Vive Focus is a product that lags far behind competitors On Tuesday, November 14th, HTC held the Vive Developer Summit and released its Vive Focus, a VR-based one based on the Qualcomm VRDK solution. Thanks to the investment cooperation in the VR industry chain in the past three years, Vive Focus has received a lot of appreciation from HTC partners. However, many different voices have also been heard, and these voices are more from non-interested practitioners. I believe these voices are more worthy of our consideration. For Xiao Bian, Vive Focus is also a very disappointing product. The main points are: HTC joined forces with Google and Qualcomm as early as May and July of this year to release the Daydream all-in-one and the Chinese version of the Vive all-in-one, and announced that these all-in-one machines will be available before the end of this year. In the end, what we waited for was the abortion of the HTC Daydream all-in-one, and the release of Vive Focus, one of China's Qualcomm-based all-in-ones. The Vive Focus, which was originally thought to have waited, will be a consumer version, but HTC just released it again, giving people a feeling of being PR-directed. HTC is launching a limited-edition developer version this time, and the consumer version is out of reach (If you get the site's priority "buy vouchers," then congratulations. If not, it does not matter, after reading this article to know why). Vive Focus is equipped with a 3DoF controller. Although Vive Wave supports the integration of 6DoF controllers, it hasn't come out yet. There are no HTC highlights on the hardware. Based on the above situation and the existing market structure, Xiao Bian thinks that Vive Focus is a backward product and exposes the confusion and disadvantages of the HTC Vive team. I will discuss in detail below, but this article only discusses the Vive Focus product. Vive Focus is a product based on Qualcomm's VRDK solution, using Qualcomm's inner-outer location tracking technology (supports 6DoF location tracking on the head) and a 3DoF controller. In November of the International Virtual Reality Innovation Conference held by the Communication Institute under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China, I conducted high-end, middle-end, and low-end categories for VR head-display products. Among them, I suggest that the mid-range display refers to VR heads that have integrated computer computing components and have internal and external location tracking, mainly Oculus Santa Cruz. Now, I think I should correct this old classification. Under the current momentum of development, the mid-range VR headset should also have a 6DoF motion controller that supports inward and outward tracking. 1. Technical disadvantage In the early days, the introduction of the 3DoF controller was a technical breakthrough. However, the development of 3DoF controllers has been a technical disadvantage. Now, the mid-range VR headset should have a 6DoF motion controller that supports inbound and outbound position tracking. For the 3DoF controller, the earliest known to the public is Google's 3DoF Daydream controller. At this year's CES in January, I experienced Google's own Daydream controller and Huawei's Daydream controller, which left me a very bad impression. You can pass the CES exhibition. AR-VR is popular but not dazzling. 》Learn more about the situation. At the International Virtual Reality Innovation Conference in November, I once again experienced Google's 3DoF Daydream controller, and it feels just as bad. My overall feeling is that the 3DoF handles in the actual experience have obvious offsets (front and rear, left and right, depending on the specific circumstances), and they can instantly give the user a sense of “playingâ€. Compared to the 3DoF controller, the 6DoF controller is more accurate and sensitive and will be tracked by the position tracking system. There is a need to add a message here, Vive Focus's 3DoF handle does not have to be positioned by the inner-outer location tracking system. It is believed that all VR users who have experienced the HTC Vive 6DoF controller or Oculus Touch 6DoF motion controller are fully aware of it. So what can you do with the +3DoF controller for inward tracking? In the current stage of development of VR, products such as inward and outward tracking +3 DoF controllers are misleading—more than enough, more than enough. Looking from inside to outside, this product should target the Santa Cruz All-in-One with a 6DoF motion controller. However, from the controller's point of view, such products can only be used for "watching" products such as the Oculus Go, but they cannot provide VR experiences that require precise hand-to-hand interaction. Otherwise, they will bring about a "difficult" "play" experience. So, compared to low-end VR products such as Gear VR, products such as the inner-outbound tracking +3DoF controller are just a few features that allow you to walk freely in VR, but that's just it, and you may have to pay a higher price. The price. After all, whoever wants to watch a movie or sit down and play a casual game also needs to walk freely? It is worth noting that HTC also mentioned at the conference that Daydream and Gear VR content can be ported to Vive Focus through its Vive Wave platform. This also shows that the actual positioning of Vive Focus should be against the Oculus Go. Of course, it does not rule out the standard Santa Cruz, fully compatible with low-end VR content. 2. Time disadvantage For early and low-end VR products, it is understandable to have a 3DoF controller. However, the 6DoF controller is now the main trend of mid-range VR head-mounted products. In 2018, you will see more 6DoF controllers in the all-in-one consumer market, and the consumer version of Vive Focus with 3DoF is still unknown. When will it be listed? After the release of Vive Focus on the 14th, there were developers who expressed suspicions that the developer's version might be the same as the HTC Vive. It will only take a year to have a consumer version. In this regard, I only heard that their handles needed to be available in mid-2018, and there was no other information. At the Oculus Connect 4 conference in early October, Oculus released Oculus Go, a low-end VR all-in-one camera, and showcased the Santa Cruz, a mid-range VR all-in-one. Santa Cruz also tracks Oculus's latest design of the Oculus Touch 6DoF motion controller. Both Santa Cruz Developer Edition and Oculus Go Consumer Edition are planned to be available in the spring of 2018. Compared to the competition products such as Santa Cruz, Vive Focus Developer Edition is only about a quarter earlier than the Santa Cruz Developer Edition, but it is technically far behind Santa Cruz. In comparison, the Vive Focus consumer version has no timetable for listing, and Oculus Go plans to be available for sale in the first quarter of 2018. 