Meta’s Reality Labs prototype hardware

https://www.meta.com/en-gb/blog/quest/reality-labs-research-display-systems-siggraph-2023-butterscotch-varifocal-flamera/

by dagmx • 3 years ago

272 222 3 years ago

meta.com

erulabs3• 3 years ago

As with Butterscotch Varifocal, the goal of Flamera isn’t to show something that’s viable for a consumer product—at least, not yet.

A bit surprising that these seem so far away from production. I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product people really want, even if its very far into the future and may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's developed.

Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC. Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.

I can't be excited for Butterscotch or Flamera, because they're not products I can buy, and they explicitly never will be. If I managed to get a demo, I'm sure I'd be NDAed to hell and back. I am excited for Vision Pro because it's something I will actually be allowed to purchase in the future.

nomel2• 3 years ago

Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.

My assumption, of this early work, is to scoop up important patents.

Related to important patents, varifocal is almost certainly the future of HMDs.

Having fixed focus, as all HMDs do now, is fatiguing and strange. A really interesting example of this is, in VR, hold something close to your eyes. You'll see that it gets blurry. Now close one eye. You'll see that it's clear. It's not that it's actually blurry, it's that your eyes are refusing to put up with the physical nonsense of a fixed focus 3d world.

zmmmmm10• 3 years ago

to scoop up important patents

Or perhaps to refine that, to scoop important patents

Apple is aggressively out there patenting obvious things that have been basic public knowledge / in use for years to try and lock up the field (eg: [0]). You can try and get your own patents but if you aren't strategically dependent on the IP for your own needs it is much easier and quicker to just nuke the field by putting as many things in public as possible so it's much harder for Apple (or others) to retro-patent broad classes of obvious features.

[0] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...

cududa6• 3 years ago

Sure but the Vision Pro uses eye tracking and foveated rendering to simulate planes of view

w-ll2• 3 years ago

The Apple Vision is way more akin to the Meta Quest and you can buy that today for $300, not Apples $3,000 price tag.

dangus• 3 years ago

That’s like saying Ferrari is a two-seater sports car just like a Miata.

Kilenaitor• 3 years ago

I'm confused on your phrasing of "they explicitly never will be."

Those prototypes, of course, aren't going to themselves be shipping. But they are for R&D and to provide example of a nascent technology that one day should end up in a consumer product.

You absolutely can disagree with the approach of showing this too early or not trying hard enough to incorporate this into an (albeit expensive) consumer product today/soon.

But my read is Meta wants this stuff to one day be in consumer headsets. Just not there yet.

erulabs3• 3 years ago

I don't disagree with them showing this off, just them avoiding making an actual product. Always be embarrassed by v1 and all that. I understand Meta has the cash to bankroll a decade of R/D (like XEROX used to), but iterating actual products actual people use is a far safer bet, and as a result the world actually gets products. "Explicitly never will be" only because of the bit I quoted and that these are two quite different products. One would imagine the final product would combine these two experimental headset's technologies.

It's not like Facebook, as a product, was some hidden away R/D project. It was iterated on in public.

Anyways, I didn't mean to poopoo the awesome work done here. I just want to actually use some of this stuff.

megaman821• 3 years ago

There is virtually no market for a $3,500 headset made by Meta. These demos don't seem like things that can't do at all, just things they can't do affordably. What can be done in a $500 consumer device will only increase each year. It is probably smart for Meta to keep slow and steady.

steveBK1238• 3 years ago

Right that's also a big problem for Meta - they can't capture the market at this price point. Who is paying that dollar level for hardware from the likes of Meta?

Apple, sure. Sony, Microsoft, could be.

But Meta, Google, Amazon.. lol. No.

MBCook13• 3 years ago

The price of that $3500 headset will also drop each year.

Let’s say it takes five years for Apple or Meta to be able to release this kind of hardware at $500.

Would you rather bet on the company with 5 years experience selling that class of hardware and software and finding real use cases? Or the one who is leaving the lab with it for the first time?

