>It's not short-sighted to see problems, it's short-sighted to ignore them. Unless you have a reason to think you can. Do you?
And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Why do you think this will be any different? Short-sightedness.
>You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem.
That statement was to set up the point that Facebook is so forward thinking here that they might be the one to create their own killer. Stop being an ass.
> And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last.
Only the history of technology as understood by someone who puts blinders on to focus on success stories alone. Selection bias.
Do you know when the first hydrogen fuel-cell was built? 1851. Before the American Civil War. It took a century to figure out how to get them to output significant power before they found an application on the Apollo missions. It has been another 50 years and nobody has solved the H2 storage problem yet. AI has a bunch of problems that are like this but on a shorter time scale if you want a CS-related example.
These aren't isolated incidents; the history of technology sees a constant stream of people hurling themselves against Hard Problems and consistently failing to solve them until someone with the right combination of specialization, drive, timing, and strategy cracks the case. The people that succeed invariably attribute their success to "not letting conventional thinking hold us back," but that's a load of feel-good nonsense, as evidenced by the long string of "forward-thinking" failures that everyone likes to ignore.
There may be a steady trickle of breakthroughs coming out the end of the pipeline, but that doesn't mean you can point to a droplet anywhere in the pipe and say "it's about to come out!"
While I don't disagree with any of the facts you've stated here, its mostly irrelevant to the original point of contention. Facebook bought Occulus because they believe in the future of this technology and they believe in the company. If these pain points still persist, they simply will not release a product using it. They did not acquire Occulus for the technology they currently produce, but for what they will produce in the future. It is simply incorrect to evaluate the potential of this pairing by what the technology currently is.
The problem with VR is that the friction point occurs as soon as you have to put something on your face.
This isn't so bad if you're a gamer, or you're at home and wanting to experience some entertainment (similar to wearing headphones). But I can't see this style of VR changing the computing landscape the same way mobile computers have.
So if Facebook comes up with VR that doesn't involve covering your eyes, that's great. But that has little to nothing to do with what they acquired in Oculus.
The fact that every VR example given by Facebook so far sounds super contrived (seeing a virtual doctor, really?) doesn't give me hope that they know where VR can be really effective — a small subset of entertainment.
And the history of technology has shown that these "friction points" never last. Why do you think this will be any different? Short-sightedness.
>You're wandering in circles, still not addressing the friction problem.
That statement was to set up the point that Facebook is so forward thinking here that they might be the one to create their own killer. Stop being an ass.