Google Open-Sources Cardboard

by sahin • 7 years ago

331 172 7 years ago

sdan• 7 years ago

Is Cardboard still being used? After the death of Daydream, I'm assuming Google is pretty much entirely out of VR at this point... although I may be completely wrong.

dyarosla2• 7 years ago

They do have several software projects: blocks, poly, tilt brush. I also believe they have various VR divisions. Don’t count them out yet- my take is that the Oculus Quest put the nail in the coffin for ‘phone based’ VR (cheap and solid with controllers/and soon hand tracking is just a better product) and most investment going forward will probably be diverted in that direction (whether it be competing hardware products or complementary software)

dmix• 7 years ago

Has the Quest been a successful product?

makerofspoons• 7 years ago

The devices themselves are popular with educators. I volunteer in schools and have helped them turn old cell phones and iPod touches into fun learning tools. There is a lot of 360 degree video and content out there that is great for kids, and they're always excited to use it. And every teacher seems to have or know someone who has some old devices in a drawer somewhere that are perfectly suited for it.

dragonsh• 7 years ago

If open source cardboard included Daydream hardware specifications and fabrication files will be nice.

Google has already abandoned the project so it should not be an issue to release hardware and related assets under open source along with SDK.

It might allow different companies to continue daydream, instead of let it die.

joshspankit• 7 years ago

I suspect that most of the reason this is not done more commonly (and I’m with you: I think it should be) is because higher-ups look at the associated patents and hoard them, thinking they may use them later.

fsiefken3• 7 years ago

Yes, then we would have an open-sourced mobile VR solution.. which is now being dominated by Oculus Quest and Facebook. I totally love the Go and Quest VR but open source competition is always good. Mozilla Hubs, JanusVR, Firestorm Viewer and Firefox Reality are all nice open VR projects but they sit on top a VR capable system which is not open source, at least not the 6DoF part. With WebVR 3DOF works, you can watch immersive videos and have limited social VR

snowwrestler• 7 years ago

Anyone know what happened to NY Times VR? They shipped Google Carboard to a ton of subscribers, launched an app, had a whole section of their site... it seems to be all gone. They had a great immersive (pun) story about dolphins that I loved to revisit.

milquetoastaf• 7 years ago

They shut down their whole NYT Labs R&D operation in 2016 or so.

reaperducer• 7 years ago

It still exists on the NY Times app. Tap the "Sections" tab, then scroll most of the way down and the content under "Immersive (AR/VR)." There's dozens of items in there.

rocky1138• 7 years ago

I wonder if this type of content makes it to a library like the rest of newspaper content does, for archival and reference purposes.

ipsum22• 7 years ago

For those out of the loop: Google has gradually shut down and in some cases, open sourced their VR projects (Daydream, Mirage, VR180, Seurat, etc) over the last 6-12 months to be more focused on their mobile AR projects (ARCore, Google Streetview AR, Lens, etc). A sad day for VR.

Causality1• 7 years ago

Yet another Google project resigned to the trash heap. Remember all the reviewers who acted as if not being Google Daydream compatible was a huge black mark against a new phone?

EduardoBautista• 7 years ago

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

throwawayhhakdl• 7 years ago

What do they have to show for it exactly?

ss3000• 7 years ago

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

ipsum22• 7 years ago

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

jayd16• 7 years ago

You could argue Hololens is positioned to do well even though it hasn't delivered anything consumer ready yet but Android fully implements any iOS AR feature. I don't see how you can say they're ahead of Google or made a better play.

drdaeman2• 7 years ago

One thing that immediately comes to mind is that AR doesn't have that in-VR movement problem, that's notoriously hard to solve.

And it doesn't require those weird-looking and weird-feeling controllers to interact with the world.

So... maybe VR is not yet there, because the hardware does not allow for the full immersion that we unconsciously expect/want from a virtual reality?

moron4hire29• 7 years ago

I don't agree, for several reasons.

First of all, Apple's ARKit (and by extension, Google's ARCore) is not a good experience. It has some "gee whiz" factor to it, and then once you get over it, you realize that there really aren't very many things you can do with it that you can't do better with a smartphone or a VR headset.

Case in point: I spent a lot of time at my previous employer working on self-service/guided-repair AR apps for the iPad Pro. It's a ridiculously bad concept (though my previous employer is kind of known for chasing ridiculously bad concepts). 1) Your hands are occupied with the tablet, so you're not actually able to perform the repair tasks without putting the tablet down, thus largely negating the usefulness of the overlaid 3D animations we created, and 2) who is going to take a $1000 Apple product with them out to a repair job?

We also spent a lot of time making large posters into 2D animations for conference expos. You could have had the same, exact experience for 1% of the cost if you just bought gigantic TVs and turned them to portrait view. I mean, I didn't complain about getting the money, per se, but it just was not good stewardship for our clients to even propose that contract from the sales team.

There are distance measuring apps that presume the tracking is accurate and precise, which it is not. For a very long time, ARKit had very little concept of how far away any given surface was. Instead, it was good about scaling objects so that visually they did not appear to be moving closer to you as the tracking point jittered wildly on the Z-Axis. At best, it's better than walking off steps to get rough measurements of a space, but anything more than that and you're going to have an easier, faster, more reliable time with a $10 retractable tape measure.

