The End of Mobile VR Doesn’t Mean VR’s Dead
With the latest mobile phone handset releases, this year has seen Samsung and Google officially withdraw support for their mobile VR headsets, the Gear VR and Daydream View VR respectively. These headsets lead the way for mid-level mobile VR, allowing users to slot their phones into the headset to provide adequate VR experiences. However compared to full VR systems, these were limited by their functionality and 3DoF input and tracking.
A Brief History…
Released towards the end of 2015, the Samsung Gear VR offered users a step up in mobile VR quality from the Google Cardboard, released over a year prior in mid-2014.
Google Cardboard was released following Google I/O in 2014, having been started as a 20% innovation time project taken to fruition.
A year later, at the end of 2016, the Google Daydream View VR headset offered the same for Pixel phone owners. Both systems disabled or reduced the everyday phone features whilst operating in a dedicated “VR mode” to enable developers to eek more performance out of the mobile chipsets contained within. Both headsets retailed for around £100, plus requiring a recent high-end mobile phone on top (Samsung Galaxy S6 and upwards for example).
Trending AR VR Articles:
2. Infographic: The Future of Virtual Reality
However these headsets were replaced with all-in-one, standalone mobile VR headsets, that removed the need for a phone and concentrated dedicated chipsets and OS for VR within a single, easier-to-use unit i.e. the Oculus Go and PICO G2. Earlier attempts had been made, prior to these, at all-in-one systems but they couldn’t match the might of the Oculus Store offerings or platform development support, so fell by the wayside or struggled with a modicum of success outside of China.
Skip forwards to 2019, with Samsung Galaxy S10 and Pixel 4 mobile phones released, and the continued support for or refresh of 3–4 yr old headsets has been removed. At Oculus Connect 6 this year, the Day Two Keynote by John Carmack included a eulogy for Gear VR, covering the highs and lows, achievements and failures for his personal area of interest.
Whilst these, and Google Cardboard, provided a cheap alternative to high-end full VR headsets, their existence was an obvious mid-step from the rejuvenation of VR with Oculus DK1 in 2013, towards the next evolutionary step the hardware needs to take towards v2 systems. (Oculus has said they see the release of their latest headset, the Oculus Quest, offering Oculus Rift-like full VR 6DoF capabilities, as the end of the v1 cycle (of the new wave)).
VR is not dead
What the removal of support does NOT mean however, is that VR is dead (again) or dying or has failed. Admittedly Google seemingly have fallen out of love with VR, concentrating on AR development with much aplomb, but it should also be remembered, Google has a long history of hyping a technology or platform they’ve created, then killing it off. Rumours are abound that Samsung are working on their own “Quest-killer” standalone full VR headset, following on from the end of the relationship with Oculus that saw the Gear VR device being made in collaboration years ago.
I was a big advocate of mobile VR when it first became a thing in 2014, with the release of Google Cardboard, allowing users to pop a phone in and have a VR lite experience but over the years, as our own developments have focused on and required fully immersive content to be created for training and valid use cases of the technology, I’ve fallen out of love with this low/mid-tier level. But that’s not to say it didn’t have a purpose, so let’s look at some of the pros and cons of mobile VR as we doff our caps and say goodbye forever more.
Pros
✅ Mobile VR is cheap! For around £5, or free if bundled with a special copy of The Guardian or New York Times newspapers, or NME or a variety of other newspapers and magazines and broadcasters giving away Google Cardboards around 2015/16, users could slot their compatible mobile phones into the headset and access a wealth of free VR experiences or low-cost paid apps. Although the Gear VR and Daydream View VR headsets were priced at around £100, millions of units were bundled for free with mobile phone upgrades.
✅ Mobile VR is inclusive! Off the back of the low-cost barrier to entry, mobile VR allowed developers to access VR hardware without having to be able to afford a high-end PC and full VR headset, many who came from backgrounds that typically would not have allowed this otherwise. This allowed anyone to get excited by VR and stir desires to develop content, meaning that the pool of potential talent was creative and diverse, which in turn would result in content for wider audiences, helping drive adoption across the globe.
✅ Mobile VR is accessible! From a hardware standpoint, accessibility was related to cost and inclusivity, making it more widely available to anyone. From a traditional standpoint, only one hand was needed for mobile VR, to hold the Google Cardboard up to the user’s head, or with the introduction of straps, one hand to operate the touchpad or the single 3DoF input controller.
