• SkyeStarfall
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was referring to the concerns about privacy. In addition, when I say “to the technology itself” I am referring to AR in its ideal form.

    …also XR technologies are absolutely technically feasible. They’re not even that extravagant these days. The fundamentals are in place, and used.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They are technically feasible, but not in their ideal form. You keep equating their ideal form to their real form, and that’s just a fallacy. The real XR technologies do not make good consumer products. The real XR that exists today that are in place and used, are in industrial settings, not in consumer electronics settings. And they might never come out of there because their ideal forms, don’t exist. No matter how many technological strides you make, you still have a goofy crystal glasses or bulky 1kg of crystal and silicon in your face, that will make you sweat and strain your neck in under an hour. That limitation will never go away, for it’s already at the tail end of physical possibilities.

      • SkyeStarfall
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Saying that XR technologies don’t make good consumer products is weird considering consumer VR products already exist and are used but alright.

        …and why do you think that AR glasses have to be at least 1kg in weight?? That’s like saying laptops (or smartphones for that matter) will never be a mainstream product because nobody would want to lug around a 30kg machine. The smartphone I’m typing this on already weights just 150g.

        We are still quite far from the limits of physics, and there are plenty of upcoming technologies which will allow to reduce weight.