
Introducing Oculus Go, Plus Santa Cruz Updates - runesoerensen
https://www.oculus.com/blog/pioneering-the-frontier-of-vr-introducing-oculus-go-plus-santa-cruz-updates/
======
mherrmann
Does anybody know if VR headsets will eventually replace monitors? Would be
great for ergonomics. Much more portable, you don't have to sit but can lie on
a couch, have a lot of screen estate even in tight spaces such as on a plane
etc. That with a keyboard is my dream setup.

~~~
gervase
In the keynote, one of the developers said that they've done exactly this for
some of the dev team. Specifically, they are using Visual Studio, in VR, as
their primary development environment.

Could be hyperbole for marketing purposes, but even if so, I think we'll get
there soon enough. They explicitly said that replacing monitors is one of
their [long term] goals for VR.

~~~
H1Supreme
Maybe if the headsets became "ultra-comfortable", but these are nowhere near
that. I have some much better than average headphones, that are near top of
the line for comfort. They still are too much after a few hours.

~~~
spery
Are your headphones too heavy or do they put too much pressure around your
ears? I can work through whole day with my M50x. However it took some getting
use to them and stretching the overhead metal.

~~~
binaryblitz
If you get some of the nicer pads for them off amazon, they're even better.
Other than the music in my ears, I Honestly forget I have them on.

------
Osmium
Can someone explain to me how they can make a device worth buying for $200?
That seems incredibly cheap since the cost of decent VR systems are ~$500+ and
that's _without_ a machine to provide processing/GPU.

~~~
root_axis
It has no positional tracking so that already puts it within the "google
cardboard" region of user experience quality (compared with the premium
headsets)

~~~
greggman
I know it has no positional tracking but Apple's ARKit and Google's ARCore
seem to make it clear you can do positional tracking with only a camera on the
device, no external sensors.

Has anyone announced any VR that uses the AR tech for positional tracking?

~~~
pavlov
The accuracy of ARKit-style tracking is low. It’s mostly good enough for the
use case where you hold a 5” window in your hand to peek into the AR world...
But if you strapped it to your face, the latency and positional fluctuation
would give you motion sickness very soon.

------
zylent
"Today, we showed the next phase of Santa Cruz development, delivering hand
presence with two positionally tracked controllers. This is an important,
industry-first milestone that brings the magic and incredible design expertise
of Touch into a completely standalone experience."

How is this different than the vive controller?

~~~
vertoc
This is a stand-alone headset I believe - it doesn’t need a seperate computer
to run

~~~
rdslw
It does require a separate graphics card, though requiring separate PC or
console.

There need to be a place to dissipate that 200W+ of power current GTX cards
are using, and this is not possible to fit it in kind of binoculars.

Thats marketing gimmick Oculus is doing: it does not require phone (as
daydream does) but it does require graphics powerhouse to generate all the
virtual reality (unless you don't want the world to be as in current AAA games
which DO REQUIRE GTX kind of power).

~~~
meheleventyone
No it's fully standalone probably using mobile graphics hardware which as
noted by the Daydream etc. is already fine. It won't have the fidelity of the
tethered versions but not being attached to anything is a tremendous win in
terms of making the technology usable by anyone.

~~~
rdslw
I don't agree.

Because this (not requiring PC to show VR) either means:

1) Oculus is standalone (not requiring nvidias/amd 200W+ 200USD powershouses)
with comparable quality/features to what other (with PC) sets are doing
currently

OR

2) it is not standalone UNLESS you have much (and here I mean much!) worse
quality

ad1: this would mean that Oculus did a great breakthrough (rendering price of
nvidia stock overvalued tenfold - which we don't see) while also solving heat
dissipation issue (look at your typical GTX card and cooling they require and
POWER they require).

ad2: currently, AAA games do require powerhouse in graphics department, and
they still have a lot space to improve (from visual perspective). For VR you
need 90fps lowlatency dual(sic!) rendered graphics - this brings you either
subpar quality (A LOT OF SUBPAR) - hence I concluded this "no pc required)
marketing gimmick of Oculus. Yep, it may work, but not at the level (not even
close) to other solutions.

------
JohnTHaller
Curious why a user would opt for this over a Google daydream given that it's
near certain they already have a mobile device. Granted for iPhone users or
mid/low end Android users with lower resolution screens it would be more cost
effective than buying a mobile device with a good qhd screen.

