Comment by quitit
13 hours ago
I disagree, because it answers a pretty simple question: How to be present in a video call when you're using the headset.
To me it would be a shortcoming of the device if I couldn't show me and the thing I'm working on at the same time.
You have to back up from that question. “How to be present in a video call” is already an answered question.
The “when you’re using the headset” part is the issue. Why are we using the headset? What are the benefits? Why am I making these tradeoffs like messing up my hair, putting a heavy device on my head, messing up my makeup, etc.
This is like saying “The Segway had advanced self-leveling to solve the problem of how to balance when you’re on an upright two wheel device”.
But why are you on an upright two wheel device? Why not just add a third wheel? Why not ride a bicycle? Why not ride a scooter?
The solution is really cool and technologically advanced but it doesn’t actually solve anything besides an artificially introduced problem.
Not really, because this misses the premise of why the device itself is useful.
VR/AR headsets are useful for working on and demonstrating many things that we've had to compromise to fit into a 2D paradigm. Being able to be present with that 3D model has clear advantages over using, for example, a mouse with a 2D equivalent or a 3D projection.
Having to justify how the 3rd dimension is useful is probably a conversation where one party is not engaging in good faith.
The segway analogue is also pretty poor considering how useful self-balancing mobility devices have proven to be - including those which only possess a single wheel.
These are nice words that don’t reflect reality.
By most accounts the Vision Pro hasn’t even cracked a million sales. And that’s the best productivity-focused headset on the market.
You can say that this is a really amazing paradigm shift but if it was people would be lining up to buy it.
1 reply →