Saturday, April 4, 2015

Why Samsung’s Gear VR is a virtual reality game-changer

SamsungGearVR1.jpg
An attendee tries an Oculus-powered Samsung Gear VR headset during the French telecom Orange annual company's innovations show in Paris Oct. 2, 2014. (REUTERS/Charles Platiau)
Boring, dull, and repetitive. That’s the reason a few teens told me they don’t play first-person shooters anymore. Rinse and repeat with a grenade launcher and an AK-47? No thanks.
Then, I showed them the Samsung Gear VR.
You’d think they had just discovered electricity or an alternative universe. In some ways, they had. The teens jumped around, yelped with excitement, and didn’t want to stop playing a few basic flight games and watching movies in the virtual reality theater.
The Gear VR headset is a real game-changer. It costs $200 but requires a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 smartphone (which costs $300 on contract) to provide the immersive video experience, the sound, the processing power, and the storage.
You wear the headset like an oversize pair of headphones (the Samsung Level Over headphones provide more immersion, but cost another $350). There’s a strap that covers the top of your head. The phone snaps into a front compartment using two plastic hinges.
You will be flabbergasted. The Gear VR uses technology developed by Oculus, which is now part of Facebook. What you see transports you to another realm. When you look up, the Gear VR tracks your head movement and you look up in the video. Watch a movie in a virtual theater, and you can look behind you at the projector.
The games are rudimentary. There’s one that involves dodging around asteroids and another that’s basically a trimmed-down shooter. However, you can see the potential.
One of the most remarkable videos puts you right in front of a Cirque du Soleil performance. The artists walk right up to you and then jump onto a rope. You can look up at them, over to the side, or even look back at the theater itself. Another video puts you into an ocean scene. I jerked suddenly (in real life) when I saw a shark swim up behind me.
Somehow, the Gear VR didn’t make me feel nauseated or dizzy, which was my initial response to the first Oculus Rift headset - the one that connects to your computer. The Gear is also quite portable. I used one off and on for an entire day with no battery problems. A 16GB storage card is included - the phone’s slot can hold an SD card up to 128GB.
A few minor gripes? You can’t use an older Samsung Galaxy Note phone or any other smartphone from another company. I’m expecting Samsung to make a Gear VR headset that works with the upcoming Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge smartphones.
Also, some aspects of the growing virtual reality industry are less than family friendly.  A company called VirtualRealPorn has already reformatted its content to work on the Gear VR (I refuse to test that kind of material). I can also imagine people getting too preoccupied with violent shooters. After you wear the goggles for more than an hour, when you remove them, there’s a shock that’s similar to waking up from a dream.
Still, the Gear VR is an amazing, immersive experience. I wear glasses and had no problems after adjusting a dial for better focus. Watching the trailer for the movie “Interstellar” I felt like I was gliding over the surface of a planet.
Samsung has some competition in this space. HTC is about to debut its own device called the Vive that uses technology developed at Valve Software. Sony is making a headset called Project Morpheus that will work with higher-resolution games. And, the first Oculus Rift headset for computer games is going to be yet another game-changer when it comes out next year.
For now, Gear VR is best way to experience an alternative universe. Hold on for the ride.

DreamWorks Animation Beats Securities Lawsuit Over 'Turbo'

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dreamworks-animation-beats-securities-lawsuit-786028
On Wednesday, DreamWorks prevailed in a lawsuit that claimed that it had violated securities law by saying on an earnings announcement that the animated film Turbo would be profitable, and waiting too long to take a $13.5 million write-down.
Charles Paddock and others filed claims in 2014, and in a complaint that consolidated three class actions, the plaintiffs alleged they suffered when DreamWorks' stock price dropped 12 percent following a Feb. 25, 2014, announcement of the write-down on Turbo, which cost $135 million to make and grossed just $83 million domestically. Six months after that announcement, DreamWorks revealed that the SEC had been investigating the write-down since May. The company's stock dropped another 12 percent, allegedly leading to more shareholder harm.
In rejecting the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James Otero ruled that plaintiffs haven't alleged sufficient facts to support falsity, scienter (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing) and loss causation.
The judge points to a comment from DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg during a 2013 second-quarter earnings call.
"Katzenberg did not simply say Turbo will be a profitable film, but instead said 'based on the data that we have to date, we do believe that Turbo will be a profitable film,'" writes Otero.
The judge faults the plaintiffs for conclusorily asserting that defendants had no basis to expect the film about a snail who wants to win the Indy 500 to be profitable. The judge says that generally accepted accounting principles tolerate a range when measuring expected performance of things like projected sales from home entertainment, consumer products and television. The lawsuit doesn't meet pleading standards, he writes, because plaintiffs are substituting their "opinion" as to how DreamWorks should have made calculations for "facts describing how" the analysis was actually conducted.
According to the ruling, "Plaintiff has provided no testimony of confidential witnesses, nor anything else beyond its own financial analysis of Turbo's potential for profitability, before attempting to tie that analysis to the fact that DreamWorks later recorded an impairment charge related to Turbo as evidence that Defendants' statements during the earnings calls were false when made."
The judge finds that the plaintiffs have fallen short of showing scienter and agrees with DreamWorks that the lawsuit "aligns more closely to fraud-by-hindsight claims," waving off the plaintiffs attempt to introduce alleged accounting violations, a debt offering and resignation of its chief marketing officer and chief accounting officer as support for knowledge of wrongdoing.
"They are collectively not as compelling as a competing inference that DreamWorks articulated a series of reasoned factors that led the company to anticipate Turbo would be profitable," he writes. "The fact that the film did not turn out to be profitable, no matter how quickly that may have been apparent, certainly does not evidence a specific intent to make fraudulent statements to investors."
Judge Otero dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, though, so the plaintiffs will have another opportunity to cure deficiencies. They have been given 15 days. The full decision is below.
Email: Eriq.Gardner@THR.com
Twitter: @eriqgardner