Second, the HoloLens is an amazing device, but it's nowhere near ready for any mainstream use. I think it does have a good use case in industrial repair scenarios (which was originally how we got the iPad work, I had built an app for HoloLens that did the same thing, but then the suits got involved and wanted to push our Apple partnership). There are specific features of the HoloLens that make this work, and there are specific features of the job that make the HoloLens work. Specifically, HoloLens' built-in, completely free voice recognition is a huge boon for being able to build systems that you can use while your hands are occupied with the job. Second, having physical objects (the machine you're trying to repair) on which to hang virtual graphics causes a huge improvement in believability of the visual and usability of the application (primarily related to issues of object permanence being hindered by the limited field of view).

That last point wouldn't be so bad if the HoloLens were visually and performance-wise up to spec with much, much cheaper VR headsets in terms of grpahics and visual fidelity. But so long as you're paying literally 10x as much for half to a quarter as good of visuals (not to mention the input systems being otherwise mismatched), you have a lot of ground to catch up on to make an AR-only experience as valuable and meaningful to a user as you could a VR experience.

AR will continue to be a lackluster consumer user experience for a long time. Most developers making apps for these devices don't understand how to make a real AR app. In AR, the user supplies the context to the developer. In VR, the developer supplies the context to the user. This fundamental dichotomy makes good, meaningful AR application design significantly harder than VR design. In my own evaluation, easily 80% of the extant software in the HoloLens and Magic Leap stores take no cues from the user's immediate vicinity, in their context, to which they are tying their experience. In essence, they are just crappy VR experiences.

In comparison: VR is cheap, it works, it is relatively easy to design for, and there are already a ton of great apps available for it.

tootie• 7 years ago

My company does some AR/VR development on behalf of customers along with more traditional web/mobile app development. We've done quite a few at this point and been successful from an internal point of view that we can concept, design and develop a high-quality product at a manageable cost. That being said, I see us struggling mightily to come up with an experience that's actually compelling in any way. We've got customers lining up asking us to help them get on this bandwagon and I see nothing but eye candy designed for a 30-second moment of joy and no real utility. I've seen some really cool experiences being built, but they're still mostly gimmicky and serving a tiny niche.

There's rampant speculation that Apple will deliver a glasses experience where Google already failed. I think this is possibly the last chance for AR to get traction before going back to the shelf for another 20 years.

unlinked_dll3• 7 years ago

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not.

The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

kayoone• 7 years ago

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

hanniabu• 7 years ago

should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks

I'm sorry, can someone explain what a creative is and why money should be thrown at them? If they're not developers than how are they going to create content? Also if there aren't good frameworks and APIs the barrier for creating content is much higher.

russdill2• 7 years ago

The big piece of missing tech for all add on solutions (daydream, etc) has been 6DoF. Without 6DoF, it's a child's toy.

cameronbrown• 7 years ago

It's both. I love Vive and Rift and own one of those, and while content makes me want to use the device longer, the device itself makes me want to.. well not.

Vive is far too heavy and Rift has issues with lens fog (so I can't bloody see anything a minute after putting it on my head)

sytelus• 7 years ago

XR is very much tech a problem. Wearing headsets have induced headaches for me within 30 mins. The resolution is choppy. Field of view makes everything non-convincing. There is actually ton of content which is good for 5 minutes of demo-surprise factor but failing to have much of stickiness. I expect games to be major play for XR but they have to compete with 4K OLED which will now be ray casted. Adding 3D to limited field of view + low res pixelated scenes just doesn't compensate enough. XR today is like what neural networks used to be in 90s or like what TVs used to be 1950s.

ineedasername• 7 years ago

I tend to agree that compelling content is a core reason this hasn't taken off, but that is in part because such content is resource intensive to develop. APIs & devs are exactly what is needed to lower the barrier and make content development easier and more accessible.

djmips6• 7 years ago

VR for Google on Android is still a tech problem. With Cardboard, the tracking fidelity and update rates never met the lowest bar required to have a good experience.

ramshorns• 7 years ago

Well, in some sense this is a newly released VR project so it's a great day for VR.

app4soft2• 7 years ago

So, soon Cardboard app would be available on F-Droid?

moron4hire29• 7 years ago

We've basically "known" for over a year that Google has given up on Daydream. The first indication was the 6-dof controllers for the Lenovo Mirage Solo never making it out of devkit status. The second indication was no other 6-dof Daydream headsets getting released. The near complete lack of any mention of VR at the 2018 I/O conference had all but confirmed it at that point, but the final nail in the coffin was probably when Samsung backpedaled on Daydream support with the S10 release, and Google sticking a Snapdragon 670 in the Pixel 3A, with the 835 being basically the "min spec" these days.

