Facebook and virtual reality? Really? Did Mark Zuckerberg really expect us all to don high-tech scuba masks just so we could watch kitten videos in 3D on our news feeds?
Exactly one year and one day later, Facebook made its intentions for Oculus a teensy bit clearer. Addressing developers at its annual F8 conference yesterday, Michael Abrash, chief scientist for Oculus, took the stage. His purpose? To blow our collective minds.
In a TED-style keynote, Abrash demonstrated just how unreal our notions of reality really are using a series of classic optical and aural illusions, thoroughly messing with the heads of the thousands of Facebook developers in the audience.
Abrash demonstrated how the brain makes assumptions about color based on which hues surround it (forever after known as “the Dress” effect).
(Business Insider)
See those red and blue pills? They’re really gray. No, really, they are.
He also showed how our brain makes assumptions about size and shape based on the angle and proximity of other objects. Here’s an alternate version of the classic Shepard’s Tables used by Abrash.
(ScienceChannel.com)
The red and green tables shown above really are red and green, but they’re also the same size and shape. To prove that to his skeptical viewers, Abrash had audience members take envelopes out from under their chairs that contained a version of the same graphic, only with a way to pop out the surface of the vertically oriented table and lay it over the horizontal one. Yep, same size and shape.
He also demonstrated the McGurk Effect, which shows how our brain interprets audio signals also using visual clues.
(Bite Sci-zed/YouTube)
The girl in the video is saying the same thing each time, but whether you hear “bar” or “far” depends largely on the shape her lips are making.
The reason all these illusions work is that our brain takes signals from our eyes and ears and then infers a model of reality that is right nearly all the time — just not any of these times. VR also works by messing with how your brain infers what is real.
Bottom line? All reality is virtual.
VR technology today is good enough to create a believable experience, “but just barely,” says Abrash.
The latest Oculus Rift prototype, code-named Crescent Bay, would still need 20 times more pixels to re-create the experience of a standard monitor seen at a normal viewing distance, he says. To re-create a retina display, it would need 200 times more pixels.
Abrash sees VR as the next great leap forward in the technology revolution that started with the PC itself, then moved through the graphical user interface, the Web, and smartphones. Getting there will need a deep-pocketed partner. Enter Facebook.
“Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus was an important moment in the history of technology,” Abrash said. “It meant there was no longer any doubt that VR would get the runway it needed to achieve its true potential.”
In addition to screen technology, VR still needs significant improvements in haptics, or nonvisual feedback; the ability to manipulate objects in a virtual environment using our hands; and better tracking of our eyes, face, hands, and body in virtual space. All of that is on the horizon, Abrash says, and Facebook’s checkbook can make it happen.
“Once the technology gets good enough,” Abrash says, “it has the potential to re-create any experience that’s possible in the real world or any experience we’re capable of having.”
Virtual reality pioneer Oculus VR doesn't just want to get its products on your head, it wants them in your hands as well.
The headset maker has been quietly preparing motion controllers -- devices that let you drive the action and manipulate objects in games with hand and body movements -- to complement its forthcoming goggles, people familiar with the development process say. The result: a more immersive experience in video games and other simulations.
But it's the implications of this technology that may have broader impact in the real world. By marketing its own motion controllers, Oculus may upset developers on its platform.
More than a half-dozen companies are developing their own motion control devices to compliment Oculus's headset, called the "Rift." Investors, developers and early customers have already sunk millions of dollars into these technologies; meanwhile, the companies have formed partnerships with software makers to include specialized code to support their devices.
Industry insiders say it's natural for Oculus to begin work on motion controls, particularly because they've become popular among the many game developers. But by doing so, Oculus will also effectively compete against accessories makers who are among the most valuable and vocal champions of its products.
"Oculus's responsibility is to consumers at the end of the day," said Julian Volyn, co-founder of Trinity VR, a startup creating motion controllers. Like many other motion controllers being launched, Trinity is turning to users on the crowd-funding site Kickstarter to support its development.
