4 ms·

If you told people 30 years ago that in the future, people would be walking around city centers with their heads down and eyes glued to a lit screen they would

by hiatus 3y ago

If you told people 30 years ago that in the future, people would be walking around city centers with their heads down and eyes glued to a lit screen they would have laughed. This is less a laptop replacement and more a mobile-compute replacement. Who needs a tablet or phone if you have one light enough and with enough power to see you through the day strapped to your face? It also allows for a more intimate, private experience, as you may balk at opening some items on your phone in a crowded subway where a casual shouldersurfer could catch a glimpse.

smoldesu 3y ago
People from 30 years ago would probably be incredulous if you revealed that we still don't drive flying cars in the future. If you instead told them that we found a way to miniaturize television and celebrate content as short as 6 seconds long, they would probably be really horrified and then concede that you're right about the future. Comparatively, it's not hard to see why smartphones became popular. It's a cellphone, iPod and internet communicator in one device. The Reality Pro, on the other hand... it can call people, circumstantially. You could listen to music on it, but it's kinda cumbersome and there are less intrusive options even today. You could also browse the internet on it, but it would require context-switching that isn't so intrusive with physical interfaces. If your biggest pitch is that future tech will make this small enough to be competitive, I refute that by saying we'd just use that technology to make better/cheaper smartphones. Literally the same thing happened with television (and 3D TVs), there's hardly a reason to think it won't happen here.
- hiatus 3y ago
  In its current form, sure I agree. But to me thinking that we will just see a future of miniaturized TVs is like thinking we would just keep making faster horses instead of shifting the paradigm. As the smartphone was the nexus for multiple technologies, so too are AR headsets. They are getting smaller and lighter and will become less obtrusive and with more intuitive user interfaces and interaction modalities, just as has been done with computers taking their myriad forms. I'd much prefer a private, hands free mode of interacting with a computer in public, not to mention the AR potential. Misplaced your keys? Well, they were last seen by your headset on your desk ten minutes ago.
- bbor 3y ago
  The Reality Pro, on the other hand... it can call people, circumstantially. You could listen to music on it, but it's kinda cumbersome and there are less intrusive options even today. You could also browse the internet on it, but it would require context-switching that isn't so intrusive with physical interfaces. Very confused about this sentiment. Are you saying this all it can do? Even just saying this is all the ways in which it might compete with smartphones seems very uncharitable. I don't see people walking around the streets with these on any time soon, but if they do, there's a LOT more you could do than phone calls, music, and sometimes a browser. Surely you'd agree? For example, portable XR would bring: - The ability to work effectively in public without the need for a desk, monitors, or a shield from glare - The ability to annotate everyday objects in your line of sight. See the reviews of every cafe on the street, historical facts about old buildings, the all-important orwellian social credit score of every individual floating above their head, etc. - Walking directions that are imposed on your world instead of on a little abstract map. Less walking into things, less NYC tourists getting on the wrong train. - Crazy immersive gaming experiences; in the short term we'll probably see geo-location based games (niantic vibes), and in the long term we might see crazier stuff like the shooter they showed off in the absurdly over-ambitious google glass announcement trailer. - Replace real people with the avatars they wish to be seen as, either on body-dysmorphia-vibes or cosplay-vibes (or both). Off the top of my head :) I'm gonna be honest this comment is more about me being excited than it is a reply to your point as I understand it, as I think you have a strong status-quo bias on this. IMO!

by hiatus 3y ago

smoldesu 3y ago

People from 30 years ago would probably be incredulous if you revealed that we still don't drive flying cars in the future. If you instead told them that we found a way to miniaturize television and celebrate content as short as 6 seconds long, they would probably be really horrified and then concede that you're right about the future. Comparatively, it's not hard to see why smartphones became popular. It's a cellphone, iPod and internet communicator in one device. The Reality Pro, on the other hand... it can call people, circumstantially. You could listen to music on it, but it's kinda cumbersome and there are less intrusive options even today. You could also browse the internet on it, but it would require context-switching that isn't so intrusive with physical interfaces. If your biggest pitch is that future tech will make this small enough to be competitive, I refute that by saying we'd just use that technology to make better/cheaper smartphones. Literally the same thing happened with television (and 3D TVs), there's hardly a reason to think it won't happen here.

hiatus 3y ago
In its current form, sure I agree. But to me thinking that we will just see a future of miniaturized TVs is like thinking we would just keep making faster horses instead of shifting the paradigm. As the smartphone was the nexus for multiple technologies, so too are AR headsets. They are getting smaller and lighter and will become less obtrusive and with more intuitive user interfaces and interaction modalities, just as has been done with computers taking their myriad forms. I'd much prefer a private, hands free mode of interacting with a computer in public, not to mention the AR potential. Misplaced your keys? Well, they were last seen by your headset on your desk ten minutes ago.
bbor 3y ago
The Reality Pro, on the other hand... it can call people, circumstantially. You could listen to music on it, but it's kinda cumbersome and there are less intrusive options even today. You could also browse the internet on it, but it would require context-switching that isn't so intrusive with physical interfaces. Very confused about this sentiment. Are you saying this all it can do? Even just saying this is all the ways in which it might compete with smartphones seems very uncharitable. I don't see people walking around the streets with these on any time soon, but if they do, there's a LOT more you could do than phone calls, music, and sometimes a browser. Surely you'd agree? For example, portable XR would bring: - The ability to work effectively in public without the need for a desk, monitors, or a shield from glare - The ability to annotate everyday objects in your line of sight. See the reviews of every cafe on the street, historical facts about old buildings, the all-important orwellian social credit score of every individual floating above their head, etc. - Walking directions that are imposed on your world instead of on a little abstract map. Less walking into things, less NYC tourists getting on the wrong train. - Crazy immersive gaming experiences; in the short term we'll probably see geo-location based games (niantic vibes), and in the long term we might see crazier stuff like the shooter they showed off in the absurdly over-ambitious google glass announcement trailer. - Replace real people with the avatars they wish to be seen as, either on body-dysmorphia-vibes or cosplay-vibes (or both). Off the top of my head :) I'm gonna be honest this comment is more about me being excited than it is a reply to your point as I understand it, as I think you have a strong status-quo bias on this. IMO!