive qualities of the
oculus to begin with.

To me the point of oculus is having content made directly for it... where it
is 180-360 degrees, and you can't see it all without looking around.
Repurposing standard Netflix movies doesn't give much an advantage.

~~~
bluthru
Have you tried it?

~~~
azinman2
I own the occulus and have tried various bits of movie playing already. While
I haven't tried this netflix implementation, it is not difficult to imagine.

VR has some limited cool potential uses, but it's utility is being overblown
by the community similar to the 90s.

------
Animats
720x480 on a virtual TV set, and a "virtual couch". Is that worth wearing a
headset for two hours?

Coming next, in-app popcorn and pizza ordering?

------
acquihired
I would really love to be able to watch a movie and look around the scene.
Even if the camera was at a stationary point.

Imagine watching Batman while perched up on a ledge in Gotham... when the
Joker comes flying down the street to the right and you look right to watch,
while someone else viewing the movie looks left to see Batman flying down.

Awesome.

------
kbenson
Does this make anyone else really crave a VR "man cave" (for lack of a better,
less polarizing term)?

~~~
serkanyersen
it reminds me of Aech's basement chatroom from Ready player one

------
justifier
i wonder if john watched daredevil one episode at a time or if he binged on it

i was intrigued by the virtual theatre concept, but i found watching a film
was too much for comfort's sake

ignoring resolution issues, or strain, the goggles pressing against my face
was the source of the most discomfort

when i took off the goggles my face was hot and sweaty and my eyes had white
circles around them where the blood had been kept out

these current vr headsets are goggles with elastic and as long as that is the
case i think they will fail to attract a consistent, returning, user base

your eyes are unable to breathe or receive blood

imagine watching a movie while wearing ski goggles, then have those goggles
shine bright lights into your eyes

it is an uncomfortable experience

MSFT's holo lens are glasses that sit off your face, allowing circulation
below the lens,this sort of design is certainly the way forward

------
libraryatnight
Next up, World of World of Warcraft

[http://www.theonion.com/video/warcraft-sequel-lets-gamers-
pl...](http://www.theonion.com/video/warcraft-sequel-lets-gamers-play-a-
character-playi-14240)

------
qzervaas
Half-baked semi-serious idea: An iOS content blocker that prevents scroll-
jacking.

------
deevus
I tried this out and watched some Supernatural. My only gripe would be that I
wish I could move further back from the virtual screen. At least I think
that's what the problem is.

------
fezz
Bringing back skeuomorphism in full force like it's 2005...

------
joshkpeterson
There's a lot of focus in this thread on 'Why would you want a fake living
room environment?' but he makes this statement:

"You could even go all the way to a face-locked screen with no distortion
correction, which would be essentially the same power draw as the normal
Netflix application, but it would be ugly and uncomfortable."

This is what his post is about - the work to accomplish a screen surface that
exists in 3d space independent from your head. What goes around the screen is
a secondary issue.

~~~
guelo
I don't get it. Why would you want your head forced to point in one direction
when you could, for example, lie down and point your head in the most
comfortable position.

~~~
reilly3000
You can. Just start the app in a comfortable position and the image will me
from and center.