It's unclear when Oculus will reveal its motion controllers to the public. The company has yet to announce a formal launch date for the "Rift" headset, though some industry watchers expect it to arrive next year. Following an agreement to be acquired by Facebook for $2 billion in March, Oculus has said it is creating new prototypes of its products with specialized parts to ensure higher quality.
Oculus isn't the first company to face the potential of creating a product that could hurt some developers on its platform. Apple was at times criticized for integrating popular functionality into its computer operating system that had been developed by outside software makers, effectively killing that third-party business. Microsoft has also been accused of such practices in the past; It recently raised the ire of some computer partners when it launched the Surface tablet, its first PC.
For Oculus, there is a lot of pressure to make the best possible product that attracts customers to its platform, Volyn added. "It makes sense for them to take matters into their own hands."
An Oculus spokesman declined to comment.
A new move
Nintendo popularized motion control technology when it became the primary way customers interacted with its Wii video game console, launched in 2006. In the box was a wand, often called a "Wiimote," and a sensor that was placed above or below a television, translating the remote's movements onto the screen.
Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard's chief executive, once recalled in an interview how impressed he was when Nintendo demonstrated a prototype of the Wii controller with a fishing game; players flicked the Wiimote to mimic the real-world movement of casting out a lure.
"The idea was expressed in three seconds with one gesture," he said. The controls and their corresponding games became a cultural phenomenon.
The way motion controls work is deceptively simple.
Developers combine specialized software and hardware to sense each move of a controller with painstaking detail, interpret its meaning, and then turn it into a command in the game. The controllers themselves usually have a compliment of sensors, such as a gyroscope that can understand its position and whether it's laying flat, standing upright or turning in a circle. Some emit light that is seen by a camera that analyzes the intensity, size and other details to determine how close or far a player is from the screen.
The result: Players can imitate motions like swinging a sword or pulling the string of a archer's bow in the real world, and see their movements displayed in the game.
"When you can see your hands in the VR world, and these hands correspond to what your actual hands are doing, it's a very powerful experience," said Jan Goetgeluk, head of Virtuix. The startup makes a platform called the "Omni," which can track players' movements as they walk.
One of the most vexing drawbacks of many motion controllers is their limited field of vision. Since the cameras and sensors often face toward players, the motion controller usually stops working if you turn away.
Oculus currently sells a headset to developers for $350 that includes such a camera. Players position themselves in front of it in order to detect movements such as if they lean in or tilt their body. At least one prototype Oculus has developed attaches a camera to the headset, allowing for greater range of motion, people familiar with the development efforts say.
The company has also researched using magnetic fields, infrared lights and various cameras, all to determine where a player is in a room, as well as where and how their hands are moving, these people add.
In one case, the company researched technology similar to what had been developed by game maker Valve. That company created virtual reality headsets using images placed strategically around a room. A camera and computer would use those images to determine a player's position.
Whatever form Oculus's motion technology ultimately arrives in, many game developers agree it will add an additional sense of immersion to VR-enhanced video games.
"Everyone knows that hand tracking is a component that needs to be there," said Denny Unger, president of CloudHead Games, a virtual reality game maker. "It just has to be there."
For motion control makers on Oculus's platform, there aren't many other options to work with high-end game makers. Sony plans to integrate its own motion controls into its competing virtual reality technology for its PlayStation 4 video game console.
But new opportunities are emerging in the form of mobile devices.
A growing list of hardware manufacturers ranging from smartphone titan Samsung to gaming devices maker Razer have begun research and development of alternative virtual reality headsets, people familiar with the matter say. Many smaller companies are developing headsets to support multiple devices, including Apple's iPhone, as well. And even Google has indicated interest, with theannouncement of its Cardboard project.
Some motion control makers say they're already preparing. Virtuix will offer support for mobile devices through a bluetooth connection. And Sixense Entertainment, which makes tools for integrating motion controls into virtual reality, is building support for Apple's iOS and Google's Android software as well.
