samsung-google-qualcomm-xr — Image courtesy Samsung

New XR Platform From Samsung and Google Will be Announced, if Not Launched, This Year

Jul 12, 2024

This week Samsung and Google confirmed their forthcoming “XR platform” will be announced this year, though it’s unclear if it will actually launch before the end of 2024.

It was early 2023 when Samsung, Google, and Qualcomm first announced their collaboration on an “XR platform” based on Android. The timing of that announcement made it sound like we’d probably hear more about that platform and whatever devices it would power in late 2023 or maybe early 2024.

But just a few months later, Apple formally unveiled its long-rumored Vision Pro headset, and announced it would be launching in early 2024.

Since then, we’ve heard little about the XR effort from Samsung, Google, and Qualcomm—save for some rumblings that the companies may have taken a step back to reassess their plans after seeing what Apple planned to launch with Vision Pro.

This week, however, the companies confirmed it will be revealed by the end of 2024—and perhaps even launched by then.

During the Samsung Unpacked event this week, Google’s SVP of Platform & Devices, Rick Osterloh, took to the stage and spoke briefly about the future of the company’s collaboration with Samsung:

“Looking forward, we’re collaborating to bring next-generation experiences across Galaxy products. From smartphones and wearables, to even future technologies, like the upcoming XR platform we’ve been working to develop in close partnership with Samsung and Qualcomm for next-generation devices,” Osterloh said. “You’ll want to stay tuned for that. It’s an exciting new era in mobile computing, and we’re thrilled to take our partnership with Samsung to the next level.”

Samsung’s Head of Mobile, TM Roh, took to the stage afterward to concur, adding that the XR platform in question would come by the end of 2024.

“I appreciate [Osterloh] and his team at Google for their constant partnership that fuels innovation and ignites new possibilities, like our new XR platform coming this year.”

We still don’t know exactly what shape the so-called “XR platform” will take. While it was initially expected the companies were working on something to compete with Meta’s game-focused Quest platform, Vision Pro’s emphasis on more general productivity and spatial computing may have changed priorities. And even still, Samsung, Google, and Qualcomm might not want to challenge either front. Instead, they might try to stake out their claim with mobile-focused transparent AR glasses—maybe starting with basic smartglasses functionality.

For now all we know is that we’ll learn more later this year, but it’s still unclear if we’ll see an announcement or an actual product launch by the end of 2024.

What do you think will be revealed, and what would you want to see ideally? Let us know in the comments below!

another juan

there is zero hype for this news, but it might happen that in a couple decades it will be looked back as a pivotal moment in the history of technology.
google, in general, is being wildly underestimated right now.
- Jeff
  
  I think people's estimations if low, are not off base considering Google already half-assed early attempts and dropped development for many years while other players created the market as it exists now. And it's not like Google doesn't have a well known history of reinventing their own products over and over, only to drop them shortly after. I know this is a hardware product so it's a little different, but people are still right to be skeptical.
  - Christian Schildwaechter
    
    Google has a spotty long term support history and dropped Daydream in 2019, but the situation is different now. They had supported VR early on with lots of non-gaming software, immediately also going for productivity use. They brought many Google Android apps like Photos, Streetview or YouTube to Daydream, plus educational content like Expeditions. And they never stopped researching/developing XR.
    
    Their attempt at dedicated HMDs using the Android phone model, with Google providing the OS and selling the apps, and others selling hardware with profit, died with Meta offering hardware at cost.Google could have switched to a vertical model, selling their own HMDs subsidized by software, but the goal was to extend the Android business model, not to become a console.
    
    Meta had to go this insanely expensive route to own the market before the current mobile giants Google and Apple entered. The money MRL spent for a moderate user base (about USD 5000 per currently active Quest user) pretty much confirms that waiting a few years for the tech to mature instead of following this financially suicidal path was a wise choice. By now XR HMDs are useful beyond games, can also run for the apps Google and Apple make their money with, and are expected to stay. So the motivation is quite different from 2019.
    - LP
      
      Google completely fucked up with XR when they tried with their $5 cardboard. They couldn't create a separate tab for VR in their own store. Google Play vr apps are hard to find, and their rating are actively going down simply because users download it and blaming that it's not flat app even though it says VR.
      Plus they abolished their XR department years ago.
      
