4 ms·
There's also the non-technical aspect that Google, Facebook or some other advertising giant would probably co-opt the technology immediately to stuff it with ad
by simias 7y ago
There's also the non-technical aspect that Google, Facebook or some other advertising giant would probably co-opt the technology immediately to stuff it with ads. That alone turns me off the concept completely. It's a sad state of affairs. With Google Glass on one hand and Facebook's Oculus on the other it's pretty clear that they're aware of the potential of such technologies.
- npunt 7y agoSure, but that's a bit of a theoretical argument. The ability for at tech to be co-opted isn't something that prevents a v1 launch. That's something that happens later. Google isn't going to be the one that creates breakthrough AR because that both requires sustained effort over long periods of time and being savvy about what mix of capabilities and details consumers will like. Google is structurally disadvantaged in both of these, which is why Glass has been a failure to date. Facebook could make the hardware, they have a good research group. But they're at a big disadvantage for meeting core use cases because they lack any maps team, and place-based info is critical to early AR success. And as a company they're engagement-oriented, not really usefulness-oriented. AR is fundamentally a usefulness product, not an engagement product. VR is much more about engagement.