~~~
skykooler
Possibilities: * User has an iPhone * User has a lower-end phone that can't
run this * User has a different phone OS (Windows Phone, Sailfish OS, etc) *
User's phone doesn't have long enough battery life while running 3d apps

~~~
abritinthebay
Mine would be “user doesn’t trust Google”

I don’t trust they’ll support it, develop it, focus on it, iterate on it, etc

and that’s without getting into trusting their ecosystem and privacy issues.

I trust google less than I trust almost any other large tech company.

~~~
fenwick67
"user doesn't trust Google but trusts Facebook" is a very slim slice of the
population

~~~
abritinthebay
As I said - that's without getting into the Privacy angles.

Facebook hasn't burned their trust in their support of their new products like
Google has. In fact, if anything, they have a better track record for that
(granted, via acquisition, but still).

I know _many_ non-technical types that refuse to adopt Google's new products
because they don't trust them to stick around. Outside of their core Google
Docs suite they have a real perception problem.

The fiasco that was Google Glass hurt them too. Android support is... weak at
best (and yes, that's not all Google's fault but they own the brand so they
own the backlash).

They just aren't a company you can trust in their products.

~~~
girvo
Facebook killed Parse, so it’s not all roses

~~~
abritinthebay
True, didn’t mean to imply that, but to be fair: Parse was much much less
known as a product than
glass/reader/wave/igoogle/buzz/talk/zeitgeist/answers... etc

------
mtgx
So I think that VR headsets (the real ones) do need to come down in price
before they (and VR in general) can become mainstream, even though the
technology is still quite not there yet, which means it will be hard to make
such devices cheap while also upgrading their technology (or at least
slow/er).

However, this isn't really what Oculus is doing here. This isn't a "cheaper
version of Oculus Rift". This is an _expensive version_ of Gear VR/any Android
Daydream headset.

It has some extra sensors and whatnot, but other than that, it should play the
same content. So how are most people going to understand the difference
between a $60-$100 Daydream headset and a $200 Oculus Go?

At least the $600 headsets actually offer you a different kind of experience
(realistic 3D games, etc), even though their price means they'll be relegated
to an early adopter market for a few more years.

~~~
BRAlNlAC
I don't even get who buys these cheaper VR headsets. I'm an early-adopter type
and I can't see the purpose of Galaxy VR, Google Daydream or this new Occulus
Go. I guess they are just like a $100+ novelty? At least the Vive (and to a
lesser extent the Rift) are gaming hardware that can be put to use if you have
a high-end tower, but the resolution and frame rates good VR requires need
state of the art hardware to run any (albeit subjectively) interesting titles
at this point in time. It seems to me like they are taking a product that
isn't there yet and pushing it to market hoping to dupe consumers into
spending money on a half-baked idea. Kinda like the push towards "tablet
computers" in the early 2000's.

~~~
gervase
I get the same feeling when I see these products. I think they are targeted at
the (surprisingly large!) segment of the population for whom their phone is
their _only_ computing device.

In the bubble that is HN, they make little sense, but I assume these companies
must have done some kind of market research that indicates that these products
actually drive demand in a consumer group that has basically zero overlap with
ours.

------
excalibur
Love it! Sure there will be gripes about the capabilities and the specs, but a
standalone headset that doesn't require a PC or phone is pretty much the ideal
form factor for VR.

~~~
ansible
In many ways, the standalone headset is potentially much better for VR/AR. At
least with regards to reacting to the user's movements. If the processing and
display is close to your face, that cuts down some of the latency.

Now, yes, I know that at the speed of light (or more properly the speed of
electrical signals) having a PC 3m away is only about 10ns, which is not going
to be noticeable.

But there will need to be translation on each end to send a signal that far
away, such as conversion to / from HDMI. If the embedded processor in the
headset is directly connected to the LCD, that type of conversion eliminated.
Ditto for cameras and other sensors needed for position tracking.

To reduce latency, developers are counting microseconds these days. Crazy.

~~~
Retric
What your describing is a non issue.

If you do something 10,000 time every frame that takes 10ns it's still only
0.0001 seconds and no you don't need to make that trip 10,000 times
sequentially.

------
polskibus
Did they improve the resolution at all? As far as I remember, I was still able
to see pixels and that spoils the immersion for me.

