Qualcomm's New VR Chip Competes Directly With Vision Pro, Much Cheaper Headsets (zdnet.com) 26
Qualcomm today unveiled a new Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 chipset, a single-chip architecture that will likely power Apple Vision Pro competitors from Meta, Samsung, Google and HTC, among others. ZDNet reports: Succeeding last year's XR2 Gen 2, the plus variant brings improved GPU and CPU frequency -- up 15% and 20% respectively, support for 4.3K per eye resolution at 90fps, and the ability for headsets to field 12 or more cameras with on-device AI capabilities. The latter allows equipped models to better track user movements and surrounding objects for more immersive (and harmonious) VR and MR experiences. As for efficiency gains, you'll still be getting the 50% improvement as the previous XR2 Gen 2 when stacked against the XR2 Gen 1 platform. Basically, there's no change on that front.
"(Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2) will take XR productivity and entertainment to the next level by bringing spectacularly clear visuals to use cases such as room-scale screens, life-size overlays and virtual desktops," said Hugo Swart, vice president and general manager of XR, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc, in a Thursday press release. Clearly, the new silicon is aimed at headsets that can do it all -- with feature parity to the $3,500 gorilla in the room, Apple's upcoming Vision Pro headset -- though Qualcomm says it'll be priced accessibly for manufacturers to build hardware around.
How affordable will these competing wearables be? Your guess is as good as mine. But considering we've already gotten products like the $500 Meta Quest 3 fielding the slightly less capable XR2 Gen 2 chip, the future of XR may not be as expensive as it seems. The new Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 chipset is made in collaboration with Google and Samsung, both of which bring expertise in the Android ecosystem and developing mobile VR devices. The trio had announced plans to develop an XR platform back in February of 2023, likely in reaction to the then-rumored headset by Apple.
"(Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2) will take XR productivity and entertainment to the next level by bringing spectacularly clear visuals to use cases such as room-scale screens, life-size overlays and virtual desktops," said Hugo Swart, vice president and general manager of XR, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc, in a Thursday press release. Clearly, the new silicon is aimed at headsets that can do it all -- with feature parity to the $3,500 gorilla in the room, Apple's upcoming Vision Pro headset -- though Qualcomm says it'll be priced accessibly for manufacturers to build hardware around.
How affordable will these competing wearables be? Your guess is as good as mine. But considering we've already gotten products like the $500 Meta Quest 3 fielding the slightly less capable XR2 Gen 2 chip, the future of XR may not be as expensive as it seems. The new Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 chipset is made in collaboration with Google and Samsung, both of which bring expertise in the Android ecosystem and developing mobile VR devices. The trio had announced plans to develop an XR platform back in February of 2023, likely in reaction to the then-rumored headset by Apple.
Take breaks. (Score:4, Informative)
Just like when using a regular 2d computer screen...you need to take breaks and focus your eyes on things that are far away for a while. It's the lack of focus exercise that causes the problem, so, give yourself the exercise.
Re:Take breaks. (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't give yourself focus exercises for a full 8 hours while sleeping. It's not the focus exercises that's the issue, it's the constant muscle strain as a result of continuously looking at something close that is the issue for a computer monitor. Muscles aren't strained when they are relaxed, and the relaxed state is of the eye is around 1.3m focal distance, which incidentally is also where most VR lenses focus.
Staring into a VR headset most of the day would be a big step up in eye health for most Slashdotters, ... to say nothing of the entire Tiktok generation.
Re: Bad for eyesight? (Score:5, Informative)
In most VR headsets the focal depth is 2m. So not short focused at all. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
So compared to lying on a couch with a laptop on my knees all day it's actually healthier... woohoo!
Re: (Score:2)
https://medium.com/vividq-holo... [medium.com]
Re:Bad for eyesight? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm already being told that I have to take breaks from looking at a computer monitor because of the problems of constant short focussing.
VR headsets are far better than computer monitors in this regard. You don't "short focus" you focus at the natural focal distance. That's the whole point of the lenses in the headsets. The typical focal distance ranges from 1.2-1.6m, far better than the 0.6-0.8m of a typical computer monitor.
Are we about to completely destroy the vision of a whole generation with these things?
This is one of the most heavily researched areas of vision in the past decade and the answer appears to be a resounding no, with the caveat that it is still not recommended to give the headset to children as there has not been extensive studies on if developmental aspects of the human body are impacted, i.e. if a young child is constantly subject to VR's vergence accommodation conflict can lead to amblyopia. That remains an open question, but critically only a theory as well.
The chips aren’t the problem (Score:2, Troll)
The problem with VR isn’t the chip they’re using: it’s the lack of vision (pun not intended) that’s the problem. Where’s the killer app? Where’s a compelling user story? Why would I want it? I still remember when iPhones first started showing up in public in 2007 and 2008. I didn’t have one, but I remember seeing people ask to try others’ out. You could watch the “a ha” moments on their faces because it immediately clicked; everyone knew that there
Re: (Score:2)
There was also the web which still in a meteoric rise, and the iPhone provided a good experience there, compared to a lot of existing and increasingly popular existing solutions. And the idea of phones as not actually telephones as well established. BlackBerry was very popular at the time, email was moderately well supported, increasingly good cameras were being put on phones. Many phones were turning into serviceable if awkward MP3 players. Clearly voice was ceasing to be a driving factor since much of the
Re: (Score:2)
Where’s the killer app?
