
Virtual Reality Doesn’t Need a Killer App to Get Huge - InternetGiant
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/oculus-doesnt-need-killer-app/
======
bane
VR is a pretty high-friction way to interact with a computer. And by VR, I
don't just mean head-tracked goggles like lots of people seem to think the
word means.

There's an entire industry about to be formed (again) with the headset as the
start-point. All manner of haptic feedback input devices, audio equipment,
"walkers", and more, will start to become required to make the experience more
immersive. Before long big portions of people's home offices, rec rooms, and
living rooms will be taken up by all this stuff and big chunks of their bank
accounts will be drained by it.

I think it remains to be seen if the experience is worth all the expense and
fuss. We simply don't know at this point, but hopefully it really will all be
better than the last go around.

~~~
ethbro
_> VR is a pretty high-friction way to interact with a computer.

>I think it remains to be seen if the experience is worth all the expense and
fuss._

I would turn your comment around and argue that 10 million years of evolution
weren't focused on producing a homo sapiens sapiens example that could best
drive a mouse and keyboard across a 2D interface.

The fact that we've acquired some facility with doing so is a testament to our
generality rather than the suitableness of the interface.

Why is VR important?

Because it's a gateway to immersive interface patterns than allows our brains
to more fully flex their innate resources. I'll make you a $2 bet we both
chuckle that this question was even asked in 25 - 50 years. Historical
reference: initial reaction to the "mouse".

~~~
jbattle
I might suffer from a lack of imagination - but prior to direct reading of
thoughts from our brains - I don't see how "VR" will be any faster than input
mechanisms we are already very familiar with. Think about a perfect VR that
simulates reality flawlessly. You've only moved the goalposts. You are still
stuck with the problem of how a user indicates their intentions to another
agent (computer in this case - maybe a clever one). Are we going to turn
virtual steering wheels? Use virtual pencils? I can certainly see some niche
cases (virtual sculpture?) and video games will of course be better - but in
terms of efficiency of input I don't see something better than keyboard +
mouse before we get to mind-reading. Hell, I can even type almost as fast as I
can speak. But maybe I'm unusual and keyboards will become a sort of estoeric
form of input.

~~~
ethbro
Well, there's the superficial argument to "input mechanisms we are already
very familiar with" \- given that we as a community are probably drastically
undervaluing removing typing as a prerequisite skill for computing.

However, if we're using a human as our black box (e.g. input via eyeballs,
output via fingertips), then I'm admittedly more excited about VR from the
input side.

To make a hardware metaphor, the additional sensory channels can be looked at
as feeding functional units in our brains that are hitherto being
underutilized. Adding or widening channels takes us into SIMD interface
design. (I wrote superscalar, but that sounded like a terrible buzzphrase)

The caveat and challenge of course is whether or not these new resources can
be effectively utilized. At least for anything less trivial that a richer
consumptive experience (no offense intended to anyone in the multimedia
industry).

~~~
DonHopkins
Remember when the "multimedia industry" used to be called the "CDROM
industry"? It's kind of silly fetishizing the storage medium or the input
device and ignoring the expanded definition of "reality" that "moving the
goalposts" afforded.

While wondering how the term "virtual reality" will be thought of in the
future, I am reminded of this dialog from the Pirate Bay trial:

>“When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?” asked the Prosecutor.
“We do not use the expression IRL,” said Peter, “We use AFK.” “IRL?”
questioned the judge. “In Real Life,” the Prosecutor explained to the judge.

>“We do not use that expression,” Peter noted. “Everything is in real life. We
use AFK – Away From Keyboard.” “Well,” said Roswall. “It seems I am a little
bit out of date.”

If what he did was not in real life, then why did they lock him up in a real
prison for it?

Why don't we call the real world we interact with through keyboards, mice and
2D screens "virtual reality", even though some people who are a little bit out
of date would claim it's not "real life"?

Is an expression of approval any more real and less virtual if I express it by
clicking a "Like" button with a mouse, instead of looking at it, nodding my
head, smiling and laughing? And does whether or not I have an HMD strapped to
my head when I do that effect the sincerity of my expression?

If everything is in real life, then instead of "In Real Reality", maybe we use
something like "AFR - Away from Rift"?