Ignoring Apple is a supply chain MONSTER that can get things cheaper and better than Meta can thanks to their volumes so the products might not be comparable at $500.

capableweb• 3 years ago

I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product people really want, even if its very far into the future and may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's developed.

Do note that doing it like that is not what Apple commonly does. Usually work happens in silence and secrecy, then the product is available within like 6 months to purchase (in the US, not necessarily all over the world)

lancesells• 3 years ago

Isn't that what they are doing with the Vision Pro but more like 12 months to purchase? Then they annually iterate on their products with differing success?

MBCook13• 3 years ago

In this case I expect it’s because they wanted outside developers to work on software for it before launch so it’s ready day one.

Otherwise I agree it’s very likely they wouldn’t have said anything yet.

n4te• 3 years ago

If you need the public to help you develop something, it's an indicator you don't have the wisdom to build the right thing.

Anyway I don't think that's what Apple is doing. The are just being expensive, exclusive ass clowns, like usual.

reaperducer• 3 years ago

If you need the public to help you develop something, it's an indicator you don't have the wisdom to build the right thing.

I guess you missed the last 20 years of crowdsourcing fueling half the tech economy.

ojbyrne• 3 years ago

Meta occupies Sun's former HQ. Xerox PARC (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is in a completely different place in Silicon Valley.

Also Meta has something Xerox PARC never had, copious amounts of revenue.

throwuwu• 3 years ago

They’re shipping pancake lenses, color pass through, and depth sensors on the Quest Pro and Quest 3. Those were features on the last batch of prototypes a few years ago. Some features from prototypes haven’t shipped yet like their ultra high brightness display or varifocal lenses but I doubt they’ve canned them. I’m glad they’re being so open about this research, along with the release cadence they’re building up for new headsets it inspires a lot of confidence.

erulabs3• 3 years ago

I was actually really curious about the r/d to product pipeline after I posted my comment. I appreciate your reply! If the turnaround is within a year or two, that’s excellent and totally counters my comment!

shrewduser• 3 years ago

Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC.

did you mean sun microsystems?

flatline• 3 years ago

There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.
While there are few things as magical as your first VR “a-ha”moment

That first moment for me was Cardboard. I have since used Vive and Oculus and they are cool, but I’m not left wanting to come back for more. Maybe the Cardboard experience conveyed the wrong thing to me, that this is a fun one-off type experience and not something that fits into my life in a bigger way. I’m sure some of the tools have, or could have, real world practical applications, and I would use them if needed, but I just don’t want to strap on a headset and be forced to tune out the rest of the world for longer than necessary.

SV_BubbleTime3• 3 years ago

Cardboard is nothing like a quest2 let alone this next generation.

circuit10• 3 years ago

Yes, it’s a completely different experience. Cardboard isn’t really enough to trick your brain into feeling like you’re in a physical space, it’s more like a proof of concept of the idea of VR

jkaptur• 3 years ago

There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet. It’s an old saying, sure, maybe even a little cliché. And yes, there are skeptics out there—but we’d argue they just haven’t found the right VR experience to make them a convert []-)

Yep, I'm a skeptic. I tried it, and it was fine! Pretty fun, not that fun. Like going to Disney, I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that it's there, other people love it, and I'll go once every 20 years or so and have a decent time.

Maybe I just haven't had the right experience yet (I went to Epcot, not Star Wars World), but you could argue that about literally anything.

OnlineGladiator• 3 years ago

I'm actually someone that believed in VR until I tried it, and then I lost interest because I found it so underwhelming. In my opinion it just kinda sucks and certainly isn't worth the awkward inconvenience of strapping something on to your face. I think it even has limited appeal for niche applications like simulations and personally I'd prefer a multiscreen setup.

To each their own. I was someone that was excited to try VR for years and then said "that's it?" when I finally got a chance.

asdfman1232• 3 years ago

I feel I'm very pro-technology and pro-innovation but most of what tech has been creating recently had been total crap, and I'm tired of the disconnect.

dmarcos• 3 years ago

I agree. Videos and vision are powerful but I think most still underestimate the cost of wearing something on your face for more than a few mins.

