I agree I’ve been working in and out of VR for the last 8 years or so and it was the first thing I saw that made me question the assumption that VR was the only possible solution to this problem.

As someone who spends way too much time on video--including meetings I should be in in case something directly relevant to me comes up but mostly can pay partial attention to while I do stuff on another computer--I would mostly hate the idea of wearing a headset. Heck, at in person meetings for better or worse, a lot of people do the same thing.

High-fidelity, lifesize, no stuttering, etc. plus collaborative docs and I'm pretty sure you may have a better experience than VR.

Yeah the headsets are a distraction, the way to think about this is there are three distinct tech tracks:

- full photonic override (HMDs -> passthrough visors (lynx-r is a half step) -> passthrough swim goggles -> contact lenses)

- partial photonic override (HoloLens -> AR glasses -> contact lenses)

- magic windows (google’s thing)

They all have trade offs but the first track in particular it is an error to look at current form factors as a fixed condition. They will be changing rapidly insofar as traction and/or investment continues.

Certainly. Though I'd be inclined to argue that full VR/immersion is mostly of interest in an exploration context (e.g. 3D construction walk through, virtual tourism) or simulation (including gaming)--especially for situations where you can participate from a fixed location.

I think if another tech hits face to face social presence scores then yes things get a lot more interesting. I don’t know if google has run a study.

Rather than contact lenses, how plausible would it be to project an image into someone's eyes from a distance?

As in you'd have an external VR unit that's as bulky as needed to handle face tracking, photonic override, etc. without any direct physical contact or uncomfortable accessories. Does that kind of tech sound further or closer than contact lenses, or would it be so different as to be hard to say?

Yeah I would put that into the same bucket as contact lenses: really hard to imagine tech in terms of execution, but probably possible from first principles. The invariant is basically if code is determining what photons you see, and if it has full governance or partial governance (ie, the real world has the ability to leak in or not.)

There was some pro type contact lens technology in a talk at Hot Chips but nowhere near prime time yet. Saw a thread. Forget if it was here or Twitter.

Yes! I can't wait for this to go mainstream. Seems like the perfect solution. I love their description of it as a "magic window".