
Daydream – Google VR - madmax108
https://vr.google.com/daydream/
======
1_2__3
So a slightly more production-ready version of cardboard, but requires a
specific phone that not one customer has yet.

When do we stop buying into the Google product hype? How many other chase-the-
rabbit approaches to products is Google going to shove in front of our faces
before we realize it's almost all smoke and mirrors? It seems completely
laughable to me that this "product" will even _exist_ past 2017, let alone be
any kind of leader in anything (innovation, market share, creating a new
market space, etc.).

I know jaded cynicism is never attractive, but it's honestly baffling to me
how these threads aren't peppered with what I would think to be well-justified
skepticism when it comes to Google and their ambitious hardware products. They
almost never succeed, period! You never even hear about them most of the time
a few months after they get launched, and the only time when you do is when
the PR machine is working fast and furious to prop it up (see: Glass).

So sure, let's all pretend that wearing a pair of underwear on your face
stuffed with a cell phone is going to advance VR. Yeah. That seems totally
plausible.

~~~
gfodor
i have a feeling you are going to come to regret this comment. google has made
the right move here. they've introduced VR capabilities to the android
platform in a way that, unlike cardboard, will set a baseline good experience
for users (performance, frame rate, thermal, etc.) they've introduced a low
price point, casual piece of hardware that will get good VR into as many
consumers' hands as possible. the have made it so 3rd party vendors can
compete in the ecosystem. they are providing an open platform for building and
distributing VR software. they have included a controller peripheral as part
of the standard which radically increases the surface area of applications.

basically, to me this is the path that seems the most likely vector for mass
market VR adoption. the high end PC VR is too expensive in 2016, and the
console based VR, while definitely compelling, still has at least one order of
magnitude less addressable market.

iterating from here to more standalone devices like those shared already by
qualcomm is an obvious transition on this platform and I'd imagine most VR
devices sold in 2017-2018 will be portable standalone HMDs running android.

~~~
Ph0X
Yeah, and unlike gaming VR, I think mobile VR has the potential to truly catch
on and spread. It's cheap (80$ vs. 600$+), it's easy to use (no wires or crazy
rig needed), and you can use it anywhere (lay on the bed, use outside).

~~~
1_2__3
Well, no. As of today it's $685 + $80. In the future if you either already
have the phone or if the magical "partners who have signed up" start
delivering Daydream-capable phones then it's only $80. And I'm not trying to
be pedantic - if this was, say, supported on many phones then I'd agree with
you. But your argument is essentially that a product only useable on an itty
bitty tiny fraction (well, okay, today _nobody_ ) of the cell phone market is
going to push VR into the home. That seems highly unlikely to me.

~~~
markatkinson
So I am currently working on a game for Daydream VR. I jumped at the
opportunity as soon as they made the announcement and bought a 6P to help with
the dev and testing. I agree with the commenter that mentioned Daydream is
more likely to spike mass market interest than say Vive. I lurk on the Unreal
Engine forums quite a bit and participated in a few game jams and if there is
something I have noticed it is that Vive and Oculus are currently reserved for
serious VR enthusiasts and marketing stunts (pretty obvious I suppose). The
barriers to entry and use are just still too high. Cost of VR hardware makes
it a no no for most, and having to prop sensors up around your lounge and hang
cables from your roof can make things very unsexy very quickly.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there is a hell of a lot of
hype about VR at the moment, and not just in the enthusiast circles. So if
someone can lower that barrier to entry to a reasonable level where your semi-
early adopters can partake and start showing off their gear at work and with
friends then I think it is likely to see success.

I don't think there will be any shortage of content creation, and I also don't
think the argument about available phones is too valid. The current race that
is underway with phone creators to develop the next best phone paired with the
obsession of people to own the best phone will make sure a lot of people are
walking around with VR ready phones in no time.

I hope this wasn't completely incoherent, but this conversation also reminds
me of this : [https://xkcd.com/1497/](https://xkcd.com/1497/)

------
NathanKP
I think the approach of giving it a fabric look and feel will be huge for the
non techy consumer market appeal. This device looks like something that I can
put on and relax on the couch with. The other VR headsets I've seen are much
more of a "strap this hard plastic gadget to your head" feel.

~~~
usaphp
The problem with fabric is that it gets dirty pretty quick, you can wipe
plastic easily, but with fabric, it will be a dirty mess in a week of use.

