I am not aware of this technology; can you point me to it?
>>Unless other people have these glasses, they can’t see your screen either. Even if these glasses have no shortcomings whatsoever, I can’t imagine a future where everyone in the room needs compatible glasses to look at the same screen.
>I can, very, very easily.
Currently, if your own device doesn't work, it just means you can't access your own content. With connected AR devices, it would mean that you also can't access anyone else's shared reality. Here are some common ways I foresee AR devices not being easily interoperable:
* Knowing Apple, only Apple glasses will be compatible with each other, so all the people in the room with non-Apple glasses (or glasses that are too old) will be left out: "sorry friends, I can't show you this funny video, I have the iGlass 5 but you guys only have the iGlass 3, and you guys have Samsung Galaxy Glass."
* Battery life on these had better be phenomenal, since you're cut off from a large portion of reality if it dies.
* These glasses will have to be networked, with close to zero latency, which is always tricky business—even mature technologies like wifi are far from perfectly reliable today.
>But in the long interim between now and then, I can imagine remaining legacy screens which people already have for that. Because we already have them. It's not a zero-sum game, having wearable displays too doesn't somehow make existing screens shut off.
I totally agree. This is the future I think is most likely — some sort of clever hybrid between physical screens and AR screen extensions.
>>Few people actually need enormous amounts of screen real estate
>Utterly ludicrous.
You are right. I should have said, “given the tradeoffs of AR glasses, few people need that real estate.”
>The only reason people use small screens is portability, size (not everyone physically has room for a large display), and cost. If there were two 12" notebooks, one of which had a conventional matching screen like now and the other at the push of a button could pop out a 30" magic solid hologram display (resizable to whatever one wanted) at zero extra mass or stored size cost for the same price, there are zero people who'd pick the former.
I totally agree with this. If this technology were a magic hologram (i.e. zero tradeoffs), it would be totally game-changing.
> watching movies/playing games/reading books/doing work is niche, and wanting to do it privately is niche
You don't need a giant screen with tons of tradeoffs to read most books or do most work. Gaming and movies would benefit, but most people do not spend the majority of their time on a computer gaming or watching cinematic movies.
I am not aware of this technology; can you point me to it?
>>Unless other people have these glasses, they can’t see your screen either. Even if these glasses have no shortcomings whatsoever, I can’t imagine a future where everyone in the room needs compatible glasses to look at the same screen.
>I can, very, very easily.
Currently, if your own device doesn't work, it just means you can't access your own content. With connected AR devices, it would mean that you also can't access anyone else's shared reality. Here are some common ways I foresee AR devices not being easily interoperable:
* Knowing Apple, only Apple glasses will be compatible with each other, so all the people in the room with non-Apple glasses (or glasses that are too old) will be left out: "sorry friends, I can't show you this funny video, I have the iGlass 5 but you guys only have the iGlass 3, and you guys have Samsung Galaxy Glass."
* Battery life on these had better be phenomenal, since you're cut off from a large portion of reality if it dies.
* These glasses will have to be networked, with close to zero latency, which is always tricky business—even mature technologies like wifi are far from perfectly reliable today.
>But in the long interim between now and then, I can imagine remaining legacy screens which people already have for that. Because we already have them. It's not a zero-sum game, having wearable displays too doesn't somehow make existing screens shut off.
I totally agree. This is the future I think is most likely — some sort of clever hybrid between physical screens and AR screen extensions.
>>Few people actually need enormous amounts of screen real estate
>Utterly ludicrous.
You are right. I should have said, “given the tradeoffs of AR glasses, few people need that real estate.”
>The only reason people use small screens is portability, size (not everyone physically has room for a large display), and cost. If there were two 12" notebooks, one of which had a conventional matching screen like now and the other at the push of a button could pop out a 30" magic solid hologram display (resizable to whatever one wanted) at zero extra mass or stored size cost for the same price, there are zero people who'd pick the former.
I totally agree with this. If this technology were a magic hologram (i.e. zero tradeoffs), it would be totally game-changing.
> watching movies/playing games/reading books/doing work is niche, and wanting to do it privately is niche
You don't need a giant screen with tons of tradeoffs to read most books or do most work. Gaming and movies would benefit, but most people do not spend the majority of their time on a computer gaming or watching cinematic movies.