Now, the Pixel 4 doesn't have Daydream support at all, and it's got a beefy 855 in it.

easytiger• 7 years ago

Google is a hyperscale version of my often ephemeral attention span

meheleventyone3• 7 years ago

Not really other than Cardboard most of Google’s VR output has been lacklustre. Same with their scrabble to copy Apple with AR.

modeless• 7 years ago

Blog post here: https://developers.googleblog.com/2019/11/open-sourcing-goog...

lostgame• 7 years ago

Oh, neat! I’d already been utilizing this and it being FOSS means only even more control.

amanzi2• 7 years ago

For what it is, Cardboard is pretty cool technology that opens up the VR world to a lot of people that would never be able to afford the high end equipment needed for real VR. I had a couple of cheap Cardboard viewers and then upgraded to the Samsung VR goggles which are also surprisingly good for the money.The Samsung/Oculus partnership seems to still be strong, for now at least.

CrackerNews3• 7 years ago

The Samsung/Oculus partnership seems to still be strong, for now at least.

Gear VR doesn't support Note 10 and there's rumors that their partnership has ended.

The VR industry is moving past mobile VR because it has trouble with user retention. Oculus can abandon Gear VR and Samsung to focus on their own VR solutions from Go to Quest to Rift.

Samsung then is still working on their standalone headset and possibly a next generation Windows Mixed Reality headset

cynic_• 7 years ago

Carmack's Eulogy For The Gear VR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfd2lNRjqH4

amanzi2• 7 years ago

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that.

aasasd3• 7 years ago

I still don't quite understand why I can't strap myself to my existing phone with a couple of periscopes, run an app outputting the two images on the left and the right halves, and control it with some bluetooth joypad.

askvictor• 7 years ago

Isn't this exactly what cardboard/daydream does (daydream has a controller; cardboard doesn't, but I think a lot of VR apps will honor a bluetooth controller anyway)

aasasd3• 7 years ago

Afaik they only support specific phone models—understandable due to the fixed dimensions of the headset. Not so understandable is why I don't see apps that support any phone as long as I can build a headset for it.

russellbeattie6• 7 years ago

I spent $69 on a Daydream headset a month or so ago just to play with it, only to find out it didn't work with my phone. I kept it just in case. Then Google cancelled it. It'd be nice if they opened up that code as well...

moron4hire29• 7 years ago

Where did you buy the headset that they didn't list the phones that are compatible with it?

russellbeattie6• 7 years ago

Why would I have ever thought that Google would artificially limit compatibility? It never crossed my mind. I just assumed the listed phones were popular examples - and since mine had the same version of Android as the Pixels/Galaxies, I didn't worry about it.

When did you decide to become an internet troll?

whywhywhywhy2• 7 years ago

You should give an Oculus Quest a try if you ever get the opportunity.

VR isn't really about the 3D effect it's about having your head and hands tracked in a 3D space and what can come from that level of interaction. Daydream never really offered this and after using a decent amount of VR I find that the most important part of the experience.

russellbeattie6• 7 years ago

Actually, buying the Quest is what made me decide to grab a Dream headset. After playing with WebVR/WebXR demos, I thought wow, I should grab a Dream headset and see what my phone can do. This was at the end of September.

Then I realized it wasn't compatible, but figured I might get a new Pixel when they launched, so I kept it just in case... Whoops.

deckar01• 7 years ago

Daydream didn't support 2:1 ratio displays for some reason. Most of Google's own flagship phones moved to that ratio. All they had to do was add black bars to the side to simulate 16:9, but they never did. I actually got Daydream to work by hacking the phone's hardware configuration to trick it into thinking the display was 1920x1080, but it caused the Android Moto launcher to freeze and crash too often.

I purchased a Moto Z³, because I though it was daydream compatible only to find out Moto Z didn't mean the Moto Z line of phones, it meant a specific old model. Still waiting on a VR headset for it. The screen on my phone is leagues better than the one they put on the Oculus Go I am using.

moron4hire29• 7 years ago

Nobody is making phone-slot-in headsets that are more than just "plastic Google Cardboard" anymore. Both Daydream and Gear VR are out, and there are no other projects in the works. You will not get that headset. Your best bet is to use a Daydream View (hopefully purchased on eBay so you're not paying $70) as a comfortable, well constructed Google Cardboard.

skocznymroczny• 7 years ago

I played with Cardboard, and I didn't get any VR feeling from it. It was more like "a screen right in your face" experience, but I didn't get any 3D feeling out of it.

CrackerNews3• 7 years ago

Google must have faced the same problems that Oculus faced when it came to user retention. Carmack reported that people tried Gear VR once or twice before never touching it again.

Meanwhile, Quest managed to have user retention solely from how seamless it is to strap on a device and get going in VR. This is opposed to the inconvenience from taking out the phone from the case and putting it inside a device.

A seamless, cordless experience like the Quest is probably the future of VR even if it has limitations now and is still too relatively expensive for the masses. The Cardboard/Daydream/Gear VR line of VR is seen as a dead end now. Daydream is dead, and Gear VR might as well be dead.

Google must have looked at what it has on the horizon for VR and decided that it now can't compete with the likes of Oculus and HTC.

makz• 7 years ago

The same way they open-sourced Android?

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

Related Stories