7 ms·
I think the fundamental problem they'll face is that VR won't be accepted beyond temporary engagement. You just can't expect people to exist in a virtual envir
by headsoup 4y ago
I think the fundamental problem they'll face is that VR won't be accepted beyond temporary engagement. You just can't expect people to exist in a virtual environment and ignore their actual physical reality for any length of time.
I would think our brains trying to maintain a virtual and physical reality at once for any length of time must get quite stressful. The virtual environment will be first to go (yes even augmented reality).
People want to still be connected to 'reality' and Mark's virtual goals create too much friction with reality for the sake of his geeky wet dream, at least to meet his scale for success.
- chaostheory 4y agoThis is why AR is the holy grail for all of the companies in this space. It just augments reality instead of replacing it
- rvnx 4y agoYou see it this way because you are thinking in terms of an AR headset playing audio or visuals. In a really well executed dystopian future, the AR glasses and headphones should not even exist and the thoughts should directly be injected in your brain. You implant yourself a chip like Neuralink and Neuralink sends you electric impulses that gives you answers. And then, Facebook and Google can directly read your mind and inject you ads. Of course, they are going to respect your privacy "your thoughts never leave your local device" (except in the case of terrorism, and other related thoughts). You are hungry, Google knows it, and suggests you a place to eat. What a lovely future.
- germinalphrase 4y agoDystopias are easy to envision and to craft as dismissals. Augmented reality is already here in the auditory realm. I can easily imagine dozens of ways to enhance my experience of the world without all the coercion and abuse you fear.
- dinvlad 4y agoI think the problem is with incentives for the company who creates it, unfortunately. The benefits might be very good, but the need for monetization would just get in the way of many positives. Unless maybe we figure out a way to do ad-blocking etc (or maybe pay for an ad-free subscription). Sorry if that sounds too short-sighted, it's just hard to imagine otherwise. Though maybe not that many people actually care about these downsides, outside of tech folk.
- germinalphrase 4y agoI don’t disagree. I just hope we get to a place where the product does what’s on the tin and no more.
- dinvlad 4y agoLikewise!
- headsoup 4y agoThe problem really is, how do you prevent the coercion and abuse?
- chaostheory 4y agoOpen source software and hardware?
- jijji 4y agoand the AR dystopian future of brain implants is exactly what most people, even if it became popular, would refuse because of basic ethical, civil, religious, biological, political, etc reasons.... i think that kind of "game changer" is where most people would draw the line, even if it would improve their lives somehow.
- treis 4y ago>You just can't expect people to exist in a virtual environment and ignore their actual physical reality for any length of time. People spend hours and hours playing world of warcraft. A better version of that would be even more popular.
- dinvlad 4y agoThe question is how many people though. We aren't talking about 2-3 B people in this case..
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoGiven that Blizzard's biggest innovation in the MMO space in recent years is apparently a 'worse' version of World of Warcraft, I'm not even sure that's true. Seems like Old School Runescape is actually doing better than (or at least similar to) WoW in terms of active players, and that has even lower graphical fidelity.
- dinvlad 4y agoYeah. Arguably as a proto-VR medium, Second Life existed for a long time, but is still far from being the most popular gaming platform (though maybe that has to do with it being not an actual topical game). I don't want to dismiss this possibility based on these still very early days, but look at how the current early-adopter implementation of the Metaverse has been perceived so far - "influencers" have no mercy on it, due to the sheer amount of bugs and weirdness of e.g. having to pay to applaud someone virtually..
- headsoup 4y agoI think that's a different scenario. Games are escapism, what Mark Z is proposing is another 'real' world through your goggles where others demand and control your attention. I don't think people want that tax. I think perhaps WoW would fail in the same way with VR, where people start to realise the time spent in it really is more like work after a point.
- phailhaus 4y agoDo they? Or do they constantly take breaks in the form of looking at their phones, going to the bathroom, snacking, etc?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoPeople spend many hours a day staring at screens already. VR is a higher-quality, more “real”-feeling version of that experience.
- rurp 4y agoNon-immersiveness is huge feature for casual phone use though. When browsing my phone I usually want to be aware of friends/family in the same room, to notice if my pet is getting into trouble, and be approachable if someone wants to speak to me. Putting a VR headset on blocks all of that out, which is something I absolutely don't want most of the time I'm on my phone.
- MikusR 4y agoHave you been outside in the last couple of years? People are glued to their phones and ignore what happens around them.
- headsoup 4y agoBut they're still aware of what happens around them (mostly...). Putting on the VR headset removes that.