~~~
GuB-42
If anything, it will be worse.

The point of Oculus Go and Santa Cruz is to be untethered, and, if possible,
cheaper than the Rift.

While it is undoubtedly a worthy goal, as anyone who tried a VR headset can
tell you, it also means that you are letting go of the hundreds of watts
computing power that a compatible PC represents. And without that power, it
will be much more difficult to get the required latency, framerate and
resolution.

EDIT : The Oculus Go is actually a little better than the rift : 2560x1440 vs
2160x1200, same FOV and supposedly better optics, so in term of not seeing the
pixels, that should be better. The tradeoff is probably less details, maybe
with upscaling.

~~~
polskibus
That sucks. I wish they focused on best immersion quality first and optimize
next.

~~~
spicyj
It sounds like they claim making it untethered makes a big improvement to
immersion.

~~~
polskibus
I tried hololens, while I know it's AR not VR, the graphics sucked and it made
the immersion much much worse than being on cable would.

They should first achieve something that hooks people in ways not done before
even if it requires a 1080ti in sli + cable. Lowering the specs and/or quality
of the final image is the wrong way to do it.

~~~
agar
The market says otherwise.

In order from lowest to highest cost VR: GearVR, PSVR, Rift, Vive

In order from highest to lowest market share: GearVR, PSVR, Vive, Rift

Note that when Oculus lowered the Rift's price, sales dramatically increased.
It is very clear that cost remains one of the primary barriers to VR adoption.

Oculus is approaching the market with a tiered strategy of low (Go), medium
(Santa Cruz), and high (Rift) models at price points that maintain an
addressable market large enough to create a viable software ecosystem.

Based on their sales figures and market research, they believe high price and
insufficient content are the top two barriers to VR adoption. This is why they
fund 3rd parties to develop quality content (since the market isn't large
enough to recoup the development investment), and why they released Go.

An HMD requiring $1400 in graphics hardware alone (2x1080ti) might make a good
prototype - a "concept car" or "super car" if you will - but not a good
commercial product. Few would buy it, and it would be very hard to leverage
its power to the fullest.

~~~
polskibus
Of course market is susceptible to pricing. Of course $1400 is too much for
wide adoption. More people buy vr at lower adoption and spec because they are
curious. Worldwide sales have been reported to be very underwhelming,
regardless of the price point. There is no killer use and feature for it,
that's why. When there are features (immersion) the apps will come even if
they make the first one themselves.

------
finnh
This is a bit OT, but: I live in Seattle and I would love to experience a top-
end VR headset; tethered is fine. Are there stores that specialize in this?
Where would/should I go?

~~~
Scaevolus
There's a VR Arcade called "Portal" in Ballard that has padded rooms with Vive
headsets hanging from the ceiling.

~~~
shidoshi
In my neighborhood, and I keep meaning to stop in. I just keep walking by
because I am unsure what they are selling.

------
n42
The original Rift required a gaming rig to run. I'm curious what kind of
tradeoffs have to be made to launch this.

Personally, I'm not very interested in a VR headset being anything more than a
display. This makes me feel like it is a Smart TV, which is not something I
want. We'll see how I feel in the future.

~~~
dogma1138
Eventually this will likely serve both.

This is nothing more than say Samsung Gear VR but without a removable mobile
phone

That said being able to use this anywhere as a personal display device as well
as not being limited by the pretty heavy umbilical cord setup is the way to
go.

If you are going to put wireless hardware in the headset it’s not like a
mobile media player and a light application platform will detract from its
value.

As an early VR adopter I can say that both my headsets ended up on the shelf
after a few weeks.

It’s just too exhausting to play traditional games and with non-VR exclusive
titles it’s actually a bit disadvantage in competitive play.

Mouse look and keybind reverse look beat a VR headset in sims and the UI for
any titles but EVE Valkyrie is still better on a flat display.

Humans are not owls we can’t turn our necks at lighting speed and there is a
reason why even 200M dollar jets have mirrors and now 360 camera coverage.

Games like Elite aren’t designed like an F35 they are designed around mouse
look and being able to switching between 3rd and 1st person views quickly.
Until some one will design a VR game with 21st century smart helmet augmented
reality style interface in the game it won’t work well and even then mouse
look would still likely be faster.