~~~
emehrkay
It looked like it was even fabric on the nose area, while very comfortable,
I'd imagine that is where a lot of sweat would gather.

~~~
coleifer
What the hell do you think you're going to be doing? You'll be parked on the
couch.

~~~
slowmotiony
Have you used any VR headsets? Sweating is definitely a real issue.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
I'm sick of phones as the basis for VR. I tried Cardboard, it has real
problems. The battery life is bad when you're doing 3D things, the phone gets
very hot on your face, and the GPU is underpowered for pretty much every
purpose including rendering a realistic enough scene for VR immersion.

~~~
increment_i
In my mind, there's no other way for VR to go mainstream except for mobile.
Average people will not buy a multi thousand dollar gaming rig, and the big
software companies want to see how big of a whale this thing really is.

If VR is going to go beyond the high end gaming niche, people are going to
have to be able to access it through the computer in their pocket.

~~~
hood_syntax
> If VR is going to go beyond the high end gaming niche

Why should it? Frankly, that seems to be the main use case. VR that can fit in
a phone isn't worthwhile VR, it would be incredibly underpowered.

~~~
atom-morgan
VR has so many possibilities outside of gaming I think saying gaming is the
tip of the iceberg might be exaggerating gaming's overall role in VR.

~~~
beefield
Could you mention a few?

(I definitely am not trying to be sarcastic, your statement is pretty much
what I think, but somehow whenever I try to think of these practical
opportunities, I fail to grasp anything with even remotely the potential user
base of gaming.)

~~~
wehadfun
I asked the same question and got downvoted to oblivion. In what situation
would you watch netflix on this as opposed to your 60 inch TV?

~~~
Corrado
How about on a long, boring, airline flight?

~~~
wehadfun
Yes, on a flight, passenger in a car/bus, maybe on a machine on gym.

------
erikpukinskis
All I want for Christmas is mobile positional tracking. Leap Motion. John
Carmack. Google Tango. ZED. Who will be The One? Who will get positional
tracking into a phone or headset?

Edit: In my fantasy world Carmack is teaching himself chip design and will put
a low power positional tracking computer vision ASIC in the next GearVR. Why
Oculus isn't putting the full force of their company behind that National
Treasure of a man I have no idea.

~~~
rawnlq
There's something like this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkwew3bfWU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkwew3bfWU)

~~~
erikpukinskis
Yah! Add it to the list of dev kits. My question is who gets it integrated a
phone or headset first so it can have widespread adoption?

------
kmonad
This could be straight out of the show 'silicon valley'. Gorgeous polar lights
as the background of a sleek landing page, a strange but appealing geometric
structure hovering between dark outlines of trees --> scrolling down, a pair
of diving goggles are revealed that you can use to stick your phone into.
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited and it's probably going to be cool, it's just
hilariously stereotypical.

~~~
bduerst
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZB2s3-Q15s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZB2s3-Q15s)

------
eridius
So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is basically a productized Google
Cardboard?

~~~
tree_of_item
More like Google Cardboard was a toy Daydream. As in, Daydream was always the
intention, but some hackers did a quick proof of concept in cardboard and it
kinda took off.

~~~
1_2__3
Daydream is still a toy. It's just a fabric toy instead of a cardboard one.

------
pitchups
Really disappointed that it does not support the current line of Google phones
- in particular the Nexus 6P. At least it is not listed as officially
supported on the website - which only lists the Pixel:

[https://vr.google.com/daydream/phones/](https://vr.google.com/daydream/phones/)

~~~
izacus
Daydream SDK currently only works on Nexus 6P, but comes with this warning:

> Caution: The 6P's thermal performance is not representative of the consumer
> Daydream-ready devices that will be launching later this year. In
> particular, expect the 6P to thermally throttle CPU and GPU performance
> after a short period of use, depending on workload.

It seems that it's a hardware issue.

