3 ms·
I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous becaus
by MrScruff 12y ago
I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing.
If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact.
Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.
- deong 12y agoI didn't really intend that to be literal. I'm going with the "skiing as a metaphor" here. Yes, people will do something arduous and inconvenient for the experience, but they do it rarely. The inconvenience is tolerable when you do it every once in a while to get a unique experience. The same level of inconvenience is not at all tolerable as part of your day to day life. If the argument is that VR will become "an experience", then I'm fine with that. But a capital-E-Experience is the opposite of everyday mass adoption.