3 ms·

People fall into two camps: Camp 1: "Anyone that doesn't understand what a seminal change this is needs to take a history lesson" Camp 2: "Anyone that doesn't

People fall into two camps: Camp 1: "Anyone that doesn't understand what a seminal change this is needs to take a history lesson" Camp 2: "Anyone that doesn't understand that this is mostly hype needs to take a history lesson" I'm gonna stake an opinion here and put myself solidly in Camp 1. I think this is going to be as impactful as the transition from radio/audio to tv/screen. Radio didn't go away, but it is a much diminished medium. Compare your own daily radio time vs. screen time. The same shift will now occur, and we'll see similar ratio with daily screen time vs VR/AR time. Go backward in time to 1945 and ask a teenager if they'd rather watch TV or listen to the radio. Ask the same question of today's teens with regard to VR. The human brain craves high-fidelity stimulation. A flat screen is just no match. TV was "just OK" when first introduced to consumers. The picture was lousy, the tech was complex, the cost was high. No doubt that is all true of VR today. It won't be true for long.

Nadya 11y ago
Playing DA here, but a lot of what you said could be said about 3D movies, which were a total flop for 15-20 years and even today face a lot of backlash and hatred. While I have high hopes/beliefs in VR, I do fall under the "3D movies suck, I wish they'd stop making them. It's a failed technology and gives me headaches." camp. So I can see where Camp 2 is coming from when they hate on AR/VR technologies.
- tlb 11y ago
  What surprised me even more than not especially liking 3D movies, was actively disliking high-frame-rate movies.
  - intrasight 11y ago
    High frame rate movies will be fine once they get people who understand the psychophysics involved.
- intrasight 11y ago
  But follow my logic. Put a 13 year old in front of a TV with a collection of 2D and 3D movies - and see which ones she chooses to watch. My whole point is that the 13 year old's get to decide in the long run. Your "3D movies suck" sentiment is perhaps an adults opinion (one that I share), and perhaps also an opinion expressed about movie theaters - which is not the same as personal tech choices.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I feel that will vary more from household-to-household based on the parents experienced with 3D movies. I've met teenagers who have never seen a 3D movie but claim to hate them! There has also been some talk (not sure about actual studies) that many adults who claim to hate 3D haven't even seen a 3D movie in the past 5-8~ years; in which 3D technology (and using it properly) has improved. A bad experience years ago "tainted" the technology and they want nothing to do with it. This is discussed by a number of movie critics. My biggest fear for AR/VR is that the first experiences might be like how 3D movies were... and it'll take over a decade to dig out of the hole that creates. Lack of R&D, slow improvements, niche media, etc. Which is also why I feel the big players on the field currently are taking their time, working out the kinks, and trying to make the "first generation" [0] as good as possible for as many people as possible. [0] I know AR/VR is years old and some products have been marketed as consumer-end. None entered mainstream was well as Oculus has AFAIK, so the hype for the product is a lot higher than it used to be. Kind of like how Windows had tablets long before the iPad but it took the iPad to make tablets "a thing".
    - intrasight 11y ago
      I believe the tech has great "mid-term" promise, and that it will avoid the issues which made 3D get rejected. However, I don't think that any of the specific VR products that we've been exposed to are going to go consumer commercial. They are way too weak and way too expensive. But we know the magic that Moore's Law can do in just a couple of years. Oculus admits that their current tech can't/won't support natural Depth of Field, and is therefore unnatural to the point of making most users nauseated. They can't give a date for this problem to be solved - blame the bean counters not the engineers. But I've got no skin in the game so I'm going to stake another opinion. That is that it will take probably 5 years for the tech to support Depth of Field at a price point ($1000 in today's dollars) that consumers will accept.

Nadya 11y ago

Playing DA here, but a lot of what you said could be said about 3D movies, which were a total flop for 15-20 years and even today face a lot of backlash and hatred. While I have high hopes/beliefs in VR, I do fall under the "3D movies suck, I wish they'd stop making them. It's a failed technology and gives me headaches." camp. So I can see where Camp 2 is coming from when they hate on AR/VR technologies.

tlb 11y ago
What surprised me even more than not especially liking 3D movies, was actively disliking high-frame-rate movies.
- intrasight 11y ago
  High frame rate movies will be fine once they get people who understand the psychophysics involved.
intrasight 11y ago
But follow my logic. Put a 13 year old in front of a TV with a collection of 2D and 3D movies - and see which ones she chooses to watch. My whole point is that the 13 year old's get to decide in the long run. Your "3D movies suck" sentiment is perhaps an adults opinion (one that I share), and perhaps also an opinion expressed about movie theaters - which is not the same as personal tech choices.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I feel that will vary more from household-to-household based on the parents experienced with 3D movies. I've met teenagers who have never seen a 3D movie but claim to hate them! There has also been some talk (not sure about actual studies) that many adults who claim to hate 3D haven't even seen a 3D movie in the past 5-8~ years; in which 3D technology (and using it properly) has improved. A bad experience years ago "tainted" the technology and they want nothing to do with it. This is discussed by a number of movie critics. My biggest fear for AR/VR is that the first experiences might be like how 3D movies were... and it'll take over a decade to dig out of the hole that creates. Lack of R&D, slow improvements, niche media, etc. Which is also why I feel the big players on the field currently are taking their time, working out the kinks, and trying to make the "first generation" [0] as good as possible for as many people as possible. [0] I know AR/VR is years old and some products have been marketed as consumer-end. None entered mainstream was well as Oculus has AFAIK, so the hype for the product is a lot higher than it used to be. Kind of like how Windows had tablets long before the iPad but it took the iPad to make tablets "a thing".
  - intrasight 11y ago
    I believe the tech has great "mid-term" promise, and that it will avoid the issues which made 3D get rejected. However, I don't think that any of the specific VR products that we've been exposed to are going to go consumer commercial. They are way too weak and way too expensive. But we know the magic that Moore's Law can do in just a couple of years. Oculus admits that their current tech can't/won't support natural Depth of Field, and is therefore unnatural to the point of making most users nauseated. They can't give a date for this problem to be solved - blame the bean counters not the engineers. But I've got no skin in the game so I'm going to stake another opinion. That is that it will take probably 5 years for the tech to support Depth of Field at a price point ($1000 in today's dollars) that consumers will accept.