Galaxy Xr: the First Android Xr Headset
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
blog.googleTechstoryHigh profile
skepticalmixed
Debate
80/100
Android XrSamsung Galaxy XrVirtual RealityAugmented Reality
Key topics
Android Xr
Samsung Galaxy Xr
Virtual Reality
Augmented Reality
Samsung has launched the Galaxy XR headset, a competitor to Apple's Vision Pro, but the community is divided on its value and potential longevity due to concerns about Google's track record with similar projects.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
25m
Peak period
139
0-12h
Avg / period
40
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 22, 2025 at 12:50 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 22, 2025 at 1:15 PM EDT
25m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
139 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 28, 2025 at 5:12 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45671871Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:31:01 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Its going to need some really good optics for that.
The display, weight, fit, and openness seem better than the Apple Vision Pro. The Apple Vision Pro is still the best choice if you want a screen that shows your eyes on the outside some of the time.
Edit: or maybe not, see the sibling comment about their smart ring. At least that looks like an isolated incident.
expanding? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45423490
Galaxy XR are again a signal. Also serves to keep VR people employed.
Meta Ray-Bans are a successful product that has a clear understanding of use case and effectively delivers a normal product with appealing aesthetics. Google glass could have led to that much earlier but the product looked like headgear for braces and the product concept was abandoned prematurely.
Galaxy XR is a late response to Vision Pro which itself is a late response to Meta Quest/Steam VR devices. The HTC Vive and Valve Index were the market signals, but that market signal has already proven to be something of a false one by the time Apple and Google got around to playing in the space.
There is really no market for general purpose computing VR devices. You are either gaming (niche), watching movies alone (niche again, rich but lonely Vision Pro users), or you’re taking POV pictures/video and doing light voice assistant/AI type tasks (Meta Ray-Bans, which are broadly appealing and even function as regular glasses for basically the same price as regular glasses).
Unsurprisingly, the only true hit with growing sales out of the use cases is the Meta Ray-Bans.
Let’s not forget that even the best headsets like Vision Pro are useless for a large chunk of people who get motion sick from them.
The successful product concept is the Meta Ray-Bans, and it’s crazy to me that they have zero competition especially from Apple who is all over customizable fashion wearables with the Apple Watch. The Vision Pro and Galaxy XR should have been cancelled.
This is my pure speculation, but it seems like for a product like this there is no ideal path for Apple. Two scenarios (there may be more):
* Make it an evolutionary experience, mostly regarding the apps. It's like how the iPad and iWatch related to the iPhone. Both projects were successful for many reasons, but having thousands of apps continue working and adding new value was definitely one of them. But in this case, Apple needs to invent these new values, which is not so easy. For example, a visual notification device is one of the use cases (like now you get notifications directly to your eyes from dozens of existing apps), but this use case is not big enough to be an anchor.
* Make it a revolutionary device, like the iPhone was. So mostly new use cases, apps, SDK, etc. But this requires time, resources, and Jobs's skills to make it work. And what's interesting, many of the potential "revolutionary" use cases are definitely not for everyone, which would make this project less appealing for Apple. For example, I can imagine a digital/AI assistant recording/decoding everything around you and working as your second brain/memory device. I'm sure Stephen Wolfram will be one of the first users of such a device (see his own description of his everyday life [1]), but I'm not sure there will be millions of such users.
According to some leaks and hints, probably the second path is currently underway at Apple. But it needs time for both the hardware and software parts. Maybe even more time for the software.
[1] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the-prod...
I’m not even asking for Apple to be “revolutionary,” I really think they just need to sit down and map out a buyer persona and take the time to understand who is buying their new product and why.
They obviously didn’t do that with the Vision Pro, they chased technology for technology’s sake out of fear that a new competitor might get their own App Store.
Besides, something can be a market signal without being brand new tech. It’s like you brushed aside my points with nothing but a smirk.
> 12 months of Google AI Pro, YouTube Premium, and Google Play Pass.
Not a bad deal for those who pay for those services.
What does Apple bundles with their Vision Pro for $3500?