      As for Samsung, they were the originators of Meta Quest when they released with Oculus GearVR. It was a really cool HMD, with lege and easy controls without gamepads.
      But instead of trying to continue in standalone, they started making a pc helmet and after "Tracer's ass" nothing is heard about them.
      
      I'm sure there will be something boring analogous to Pico. Glad to be wrong. Would love to see a standalone hmd on the market with a fov greater than a diving mask.
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        Cardboard will be the most "successful" VR device for a long time, with more than 50mn distributed, and more than 160mn Cardboard-enabled apps downloaded. It started as side project by two French Google engineers and introduced more people to VR than Oculus, who shipped the DK2 one month after Google introduced Cardboard, and their first consumer Rift almost two years later.
        
        Of course the experience was somewhere between limited and horrible, with smartphones using jittery IMUs, low performance GPUs and unoptimized Android with tons of latency. It was good for a quick WOW effect, not so good for actual use. But it proved that phones can be used for VR, and about a year later Samsung/Oculus released Gear VR, addressing Cardboard's weaknesses by adding an external, calibrated IMU, running only on the high end Note 4 and patching the Android display drivers to reduce latency.
        
        The Gear VR experience was much better, but retention was horribly low, partly because people were annoyed by it blocking the phone's regular use, and partly because Samsung later gave one for free to everyone pre-ordering a Galaxy S10. Calling Samsung the originators of Quest is somewhat far fetched, as most of the VR specific tech in Gear VR came from Oculus. Yes, Samsung formed a "smartphone VR" team in 2013 and had HMD patents much earlier, but if you watch Carmack talks from earlier OCs, you'll get the impression that Samsung and Qualcomm regularly had to be forcefully annoyed into adding essential features.
        
        Today's smartphones would be much better for VR and could even do 6DoF and hand tracking. Cardboard and Gear VR basically came at least a decade too early, but nothing is stopping Samsung/Google from trying again in a few years with dual-use phones, now that AndroidXR no longer requires taking the phone out of a view just to read some notifications or make a call. It will still take years before the average phone can do what a USD 2000 HMD can do in 2024, but eventually that will happen. And about 6bn people already use a smartphone and might be interested in a cheap VR viewer add-on, more than 400 times the active user number of all VR platforms combined.
      - LP
        
        I totally agree. Mobile devices are powerful and widespread enough to compete with Meta. Even with the many problems associated with hardware differences.
        
        However the point is that Google didn't make a VR platform when they should have, with all their resources. It was enough to add a separate VR store with apps/games/movies for those who had a VR headset for their phone.
        Also their ads monetisation for developers didn't work with VR, which could increased developer interest.
        
        In the end it's amazing that such a powerful company failed where it could have been a leader.
        Why would you expect different results now?
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        With Daydream they tried to build a VR platform that fit into the Android model with multiple manufacturers making money from hardware sales and Google paying for the OS development with money from software sales. And they fixed the most glaring Cardboard issues by requiring an SD820, because they were running rather complex sensor fusion to stabilize the tracking on the Hexagon DSP. The at the time high end SoC set a minimum performance bar, and only phones with well known properties got certified for Daydream. They also included a 3DoF controller by default, while the one added to later Gear VR models never saw widespread use because not all users had one. And AFAIR Daydream even had its own store section, separate from regular Android apps.
        
        So they did what you ask for, but in the end failed, because compared to the very open Cardboard, the tight restrictions and need for certification mean that only a few phones were supported, leading to less users and lacking developer interest. And when they pushed for standalone devices similar to Go/Quest, their partnership model no longer worked with Oculus selling hardware at cost.
        
        So from my point of view, what they did made mostly sense, even if it didn't work out in the end. And as mentioned, I think that Cardboard/Gear VR were basically a decade too early. So I expect different results now because the technology is much more suitable for use by not only enthusiasts, there is more momentum in the market towards XR, and AVP pretty much legitimized non-gaming XR HMDs as a future market/platform all by itself. The timing is much better now.
      - LP
        
        Well, even back then, the Daydream attempt was a predictable failure. The company responsible for the software didn't try to focus on creating and distributing it in their own store. How is that possible?
        
        Times are rather worse now because competition and expectations are higher now than they were then. Given the reputation of "Killed by Google" and their past successes, the only hope is Samsung's experience or some unusual chemistry resulting from working together.
        