------
kriro
Since we are currently working with VR technology (Unity Engine 3D
world+Rift+XBox controller) it's pretty interesting how rather trivial issues
can be quite challenging.

One example: When doing usability testing it's pretty common that people get
dizzy or can't use the glasses for 5 minutes+ (which in my book means...pretty
unusable). Even fiddling with some of the recommended settings doesn't help
all that much. So our next step there is to figure out a good prescreen
("carousel sickness" seems to correlate)

It's also interesting that after some preliminary/very quick research, VR is
often either not compared to other options at all or compared to non-tech
solutions (typically for training applications) whereas the comparison that I
expected intuitively (Rift vs. 3D engine with just a controller) is rare.

It's fun fiddling around with this stuff and I'm looking forward to learning
more about it in 2015 but my initial reaction is...sceptical. I may have
access to a CAVE next year though :D

~~~
sayangel
One really interesting thing I've found is that people are more forgiving of
something like Google Cardboard. They are also sometimes more excited by the
fact they could see themselves buying and using a cardboard set + mobile
device tomorrow vs the Oculus.

One architect who I showed some VR demos to told me the Oculus looks so cool
and intense that it's sort of a let down when you try it on and feel
nauseated. The cardboard on the other hand looks so cheap that when you try it
on it surpasses your expectations. So if you feel sick you're more forgiving
since it is after all just a piece of cardboard.

------
ctdonath
"VR Is Not Like Other Tech"

Yup. Just like all other tech.

------
zamalek
Which will never be put to the test because it already has at least two killer
apps[1][2].

[1]:
[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/)
[2]: [https://www.elitedangerous.com/](https://www.elitedangerous.com/)

------
melling
The arrival of hand tracking will help make VR headsets a lot more
interesting. Leap Motion has a VR attachment:
[https://www.leapmotion.com/product/vr](https://www.leapmotion.com/product/vr)

Here's a sensor based product: [http://controlvr.com](http://controlvr.com)

Finally, the Nimble VR Kickstarter project got acquired by Oculus even before
funding was finished:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nimblevr/nimble-
sense-b...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nimblevr/nimble-sense-bring-
your-hands-into-virtual-reality)

~~~
annapurna
We are a startup [1] working in this space (hand tracking) for some time and
it's been an interesting experience. Most of the hand tracking is done either
using cameras (vision/image-based) or sensors (gyros/accelerometers).

Leap Motion is already developing a product similar to Nimble VR. Control VR
intrigues me but my gut feeling is it'll be a while before their products are
available on the market (see Myo band for example, it took a while for them to
fulfill the orders and the product still has some issues based on the last
hackathon I attended)[2]. Regardless, it's an exciting area (bit niche) but
hopefully there will be a solution soon.

[1][http://www.breqlabs.com](http://www.breqlabs.com)

[2][http://www.betakit.com/team-raisins-wins-
sportshack-2014-tor...](http://www.betakit.com/team-raisins-wins-
sportshack-2014-torontos-first-sports-wearables-hackathon/)

------
programminggeek
I get the point of the article that VR needs to be interesting enough for the
early adopters to do something interesting with it. That much seems to be
happening.

What has to happen is something that is good enough to drop the $200-400, plus
other accessories. Realistically you're talking about a $500-1,000 purchase,
which is still in the niche category.

When VR gets down to $200-300 total, it will be more interesting for the
average consumer. That being said, every technology platform needs a killer
app.

For PC's it's still Office, Web, and Email. Smartphones are web, email, and
photo/social apps. Game consoles are usually one franchise game like Call of
Duty, Halo, Mario.

I struggle to think of a significant platform without a killer app or a big
hook.

