
Daydream Is Google’s Android-Powered VR Platform - T-A
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/18/11683536/google-daydream-virtual-reality-announced-android-n-io-2016
======
mmanfrin
We're less than 2 months away from the first real releases of VR equipment and
already the ecosystem is fractured in to at least 4 different
platforms/SDKs/styles: Oculus, SteamVR/OpenVR/Vive, Google Daydream,
Playstation VR.

I fear the fracturing will make total adoption lower and slower, as developers
will have to choose sides or spend way more time developing for all platforms.

~~~
djloche
It's really three levels:

High End - Desktop ( Vive / Oculus ) $600-800

Console ( PSVR ) $400-500

Mobile ( Google / Oculus / ?? ) $99-??

Console vs Desktop vs Mobile -- that's the real issue. The leap from Mobile VR
to Desktop VR is huge. PSVR -- remains to be seen what Sony does on the
hardware front (PS4.5 with new ATI card, or ??).

~~~
moogly
There's also high-end mobile (Samsung Gear). 300 bucks? 400? Don't know
exactly.

~~~
moron4hire
Gear VR is only an additional $99. You have to have one of the select few
phones it works with, but I don't think it's any more fair to count that in
the cost of the setup than it is to count the PC in the cost of the desktop VR
system, or the house in the cost of the roomscale VR system.

~~~
moogly
My bad! I went by the old Samsung Note-based price range. Had no idea they
lowered the price that much.

~~~
dingo_bat
They also gave it away to a lot of S7 buyers. So most people have it for 0$.

------
gregmac
Wonder if they'll rename the screensaver in Android TV, also called
'Daydream'? [1]

[1]
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.backdrop)

~~~
yohui
All Android devices had "Daydream" screensavers (Settings > Display >
Daydream).

In the latest Android N preview, it's been renamed to simply "Screen saver".

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Going to be awfully confusing for consumers searching for "daydream" looking
for VR content or screen savers and finding both:

[https://play.google.com/store/search?q=daydream&c=apps](https://play.google.com/store/search?q=daydream&c=apps)

~~~
spbaar
On the bright side, my daydream app will get some accidental installs!

------
JacobKyle
The headset doesn't look different from other mobile VR devices. I was
hoping/expecting to see something with tango integration for head tracking.

~~~
monk_e_boy
I wonder if the headsets will ever get as small as a normal pair of glasses
(or goggles)

~~~
KnightHawk3
I think due to how optics works the screen must be a little bit away from the
face, most of the bulk is empty space.

------
DonHopkins
>"A Daydream home screen will let people access apps and content while using
the headset; an early look shows a whimsical forest landscape with the
slightly low-poly look that Google has used in Cardboard apps."

Google Bob! ;)

------
delphinius81
Was anyone able to glean from the video if the controllers/HMD provided
positional tracking, or just orientation tracking? Either way, a more open
mobile VR platform sounds great (though a little disappointed in that Daydream
feels like an "us-too" announcement). I was hoping they would announce solving
positional tracking on a mobile device. Nothing all that earth shattering here
at the moment. :/

~~~
JacobKyle
It's definitely not positionally tracked, looks like it's just a nice imu +
touchpad.

~~~
wuliwong
I don't know much about this space, how do you know it's definitely not
positionally tracked? My reason is that they didn't talk about it, so I figure
it isn't but I'm not certain.

~~~
JacobKyle
None of the controlled objects in VR responded to any of the positional
movement. You can see that the wand / pole is just rotating around a center-
point attached to the user.

Positional tracking is a really challenging problem with a lot of limitations.
If they were using computer vision to track the controller it would need to be
held within the device's FOV and have identifiable elements such as a marker
or LEDs. There are other approaches, but nothing I've seen that would work
well on an HMD.

I've been working with AR/VR for the better part of a decade, and controller
tracking's come up several times. I can tell from my own work that the device
they're showing off is IMU only. It's too bad, something equivalent to the
Vive controllers for mobile VR would be fantastic.

And at the end of the day - you're right. If it was spatially tracked then
they definitely would have mentioned it.

~~~
iofj
> Positional tracking is a really challenging problem with a lot of
> limitations. If they were using computer vision to track the controller it
> would need to be held within the device's FOV ...

First, I think positional tracking of the person within his/her environment is
one of the main things that makes the difference between VR and AR. So there's
value in that. If you can do it with computer vision maybe it can work in
almost any environment.

Second, there are RF based positional tracking systems. They're more
expensive, true (not if you can design chips yourself, so might even be
cheaper for google), but you don't need the controller to have visible
elements.

Third, hand tracking like this should be able to work usefully, shouldn't it ?
I know it doesn't do distance, but ... Just hang it off the viewer pointing
downwards with a large volume immediately in front of the user. Not great for
gaming probably, but for a virtual keyboard it should work, no ?
[http://www.ctxtechnologies.com/products/vk-200-keyfob-
virtua...](http://www.ctxtechnologies.com/products/vk-200-keyfob-virtual-
keyboard/)

------
Lionleaf
This is a big deal. It basically adds the two factors that made GearVR better
than cardboard to any VR ready Android phone: OS integration and better IMU
sensors. It basically puts high quality (but not cutting edge) VR in everyones
pocket, all you need is a dumb holder with lenses.

My prediction is that this will play a huge role in mass adoption of VR!

