Those are all technical reasons though. Aesthetics are limited by the technology. And the glasses calling home more than it should is also a technical and regulatory reason.
It can absolutely be done while sidestepping all the concerns. Or better yet, have glasses running FOSS software.
But sure, those concerns are reasonable, but they are not fundamental to the technology itself, but to our societal reality. That stuff won’t get fixed by avoiding technology, only by societal change. And you can be sure that all kinds of stuff will be pushed into people if that societal change doesn’t happen, no matter whether it’s AR or not. (Just look at the recent trend of enshittification of everything).
Pick a lane, is it “limited by the technology” or are concerns and limitations “not fundamental to the technology”. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.
AR, just like VR, have problems for which the technological solutions are either not physically possible in reality as we understand it, or the practical solutions completely nullify any cool factor the technology has to offer, or the price to overcome them is so high that they would never be financially feasible to become a commercial product. Like other futuristic fantasies like flying cars, and holographic interfaces, they sound cool in paper, are shit in reality.
They are technically feasible, but not in their ideal form. You keep equating their ideal form to their real form, and that’s just a fallacy. The real XR technologies do not make good consumer products. The real XR that exists today that are in place and used, are in industrial settings, not in consumer electronics settings. And they might never come out of there because their ideal forms, don’t exist. No matter how many technological strides you make, you still have a goofy crystal glasses or bulky 1kg of crystal and silicon in your face, that will make you sweat and strain your neck in under an hour. That limitation will never go away, for it’s already at the tail end of physical possibilities.
Saying that XR technologies don’t make good consumer products is weird considering consumer VR products already exist and are used but alright.
…and why do you think that AR glasses have to be at least 1kg in weight?? That’s like saying laptops (or smartphones for that matter) will never be a mainstream product because nobody would want to lug around a 30kg machine. The smartphone I’m typing this on already weights just 150g.
We are still quite far from the limits of physics, and there are plenty of upcoming technologies which will allow to reduce weight.
Those are all technical reasons though. Aesthetics are limited by the technology. And the glasses calling home more than it should is also a technical and regulatory reason.
It can absolutely be done while sidestepping all the concerns. Or better yet, have glasses running FOSS software.
But sure, those concerns are reasonable, but they are not fundamental to the technology itself, but to our societal reality. That stuff won’t get fixed by avoiding technology, only by societal change. And you can be sure that all kinds of stuff will be pushed into people if that societal change doesn’t happen, no matter whether it’s AR or not. (Just look at the recent trend of enshittification of everything).
Pick a lane, is it “limited by the technology” or are concerns and limitations “not fundamental to the technology”. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.
AR, just like VR, have problems for which the technological solutions are either not physically possible in reality as we understand it, or the practical solutions completely nullify any cool factor the technology has to offer, or the price to overcome them is so high that they would never be financially feasible to become a commercial product. Like other futuristic fantasies like flying cars, and holographic interfaces, they sound cool in paper, are shit in reality.
I was referring to the concerns about privacy. In addition, when I say “to the technology itself” I am referring to AR in its ideal form.
…also XR technologies are absolutely technically feasible. They’re not even that extravagant these days. The fundamentals are in place, and used.
They are technically feasible, but not in their ideal form. You keep equating their ideal form to their real form, and that’s just a fallacy. The real XR technologies do not make good consumer products. The real XR that exists today that are in place and used, are in industrial settings, not in consumer electronics settings. And they might never come out of there because their ideal forms, don’t exist. No matter how many technological strides you make, you still have a goofy crystal glasses or bulky 1kg of crystal and silicon in your face, that will make you sweat and strain your neck in under an hour. That limitation will never go away, for it’s already at the tail end of physical possibilities.
Saying that XR technologies don’t make good consumer products is weird considering consumer VR products already exist and are used but alright.
…and why do you think that AR glasses have to be at least 1kg in weight?? That’s like saying laptops (or smartphones for that matter) will never be a mainstream product because nobody would want to lug around a 30kg machine. The smartphone I’m typing this on already weights just 150g.
We are still quite far from the limits of physics, and there are plenty of upcoming technologies which will allow to reduce weight.
I was referring to VR. Let’s just agree to disagree.