~~~
pitchups
That is precisely the problem - the 6P was touted as the best top-of-the-line
Android phone when it was launched - just a year ago. And now, it is "not
representative of the consumer Daydream-ready devices that will be launching
later this year". So while Pixel is ready for daydream VR today, it very well
might not work at all with the next big thing that Google announces in a year
or six months..

~~~
jptman
What's the alternative? Not announce new features that won't perform well on
current hardware? If details emerge that they could have made the 6P perform
well but chose not to, that's something to be disappointed about, but that
doesn't seem to be the case.

~~~
fulafel
If you realize too late your product is not fit for purpouse [1], you recall
and replace it. Especially if you're a big estabilished company flush with
cash and an expensive brand to protect. (I wonder if their decision to drop
the Nexus brand had a part here...)

[1] Obviously the VR SDK is not the benchmark here, the other well publicized
overheating problems with consumer apps are

------
bmacauley
Would it be possible to use Google Pixel as a personal high resolution
monitor? 2560 x 1440 is the equivalent of a 27 inch monitor...if you wore it
as a headset, how big would the monitor equivalent be? 50"?

If I could attach this to my Mac and use the headset instead of hunching over
a 15" laptop, I'd be very happy!

~~~
timecube
The actual resolution you get in an HMD is much, much lower than the screen
resolution. For example, a movie theatre screen in an Oculus Rift CV1 with a
resolution of 2160 x 1200 (1080 x 1200 per eye) would have an effective
resolution of about 720x480.

Of course, you can create as many of these screens as you want in a virtual
space, but the resolution combined with the distortion will hinder any text-
heavy work.

~~~
ryandamm
One of the issues here is the content isn't tied directly to the pixels in the
display. You have competing rasters: the raster of the input video (or desktop
rendering), and the raster of the display device. They don't necessarily
interact in a nice way.

That's actually the reason VR experiences seem so low-rez (well, among many
others) despite having high resolution displays.

------
jimrandomh
Does this offer any advancements over the Oculus/Samsung GearVR? Given that
they're launching a full year after Oculus, I would hope for something more
than a direct clone.

~~~
pen2l
Yes, a lot of things.

But most significantly, the auto calibration and focusing. (Currently, if you
have a VR headset and want to use it with a phone, you have to go through a
painstaking process of making sure the phone is in the dead center. Sometimes
even when you have centered it, it can get a little bit off if you shake the
phone really hard or whatever... and then you get headheaches if it's not
properly aligned). This is a pretty big deal in my view.

Other than that, the whole integrated environment and the new joystick-like
interface thing is a pretty big deal too.

~~~
soylentcola
Plus isn't the GearVR limited to specific Samsung phones? The Daydream headset
seems more like a nicer version of cardboard in that it's a "dumb" headset and
the phone does all the work.

Ordered a Pixel to upgrade my Nexus 5 but not buying the headset so I guess
I'll find out when I plop it into my Cardboard headset to test it out.

~~~
MikusR
Daydream is limited to specific Daydream certified phones.

------
gberger
The Harry Potter exclusive is gonna be huge.

~~~
Robby2023
Do you have more info about that?

~~~
om42
They talked about it earlier during the live stream. Looked like a unique
experience from "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" where you're a
wizard.

~~~
ericjang
_" you're a wizard"_

Say no more. Take my money.

------
ececconi
I'm on an airplane twice a week. It would be awesome to have this and watch
movies on it. A personal isolation device.

~~~
rbosinger
This is one of the only practical uses for everyday non-techie people I've
been able to come up with for these phone-based VR systems (like GearVR). It
could also apply to college kids living in small dorms and such. I can't see
my mom buying anything like this and strapping it to her head while sitting
contently in a huge suburban house. Then again, I never thought I'd see her
using an iPad, iPhone and messing with a SmartTV at the same time...

~~~
72deluxe
I agree with you. The difference with the iPad and a smart TV is that they are
comparable to "normal" activities (like reading a book, and watching TV). The
interaction with the items hasn't changed, just the way it is presented and
the control of it (eg the TV remote has more buttons now).