✅ Mobile VR is scaleable! Due to the relatively low cost and accessibility, mobile VR quickly became commonplace in schools, with platforms like Google Expeditions providing multiple headsets and handsets for synchronised educational use cases. Other operation platforms, like Showtime, have enabled venues to deploy multiple units for VR cinemas, allowing larger numbers of users to simultaneously watch a 360º video, from the touch of a button on a tablet or phone.
✅ Mobile VR made devs learn! Moving from full VR to mobile VR for many devs was a hard lesson in mobile phone development and optimisation to maximise performance from a comparatively under-powered chipset, having to balance CPU and GPU loads (where such control was possible) against framerates against quality against battery life. There was no point releasing a VR experience that overheated the mobile device and killed the battery flat within minutes, no matter how shiny it looked. Junior artists today are learning 20+ year old methods to optimise scenes to improve quality, showing you can teach a new dog old tricks.
✅ Mobile VR opened the door to full VR! Even today in 2019, we still reckon that around 7–8/10 people, when they try VR on your booth, will be trying VR for the first time. By having so many low cost devices accessible in the wild, there’s a greater chance that someone will get to try out VR for the first time and fall in love with this exciting new medium, making them want more, better quality, higher immersion experiences and thus they will seek out more VR or even pony up for a system at home. But, there is a downside…
Cons
❌ Mobile VR closed the door to full VR! Because of the limitations of mobile VR, people trying “VR” for the first time might think that that is all VR has to offer and wonder what all the big fuss was about. From around 2017 onwards, at the many events I attended to showcase our latest works, attendees would claim to have tried VR and didn’t like it, and weren’t interested in trying it again. When questioned further, it was always a Google Cardboard that they had tried, a simple mobile VR headset, not a full VR system with freedom of movement and hand tracking. Once we got, if we got, them into a full VR headset, then they would come out afterwards utterly amazed at what true VR could do, or be and become a convert. It’s like watching TV for the first time and thinking Songs of Praise is all there is.
❌ Mobile VR was limited! The capabilities of mobile VR, of lack of, meant that VR experiences missed many features of full VR devices, like full positional tracking, motion tracked input controllers, things that correlate to 6DoF freedom of movement for fuller, more immersive experiences. However limitations do make designers think harder how to encapsulate an experience and create meaningful outcomes with a reduced toolset. This was often overlooked by the end user however as limitations were seen as flaws and a worse experience, or the only experience.
❌ Mobile VR was messy! Due to the cheapness of the headsets and the technologies contained within, many versions and manufacturers quickly filled the marketplace with mobile VR headsets, from cardboard to cheap plastic to metal and beyond, all with their own SDKs, features, foibles and nuances, requiring extra effort by developers to support them all or choose wisely which specific platforms to support. Samsung and Google tried to reduce the impact upon developers by standardising elements of their platform and restraining the numbers of mobile devices supported, to ensure performance and quality and increase ease of deployment. Samsung limited support to their own high-end mobile devices, however whilst Google Cardboard v2 restricted support amongst the 18,000+ potential Android devices, there was still a vast array of hardware potentially supported, which would often result in poor ratings on the app storefronts, as users discovered theirs wasn’t compatible or had bare minimum support and performance.
❌ Mobile VR wanted to be full VR! As soon as 3DoF mobile headsets became available, hardware manufacturers directly or indirectly started developing an array of add-ons to enhance and improve the capabilities towards 6DoF-lite features. Many lights and balls and stick-on pucks added to the complexity and cost of setups, adding cables and clutter that the initial lack of had enticed users towards mobile VR in the first place. Many of these add-ons were prototypes or early R&D attempts, although some validated later technologies found in standalone full VR devices, and further fragmented the device ecosystem and choices for the developer to make around supporting ultimately that would never become widespread in use.
❌ Mobile VR made people sick! The most common complaint or reference made when relating to VR is that it caused the user to feel nauseous. Unfortunately the main cause is 3DoF VR headsets that aren’t able to reflect and convey the micro-movements made by users’ heads, causing the sensation of having been poisoned between our inner ear and gut, that disconnect between real and virtual senses that causes nausea. That’s not to say that 6DoF full VR systems available today in 2019 have eliminated nausea, there will always be some users who will be affected, but these full VR systems have all but technically achieved comfortable use, where nausea is more typically instigated by poor design choices.