I see the opposite phenomena after Apple Vision Pro announcement. Many seem to love VR / AR but never tried it. Retention numbers with current tech indicate that cost of wearing a headset exceeds the value proposition for most people and use cases. Maybe Apple Vision Pro will change that. Excited to see.

edit: typos

steveBK1238• 3 years ago

I think this and the parent comment are partially a driver of Apples response. The current state of the tech is kind of shrug worthy. Might seem like a neat gimmick, might make some games better, might make you motion sick. Essentially a niche product indefinitely.

I think the current market targeting the $200-500 price point is a large part of the problem. If you think about what's needed to make this well vs say, the phone in your pocket, how is a good VR implementation going to come out cheaper than the phone?

Apple is basically throwing the kitchen sink at the space in terms of compute, optics, sensors, and software.. with a price tag to match. If it's going to work, it's probably going to work at that price point first.

lanza2• 3 years ago

That's like taking a $100 Nokia phone in 2002 and saying that mobile phones are nice but will never be important.

iancmceachern• 3 years ago

I think it's like artificial flavors. Yeah, it's cool we can make something that tastes kinda like reality. But invariable the real thing is better.

asdfman1232• 3 years ago

There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.

I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.

VR was interesting, but the Meta Quest felt uncomfortable on my head, I felt every so vaguely nauseous, they didn't add anything to any of the games I was playing, they weren't comfortable to wear after a long day of work, they made me feel weirdly disconnected from the outside world.

"Technology can overcome any obstacles" is just what you tell the investors. Most of the time, obstacles stop emerging technologies from going anywhere.

And I suppose VR may become viable some day, but I just don't feel it's that day yet.

pessimizer2• 3 years ago

I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.

Mostly because it's the worst argument a person can make. You know you exist, so therefore they don't know what they're talking about.

In this case, it's basically saying "You have experienced all VR has to offer after you've tried it a few times. If you weren't impressed, I'm here to inform you that you won't ever be."

Eduard• 3 years ago

and there is a third kind of people:

those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky PR presenting tech demo videos so underwhelming and cliché ("VR bionic hand twiddling fingers" trope) they skip through them, and get reassured that VR providers still haven't managed to bring any sustainable use-case to the market despite this current VR cycle stretching for almost ten years by now.

Sorry Meta, you educated whole generations to have the attention span of a gold fish, why should anyone care for your latest world-changing prototype if the previous four or so haven't fulfilled their announced revolution either?

systems_glitch• 3 years ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems pretty spot-on given their track record...

aleph_minus_one• 3 years ago

and there is a third kind of people:
those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky

Additionally there also exists a fourth kind of people: those who planned and would love to do cool experiments (hacks) with the VR devices, but became deeply disappointed by the fact that in particular Meta (but now also Apple) rather decided to turn their devices into golden cages (in the case of Meta with the intention of including surveillance functionality).

MBCook13• 3 years ago

Agreed. And nausea is a real problem for many people, which many supporters like to hand-wave away. “Just get your VR legs” is crap.

I think VR will always be niche.

I’m curious if AR is really the thing. The need for bulky stuff like the Vision Pro is a hinderance, but it will get smaller.

The VR/AR difference is kind of a problem as I see so many people arguing past each other on this and the Vision Pro by comparing one company’s position in VR against another’s play in AR as if they weren’t two totally different things.

seanmcdirmid3• 3 years ago

A lot of older people use VR for fitness (or younger kids just to play beat saber) and belong to none of those groups. They got what they wanted, and are excited to get more of it.

Meta’s biggest problem, however, is getting people interested in VR beyond Beat Saber and the fitness apps. Like actual hardcore gamers.

Shawnj2• 3 years ago

What does VR let you do that you can’t do with a regular computer or TV? At the moment the answer is “not much” other than entertainment. When that changes and you can convince your grandma who doesn’t use much technology why she needs a VR headset then I think you’ll see mass adoption.

baby6• 3 years ago

There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet

Damn, I feel like they stole that quote from me. I used to (and still do) say that all the time!

