Skip to main content

No surprises on virtual reality

Because it works here doesn't mean it will work in your lounge
(Image from Wikipedia)
I read recently that Facebook is slashing the price of its Oculus Rift virtual reality (VR) goggles, suggesting that they simply aren't selling as expected. But, to be honest, this comes as no surprise at all. I would suggest that VR suffers from exactly the same problems as 3D TV did (remember that?). There are some inconveniences we are prepared to suffer relatively briefly for the novelty experience. Think 3D glasses in the cinema or a VR experience at a games show. But for our everyday viewing or game playing, we don't want to be encumbered by attaching chunky hardware to our face.

I'm not saying that VR won't happen - it probably will. But I suspect it will only really become mainstream when it can either be done passively - using a large curved screen, for example - or if the headgear is so light and unobtrusive that we really don't care that it's there.

What amazes me here is the inadequacy of those who have the job of guessing whether or not a technology will be popular. Admittedly, future gazing is no exact science. We will always get things wrong. As I've mentioned before, Alvin Toffler's book Future Shock was huge in the 70s, but wildly inaccurate with its tech predictions. And wonderful though the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey is, its technology predictions are a lesson in how to get it wrong.

I'm not claiming any great ability as a futurologist. But sometimes it's easy to see that there are some experiences that don't translate well from a special location or event into everyday in the home. And VR as it currently stands is one of them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope