VR (Like Apple's Vision Pro) Will Revolutionize Sports "Viewing"

[mouser]

I loved George RR Martin’s “Last Super Bowl” short story from 1975.

Imagining in a future high tech world simulated sports will be more entertaining than watching real athletes compete.

The Last Superbowl by George R. R. Martin is a Science Fiction Epitaph to Sports as we Know It - Agent Palmer

agentpalmer.com

 

[ViD]

I watched Marques Brownlee's video on the new Apple headset. It looks amazing.

I could definitely see myself paying like 20-30$ to watch a game through the headset from ice level.

Have you watched an NHL game from the ice level ? It’s a terrible experience if you are there to really watch the game and not bang on the glass. You have to watch half of the game on the jumbotron

 

[Svechhammer]

You’re posting in a thread started by someone excited about the technology…

Yeah man no demand for the technology, checks out

I mean the people who are excited about VR are super excited about what Apple is doing and people who fawn all over anything Apple does are excited, but despite how loud they are, they still only represent a very small portion of the overall consumer base.

 

[Ezpz]

The majority of people can't even afford nutritious food anymore, something with a high cost of entry like VR isn't going to take off. VR seemed like the next big thing in 2005 and is still just as niche as it was then.

 

[Bakayoko Ono]

Let’s talk when you can get this stuff in the form of contact lenses instead of a bulky headset.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Yeah I have an Oculus that was given to me, and the only kinds of games where I can really play are sim racing where the body is meant to be static while the world moves around you. With a force feedback wheel, you can do well enough to fool the mind that you are there, but you still get a little vertigo at times. Anything else, and the vertigo is very prominent.

Seeing the VR set from Apple, its basically the same thing, and there's no way this takes off in any meaningful ways. People aren't going to put on a sweatbox of a headset just to watch hockey when they can get a 70 inch 4k for cheaper. And hell, by the time the VR set hits the market, and isn't just a dev kit, 8k sets will be available for a reasonable price and streaming will be prominent enough that most sporting events will be available in at least 4k.

Things will change if VR sets become smaller and more easily wearable, like glasses, but until that happens, its just not really reasonable to think that this will take off. Hollywood thought 3D would take off and around 2010 all the premium sets had some kind of 3D capability. But they just didn't sell, and by 2016 Samsung pulled the capability from all their sets and everyone else followed suit to the point where the technology is now dead. And that's because people didn't want to wear this;

View attachment 719458

If that was a non-starter, so is this:

My feelings exactly. There's no way I'm putting that kind of headgear on to watch sports or whatever. I was intrigued by Google Glass when they were first doing trials but that failed. And make no mistake, these tech giants are mostly motivated by the opportunity to blast you with contextual ads by scanning your surroundings/viewing habits and matching advertisers. People (maybe even me) will be lured by "free" stuff (it ain't free, you're the product, they're selling you). It's definitely coming and will be prevalent one day but that gargantuan Apple gear isn't it.

 

[Crede777]

Let’s talk when you can get this stuff in the form of contact lenses instead of a bulky headset.

My eyes dry out pretty quickly. Let's make it firmware that is uploaded to a chip that everyone has implanted in their brains.

 

[mysterman2]

I just want to know how much of this technology was specifically designed for porn

anytime a product is listed as being "hands free" its got my attention.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Nope. Remember 3D TVs too?

Gimmicky junk that will fail again just like VR in the 90s, VR/AR in the 2000s and VR/AR now.

VR/AR is useful in niche areas but there is no killer app for mainsteam.

 

[KeydGV21]

There’s more “demand” for solar and wind power than nuclear, even though carbon neutrality is a fantasy without it, and it’s the safest form of energy on the planet.

I have no idea what you’re trying to argue…

I mean the people who are excited about VR are super excited about what Apple is doing and people who fawn all over anything Apple does are excited, but despite how loud they are, they still only represent a very small portion of the overall consumer base.

Wow, who would have thought people into technology might be the first people excited about a new technology…

A very small portion of the overall consumer base was at one point the only people excited about television and the internet too…and those turned out okay

 

[izlez]

I have no idea what you’re trying to argue…

Wow, who would have thought people into technology might be the first people excited about a new technology…

A very small portion of the overall consumer base was at one point the only people excited about television and the internet too…and those turned out okay

After ~30 years of internet, there are ~4.7 billion internet users. You think that aligns with BILLIONS of people having VR headsets?

 

[SEALBound]

Nope. Remember 3D TVs too?

Gimmicky junk that will fail again just like VR in the 90s, VR/AR in the 2000s and VR/AR now.

VR/AR is useful in niche areas but there is no killer app for mainsteam.