~~~
joeyrideout
I completely agree. I thought Samsung/Oculus had gotten it right with the
GearVR, but the performance improvements from a native, full-stack integration
of VR functionality is giving me goosebumps. They even have a new spec which
multiple vendors can get behind.

I'm going to start researching this platform _now_ and will invest my time as
a developer in it as soon as possible. I predict that this will be a good
platform to get behind. Perhaps I'm being naive, but in a space with as much
market potential as VR, this vision has me incredibly excited.

edit: One more thought: The hardware that they showed in the demo appears to
be a step ahead of GearVR in usability as well. The headstrap isn't painfully
assembled (my GearVR unit falls apart half the time I put it on) and it comes
with input controllers. GearVR is woefully lacking in input options out of the
box.

------
mcantelon
TLDR: Google's following in Samsung's Gear VR footsteps with OS
optimizations/additional sensors in devices to improve VR experience.

------
jimrandomh
Have they said anything about latency or asynchronous timewarp? It's a bit too
technical to make it into end-user marketing content, but for game developers
ATW is a huge deal and it's an area where Cardboard was lagging way behind.

~~~
brianwawok
Well they have a certified device sticker... that sticker requires certain
latencies. They did not reveal the numbers, but in theory that should be a big
step.

~~~
pritambaral
I remember them mentioning in the keynote something about 20ms latency wrt.
Daydream

------
drzaiusapelord
What's the usage scenario here? I'm just not seeing mobile VR as a usable
thing. Does Google expect people to carry goggles around everywhere they go
like they do their phone? Worse, the crummy graphics and low framerate in the
video seems like a recipe for VR sickness.

I have a Vive at home and its wonderful for gaming, if a bit undercook and
still unable to deliver a pixel density that makes me happy (Vive2 perhaps?),
but I can't imagine a phone remotely competing with that still underpowered
experience.

I can see AR projection built into one's existing glasses a la Google Glass or
perhaps what MS is doing with AR, but VR is a totally different beast.
Comfort, performance, fov, pixel density, graphics quality, audio quality,
"presence," etc really matter. I just don't see Google pulling that off and
even if they got close, who exactly is clamoring for VR phones? I suspect
Google has just become too mobile centric and is shoehorning in whatever is
hot into its Android line and seeing what sticks (instead of refining Android
to be a better experience it seems). I'm not sure if that's wise. VR seems to
be more at home attached to a powerful computer in a safe indoor space where
people can feel free to move around without injury and get a high quality VR
experience. You shouldn't be doing VR at the bus stop.

~~~
gshulegaard
For me, I would be most excited about the lecture applications.

For example, what if every TED talk had a VR broadcast so you could slap on
your goggles and "attend" it. This goes for conference key notes or college
lectures. Anything where Physical attendance is a barrier and not a key
component of the experience I think would benefit from a lightweight VR
experience like this.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Why not just use a real VR headset then? When the prices come down on this
stuff it'll just be seen as another peripheral for your computer. It won't be
this enthusiast toy. Are you walking around with your VR mask everywhere you
go just in case you see a TED talk you like? That seems incredibly
inconvenient. Even a low profile mask is a fairly bulky item.

I think attaching a phone to your face is going to give a subpar experience
compared to a dedicated device. I still don't see a use case here that's going
to get people excited. Especially after the largely milquetoast reception
smartwatches have gotten. VR masks are about 1,000x more geeky than those.
Image conscious people aren't going to be putting them on their face to
consume content in public.

~~~
ctdonath
For the same reason people bought iPods instead of audiophile stereos: yes,
the quality was inferior, but there is a great value to "here, now".

Just minutes ago a co-worker grabbed the office Cardboard VR and slapped in
his phone, and watched some of the Google I/O keynote. Cheap. Easy. Portable.
Low res, but there he was virtually at the presentation.

People will get used to the oddity of VR just as they did with cell phones,
hands free ear pieces, SIRI, coffee shop computing, etc and will get over self
driving cars.

My Dodo Case Cardboard VR folds up and fits nicely in my messenger bag. And I
like my Apple Watch, thank you very much.

Yours is a naysaying template I've heard for nearly every new technology for
decades, and here we are with most all those things now ubiquitous.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>eople bought iPods instead of audiophile stereos

iPods fit in pockets. VR headsets don't. Did you even bother to look at the
Google reference design? Its a huge headset and controller. Those aren't
convenient mobile things. They're not remotely portable like a phone or ipod
is.

~~~
ctdonath
Read the rest of my post.

They still have a place without having to be tied to a computer. Like I said,
we have a Cardboard at the office, same dimensions you object to, easy to have
around, easy to share, cheap, no dedicated computer needed. There are more
phones in the office capable of using the head mount than there are people.
Need more head mounts? cheap order from Amazon, arrive in two days. No hassle
of sharing a computer for it, just pop in your phone.

And like I said, some units do fold up convenient for travel.

------
moron4hire
It's kind of disheartening to see how much negativity gets heaped towards VR
on HN lately.

------
whatnotests
God seriously VR right now is so lame.

By now it should be way, way better.

Whoever is driving this shit off the cliff - please just stop while you're
ahead, go back to designing hospital websites or whatever it was before you
tried your hand at this, and let someone else do the whole newfangled "VR"
thing instead.

~~~
dang
Your comments have unfortunately been breaking the HN guidelines quite a bit.
Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

~~~
whatnotests
So...only cheering is allowed from the peanut gallery?