        I don't know. I don't believe it, even if I wanted to.
      - Arno van Wingerde
        
        I share your scepticism but google and Samsung have a long and very successful history of working together an Android phones and tablets … extending that ecosystem to VR in a very similar way as Apple is trying with the AVP is actually only to be expected. I would expect hardware with decent specs, access to the 2D Playstore and VR apps to come. However, before they have something to compete with Meta in the VR scene will likely take years. Meta and Apple spent many years developing stuff "just right".
        OTOH Pico got there very fast, before leaving the market … so who knows?
      - XRC
        
        Daydream didn't reach critical mass because too early to market to reach volume, limited install base due to mandatory hardware specification excluding many Android smartphone users.
        
        Daydream on sd821 (Pixel XL) with higher ppi display very impressive, showing Google's software chops with excellent optimisation and UX. Adding a passive heatsink and remodelling the facial interface+ headstrap did wonders for the View device.
        
        Early access to webVR through chrome and Firefox, Youtube and Photos integration, could use keyboard for input, lots of experimental stuff released
        
        Mirage Solo with world sense tracking was surprisingly good despite limitations, met some of their AR/VR team in London lots of PCVR experience there.
        
        sone great exclusive including Virtual Virtual Reality, Eclipse: Edge of Light and Blade runner Revelations with the stunning Seurat technology
        
        Google don't employ stupid people…it wasn't the right time, so they sat back and let Meta burn their cash
      - kraeuterbutter
        
        google cardboard was my entry-step-stone…
        tested – was wowed..
        and orderd some time later the new HTC Vive
        (basestations are still in use with my Index)
Storymode Chronicles

This should be an exciting addition to the market. Using Qualcomm's XR platform, it seems something like a mix between the low cost of Quest and the productivity focus of the Vision Pro is fairly logical.

Hopefully they take the best lessons from the Vision Pro, in particular its rock solid usability, but also small touches like a physical dial to change immersion from AR to VR in analog steps.

The ability to make "eye contact" with people in the real world seems important as well, but that could be a much less expensive, more basic representation of generic low resolution, high brightness avatar "eyes", rather than the low brightness, high resolution, realistic lenticular version Apple uses.

The ability to replicate the way the Vision Pro interacts with iOS and and macOS but in a more agnostic way could be huge. At least Windows and Android integration to bring a consumer's existing device into their XR ecosystem would be huge, if not also bringing Apple products in which should be at least legally leverageable.

An expansive FOV and foveated rendering would even be relatively low cost ways to achieve superior feature sets in areas Apple missed.

There are likely many such examples of differing granularity where a lower cost XR device could eat Apple's lunch while still competing in the ballpark of the Quest's price range, which seems like the sweet spot for adoption.
- ViRGiN
  
  How is AVP productivity focused?
  It's entertainment device, dumbed down to ipad apps.
  - Storymode Chronicles
    
    Productivity seems built into the bones of Vision Pro. Seamlessly linking to macOS and iOS brings your workflow into XR. FaceTime Personas integrate with normal calling. All their peripherals work directly with Vision Pro. EyeSight allows presence to connect with unconnected coworkers in real space while collaborating connected coworkers in XR. If you're already in the Apple ecosystem I'm not sure what else you could want for productivity.
    - ViRGiN
      
      And if you're on Windows, can you imagine what else would be needed?
      - Storymode Chronicles
        
        Yeah, if you choose a different ecosystem from any product that's going to affect usability. If you're in Apple's ecosystem, that has a holistic effect on usability, including the productivity focus.
        
        I imagine it would be similar if Microsoft made a headset, it's unlikely to play particularly well with Apple or Chrome devices.
        
        While I would prefer an OS agnostic device, that doesn't actually change the feature-set Apple has designed for when you actually use it together with their other products.
      - ViRGiN
        
        Being limited to iPad apps, and calling it productivity device is just laughable.
        
        It’s running chip found in Macs, yet it’s based on iPad os.
        
        You know, i could get some work done from a smartwatch and call that productivity device too.
        
        If someone job is about writing an email, and dragging and dropping photos to presentation app, i guess that will work.
    - Ondrej
      
      Seamlessly linking to macOS
      
      What a joke this is.
      
