4 ms·

I wonder if someone would have said the same thing about pocket computers in 1997.

mrguyorama 4y ago
They would have been mostly right. The iPhone didn't come out until like 2007, and handheld computers before that were pretty niche
- cercatrova 4y ago
  They said 10 years, hence why I picked 1997 as the year specifically. The average person in 1997 could not comprehend the iPhone a mere ten years later, just as we today cannot comprehend 2032 in terms of VR/AR/XR glasses.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    What I said was that VR gear won't replace smart phones in the next 10 years. So it isn't about presence (after all, we have and have had VR/AR/XR equipment for quite some time now), but rather about relative ubiquity and obsolescence of what came before (in this case, replacing smart phones). I might have a blind spot here (or lack imagination), but I think some of the reasons why I don't see these glasses making mobile phones obsolete in a 10 year time frame as a confluence of: - people in the US by and large prefer not to wear things on their faces (is it seen as weak, esthetically unpleasing, sign of old age?) - mobile phones (and smart watches, etc.) provide a good balance between mobility and utility - if VR/AR/XR moves to contact lenses, the first point goes away but you will still need input mechanisms etc. and I doubt that contact lens formats will be able to supplant photographing/video and music playback which has become such a big use case for mobile phones. Arguing against myself (somewhat): I think for VR/AR/XR to be truly successful, you need to feed the experience directly into the brain because that gives you high fidelity, high mobility, and removes the physical barriers that a contraption on your head brings. But that is even further out than 20 years, assuming humans don't retaliate against the idea of interpersonal communications that is so heavily mediated (read: manipulated) by a company (this happens in social media already).
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      People have said the exact same things about phones ("who'd want to carry around a device in their pocket everywhere? It'd be too heavy and annoying"). Really, it's simply a lack of imagination. People wear glasses and contacts all the time and no one bats an eye (metaphorically speaking at least).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        It is going to be an interesting technical challenge to build contact lenses (or glasses) that, within the next 10 years: - have enough compute to render the virtual artifacts - are self-powered (maybe from electrical impulses from your body?)_ - have some way to get input - can power your headphones - have storage (or networking capability) WITHOUT you having to carry another device on you (likely a smart watch or smart ring or smart phone). Anyway, I think we're getting bogged down in boring device debate. The more interesting thing (which you allude to somewhat) is how weird / different the future virtual world will be. My money is on it being more Borg-like and less Matrix-like.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Star Trek TNG literally had small handheld computer pads in early 1990s.

They would have been mostly right. The iPhone didn't come out until like 2007, and handheld computers before that were pretty niche

cercatrova 4y ago
They said 10 years, hence why I picked 1997 as the year specifically. The average person in 1997 could not comprehend the iPhone a mere ten years later, just as we today cannot comprehend 2032 in terms of VR/AR/XR glasses.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  What I said was that VR gear won't replace smart phones in the next 10 years. So it isn't about presence (after all, we have and have had VR/AR/XR equipment for quite some time now), but rather about relative ubiquity and obsolescence of what came before (in this case, replacing smart phones). I might have a blind spot here (or lack imagination), but I think some of the reasons why I don't see these glasses making mobile phones obsolete in a 10 year time frame as a confluence of: - people in the US by and large prefer not to wear things on their faces (is it seen as weak, esthetically unpleasing, sign of old age?) - mobile phones (and smart watches, etc.) provide a good balance between mobility and utility - if VR/AR/XR moves to contact lenses, the first point goes away but you will still need input mechanisms etc. and I doubt that contact lens formats will be able to supplant photographing/video and music playback which has become such a big use case for mobile phones. Arguing against myself (somewhat): I think for VR/AR/XR to be truly successful, you need to feed the experience directly into the brain because that gives you high fidelity, high mobility, and removes the physical barriers that a contraption on your head brings. But that is even further out than 20 years, assuming humans don't retaliate against the idea of interpersonal communications that is so heavily mediated (read: manipulated) by a company (this happens in social media already).
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    People have said the exact same things about phones ("who'd want to carry around a device in their pocket everywhere? It'd be too heavy and annoying"). Really, it's simply a lack of imagination. People wear glasses and contacts all the time and no one bats an eye (metaphorically speaking at least).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      It is going to be an interesting technical challenge to build contact lenses (or glasses) that, within the next 10 years: - have enough compute to render the virtual artifacts - are self-powered (maybe from electrical impulses from your body?)_ - have some way to get input - can power your headphones - have storage (or networking capability) WITHOUT you having to carry another device on you (likely a smart watch or smart ring or smart phone). Anyway, I think we're getting bogged down in boring device debate. The more interesting thing (which you allude to somewhat) is how weird / different the future virtual world will be. My money is on it being more Borg-like and less Matrix-like.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Star Trek TNG literally had small handheld computer pads in early 1990s.