5 ms·

Mistaking the sophistication of the technology for it's relevance to people's lives is a classic HN error. Sure, dropbox is just a bash script that rsyncs files

by gpm 3y ago

Mistaking the sophistication of the technology for it's relevance to people's lives is a classic HN error. Sure, dropbox is just a bash script that rsyncs files or whatever, but the presentation and interface surrounding that bash script can still be absolutely revolutionary in terms of how regular people interact with it. I don't have the experience to agree or disagree with the article's claims about the feelings evoked by Vision Pro's presentation of spatial video being a leap forward from what we are used to - but I feel pretty confident in saying that whether or not that is true doesn't depend on how novel the underlying image data is.

crooked-v 3y ago
It's not the sophistocation vs. relevance part that bothers me... it's that the people writing these puff pieces clearly have no idea what already exists in the field of 3D media or any of the uses that people have already made of it. Or to put it another way, imagine articles about the original iPod written by people who obviously didn't even know that other MP3 players existed.
- azinman2 3y ago
  And yet the other ones never had the same impact because the execution wasn’t as good. The Diamond Rio has no brand value today and no current iteration. If you haven’t experienced what the phone can now capture and what playback on the Vision Pro is actually like, then I’d suggest reserving judgement.
tsimionescu 3y ago
I don't think this kind of issue applies to media in the same way that it applies to apps and devices. You can take existing niche technology and make it mega successful by improving UX, price, discoverability, and applying marketing. But I don't think you can fundamentally change how impactul media is in the same way. If a stereoscopic fixed perspective picture or movie is just not that impressive (beyond the technical marvels) when demoed in some back room on some wonky device, I don't think it can be made impressive by some marketing genius. And I general, 3D movies of exceptionally high quality already exist in cinemas, and... They're just not that much more impressive than 2D movies. We have quite an amazing capacity to create a 3D scene in our minds from a 2D image. Being able to easily and quickly capture photo and video+audio from your phone and share that to anyone in your friend group is magical, and has built the social media empires. But adding a third dimension to them, one that can only be viewed on special, unpleasant to wear hardware, is very unlikely to be a leap forward. My prediction is that we are already at the peak of what people want in terms of capturing and sharing their experiences for a long time (the next level will be to add smells, but that likely requires direct brain/computer interfaces which are a looooong way off). Of course, IF VR/AR glasses get extremely popular for other reasons (I don't expect them to, but I am far less confident here) and IF capturing this type of image is as easy as photo and 3D, these pictures will end up dominating, since there is no reason to take lower fidelity photos than the best you can get. But I don't think this type of photo can be the reason the device becomes popular.
- relativ575 3y ago
  > My prediction is that we are already at the peak of what people want in terms of capturing and sharing their experiences for a long time (the next level will be to add smells, but that likely requires direct brain/computer interfaces which are a looooong way off). We are very far from the peak, as long as we still have to be concerned with device, network, format, latency. Imagine one day you can just put on a pair of glasses, not thicker than your standard reading glasses, and say "Capture what I'm seeing with all details, in the most realistic way, and share it with my wife". Nothing further. Then we'd be close to the peak. And may still not be there.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Glasses are a worse form factor than today's phones. People don't want to wear things on their faces (that's why many choose contact lenses instead even today). Not to mention, (worn) glasses fundamentally can't take selfies, probably the single biggest revolution in photography that phones brought. They also can't take photos from most angles you'd like to chose, not unless you take them off (so you don't see what photo you're taking) or contort your whole body to bring your eyes in the right angle. Glasses are a really really bad form factor for taking photos or video. Having to speak to take a picture is also worse than a button. People love to take specific staged pictures from specific angles even though video exists today. Capturing "everything" is not as good as capturing a specific thing from a specific angle. And I'm not talking about high art - I'm talking about what you'll see everywhere on social media, in family chats, etc. There are moments that you'd like to capture in their entirety, so it is true that at the peak you may want that as well, but the vast majority of photography and video is not about that. I'd also add that network and format are infrastructure problems, completely unrelated to the way photos are taken. Network availability may one day be so ubiquititous that you won't notice, formats are mostly already a solved problem (outside Apple inventing new ones occasionally). Latency though is a fundamental physical problem that will always be there. Already today audio/video call latency is mostly limited by the speed of light, not by network constraints.
    - scheeseman486 3y ago