      AVP HAS LITERALLY THE M2 CHIP INSIDE. The fact it cannot 1% of what a Macbook with M2 and Mac OS can (in terms of software library and flexibility) means only one thing: they purposefully abuse market position by ARTIFICALLY limiting it with a locked down tollbooth. The fact they forked iOS instead of Mac OS for it is 100% anti-consumer and anti-developer move that should be outrageous, but you guys are eating it up. Shame on you!
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        Interfaces that rely on menus, windows and mice do not translate at all to devices that are used with fingers, because the direct movement of our hands is way more coarse than moving a pointer a few pixels to the side by pushing a mouse several centimeters. Anything touch related has to be redesigned to work with large symbols, tapping, occlusion of the display by fingers, and obviously dropping interactions requiring a second mouse button or keyboard shortcuts.
        
        No doubt Apple is trying to push users into another walled garden for financial reasons, and if they could, they'd probably make the MacOS App store mandatory too. They already locked down a lot of the OS, which often improved security, but occasionally is just a cover-up to discourage 3rd party software sorces.
        
        But running MacOS apps on a HMD actually makes no sense unless you also connect a mouse and keyboard, even if the hardware is capable enough. Apple is using the M2 in iPads, MacBooks and the workstation level Mac Studio simply because using the same architecture at different performance levels is much cheaper. That doesn't mean that an iPad needs to be able to run the same Final Cut version as a USD 5000 M2 Ultra Mac Studio. And the only reason they don't use it in iPhones too is the high power draw requiring larger batteries. There are now billions of ARM SoCs out there, in everything from washing machines to supercomputers, and all of them can run the same instructions, so using a certain chip/architecture in no way means it should be used in one specific way.
        
        I consider a lot of what Apple does as anti-consumer and am very happy that EU and US authorities have now started to limit their most abusive practices. But the chip and OS selection for AVP are pretty clearly due to usability and technical reasons and make a lot of sense, just like having a very capable computer do nothing but check a few buttons and the temperature of the water for your laundry.
      - Storymode Chronicles
        
        Not sure what you mean by “eating it up”. I think it works well, but I’m not a fan of walled gardens. At the moment, it’s just a very expensive tech demo for Apple loyalists with disposable income.
        
        But, aside from that it is also a pretty good showcase for the current state of high end consumer XR tech.
- Christian Schildwaechter
  
  Don't expect too much. Qualcomm updates their top SoCs after a year with a plus version, usually ~10% faster due to process improvements. So a Samsung XR HMD can't just massively increase the FoV compared to Quest 3, as the XR2+ Gen 2 doesn't come with the massively faster GPU needed for this.
  
  Samsung may increase performance further with improved cooling and higher power draw compared to Quest 3 with its underclocked CPU, thanks to a much higher price also allowing for a larger battery and counterbalancing headstrap. But much of that extra (CPU) performance would be needed for ETFR. Eye tracking hardware itself is cheap, but ETFR is expensive (as in performance cost), which makes it barely useful on Quest Pro with XR2+ Gen 1. And they need ETFR to drive the expected almost 4K resolution.
  
  AVP uses an M2 plus the R1 for handling all sensor data and passthrough, giving it much more performance than XR2+ Gen 2 (and insane power draw). The first AndroidXR HMDs will rely on the slower SoC for everything, limiting what features they can offer. Important ones like an eye/hand tracking UI, running 2D Android apps or virtual apps/screens streamed from Windows/a phone actually aren't compute expensive and will run fine, but regarding MR/VR AndroidXR HMDs should perform similar to Quest 3.
  - Storymode Chronicles
    
    It's my understanding that FOV is more of an optics challenge than a processing issue, and foveated rendering should reduce load demand, not increase it.
    
    Either way, Snapdragon XR2+ apparently supports 4.3K per eye, plus foveated rendering. So, foveated rendering is already built-in pending sensor input, and 4.3K per eye seems like tons of pixels for a more expansive FOV when Index is only 2K at 140° FOV.
    
    These features seem like relatively low hanging fruit at this point.
    - Christian Schildwaechter
      
      Foveated rendering support by the SoC means that the GPU is capable of rendering different parts of the image at different resolutions. This is necessary for fixed foveated rendering too, and not something all GPUs can do, for example only Nvidia's RTX GPUs support the VRS (variable rate shading) needed for even FFR, while the GTX GPUs didn't.
      
      ETFR needs FR/VRS support plus eye tracking plus motion estimation software (currently) running on the CPU to predict where the eyes will look once the next frame is rendered, otherwise the wrong image part would be rendered at high resolution. Motion estimation seems to be rather compute intensive, leading to Meta claims of saving 1/4 of the rendering time with ETFR on Quest Pro, while Sony saves 3/4 on PSVR2 running on the way faster PS5.
      