(also they want you hooked on those services so they can rebill you after 12 months)
That the device you strap to your face isn't tracking your personal data.
Support for over 5 years, unlike google who'll kill this in around half that long?
If Apple couldn't make it work, does Google really think they can? This should be headlining an event, not relegated to a blog post.
I think Google just has a habit of making products that excite techies but then prove unsustainable for a wider audience (reader being the prime example). I think them trying that (and then failing) is better for everyone than them simply not even trying, which is what some other major tech players do(Apple)
If people actually want to use this product and it is selling well and there are a lot of android XR users, then it's unlikely that Google will kill it. If it doesn't sell well and there aren't many android XR users, sure, it may be killed, but I don't think you'll find many examples of companies sustaining an unprofitable line of business just for the goodwill of the few people using the product.
What might save this one is that the Oculus Quest ecosystem being Android based with similar hardware, so it should be pretty easy for an ecosystem of appropriately designed software to get ported over.
Kind of like how big screen Android devices have been an afterthought for most apps (hope you like enlarged phone UIs) but what might rescue tablets this time is foldable phones showing up and making developers consider "what if the screen isn't a tall rectangle?"
I still think there's high chances they have one or two generations of hardware trying to copy the Oculus Quest / Vision Pro and then pull the plug and say "forget VR we're doing AI glasses." They were ahead of the curve with Google Glass, but have that habit of bailing on things and giving up the first mover advantage.
MS and Magic Leap tried to make holographic AR work, but the state of the art wasn't cheap and compact enough for them to make any money on it.
So you had extra backlash because the people who most felt it were also people way more vocal
That's why I don't like Google abandoning projects so much. Sure everybody does this sometimes, but no one does it as much as Google. It's not because I am a "techie". It's because it has been bad for my business. I don't care what people off the street think.
This is not a meme.
To their credit, they did seem to make things right for Stadia.
Meanwhile, if we look at Microsoft and Windows MR, they themselves did not, though one of their employees apparently built a SteamVR driver on his own (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110883). Microsoft should be embarrassed that they couldn't be bothered to do that themselves.
1: gasp this makes so much more sense read as English, I guess it really was written in an Indo-European language
I need to do a Google search every time to recall their history with tablets. I remember the Nexus tablets which came out for like a 3 year streak.
Then it was the Pixel C in 2015, then a 3 year gap until the Pixel Slate, then 5 years before the Pixel Tablet. Do not ask me about any of their capabilities or their intention in the market because every release could have been anything.
I'm so beyond getting on board with anything Google puts out, it's kinda just funny to watch and laugh at this point.
And those aren't rumors, there is a pretty big effort to get Android ready for ChromeOS and get feature parity. Which to me is really unfortunate, CrOS has such a nice linux base.
Completely directionless
Plus, it gives Android developers a widescreen demographic to target, which might finally give them a nudge to make their UIs adapt to things that aren't portrait candybars.
It looks like Google has a very expensive headset, no controllers, and thus no real games to go along with it.
Not that it matters, apple has dropped support for true VR and now that google doesn't have to compete on this obscure battlefield, it will be cancelled before the end of Q4. I honestly feel bad for the team it was probably a good product. The launch event may have only been done for tax purposes to recover R&D losses.
I had a Note device that on launch was compatible with GearVR, but they killed support for it in one of the few the Android updates. This was back when getting 3 Android updates was "lucky". i.e. they launched and completely killed GearVR (paperweight level) all within 5 years.
I’m still very salty about Samsung never officially releasing their Samsung Odyssey VR headset in Europe. It was the best VR headset among the Windows Mixed Reality headsets at the time of their release.
Of course, the HP Reverb was better, but it came out much later, too late for WMR to really take off.
I still believe that if Microsoft had forced Samsung to release the Odyssey VR headset worldwide, WMR could have been a success.
And I’m pretty sure Samsung won’t release this one (the Galaxy VR) worldwide either, which will be the reason it fails and Google will probably take that as an excuse to shut down the project as well.
