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

[syz]

The key difference between skepticism over mass adoption of a smart phone and skepticism over mass adoption of VR is that one of those things has a significantly higher chance of being flat out rejected by a certain percentage of the human population's inner ear.

 

[Fantomas]

The key difference between skepticism over mass adoption of a smart phone and skepticism over mass adoption of VR is that one of those things has a significantly higher chance of being flat out rejected by a certain percentage of the human population's inner ear.

Also looks like sh*t.

 

[Svechhammer]

IMO the technological step that will make all of this work out has not happened yet, and will seem very obvious after the fact.

The concept of an "internet" was incomprehensible to a world without computer chips. The concept of mass communication was incomprehensible to a world without electric wires. Something else of a similar magnitude will come along and make the whole conversation about headsets obsolete.

Honestly, the biggest step needed here is a major leap forward in battery design and capability. We just cannot have anything small enough to be truly wearable nowadays, and if we do, it'll be stripped down so much that it'll only be a shell of what it could be. My smartwatch has a battery that can last maybe 30 hours, but for the most part its just an extension of my phone, unable to be a standalone device.

Thing is, once that leap happens, we won't be talking about VR headsets for this kind of tech, it'll be about wearing AR glasses.

 

[Nocashstyle]

Companies never wrong, says local oaf.



Oh yeah sure. A phone that fits well in my pocket is the same thing as a big plastic headset on somebody's face.

Yeah you seem real bright making sweeping statements based on your aversions.

 

[DaPhazz]

Companies never wrong, says local oaf.



Oh yeah sure. A phone that fits well in my pocket is the same thing as a big plastic headset on somebody's face.

Sounds like my 80 year old grand dad in 1993, helluva man though

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Make you feel like you are somewhere when you are actually not, be able to have 4 or 5 floating displays in front of you without the need for 4 or 5 actual displays, being able to make a 200 foot screen for yourself (good luck doing that with your OLED) with a simple flick of the hand, even things like the 3D "moment capture", people raved about it.

I'd definitely pay $10-$20 to be able to watch a concert where it feels like you are literally standing right next to the artist. That would be cool.

The impressions from people that got to try the Apple device are from what I've seen almost across the board extremely impressed





The thing about this too is, going forward this is the worst this tech is going to be. It's only going to get better and better with subsequent revisions, just like iPhone 1/2/3/4/5 etc.

And none of that seems niche to you?

Yeah, it might be cool to go onstage with Taylor Swift. Once. For a song.

What non-niche user needs to juggle 4 or 5 displays, or create a 200 foot screen for themselves (please elaborate on this - I honestly cannot comprehend the situation where I would want or need to do this.)

As far as “revolutionizing sports viewing” - like, maybe, sure, a bit.

I can see it being fun to ride along with Fernando Alonso’s helmet cam for a whole race, as much as I can see it being nauseating and completely overwhelming from a sensory perspective, and that would only get worse with a sport like hockey or football where chaos reigns supreme.

Replacing broadcasts? No. Have fun explaining that to all your sponsors, that they only broadcast to people with stupid goggles (who for sure wouldn’t take them off during commercials - nobody turns off the tv during a break, so advertisers still get those impressions by osmosis)

Before we start reinventing media consumption, why don’t we start by putting those tennis Hawkeyes over the blue lines and goal lines so reviews take 15 seconds instead of 15 minutes?

 

[snag]

Uh.....VR, like it or not, is the direction tech is headed.

171 million people already gaming and that number is rising. Anybody who thinks otherwise is probably still hearing "you got mail" when they go online.

Funny enough, @Rodgerwilco likes that comment (never noticed his D when I tagged him )

And never had AOL myself....but oh the memories lol Remember my first foray into online porn in the 90s. Couple buddies and I drinking Crown and Coke, dial into Compuserve and watched the image render chunk by chunk. 5 minutes later, we had our image. Then we moved onto the chat rooms....and when my buddy said "i'm gonna be a chick!" I said, and I am never going into this things for anything other than this purpose lol

 

[Osprey]

This comment will look silly in a decade or two.

People said the same thing about skepticism over Google Glass a decade ago. Microsoft HoloLens and in-home 3D glasses failed to catch on, as well. I wouldn't be so sure about the future, which is hard to predict. We always think that we know what it'll be and we're often wrong.

I do remember when the iPhone was introduced at the time, the entire trend for cell phones was smaller = better and some people claimed people would never carry around a big fat slab of a device.