I think, historically speaking you are correct but I think technology limitations plays a huge role in that. You have to have the right hardware in place before stuff can go mainstream.

Think about what people said about laptops back in the day.

"Smartphones" like the palm pilot or a blackberry - they were bulky and ran...okay?

Now, laptops are nearly obsolete with how good smartphones are. That hardware also prompted millions of software developers to compete for cutting-edge apps and experiences. I think if VR/AR had a quality and affordable piece of hardware that could go mainstream, I think you'd see some pretty good interfaces that would appeal to viewers.

 

[chum]

i tried some VR FPS game last month and it was pretty cool. it exceeded my expecatation.

personally, I think billions of people will eventually have VR headsets.

just like billions of people eventually have internet.
just like billions of people eventually have cellphones.

it's only a matter of time in my personal opinion.

i'm guessing within 15~20 years. let's mark this comment and revisit in 2038.

 

[beowulf]

I just want to know how much of this technology was specifically designed for porn

So many tech advances in entertainment start in porn...

but ya not sure about watching hockey on a VR set.

 

[varsaku]

The majority of people can't even afford nutritious food anymore, something with a high cost of entry like VR isn't going to take off. VR seemed like the next big thing in 2005 and is still just as niche as it was then.

As with any technology, it will start off expensive. With time, improvements and more manufacturers, it will become cheaper and more affordable.

 

[chum]

on the topic.

i do think VR will be awesome for live sport events, or musical performance, or p

i look forward to the day i can watch NHL hockey in VR.

 

[Figgy44]

I think, historically speaking you are correct but I think technology limitations plays a huge role in that. You have to have the right hardware in place before stuff can go mainstream.

Think about what people said about laptops back in the day.

"Smartphones" like the palm pilot or a blackberry - they were bulky and ran...okay?

Now, laptops are nearly obsolete with how good smartphones are. That hardware also prompted millions of software developers to compete for cutting-edge apps and experiences. I think if VR/AR had a quality and affordable piece of hardware that could go mainstream, I think you'd see some pretty good interfaces that would appeal to viewers.

For what can be done on a phone or tablet vs a laptop 10 years ago, we have taken a step back. The sole reason for the mass adoption of smart devices is simplicity, ubiquity and convenience and not cutting edge. Yes, tablets and phones offer way more than tablets and phone of decades past, but the overall tech is not new, just repackaged and smaller.

The funny thing is that we don't really have as much "cutting edge" stuff and experiences as we think. The blueprints of VR have been around for a while and many movies have experimented with that vision as well along with many experimental hardware attempts over the years. Anyone remember virtual boy?

By the time it's mainstream, it's definitely not cutting edge.

I for instance am still waiting for the xeros or xorb washing machine. A decade later, still not here. Faster washes with less water and thus less damage to clothes? Yes please. I think bead washing is more likely to have mass adoption sooner than VR.

So many tech advances in entertainment start in porn...

but ya not sure about watching hockey on a VR set.

Because of demand and the fact it's always in small batch media. A live concert or sports experience isn't small batch and would have difficulties attracting developers to make such a large leap to develop and produce for it.

VR will be better for smaller things like games, advertising or back stage experience type of stuff IMO for production and development IMO at first. I think we're a long ways away from mass adoption of live experiences.

 

[KeydGV21]

After ~30 years of internet, there are ~4.7 billion internet users. You think that aligns with BILLIONS of people having VR headsets?

Yes, I think there’s a chance that a revolutionary technology achieves less than 1/4th the success of the internet…

You don’t?

 

[Svechhammer]

I have no idea what you’re trying to argue…

Wow, who would have thought people into technology might be the first people excited about a new technology…

A very small portion of the overall consumer base was at one point the only people excited about television and the internet too…and those turned out okay

VR isn't the major revolutionary leap that you think it is. AR will be, but we are still years and years away from that happening.

 

[SEALBound]

For what can be done on a phone or tablet vs a laptop 10 years ago, we have taken a step back. The sole reason for the mass adoption of smart devices is simplicity, ubiquity and convenience and not cutting edge. Yes, tablets and phones offer way more than tablets and phone of decades past, but the overall tech is not new, just repackaged and smaller.

The funny thing is that we don't really have as much "cutting edge" stuff and experiences as we think. The blueprints of VR have been around for a while and many movies have experimented with that vision as well along with many experimental hardware attempts over the years. Anyone remember virtual boy?

By the time it's mainstream, it's definitely not cutting edge.

I for instance am still waiting for the xeros or xorb washing machine. A decade later, still not here. Faster washes with less water and thus less damage to clothes? Yes please. I think bead washing is more likely to have mass adoption sooner than VR.