I'm not sure if Microsoft actually wanted to try to make it a success. They made a lot of decisions that didn't help it succeed, with one of those decisions leading to every headset being a brick (officially, although Oasis fixes them) now. I could go on and on about it, because I love my Odyssey+ and it's frustrating to see how they screwed the ecosystem up so badly.
But I still remember the uproar in various communities about Samsung’s decision not to release what was, at the time, the only premium-tier WMR headset, with higher resolution and refresh rate, a wider FOV, mechanical IPD adjustment, and a few other features.
Only the HP Reverb WMR headset, released about two years later, offered comparable premium features and launched in more regions. But in my opinion, by then it was already too late.
The thing is, even at a slightly higher price point, the Samsung Odyssey would have been a great entry into PC VR for many people, since it was still one of the most affordable headsets compared to its competitors at the time, like the HTC Vive or the Oculus Rift.
That alone could have helped WMR gain more traction. But many reviewers weren’t too impressed by the other WMR headsets from different manufacturers. Some even compared them to the Samsung Odyssey and suggested waiting for Samsung to release theirs worldwide, since it was clearly the better one (at that time, in 2017).
https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/
Honestly, it was a phenomenal product and is part of the reason I'm considering the Galaxy XR now.
So either this is some type of sarcasm I'm not able to detect or your definition of "long support" is ridiculous.
The next year's Android update basically made the Android Daydream service non-installable, so the Gear VR became a paperweight (and likely the reason in the reddit you quote people scramble for old non-updated devices).
But this is typical behavior for Samsung. E.g. they were literally publicly beta-testing DeX on Linux on Note 9 devices only to announce the final version would be available _only_ on Note 10 devices, not Note 9 devices from which they were removing support immediately. An absolutely baffling decision considering the software was actually developed for Note 9 in the first place, so their cost was zero. But ranting about this was very short lived since they eventually just deprecated the entire thing within one year of release, and again made sure the next Android major update would be totally incompatible with it. And thank god we got a major Android update at all.
I'm quite sure there's people out there who bought a Note 9, THEN a Note 10 to use DeX on Linux, and within a year all they got is not one but TWO paperweights. For those people: Samsung appreciates your generous donations.
More expensive than the Vive isn't the way forward. Apple had a tech demo and slumping quarterly reports and need some PR wins, so out came the headset. I don't think it was a good faith effort to get into this market. I think it was to get headlines, jazz up stocks, and get attention as an innovator outside of laptops and phones.
I have no idea what Google can do here, but Android is a long running project. The Pixel line has long-ish term support. Google can eat Oculus's lunch. I just think the question is if Oculus's walled garden is now too high to climb, both in software and patents. FB money and Carmack's talents are going to be hard to beat here.
If I had to guess, I'd say Google saw Oculus get good at games, but everything else about it is fairly uninteresting. XR/AR could be hot and those new Meta glasses are pretty much Google Glass on steroids. So who knows, but seeing Google dive back into AR/XR is promising and I think they can compete here in a way they can't with VR games.
I could see myself buying AR glasses branded Pixel or Google. I'd think they'd be a better product than Meta. I don't know where Google is going with this and this product seems underwhelming, but we may have an entirely different product in a year or two. I have a feeling both Apple and Samsung's product are PR placeholders until they can catch up to Meta on shoe-horning this into Ray-Ban-esque glasses format.
Yeah, this is going nowhere, is the typical case having to do something because the neighbour is also doing it.
Wonder what I get for the other 1.6k, that makes me want it...
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.htl.agmous...
and 4x the pixels
I don't think the tech is good enough for me personally but I'm hoping we get there in a few years.
I'm surprised that you find it comfortable enough for 6+ hours, especially since you probably need to keep it plugged in. I thought the consensus was that for most users it was hard to keep them on even for just a whole movie.
It's definitely comfortable enough, though I got a different strap. I'm plugged in most of the time, and at home I'll wear it when I get up to pee/grab coffee.
(I have Xreals and they're a fun toy, but AVP and this are what the average person thinks of when they think of a virtual screen, not the peephole xreals offer.
The software ecosystem and wireless are the things lacking
Even if it did, to me Samsung + Google is just a no go:
Samsung: Bloated with apps I don't want, can't uninstall but probably won't be killed off.
