You would need a headset so small and light it's not too far off from a pair of sunglasses. It needs a battery that runs all day. It needs to not get hot and burn someone's face. It needs to be fast and responsive in terms of both local processing and network data transmission. It needs to be inexpensive enough that everyone on Earth who currently has a smartphone can afford one. And, he is correct, it needs to have apps so compelling that people find hard to participate in society without one.
It's not even a guaranteed thing that such a device is even possible. Even if it is, no way would it be ready for 2025, maybe not even 2035.
Why? You don't have to transport VR. VR is the complement to mobile phones: mobile phones are used when you leave home, VR is used when you don't leave home.
The big question is: Are people going to leave home or are they going to stay home?
My guess is that it depends on how much energy is available. If there is no infrastructure worth visiting for billions of people, then VR will become a success.
>It needs to be inexpensive enough that everyone on Earth who currently has a smartphone can afford one.
If work happens in VR, then employer will finance the hardware for their employees.
The fact one has to sign up to see the product in action says to me they either lack confidence in their product, or are desperate to monetise everyone who wants to check it out.
I've been waiting for some product to invent a painless way to sketch 3d objects with a touch interface for years.
Do you know https://stephaneginier.com/sculptgl/? It is open source [1] so you could adjust it to your needs.
“How Robb Oat uses Robb Oat to build Robb Oat”
>If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn it on!
It is annoying but it can be seen as part of his argument. How can spam be moderated if even trustworthy creators create spam?
According to him, it's not spam because it doesn't fulfill the typical patterns of spam, which shows that identifying noise does require knowledge of the language.
It could be interesting to turn his argument around. Instead of trying to remove all spam, a platform could offer the tools to handle all forms of spam and let its users come up with clever ways to use those tools.
The issue is mostly that it’s presumably cheap to fix unlike a billion cows all farting.
It's even cheaper to fix the farting cows: Just stop raising cows.
Of course, if you want to supplement beef and dairy products, it's not that easy. But if we would believe that global warming and methane were a problem, we could make a difference within weeks.
To me, it would also be important that the data is stored in an encrypted form on the server and that the key remains in the browser and has to be stored by me.
Personally, I would like to have the option to discover people who work on similar notes, think travel app [1] for mental journeys. It would also be nice to have some social features like voting on links or sharing notes or sets of notes so that others can annotate them. Bonus points if those social features use an open protocol so that users from other note taking apps can join.