top of page

An example of not understanding principles

Companies have invested insane values for virtual reality and they will present it like a ground breaking innovation.

What many do not realize is that this is a technology that has been sold to the public for almost 2 decades with no success.

Ironically, there is an example of such a failed form of tech, that being the 3d tv. It boils down to the fact that no one is interested in wearing headgear to interact with an interface or media.

Adding to the complexity of establish such tech is the fact the market segment that would drive this to market is very specific in tastes and preferences. Media is a social activity. Game could be seen as viable but in reality gamers seek unrestricted functional controls.

Think about it for a moment. A Call of Duty play has a highly developed sense of situational awareness. To imped the expression of such development will have an disrupting effect and affect onto the gamer.

This mechanical reality of VR makes penetrating such a market segment almost impossible only met by resentment and mockery and to fight against it is to only create resentment in you buyer.

The only segment that VR is able to cater to in form and fashion is the porn industry and consumers. An exclusive experience that is able to immerse the end user more than can be experienced within the contemporary technology.

The issue is that by connecting a product to such a market segments would be seen and characterized with limited generalizability and rendering victim to niche perceptual framing within diversifying segments.

Furthermore, is the fact that if you read the side of the box, you would realize that VR carries with it development disruptions for those 15 years of age and younger. It states right on the box that the goggles disrupt eye development.

Now consider, who would be most likely to be the target market. Do not this that I am trying to take away from such innovation but I see augmented reality as a much more viable option. The complexity there being the PC hardware and mobility.

We are all free to buy and sell what we choose and as a supporter of freedom I defend your right to do so. But, and this is a big but. When does responsibility start and end for informing the consumer. The fact that regulations exist clearly speaks to the facts that misleading the audience is a common practice.

I personally fly a FPV race drone meaning I have a wireless 5.8ghz reciever on my face and a 2.4ghz receiver in hand. It states on the packaging 'will cause cancer'. Not may, 'will cause caner' and that is my choice as an informed consumer.

Be free with knowing the costs and responsibilities of freedom. Not by one but by all. Now that is synergy that will compel is all forward.

This piece was inspired by this video. The portion on Virtual Reality.

2 views0 comments


bottom of page