3 ms·

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 cl

by 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.

by Nadya 11y ago

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.