When a billionaire claims to predict the future they're not just making a prediction, they're really telling you what they plan to invest in.
When a billionaire claims to predict the future they're not just making a prediction, they're really telling you what they plan to invest in.
All he does is telling what he plans to invest in. But given his privileged position, that's almost as irrelevant as what he is going to have for dinner tonight, if his plans for the next decade do not address the urgent and burning issues that keep the rest of humanity awake at night in earnest.
I'm sure AR "is the future" in a decade. But then you'd have to ask to whose benefit and to what ends.
If a billionaire makes swiping statements about the social good, then I expect a proper argumentation that shows an understanding about the vast complexity involved, and their according responsibilities. Not vapid filler that reduce the issues to a mere generational conflict such as:
> Today, many important institutions in our society still aren't doing enough to address the issues younger generations face -- from climate change to runaway costs of education, housing and healthcare. But as millennials and more members of younger generations can vote, I expect this to start changing rapidly. By the end of this decade, I expect more institutions will be run by millennials and more policies will be set to address these problems with longer term outlooks.
That would also solve the problem of death for humanity.
AR is a little different because it's not a product; Facebook's AR apps might fail, but Zuck's vision could still succeed if Facebook create (or acquire) tools for creating an AR ecosystem.
Google search was minimalist. Android followed everyone else in the market, and hasn't iterated core UX much since. G Suite office apps were acquired, and mostly cloned Office online. Same with Gmail.
Maps is about the only heavily-used app, and I wouldn't call its design revolutionary (or even good).
Chrome is about the best example I can come up with, and it's mostly iterated and improved on the back end.
Maybe I'm missing something major? But it's not a market they compete in or are particularly good at.
(This isn't to say that the initial lift of desktop apps to the web wasn't a technical tour du force; just that blue sky GUIs have never been something they're known for)
That's a feature.
> Maybe I'm missing something major
Yes.
Two of the largest online social networks to date have emerged from the highly-selective university space: Usenet (UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, UI, Rutgers, etc.), and Facebook (once: literally Harvard).
Google+ might have been able to grow from its tech roots. My sense is that Google's marketing-and-advertising focus (and community), as well as gross mismanagement, doomed its attempt, nudged with some active antipropaganda from other sources, notably Facebook. That's not to say it would have succeeded, but there were numerous self- and externally-imposed injuries.
all they really need is a collection of millions of AR-related patents allowing to sue any entity doing anything AR-related