4 ms·
Ultimately I think aside from individual entertainment, the whole idea suffers from the same pitfalls of the HoloLens from 8 years ago. I don’t see the advance
by lwansbrough 3y ago
Ultimately I think aside from individual entertainment, the whole idea suffers from the same pitfalls of the HoloLens from 8 years ago.
I don’t see the advancement needed to make interactions fluid. It’s still the same awkward flicking and snapping.
This tech is still _quite_ distinguishable from magic.
I think in order to truly achieve a magical experience it will take a technological leap similar in scale to the invention of the semiconductor.
It’s just not worth the hassle and until it materially improves reality, it will be a vanity.
I don’t think Steve Jobs would have settled for this product.
- rektide 3y agoAgreed that there is an absolutely colossal leap required. Computers can detect the shape & state of a room, but actually giving users interesting & meaningful experiences that befit the environment is a colossal challenge. Starting with cosmetics is I think a good first step. Take a room & add some vines & flora. Create a variety of sci-fi style embellishments that can be added. Just getting the immersion right, without purpose, I think is a necessary-ish step that has to lead; it shows that the computer can really functionally play with space. From the capabilities we can start to explore what is useful & helpful. It's mostly floating text, but I think Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End still has some of the best food-for-though, as it's so heavily networked.
- fuzzythinker 3y agoAgree on the tech needs a big leap. Disagree on how big that leap is. The tech is like the first ipad -- bulky, huge bezels, poor cpu/gpu; or iphone -- similar drawbacks plus poor 3g connectivity, rendering the most useful app - GMap pretty much useless. But Jobs still released them knowing the tech will catch up in years, not decades.