Hacker News Reader

What you're experiencing is largely that now everything is nearly instantly discoverable. In the 1980s and 90s, you would find out about new technology or product at a computer store. You might read an article in a computer magazine about a technology, but for a product, you're as likely to learn about it from a knowledgeable clerk. And clerks had to be knowledgeable because they were that initial discovery mechanism.

Now, you find out about a new technology or product instantly, and you learn about them constantly. It is rare that a company develops something new enough that it's significantly differentiated from something you already know about (or even have) that it's exciting.

Even Apple had a lot of leaks before Vision Pro (which is potentially the most exciting new technology product, at least for me, in years). They had to balance when to announce it with the leaks - to maximize the impact while ensuring you didn't have to wait too long to get one.

I think you're missing the point. Even the Vision Pro is just incrementally better than Hololens almost a decade later.

> the Vision Pro is just incrementally better than Hololens

Hololens had 1268x720 per eye[1] or 1.8MP across both eyes. Vision Pro is 23MP across both eyes. Are you seriously saying that's "incrementally better"? It's a literal order of magnitude more pixels!

[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/419869/we-found-7-critical-h...

If that order of magnitude more pixels doesn't enable people to do more, make the old and impractical the new and practical, or even leave people with the desire to upgrade, I would argue that order of magnitude more pixels could be incrementally better.

Then again, sometimes incremental ends up sneaking up on us and being revolutionary in the end. There are many technologies that appeared in the 80s (if not earlier), yet did not turn out to be practical until several decades of incremental development happened.

I’ve personally used a HoloLens, and I would consider it not useful outside of very specific edge cases. The viewport is extremely small (as in, most of your vision is not the hologram despite it still restricting your vision considerably), it’s hazy, low res, not very bright, and objects were not perfectly stable. It still was exciting as crap to use one, but a HoloLens vs the hardware of the vision pro is about on par with an original PlayStation vs a PS5. It’s more than a generational leap. I haven’t seen a vision pro in person, but I’ve seen a Vive, and that’s already leaps and bounds above a HoloLens in quality. The HoloLens works differently than the vision pro, which is really an extremely sophisticated VR headset, so they’re not even the same product category really. A HoloLens is more similar to a Google Glass.

That said, AR goes back decades with the early implementations being as primitive (if not more primative) relative to the HoloLens as the HoloLens is to the Vision Pro. While every new step may see the technology become more desirable and it may even garner higher adoption rates, it has no impact upon the lives of most people. Heck, as far as I can tell, it has no indirect impact upon the lives of most people. While the specifications may grow in leaps and bounds, I wouldn't really call it a technological leap until it has a greater impact.

(That said, the Vision Pro is a bit young to tell how much of an impact it will have.)

It's still 'vertically scaling' the number of pixels of hololens like devices. That might have needed innovations in manufacturing, but the product itself is not much of an innovation in my book.

That's honestly very similar to saying "4K Blu-rays are just incrementally better than VHS", by ignoring most of the differences and just considering that they're both media for video.

And yet, you're doing exactly the same thing with both. The experience is better, and there's some novelty with extra features you can interact with (though aside from subtitles, I don't think I've ever used them myself).

In terms of what they do for the user the difference is, in fact, incremental compared to when VHS first became available. VHS enabled you to choose what to watch whenever you wanted. Prior to that, you got whatever was on whatever channels you had access to.

I will definitely grant that enabling subtitles was a profound difference for a subset of viewers (those who enjoy foreign media and the deaf) but even that came about with DVDs, not Blu-ray.

> enabling subtitles was a profound difference for a subset of viewers (those who enjoy foreign media and the deaf) but even that came about with DVDs, not Blu-ray.

Closed captions were available on many, but not all, VHS tapes. Not all DVDs had subtitles either. The problem with CC on VHS was that it was often the first thing to degrade before the picture and then the sound.

Foreign films often had subtitled releases "baked in" to the video. Here's another hit of nostalgia. There were times you'd walk into a Blockbuster in the USA and the only available version of a hot new Hollywood release was the Spanish or French subtitled version. You had to deal with the lost sections of image dedicated to subtitles in a language you might not even understand!

It feels like the consumer base is much less diverse than it used to be. Tech used to look like a cornucopia of different shapes, colors, features. Now it's all the same. Twenty years ago the "gaming phone" was an Ngage and the "fashion phone" could pass for a tube of lipstick. In 2023 the "gaming phone" has an extra pair of invisible touch sensors and the "fashion phone" comes in pink.

You missed out on 3d printers in the last 2 decades apparently. Those have gone leaps and bounds from very rickety prototypes like the og MakerBot to cheap workhorses. Stepper motors used to cost like $75 ea and are now like 4 for $15.

Smart phones as well.

Many of these things you don't notice till they're everywhere.