------
applecore
Virtual reality isn't about “escaping reality.” If anything, this technology
makes it possible to relive your experiences, and, much more importantly, show
somebody else the inside of your own mind, both of which are reality-affirming
activities.

~~~
istorical
No it is exactly about escaping reality. It's literally fooling your sense of
sight and hearing with with more believable simulations than ever before, so
much that we now use the term "presence" to describe the feeling you get when
your reptilian brain believes you actually are in the place the headset has
transported you to.

It's the culmination of thousands of years of technological escapism that
began with literary fiction and has progressed to movies and video games. But
this new evolution promises to be the most potent form of escapism yet due to
presence.

Whether escapism can be used healthily is a different question, but it is
certainly escapism. Right now the technology is still primitive, but we do
need to begin to ask important questions about the priority we place on the
real world vs simulations. As we work towards brain computer interfaces, we
must decide the proper balance between inhabiting, playing in, and working in
the real world with its unbreakable physics and rules and the virtual world
where we may change the rules of the game whenever we wish and many
constraints are mutable.

~~~
kriro
I disagree with this. The most successful applications that I am aware of are
in realms where reality is being reproduced and not escaped. The key advantage
is that variables in those worlds can be changed and/or stuff isn't as
dangerous while still being realistic.

While escapist and fantasy worlds are fun and very much thinkable (and the
line is pretty blurry if you think of the use of VR in therapy for example)
reproducing reality is very much "a thing".

Domains that come to mind are: medical training specifically surgery and
training for miners.

------
gfodor
I agree with this article -- VR is so fundamentally compelling that even
saying it needs a "killer app" seems to miss the point. Did TV or radio need a
"killer app?" Certainly at the time there were major things TV or radio were
applied towards that helped get them into the mainstream, but at the core TV
and radio were inevitably going to spread throughout the world in some form.

~~~
justincormack
Radio's killer app was rock and roll. TVs was the soap opera.

~~~
acheron
Maybe we're defining "killer app" differently, but over 80% of US households
had a radio in 1940, a decade prior to the start of rock and roll.

I think of "killer app" to be something that drives the adoption of the
platform or whatever. "Why should I buy a PC? Oh, because Lotus 1-2-3 is
awesome." Nobody was buying radios because they wanted to listen to rock and
roll music; they all already had radios.

------
justaman
In the long-term, VR will be big. In the short-term, augmented reality will be
the way to go imo. --Walking down the street during lunch time and the
restaurants you pass each display their Yelp rating. Social media updates
displayed over a person's head as a "thought-bubble"\--

~~~
penprog
> In the long-term, VR will be big. In the short-term, augmented reality will
> be the way to go imo

augmented reality is a much harder problem to get right than vr (hmd vr that
is)

------
softdev12
To really hit the mainstream and get huge, VR needs to address the "hype"
build-up in new technologies. What I find singularly unique to VR over the
last few years is the announcement of one breakthrough company leapfrogging
another with just spec details, videos, and big funding. First, there was tons
of excitement with Oculus with Carmack joining. But then Magic Leap seems to
have developed something even better. Perhaps something new is about to be
announced beyond Magic Leap (only in a video demo of course). It makes the
mainstream consumer not want to purchase with the fear that something new is
going to put the hundred dollars of payment to waste.

Perhaps, VR companies would find the Apple secrecy approach valid. Only
releasing real products that are ready to be shipped in mass production within
a few months timeframe.

~~~
moron4hire
>> "But then Magic Leap seems to have developed something even better."

Do you have some sort of inside information, i.e. having experienced the Magic
Leap? Because I don't think any of the publicly available information can be
used to make such a statement.

~~~
sayangel
I think this is part of the "hype" mentioned in the original comment. All the
press seems to imply Magic Leap is creating a lightweight wearable capable of
allowing someone to focus on different objects in a scene and with retina-like
resolution.

I think seeing articles that sensationalize the $500k investment or call it an
"Oculus Killer" are what cause some of this hype. Although, I wouldn't say
it's necessarily a bad thing because VR isn't consumer ready yet and all these
articles are creating an early buzz around VR. So in that sense, it has gone
pretty mainstream.

~~~
endergen
$500M

------
return0
to those of you who have an oculus headset: how do u use it? i used it for a
few demos, but cant really see myself be bothered to use it often.

~~~
rickr
Simulators seem to be in the Oculus' wheel house at the moment. It's a coveted
item in the iRacing community and I would imagine flight sims are the same.