Mobile devices will be key to the broader success of virtual reality, said Sixense CEO Amir Rubin. Many consumer's first virtual reality experiences will likely happen with a phone inserted into a headset, he added, representing an important opportunity for accessories makers.
"The motion controller that will succeed on mobile will be the default," he said.
Nike engineers and other hardware and manufacturing experts from the company's FuelBand team are at the top of the recruitment list for high-profile tech firms racing to deliver new products in emerging categories like wearable technology.
Smart-device-maker Nest, now owned by Google after a $3.2 billion acquisition in January, is among the first in line to scoop up Nike members who were let go. Nest reportedly flew members of its team to Nike's worldwide headquarters in Beaverton, Ore., on Thursday, according to a story by TechCrunch. Nest, the maker of smart thermostats and Internet-connected smoke detectors, set up an "impromptu interview session" at a local hotel to gauge the interest of FuelBand engineers in joining its team in Palo Alto, Calif.Last week, Nike fired a majority of its wearable-hardware team -- as many as 55 people in the 70-person unit -- within its Digital Sport division, CNET has learned. Nike CEO Mark Parker todayconfirmed that the company is shifting its focus to software. Many FuelBand employees are staying on at Nike through the end of May, which marks the end of the company's fiscal year.
This flyer, provided to TechCrunch by an anonymous tipster, was allegedly handed out to Nike employees at its Beaverton, Ore., headquarters Thursday.TechCrunch
Microsoft, Intel, and virtual-reality gear maker Oculus VR, which was acquired by Facebook last month, are also pursuing members of the FuelBand hardware team, a person familiar with the matter told CNET.
Apple recruiters have also been in talks with Nike Digital Sport members since Nike began development on the FuelBand in 2011, the person said, but it's unclear what relationship the sportswear company has been building with Apple regarding the iPhone-maker's rumored wearable, which is either a smartwatch dubbed the iWatch or a FuelBand-like fitness band. That puts poaching efforts by Apple up in the air, though Nike's CEO Parker has hinted at a partnership.
"I will say that the relationship between Nike and Apple will continue," Parker told CNBC Friday. "And I am personally, as we all are at Nike, very excited about what's to come."
Whether that means Apple has a fast lane to hiring members of the FuelBand team when they do depart Nike is uncertain, the person said.
What would all those other companies want with the architects of an activity tracker?
Oculus, bought by Facebook in a deal worth $2 billion, is flush with cash and eager to expand. It's also trying to take its virtual-reality headset -- which has gone through two developer-kit iterations alongside its second-generation Crystal Cove prototype -- and deliver a consumer product soon. Nabbing hardware engineers would accelerate that process, and Nike's team members come with years of wearable-hardware experience.
Nike has never disclosed sales figures of its FuelBand, but in 2013 the device captured 10 percent of the wearable fitness-tracker market sold through e-commerce and brick-and-mortar retailers, according to the NPD Group. However, Nike sales through its own website and Apple's online store accounted for a majority of FuelBand sales throughout the last two years, the person familiar with the matter added, meaning the 10 percent figure that would appear to tip the scales toward a Fitbit and Jawbone lead in the market is not a fully accurate picture.
As for Nest, the Google-owned startup is now reportedly responsible for more than just smart home devices. After being folded into a new Google hardware division responsible for the company's physical product efforts, Nest, led by Apple's former iPod chief, Tony Fadell, may soon -- or already -- be working on Google tablets and smartphones, even wearables. The recent release of Google's wearable-specific mobile operating system Android Wear makes the possibility of new wearables more likely.
Intel's interest in FuelBand members also makes sense. The company has been investing heavily in the wearable market through key acquisitions like the March 2014 takeover of Basis Science, makers of the Basis Band line of smartwatches. Intel also led funding rounds for Google Glass competitor Recon Instruments and armband-maker Thalmic Labs last year, and is designing its own line of wearable-device chips, called Quark.