3. Content disadvantage Thanks to partners like Valve, HTC Vive can currently have more than 2,000 VR applications (Steam platform), and its own content platform Viveport has also rapidly expanded to more than 1,000 types of content. But in the field of mobile VR, HTC needs to start from scratch and become a major shortfall behind Oculus. According to statistics compiled by Xiao Bian, currently the Oculus Store already has more than 1,000 Gear VR contents that are fully compatible with the Oculus Go all-in-one, and Vive Focus has yet to start. It is also worth noting that Oculus's more than 1,000 VR content developed over two years, and that over 1000 PC VR content on the HTC Viveport platform developed over two years. After modeling analysis, I can tell you responsibly that the development of VR content in the past two years has been a linear relationship, and we will not see any flashpoints in the next two years. This is enough to suggest that Vive Focus will develop to the next year. How difficult is the 1000 volume VR content of Gear VR quality. 4. Developer disadvantage For mobile VR developers, it is natural to face the priority of developing content for that mobile platform. Of the many mobile VR platforms, in addition to Vive Focus and other platforms, which naturally deserve developers to carefully evaluate the natural Google Daydream, Oculus Santa Cruz and Oculus Go (Gear VR) In comparison to the midrange VR all-in-one market, Oculus and HTC have to re-establish consumer groups. For developers, the need to consider is that that platform can accumulate consumer groups faster. To do this, developers need to further think about each product technology, content volume, and product price. At present, Oculus's low-end VR machine Oculus Go is priced at 200 US dollars, high-end VR head display Oculus Rift's price is 400 US dollars, then Santa Cruz's pricing is basically about 300 US dollars. What about Vive Focus? Although HTC has not announced the price, I believe it will be around $400. Because Oculus can sell at a loss, HTC, which has suffered losses for nine consecutive quarters, must have a profit coverage cost. Oculus can invite developers of its Oculus Rift content to do content adaptation for Santa Cruz. HTC can also invite HTC Vive content developers to do content adaptation for Vive Focus. But Santa Cruz is still moving from 6DoF motion controllers to 6DoF motion controllers, and Vive Focus is from 6DoF motion controllers to 3DoF motion controllers. Such adaptations require redesigned interactions, naturally require more work, and are willing to transplant. The content will naturally be greatly reduced. In contrast, in the low-end VR market, HTC needs to build consumer groups from scratch, and Oculus had already owned 5 million Gear VR users earlier this year (Gear VR users are also users of Oculus Go content). In addition, according to reports from IDC and SuperData, there have been at least 6 million Gear VR users so far. Of course, HTC announced cooperation with a number of leading manufacturers at this conference. Its mobile VR content on the platform can be adapted to these manufacturers' all-in-one displays, but the total volume may not exceed 100,000. The magnitude. In addition to the hardware base, Oculus already has more than 1000 Gear VR content that HTC can't match, and these contents are also compatible with the Oculus Go all-in-one. In order to expand the VR content volume, HTC hopes to help developers port Daydream content or Gear VR content to Vive Focus through Vive Wave. In this issue, it is worth our reference is Daydream platform, after all, Vive Focus and Daydream one machine is essentially the same root (inside out different positioning technology, HTC's Daydream machine has also been abortion). So far, Google Daydream has been listed for more than a year, but according to statistics compiled by Xiao Bian, Daydream content platform has so far only 100 VR content, which is enough to prove that Daydream's development is not smooth. So why are so many Gear VR developers not porting their content to the Daydream platform? And what appeal does HTC have in the future to persuade developers to port content to Vive Focus? Let's wait and see. Looking at the price again, Oculus Go costs just $200. Whether it is Oculus Go or Santa Cruz, I believe that Vive Focus will not have a price advantage, after all, HTC needs to be profitable to cover costs. So, if you're a mobile VR developer and you're thinking about developing content for the Oculus platform or the Vive platform, which platform would be your best choice under such obvious contrast? Of course, if HTC is huge Money will help you, then you should congratulate you. 5. Ending As early as the beginning of 2016, HTC stated that it is considering hardware products in the field of mobile VR. However, the late developer products and the unrelenting consumer products make the once PC VR leader lose its PC VR advantage and have no time, place, or person in the field of mobile VR. In the absence of any user base and content basis, it is still behind the timeline to launch a technology-backed product. In addition, in this article, although I did not mention other mobile VR head-up vendor startup teams, many startup teams have already launched mobile VR hardware products with independent research and development technology, instead of directly based on Qualcomm's VRDK general reference design. Devolop product. In this case, these entrepreneurial teams can more aggressively develop products that are more advanced than Qualcomm's common reference designs and are not subject to Qualcomm's general reference design.