      Higher FoV is most certainly a huge optics challenge, but increasing FoV also means you have to render much more geometry, with the demand increasing exponentially for rendering more of the less important/visible peripheral vision. That's fine for Pimax who can count on users connecting their USD 1000+ HMD to a similarly priced GPU, but not on a SoC still struggling to render 90° FoV at native resolution.
      
      Very good ETFR can significantly reduce the rendering load and will be more beneficial with a larger FoV, as the angle rendered at high resolution depends more on the speed/accuracy of tracking/prediction, not the total FoV. But even on the much faster ~3.5K AVP users will notice the somewhat blurry periphery during eye movements, while nobody managed that on the ~2K PSVR2 using an 8 Zen 2 core@3.5GHz desktop class CPU.
      
      Sony can use ETFR to render AAA games in VR too, despite the much higher render resolution needed for PSVR2 with 110° FoV, partly due to keeping the HMD resolution low. Apple can use ETFR to drive 3.5K without major artifacts on a fast mobile GPU with extra signal processors. Samsung has a weaker CPU/GPU and a higher resolution.
      
      They could of course increase the FoV, but with ETFR savings probably closer to Quest Pro than PSVR2 or AVP, this would most likely mean they have to render for a similar PPD as on Quest 3, basically only 1/4 the pixels of the native display resolution, and then upscale everything to 4K. Not a good choice. Both increasing resolution and FoV come at a cost, and while ETFR will help reducing rendering cost, without a very fast CPU and GPU you still have to pick between either higher resolution or FoV.
      - nas
        
        Are you surprised samsung didn't wait for the oryon cores to compete directly with apple's M2? Or are they betting the next apple headset will be closer to quest 3 performance to improve battery life?
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        TL;DR: It makes a lot more sense to launch a future mass market consumer device with a low power SoC optimized for XR than starting with a much more expensive, power hungry and unoptimized SoC just to gain some performance. It's not about beating Apple in specs, it's about user acceptance.
        
        No, I'm not surprised. While the Oryon cores in the SD X Elite are pretty much the first that allow to run Windows on ARM comfortable even with x86 productivity app, they are a) expensive, b) power hungry and c) not optimized for VR/XR.
        
        Qualcomm charges USD 160 for an SD8 Gen 2, USD 200 for an SD8 Gen 3, with rumors putting the SD8 Gen 4 with Oryon at USD 240. Phone manufacturers so far had no alternative to Qualcomm, but with them raising the price of their top of the line SoC every year since SD8 Gen 1 was introduced, many now consider switching to a similarly fast, but less efficient MediaTek Dimensity 9X00. SoC price may not be the issue for the first USD 2000 Samsung XR HMD, but everybody knows that for XR to go mainstream, the prices need to drop a lot.
        
        The Oryon SD X Elite beats the base M4 in multicore, but does this via brute force using an 8/4 performance/efficiency core configuration compared to 3/6 on M4, leading to much higher power draw, something you don't want on a HMD. The SD8 Gen 4 will probably come in a similar config to e.g. SD8 Gen 2 with 1/2/2/3 high/performance/efficiency/low power core config, optimized for the typical burst and idle usage on phones. Qualcomm changed the XR2 Gen 2 based on SD8 Gen 2 to a 2/4 performance/efficiency setup better suited for constant load, making it actually faster for VR than its phone counterpart at similar clock rates. So you don't only want the faster Oryon cores, but the faster cores in a number and configuration that makes the most sense for XR HMDs. Which will probably happen in an XR2 Gen [3/6/7] in 2026/2027.
        
        The XR2 Gen 2 is now one year old with less than 2mn sold, negligible numbers for a mobile SoC. The market is still way too small to justify always keeping performance state of the art, or modifying a current phone SoC to run better in XR. First the user number have to go way up, and for that the prices have to come way down. Meta has pretty much shown that the enthusiast market just isn't large enough, with even most VR users being very price sensitive. Quest 2 still outselling Quest 3 by a large margin hints that prioritizing performance will not lead to the required large user numbers.
        
        Apple has an advantage here, as they already used their M-chips in everything from iPads to workstations, giving them a choice and plenty of power. But apparently the very prototypy AVP draws up to 40W compared to a Quest 3 topping out at 20W when used while charging, and 12W in untethered use. Apple will definitely have to lower the power draw in future AVP, but I'd expect them to mostly keep the current performance level and simply switch to their AXX phone SoC that will reach M2 performance within the next 2-3 years at a much lower power budget.
        
