Hacker News Reader

Comment by smeej | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only weirdo who does not want, under any circumstance, to move to a world where head-mounted computer systems are normal? It's bad enough we have the things in our pockets. I don't want mine mounted in front of my eyes.

I can hear the replies already, "If you don't want one, don't use one," but if something becomes normal enough, the outside world does change around it. Why invest in street signs, for example? Who prints maps or encyclopedias now? Or why make anything actually aesthetically pleasing if 98% of the people who are going to interact with it will see it through a digital lens, where you can change your designs on the fly and for so much less cost?

It's not just that I don't want to use it. I don't want it to become normal among other people either.

View on HN

No, you’re not the only one, or even in the minority (outside of the terminally online tech bubble). I feel the same way.

But I also see the value of AR/VR to a number of industries that need more visual interaction metaphors. CAD/CAM, architecture, and real estate come to mind. I could totally see buying a house across the country “sight unseen” based on a 3D scan (if regulatory guards are in place to prevent modifying the scan).

Having an open OS architecture for AR/VR apps is key to making this happen. Current offerings all fall short in various ways, so I’m curious to try this out.

It's only a natural extension of the things that we have in our pocket. I would rather be immersed in the whole virtual world rather than stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my day.

Lets face it, we spend considerable amounts of time in front of a screen. A bigger and more immersive screen will be a better experience for everyone.

> I would rather be immersed in the whole virtual world rather than stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my day

I would rather do neither of these things.

Well said.

I would rather _not_ be immersed in the whole virtual world AND _not_ stare at a 7 inch screen for a large part of my day.

(written from a 16 inch laptop that I stare at for work)

I've been trying to exist more (in terms of "time-spent") without my phone in my pocket as it seems to be primarily a driver of distraction.

> It's bad enough we have the things in our pockets.

I'm sticking with this line of reasoning. This is already bad enough. I do not think more of it will make things better.

For what it's worth, we are many decades away from this being the new normal in daily life. It'll more likely start to chip away at iPad and computer sales though.

As for your examples, such as maps/encyclopedias, they still do even in the smartphone age.

>Or why make anything actually aesthetically pleasing if 98% of the people who are going to interact with it will see it through a digital lens, where you can change your designs on the fly and for so much less cost?

There's a great movie called Virtual Nightmare that is basically about this. But I don't think it's such a bad thing, to be honest. We'll have a world where art can be more easily exchanged and public spaces become more collaborative. And the flip side is that hopefully, "offline" will have less ads and there will be a renewed focus on more indie and subversive decoration.

Change isn't always bad, and it isn't always good.

I've wondered for a long time what things my grandchildren's generation will take for granted and not be able to live without.

I'll consider it a tragedy if it ends up being the case that they can't imagine having grown up actually seeing the real world.

The Vernor Vinge novel Rainbows End famously presents a future in which people's interaction with the world is mediated by augmented reality via contact lenses. It's not presented as a necessarily bad thing, but who actually controls access to information is a very important consideration.

I fondly remember the times where Glassholes were rightfully mocked. Now it's cool to drive around in your Tesla wearing an Apple Vision. It really seems to have become very normalized.

> Now it's cool to drive around in your Tesla wearing an Apple Vision.

This may have more to do with your particular social circle (or mine) than a general trend in pop culture. I don't know anyone who thinks any of those are cool.

Being cool and getting a lot of views/clicks should not be confused.

It's funny to me because pretty much every single issue that the Google Glass had still persists:

- it's too damn expensive (you look like a rich klutz wearing one)

- the content is mostly just normal games and videos that you watch in stereo

- the FOV and camera resolution are too poorly miniaturized to do anything serious with

Why doesn't it surprise me that public perception did a 180 when they saw the brushed-aluminum model with an Apple logo on it? At this rate Apple should sponsor a second Hindenberg just to check if their luck's run dry.

Are you thinking of the Quest or something? Google Glass didn't have content or a FOV.

Part of the difference is that Glass was uploading images (and audio?) to Google for them to use however they like. That was the asshole invasion of privacy. People trust Apple more, right or wrong.

Google Glass still stands out as the only thing I can ever remember encountering that made me think, "Wow, that's even too dorky for me."

I dislike Apple's version for other reasons, but for something to out-dork me really takes a lot.

Just giving an anecdotal response that I am very much the opposite. I'm absolutely thrilled for that future. There's something magical about that blend of real + digital that to me feels more human than sitting behind a desk and staring at a screen.

It will definitely be a cultural change though, and I totally get how that can be almost repulsive from a different perspective. I just want you to be aware though that there are people who at least are interested in that future.

Why is the comparison to "sitting behind a computer stating at a screen" and not "going outside"?

If these only replace desk work, I might agree with you. My fear is that wearing them full-time becomes normalized.

if it takes a similar course as the form factors of mobiles from the 1990s to today it may become quite convenient to use... Also many including me prefer Wikipedia over printed encyclopedias. Getting that context while navigating the world may even become a necessity to collaborate or compete with AIs efficiently in the future.

On the other hand I do appreciate beauty in nature and design.

But why not have both?

VR makes me sick. Don't know about mixed reality but I've read that also causes nausea.

You have no choice, so no point worrying about it.

Just because I can't stop a ship from sinking, it doesn't mean there's no point to trying to get off of it and encourage others I might reach to do the same.

I am fairly sure that 90% of people are on your side and only emotionally stunted weirdos like Zuck think this is a good idea.

It feels like a competition to own a comparatively narrow market (if we're talking about VR). And, within that context, it may indeed be a good idea. But I just cannot see VR headsets being anything approaching common, primarily because people do not like tech accessories they cannot put away unless they have a high fashion value or effectively look like something else. VR headsets, today, check none of these boxes. AR might end up being a different story.

If we had lightweight reality augmenting glasses (as in not much more than a pair of reading glasses), I’d have that in a heartbeat depending on use.

But yeah, I’d personally not want much beyond that.

Of course, to each their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com