4 ms·

Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two

by sgift 10y ago

Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. Edit: There's also little proof that 3D TV failed because wearing the glasses was awkward. I can only compare it to 3D cinema, which is basically worthless. Avatar is still the only movie I've seen where it worked, for every other one it was just money paid for nothing.

coldtea 10y ago
>Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).
- mustacheemperor 10y ago
  There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous. You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?
  - apathy 10y ago
    Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly. Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for colleagues of mine) Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.
  - wtetzner 10y ago
    I think at some point being able to tour houses for sale online, or even to be able to view designs in VR would be very useful. Imagine if you were buying a fixer upper, and hiring someone to renovate it. It would be pretty cool if you could see their design for the renovation in VR and make sure it feels good before investing in the house and the work.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The original comment seems to be saying that VR is a fad because it's similar to 3D TV. You're saying that VR is similar to 3D TV because it's also a fad. You may well be correct, but that can't be used to support the original comment, since it would be circular reasoning.
  - potatolicious 10y ago
    I also think VR is overhyped, but not because it's a fad (though that's part of it). It's similar to 3D TV in that it presents content in a better way that nobody asked for, and nobody ever found a way to massively leverage the tech that truly felt natural. 3D content ended up falling into two camps: - Films that are largely the same experience as their 2D counterparts. You barely notice that the 3D is there, and after the fact you'd be hard pressed to claim that the 3D made the experience substantially better in any way. A lot of VR tech demos fall into this category - things that are "well, that's very cool, but..." - Films that exploited the 3D technology by throwing baseballs at your face, having characters literally fly out of the screen, etc, to fully drive home the 3D effect - but ultimately all of them were gimmicky and done for the sake of showing off the tech. VR has a boatload of these, where the entire experience is about the spectacle of VR, rather than VR tech being the vehicle to some more substantial experience. 3D films never found a way to integrate the tech in a way that felt substantial, and VR is struggling with the same. Some niche VR categories (see: cockpit games like driving and flight sims) have certainly embraced VR, but more generally VR is dominated by tech demos and games that simply don't feel like a meaningful upgrade over their 2D counterparts. VR is a (very cool) solution looking for a problem, and IMO in that way it is similar to 3D TVs, and unless it finds its killer problem to solve, will suffer the same fate as 3D TVs.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I don't know if VR will take off, but I do think it has a lot of potential. 3D just doesn't add that much to videos. It can add a little bit to the immersion, but we're already good at picking up other depth cues. I can think of videos which could potentially be better with 3D, but I can't think of any video experience you fundamentally couldn't have without 3D. With VR, it's pretty easy to come up with things it can do which fundamentally can't be done without it. Flight sims, as you mention, are a big one that come to mind. Being able to freely look around is huge. I think this stuff is going to become a really useful tool in learning to fly. Simulation is already proving really useful even without VR, but seeing everything through a fixed monitor is severely limiting. Being able to look around to get the same visual cues you'd get in the real airplane will be a big improvement. Obviously, that's fairly niche, but a really useful technology that greatly appeals to a few is different, and much more interesting, than a not-very-useful technology that vaguely appeals to many. I'm skeptical about some of the wacky stuff people predict for VR, like using it to hang out with friends or watch movies together or whatever. But if you get away from areas where you just do the same old stuff a little bit better, there do seem to be some properly interesting things it can do.
apathy 10y ago
> two completely different technologies Which nonetheless have the common side effect of nausea in a non-negligible fraction of the population... VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. Argue all you wish, but both 3D and VR are now on their 3rd or 4th hype cycle, and the evidence from previous cycles is that people just don't value them enough to justify the cost.
- sgift 10y ago
  > VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. "Workable", as far as I know basically everyone who used VR then and used it now agrees that there is a big difference due to technological advancements. The argument that people don't pay extra for it is also only relative, because that's a function of the price they have to pay extra. I'm pretty sure if a high-end VR headset would cost 30 Euro many more people would buy it, as I'm sure more people would buy it for the current price point if the tech would be more advanced. To sum it up with an comparison: Your argument reminds me of all the people who said a file hosting service will never be something people want as others had failed before and it is a useless idea. Dropbox proved the opposite. In the end no one knows the future, but at least we now have had a fruitful discussion with arguments for both positions.
  - apathy 10y ago
    True, if the marginal cost is tiny, a lot more doors open. But my recent experience with a VR headset we got my daughter for xmas ... did not knock my socks off. Predictions are difficult when they concern the future. I'm skeptical, but I've certainly been wrong before. We shall see.
- niftich 10y ago
  VR 20 years ago was hampered by the same reasons that video game and professional graphics were: you couldn't render visually convincing detail in realtime, which greatly limited the "reality" portion of the name. Today, the graphics problem is no longer an issue.

