It’s sort of like how YouTube ran at a loss for a long time. The idea is to get ingrained in the market and make up the money later.
Right now Meta has the best VR / AR that is easily accessible. If some new idea or technology catapults VR into a more popular position, then Meta is in a prime position to take advantage.
Will that happen? I don’t know, but Meta seems to think so.
I don’t think the technology is there yet. As long as people need to wear big bulky goggles and headsets it’s not going to take off. Make something that’s about as cumbersome as sunglasses and less than $1000 and there might be mass adoption.
I agree that the tech isn't there, but unless we figure out some new physics it's going to be impossible to put enough battery, computing power, and cooling capacity in something the size of sunglasses. So the tech for VR like we really want is at least 20 years away, if not more.
This requires an Apple iPhone XR or newer, as the face scan utilizes the TrueDepth sensor.
Am I wrong in my reading that this hardware product is only available for people who already own and use an iPhone XR or newer? It seemed neat until I got to that bit…
I don’t own one nor do I know anyone who does, but as far as I’ve understood it from casual Googling the product, you just have to find one to use it to submit a scan of your face so they can mold the thing properly. So it’s more like you have to lend an iPhone for 5 minutes from someone/somewhere, which while being annoying, hardly seems like an obstacle to me when considering those.
Idk why they don’t have an app for Android based phones (fuck iPhones) but it’s a small-ish company which is making them and I imagine there are things about software development I’m unaware of so I couldn’t say “they should just have the app in Google Play store as well” as if it were that simple with 3D-scanning.
You’re right, it’s not an insurmountable obstacle, I think I was just feeling petulant about seeing another product with a sign next to it saying basically, “you must be this invested in the Apple ecosystem to ride”.
Let’s be real though, it’s already a better option than what Apple is offering for $3500, so I’m sure they will get some traction before being bought out.
Lastly, because you underscored the point I was making, fuck iPhones.
It depends what the tie ratio / attach rate is for the device and whether owners maintain usage of the device or whether it’s a novelty that wears off over time and the device gathers dust.
The index is better overall and I love mine, but I can’t help but feel jealous that someone can just grab their quest, put it on and get into VR immediately. I have to cart my PC downstairs, turn the base stations on, find the index and wire it all up, troubleshoot why Windows has decided to mess up the drivers and now nothing works, and maybe half an hour later finally get into a game or completely give up and try again another time.
The quest gains a lot in portability and ease of setup, and that does result in a lot of other features being sacrificed but to most people the downsides don’t matter as much.
See also: Meta’s recent opening of their vr headset OS to other hardware manufacturers.
They don’t give a shit about profit at this stage as long as they control it and can use it to suppress the development of any kind of competitors.
There are a lot of problems keeping VR from going big and I think Meta’s strategy of cornering the market is one of them. They think if they get all the exclusives they’ll be the next iPhone but I think instead they’re fragmenting an already tiny market which really needs a bunch of impressive experiences (and there still aren’t a ton right now, even after years of VR development). I feel like the reverse would win them more users - they should win on hardware AND software but make their software available for any VR headset to use. Because right now they need to help create a market for VR because there really isn’t one worth cornering yet.
They just announced that they opened up the OS for other manufacturers to use. I know Asus/ROG is supposed to have a headset in the works using the OS.
??? You don’t need a specific room. Quest doesn’t need any beacons or wires.
I don’t like Facebook, never had a Facebook account and refused to buy their VR until they removed the Facebook account requirement 2 years ago.
But the hardware is excellent for the price. Facebook is selling the hardware at a loss and making it up in software sales. So you are hurting Facebook by buying their hardware and using it with Steam.
SteamVR is a software store. It has nothing to do with whether the hardware needs beacons in the room or wires.
You can play SteamVR racing sims at your desk. If it’s a standing game, you push a button and then draw virtual borders on the floor wherever you are to define the play space.
That would be Valve‘s Deckard, I suppose. Would be nice if that would materialize at some point soon.