        It very likely that Apple over-provisioned AVP in many areas, from performance to sensors, and will cut as much of these as possible without compromising the experience, once they have learned how the device is used in the real world. Its also very likely that the Samsung XR HMD will work just fine using XR2+ Gen 2, if they balance it properly.
      - nas
        
        Thanks for the detailed reply. You seem to have a lot of insight, perhaps you work in the industry? Technical minded articles are more interesting to read than the standard reporting on this space.
      - Storymode Chronicles
        
        I think you're overcomplicating things here. You agree that when a SoC supports foveated rendering it reduces demand on the GPU, and the Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 supports foveated rendering.
        
        Clearly FOV would also need to balance resolution with optics, but that's also the point of foveated rendering. To allow greater effective resolution with less GPU demand.
        
        Where Apple erred on the side of clarity over FOV, I think there is plenty of room for some middle ground to allow a more usable VR space; even just 110° would go a long way.
        
        Still, the Valve Index is only 1440p per eye, and it manages to make 140° look pretty spectacular on a relatively limited pixel budget, using 5yr old panels and optics.
        
        It seems panel and optics would just need to be tuned to what the Qualcomm SoC can offer. Unless you have additional information to suggest specific constraints that mean any such compromise using this particular SoC will just look like garbage, I think advances in panels and optics should be able to produce an image of reasonable quality with a significantly expanded FOV versus the Vision Pro.
      - XRC
        
        Index uses 2017 Boe display panel, with each display canted at 5 degree and dual compound lens.
        
        fov is 109×109 for me (same as the maximum rendered fov) with minimum eye relief and 3d printed wide face interface.
        
        going beyond this is very difficult, without distortion or increasingly costly distortion profile. The Index has always had class leading geometric stability providing a comfortable experience
Christian Schildwaechter

Postponing the HMD was obviously a reaction to AVP offering something unexpected, but I doubt it was about hardware. AVP Rumors had predicted very hires displays and a MacBook SoC for USD 3000+, Samsung already knew which microOLEDs they'd have by 2024, and there was no alternative to Qualcomm's XR2+ Gen 2 anyway.

The main surprise about AVP hardware was how uncomfortable the default back strap turned out to be for many, with the top strap Apple later added for better weight distribution clearly an emergency work-around. Apple's over-engineered back strap makes putting on/off AVP easier and doesn't mess with hair, but was so widely criticized that if there was any major hardware change to Samsung's XR HMD, it will probably be about making absolutely sure their head strap is comfortable even after hours.

With barely changed hardware, the delay would be mostly for Google to adapt AndroidXR. What blew even long time VR users away was AVP's eye and hand tracking basd user interface allowing users to look and select with minor gestures, way easier and more intuitive than relying on some kind of laser pointer or direct grab motions. Some Unity devs recreated a similar UI for Quest Pro/Quest 2 (with head tracking) within days after the AVP presentation, so the 6+ months weren't needed to implementing the feature itself. More likely to make sure that the new usage paradigm integrates well with the XR apps Samsung/Google had designed for a different interface, and that it will also work with 2D apps from the Playstore.
- Puncho XR
  
  Can you point to the Unity recreation of the head tracking UI that mimics AVP interaction on Quest? We're working on something similar right now.
  - Christian Schildwaechter
    
    There were numerous, I don't remember which came first.
    
    – Thrillseeker showed his recreation of mostly the AVP menu only six days after the presentation (I Recreated Apple's $3500 "Magical" VR UI on a Quest Pro youtu_be/rjyUuLR8zoo ), which took him (not a trained programmer) 4 days, with an APK for Quest Pro.
    
    – Inspired by that, a week later Justin P. Barnett posted a 1h tutorial (How to Recreate Apple Vision Pro's UI on a Quest Pro | Step-by-Step Guide youtu_be/RpHAZ0N5W1s ), detailed enough for anyone with minimal Unity experience to follow, also working on Quest 2. The project files are unfortunately gone.
    
    – The one first widely noticed came from Nova, who had created an iPadOS inspired XR touch interface library with working widgets before AVP was shown (Apple Vision Pro UX | Concept | Nova youtu_be/aoBBVyiPqEI ). They quickly added look and pinch (youtube_com/shorts/NggUSn7UmDI ), and made the whole Unity project with source code available under CC0 license ( github_com/NovaUI-Unity/AppleXRConcept ), covering much more than the menu.
    
