4 ms·

> 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

> 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
  Using a phone as a camera actually kind of sucks and the problems you bring up could largely be solved with something like a GoPro on a stick.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Sure, but that's an extra device (and a stick) to carry around. The killer feature of phones is that a single device handles both your compute and your camera needs. Even if glasses + voice control handled your compute needs, you'd still need a second device to act as a camera. There are reasons why compact cameras died immediately as smartphones came along.
    - scheeseman486 3y ago
      Not really an extra device to carry given that the AR glasses are wearables. The camera device itself probably wouldn't need to be much bigger than the camera block in a typical phone either, iPod Nano sized. In terms of net baggage or inconvenience, it would be less.

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
Using a phone as a camera actually kind of sucks and the problems you bring up could largely be solved with something like a GoPro on a stick.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Sure, but that's an extra device (and a stick) to carry around. The killer feature of phones is that a single device handles both your compute and your camera needs. Even if glasses + voice control handled your compute needs, you'd still need a second device to act as a camera. There are reasons why compact cameras died immediately as smartphones came along.
  - scheeseman486 3y ago
    Not really an extra device to carry given that the AR glasses are wearables. The camera device itself probably wouldn't need to be much bigger than the camera block in a typical phone either, iPod Nano sized. In terms of net baggage or inconvenience, it would be less.