With this, it is an entirely different scenario. You can no longer hear things
(telephone, door bell, someone shouting for help). The iPad and smart TV do
not stop interaction with other humans. This does. It's about as attractive as
being in a room full of people at a party and a moody teenager (not saying all
are BTW) sitting resting their face on their fist with earphones in, staring
at their phone. It's just not social.

I do not see this becoming mainstream, despite the excitement from the tech
community (and those who enjoy isolating themselves, or perhaps us developers
who are perfectly happy to sit in a room with others in silence, typing). We
devs are normally seen as odd - admin staff at work say "the developers don't
ever talk!!"; this will only exacerbate the problem. So, although some of us
may enjoy sitting in a room with a device strapped to their face to the
chagrin of those around us, I can't see it being socially acceptable.

------
6stringmerc
I do like the notion of comfort the fabric provides. Seems portable.

I used to commute by bus, approx 45 minutes each way. I don't think I would've
used this on that trip. Extending that, I don't think I'd be particularly
interested in using this at home, as infrequently as I genuinely plop down for
an immersive HDTV (or 3D) experience (ex. football games & films are my draw,
not very often). I just giggle a bit to myself thinking what I'd look like
wearing one and bobbing my head around in public or at home. Heh.

~~~
ryandamm
Yeah, we all saw how Glass went over. Perhaps this is made out of cloth so
aggressive bystanders don't cut their fists on it when they punch you in the
face?

------
kyledrake
A proprietary VR framework for a specific flavor of mobile phone with
inadequate displays that will make people want to vomit if they try to use it
for any serious amount of time. Wonderful.

God forbid we come together on WebVR instead of turning the VR space into yet
another "monopolies punching eachother" not-invented-here pit fight.

~~~
watty
I've got a GearVR with Galaxy S6 and the display is adequate. Not one of the 6
or so people I've let try it have wanted to vomit.

No one is stopping you from running with your own WebVR platform, my guess is
that it's not an easy thing to make money off of (which is what Google does).

~~~
kyledrake
> I've got a GearVR with Galaxy S6 and the display is adequate. Not one of the
> 6 or so people I've let try it have wanted to vomit.

Try using it for an hour or more. Keep a toilet handy.

> No one is stopping you from running with your own WebVR platform, my guess
> is that it's not an easy thing to make money off of (which is what Google
> does).

It's fun to pretend this is a passive thing that doesn't hurt the rest of the
industry, but they've cannibalized talented people for this project that were
previously working on WebVR. So I'm sorry if I'm not all that jazzed about
torturing developers for the next 10 years with several shitty proprietary
SDKs for doing VR development that won't work with eachother, when we could
have a _standard_ we can all come together and agree on and that runs on every
device and platform with the same code. Have we seriously learned nothing from
mobile phone competing SDKs and proprietary app stores nightmare?

~~~
vinylkey
> Try using it for an hour or more. Keep a toilet handy.

I don't think that's quite fair. Some people might get nausea from using VR
while others won't. Just like carsickness doesn't affect everyone,
"VRsickness" doesn't either.

~~~
kyledrake
It's not about an individual's tolerance, it's because the phones are not
capable of having a refresh rate that's fast enough for your brain's ability
to process it. That's why all the serious VR headsets right now require a
physical cable.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBtXMtUNpdE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBtXMtUNpdE)

It's going to be a very long time before mobile phones are capable of refresh
rates sufficient to prevent this issue. The fastest consumer graphics cards
are barely capable of keeping up with this rate as-is. Aside from being yet-
another proprietary SDK for VR development, Google VR is DoA regardless
because it depends on a hardware platform that simply won't work well for what
it's trying to do.

Please let's focus on WebVR. Please?

~~~
1457389
>refresh rate that's fast enough for your brain's ability to process it

Lol can we keep junk science out of threads like these. Nobody knows enough
about the tech yet to say things like this, especially with such vehemence.
Let's start with the fact that the visual system definitely doesn't have some
sort of unitary processing rate. It's incredibly context dependent, just like
VR.

From personal experience I have never had VR sickness, and I use my Note 4
Gear VR every week on flights to watch multiple ~2hr movies and play timepass
games with no ill effects. On the contrary it's pretty fun once you get off HN
and actually try it...