by sgift 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).

mustacheemperor 10y ago
There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous. You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?
- apathy 10y ago
  Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly. Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for colleagues of mine) Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.
- wtetzner 10y ago
  I think at some point being able to tour houses for sale online, or even to be able to view designs in VR would be very useful. Imagine if you were buying a fixer upper, and hiring someone to renovate it. It would be pretty cool if you could see their design for the renovation in VR and make sure it feels good before investing in the house and the work.
mikeash 10y ago
The original comment seems to be saying that VR is a fad because it's similar to 3D TV. You're saying that VR is similar to 3D TV because it's also a fad. You may well be correct, but that can't be used to support the original comment, since it would be circular reasoning.
- potatolicious 10y ago
  I also think VR is overhyped, but not because it's a fad (though that's part of it). It's similar to 3D TV in that it presents content in a better way that nobody asked for, and nobody ever found a way to massively leverage the tech that truly felt natural. 3D content ended up falling into two camps: - Films that are largely the same experience as their 2D counterparts. You barely notice that the 3D is there, and after the fact you'd be hard pressed to claim that the 3D made the experience substantially better in any way. A lot of VR tech demos fall into this category - things that are "well, that's very cool, but..." - Films that exploited the 3D technology by throwing baseballs at your face, having characters literally fly out of the screen, etc, to fully drive home the 3D effect - but ultimately all of them were gimmicky and done for the sake of showing off the tech. VR has a boatload of these, where the entire experience is about the spectacle of VR, rather than VR tech being the vehicle to some more substantial experience. 3D films never found a way to integrate the tech in a way that felt substantial, and VR is struggling with the same. Some niche VR categories (see: cockpit games like driving and flight sims) have certainly embraced VR, but more generally VR is dominated by tech demos and games that simply don't feel like a meaningful upgrade over their 2D counterparts. VR is a (very cool) solution looking for a problem, and IMO in that way it is similar to 3D TVs, and unless it finds its killer problem to solve, will suffer the same fate as 3D TVs.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't know if VR will take off, but I do think it has a lot of potential. 3D just doesn't add that much to videos. It can add a little bit to the immersion, but we're already good at picking up other depth cues. I can think of videos which could potentially be better with 3D, but I can't think of any video experience you fundamentally couldn't have without 3D. With VR, it's pretty easy to come up with things it can do which fundamentally can't be done without it. Flight sims, as you mention, are a big one that come to mind. Being able to freely look around is huge. I think this stuff is going to become a really useful tool in learning to fly. Simulation is already proving really useful even without VR, but seeing everything through a fixed monitor is severely limiting. Being able to look around to get the same visual cues you'd get in the real airplane will be a big improvement. Obviously, that's fairly niche, but a really useful technology that greatly appeals to a few is different, and much more interesting, than a not-very-useful technology that vaguely appeals to many. I'm skeptical about some of the wacky stuff people predict for VR, like using it to hang out with friends or watch movies together or whatever. But if you get away from areas where you just do the same old stuff a little bit better, there do seem to be some properly interesting things it can do.

apathy 10y ago

> two completely different technologies Which nonetheless have the common side effect of nausea in a non-negligible fraction of the population... VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. Argue all you wish, but both 3D and VR are now on their 3rd or 4th hype cycle, and the evidence from previous cycles is that people just don't value them enough to justify the cost.

sgift 10y ago
> VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. "Workable", as far as I know basically everyone who used VR then and used it now agrees that there is a big difference due to technological advancements. The argument that people don't pay extra for it is also only relative, because that's a function of the price they have to pay extra. I'm pretty sure if a high-end VR headset would cost 30 Euro many more people would buy it, as I'm sure more people would buy it for the current price point if the tech would be more advanced. To sum it up with an comparison: Your argument reminds me of all the people who said a file hosting service will never be something people want as others had failed before and it is a useless idea. Dropbox proved the opposite. In the end no one knows the future, but at least we now have had a fruitful discussion with arguments for both positions.
- apathy 10y ago
  True, if the marginal cost is tiny, a lot more doors open. But my recent experience with a VR headset we got my daughter for xmas ... did not knock my socks off. Predictions are difficult when they concern the future. I'm skeptical, but I've certainly been wrong before. We shall see.
niftich 10y ago
VR 20 years ago was hampered by the same reasons that video game and professional graphics were: you couldn't render visually convincing detail in realtime, which greatly limited the "reality" portion of the name. Today, the graphics problem is no longer an issue.