Report: Samsung Building VR Headset For Its Phones & Tablets 49
An anonymous reader writes "Engadget reports that Samsung is working on virtual reality technology to compete with the Oculus Rift. Their work is fairly far along, and it's expected to be announced this year. It's being built to function in tandem with Samsung's flagship mobile devices, most likely their upcoming Galaxy phones and tablets. From the article: 'We're told it has an OLED screen, as good or better than in the second Rift dev kit; it's not clear how the headset connects to your phone/tablet, but we're guessing it's a wired connection rather than wireless. ...This is a device meant for use with games. What type of games? Android games! Sure, but which ones? That's certainly the question. Great games make the platform, and VR games are especially tough to crack given the newness of the medium. One thing's for sure: most major games won't work on VR as direct ports.' The report also suggests Samsung is targeting a lower price point than its competitors. True or not, it will hopefully help drive down prices for all upcoming VR tech."
Meanwhile, DARPA is experimenting with the Oculus Rift for cyberwar visualization.
It.. can't be true! (Score:1)
No! Oculus is the Christ-child! They are the saviour of humanity! They invented VR tech and are the only force for good in the universe.... or at least that's what all the major tech publications keep trying to ram down my throat.
VR is old hat. The interesting stuff was patented decades ago. Oculus is just one of dozens of companies that will be leveraging lower cost displays and sensors to deliver an acceptible VR experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, OR made improvements, just like Sony, Samsung, and other companies not fawned upon by the tech media and ignorant techno-fanbois.
Oh sweet, just point me to all those patents they're sitting on then...
The article invalidates what you're saying. OR isn't special. They just showed their
What If (Score:2)
Oh sweet, just point me to all those patents they're sitting on then...
What if you simply wanted to advance the general state of VR. Would you:
(A) Do a bunch of work and patent it all, or
(B) Do a bunch of work and patent none of it, knowing any company could use the information to make better VR products?
Re: (Score:3)
Or (C) patent it all and license it for free, which would ensure that patent trolls don't move in and cripple the industry.
The amount of 'religion' surrounding OR is starting to reach the level of Apple products. You're all trying so hard to make the company the next big thing but they're just a hardware integrator. They're not your best friend. They aren't on your side. VR was and is coming when the tech allows it. When we all strap VR goggles on it won't be thanks to OR or any one individual behind i
Re: (Score:2)
I have no illusion what OR is and is not. But neither am I bling to how they have helped.
I think good OR is inevitable. But to try and pretend OR has done nothing to significantly advance not only the state of the art but also interest in VR is laughable.
Do you really honestly think Samsung would be announcing a VR product right now if it were not for OR?
Do you have a dev kit BTW? Have you used them or are you just speaking from experience with past VR products?
Re: (Score:2)
What have they done? Show me their inventions which have advanced the state of VR. What do they have? The cheap plastic lens to increase FOV? (Despite being obvious to anyone looking to cost-reduce during consumerization.)
Certainly they have done something? No?
Samsung may not have announced it, but they'd be working on it.
I don't have a dev kit. So what? I bet it's awesome. That isn't the point. Or maybe it is... the point being that OR created zealots by showing you prototypes built out of commonly
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OR has one thing going for it - it's consumer-level pricing is cheap.
Eye-displays from Sony, etc (just regular "theatre" goggles and such) are ridiculously expensive - I think Sony sold one (720p per eye) f
Re: (Score:2)
> I really don't think the future of social is everyone strapping a black box on their face.
Obviously not - it won't catch on until Apple adopts the idea, and then the box will be white with rounded corners.
In all seriousness though I have to say I think VR has far more potential than 3D TV ever did, for a number of reasons:
3D TV = shutter glasses (except at the very high end), which is the most nausea and eye-strain inducing method of delivering a stereoscopic display
3D TV can only play back 3D movies -
Re: (Score:2)
Well... that's factually incorrect, 3D gaming is already a reality today, via stuff like nVidia 3D Vision [nvidia.ca] (3D Skyrim with a few select mods is very drool worthy).