❌ Mobile VR made users think 360º video was VR! One strong point of mobile VR headsets is that they are a cheap, great device for viewing 360º video, as stats show in terms of real world usage but many users believed this was VR. Whilst an element of immersion could be achieved, and presence-lite, and more recently camera technologies and encoding standards have enabled stereoscopic video at higher resolutions and bitrates, looking at the definition of what VR is, 360º video is not it.
❌ Mobile VR halted wider adoption! Many users who bought into mobile VR, either at home or at work, were so disappointed with the overall experience, they decided that VR was a gimmick, wasn’t worth the hype and devices ended up gathering dust in cupboards unused, unloved and unshared. Therefore the technology traction pathway was halted and our natural human desire to share excitement and experiences with others diminished, reducing the opportunity for new adopters of VR to get onboard for themselves.
❌ Mobile VR caused confusion! Whilst internally, developers continue to argue and debate what we should be referring to the emerging technologies as, whether it’s VR, AR, spatial computing, MR, ER, XR or xR, the general public are still mostly referring to devices as “googles” without understanding the differences between 3DoF, 6DoF, 360º and specifications that separated the layers of VR devices available. To add confusion, VR headsets that were 6DoF tracked with 3DoF controllers were released, awkwardly straddling both camps. Therefore one user’s perception of VR could be vastly different to another’s understanding, without a clear awareness why.
❌ Mobile VR wasn’t cheap! Despite many having a free Google Cardboard, Gear VR or Daydream View VR headset, these still required the use of a high-end mobile phone device to work, increasing the supposed cheapness by a few hundred or even thousand Pounds. You could argue that everyone has a smartphone today already so the price is already accounted for but not all phones were capable and it meant giving up access to said mobile handset whilst someone used it for VR.
❌ Mobile VR was full of friction points! Putting your mobile handset into a mobile VR headset was a Faff! You had to launch an app, pair it to a headset, put it in the right way round, align the central line to the lenses, lock the device, you couldn’t just pop it on and go. Gear VR was especially fiddly getting the phone onto the USB mount, or with later devices, fitting the USB type adapter first then slotting it in. Google managed to remove some friction by making the Daydream View headset detect the phone when in Daydream VR mode, with a simple clasp holding it in place. But that weakened over time and saw many Pixel phones slip out the side with more animated users.
Conclusion
Since the rejuvenation of VR in 2012 with the release of the Oculus Rift DK1 KickStarter and its resulting success, there has been much hype, predictions both over-blown and downplayed, media claims of “The Year of VR” or “The Death of VR” and mobile VR has played a part in all of that.
Analyst predictions of vast numbers of devices by year 20xx have glossed over the fact that headsets were given away for free and left unused, or ignored the advancement of technologies that have seen last and this year the rise of the standalone headset, removing the need for mobile device inclusion.
Mobile VR seems dead, lest it not be confused with all-in-one, standalone headsets using similar mobile components and chipsets but dedicated to one purpose — VR. But we should put mobile VR to bed, appreciate what it achieved and brought with it, good and bad, and move onwards to VR v2 with newer devices that incorporate those learnings.
Let us be thankful for the opportunities it offered developers without access to high-end PCs and costly tethered VR headsets and more thankful still that great devices exist today in far larger numbers of actual usage that access is still highly possible.
Is the Oculus Go 3DoF headset the same as Samsung Gear VR or Google Daydream View VR headsets? Technically, to a degree, yes but the advances and 3DoF controller input offered create a more robust ecosystem with greater technical and commercial performance capabilities, removing a number of the friction points listed above.
However with the recent ability to use Go apps on Oculus Quest, it seems that as we approach VR v2, 3DoF devices will fall entirely out of popularity and all future devices will be standalone incorporating full 6DoF VR at a considerably lower price point.
As we move out of the early adopter phase of the technology cycle, we can be thankful for what mobile VR offered but let it fall into the chasm, to remain as a mark in history of the struggles undertaken to get to the next stage, as we prepare to welcome a vast number of more new users to VR, who will thankfully be diving head first straight into full 6DoF free-roaming devices.
Mobile VR will also have the last laugh; at Oculus Connect 6 this year, it was announced that Oculus Quest will enable hand tracking, making all those early stock photos of people in VR reaching for empty space a reality.
Don’t forget to give us your 👏 !