At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said the company had been working on wearable projects for six months -- including a smartwatch, and earbuds with a built-in heart-rate monitor -- and planned to deliver those products this year.
Though Microsoft has yet to make a move into the wearables market, it's making significant steps to do so soon and has long invested in experimental research. Last October, ZDNet reported that Alex Kipman, head of Xbox incubation and a leading visionary behind the Kinect camera and sensor, began work at Microsoft's "new devices" division, which is reportedly working on wearables including a Google Glass competitor called Kinect Glasses. In December, The Verge reported that Kipman was working on optimizing Windows software for smaller screens, including a headset and a smartwatch.
The latest piece of the Microsoft wearable puzzle is the company's purchase of $150 million worth of intellectual property assets from Osterhout Design Group, a wearable manufacturer mainly contracted by the government for products used in military operations. So it would appear that wearable engineers are on Microsoft's radar.
While the FuelBand wind down has resulted in jobs lost and an internal redirection toward software, those same engineers who spent years building one of the leading fitness trackers -- and taking Nike to the forefront of the market while transforming its image as a corporation -- will be able to continue pushing the wearable frontier. That the Nike employees will be landing on their feet is a win for everyone, said the person familiar with the matter.
There was a swift reaction in my household to the news that Facebook is buying Oculus Rift, the start-up virtual reality gaming business.
“Why would they do that? Theyll ruin it,” said my 15-year-old son, a keen gamer.
This is interesting for two reasons.
Unlike most adults, he knows what Oculus Rift is, before it has even hit the market (the gaming forums he frequents are obsessed with it) and he has a deep distrust of Facebook. He’s not alone.
Markus Persson, creator of “Minecraft,” and revered as possibly the coolest man on earth by young gamers, took to his blog and to Twitter to condemn the deal: “@notch: We were in talks about maybe bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus.
"I just cancelled that deal. Facebook creeps me out.”
So Facebook in just 10 years has gone from edgy bedroom start-up to corporate creep, at least in the eyes of some.
One suspects Mark Zuckerberg won’t be too worried.
On a conference call last night to unveil the deal, he once again outlined his grandiose mission to connect the world and open our eyes to a better future.
He has faced criticism at every stage of his journey, but each time, he has carried on regardless and mostly been proved right.
Maybe Zuckerberg, like many others of his age, watched 18 months ago as Oculus Rift hit its target on Kickstarter within hours, and thought “that’s cool.”
The deal is certainly another vindication of the crowdfunding platform’s ability to provide lift-off to innovative ideas.
$2 billion still seems a crazy amount to pay for something that’s still more an idea than a business, but it does show that Facebook’s founder - like his rivals at Google - is prepared to make big bets on the future of technology.
Certainly, the more starry-eyed enthusiasts for Oculus Rift see it as having applications far beyond gaming, allowing us to enjoy virtual travel, to take virtual trips to virtual stores, creating entire worlds in which we can lose ourselves - or be shown adverts and spend money.
The cynics remember the failed virtual reality experiments of the 1990s or virtual worlds like “Second Life,” and wonder whether VR will ever appeal to an audience beyond mostly male gamers.
So, just as Google has put robotics and artificial intelligence in the spotlight with its recent acquisitions, Facebook could now spark a rush to invest in virtual reality.
Whatever the fears of his detractors, Zuckerberg has shown he’s an optimist about the power of this technology.
From 2004 when he founded his company he has had a clear vision of what the future might look like - and so far, he has been proven right.
Last night we felt a great disturbance in the world of technology. It was as if a million gamers suddenly cried out in anger. The reason? Oculus VR, the company behind the Oculus Rift, had been acquired -- not by a video game producer nor a publisher nor even a console maker. It was Facebook that wrote the check.
The Oculus Rift is the low-cost but high-quality headset that stood poised to finally make virtual reality not only good but accessible. For gamers old enough to remember the '90s, it's the fulfillment of decades of waiting. For younger gamers, the Oculus inspired the same sort of anticipation I felt 20 years ago. But this time the result, something good you can afford to buy and use in your home, felt tantalizingly close.