If I spent more time I could list many other things I think but I don't know your filter

Please list more things if you have some time

Electric bikes and scooters

The last two decades seemed to have progressed glacially slow.

We've had smartphones for fifteen years and they haven't really improved much. Better camera, a few more sensors, more durable glass. Incremental improvements. About the same for laptops and desktops.

3D printing has come a fair way, but we're still not printing cars at home. (I totally would download a car.)

Now all of a sudden we have AI/ML, self-driving cars, high fidelity consumer mocap, AR/VR. The types of things coming out now seem way more sci-fi, cutting edge, and optimistic. A return to the imagination and dreams of the 1950's - 1990's.

2000 - 2020 was a speed bump.

From 2000 to 2010 we progressed from the Nokia 3310 to the iPhone 4.

The point is more - today's smartphones are the first iphone with a better camera and faster data connection.

That said in other areas there's much more improvement, for example EVs, solar panels, intelligent search engines. Remember the days when we used scripts that would parallelize searches over lycos, yahoo, webcrawler, altavista, alltheweb, ...

The counter point is that the innovation never stopped, it just moved down a level. We 'optimized' the hardware (as in gave it sufficient form to fulfill necessary functions) then did the same for the application space. Twitter, Facebook, Google, music streaming, all solidifying their phone presence over the past ten years.

Just as the application space has begun to stagnant, suddenly our data is speaking back to us through LLMs. Such models will be the next space we'll 'optimize', but these models will also be optimizing themselves. Strange loop.

> Twitter, Facebook, Google, music streaming, all solidifying their phone presence over the past ten years.

I would argue these are all worse outcomes than I'd hoped for.

I dreamed we'd have utilities based on RDF and bittorrent that could pull down any data we liked. Track any authors across the internet, highlight all content about topics we liked, pull in all new astronomy photos. Automatic ranking and scoring to fit our preferences. Better collaboration, much higher signal, much less noise.

I thought we'd control the data, the pipes, the routing, all of it.

We have a product manager internet, not a magical utility knife internet.

In 2001 you could get the Kyocera Palm phone, which is a more valid comparison. But yes.

Nokia also released 9210 about the same time as 3310. From that perspective iPhone was even less of an improvement and a step back in some aspects.

I totally would download a car.

Underrated reference. Well done.

> We've had smartphones for fifteen years and they haven't really improved much. Better camera, a few more sensors, more durable glass. Incremental improvements. About the same for laptops and desktops.

For the past few years they've been experimenting with foldable screens, with hints of rollable screens maybe coming soon, so that's something at least.

I feel like you must be intentionally exaggerating for a reason.

Between the processing power, battery life, storage space (100x), ram (50x), screen resolution (20x pixels) and refresh rate, not to mention network speed…

I can record 4K video at 60fps. On my phone. How is that an incremental improvement?

I consume a huge amount of the web on my phone (and not hate myself or constantly zoom in and out), can type meaningfully fast with swipe/trace, copy/paste to/from my laptop, can use my phone as a webcam (realtime), useful realtime navigation, I pay for the majority of my purchases by holding my phone to a sensor, I put completely wireless incredibly light earbuds that last hours in my ears for listening and talking that actively cancel noise.

Today's phones are incredible.

On the other end of the spectrum, the cheapest smartphones can be purchased for less than $10.

Most of what you've listed is "take this number, make it larger", same as the past century. Foldable and rollable screens are actually something new.

Have the 3D printers that are affordable and available enough for regular people advanced in their material capabilities much? The inability to print high strength materials like high impact polycarbonate or metal was what made early 3D printers mostly a novelty for me. I didn't think that had changed; however, I could very well be wrong.

It was more than the rate of progress, though the rate of progress certainly helped. For a lot of people the computers of the 70's, 80's, and 90's captured their imagination because of how it could change the world. The same could be said of prior technological revolutions.

Even though we see a lot of technological progress these days, we are mostly out of the revolution phase. The computer is a part of our lives, much like electricity, the automobile, and the airplane. Those who love gadgets will be excited about each new step, yet it is nowhere near as exciting to everyone else. That is not to say that we are out of the revolution phase. People were genuinely excited about developments in mobile phones until a few years ago. This current hubbub over AI may stimulate people imaginations if it doesn't end up stalling again.

I chuckled at your comment about a 1997 developer being satisfied with 1984 technology. It seems like some 2023 developers are excited about 1984 technology. In many cases, it is because the tooling for things like build your own computers at the component level has become more accessible (rather than being an exercise in pure nostalgia).

The smell of a newly opened rewriteable CD

Wow, I can still evoke the memory and scent of that first spindle of blank CDs I bought for my 1x CD writer. It's so distinct and unforgettable.

the short answer is pretty much all tech we use was invented in the 1970's and is just being iterated on at this point. There really is not much new coming out and all the really cool stuff has turned out to be too difficult to be reliable or require too much power to ever get beyond toy status.