4 ms·
> Google Glass died because the hardware sucked, the UI and utility were not there. And nothing has changed about that. > Pointing out failed predictions does
by slver 5y ago
> Google Glass died because the hardware sucked, the UI and utility were not there.
And nothing has changed about that.
> Pointing out failed predictions does not imply that all predictions are similarly wrong. In computing - the examples I showed (and there are others) are more relevant.
Most predictions are actually wrong. Let's see the hardware that "doesn't suck", let's see the UI and utility that "are there" and then I'll tell you if we have a winner or not.
Right now we have nothing except bold fantasies powered by sci-fi movies full of cheap hologram VFX.
- fossuser 5y ago> And nothing has changed about that. Yet - it's a prediction based on the capability of future hardware that seems plausible. > Let's see the hardware that "doesn't suck", let's see the UI and utility that "are there" and then I'll tell you if we have a winner or not. Yeah sure, it's way easier to make predictions in hindsight after other people have already built it. Even then - when the iPhone launched in 2007 it was largely panned in a similar way to what you're doing now. Making accurate predictions is hard - I agree with that. If you dismiss everything you'll be right a lot of the time, but you'll also miss every big and interesting change until someone else builds it.
- shirhan 5y agoComparing the launch of the iPhone with the "launch" of a prediction blog post void of any idea how said AR device is even going to work is honestly absurd.
- Supermancho 5y ago> it's a prediction based on the capability of future hardware that seems plausible. And nuclear fusion reactors are only 20 years away. That's a concrete goal and it's more likely than some vague new "metaverse". I promise, you'll still be posting on HN when anything resembling a shadow of this is released.