But even a „windows equivalent“ HorizonOS would be an improvement in the standalone headset space if that meant I could choose between HMD vendors and carry over all my software.
Depends; is the one team still gonna play and pretend like the opposition is invisible while pratfalling tackles and such? That might be kinda fun to see at least once.
wut? How is that a response? I am asking if everyone has to succeed for it to be competition. So your analogy should be ‘would football be a good game if both sides won?’
Business lesson, : never build a factory because it won’t pay for itself in the first year.
And yes I know it’s hard to hear but Meta’s vr is doing really well in the areas they targeted, industry, academia, and special use. This is likely to end up a profitable part of their business for a long time.
Yeah unfortunately I agree, as much as I dread knowing Meta’s going to be behind a lot of the VR/AR developments as it gets more common, this isn’t really an indication that they screwed up. They’re not the first company I’d want to lead the VR market but it looks like they will be regardless.
They shouldn’t have that amount of disposable income in the first place, and a good portion should have been tax money. If that money were invested in public housing the return would be massive.
Think about it longer term… All the people struggling at the bottom now have secure housing. More money is free for nutrition, hygiene, they can get better jobs or afford schooling… Trades or higher education. More people have a chance to escape poverty and contribute production, get more money to spend, more money gets out into local economies. So and so forth. It’s a good idea.
Really? You don’t think that building solid foundations for people to get on their feet and start making more money themselves, money that they can turn around and spend on more products, would have a fantastic return? The benefit for the economy would be immense but corporations can’t write that into their spreadsheets changing their bottom line so it “doesn’t count”
I mean, you do understand that this money isn’t just vanishing right? It’s being spent on people, manufacturing, materials. It doesn’t just vanish into nothing.
Its also drawing real resources away from other things. The real estate used on these luxury failures had other potential buyers and raises costs across the board as it competes for chip factory space, marketing, etc.
If the money was taxed out of circulation it actually does essentially vanish, increasing the value of every remaining dollar if the state budget remains unchanged - its the easiest way to reduce inflation.
These big corporations with lots of money do affect everyone when they make big stupid decisions - resources get misallocated and costs go up. Money doesn’t exist in a void, the things people do with it have real world effects.
That’s because they’re losing billions selling it. If it cost what it actually took to produce it wouldn’t be the best on the market anymore, they’re trying to bully out players who can’t afford to lose billions for years until they’re in total control.
Ok, so it sounds like you put a lot of value on a standalone experience. So something like a Switch or phone for gaming instead of a gaming PC.
That seems to be the area they win at. They don’t have the best image, refresh rate, or tracking accuracy, but they are easy to get going with, and it’s inexpensive relative to other options.
To me, the biggest strength is how small the headset is and the fact that you don’t need to dedicate a room to VR with sensors.
I put a lot of value on how easy it is to setup. When VR first started, I had a dedicated 7x7 space with a pulley system so that the wires wouldn’t get in the way. My computer had to be near as well.
If I had a mansion, I would definitely use a better headset, but if we want a better VR adoption, then it needs to be accessible to as many people as possible.
You reckon Apple made money on it’s VR division either?
Almost nobody is making big money on VR, because nobody wants to work together to make it into a widely compatible common standard. If you could have one headset that worked on all platforms, for a reasonable price, you’d get a lot more take up, and nicer headsets costing more would make more sense.
Meta is valued at 1.12 Trillion, which, sure, is only ~1/2 of Apples 2.6 Trillion… but Meta could invest in VR for the next 20 years without feeling the pain.
I do love my Q2 and Q3, and hope they keep pushing VR forward, which is the main (maybe only) reason i was happy to see apple join the competition.
Take a look at Meta revenue numbers, they can afford billions in R&D investment just fine. I’m not sure what market share you’re talking about but there’s plenty of money for them to afford the VR research they do.
The quest probably has the best experience though, it’s really easy to setup and works both standalone or connected to PC via cable or wifi 6, there really isn’t anything as easy and accessible as it.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but these companies need to pay more taxes. Losing $3.9 billion dollars on a stupid vanity project because they have nothing else to spend it on is ridiculous. Higher taxes would at least force them to be more efficient.