I'll still argue that people here who don't believe in VR have either never tried it, or tried an old prototype. Owning a VR headset and being able to use it in your living room is future-like. Definitely an experience that people should try to have, that is if you want to live in the future.

LesZedCB• 3 years ago

I was very excited about VR, owned rift dk2 and cv1, my roommate has valve index which I've played with. still very strongly meh.

I get sick very easily, even with traditional screens in some FPS games. VR people seem to live in a bubble and plug their ears every time somebody says VR sucks. sorry, it mainly sucks. headsets are heavy, wires tangle, graphics cards are expensive, cameras or projectors are tedious, resolution isn't good enough, rooms are never big enough or clean enough, a guest broke our window by accident, god I could go on with all the drawbacks.

seanmcdirmid3• 3 years ago

Since you brought up Disney, the newer immersive rides at amusement parks (more Universal Studios, but Disney is following suit) are really cool. Most don’t use headsets yet, but they’ll use a screen maybe with 3D glasses, coupled with some sort of pivoting but stationary car. Sometimes it is rumbling or a bit of environmental feedback, whatever. Even with a 360 imax, the environmental manipulation solidifies the experience as being hyper-real.

I wonder if for consumer VR, we are really missing similar environmental manipulation. Like, maybe a lazy boy seat or something that can move?

bullen2• 3 years ago

Writing custom engines for VR makes too hard, and only custom will have the performance to avoid nausea.

Add to that closed platforms and no diopter adjustable non-fresnel lenses, and it's over.

Valve demonstrated why VR will fail, only a monopolistic company can succeed with it in a zero interest rate environement.

I was hoping Roblox on Quest 2 would be 120 Hz and smooth 3rd person but they failed.

RIP VR!

zmmmmm10• 3 years ago

It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab, shows off their latest advances in academia (including all the limitations and problems). Meanwhile Apple works for 10 years in secrecy and even after they publicly announce are making anybody with access to the device use it in SCIF-like environment with a draconian NDA.

And then, Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.

photonerd12• 3 years ago

It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy.

Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between.

Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.

Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.

cscurmudgeon2• 3 years ago

Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era).

Apple Maps.

I still remember the hilarity.

https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....

SV_BubbleTime3• 3 years ago

There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.

victor106• 3 years ago

Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.

Great insight

namank• 3 years ago

Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.

They are not competing goals.

All companies have to show progress.

Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version.

Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.

sangnoir2• 3 years ago

Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era).

The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features.

The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.

starluz• 3 years ago

Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability. It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback.

Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)

anonymouse008• 3 years ago

AirPower would like a word

langsoul-com• 3 years ago

The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales.

Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.

paulcole2• 3 years ago

Meta has a god-awful reputation and needs to do whatever they can to build goodwill with journalists and the public. If they think showing off half-finished vaporware is the way to do that, good luck to them.

zmmmmm10• 3 years ago

showing off half-finished vaporware

They have videos of actual people using the actual built devices at the conference. They are letting conference attendees at SIGGRAPH put these on and try them out.

I get the need to downplay anything good that Meta does, but stick to "reality" - this is very different from half finished vapor ware. Or to put it another way, if this is vaporware, so is Apple Vision Pro at this point.

smoldesu2• 3 years ago

I don't think most people care.

Let this sink in; Facebook alone has more MAUs than YouTube in it's entirety. That's frankly bonkers. After YouTube, the 2 next most popular are, yep, Instagram and WhatsApp.

If you went up to the average person on the street and asked them how they felt about the Cambridge Analytica situation, they would probably ignore you and think it was some sports thing. "the public" clearly doesn't care and journalists are probably pretty happy with Facebook's performance given what they have to put up with on Twitter.

I'm not saying anyone is particularly right or wrong here. I just think that this site's obsession with "Facebook bad" doesn't really extend beyond the constituent of hackers with a healthy distrust of organized power.

cududa6• 3 years ago

You’re a bit biased if you think Meta is doing anything other than marketing here, just using a different tactic.

Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now.

This is simply a second degree demo to Wall Street investors. Their analysts will either attend, or read reports from reputable experts.

They’ve sunk $40 Billion into this project with nothing to show. Apple has reportedly spent $20 Billion while underpinning it with healthy growth and profits.

Facebook shipped Quest 2 dev kits to partners that were physically disguised as clothing irons. The narrative you’re spinning is nonsense.

EDIT: You’re either Boz or a lieutenant judging by your comment history.

You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422

steveBK1238• 3 years ago

Meta literally changed their name for this space, and Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product. This is clearly reactive "we have to show something" vaporware.

murderfs• 3 years ago

Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now.

What are you talking about? They've done this continually:

2018: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/introducing-the-team-behind-...

2019: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/half-dome-updates-frl-explor...

2020: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2020/9/announcing-pro...

2021: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2021/3/inside-faceboo...

tracerbulletx• 3 years ago

Yes they have. Unless I dreamed watching a bunch of YouTube videos of people trying on different prototypes at their office last year and talking about different tradeoffs they're considering.

steveBK1238• 3 years ago

Another way of looking at it is - one company has a deep history of shipping successful and often innovative hardware products, and the other one doesn't.

It's hard to argue that that the one that ships is taking the wrong approach.

makeitdouble2• 3 years ago

I'm not sure if you're arguing that Meta/Occulus wasn't innovative or their hardware isn't successful. The Quest Pro would perhaps be a failure, but then will the new Mac Pro be a wild success ?

baby6• 3 years ago

You're comparing a hardware company with a software company. Meta only got into hardware in recent years. I would also point out that Meta is massively ahead of everyone in terms of VR (including Apple).

pjmlp5• 3 years ago

One company was almost bankrupt and only by sheer luck with some injection of capital managed to avoid closing shop while bringing a former founder, and the other one didn't have to deal with such problems.

electric_mayhem• 3 years ago

Meta used exclusivity as a marketing tactic when it was contending with MySpace.

Judging by the current relative market caps of facepalm and MySpace, seems like it worked out ok.

__MatrixMan__• 3 years ago

Will either of them let me tinker with the firmware as an unrestricted user?

zmmmmm10• 3 years ago

Firmware, no unless you are ultra hard core.

But above that layer there are pretty big distinctions. Meta is fully on the record that they are all in on making Quest completely use OpenXR as the primary API to the point of deprecating the old Oculus proprietary APIs. They also actively pushing forward the latest WebXR spec into the browser on the Quest, and sideloading of apps in general is straightforward (although you do need a developer account to do it which is unfortunate).

Apple doesn't seem interested at all in open standards at the OS layer, so if you need to be happy with the fully walled garden and proprietary APIs to buy into that ecosystem. It's unclear if VisionPro will support WebXR in the browser it ships.

So in terms of freedom, you will get a lot more from Quest, but its definitely sad that this whole area of computing could end up being the first that has literally no true open platform available.

hyperthesis• 3 years ago

More than that, Apple is targetting specific usage, for specific professionals - i.e. niche marketing. Literally Pro.

At the same time, they are keeping the door open for mass-market over the long-term.

iLoveOncall2• 3 years ago

Software company VS hardware company. That's it.

Meta needs as many people using their products to show ads and earn money, that's all there is to it.

rabf3• 3 years ago

30% cut from app store sales can add up quite quickly.

interpol_p2• 3 years ago

It’s interesting that you make this point. Because Meta’s video is _all about_ the hardware: here’s new lens design, here’s high density screen.

Apple’s Vision Pro release has been all about the software: the interaction models, how to use SwiftUI to make immersive and windowed apps, the windowing model, accessibility, type readability, and every little detail related to UI

I’d argue Apple is equally software and hardware

baby6• 3 years ago

I was approached by both Apple and Facebook back in the days, and decided to join Facebook instead of Apple. Why? I like to be able to post about the research I do, and I didn't like the secrecy approach of Apple. I'm guessing that this is a big factor for more than just me when choosing a company to join, especially when you do interesting things that you want to be able to share with the world.