------
hoodoof
The "phone on the face" approach to VR is a solid one, but it's going to be
Apple that makes it work and owns it because they control the ecosystem.

VR needs low end alternatives and "phone on the face" is it. From what I have
read, Samsung's POTF device actually works quite well.

Manufacturers such as Apple will see it as appealing because it gives
incentive to buy new and more powerful phones.

Google's POTF likely won't succeed (mind you it might have if they had more
control over the fragmented Android ecosystem), but Apple's POTF, when it is
announced, will be the winner in this category.

Were you wondering why the new audio port on the iPhone 7? That's the VR POTF
port.

~~~
imtringued
For clarification

POTF = phone on the face

------
metafunctor
There is very little information on the page. Am I missing something, or is
there more information somewhere else?

~~~
kakali
Here's some more information from the company blog:
[https://www.blog.google/products/google-vr/daydream-
bringing...](https://www.blog.google/products/google-vr/daydream-bringing-
high-quality-vr-everyone/)

------
asimuvPR
The important thing to consider is that VR is a new medium. Google's new VR
offering ties in with the most recent communication tool we've had: the
smartphone. Using the Pixel to onboard users into VR is a very smart move. It
makes the technology accessible in a non-threatening way. Will it succeed? I
don't know. It will, however, bring VR closer to being mainstream. We don't
know how VR and smartphones being combined will play out in the long run. Not
combining to find out would be foolish.

------
lorenzorhoades
The only thing I could honestly see myself using this for is reading. I don't
see much use for VR outside gaming. The movie going experience is already
pleasant enough that i don't really see myself transferring from that model.
Home watching movies is always a semi-social experience for me as well, but I
feel as though putting on this mask, and having to coordinate with your
partner when to start the movie, kind of takes away the whole point of
watching a movie. From a business perspective VR is way to obvious of a field
for any one company to get a strong hold on one corner of the market. It will
take some serious technology or innovation to break through and i've sat here
for the last 20 minutes trying to think what that would look like and I can't
come up with a single idea besides maybe having a patented solution to the
motion sickness problem. Even then, it's highly unlikely that one company will
win out in this market like apple did with the iphone. That being said, i'm
glad google is creating competition in this space, even though i believe it
will end in a net loss. Making the platform depedent on a new phone might be
good for the phone, but i think they are ensuring that the plateform itself
loses. Maybe if they made the field of vision adjustable, so that every phone
could be used with it, this VR would have a much larger market. Also, they
could still push their new phone by saying " You think the VR experience is
great with your iPhone? try this new phone that is specifically built for the
VR, oh, and by the way, it's much better than the iPhone in all these areas,
why not give it a shot?"

------
asenna
Does anyone know if the headset is supported by the Nexus 6P?

The 6P is a very capable device and I don't see a reason to upgrade mine. But
I am thinking of trying out some Daydream VR development.

I know that till now, 6P was the only device to develop for Daydream, but I'm
wondering how well would it work with the actual headset released today. Maybe
just run at some low fps but not too bad for trying it out? Or is the headset
locked for only "Daydream certified" phones (I doubt they'll lock out the 6P
though).

~~~
sxp
From [https://developers.google.com/vr/daydream/dev-kit-
setup](https://developers.google.com/vr/daydream/dev-kit-setup)

"Caution: The 6P's thermal performance is not representative of the consumer
Daydream-ready devices that will be launching later this year. In particular,
expect the 6P to thermally throttle CPU and GPU performance after a short
period of use, depending on workload."

~~~
daveloyall
Sounds like a home-made heatsink could increase performance for that device.
And based on the photos of Daydream, I'd say there's room to install one... I
think getting good heat transfer connectivity might be tough (does that device
get hot on the front or back?) and weight might be a problem.

~~~
asenna
Having played with some VR apps on it, gets hot on the back

------
Eliezer
Will there ever be a VR option for those of us who still wear glasses?

~~~
Kapura
The guy introducing the product specifically called out that the daydream
headset fits over glasses

------
_pmf_
As much as VR pundits may hate it, if VR will succeed (as in: used by a broad
audience), it will be in this way rather than as dedicated device. That is, if
Google actually supports these APIs and does not throw early dev adopters
under the bus (I fear this will happen, though).