You're not really talking about higher taxes, you're talking about reworking the corporate tax system. As things stand now higher taxes would encourage more of this sort of behavior, not less.
Corporations only pay taxes on profits, so money spent on business activities, re-invested back into the company, paid to employees, etc. is not taxed. In this system, taxes are kind of a penalty paid for taking money out of the business; the higher taxes are the less incentivized profit-taking is.
If your company made $100 million in profits at a 20% tax rate you get to take home $80 million as opposed to re-investing $100 million back in the company and not paying any taxes, so the incentive to re-invest isn't very high. But if your company made $100 million in profits at a 40% tax rate now you can only take home $60 million as opposed to re-investing $100 million, which becomes a much better value proposition on re-investment.
Whether VR works for Meta or not, they have invested in technology and built careers for employees. This is why we should have corporate taxes. I’d rather see corporations keep employees and advance technology instead of giving dividends to the wealthiest people in the world. While the product might not work out, I bet there are many people who worked on it that will take those skills to new projects.
Many people have no clue how taxes work, but darn it, they wanted them raised. It just encourages other behaviors, such as offshoring money, as many companies do. We really need a complete write of the tax code to encourage paying workers well, creating jobs, etc and less focus on avoiding paying the taxes. I don’t care if a company makes billions in profit if their workers are all paid well, treated well, etc. We will make it up with them having money to spend in the economy.
I am still not convinced VR is a worthy technology outside of a few niche uses. I went to the verge when that was open and that was pretty cool. At home is nothing like that.
Investment is good. Public policy is usually designed to encourage it that’s why investment has good tax avoidance that is exactly what the government wants.
It’s maybe unpopular, but I agree that if you’re going to leverage your success to make a bet on the next big thing, VR/AR is a great choice. I agree it’s inevitable that many computing interfaces will eventually become a personalized virtual space, and AR will eventually become a permanent way to add our “computer brains’” data to our vision.
Obviously we’re not there yet. And there’s always going to be a contingent that thinks that future will never come. But I do think it’ll come, when that one thing or things we need VR/AR to do and can’t seem to imagine life without are eventually found. Zuck doesn’t know where the inflection point is going to happen but he’s positioning Meta to be in the ideal place to own the space. He seems to know it may not happen for a long time. He’s gambling he can afford to wait for it, which is a bet I’d take.
Write-offs are entirely misunderstood by people. Writing off losses doesn’t magically make loss profitable.
I’ll use myself as an example. I teach underwater photography at a university as a side gig. Last year I made about $3,000 teaching the class, and I also spent about $1,000 on underwater camera gear for the class. Because of that I get to reduce my taxable income by $1,000, so it’s as if I made $2,000.
At my tax bracket a write-off reduces my income taxes by 22% of the expense. So on a thousand-dollar purchase I’m still losing nearly 800 bucks.
Of course it’s better than not having the write-off. But it’s not like it’s free.
Business expenses aren’t profit so they aren’t taxed because it’s money you didn’t actually make.
Since most businesses operate on a small margin, removing tax deductions would make tax burdens higher than profits.
And it’s not like that camera lens isn’t being taxed. I’m buying it from a company that pays taxes on its profits and payroll and whose employees pay taxes, and on top of that I’m paying sales tax (to a different entity of course).
Yeah. Come back in 10-15 years when half the world is using it or a successive product and people will be posting articles like these laughing at them like they do with the ones saying the internet or cell phones will never catch on and surprisingly no one will open up and admit they were the ones denying it would come. Meta has the money, they don’t care how much they spend, as long as they can get in and corner the market early they will make it back many times over in the years to come… assuming climate change or nukes don’t make it impossible of course.
So what? R&D expenses aren’t supposed to turn an immediate profit. Developing a new technology can take years before it’s earning money, and some never do. I’m all aboard the “hate meta” train, but that’s nothing.
Add comment