However the killer app for me was actually the home cinema app as well as some
of the creative sandboxes. These don’t need my 1080ti setup and I don’t really
want to be tethered to my tower.

------
efnx
I bought into Oculus with the DK2, but fell off once they discontinued support
for Mac and Linux. It's a shame, really.

------
jv22222
Is it just me, or does this image of three people laughing with one of them
wearing a VR headset seem a bit bizzar?

[https://scontent-
sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1...](https://scontent-
sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1788230948138287_3202612921985138688_n.jpg?oh=ae5250c43e08d6f1e357c789c1af0f0d&oe=5A73F659)

We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction.

I can't think how many times I've seen a group of friends at a Starbucks not
talking to each other and all looking at their devices.

But, at least, their actual faces are not covered by a huge mask with no way
to look into each others eyes.

This picture makes me wonder about where this is all headed. For example, will
there be a day when a group of friends are sitting around a table in Starbucks
without the possibility of eye contact?

Edit: I'm not against VR I am just musing about what this ultimately means for
all of us.

~~~
sushisource
" We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction.
"

(Rolleyes). Yeah, uh-huh. We can all agree phones sometimes intrude in ways we
wouldn't like but if you think they've "killed all social interaction" you
need to find some new friends.

VR is certainly a different matter but humans fundamentally crave social
interaction. VR won't change that. AI, eventually, on the other hand...

~~~
jv22222
(rolls eyes back)

[https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiesmart/status/918127285387059...](https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiesmart/status/918127285387059201/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F)

------
arielweisberg
It's great they are getting something out the door today at a lower price with
lower barrier to entry and less complexity.

That said this doesn't seem to support tracked controllers and it's not clear
if it would ever support tracked controllers. It's VR, but VR without tracked
controllers is almost a different category.

Still when you look at what it replaces (GearVR) it's a huge step forward. You
no longer need to tie up an expensive phone that's going to overheat and have
no battery left. You get lenses and a display designed for VR and positional
tracking where previously there was only rotation.

It's also interesting that they are messaging nothing about a next generation
headset you can tether to a powerful computer or console. That's where my
interest lies. I would be fine with even just a refresh of the Rift with a
better display and lenses. I'm not even looking for a bump in resolution.

~~~
mortenjorck
_> VR without tracked controllers is almost a different category_

This is an important and under-appreciated point. Presence is a combination of
many factors, and "hand presence," as Oculus is calling it, is a huge one. I
still remember the first time I tried a Vive: I was already familiar with VR
from the DK2, but interacting in 3D space gave the whole experience a wholly
unfamiliar, almost dream-like sensation.

At this price point, tracked controller support seems unlikely, but perhaps a
future Bluetooth lighthouse could enable it. Honestly, I think that should be
a priority: if it comes down to more detailed graphics versus tracked
controllers, I'll take the controllers every time.

~~~
ricardobeat
Have you two clicked the link to the article at all? The second part is a
release of wireless, tracked (from the headset, no lighthouses) controllers.

~~~
mortenjorck
You may not have read it closely enough. With the caveat that the article is
somewhat confusing in how it juxtaposes the two, the first part is about the
entry-level, coming-to-market standalone headset (Oculus Go), while the second
part is about the high-end, still-a-prototype standalone headset (Santa Cruz).
The controllers are for Santa Cruz, not Oculus Go.

------
vm
Anyone know what the hurdles are for broad VR adoption?

This announcement seems to be saying it's 1) untethered and 2) $200 price
point. Those will probably increase the current market size but I just haven't
seen anyone (anecdotally) clamoring for VR. Curious if anyone has a view on
other bottlenecks.

~~~
sago
A killer 'app'. Some experience that can only be delivered on VR that is
totally compelling to mainstream consumers. That could drive the entire
segment, I think.

I don't think its games. At least, it's not obvious how to turn existing kinds
of games into VR experiences, and make them mind blowing. In my experience, VR
games are not currently very good _games_ , and are relatively lacklustre as
tourist experiences.

So what? I wish I knew. But I just don't think there is a compelling reason
for most people, even most passionate gamers, at the moment. Which, as a fan,
pains me to say.

~~~
criddell
Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable, or do you think it could end
up being like 3d is today? By that, I mean 3d has some hardcore fans and many
of us seek it out occasionally, but it isn't part of my typical day.

AR is more interesting, especially if it can get to contact lens size.