Welp. And the phones today are way bigger than even that iPhone 1, lol. The bigger screen models are what people want, no one cares if it isn't the most compact or lightest.

The first iPhone wasn't any bigger than the best smartphones available at the time, like the Palm Treo 700wx. In fact, the iPhone was arguably smaller because it was thinner.

 

[tfwnogf]

it'll revolutionize porn more, but yea sports too ig

 

[Roomtemperature]

When I first got a PSVR there was a streaming app that had NBA and WWE highlights inVR. There might have been an NBA game that was live streamed or full rebroadcast. It was neat but the PSVR is obviously a lesser tech so it wasn't as good

 

[Soundwave]

People said the same thing about skepticism over Google Glass a decade ago. Microsoft HoloLens and in-home 3D glasses failed to catch on, as well. I wouldn't be so utterly sure about the future, especially when that's what you're criticizing others for being.

The first iPhone wasn't any bigger than the best smartphones available at the time, like the Palm Treo 700wx. In fact, the iPhone was arguably smaller because it was a lot thinner.

In the early 2000s though the whole "cool" thing was to have the smallest/thinnest phone. That's what part of why the Motorola Razr (as in razor thin) was like the "hot" phone of the 2000s until the iPhone showed up.

People who carried big fat phones were like business suits, if you were a "cool kid" going out to the bars, it was all about phones like the Razr.

 

[Crede777]

Not sure if you’re joking or not. But it’s very obvious that’s the way technology has been trending. Look at the money the biggest technology companies in the world have been pumping into VR. It will become imbedded into everyday life eventually. Video games, sporting events, work meetings, movies, concerts…

I’m not saying I’m into it. But it’s pretty clear where this is heading.

I am hesitant to make a prediction about future technology because that's almost always a recipe for looking silly down the road.

But this was Google's stance with the Google Glass and look what happened. Also, Meta had been hemorrhaging money ($13.7 billion lost in the last year) on VR and AR products.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I wear glasses. I'm not spending $3,000 wearing a headset that wouldn't be any better for viewing. It would completely lack the atmosphere, smell, and temperature.

 

[Soundwave]

I wear glasses. I'm not spending $3,000 wearing a headset that wouldn't be any better for viewing. It would completely lack the atmosphere, smell, and temperature.

Well it wouldn't cost $300+ for the ticket either though.

I wouldn't pay the price of a normal hockey ticket ... but I would be willing to pay $10-15 to have a view from the player's bench and/or even on the ice surface itself?

I think I would.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

The concept was obvious but the understanding of what it’s capable of was not. Internet on phones existed before 2007, it was used as a glorified pager that could check your emails and google mostly text based results in a pinch. There was a ton of legwork needed to build out real world infrastructure before it became a completely new thing beyond an email checker.

Right but VR technology has been able to do the things it does now, for decades.

I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D 20 years ago on some headgear straight out of Jurassic Park.

They’ve been used as professional simulators for ages.

Heads up displays in cars have been around for 30 years - they aren’t even ubiquitous now, because nobody likes them.

They’re distracting, they’re often hard to see, they’re hard on your eyes, OH and they add $1000 to the cost of a replacement windshield.

Those creepy Christmas movies Robert Zemeckis made in the mid 2000s are another example - this creepy uncanny shit doesn’t play well with our brains.

Again, if it makes for a sick gaming experience, or better adult time, fantastic. It doesn’t need to be anything more than that.

 

[FinProspects]

NHL could first come up with a high quality service (4k, nfl gamepass like content)...lets talk vr in 15 years.

 

[Nocashstyle]

People said the same thing about skepticism over Google Glass a decade ago. Microsoft HoloLens and in-home 3D glasses failed to catch on, as well. I wouldn't be so utterly sure about the future, especially when that's what you're criticizing others for being.

I’m criticizing those saying “no one is ever…” And again, Google Glasses and similar products only had one practical use. However, there’s a reason companies have been trying to develop VR and AR for years. As the technology continues to develop and the devices are eventually priced at more “everyday” consumer levels, VR/AR headsets will become increasingly more ingrained into daily life and work. Even if Apple Vision isn’t the product to bring it mainstream, another one eventually will. It may not be for a decade or more, but it will happen.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Well it wouldn't cost $300+ for the ticket either though.

I wouldn't pay the price of a normal hockey ticket ... but I would be willing to pay $10-15 to have a view from the player's bench and/or even on the ice surface itself?

I think I would.

I think you’d get motion sickness by the end of the 1st period if you tried watching a hockey game in VR from one of those ref cams.