Google: Lean, not too much bloat, but can't trust it to exist more than a year.
Is there a fight between Google and Netflix?
Also USD 1800 per headset ... wow.
https://threads.com/@techwitheugene/post/DQGFd5jiopP
Then when they say - explore Google Maps - ok. Fun. But for what? 10 minutes? How prominent is that need/activity in our life?
All usecases that Apple and now Google/Samsung showcase are "imaginary", wishful thinking usecases. They don't stick. They are more like "party-tricks" than something that can integrate into our lives and fill in a certain gap.
Flight and racing sims are another one but they are obviously a lot more niche.
This is the groundwork. But I don't know if they have a larger vision (pun intended) other than "oh shit, the smartphone industry has been conquered and now sees diminishing returns, we need something else to generate revenue".
I would think that the most ultimate end state would be (sci-fi mode ON) some kind of implants, retina projections... It's ridiculous to say this things, but best form factor is to get the value without any form:)
TBF sitting still in a dark room fixating in the same direction for 2 hours straight is also uncomfortable. Either the movie captures your attention and you bear with it, or you take breaks.
Keeping an headset on for hours is fine if you fit it properly (get used to it), and for the movie use case in particular you don't need to be sitting, which can make it way more comfortable that the traditional experience.
Now it's clearly for people who lust for something they don't have right now. If you're 100% happy with doing everything on your phone for instance, it won't be for you. Same way you wouldn't even care for a laptop or desktop computer I guess.
I do feel a certain level of "bigger" commitment when you are in VR/AR. The content follows you. The current way of consuming content is a bit more transactional and has clear boundaries. You want to see a reel - you got to do physical activity (pick up the phone, unlock, launch an app, scroll.. Etc.).
When content "follows you", delivered to you directly as any moment in time - I just have this itchy feeling that we become more dedicated to the consumption of that content. It's an ads dream world!
Thinking of it in levels of commitment sounds right to me, and IMHO most people will want the minimum commitment. The phone thing was something I've been thinking about a lot as we're getting better folding phones.
For instance less and less people care to look at photos on other supports, printing or checking them on a bigger screens now requires some dedication or special motivation. In that regard the Vision Pro's 3D photos feature makes for nice demos, but the number of people that will see it as something missing in their lives right now must be ridiculously low.
> It's an ads dream world!
Nah, they don't need that. My bank statements now have ads inserted between some of the lines, inside the app. Not checking my statements isn't an option and the shitty website won't save me, so I'm already cooked.
Nostalgia is a strong emotion. It sells.
* https://www.samsung.com/us/xr/galaxy-xr/galaxy-xr/
* https://www.samsung.com/us/business/xr/galaxy-xr/galaxy-xr/
I think it’s pretty foolish for a large company who hopes to own computing to not invest in this areas.
I even installed Termux via F-Droid today, and have a bluetooth keyboard with touchpad connected to it.
Not everything needs to be XR/VR/AR to be useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Daydream
Damn, the older I get the more it seems that every company is untrustworthy.
Seems like there are now ~4 places to buy content (Oculus, Steam, Google Play, Apple App Store).
If you buy on Steam, your catalog is reasonably portable over time - you can buy another vendor's headset and still access your catalog. The cost is that you have to bring a separate device with you to host the catalog (unless/until the rumored Steam Frame comes out).
Oculus and Play are both based on Android. I suspect there will be e.g. guides on Reddit to sideload one vendor's catalog onto the other vendor's device.
I can imagine a world where someone prefers to buy content in one of these stores, to have everything in one place for portability to future devices. You're already seeing this in computer gaming with Steam (and Epic, Xbox, etc.).
Sure you can probably stream PC VR from steam to most of these but it's not the same as on device.
It mostly is if your local wifi doesn't suck. I honestly can't tell the difference in most cases.
Will the Walkabout Mini Golf deployed to Play be meaningfully different than the one from Oculus, or will they include controller support for both ecosystems and ship a single APK to any storefront that will take it?
The use cases they showed are just as stupid as those shown in Apple's event over two years ago.
58 more comments available on Hacker News