8 ms·

IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a

IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a substitute for going to an IMAX theater. This is why IMAX is annoyed: they understand that VR is a huge threat to their business. The reason watching a movie on a very large screen is better than watching it up-close on a small screen is that in the case of the large screen, your eyes can relax by focusing at infinity. With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package, in your advertising, to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook has 200% more users than G+", and Google cannot make a trademark infringement complaint, because it cannot possibly be interpreted by a "reasonable" consumer to say "Facebook is provided by Google". There is no way to interpret what was said to say "SteamVR is the same thing as IMAX, from the same people, etc."
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    If someone (such as OP) believes that SteamVR can be a competitive experience with IMAX, then they can believe it can be certified or licensed by IMAX. Thus consumer confusion is possible here. And there's a difference in saying "Twice the resolution of IMAX!" (for example) and saying "It's like having an IMAX theater in your house." Those aren't the same kinds of statements.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story. I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.
        nate_meurer 11y ago
        The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed. See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Honestly, we're all just talking past each other. I knew it would be hopeless to get the idea across in this environment of jump all over the stupid thing of the day, but I wanted to try anyway. As far as the legal concept goes, it should be clear that I'm just interpreting what IMAX's general counsel seems to believe. Whether you agree with her or not, I wouldn't say she's uninformed on the topic.
        nate_meurer 11y ago
        Uninformed or not, IMAX' action was stupid and self-destructive and they know it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-to-ars-for-its-trademark-retraction-demand/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-t...
- skelsey 11y ago
  It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing with someone gives them the right to censor them.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    One interesting recent change is that you won't see your own downvoted comments as greyed out. You used to, but I think someone said it was offputting (which it kinda is) and dang & company changed it.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Except it relies on a false fact, that this has anything to do with the legal concept of "consumer confusion". It's not just an opinion, it's actively promoting falsehoods.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I take personal issue with the fading of downvoted comments. 1) The mechanic silences an opinion by making it harder to read/requiring highlighting to read 2) Swaying public opinion of a comment without even reading it. "Oh, it's already almost faded out entirely. It's probably a terrible post that I should just downvote without actually reading." (E: I understand HN requires you to "spend" a karma to downvote something. This doesn't prevent people from using their karma in this manner when they have 1,000's) 3) Allows self-validation of "others agree with me, because this comment has been downvoted and I disagree with this comment", which is fallacious reasoning. Popular/majority opinion can be wrong and patting yourself on the back for having other people agree with you can be detrimental. Self-validation without critically thinking about your opponents arguments is an injustice to them. I have a rule in Stylish to set "font" to #333 so that all comments appear the same for me. Unless someone mentions "why is this downvoted", I'm completely unaware of any comments being downvoted. I find this leads to a better experience on HN. Note: For #3 I use "you/yourself" in a "third party not necessarily you 'you'" way.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  Be serious.
Someone1234 11y ago
> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away. In theory. But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens for that form-factor. I don't legitimately consider IMAX's business threatened by VR headsets in the next ten or so years, and even then we'll have to see how well people like wearing a VR headset on their face (which might hurt necks, feel uncomfortable, suck for glasses wearers, etc). VR is better now than at any point in history. But people are pretending like it will definitely succeed. But Google already cancelled Google Glass (and, no, Google Cardboard isn't the same thing). This might be another "3D" flop all over again.
- murbard2 11y ago
  1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost? Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing. > It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business. I literally don't understand what it is you're trying to say. If VR fails, it isn't a threat to IMAX business by definition. Something that isn't popular or doesn't exist cannot be a threat to something else.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

waterlesscloud 11y ago

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

moron4hire 11y ago
No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package, in your advertising, to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook has 200% more users than G+", and Google cannot make a trademark infringement complaint, because it cannot possibly be interpreted by a "reasonable" consumer to say "Facebook is provided by Google". There is no way to interpret what was said to say "SteamVR is the same thing as IMAX, from the same people, etc."
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  If someone (such as OP) believes that SteamVR can be a competitive experience with IMAX, then they can believe it can be certified or licensed by IMAX. Thus consumer confusion is possible here. And there's a difference in saying "Twice the resolution of IMAX!" (for example) and saying "It's like having an IMAX theater in your house." Those aren't the same kinds of statements.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story. I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.
      - nate_meurer 11y ago
        The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed. See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Honestly, we're all just talking past each other. I knew it would be hopeless to get the idea across in this environment of jump all over the stupid thing of the day, but I wanted to try anyway. As far as the legal concept goes, it should be clear that I'm just interpreting what IMAX's general counsel seems to believe. Whether you agree with her or not, I wouldn't say she's uninformed on the topic.
        nate_meurer 11y ago
        Uninformed or not, IMAX' action was stupid and self-destructive and they know it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-to-ars-for-its-trademark-retraction-demand/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-t...
skelsey 11y ago
It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing with someone gives them the right to censor them.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  One interesting recent change is that you won't see your own downvoted comments as greyed out. You used to, but I think someone said it was offputting (which it kinda is) and dang & company changed it.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Except it relies on a false fact, that this has anything to do with the legal concept of "consumer confusion". It's not just an opinion, it's actively promoting falsehoods.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I take personal issue with the fading of downvoted comments. 1) The mechanic silences an opinion by making it harder to read/requiring highlighting to read 2) Swaying public opinion of a comment without even reading it. "Oh, it's already almost faded out entirely. It's probably a terrible post that I should just downvote without actually reading." (E: I understand HN requires you to "spend" a karma to downvote something. This doesn't prevent people from using their karma in this manner when they have 1,000's) 3) Allows self-validation of "others agree with me, because this comment has been downvoted and I disagree with this comment", which is fallacious reasoning. Popular/majority opinion can be wrong and patting yourself on the back for having other people agree with you can be detrimental. Self-validation without critically thinking about your opponents arguments is an injustice to them. I have a rule in Stylish to set "font" to #333 so that all comments appear the same for me. Unless someone mentions "why is this downvoted", I'm completely unaware of any comments being downvoted. I find this leads to a better experience on HN. Note: For #3 I use "you/yourself" in a "third party not necessarily you 'you'" way.
macspoofing 11y ago
Be serious.

Someone1234 11y ago

> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away. In theory. But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens for that form-factor. I don't legitimately consider IMAX's business threatened by VR headsets in the next ten or so years, and even then we'll have to see how well people like wearing a VR headset on their face (which might hurt necks, feel uncomfortable, suck for glasses wearers, etc). VR is better now than at any point in history. But people are pretending like it will definitely succeed. But Google already cancelled Google Glass (and, no, Google Cardboard isn't the same thing). This might be another "3D" flop all over again.

murbard2 11y ago
1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost? Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing. > It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business. I literally don't understand what it is you're trying to say. If VR fails, it isn't a threat to IMAX business by definition. Something that isn't popular or doesn't exist cannot be a threat to something else.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]