Still a niche to be sure, but not a limitation of current tech that VR is going to solve. It will probably make it easier and more mainstream though... so you're quite right about VR's potential I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted - but I've been using a pre-3D TV as a computer screen for years, and have yet to meet anyone else doing the same. Do any of the consoles offer stereoscopic rendering?
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm aware of... you need a PC, and nVidia is pretty much the only game in town too (apparently it's possible with AMD but painful and inferior [tomshardware.com]). Myself, I have it hooked up to a home theatre with 720p projector (sadly, 1080p 3d gaming is not possible yet... we need HDMI 1.4b/2 devices for the necessary bandwidth).
The interesting thing about 3D gaming is that not all games work equally well. The 3D stuff generally works fairly decently, what it mainly comes down to is the 2D elements. For instance
Re: It.. can't be true! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a video with Palmer, John and some other guy (it was at a Quake event or somesuch), where they were talking about the Rift, and one comment really stood out to me. Palmer said (and I paraphrase) "I don't want to make the ultimate headset, many companies tried to focus on delivering one key component, either resolution, latency or FoV etc. What I'm interested in is creating a single package that's 'good enough' in all areas to get the market going. Once people see that VR is finally possible, and is
Re: (Score:2)
Palmer sounds like a narcissist. He's crazy if he thinks he or his company is solely responsible for driving VR.
He jumped the gun and showed off his companies demo products - a fancy marketing trick if you will. Big deal. VR was coming regardless. Now that the displays and sensors finally allow a product that a consumer can afford there will be many VR devices. The technology is old and proven.
If OR had never existed, we might not be *talking* about VR in 2014, but we'd still be wearing it in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, he may be many things, but credit where credit is due. I'm looking for a different term to "single-handedly" because I know it took many people to get Rift working, including the people at valve to sort out latency issues. He is possibly a person who brought it all together, similar to how Jobs took all these technologies at the right time and combined them into the iPhone. Right or wrong, Jobs is credited often with the dawn of the smartphone era. Someone else might have done it a year or 2 later,
Re: (Score:1)
Rather than labels I prefer to focus on the outcome. The iPhone DID drastically change the industry, for example, and even though bits of VR tech have been around for decades, I'm pretty sure OR will do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of Oculus tech is actually in its software. It uses predictive head tracking to make the output much more seamless to the user.
Watch this example of timewarping //I believe this is one of the things Zenimax feels they own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: It.. can't be true! (Score:2)
Augmenting outdoor games (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why not just use garmin hud or something like that instead?
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA Video (Score:2)
Give me a terminal any day.
Still, if you could make something like that for my superiors to watch how many things my scripts do in a day, then we are golden.
Re: (Score:1)
Connect to your phone? (Score:1)
I don't think it's going to "connect to your phone." I think it's going to BE your phone.
Picture an Oculus Rift with no display built in, but instead a slot. You slide your phone in, clamp it in place.
Now you get a high res display, accelerometer, gyroscope, an audio port to plug in earphones, a camera for doing head tracking with optical flow or looking for fiducials (possibly QR codes), or you could do augmented reality...
All they really have to build is the ski-goggles that hold the phone in place, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Connect to your phone? (Score:2)
Timeline (Score:2)
Year 1: "You guys, this is even better than [current industry leader]'s tech! Amazing!"
Year 2: "Hardly anybody who has updated to version 5.4 still bleeds from their eyeballs. [current industry leader] hasn't updated their tech for months!"
Year 3: "Samsung is the undisputed leader in virtual reality headsets! They've shipped five times as many units as [current industry leader], and there's no stopping this tidal wave!"
Year 6: "Hey, you should really check out the high-end Samsung VR units. They're every
Still waiting (Score:2)
for my Samsung Galaxy ankle bracelet.
ah (Score:2)
This will likely be paired with Googles Project Tango for the next version of the nexus: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/20... [cnn.com]
But I can't see a real practical use for it in the near future other than some newer, more spectacular teen texting while driving accidents.
The real money will be combining this with an overlay and transparent background in a device like google glass. The initial product will likely suck, but the patents they'd soak up will be extremely valuable in the future.
1st (Score:1)
Has Samsung ever made anything original?
Re: (Score:1)
of course (Score:1)
"Fairly far along" (Score:1)
Re: Facebook already destroyed it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)