I'm not sure what killer app you're after (like what Apple is doing, a fucking virtual computer screen, who needs that), but gaming is very much a killer app. VR games are damn amazing.
It's the "pro" part that is the problem. I'm an absolute advocate of VR, but I will *not* be sitting in my office doing work on it. You want me to put on a VR headset, invite me to a multiplayer round of blowing up zombie heads in After the Fall or something.
Incidentally this week saw the beta release of UEVR an open source U
Re: (Score:3)
Where’s the killer app?
I'm not sure what killer app you're after (like what Apple is doing, a fucking virtual computer screen, who needs that), but gaming is very much a killer app. VR games are damn amazing.
Sort of, but not really. Gaming is a killer app, hence the proliferation of gaming devices, but gaming in VR lacks a killer app to set it apart from the rest of the gaming market. Half-Life: Alyx and Beat Saber are arguably the closest it’s had to a wider breakthrough, and neither of those is part of the zeitgeist outside gaming circles. We haven’t seen a Pong or Visicalc or iPhone App Store moment for VR.
Quick anecdote: I work at a software company with an handful of VR enthusiasts. For our las
Re: (Score:1)
I'm one of those VR Enthusiasts you mentioned and have been since 2013 with the Oculus DK1. Back in the early days tech demos were all there was. Then we got some good PC games like Chronos, Apex Construct, Asgard's Wrath, Lone Echo 1 and 2, Brass Tactics, the Vader Immortal series, and more that I'm sure I'm forgetting. Then the Quest 1 came out and derailed the whole movement and all there is now are stupid phone like games and even more tech demos. The shine came off VR a few years ago and now I'd ra
Re: (Score:2)
Where’s the killer app?
I'm not sure what killer app you're after (like what Apple is doing, a fucking virtual computer screen, who needs that), but gaming is very much a killer app.
The killer app Gaming that has successfully not slayed for how many decades now?
Re: The chips aren’t the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares, just like any other hobby, some people like it and others don't. I still don't see why people like American football, baseball, basketball or soccer. Why is it that everyone should like it?
That wasn't my point. You don't need to win everyone over—least of all me—to have a successful business. I may not care about sports, but I can't deny that it's a wildly successful industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The same can't be said of VR, which suffered a 40% YoY decline in units sold last year [cnbc.com] (even rosier reports still peg it at a 23% decline [prnewswire.com] last year, with more declines expected until 2026). 2022 saw a decline before that as well, which would be fine if the industry could
Re: (Score:2)
The headsets are too heavy and low resolution -- that's really what's holding it back. Nobody would even wear glasses that weigh 600 grams. Why would they wear a VR headset? The human head can't handle 600 grams on it. The weight needs to be 120 grams (or less) .. and so far only the Bigscreen Beyond VR headset has achieved that -- but it can't even match the Vision Pro on resolution. The killer app is gaming, virtual adventure/travel, and probably design work -- things like CAD in VR would be easy with the
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed it's not the chips.
TFS reads as if the Apple chip costs $3499 of the $3500 price tag, wheras the Meta chips costs $499 of the $500 price tag. If only Qualcomm could make a chip that cost, say $100, then we could all have really cheap headsets, right?
Apple's product costs more because they've actually factored in some profit on top of some (expensive) hardware. Meta's is "cheap" because they're not making any money on it, and indeed could well be selling it below cost - to try and capture some market
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is somehow rated "troll", but it has a kernel of truth.
There should be a "reason" for mass adoption of technologies. It has to solve an actual need, or it would stay a niche.
Yes, VR is good for (some) gaming, yes VR has some "cool" moments when you virtually visit the Grand Canyon, or travel across the globe.
However, also yes, my VR headset (Oculus Quest) is just sitting on the shelf most of the time. It does not solve a "need" I have, at least significantly better than others (my computer, or the
Will I still feel sick? (Score:1)
Is it fixed or st least reduced, or not?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you used a VR headset? The VR sickness aspect from hardware has virtually been eliminated. The only thing that remains is your body getting used to the difference in motion. If you're the type of person who throws up on a boat before the staff have even punched your ticket, VR will never be for you. But for everyone else VR sickness is something you will overcome after using it for only a couple of days.
Unless you do something silly like play PCVR games with underpowered hardware at h
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone want to buy a slightly-used Quest Pro? (Score:2)
Much cheaper? (Score:2)
Nothing will use it (Score:2)
And not because it's bad or whatever; I'm sure Qualcomm's done a fine job.
But by all accounts, the actual displays that Sony is making are in short supply, and Apple has all of that supply. The Vision Pro will almost certainly sell out right away and be on back order for months, maybe the whole year. Not because it will be extremely popular, but because supply will be incredibly low. And without those high resolution displays, you really don't have anything special, just more of the same.
Apple's chip is cer