I remember reading that Mark Rober was at Apple (nobody knew about that!) and I just feel like that must have sucked massively for someone who loves making youtube videos to work in a place like that.

ChatGTP• 3 years ago

Thanks so much for choosing to "bring the world closer together".

htormey• 3 years ago

Yeah, on point observation. I worked at both companies. I left Apple to work at Facebook because I wanted to be able to participate in open source projects and talk about my work with my coworkers openly.

catchnear43213• 3 years ago

meta is playing catch-up. with the brand.

apple can get away with being less polite. what it delivers is enough to motivate a certain level of tolerance.

apple is ecosystem. it is the front runner at the moment, and will be hard to beat.

ffs this is facebook and mark zuckerberg. how does the joke go? their faces are next to the word unlikable in the dictionary?

both meta and zuck are cultivating a rather incredible comeback story. for all the historical hateables, even with layoffs and rto, there are a lot of recent moves that are brilliant.

second place in a martial arts tournament. threads. llama. this.

both meta and zuck are starting to look downright likeable.

this is no accident, and no small feat.

tl;dr you seemed to have missed meta’s marketing tactic, possibly due to anti-apple bias.

gizajob2• 3 years ago

Not likeable in my house

simonsarris• 3 years ago

I used to call this the startup model vs the Apple model

A startup begins a project often by announcing that it has almost succeed. Some open source projects and crowdfunded projects with a lot of pomp also take this approach. It is great(?) for fundraising. It is interesting that Meta chooses this since they are not looking for funding, but maybe they are looking to cultivate the same panache/ethos. A way to market to prospective employees, more than end customers.

Apple denies that its even doing something until after it has succeeded. And even then it will announce it on its own terms. The Putin regime also follows this model (eg 2014 annexation of Crimea). It is great for denying competition time to catch up.

aalimov_• 3 years ago

It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab…

And you believe that they are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?

joshl32532• 3 years ago

"Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point"

Wow, how naive can you be?

Because Meta's forte is ads. The hardware is just the gateway to their ecosystem where they don't have to pay Apple/Google for access to users.

Companies' engineering blogs are just carefully curated marketing pieces with highly distilled technical info. It's still marketing and some people eat it up.

troupo• 3 years ago

Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.

Apple literally ships millions of devices on day one (that is, on the exact day they announce they will ship it).

Edit: with very few notable exceptions like the wireless charger

grumbel3• 3 years ago

Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point

Ahm, are we forgetting the QuestPro? Meta tried to build their "Apple headset", 5x the price of a Quest2 and loaded with all the R&D features they could find. And it was a colossal flop. The whole thing is getting shutdown little over six months after release.

They forgot to include critical features like a depth sensor, they couldn't figure out what to do with the eye tracking in their software, face tracking wasn't a feature anybody wanted and reduced the battery dramatically when actually used, passthough cameras are a blurry mess, resolution is too low to work as actual desktop replacement, etc.

The whole thing, despite 5x the price, was firmly stuck at just being a slightly better Quest2. Meta spend the last seven years building a portable Oculus Rift, and they succeeded at that, but despite billions in R&D they haven't really managed to advanced VR beyond that point.

zmmmmm10• 3 years ago

well, that's why I said "no real interest"

They delivered a product, but it's clear they simply don't have the commitment required to actually see it through. Quest Pro is actually great for what it is, but they seem completely clueless about how to actually market something to business or professional users. The software on it is 100% identical to the Quest 2, designed entirely for gaming. Just the fact they couldn't be bothered even slightly differentiating the software shows they just don't even understand the distinctions b/w the spaces.

esskay• 3 years ago

I think the biggest difference is Meta is happy to put out an incomplete product and iterate. The standard Quest 2 for example leaves a lot to be desired on the software side, but instead of waiting for years to perfect it they shoved it out there with the expectation that people would understand and accept that its very much an evolving platform.

