Probably. The “freebie” I got from Verizon (looks like the one in the commercials) is made specifically for the newer Samsung phones. Oh well, if I really want to try it, I can go buy a cheap headset, then.
So?
How does that relate to the orgasmic reactions seen in the commercial? Not only are they oohing and ahhing, but they are reacting to something moving in the image. And the other people seem to be aware of what the person with the goggles is seeing. They wouldn’t say “how is this POSSIBLE?” if they were just looking at pictures.
We had a VR “ride” at the arcade near me some 15 years ago. While it was fun, and did give me a sense of being “there”, it never made me ooh, ahh, or flinch, or ask how it was possible. It wasn’t magic. It was science!
Perhaps the advertiser is exaggerating for effect?
Your question has already been answer, but you keep asking it. Are you asking why people in an ad are excited about the thing that’s being advertised?
No, I’m asking the advertisers to show the product they are selling.
They are showing the product they are selling - i.e. the smartphone and VR headset. They don’t make the VR video content or VR games that run on this hardware.
Besides, trying to show VR on a TV commercial is like showing a color TV on a monochrome broadcast commercial.
Is there any VR content that makes you react emotionally like in the commercial?
I haven’t seen the ad, however my daughter had a pretty positive reaction to VR with google cardboard and an iPhone.
Makes who react emotionally? Everyone? Some people? Paid actors in a commercial?
What percentage of people react the same way as the people do in McDonald’s commercials?
Since way back in the pre-internet era I’ve always thought it ought to be a regulation that any print or TV advertisement has to show the people using the product for its intended purpose.
If it’s food somebody has to eat it. If it’s a car somebody has to drive it. If it’s hemorrhoid cream somebody has to smear it on their …
You can see this would remove a lot of euphemistic and tiresome ads from newspapers, magazines, and broadcast TV.
The advent of the internet changes things. Of course since it’s mostly ungoverned and ungovernable once this idea of “show not tell” got ingrained in the culture we’d have a whole new art form of disgusting YouTube / Hulu / Netflix ads. Win some; lose some.
Maybe I’m not explaining myself? Or does everyone just want to be a SD contrarian?
I understand how ads work.
Look at the Apple iphone ads. The commercial shows the kid recording and editing. I understand what they are selling, and decide if I want that feature.
Look at video game commercials. They show an approximation of what the game play looks like (more or less). I can imagine whether or not I’d like to buy the game.
Car commercials show the car, the car driving, the car’s features. I can imagine using the car.
HD TV commercials show simulated picture (and they were broadcast to people without HD TVs, as the point of the commercial was to get people to buy HD TVs). Hell, print ads show TV images. It’s not like this is a new concept!
The Galaxy VR commercial shows…reaction shots. The commercial implies that the image is responsive to your movements, that the images are dynamic and exciting, but I have no idea what they are. I can’t even tell if it is interactive, or you just watch things move around. No one in this thread has described any VR content that would make people respond as orgasmically as in the commercials (“How is this possible?!”) Does anyone here even have one?
As a possible consumer of a new product (not just a new beer flavor, or something we’re already familar with), I’d like to know what I’m getting. If it’s just non-interactive imagery, that could get old fast. Not worth buying one, and lugging around the goggles. If the commercial said something like “the new Galaxy S7 can show stunning 3-D virtual worlds, and (non?) interactive game play” or somesuch, and show a couple “simulated images”, that would help. Even if said “simulated images” are 2-D low def on my TV, I can get the idea.
These commercials are like the worst beer ads. You can’t show beer drinking in commercials, so you show “lifestyle”. Happy, beautiful party people - and YOU can be one, too, if you drink our beer! The S7 commercials look like “how can you NOT join in this fun? We can’t actually show you what it is, but look at how all these people positively LOVE it!”
If an ad doesn’t make sense to you then you are probably not the demographic being targeted by that ad.
I can tel you that “reaching for things which are not actually there” is not a feature I looked for when I bought my last phone, although I did choose a Galaxy S7.