Or it did feel close, at least. The acquisition ended that hope in the minds of many. What was an awesome gaming device suddenly became a "product," a tool for a corporate profit engine that we begrudgingly fuel with our personal information, feeding it in by the shovelful and hating ourselves for it all the while.
But is this news really so bad? Let's take a look.
Gaming: Broader horizons, lower quality
Zynga
Speaking broadly, if you consider yourself a "serious" gamer -- a term that is increasingly impossible to define, by the way -- this acquisition is bad news. We've already seen some fallout, with a series of indie game developers pledging to shelve their anticipated Oculus support. Minecraft creator Notch is the biggest of the bunch, but he won't be the last.
While this reaction is somewhat alarmist and a bit premature, it is not without reason. There have been many hugely successful games that use Facebook as a platform, and developers are well aware of that. The problem is that all of those games are looked upon with derision by those aforementioned serious gamers. (This is a group I count myself in, for the record.) For us, the Oculus experience just shifted from shooting foes and flying jets to mindlessly crushing candy and managing superdeformed farm animals.
With this acquisition, it's believed that we'll see a lot more of those sorts of casual games on Oculus VR devices than we would have otherwise. However, if Oculus shipped an amazing product and sold millions and millions of headsets, if it broke out of that "serious" gamer crowd on its own, we'd be in the same boat. We'd see the same sorts of games. This acquisition simply makes that mass-market appeal an inevitability. The problem is, that sort of candy-crushing gameplay now feels like it will be the goal, rather than a side effect.
Does an expected preponderance of awful, "social" games really mean Oculus VR won't be able to field successful, innovative, and exciting titles from developers, both large and small?
Though an effectively lower barrier of entry does mean that lower-quality content will slip through, it's important to remember that high-quality content isn't excluded. There are so many awful games on mobile devices that it's tempting to write off those platforms as a whole, but there are some real gems, too. Does an expected preponderance of miserable social/casual games really mean Oculus VR won't be able to field successful, innovative, and exciting titles from developers, both large and small?
Virtual Worlds: Moving past Second Life
Sony
If you think of Second Life as a haven for furries and griefers you're not wrong, but it didn't have to be that way. The idea of a virtual world, perhaps most famously popularized by Neal Stephenson's Metaverse in "Snow Crash," is a good one. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it's an inevitability that we'll all use a service like this at some point -- assuming we live long enough, anyhow.
Second Life launched in 2003, straining slow Internet connections and offering a service that was compelling in theory but frustrating in practice. Casual users either balked at the concept or quickly ran out of patience. Only those with a strong interest in exploring the virtual, with a real passion for escapism, stayed around. It was a niche in a niche, in other words.
Home failed because it was a distraction, an extra, annoying layer on top of the games that people wanted to play. With Facebook, people already come there simply to waste time.
With Oculus VR, Facebook could look to create something like this that's approachable, that's fun, and, critically, something with enough of your friends on board to make it worth visiting. It doesn't take more than a moment's pondering to envision your Facebook profile becoming a sort of home, photos you share hanging on polygonal walls, games you play taking place in virtual stadiums, and so on. Basically what PlayStation Home wanted to be. Home failed because it was a distraction, an extra, annoying layer on top of the games that people wanted to play. With Facebook, people already come there simply to waste time. Why not make that experience engaging?
New Interfaces: Looking up from the desktop
Sarah Tew/CNET
Numerous studies show that employees are liking and clicking away during the workday, sometimes for hours at a time. That contributes hugely to the traffic metrics of this particular social-networking service, while serving as an escape from the daily grind for those workers. A virtual experience would be seen as another logical step in such escapism, but strapping on a VR headset at work could be a clue to your manager that you're not focusing on that TPS report like you should.
