2 ms·

I agree with you that Meta ads another set of ways to fail. But this is the thing I want to question: > that market will only grow I too have read science fic

I agree with you that Meta ads another set of ways to fail. But this is the thing I want to question: > that market will only grow I too have read science fiction, so I get the theory. You know what else is in science fiction? 3D movies and 3D TV. But we've had 3 waves of 3D films (1950s, 1980s, 2000s) and it turns out nobody cares. And 3D TV fared even worse. And let's not forget the 1990 wave of actual VR, which also cratered. So the question is: will facehugger VR go the way of other stereoscopic 3D entertainment? I think it's an open question, but my point is that it's very plausible that VR and the Metaverse will, like the jetpack, remain in the realm of sci-fi long after you and I are in the ground. And as far as I can tell, nobody is releasing data that shows it on a different arc. The Brewster Stereoscope sold a lot of units too, as did the Viewmaster. But ultimately people seem fine inferring 3D from 2D images without stereoscopic effects to help them along.

BlueTemplar 4y ago
I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9.... But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in homes any more, though my own TV is still compatible), especially with Avatar 2 that just released ? https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-high-frame-rate-104938634.html https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-...
- wpietri 4y ago
  > I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ? Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?) But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)
    - wpietri 4y ago
      3D films are relevant in that they are an example where something that was technically better was not transformational. And where there was a lot of hype but it turned out that people didn't really care. Which is important, because Meta is betting tens to hundreds of billions that facehugger VR will be transformational. If you go back to the Brewster stereoscope, I count 6 waves of people expecting that stereoscopic 3D would change the world. Each time, there was lots of investment and lots of hype. Each time, it turned out that people were fine mentally reconstructing 3D from 2D without stereoscopic assistance. My point here is that Meta's efforts could well be failed wave number 7.
imiric 4y ago
Sure, but you can say the same thing about electric cars and smartphones. Both have had several "failed" attempts, and it wasn't until the technology was mature, cheap and accessible enough that they reached mainstream adoption. There's nothing to say that the same thing won't happen with XR. If we consider transhumanism as something that's likely to happen, then XR can be viewed as a stepping stone towards that goal. In that sense, it could eventually become as ubiquitous as smartphones are today.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yes, in the future anything is possible. But for any given chunk of the future, most possible things don't happen. The interesting question is which bucket a given thing falls into. I think electric cars cut against your case here. The reason electric cars are becoming popular is that we're finally doing something about global warming. Governments are heavily using both carrot and stick via billions in subsidies and drastically tighter regulation on ICE vehicles. Unless you expect governments to try to end use of monitors, electric cars are an example of why we should be suspicious of facehugger VR.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9.... But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in homes any more, though my own TV is still compatible), especially with Avatar 2 that just released ? https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-high-frame-rate-104938634.html https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-...

wpietri 4y ago
> I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ? Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?) But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)
  - wpietri 4y ago
    3D films are relevant in that they are an example where something that was technically better was not transformational. And where there was a lot of hype but it turned out that people didn't really care. Which is important, because Meta is betting tens to hundreds of billions that facehugger VR will be transformational. If you go back to the Brewster stereoscope, I count 6 waves of people expecting that stereoscopic 3D would change the world. Each time, there was lots of investment and lots of hype. Each time, it turned out that people were fine mentally reconstructing 3D from 2D without stereoscopic assistance. My point here is that Meta's efforts could well be failed wave number 7.

imiric 4y ago

Sure, but you can say the same thing about electric cars and smartphones. Both have had several "failed" attempts, and it wasn't until the technology was mature, cheap and accessible enough that they reached mainstream adoption. There's nothing to say that the same thing won't happen with XR. If we consider transhumanism as something that's likely to happen, then XR can be viewed as a stepping stone towards that goal. In that sense, it could eventually become as ubiquitous as smartphones are today.

wpietri 4y ago
Yes, in the future anything is possible. But for any given chunk of the future, most possible things don't happen. The interesting question is which bucket a given thing falls into. I think electric cars cut against your case here. The reason electric cars are becoming popular is that we're finally doing something about global warming. Governments are heavily using both carrot and stick via billions in subsidies and drastically tighter regulation on ICE vehicles. Unless you expect governments to try to end use of monitors, electric cars are an example of why we should be suspicious of facehugger VR.