~~~
robertfw
It works so well in Elite Dangerous that many, many players are buying the DK2
and don't play a minute without it

------
rwmj
I showed my Oculus running the Tuscany demo to an architect last year and he
was absolutely fascinated by the possibilities.

~~~
mattdotc
There are actually already a few startups exploring this space. One of them
[1] sent some employees to speak in November at the New York VR Meetup [2]

[1] [http://www.floored.com/](http://www.floored.com/)

[2] [http://www.meetup.com/Virtual-Reality-
NYC/](http://www.meetup.com/Virtual-Reality-NYC/)

------
amelius
I'm sorry to say this, but pr0n is the only thing a technology needs to get
really big. So indeed.

~~~
onion2k
Is there any technology success that can really be attributed to porn? People
often cite the adult industry leading to the popularity of video recorders,
the VHS format, digital cameras, the internet, online payments, etc, but
_really_ porn had a very small part to play in their successes.

The idea that VR will take off because of porn seems ridiculous. VR's primary
benefit over screen technology is immersion and interactivity in a scene - yet
interactive porn has been a dismal failure.

~~~
tomjen3
Immersion in porn is a huge deal. I could see this making dating less
attractive for a lot of people and as VR progresses and becomes more and more
immersive it will become harder and harder to see or feel the difference
between porn and reality, but porn will always be cheaper and easier to get.

BTW don't confuse not being able to see or feel the difference with not
knowing the difference.

------
lwh
Usable BCI and there will be many great apps

------
moron4hire
The article mentions a certain type of naysayer, lacking in vision, that has
also bothered me for some time. How could you not see the potential for VR? It
_seems_ so obvious, I have difficulty explaining it. It's like trying to
explain vision to the blind. What sort of culture differences there must be to
make communicating this idea so difficult.

At the same time, a lot of VR enthusiasts bug the hell out of me, too. They
have their pet project and they think that's the _only_ thing worth doing in
VR. It's going on in this very thread right now: strong opinions on what is
and is not VR and any dissent otherwise is foolhardy.

People who talk about "oh, augmented reality is the only way the hardware is
going to make it, VR isn't enough." Or the folks who insist that "only a PC-
based platform will work, thus it is doomed, because the PC is doomed" or
"only a smartphone-based platform will work, thus PC-based work is doomed." Or
"you should be working on virtual tourism apps, that's the only thing people
are going to want to buy, hardcore games are too small of a market to worry
about."

That might be even worse than the visionless naysayer problem, because the
complete skeptic is most likely only so because he is ignorant, whereas these
guys are quickly becoming a new form of religious zealot. I'm still waiting
for the doom of the
(PC|console|mobile|casual|hardcore|client|server|centralized|decentralized|what
have you) market that has been predicted ever since I can remember. And
regardless of what will be the _most_ popular, why should one ever preclude
the other? The market is vast and diverse! Work on what you want! Failure to
find a market is not proof of the lack of a market.

I'm actively working in VR right now. We talk about "the community", but there
is no community. There's very little interpersonal support. I think everyone
has a fear that, unless they are the first to market with a killer app, then
they are doomed to languish in obscurity and aren't going to make anything
important. Maybe it's because everyone thinks it's going to be like the
smartphone app market gold rush. If you don't get in early, there will be no
money for you.

And it's a good point, if you forget that the bulk of the app market is junk.
Of course the 200th compass app isn't going to make any money. Yes, Flappy
Bird shouldn't have been such a runaway success. But it was just another Pet
Rock, and that lack of predictability in the market should be a sign that the
consumers _aren 't_ completely jaded yet and _are_ looking for novel
experiences. Who would have predicted the success of WhatsApp, which got
started long _after_ everyone declared the gold rush dead?

What I see is that the majority of the VR developers right now are going down
much the same road of style over substance, cranking out a ton of apps versus
spending time on a quality app. Part of that is timeline: we've only just now
reached a point where anyone could have had enough time to develop something
meaningful. But I fear that part of it is just the way we've trained
developers to act, with all of the cheesehead "growth hacking" and "SEO"
emphasis over solid art and engineering.

And I know, I'm engaging in criticism when complaining about criticism. But
come on, you have to be able to see the difference. Let's make a real
community of _developers_ , not petulant children all trying to one-up each
other. Let's try to learn from the mistakes of our past and try to be
inclusive, not exclusive.

