3 ms·
It may turn out to still be "too soon" if Meta doesn't up their game.
by QuantumG 3y ago
It may turn out to still be "too soon" if Meta doesn't up their game.
- nothis 3y agoThere was a whole "now we finally have the technology!" push for VR in the late 80s/90s. Google the Forte VFX1, for example. Jaron Lanier made one of the first ever TED Talks in 1990 and it was about how VR will revolutionize everything ( https://youtu.be/lfvOACM-vbE https://youtu.be/lfvOACM-vbE ). It all... "rhymes". I have this thought that maybe the problem with VR isn't the display technology but the input. Walking forward in a straight line is more or less an unsolvable problem. Motion sickness, the need of a frickin' threadmill, it's just messy. Touch feedback is an unsolvable problem unless you introduce robot gloves that can break your fingers. And then we have the question of use cases. VR solves a very specific spatial problem with an interconnection between perspective and hand movement. Very few problems exist in that space. It sometimes seems like VR creates more problems than it solves, in fact. I low key believe in AR (although Apple finally played its cards and the result was underwhelming). Something about infinite and freely positioned 3D monitors. But VR? Great for cockpit sims and maybe some very specific professional uses. But useless for 99% of tasks of an average person.
- wongarsu 3y agoMeta are the ones putting out lightweight cheap VR headsets. If it turns out we currently need a $3000 device to deliver VR people find acceptable, that is a sign it is "too soon" for mass adoption (still useful for many niche use cases though, like frequent travelers working on a plane or in a train). In any case, the technology seems pretty close. If it takes another 3-10 years for tech to advance enough Meta is in a great position to execute as we get there.