~~~
sago
> Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable

No. But that's not to say I don't think it will happen. And if / when it does
happen, it will appear to have been inevitable (things tend to feel that way
in hindsight)!

> do you think it could end up being like 3d is today

3D is a good analogy. Like 3D, unless there are some unique and only VR
experiences, it will be a nerdy way of consuming content that is adequate (or
even higher fidelity) on regular kit.

Lowering the price / making the form factor more convenient, can't hurt. But
I'm not convinced that what the problem is at the moment.

When we talked to non-VR consumers (it's been a couple of years, but
intuitively I can't imagine much has changed), the response was more "why
would I want to put that thing on my head?", rather than "does it have to have
a wire?" Price was a big turnoff, admittedly, but I fear a drop in price alone
will simply mean it ends up in the 'barely used gaming peripheral' cupboard
with your light gun, your dance mat and your steering wheel.

I would be very surprised if its success comes purely from being a peripheral
used by gamers.

------
hauget
Are specs cited anywhere? (e.g. resolution, battery life)

------
kapnobatairza
I feel like it was a missed opportunity not making this a mixed reality
headset. VR is great for completely immersive experiences but otherwise
becomes a nuisance. Problems I've had with VR:

1) Audiovisual Isolation. With immersive VR you are unable to interact with
the real world and often unable to see or here what is going on around you. It
always feels creepy to me to put on my VIVE and not be aware that someone has
walked into my room or has been knocking on my door.

2) Very poor multitasking. VR experiences demand uninterrupted focus. I'm
often not 100% immersed in whatever I'm doing at any given time. I will share
my focus with other activities and other external events. I don't like having
my focus locked onto a single activity for long spans of time. If I'm gaming,
I'll probably alt-tab once in a while to send a chat message. If I'm watching
a movie, I'll likewise pause or shift my focus if something demands it. There
are very limited blocks of time where I'm willing and able to give a VR
experience uninterrupted focus.

3) Inability to physically interact with real world objects. If you don't need
to do that, that's fine. But what if you want to take a sip of your drink? Eat
a snack? Have a smoke? When you have 0 spatial awareness, that is very
difficult to do. Even putting down your controllers and switching to a
keyboard is hard to do when you cant see where it is. You could just remove
the headset every time you want to do this, but that's very cumbersome. This
headset doesn't even have a fliptop so that makes it even more cumbersome.

All in all I'm not sure how much utility fully immersive HMDs have outside of
some unique interactive experiences that are short enough to mitigate some of
the above problems. Remember that "dumb" HMD displays (like this:
[http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/_...](http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/__5010906_orig.png))
have been available since the 90s. They were also billed as the future of
entertainment and TV/monitor killers, but adoption never picked up for the
reasons above. People don't like giving up all their focus.

That's why mixed reality headsets are more promising to me. If you can insert
virtual windows/objects into real world spaces, you can introduce immersion
without necessarily sacrificing awareness. Let people jump in and out of
virtual reality without having it be an all or nothing compromise.

------
GuiA
_> awesome for watching movies or concerts, playing games, or just hanging out
with your friends in VR._

I have real life for movies, concerts, and hanging out with friends, so that
leaves games.

What’s the content offering like for VR these days? Are there any games that
are more than a tech demo that lasts for a few hours? Something like a Skyrim
or a Civ, that I will want to return to week after week?

~~~
kpil
Flight sims. Elite dangerous.

I think motion sickness might be a problem for some people though.

------
Aardwolf
I don't see any earphones in the photos, how does it work for matching 3D
audio? Does it have a headphone jack?

EDIT: Oh it says it right there in the article! That was a redundant
comment... Reason I cared about is that last time I tried VR, the audio came
from stationary speakers and it was a very weird experience to have the
direction of the audio not match what I saw :)

~~~
drdrey
"If you need it, there’s also a 3.5mm headphone jack for private listening."

------
bitmapbrother
I'm going to take a guess and say that this is running a forked version of
Android. Oculus has a Gear VR store [1] and it only makes sense to leverage
the existing software catalog than start from scratch.

[1][https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-
vr/](https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/)

------
FLGMwt
As expected, looks like it'll be much closer to Gear VR than the Rift. It does
not have positional tracking.

