Also, arguing that something isn't possible seems risky for a practitioner in the field. It invests identity in the negative proposition, potentially biasing perception against new possibilities. (When a 'Hard AR' breakthrough does occur, it will come from a researcher who thinks it's possible and imminent.)
Thanks, I'd missed that. 'Hard AR' - with opaque and dark solid-seeming objects - within the next 10-20 years would feel very 'soon' to me! So from my perspective the author's concluding paragraph shifts 180' from the tone of his headline and list-of-unsolved-problems.
Putting a time frame on the commoditization of particular technologies is really, really, really hard. Most of the big ASIC design shops (was at one for a few years) have to design a feature 2 - 3 years in advance and hope to god that it becomes standardized/commoditized to hit ROI. Even the big shops get it wrong sometimes. In which case they never ship it or just get surprised by someone who did it better or cheaper than they did.
But I agree, arguing something isn't possible is pretty short-sighted, but I'd like to mention it seems he's caveated these approaches with something to the effect of "today's technology and its trajectory." So in his opinion, the tech isn't being actively developed, thereby I think it'd be appropriate to say "impossible without intervention."
Comments
Needs better definition of 'anytime soon': 3 years? 9 years? 20 years?
Also, arguing that something isn't possible seems risky for a practitioner in the field. It invests identity in the negative proposition, potentially biasing perception against new possibilities. (When a 'Hard AR' breakthrough does occur, it will come from a researcher who thinks it's possible and imminent.)
At the end of the article:
> I’d be surprised if it was sooner than five years, and it could easily be more than ten before it makes it into consumer products.
Thanks, I'd missed that. 'Hard AR' - with opaque and dark solid-seeming objects - within the next 10-20 years would feel very 'soon' to me! So from my perspective the author's concluding paragraph shifts 180' from the tone of his headline and list-of-unsolved-problems.
agreed, i thought he was being wildly optimistic with his estimates at the end there.
Putting a time frame on the commoditization of particular technologies is really, really, really hard. Most of the big ASIC design shops (was at one for a few years) have to design a feature 2 - 3 years in advance and hope to god that it becomes standardized/commoditized to hit ROI. Even the big shops get it wrong sometimes. In which case they never ship it or just get surprised by someone who did it better or cheaper than they did.
But I agree, arguing something isn't possible is pretty short-sighted, but I'd like to mention it seems he's caveated these approaches with something to the effect of "today's technology and its trajectory." So in his opinion, the tech isn't being actively developed, thereby I think it'd be appropriate to say "impossible without intervention."