    These were all from the first few days. Most of the needed components are already there, so there'll be other projects more up to date/still maintained.
ApocalypseShadow

It's going to be awesome. Much potential when people see it. This isn't Google making a headset. So, those fears aren't warranted. This is Samsung, a company that is just as good in engineering by making something that'll compete with Facebook and Apple. But it'll have full integration with apps from Google, probably connects to Chromecast for second screen streaming, Chrome Books, your Android phones, etc.

It'll have power and performance for productivity or games. And be priced much less than Vision Pro. Hand tracking will be day one with great lense clarity and will probably have an AI assistant built in like Bixby. But you'll be able to download Gemini.

Only question is if it will come with controllers or will Samsung go Apple's route. Hopefully, there will be controllers day one. Wouldn't be surprised on a stylus accessory too.

The headset war is heating up soon. Hopefully the right President will be voted in. As the other wants to put tariffs on foreign goods. And Samsung could be affected by that decision.
- Ondrej
  
  It's either a real computer or not.
  A device with a single store monopoly is not a real computer.
  
  for productivity
  
  There are only 3 real productivity operating systems: Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
  Android is purposefully dumbed down and limited for toys and gadgets.
  
  XR was never just meant to replace tablets and phones, but also laptops and workstations. And these corporations are desperately doing everything to pretend this is no longer true. The biggest shame is what Apple did with its monstrous M2 chip in AVP, while being the owner of Mac OS. An anti-consumer, disgraceful decision and barely any reaction from tech media/tubers. There should be an outrage, but nope. Nothing.
- CaryMGVR
  
  #Trump2024
  <3
Nevets

I'm not positive about this unless they prove otherwise. I think it'll be another large bulky faceclamp in exactly the same style as every other one. There will be no gasp-inducing technical innovations and nor a fresh approach to ergonomic design and weight balance. Even Apple produced something that is apparently pretty shit to wear, and I can't see Samsung doing much better.

I like the taste of my words, of course, and would be only too happy to eat them if I'm proven wrong.
- gothicvillas
  
  Yup it will be another face clamp with more or less same antics but wrapped in samsung/google wrapping and NO games
xyzs

Too late.
I don’t like when the people who snubbed XR for years come back and pretend they are committed and want to lead the movement.
That was 5 years ago at least we were waiting for an effort. Absolute Sub Zero trust in Google.
- Nevets
  
  Well, I guess they're not designing it especially for you, so you'll just have to take what you're given. You'll probably buy it anyway.
- Arno van Wingerde
  
  The history of especially Google does not exactly inspire confidence and I am not convinced that they will actually try seriously this time. However, I am totally prepared to be pleasantly surprised, but we need way more than a vague statement before we can even start to believe it. For instance: do they already have dedicated XR teams? Is there a long term budget planned? Or will they just develop a headset – Pico style, put Android on it and then slowly work on the most glaring shortcomings, until it gets dumped a few years later?
- Guest
  
  Sorry but not Linux, not for this.
Wheatstone_XR

(another one of those GuestArticle-length-comments,
but i do enjoy those by others.)

I want what we all want,
i want their device to be called the 'Samsung Ambition'
powered by google's 'no seriously here's the RESULTS of our efforts going into this in how and why we actually give a shit for the next decade'
It's clearly not ambition that sent folks at Samsung back to the drawing boards, but utter and obvious shame they couldn't take.
Maybe they were never given necessay resources internally, until it was obvious that they need at least some.
Lead by example; " Here's the software-hardware suites with which we built and coordinated a large part of the device's actual development and production on the platform itself. Here's how We extensively use it ourselves. It was harder than you would believe, and now we're ready to share.

Vs. we don't know what the shits we're doing, 'cause honestly most here don't care or have enough of a final say on anything to make meaningful decisions.
Wouldn't it be awesome, if they'd distinguish themselves with something they take seriously and put effort into? Even if it's just a Nintendo style gimmick for business productivity that they see through for 5+ years.
And now here's a Chromebook, for you face, in the park. ..no not that !

And was Google blindsided by expecting Magic Leap to be their dark horse safe bet ?
What happened, they should have had a Quest3 by 2019.