Like it or not, but Apple will have to make a move.

------
davesque
I like how Google is trying to bring VR into everyone's home. However, how
accurate can the head movement tracking actually be without some kind of
external tracker? I'm sure there must be some perceptible drift between the
actual position of your head and the tracked position.

~~~
dindresto
I've been suspicious as well about that at first, but after having tried
Google Cardboard myself on a OnePlus 3, I was surprised by how accurate
accelerometer powered head tracking worked. I'm sure there are specific cases
that aren't covered by this level of accuracy, but overall, it works perfectly
fine.

~~~
hashhar
It's not just accelerometer, the gyroscope is what makes it so stable.

The gyroscope combined with the accelerometer and the compass is able to
accurately find your relative motion in 3D space without any external
references (just the initial point) using simple physics. But yes it also
drifts but very slowly.

~~~
davesque
I wonder if there's any way to periodically compensate for the drift, such as
with video information taken from the camera or something like that? Seems
like it should be possible to do this.

------
psandersen
I really wish the mobile VR platform could also be run as a low latency
wireless display for a decent PC. Seems like it could get many more PC gamers
to try VR (already own phone, pc, just spend $80 on headset), and cement
Daydream in as the baseline platform. There are were rumours of sufficiently
low latency and cost effective wireless display tech 6 months ago so it should
be feasible.

Such a partnership could be in both Google and Valves interest, really good
counter to Occulus/Facebook too.

------
kartickv
What are the hardware requirements? I've seen only vague talk about low-
persistence displays, high performance CPUs and GPUs and sensors. How low
should the persistence be? What FPS? Is there any specific level of
performance required from CPUs and GPUs, like a specific number on a benchmark
or a particular Qualcomm processor?

------
johansch
So, just to set expectations:

All of the big SV companies need to have a VR play and this is Google's.

Personally I believe in the long-term viability of VR, but in this case it
just seems like an expendable just-in-case-it-takes-off thing.

/ Feeling slightly burned from them more or less abandoning the last Google
hardware I bought; the Nexus Player tv set-top-box.

------
ucaetano
I like the inspiration for it: not a hard game controller, but a sleeping
mask. That's actually a good insight.

------
pasbesoin
Prediction: Someone's going to put two cameras into a phone and do pupil
tracking. Or, can programmatic analysis get by with one?

P.S. For bonus points, add pupil dilation measurement for emotional analysis.
And bloodflow including respiration (perhaps in conjunction with periodic
micro-movement).

Maybe three cameras? More?

------
jtl999
I hope the Pixel phone screens don't have PWM flicker, because of being
AMOLED.

I wish flicker free VR existed.

------
halite
This somehow remind me of Playstation home
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Home))
which was a neat concept but never quite gained the momentum.

------
pmontra
Strange that weight is missing from the spec. You want the lightest phone
stuck to your head.

~~~
rtkwe
Most of the weight will be whatever phone you slot into it most likely. And
absolute weight isn't as important as it being properly supported. The
difference between the Vive headset properly and poorly adjusted to your head
is night and day.

------
wehadfun
For most people the best use for these googles is being able to a watch 60
inch TV when other wise you couldn't. Headphones have a similar use of letting
you play a stereo when other wise you couldn't.

~~~
kbaker
60 inch?! You could be (virtually) in the stands at the game!

~~~
MollyR
this could be a killer app in america.

------
fjabre
VR is the future but still distant IMHO when the headsets are this big. As it
turns out it's not that comfortable wearing a screen on your face.

This looks more like lipstick on a pig than the future of VR.

------
iplaw
The press release says that they play nice with lots of devices ... but then
list only one device. The Google Pixel. Which isn't even available.

Where's the iPhone app and compatibility?

------
jpkeisala
I just wonder if VR is ever going to be for the big masses. Right now it feels
like 3D Television. Everyone is pushing it and I admit it's nice like 3D
television is nice.

