‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Meta VR Glasses

496 points · 481 comments · polymorph1sm

  1. ksec · · focus · HN ↗
    I am so so glad Meta, or any company continue to invest in AR and VR. Not because I like AR / VR, to the contrary I am not a big fan of wearing a glasses to use it.

    But it is the only thing that will move Low Latency Computing forward. Everything in modern computing is slow, we might have increased throughput by 1000 or 10000x over the course of 30+ years. But latency has gone backwards, from Apps to OS UI response. Decent AR/VR experience mimicking the real world would require sub 10ms results. And this should finally force developers to take latency into account.

    1. ChrisRR · · focus · HN ↗
      I think VR would be completely dead by now if Meta weren't continuing to lose billions every quarter on it. Not many companies can endless sink that much money into a product
      1. blensor · · focus · HN ↗
        I am not so sure about that. When it felt like Meta was abandoning the space we saw some resurgence of smaller projects that tried to innovate, but if you have a big player sucking out all the oxygen you can't build smaller scale projects
        1. ChrisRR · · focus · HN ↗
          Unfortunately a couple of small start ups isn't enough to carry the industry. Even big players like Valve who have more money in the bank to take a hit couldn't bring their headset in below $1000
          1. pteraspidomorph · · focus · HN ↗
            Valve never sells at a loss. A significant slice of that is probably the RAM and storage, even at scale.
            1. Toslink · · focus · HN ↗

              [dead]

          2. Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
            They couldn't make that price on a high end standalone, without taking a hit, in 2026. And they choose not to take a hit so ability doesn't matter.

            If they launched a year ago it probably would have been $600-700.

            If they take a hint and make a version that can't do games standalone they might even drop the price in half.

      2. ben_w · · focus · HN ↗
        Meta burned all that money because Zuckerberg had just read something related to Snow Crash, not because he had a good idea for how to develop the sector.

        I think for now games are the best use of VR, and Valve actually care about games, and Zuckerberg moving on to the next shiny thing leaves room for Valve to join Sony and Microsoft for the next PlayStation/XBox alternative.

        If anything, when the Oculus Quest became the Meta Quest, it started feeling like regression rather than progress, with the games going from "wow!" to "did they port a phone game?".

      3. utopiah · · focus · HN ↗
        On the contrary, if Meta didn't acquire Oculus which hadn't poached Valve staff maybe the Steam Frame would have been out years ago.

        It wouldn't have been touted at the "metaverse" and a revolution of having business meeting in a virtual room... looking like a boring office and maybe it would "just" be millions of gamers, but to stay we are in a better state because of Meta is questionable.

        They did invest a ton and their products (if one can manage to make abstraction why they even exist in the first place) are actually well done but the line their brought on the entire industry created unrealistic expectation.

        Is it good, is it bad, I'm not actually sure but I'm rather confident to say it's not obvious.

        1. trashface · · focus · HN ↗
          That seem plausible. As a gamer and 3d aficionado since 3dfx voodoo 1, I've never owned a VR set and that was partly because the good ones, at least on paper, all seemed to be Meta products. I don't use any Meta products, although I am probably _used by_ Meta products, which is part of the reason I don't use them.

          Now I'm getting older and have less interest in VR, certainly don't want augmented reality glasses, even if they could be used for gaming. If anything I want glasses that subtract reality, as its a little too much at times.

          1. dopadelic · · focus · HN ↗
            VR is a great space now. Lots of competitors with great products. Meta has the best mass market option but many competitors with higher end displays like 4K per eye micro-OLED.

            VR gaming has never been hotter. AI coding agents mean lots of enthusiasts can now turn their favorite flat games into VR. Huge community with that.

        2. ikety · · focus · HN ↗
          We know the speed at which Valve operate. There's no way they'd even come close to producing headsets as quickly as meta can.
      4. andybak · · focus · HN ↗
        Nonsense. VR was and still is sustainable as a profitable niche product for specific use-cases. Zuck spending billions to try and own a new mass market category has nothing to do with that.
      5. breakpointalpha · · focus · HN ↗
        Valve has annual profits in the billions, they invest in the future of VR too.
      6. geekraver · · focus · HN ↗
        Counterpoint: there are plenty of companies making VR hardware but they all remain niche and struggle because they can’t subsidize their hardware by taking both losses and user data as part of the price. Meta are better at killing competition more than they are at innovating.
      7. ALLTaken · · focus · HN ↗
        Worst thing that happened to humanity is the birth of Anduril thanks to Meta buying Occulus.. making that one slightly chipped person go think: "What to do with my Occulus exit.. hmm killing people isn't efficient, let me fix that."
        1. TiredOfLife · · focus · HN ↗
          The only people anduril drones have had a chance to kill are russians that are currently invading Ukraine.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.