That doesn't have to be the case if we rethink the desktop. I've tried numerous head-mounted displays over the years, and some of the most compelling have been the ones that don't promise virtual worlds but simply offer a better way to work with computers. I sit here in front of a pair of 24-inch LCDs, zillions of pixels in each, yet still I constantly flip between windows and tabs all stacked atop each other. With six monitors I'd do a lot less Alt-Tabbing, but that's a lot of weight, electricity, and cost.
You could have a single virtual monitor that would do a drive-in theater proud.
Why have any monitors at all? Strap on a headset and you could have a single virtual monitor that would do a drive-in theater proud. There are plenty of technical challenges here (display resolution being a primary one), but with pixel density advancing the way it is, this sort of thing is very possible. With the acquisition, Facebook is now poised to be a player when this happens, not a follower.
This extends beyond just the desktop. The implications for education are huge. How many words in how many languages are instruction manuals forced to splay out just to explain how to do a very simple thing? What if you could just see how it's done in 3D? A company today wouldn't bother making the investment because access to such technology is so limited. But if everybody had one...
The 'indie' problem
Screenshot by Dara Kerr/CNET
If you're a gamer, there's absolutely reason for concern here. If you're a human being who loves to speculate about the future, there's absolutely reason for optimism here. Most importantly, there's a need for patience here. For all we know, Mark Zuckerberg is simply the most serious gamer on the planet and this investment serves only to make sure that Oculus VR will stay healthy long enough to deliver an amazing product with amazing games and nothing more.
To me, this feels a bit like what happens when your favorite local band gets signed and puts out a major label record with overwhelming production values. You saw them live when they were a little rough, when the bassist couldn't always keep up and the lead singer's dancing was excessively spastic. You bought T-shirts and albums and maybe even chipped in a donation when their van broke down. Now, they're huge, and they're too busy filling stadiums to write the kind of songs that brought you to them in the first place.
Instead of being a niche product funded by dedicated fans who only want compelling games, the Oculus Rift now seems destined to be a product (perhaps even a service) for the mass market. But remember: a change in ownership doesn't have to compromise quality. The Rift could still be a great product created by talented people with real passion. Popular bands can make great music too -- even if those who knew them back when sometimes hate to admit it.
Facebook is paying up to $2.3 billion to buy Oculus VR and create an otherworldly realm where online social interactions feel as genuine as the real thing.
The social network announced its plans to purchase the virtual reality technology company and Kickstarter sensation on Tuesday.
Once the deal closes, Facebook will shell out $400 million in cash, 23.1 million in company shares, and possibly $300 million more in earn-out incentives for Oculus, the 18-month-old maker of the Oculus Rift. The Rift is a still in-development virtual reality headset already beloved by game developers, who have ordered 75,000 software developer kits.
The surprise deal cements Facebook's interest in virtual reality, an emerging technology trend that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicts will be the successor to mobile, at least in terms of significance for consumers who social network.
Together, the two companies have the ambitious plan to invent the future, Oculus CEO and co-founder Brendan Iribe said during a conference call on the deal.
"After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences," Zuckerberg said on the call. "Imagine enjoying a court-side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world, consulting with a doctor face-to-face, or going shopping in a virtual store where you can touch and explore the products you're interested in just by putting on goggles in your own home."
Oculus, Zuckerberg said, has the potential to be the most social platform ever, because the technology provides for "unbounded" adventures, and will alter the way we communicate with loved ones.
"Little details like being able to make eye contact with someone with zero latency make you feel like you're really present together," Facebook's chief said.
Essentially, Oculus provides Facebook with a tomorrow vision for what social networking and computing in general could look like in 10 years. The reality of that vision remains to be seen, however, and the immediate, more tangible future of the partnership will have Oculus operating independently to deliver the Oculus Rift for mostly virtual gaming purposes. Neither company was ready to reveal specifics around the timing of the device's release.
Still, if Zuckerberg and Iribe get their way, your online interactions -- everything from digital shopping to virtual hugs -- will feel just as good as the real deal. As Iribe said, virtual reality sounds like science fiction, but science fiction has a habit of becoming fact.