------
Animats
Is there position tracking? Or is this just for watching 3D movies?

~~~
FLGMwt
There's rotational tracking (look up, down, left, right), but not position
tracking (moving head from side to side, walking). The Remote apparently has
positional and rotational tracking though, which is new to mobile VR.

The application space is roughly the same as that of Cardboard and
Oculus/Samsung GearVR. Which I'd say is roughly split between videos, 3D game-
like experiences, and games.

------
altonzheng
I wonder if there's specific hardware needed to make a phone Daydream enabled
or if it's just to draw people to the Pixel/future Android phones.

------
chadlavi
so you have to buy their new phone to use this?

cross this off my list then.

~~~
kyrra
"Requirements: A Daydream-ready smartphone, like Pixel"

Pixel is the only one for sale I believe that is Daydream ready, but more are
on their way from other manufacturers. ex: ZTE Axon 7 and Asus Zenfone 3
Deluxe[0].

[0] [http://www.androidauthority.com/google-daydream-vr-ready-
pho...](http://www.androidauthority.com/google-daydream-vr-ready-
phones-705245/)

~~~
chadlavi
Cardboard works on iOS, and I can't imagine there's any technical reason not
to make this work on non-android devices.

~~~
cbhl
Phones overheating when you push them to their limit is a very strong
technical reason to only support certain phones.

------
estefan
They should stop beating about the bush and just work directly with the
industry that drives this sort of adoption: pronogrpahers

------
SonicSoul
its interesting how wildly different these big companies are when it comes to
product delivery. Apple will not say a word until they are ready to ship.
Google will announce way in advance so their developers don't have much choice
but to ship. "done but buggy > perfect". I suppose release dates get delayed
often. Not sure which approach is better.

------
markingram
Boring... They are just trying to sell their pixel phone... Seriously, haven't
seen one great hardware product from Google.

~~~
72deluxe
I was disappointed they didn't announce a merging of Chrome OS and Android,
and a full-blown "proper" laptop running a local OS to compete with
Windows/OSX.

This may sound far-fetched, but given how many apps they have for their
platform(s), it would be a good move. I am not keen to buy a Chrome OS laptop
(why do I need permanent internet connectivity? microcomputers negated the
need for a mainframe...), but one that runs its own local OS that can operate
independently of a remote system (like many Android apps that save locally,
then sync periodically) would be good.

------
locusm
That carpeted look reminds me of my carpeted Holden VR Commodore dashboard. Is
there an Aussie on the team?

------
miles_matthias
I'm excited about VR, but strapping your phone to your face doesn't seem like
the best approach.

~~~
rtkwe
It's not, but it's not meant to be. It's a place for more people to get to
experience it because it's still way cheaper than buying the current best
solution Vive + a gaming system capable of running it then get excited for the
Vive or Oculus 2+ in a few years when the specs to run them are easier and
maybe we can fit the positional tracking onto the headset instead of requiring
lighthouses.

~~~
rbosinger
Totally. This is the early adopter "Sure I'll blow $100 on this toy along with
my new phone" kind of stuff. People that get these kind of things now will
show friends. They'll get excited. Those friends will buy into VR in droves
when the kinks get worked out.

------
noonespecial
Off topic, but e-gads Google, 3mb and 13 seconds to load? Glad I didn't do
that on my phone.

------
spullara
Mobile VR makes little sense to me except potentially on airplanes. AR on the
other hand...

------
nickysielicki
When they say, "take a look at the devices designed and built for virtual
reality", and the only device is the new Pixel, I have to wonder if this means
that the Pixel has a display with an unusually high refresh rate or
resolution, or if Google just really wants to kill the ecosystem before it
begins with needless exclusivity.

------
ftrflyr
Bring back the View-Master! I personally would never buy something that I have
to strap around my head. Remember those things called helmets? Even today, it
is a struggle to get both kids and adults to where them. I think these
companies are completely missing the mark about VR. I would use a View Master
over Oculus, Google, etc.

~~~
radiorental
They did bring back the viewmaster(vr) [https://www.amazon.com/View-Master-
Virtual-Reality-Starter-P...](https://www.amazon.com/View-Master-Virtual-
Reality-Starter-Pack/dp/B011EG5HJ2)

It's pretty darn good. No strap too.

~~~
ftrflyr
No way!