------
boona
I was hoping to buy the current Oculus, but I never got around to it since I
for one need to plan out a bit more when it comes to that price. At a $200
price point though, I can pick one up without having to think about it twice.
I'm getting one when it comes out.

------
TY
Interesting news! Will be looking forward to the specs and actual demo
experiences.

Also, I wish they were lighter on the word "magic"...

------
fenwick67
Honestly I just want a Rift priced at $300 without the touch controllers
(today, with touch controllers it's $400).

~~~
timdorr
I got mine during the summer sale before they offered the all-in-one box. I
got my HMD before I got my Touch controllers. Not having Touch was a huge
limitation on the kinds of games I could use, and made the experience feel
like a neato tech demo and not anything of substance.

You definitely don't want a Rift without Touch.

------
cridenour
It's a little light on specs, but the price point is amazing for getting the
broader community excited about VR.

~~~
eradicatethots
This makes VR way way way more attractive to me - accessible and affordable.
If VR will break through this seems like the product to do it.

The trouble with VR so far isn’t VR itself, because Vr is actually pretty
cool, but the trouble is that it’s a giant pain to get into, both cost and set
up and so on, it’s not currently reasonable to buy vr . This product seems
like it could change that. Seems like a big deal to me.

------
socialist_coder
What are the hardware stats on this Oculus Go? I can't imagine for $200 it's
very impressive...

------
crunkykd
VR would be nice for shut-ins (infirm, imprisoned, remote, etc) to vector
somewhere else.

------
angryasian
Im curious to know if the Oculus Go will work with the touch controllers.

------
linarism
Positional tracking?

------
thebiglebrewski
This looks cool

------
Yuioup
Sorry, but I'm really turned off of the Oculus Rift because of Palmer Luckey
and Facebook. Gives me the creeps.

~~~
cr0sh
I don't think Palmer is part of Oculus any longer; I could have sworn he left
earlier this year, or maybe last?

Facebook is still there, though.

Despite my being an early backer of the original Rift KS (I have the DK1 and
the FB branded CV1 - both unused), I over Oculus' offerings, ever since they
dropped Linux support. It was one of the main reasons I supported the KS to
begin with, but then when it got big, they just decided our market segment
wasn't worth supporting.

I will never, ever understand why hardware companies have such problems with
this - I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument why hardware API specs
can't be released to the community in order to allow them to create drivers -
instead, the community has to go thru an arduous round after round of reverse-
engineering the protocols and API just to get (at best) 2nd-tier support of
the device (usually with buggy and/or missing results). It's been a huge pain
with graphics cards, and now its continuing with VR headsets.

Also - why isn't anybody supporting or mentioning OSVR? There's another player
in the headset market nobody ever mentions - Razer - who seems to be the only
one who does support OSVR, yet their product is given virtually no coverage
anywhere.

I don't know why that is, either.

~~~
Impossible
Razer doesn't get mentioned because their product is not very good. OSVR is
their proprietary API, and its an "open" standard in the same way OpenVR is.
OpenXR, the Khronos standard for VR/AR/MR devices will be the industry
standard API equivalent to OpenGL, but even OpenVR (Vive/SteamVR api) is a
better option than OSVR currently.

------
yashksagar
"Oculus, creating a 'rift' between humans at an affordable price."

------
ericzawo
This doesn't say shit about shit. What kind of media will I be able to
interact in with Oculus? To me the value add to purchasing one of these is to
be able to see those cool 360 degree videos on Youtube, maybe game, and I
don't know what else so educate me! Reads like an "announcing the
announcement" more than anything.

~~~
jsgo
My guess is that it is going to be an all-in-one of what is currently GearVR.
Can't remember the name of the app, but there's a Video application where you
can watch 360 videos (there are also apps that have 360 videos from Disney and
the like) and 2D videos in a virtual theater (the theater is a skin though, so
can watch in other locations as well). I've also watched the Youtube 360
videos you mention I believe within an app on the device, or maybe it was via
browser. Sorry, been a while since I used the thing (neat device, but not
enough to maintain interest).

Personal experience: the video always looked grainy on my S7 Edge + GearVR
headset. I'm kind of waiting for the next iteration of headsets of which I
kind of think we're there with Samsung's Oddyssey or whatever (though really
wanted LG to release that flip-visor headset they demoed as that'd be great
for shifting between VR and real world without constantly taking off and
putting on).