I fear you are correct. 
FWIW I agree with you completely.
Which makes me suspect that what’s really going on is the age old form of bait and switch known as “sell the sizzle not the (crappy) steak”.
I was mightily disappointed when my case of Old Milwaukee didn’t summon the Swedish Bikini Team https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKcW0ljTg4I&list=PLe_JZkShXIHKyJ3wvvsv-JHdPST5LVkDB
I suspect the truth is that VR goggles driven by a smart phone are pretty damn underwhelming. So much so they have to resort to your/my vague knowledge of what VR might ideally be coupled with hyperbolic orgasmic overreactions from the actors to sell this junk. Any actual images would be a total buzz-kill.
Sadly, unlike Old Milwaukee’s consciously over-the-top commercials, they don’t have the decency to admit they’re screwing with us big time.
I already explained that what you see depends on the software and content. There are interactive experiences and games. There are also purely passive content, like photos and movies. Just google “Gear VR apps” if you want to see reviews and screenshots for some of those apps.
As for the reactions shown in the commercial - I felt that way when I first tried it, though I’m sure I did not act out my feelings to the same extent. Now I’m completely spoiled by my HTC Vive, but phone-based VR is still impressive for what it can do. I love looking at my panoramic photos on mine.
I really have no idea what the content is like. And since I am not a gamer, nor one that would pay to sit around “staring” at majestic scenery, I am pretty sure I am not the intended demographic.
However I can see that if I were, I would likely go somewhere that offered demonstrations.
For example, as mentioned above, when I was still watching with my SD TV, and they would show an HD TV, it really was not impressive. My reaction was “I am not paying a bunch of money to upgrade my TV for that.” What was impressive was the displays at BestBuy and other electronics places. And even though I am generally an early adopter, I had a 60" big screen that worked fine, so I was not going to upgrade. However, once the price point dropped and they became common, it was easy to upgrade.
At this point, I feel that VR is still mostly in the early adopter phase. I can see that in the future, it might get to the point where you would have the ability to watch TV/movies in a different way with such, definitely play interactive games, etc. But there is likely little content yet. As the trend continues, the content will come and more people might choose to purchase such.
I’ve got some experience with Google Cardboard, and it’s cool, although maybe not as cool as the commercials would have you believe.
Basically with the headset on, you can see a couple things- 3d images if they’re rendered or shot in 3d, and you can see VR landscapes, and sometimes both combined.
So you might fire up a VR roller coaster- everything will be in 3D, which is cool, but what’s also cool is being able to turn your head and look around as the coaster goes up, down and around. You’ll see it all in 3D and what you see will depend on where your head is turned.
Or you might go to one of the panoramic spots on Google Maps and move around- visually, it’s a lot like being there; much more so than seeing it on a flat monitor. You get a better relative sense of how things are laid out and their sizes, if you were to see a VR version of the inside of the Sistine Chapel as opposed to flat pictures and maybe a VR version displayed on a flat panel.
I haven’t played any games, but the static stuff is pretty neat.
See, Samsung? That’s useful information. I’d “ride” a VR coaster several times, especially if you can look around. High def Sistine Chapel or Louvre might be cool, too.
Whether its worth the money, can’t say.
This is a commercial for the Vive, it might help convey what VR is all about a bit better:
Lost edit window:
You can see sometimes people have reactions to what’s going on in the simulation that they probably wouldn’t if they were say, sitting, staring at large TV screen - the whale example for one.
This is because of “presence”: A term used to describe the feeling of actually being there that good VR can create. It does this by tricking your visual cortex in all sorts of ways. The whale in that bit just looks like a big picture on the wall to us, but to the user inside the VR headset, the sense of scale is realistic. He feels dwarfed by the whale, and when it snaps it’s tail, a lot of people will have a natural reaction to move away. People feel vertigo when standing on a beam over a building, or attempt to move away form the giant robot cramming your space, etc.