And if you had to pick a player’s helmet cam, it’d be even more confusing.

These games move way too fast for that.

 

[Ceremony]

Replacing broadcasts? No. Have fun explaining that to all your sponsors, that they only broadcast to people with stupid goggles (who for sure wouldn’t take them off during commercials - nobody turns off the tv during a break, so advertisers still get those impressions by osmosis)

The May Resume Viewing Once You Have Watched 60 Seconds of Messages From Our Sponsors

"revolutionise"

 

[Soundwave]

Right but VR technology has been able to do the things it does now, for decades.

I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D 20 years ago on some headgear straight out of Jurassic Park.

They’ve been used as professional simulators for ages.

Heads up displays in cars have been around for 30 years - they aren’t even ubiquitous now, because nobody likes them.

They’re distracting, they’re often hard to see, they’re hard on your eyes, OH and they add $1000 to the cost of a replacement windshield.

Those creepy Christmas movies Robert Zemeckis made in the mid 2000s are another example - this creepy uncanny shit doesn’t play well with our brains.

Again, if it makes for a sick gaming experience, or better adult time, fantastic. It doesn’t need to be anything more than that.

I don't think you'd have that issue though. If you have a courtside seat at an NBA game via VR, you're looking at the real Steph Curry, not a CG version of him. It's going to feel like it's ... Steph Curry, just like he's 3 feet away from you.

Or Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon or whoever.

 

[syz]

I don't think you'd have that issue though. If you have a courtside seat at an NBA game via VR, you're looking at the real Steph Curry, not a CG version of him. It's going to feel like it's ... Steph Curry, just like he's 3 feet away from you.

Or Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon or whoever.

You're describing a novelty not a revolution.

And, again for the people in the back, a novelty that will be flat out rejected by a percentage of the audience's brains and/or inner ears.

 

[Bounces R Way]

The prospect of Cabbie screaming the live odds at me 3 inches from my face doesn't appeal to me. I've tried VR and AR a handful of times and it's cool as a novelty but there's a law of diminishing returns at play here.

 

[Soundwave]

You're describing a novelty not a revolution.

And, again for the people in the back, a novelty that will be flat out rejected by a percentage of the audiences brains and/or inner ears.

Well that was the other thing from the Apple impressions, a lot of people who said they've had motion sickness from VR didn't have the same effect from the Apple headset.

The resolution of the displays being super high probably has a lot to do with it. Even 2K resolution, which is high is not high enough when you have a display right next to your eye.

Touch panels used to be thought of as novelties too, people kinda laughed at the Nintendo DS when Nintendo introduced it compared to the non-touch Sony PSP (this is even 3 years prior to the iPhone). Fast forward 5-6 years and touch interface has taken over everything.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Right but VR technology has been able to do the things it does now, for decades.

I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D 20 years ago on some headgear straight out of Jurassic Park.

They’ve been used as professional simulators for ages.

Heads up displays in cars have been around for 30 years - they aren’t even ubiquitous now, because nobody likes them.

They’re distracting, they’re often hard to see, they’re hard on your eyes, OH and they add $1000 to the cost of a replacement windshield.

Those creepy Christmas movies Robert Zemeckis made in the mid 2000s are another example - this creepy uncanny shit doesn’t play well with our brains.

Again, if it makes for a sick gaming experience, or better adult time, fantastic. It doesn’t need to be anything more than that.

90s brick phones could feasibly get internet, it’s not valuable to the average person until you have it in a convenient form factor with cheap high bandwidth data and society being profit driven around working with phones.

Again it’s not the 360 visualization that’s relevant here, it’s that if people start using the Apple headset everyone will have a 3D scanner on their head the same way everyone suddenly got a high quality camera + GPS in their pocket. If you start making a crowdsourced high res 3D map of the world, advertisers are going to want to compete for (highly tracked) eyeballs in it and money is going to pour in on blended digital/real ads.

Duke Nukem 3D has no way to be profitable besides people paying you to play it, there’s no ad money coming in to A/B test how people’s pupils react to 1000 AI generated versions of a Bet99 ad that can seamlessly let you pull a free slot machine roll.

It’s terrible dystopian tech once the profit motives line up right and the hardware gets cheaper and smaller. The two main trends in tech are that we keep moving towards higher density of data to consume and the tech that moves the fastest is the tech that’s most advertiser friendly, Apple seems like they’re hyperfocusing both of those things.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Nobody can afford this shit