Apples approach is that they wont release until its ready for use by the average joe. The expectation that you get it and it works out of the box without needing to be too technical is where they thrive.

This isn't to say one approach is better or worse, just different.

seydor• 3 years ago

it's pretty much the approach of every company except apple

dougmwne• 3 years ago

Is it a coincidence that the light field lens resembles the compound eye of an insect? Could a similar process be happening in the insect’s visual cortex to reproject multiple views? Insects can’t move their eyes like humans, but apparently fruit flies can move their retinas. That seems very similar to the single focal point they demonstrated in the video.

intrasight• 3 years ago

It is not a coincidence. An insect's compound eye is really virtual lens-retina system.

A good diagram of the evolution of eyes

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/eye-evolution/

Also of interest is this article on using metasurfaces to achieve the same.

I'm sure that optical frequency meta-materials will play important roles in AR/VR.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15460-0

lvl102• 3 years ago

I feel Meta is proud of showing off these prototypes but I think it just shows how amateur they’re at developing hardwares.

QuantumG• 3 years ago

Also, I've seen ALL these prototypes already. They didn't just do this. It's a slow drip of old research. If they were making these headsets available for purchase at a price normal people could afford I might give a shit.

MBCook13• 3 years ago

Sell ‘em for $3000 to early adopters. It would still be something.

Instead it’s more “don’t forget us!” after years of nothing to show for the Metaverse after throwing away insane amounts of money and then having all the air sucked out of the room by Apple‘s announcement.

charcircuit2• 3 years ago

I've seen ALL these prototypes already.

No, you haven't.

nickstinemates• 3 years ago

Varifocal sounds amazing. And if it has true retina quality, that might make it an actual great desktop replacement. I remain wanting to be convinced.

easytiger• 3 years ago

Surely, outside of niche applications, people don't think this is a viable mass product?

gigatexal• 3 years ago

Meta: hey look at us! We are doing cool things! We were doing metaverse VR stuff way before Apple! Lol.

robinbdru• 3 years ago

Only reason I would wear VR is to watch some really good movies with the experience of watching it just like the Apple commercials or being able to « walk » inside the scenes besides the actors. Not even sure I would appreciate the movie as much as the makers wanted me to watch it.

Make me walk on Pandora with VR, maybe I’ll like it. Anything else too close from reality, what’s the point?

baby6• 3 years ago

There's a million cool things to do with VR, but one thing I see nobody thinking about: attending a concert or sport event front row

MBCook13• 3 years ago

Apple had some demos of that for the lucky journalists who got a hands-on. Spatial video footage that was maybe only a few seconds. I’m pretty sure there was a concert and I know they also got to see a little bit of a Denver Nuggets game.

John Gruber and Ben Thompson were both amazed at the basketball footage and one or both of them said they would happily buy a season pass for it.

agar2• 3 years ago

Apple bought NextVR (and shuttered or stealthed it), whose sports-broadcast-in-VR platform was fantastic even years ago when I watched NBA games in my original Rift. No one has really stepped into that space since.

Concerts in VR are a real and big thing already.

Examples:

Fatboy Slim: https://youtu.be/u1ulTKJNj7Y?t=145 (watch for at least 30 seconds)

Notorious BIG: https://themusicuniverse.com/meta-announces-exclusive-notori...

Megan Thee Stallion: https://www.livedesignonline.com/news/bring-thee-hottieverse...

rabf3• 3 years ago

Felix and Paul Studios have put out some great VR theatre perfomances.

crazygringo2• 3 years ago

Having experimented with a ton of content on VR, I've concluded:

- Being able to "walk inside" theatrical musical performances (musicals, concerts) is incredibly amazing. Like blows-you-away amazing

- Being able to "walk inside" traditional movie/TV doesn't work at all. You can't do framing/cuts/editing so it feels like you're awkwardly sitting next to actors who don't acknowledge you and you never know what to look at and you miss an important facial reaction because you were too busy noticing what a beautiful oriental rug you're standing on

You don't realize how important framing/cuts/editing is to the TV/movie experience until they disappear, so it doesn't work at all -- they turn into weird theater plays in a way, which they're not meant to be.

