mark fearing

Another headline - “Lawyers talk idiotic CEO into to continue ping hourly billings.”

Kind of weird from a developer POV. Unless something changed and the Watch is now more difficult to synch or a security issue....or no one was using it.

This just in- if you lose the key to your front door, someone can find that key and use it to open your door! A bug that can’t be patched. 

AniMill said:

I’m not sold, VERY skeptical. I’ve had several iterations of Oculus and other pro-versions of VR systems, and ALWAYS the same feeling endures: cool but tedious and uncomfortable. We’d play BeatSaber or other games, then quickly tire of the games, but mostly the experience. Too heavy, too claustrophobic, too low resolution, and not wide enough peripheral vision coverage.

But mostly it’s always the discomfort. The reason watching TV became the dominant entertainment consumption media was because it doesn’t put any physical demand on the consumer to use it. Even console game will allow you freedom to play anywhere, only holding a controller. But putting on the headsets are unwieldy and will cause eyestrain leading to headaches. It’s the same as 3D movies and TV, forcing even a simple set of 3D glasses becomes super uncomfortable and annoying after a short time.

VR will survive, but not become Mark Z’s next dominant platform.

I agree. I'm old enough to have seen a lot of versions of this stuff (I worked at Sony for a few years in the late 90's and saw some even earlier prototypes). And I remember countless Wired articles and so many gadgets have come and they always go. I'm not sold on the glasses/goggles being the right approach. And while I  could very much be wrong here, I think the discomfort and awkwardness is a huge part of it. They are uncomfortable and just leave one feeling rather ... silly, like wearing a huge winter coat that mom made you wear when it wasn't THAT cold out...I feel like it's a niche technology when developed as a headset. But as I said, I'm old, and maybe younger people will take to it in ways I didn't. That's possible. But the general dislocation/discomfort/ of an immersive headset seem destined to be a niche of a niche. I think it's good to think about what this tech asks of a consumer and then compare it to the entertainment experiences one can have without wearing it. And the truth is they just don't offer that much of a compelling reason/experience compared to what we already have to spend that kind of money and put up with the discomfort. It's like Pong was to video games. There must be more and better before most people want to take part in it. I think augmented glasses are interesting, a way to rather seamlessly add a layer of info to your daily life. I'm intrigued by that.

foregoneconclusion said:

Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store). 

It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.