It seems that with the increasing attention given to 'places' and less emphasis on the actual roads we are looking at Google getting Maps ready for the roll-out of self driving cars where the focus is on the destination rather than the journey.
I'm pretty map-aware and a bit of a pre-planner, but even my usual usage is to choose a destination and have Google give me directions. (Then maybe I'll tweak it or whatever.) Same with my 65-year-old dad who still buys a folding paper street map for each new city he visits. Does anyone still visually plan a route on Google Maps by just looking at the road markings?
No, because it is a pain to do, not because I would not want to. Rarely because it wants me to take a closed road. More often because I would like to travel through some part of a land and am not interested in the most efficient way of reaching my final destination.
There is tremendous potential for this technology far beyond entertainment. It allows the user to perceive themselves to be in another place with minimal need for imagination, abstraction or suspension of disbelief. Those qualities all lend themselves quite well to entertainment, but they also enable many uses as a tool, such as for industry or education. Zuckerberg is counting on this, though I suspect he is thinking along the lines of the social implications (a family on different continents could sit down and have dinner together, or you could play a card game with your grandmother from 1,000 miles away).
VR enables the use of human-operated tools and machines in places we cannot physically be with a minimum of interface limitations. Consider robotic surgery; the current Da Vinci machine uses a 3D view-port at a large station with three small loops to detect the movement of three fingers on each hand. The upshot is that a surgeon can now see a 3D view inside an abdomen and manipulate surgical tools with almost the full amount of dexterity of a human hand. This differs notably from older surgery methods in that only very small incisions are made to access the abdomen rather than a single very large one, greatly reducing the pain, scarring, and risks of the recovery process (though of course laparoscopy also offers similar benefits, save for the tools' degrees of freedom). VR is close to replicating this with much less expensive technology in essentially any environment you could choose, provided latency is kept low. Soon a surgeon could be in a separate, non-sterile room with a VR headset on and manual controls to enable full hand and wrist movement, and software can intervene with safety measures to prevent sudden unintended movements or accidental damage to important structures like blood vessels or nerves. The scale can be altered so that the body is perceived to be the size of a room and tools can be manipulated on a finer scale than the human hand is capable of (think of performing surgery inside a blood vessel as if you were there, rather than manipulating primitive instruments at the end of a single camera on a catheter as they do now).
We could teach physics in a digital space where you can alter physical constants to gain an intuitive sense of their consequences. We could teach geography as if we were flying over any place on earth. We could reconstruct New York City circa 1900 and walk its streets. Walk the ocean floor and collect samples for scientific study. Defuse a bomb from a mile away as if we were standing in front of it. Clean a nuclear waste zone with no radiation risk. See the full scale of the earth as viewed from the ISS or the moon. Conduct rescue efforts in burning or damaged buildings with no risk to the rescue crew.
A lot of these things are already possible, but VR dramatically reduces the level of training needed to adapt to unintuitive user interfaces. And there will be many applications no one has thought of yet. A few days ago I saw a video on YouTube where a Disney artist talked about how Tilt Brush fundamentally alters drawing in a way that has never been possible before. Sculpture is about subtracting or manipulating something already existing to create art, whereas painting generates something wholly new but only in two dimensions. With Tilt Brush be recreated Ariel and met her as he sees her in his mind for the first time - a three dimensional entity taken directly from his mind with none of the limitations of sculpture and all the freedom of painting.
As with most technologies, entertainment will probably drive the initial development of the technology. And I do expect it to be successful - I've demoed the Vive and it does not feel like a flash in the pan the way previous attempts at VR have (here's looking at you, VirtualBoy). The software will need to be there to drive the market, and growth will be slow in the beginning due to cost considerations. But people also said home video with the VCR was a flash in the pan and it was too expensive to ever be successful, people would always rather go to the movies instead. VR represents at least as much of a shift in culture and technology as home video did, probably much, much more. I'm looking forward to watching it happen.
What impact do you think services such as Aereo are having on the typical subscription model? I think it's likely that an option like that will be more successful than attempting to charge an individual channel fee.
What do people think of this? I feel like it's already made defunct by other options such as the SwiftKey Flow Beta. Not to mention the need to learn a whole new style of writing.
Project has already been taken down by creator, and all of the companies information is being deleted from the internet, yet they still managed to get nearly $5,000 in the few hours it was up, which is quite worrying.
The don't actually get that $5,000. It's worrying that that amount was pledged, but Kickstarter / Amazon Payments doesn't charge until after a project is complete, and in the case of an unfinished, canceled project, never.
No, they get paid once the project reaches its goal and the time runs out. There's no guarantee that your money is going towards a project that gets finished.
That is incorrect. The money is transferred once funding period has ended if funding goals have been reached.
From that point on, the project authorship has the money (minus Amazon's and Kickstarter's shares) and may never get it done still.
Source: funded half a dozen of KS so far, I know when money leaves me. It would also completely unmake the point of kickstarter: it's about providing funds for the project to be done, not guaranteeing sales so people can go get institutional investors showing they have 3 million sales in already (especially since most KS are a few thousand, the current million+ craze is not the median project)
You are correct, but nevertheless, they did not get the $5000. The funding goal was $80 000 and they got nowhere near that. So that was a scam that did not work.
This is only because the project was rumbled so quickly after it was launched. If they had maybe spent a few hours time mocking up some original images they could have been on their way to a fully funded project.
Half of that $5000 is from a single pledge. Is it possible that they pledged $2500 to themselves to make it look like their project is getting more attention than it actually is? Or does someone out there just really really want this game?
Mostly likely that's exactly what it is. I know if I were to run a scam like this, the first thing I'd do is a bunch of fake pledges to drive eyeballs. I think the total overhead is about 10% (split between Amazon and Kickstarter), and of course you only end up paying it if the scam is a success.
You wouldn't actually need to pay the money. You'd just need to make sure it got pre-authorized. Then once you got another legitimate pledges you could withdraw your fake ones (or leave them up but without any money in the accounts, I believe it's fairly common for KS not to be able to collect al the pledges at the end)
Interesting idea, and the time is right with Kickstarter achieving some of it's largest funded projects yet with all the video game developer hype as of present. I hope it will contain aspects of a self exploratory nature as well about their own attempts at crowd sourcing funding. I'm interested in seeing what other methods there are to raise large sums of money via crow funding other than Kickstarter.
I'm also very curious how it turns out. One thing about Kickstarter that gets on my nerves is the fact that only American companies can have projects there. The crowdfunding market will be splintered into a myriad me-too businesses because of this.
Where does it say only American companies can have projects? I'm from the UK and my friends successfully raised £1000 to fund their project, although it is true the money you receive is only in US Dollars but this standardised measurement is probably more usefl since the US is were a prevalent majority of backers will come from, and they will be more likely to spend money if they know exactly how much it costs them.
Right there in the eligibility requirements for creating projects:
"Be a permanent US resident and at least 18 years of age with a Social Security Number (or EIN), a US bank account, US address, US state-issued ID (driver’s license), and major US credit or debit card."
It seems to be tied to Amazon Payments. I didn't know this myself until recently when the guys making the documentary told me (they had to jump through some hoops because they're German).
For a real old school MMO you should all try Jet Set Willy Online, it involves a small client download rather than being browser based but it faithfully captures the original feel of the game. http://jsw.ovine.net/
