2 ms·

I know that people love to deride Zuckerberg and Facebook, but he is completely correct. Its just not obvious to people because the headsets are bulky and awkw

by ilaksh 4y ago

I know that people love to deride Zuckerberg and Facebook, but he is completely correct. Its just not obvious to people because the headsets are bulky and awkward and the virtual reality is not very real yet. But the new headset is a big improvement in terms of comfort and performance. But as they shrink down and become more capable, VR/AR headsets, goggles, glasses will almost certainly be the preferred interface for a majority of people within 5 years or so. If I had an extra $1500 to spend on the Quest Pro now I would, and would try to use it to replace my screen with virtual screens. Might still be too uncomfortable but I will try it out. To start to understand, think about whether you would like 3 free 42" monitors that could magically hover over your desk. Or if you would like to be able to teleport to your friend's house without actually moving. Within a decade, using completely 2d interfaces for many computing tasks will be outdated. People will interact with 3d widgets and representations. A lot of the trendiest places to meet will be completely realistic locations in virtual or mixed reality.

a257 4y ago
What can 3d interfaces do better that they replace 2D interfaces as the preferred medium for digital activity? Are those benefits worth the additional costs of producing, distributing, and interacting with 3D content? The argument that VR/AR is a boon restrained only by current technological ability seems to be incomplete. Rather, could there be some other economic, cultural, and practical factors which make VR/AR unappetizing outside its niche use cases? (EG, why did 3D television "fail" despite being available for a long time?) I don't personally believe that 3D will eventually replace 2D because I know I wouldn't want to develop 3D content when 2D is a chore already. If 3D will replace 2D in some point in the future there should be a greater emphasis on developing technologies to make creating 3D content as easy (if not easier) as creating 2D content.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  I said it would replace it for many computing tasks not all or all content.

by ilaksh 4y ago

a257 4y ago

What can 3d interfaces do better that they replace 2D interfaces as the preferred medium for digital activity? Are those benefits worth the additional costs of producing, distributing, and interacting with 3D content? The argument that VR/AR is a boon restrained only by current technological ability seems to be incomplete. Rather, could there be some other economic, cultural, and practical factors which make VR/AR unappetizing outside its niche use cases? (EG, why did 3D television "fail" despite being available for a long time?) I don't personally believe that 3D will eventually replace 2D because I know I wouldn't want to develop 3D content when 2D is a chore already. If 3D will replace 2D in some point in the future there should be a greater emphasis on developing technologies to make creating 3D content as easy (if not easier) as creating 2D content.

ilaksh 4y ago
I said it would replace it for many computing tasks not all or all content.