4 ms·
The headphone analogy is a good one and maybe sheds some light on the different nature of these "visual" headphones. Headphones are in a sense "additive": they
by nologic01 3y ago
The headphone analogy is a good one and maybe sheds some light on the different nature of these "visual" headphones.
Headphones are in a sense "additive": they take a channel (auditory) that for a prolonged period of time might be underused while we go on about our lives and utilize it in an unobtrusive way. You can listen to podcasts while doing other stuff. We can optionally upgrade the experience: If you want, you can close your eyes and lose yourself in music.
Goggles are necessarily subtractive. Whatever you do while immersed must justify the fact that you are obstructing your primary contact with the world. It may well be that there are worthwhile pursuits but its a bit odd that they don't advertise themselves.
- darkwater 3y agoI think that you can extend what you said in your first example to the second. In a future where they are just small devices barely noticeable and providing by default just AR, it would be just like headphones. Then, if you want, you can switch to VR and lose yourself there.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoWith theoretically perfect AR (e.g. AR contact lenses with perfect pass through), it would be better than anything you use a screen for today, because it would be a strict superset of today’s experience. Imagine using your phone but you don’t have to hold it up to your face, or tilt your head to look at it. You don’t need to sit at a desk, because your work screen is wherever you are. If you really want the old experience, you could make the contacts emulate a fixed display in space, or on top of a soap bar. The goggles today are much worse than the theoretically perfect version, but it isn’t clear where the experiential threshold is for “better”.