You have to keep things relative to the targeted mainstream audience, though. Of course by the time any piece of hardware and technology is adopted widely, it's "obsolete." No one will argue that there isn't some bonkers level of technology the US military has compared to the standard car or truck in the US consumer market but that's not necessarily the point.

Technology must go through a refinement process. So your part about "just repackaged and smaller" is correct, and that is the point I'm making. That's what needs to happen to current VR and AR hardware. As soon as headsets become economically (and ergonomically) viable, you will likely see exponential growth in the types of products and services aimed towards it and the path to wider adoption will happen, just like it has with nearly every technology. The hardware will always be the bottleneck.

So just because something isn't currently widely adopted doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to be. Plenty of instances in history where major companies balked at new technology only to become irrelevant fossils because of it. Sometimes it's because of newer technology, sometimes not. Sometimes innovations come from companies willing to provide similar services through new mediums. Look at what Netflix was able to do vs Blockbuster. But look at what Netflix started though. How many people don't have at least one content streaming service?

 

[Figgy44]

You have to keep things relative to the targeted mainstream audience, though. Of course by the time any piece of hardware and technology is adopted widely, it's "obsolete." No one will argue that there isn't some bonkers level of technology the US military has compared to the standard car or truck in the US consumer market but that's not necessarily the point.

Technology must go through a refinement process. So your part about "just repackaged and smaller" is correct, and that is the point I'm making. That's what needs to happen to current VR and AR hardware. As soon as headsets become economically (and ergonomically) viable, you will likely see exponential growth in the types of products and services aimed towards it and the path to wider adoption will happen, just like it has with nearly every technology. The hardware will always be the bottleneck.

So just because something isn't currently widely adopted doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to be. Plenty of instances in history where major companies balked at new technology only to become irrelevant fossils because of it. Sometimes it's because of newer technology, sometimes not. Sometimes innovations come from companies willing to provide similar services through new mediums. Look at what Netflix was able to do vs Blockbuster. But look at what Netflix started though. How many people don't have at least one content streaming service?

Agreed. But my comments were more directed towards the idea of rapid adoption vs long term adoption. I agree that VR will be a long term adoption, but I don't agree that it's going to be a revolutionary leap or a rapid disrupting technology in how we live life like other technologies. That's what I'm saying. Overall I agree with you. I'm just saying that new for masses isn't cutting edge and it seems you agree that by the time the masses get it, it's not cutting edge. I'm also saying that many things that the average person call cutting edge isn't cutting edge. The rare ones I can think of are basically the space exploration stuff and perhaps long term and controlled research into certain drugs. Beyond that, very little.

And Netflix didn't do anything to Blockbuster. Blockbuster did that to themselves by refusing to change and refusing to buy Netflix. But Netflix isn't as successful against Blockbuster without internet getting faster and cheaper.

That being said, I also believe that the population will go through a 5-10 year shift and both AR and VR will be viable. But that shift is going to be required and it will be sort of dystopic and will start separating populations heavily based on extreme introversion, extroversion and home bodies vs people who go out and about. People will start living in extremely comfortable 150-200 sq micro apartments jam packed full of convenient tech. VR will have a great niche there. Imagine the fake video call background, but better. That might be VR/AR blend.

But that also highlights that this tech might be more useful after a specific switch is made. AR/VR will succeed, but I have a feeling a lot of what it ultimately looks like will be totally different than what is envisioned now because a different environment will be required to allow it to be adopted.

 

[I Hate Philadelphia]

Yes, I think there’s a chance that a revolutionary technology achieves less than 1/4th the success of the internet…

You don’t?

There have been consumer VR headsets widely available for a decade+ now lol, there is nothing "revolutionary" about this.

 

[My3Sons]

How many cameras are needed to make a VR experience work for a hockey game and where do they put them and who does the directing for what is shown and will the viewing angle live up to the promises made by VR? I think the headset is not the issue once they get past the teething stage so much as whether the product delivered is truly better than a large TV screen experience. It's also not a great approach to watching games in a group setting.

 

[Soundwave]

Nope. Remember 3D TVs too?

Gimmicky junk that will fail again just like VR in the 90s, VR/AR in the 2000s and VR/AR now.

VR/AR is useful in niche areas but there is no killer app for mainsteam.

I’d say being able to feel like you are at a front row seat at a sporting event or even on the play surface without having to pay 300 plus for a ticket will be one killer app as it gets more widespread.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

I’d say being able to feel like you are at a front row seat at a sporting event or even on the play surface without having to pay 300 plus for a ticket will be one killer app as it gets more widespread.

If you want to watch alone.