by gpm 3y ago

crooked-v 3y ago

It's not the sophistocation vs. relevance part that bothers me... it's that the people writing these puff pieces clearly have no idea what already exists in the field of 3D media or any of the uses that people have already made of it. Or to put it another way, imagine articles about the original iPod written by people who obviously didn't even know that other MP3 players existed.

azinman2 3y ago
And yet the other ones never had the same impact because the execution wasn’t as good. The Diamond Rio has no brand value today and no current iteration. If you haven’t experienced what the phone can now capture and what playback on the Vision Pro is actually like, then I’d suggest reserving judgement.

tsimionescu 3y ago

I don't think this kind of issue applies to media in the same way that it applies to apps and devices. You can take existing niche technology and make it mega successful by improving UX, price, discoverability, and applying marketing. But I don't think you can fundamentally change how impactul media is in the same way. If a stereoscopic fixed perspective picture or movie is just not that impressive (beyond the technical marvels) when demoed in some back room on some wonky device, I don't think it can be made impressive by some marketing genius. And I general, 3D movies of exceptionally high quality already exist in cinemas, and... They're just not that much more impressive than 2D movies. We have quite an amazing capacity to create a 3D scene in our minds from a 2D image. Being able to easily and quickly capture photo and video+audio from your phone and share that to anyone in your friend group is magical, and has built the social media empires. But adding a third dimension to them, one that can only be viewed on special, unpleasant to wear hardware, is very unlikely to be a leap forward. My prediction is that we are already at the peak of what people want in terms of capturing and sharing their experiences for a long time (the next level will be to add smells, but that likely requires direct brain/computer interfaces which are a looooong way off). Of course, IF VR/AR glasses get extremely popular for other reasons (I don't expect them to, but I am far less confident here) and IF capturing this type of image is as easy as photo and 3D, these pictures will end up dominating, since there is no reason to take lower fidelity photos than the best you can get. But I don't think this type of photo can be the reason the device becomes popular.

relativ575 3y ago
> My prediction is that we are already at the peak of what people want in terms of capturing and sharing their experiences for a long time (the next level will be to add smells, but that likely requires direct brain/computer interfaces which are a looooong way off). We are very far from the peak, as long as we still have to be concerned with device, network, format, latency. Imagine one day you can just put on a pair of glasses, not thicker than your standard reading glasses, and say "Capture what I'm seeing with all details, in the most realistic way, and share it with my wife". Nothing further. Then we'd be close to the peak. And may still not be there.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Glasses are a worse form factor than today's phones. People don't want to wear things on their faces (that's why many choose contact lenses instead even today). Not to mention, (worn) glasses fundamentally can't take selfies, probably the single biggest revolution in photography that phones brought. They also can't take photos from most angles you'd like to chose, not unless you take them off (so you don't see what photo you're taking) or contort your whole body to bring your eyes in the right angle. Glasses are a really really bad form factor for taking photos or video. Having to speak to take a picture is also worse than a button. People love to take specific staged pictures from specific angles even though video exists today. Capturing "everything" is not as good as capturing a specific thing from a specific angle. And I'm not talking about high art - I'm talking about what you'll see everywhere on social media, in family chats, etc. There are moments that you'd like to capture in their entirety, so it is true that at the peak you may want that as well, but the vast majority of photography and video is not about that. I'd also add that network and format are infrastructure problems, completely unrelated to the way photos are taken. Network availability may one day be so ubiquititous that you won't notice, formats are mostly already a solved problem (outside Apple inventing new ones occasionally). Latency though is a fundamental physical problem that will always be there. Already today audio/video call latency is mostly limited by the speed of light, not by network constraints.
  - scheeseman486 3y ago