Whereas theatrical plays/musicals/shows are meant for you to observe action all over the stage, so it translates extremely well to VR -- and because you can be on stage, it's immersive like dinner theater and just amazing.

redox99• 3 years ago

What about sitting still (like you would in a cinema) but with a VR headset? Framing would be mostly solved as you wouldn't move around outside of slightly turning your head.

uyhgr• 3 years ago

Wow, I have been waiting for light field technology to make its way into one of these stereoscopic headsets.

But I am surprised and very impressed with how the researchers choose to use it, and that bug eye shaped lens array is pure scifi fun!

The demo in the video, timestamped below, showing why they used such a design to create a single opening behind the array is amazing in its own right.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O15wUC5D7zE&t=85

cobertos2• 3 years ago

Whatever happened to Reality Labs acquisition of CTRL labs? I was really excited with their prototype wrist keyboard but haven't seen much mention of it.

Went as far as researching developing my own but it such a different field. I hope they didn't throw away that work/knowledge

agar2• 3 years ago

They talked about it at last year's Connect conference:

https://mashable.com/article/meta-connect-wrist-controller-h...

escapecharacter• 3 years ago

(ex-Meta person who came in via the CTRL acquisition, and quit back in Dec 2022)

It’s still going! CTRL labs has received a ton of internal resources, and scaled up significantly the 3.5 years I was there. Almost all of that effort is going towards stamping out edge failure cases on the path to making a reliable consumer product.

Consider: What works well for an onstage demo or a store demo you store needs a lot of “last mile” work so that a naive consumer can take it out of a box at home and have it work flawlessly. This is especially true for a new product category. I doubt it will be in the wild until it’s rock solid. There was incredible improvements while I was there, but keep in mind it’s an entire new product category, and so it’s not worth the risk of shipping early and imperfect.

cobertos2• 3 years ago

Ah good to hear! Even if it wasn't consumer ready, I wanted to tinker/hack with it pretty bad!

Of my VR and AR device experiences, ive found I just dont have the bodily endurance for long sessions over multiple days like I do with computer screens. I thought screens + an "anywhere, any position" keyboard would be more suited to what I wanted[1]. The TapStrap got me partially there.

[1] WIP blog post about it, still have a lot of blanks to fill in, https://cobertos.com/blog/post/portable-computing-setup

asimpleusecase• 3 years ago

This display is more about trying to justify the massive spend FB is doing in the metaverse. As cool as this tech is I don’t see the justification for what they have invested.

asimpletune• 3 years ago

It boggles the mind that I would need cookies enabled to see video.

bullen2• 3 years ago

Happened to me too, and no way to fix it easily without restarting the browser... the whole cookie thing is as bad as HTTPS only.

The commercial web is dead.

whywhywhywhy• 3 years ago

Honestly can't figure out what it wants me to do, I click the button and then cant find anything on the page it sends me to that fixes it.

poulpy123• 3 years ago

There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.

As someone who was hooked to VR the moment I put on an helmet, I seriously doubt VR will substantially change the world. The point of VR is to immerse people in a virtual world, but there is nothing beyond that

andreyk• 3 years ago

People dunk on Meta for overhyping the metaverse and spending absurd amounts of money on it, but I don't think they get enough credit for the amount of useful R&D that absurd amount of money has enabled. Sure, from a business perspective it's probably silly, but from a tech-person perspective can't we celebrate truly impressive advancements in AI, optics, and hardware design for the VR space?

As far as I know Quest 2 is STILL the best (and most affordable) option* for untethered VR hardware by far (and IMO it's legitimately very good). Quest 3 is coming out soon and I am super excited to see how it compares.

* except maybe Pico 4, but that's hard to get in the US

Meta’s Reality Labs prototype hardware

Related Stories