5 ms·

> VR? Probably not. VR looks to be the next 3D TV. It's just too much of a hassle to go mainstream. I disagree, I think VR is going to be the next big thing bu

by nemaar 10y ago

> VR? Probably not. VR looks to be the next 3D TV. It's just too much of a hassle to go mainstream. I disagree, I think VR is going to be the next big thing but it will take a few generations of HW and SW to get there. VR mixed with real time video of your surrounding (augmented reality) is a new environment for brand new applications but it needs to reach the state where it is hidden in your average looking glasses to be really mainstream.

josh2600 10y ago
"I disagree, I think VR is going to be the next big thing but it will take a few generations of HW and SW to get there". I would say, based solely on this statement, that VR is not the next big thing according to your own narrative (as the next big thing will likely be within one to two hardware generations).
wpietri 10y ago
I share his skepticism of VR as a major business. At this point we have a 150-year history of people being wowed by 3D and mistaking novelty for utility. That includes the Brewster stereoscope in the 1850s; the early 1940s wave that gave us the ViewMaster; the anaglyph 3D movies from the 50s to the 80s; the first VR wave of the 90s; and the 3D movie and TV boom/bust of the last decade. These all had significant excitement and commercial success. The Brewster stereoscope was introduced to great fanfare at the Victorian Exhibition of 1850. It eventually sold 250,000 units. The ViewMaster has sold millions of viewers and 1.5 billion reels. (In WWII, the US military even bought 100k viewers for training.) All of these products are now marginal or extinct. Novelty aside, none of them is much better than the 2D alternative. I'm not saying VR will never work. But I am saying that anybody inclined to make a big financial bet on VR should think very hard about this history. Generations of smart entrepreneurs and their customers have mistaken 3D's cool factor for lasting utility. In the end, everybody has gotten bored, shrugged, and gone back to 2D. This is true even when, as with 3D movies, the hassle is as small as putting on a pair of glasses, something millions of people otherwise do daily.
- VLM 10y ago
  Its easier to embed digital into the world than to embed the world into digital. Wait for the first e-ink cheap as paper. That and solar cells cheap as paper. Then things will get interesting.
  - Animats 10y ago
    "Wait for the first e-ink cheap as paper. That and solar cells cheap as paper. Then things will get interesting." Why? Display cost isn't a big deal any more. Display size is getting insane. I was in Costco yesterday. 70-inch TVs for $1500. TV sets are now outgrowing standard houses. Solar cells already cost less than their installation cost as a retrofit on houses.
    - Someone 10y ago
      LCDs aren’t cheap as paper by a wide margin. Wallpaper is, say, $20 a square meter, and is free once glued to a wall. Also, imagine putting high-dpi full-colour displays on all your walls and ceilings, so that one can change wallpaper at the flick of a button, or place ‘paintings’ wherever one wants. Backlit LCDs would lead to uncomfortable living; rooms would be warm, there would barely be any shade in the room, and power costs (even if solar cells are cheap as paper) would probably be high. e-ink wins on the power usage front, and is reflective, rather than backlit.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        >> Also, imagine putting high-dpi full-colour displays on all your walls and ceilings, so that one can change wallpaper at the flick of a button, or place ‘paintings’ wherever one wants. No. Not going to happen. The wall, the plain white-ish surface, has been a thing for thousands of years. I own a nearly infinite number of nails, glues and other fasteners to affix thing to my white walls yet change the appearance of my walls ... well basically never. It would be moderately cool to see a wall capable of HD television, but the physics of ever doing, in comparison to a dedicated device, will never be practical. There will always be a place for paint.

by nemaar 10y ago

josh2600 10y ago

"I disagree, I think VR is going to be the next big thing but it will take a few generations of HW and SW to get there". I would say, based solely on this statement, that VR is not the next big thing according to your own narrative (as the next big thing will likely be within one to two hardware generations).

wpietri 10y ago

I share his skepticism of VR as a major business. At this point we have a 150-year history of people being wowed by 3D and mistaking novelty for utility. That includes the Brewster stereoscope in the 1850s; the early 1940s wave that gave us the ViewMaster; the anaglyph 3D movies from the 50s to the 80s; the first VR wave of the 90s; and the 3D movie and TV boom/bust of the last decade. These all had significant excitement and commercial success. The Brewster stereoscope was introduced to great fanfare at the Victorian Exhibition of 1850. It eventually sold 250,000 units. The ViewMaster has sold millions of viewers and 1.5 billion reels. (In WWII, the US military even bought 100k viewers for training.) All of these products are now marginal or extinct. Novelty aside, none of them is much better than the 2D alternative. I'm not saying VR will never work. But I am saying that anybody inclined to make a big financial bet on VR should think very hard about this history. Generations of smart entrepreneurs and their customers have mistaken 3D's cool factor for lasting utility. In the end, everybody has gotten bored, shrugged, and gone back to 2D. This is true even when, as with 3D movies, the hassle is as small as putting on a pair of glasses, something millions of people otherwise do daily.

VLM 10y ago
Its easier to embed digital into the world than to embed the world into digital. Wait for the first e-ink cheap as paper. That and solar cells cheap as paper. Then things will get interesting.
- Animats 10y ago
  "Wait for the first e-ink cheap as paper. That and solar cells cheap as paper. Then things will get interesting." Why? Display cost isn't a big deal any more. Display size is getting insane. I was in Costco yesterday. 70-inch TVs for $1500. TV sets are now outgrowing standard houses. Solar cells already cost less than their installation cost as a retrofit on houses.
  - Someone 10y ago
    LCDs aren’t cheap as paper by a wide margin. Wallpaper is, say, $20 a square meter, and is free once glued to a wall. Also, imagine putting high-dpi full-colour displays on all your walls and ceilings, so that one can change wallpaper at the flick of a button, or place ‘paintings’ wherever one wants. Backlit LCDs would lead to uncomfortable living; rooms would be warm, there would barely be any shade in the room, and power costs (even if solar cells are cheap as paper) would probably be high. e-ink wins on the power usage front, and is reflective, rather than backlit.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      >> Also, imagine putting high-dpi full-colour displays on all your walls and ceilings, so that one can change wallpaper at the flick of a button, or place ‘paintings’ wherever one wants. No. Not going to happen. The wall, the plain white-ish surface, has been a thing for thousands of years. I own a nearly infinite number of nails, glues and other fasteners to affix thing to my white walls yet change the appearance of my walls ... well basically never. It would be moderately cool to see a wall capable of HD television, but the physics of ever doing, in comparison to a dedicated device, will never be practical. There will always be a place for paint.