It is fascinating how at such large scales greed, shame and not really caring can be so blatantly obvious.
Fiscally responsible explanations are easy here, but the shortsightedness and lack of drive and curiosity is truly baffling.
If everywhere we're just waiting for technology to catch up by itself, it wont.
We make the technologies.
Structures and people at Samsung and Google..
have no-one speaking up 'hey if we're just throwing out minimum viable copycat dogfood at consumers and nothing truly advanced of our own, blindly claim our stake with nothing to offer or show…it'll fizzle out at best.
But after Stadia and the like i've been educated there is no limit to the scale of shortsightedness.

Also just saw ye old 'General Magic' documentary with the Sony Magic Link device, and
greed + expecting guranteed returns without offering functioning substance that keeps incrementally improving, is a great approach to sabotage all your own endeavors.

In front of the eyes displays are best we're gonna get before wireless (lightbased?) bidirectional augments to our brains.
And we're all gonna be very old before these materialize. ( we're lucky if we get to experience a couple of generations of neuralinks. But that's it, we're stuck in this timeslice we're born into.)
And there's so much more already possible here, right now, than is currently being done.

I'm very grateful for the Meta Apple competition. They're good enough starts and most things are possible with them already.
I love how they're putting their best foot forward and keep moving ahead at some cadence, despite how hard and driven from within it will continue to be to do so.
Compositor-, camera access and concurrent xr multitasking would be nice.
Would love to see them leapfrogged by a devices and or software suite, that can build and publish native apps on device from device, fast.
But that'll only happen when performance is trivial. and even then there's no incentives for that.
That's what 9 years away ?
[ Or perhaps there will be an intermediary phase with something like Macromedia Flash or Playstation's Dreams as an execution environment. More feasible, less awesome.]

To not see the passion and capabilty from within Samsung and Google in this domain, beyond being on par is lame and sad.
Seems like they won't care until its too late. Seems they'll be moving ahead without a cohesive stable foundation of their own.
Merely keeping up with what others do is as uninteresting as it is unaffordable and they're already in the midst of it.
..but perhaps xyzs' comment about Fuchsia points toward the possiblity of concerted efforts, because meta did not submit to their demands yay.

I'd love to see Sony, Valve, Samsung, Bytedance, Bigscreen, Magicleap, Xreal, Varjo, Tilt Five and others earnestly and with business savvy do their own things, and further the fields – but they all seem to think that they can't afford to care enough to truly see it through except for valve maybe. We'll see. Does it really need to be a 'winner takes it all' for one brand of pencil and display context ?

With that kind of approach impuls-projects truly will cede to the ones who've kept going all along and offering something to their evolving customer base.
It's not just who can afford to keep going, but who really wants to keep going. Who can afford to keep the people involved healthily breathing beyond bursts, while also hiring and firing to keep it lean, fast to move and fresh.
Like Ondrej said, i wish we had ..computers.

Stupid as it sounds, in my perspective; As long as every meta device can accurately play beatsaber or faster software and sweat and motion neither impact you nor the devices adversly, they will come out ahead.
It's already the perceived servicable toy it needs to be, to do anything else as well.
It's pure shortsightedness that consoles never turned into streamlined computers again. something that versatile most everyone will want to have and be able to wield, if it's polished and somewhat safe.

Can you believe that Apple by strategy is sacraficing tens of billions of $ just to let people broadly see and let the statement settle in that 'our devices don't make people sick' (by disincentivizing most software that could do so for two years).
They're beautifully conservatively nuts in that regard, how is that even a thing ?
Apple might be sacraficing their current chip hardware advantages, with the software system constraints they build themselves into. It's just their take on the concept. And everybody's 'free' to come up with one of their own. They couldn't compete with something that doesn't get in its own way. That could be larger than iphones and android combined. or just really useful, fun and worthwhile.

Let's enjoy and contribute to the ride.

New XR Platform From Samsung and Google Will be Announced, if Not Launched, This Year

Latest Headlines

VR Veteran Studio nDreams to Reveal “what’s next” at VR Games Showcase Next Week

HTC Cuts Vive XR Elite Price Ahead of New Headset Reveal

‘Garry’s Mod’ Sequel Adopts OpenXR to ‘Expand VR Feature Set’ and Support More Devices

Features & Reviews

25 Free Games & Apps Quest 3 Owners Should Download First

‘Bounce Arcade’ is Like VR Pinball for Your Fists—And Exactly the Kind of Creativity VR Needs to Thrive

‘Half-Life: Alyx’ on PSVR 2 Would be a Win-win-win for Valve, Sony, & Players