~~~
thebouv
Yep! Works pretty nice actually, even with an iPhone 6.

The classic ViewMaster lever is there too, but it allows you to "click" the
screen. It's fun.

------
fudged71
I hate to say it but... this would really be great with a set of wireless
earbuds.

------
knodi123
They should make a shorter list of just exactly how it's different from
cardboard.

------
fbreduc
its called going outside, people developing this stuff should try it sometime

------
flippyhead
I like the name anyhow.

------
macandcheese
Is nobody concerned about basically staring into a cell phone 2 inches in
front of their eyeballs?

~~~
Sargos
Not really. Your eyes are focusing into the distance. It's not really "2
inches away" when you are looking at it.

~~~
MBCook
Makes sense. I believe Sony has said that the PS VR is designed so you focus
on it like it's 8' from you to make it more comfortable.

I can't imagine anyone could focus on something 2" for more than a few minutes
without serious issues.

------
rnernento
Just what VR needs, another slightly different platform...

~~~
lallysingh
Until something sticks in the market, it's good to have a variety of products.
The differences for software devs are essentially some camera projection
settings and tolerances to sensor error.

------
siavosh
Have either Google or Oculus addressed any health risks due to cell/wifi as a
result of holding a phone close to your face for extended periods?

~~~
asciimo
I think there would need to be evidence that holding a cell/wifi chose to your
face causes health problems. This is what the American Cancer Society thinks,
if you trust them:
[http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/a...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-
phones)

~~~
macandcheese
From that ACS page you linked to

> "The study found increased (although still low) risks of these tumors in
> male rats exposed to RF radiation, although there was no increased risk
> among female rats."

> "There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of
> people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret
> because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as
> other issues."

> "Some studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies
> published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased
> risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held,
> particularly with 10 or more years of use."

> "A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have
> some other effects on the brain, although it’s not clear if they’re harmful.
> The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their
> ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone
> used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain."

How can people dismiss this as not worrying? How can people bring these
concerns into discourse without being labeled a Luddite?

------
fredliu
Sigh, kinda disappointed given all the hype and secrecy around this, and makes
me doubt the near future of VR (I have a Vive, and was a believer until this
point). For VR to really take off, we do need a "good enough" experience for
the mass while letting the Vives driving the leading edge. Cardboard was
clearly not good enough (otherwise it would have taken off by itself already),
Daydream (with Pixel phone) just seems like a polished version of cardboard,
but still not good enough: actually, is it in anyway better than cardboard
towards the direction of Vive? Slightly higher resolution? A little bit more
comfortable, maybe easier to setup, and that's it? How about 6 degree of
freedom, more precise controller tracking? at least 1K per eye resolution?
Just wish Daydream won't _kill VR_ by over-marketing it and fails to deliver.
If that happens, it may take another decade for VR to come back.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>For VR to really take off, we do need a "good enough" experience for the mass

Says who? VR has the Vive, the Oculus, and soon the PSVR. Later it will have
an Xbox headset. So you have the PC and consoles all supporting games. Exactly
what else do you need? As a vive owner I don't understand why people think
there's this natural market demand to have these in every pocket and every
home. They are specialist devices. Most people aren't drawn to VR, even if it
was made super simple and super cheap. This is like saying the Fallout series
is a failure because its not on mobile. We need to stop this mobile-centric
thinking. Mobile has its own use cases. Its not a universal thing.

~~~
fredliu
> Most people aren't drawn to VR. That's an interesting observation,
> especially from a Vive owner. From my limited experiences, everyone I showed
> Vive to was blown away by it (demo ranges from teenagers to non-techie
> adults), and definitely wanted to use it more, the only problems for them to
> have one of their own immediately are 1) price point, 2) setup complexity.
> On the contrary, Cardboard users responses were lukewarm in general.

Regarding VR for the mass, I see it as a new content consumption platform, the
fact that it's mostly for games right now doesn't mean it'll stay in that way.
Isn't introducing/promoting VR for the mass exactly what Daydream is intended
for? Otherwise I'm not sure why Google is interested in pushing a platform
just for a niche market.

