What hasn't been invented yet?

[oakleaflad]

Short term there will be much more data driven technology, especially around the home. This is already happening to an extent but there will be much less need to manually press buttons. Loads of automation.
IoT technology, almost everything will be connected to the cloud. Won't have to enter details for insurance as they'll already know how safe you drive or your home is etc.
Longer term possibly nanobots, where we won't have to use smartphones etc. as we can access virtual reality with our brains.

[thewobbler]

Short term there will be much more data driven technology, especially around the home. This is already happening to an extent but there will be much less need to manually press buttons. Loads of automation.
IoT technology, almost everything will be connected to the cloud. Won't have to enter details for insurance as they'll already know how safe you drive or your home is etc.
Longer term possibly nanobots, where we won't have to use smartphones etc. as we can access virtual reality with our brains.

VR gets relaunched every 4-5 years, with all manner of publicity and possibility attached.

But it's never mainstreamed and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And the reason for this is that the vast majority of humans do not like losing full control of their senses. It's just too unsettling to inhabit two spheres at once. Not even pornoland is a viable industry for this tech. Men who want to pleasure themselves in the real world will not be drawn to channelling that elevation from a different world. It just too confusing, nauseating, uneven.

Hence connecting to VR with our brains just won't happen. The technology to do this will appear. The interest levels to generate an industry will not.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Short term there will be much more data driven technology, especially around the home. This is already happening to an extent but there will be much less need to manually press buttons. Loads of automation.
IoT technology, almost everything will be connected to the cloud. Won't have to enter details for insurance as they'll already know how safe you drive or your home is etc.
Longer term possibly nanobots, where we won't have to use smartphones etc. as we can access virtual reality with our brains.

VR gets relaunched every 4-5 years, with all manner of publicity and possibility attached.

But it's never mainstreamed and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And the reason for this is that the vast majority of humans do not like losing full control of their senses. It's just too unsettling to inhabit two spheres at once. Not even pornoland is a viable industry for this tech. Men who want to pleasure themselves in the real world will not be drawn to channelling that elevation from a different world. It just too confusing, nauseating, uneven.

Hence connecting to VR with our brains just won't happen. The technology to do this will appear. The interest levels to generate an industry will not.

Correct. Facebook can launch whatever metaverse they want. People aren't going to give up hours of their day to enter an avatar and goof around.

Even the augmented reality which is more reality based isimited in scope. Please take off your Internet glasses, this is a business meetimg.

[Ed Ricketts]

Short term there will be much more data driven technology, especially around the home. This is already happening to an extent but there will be much less need to manually press buttons. Loads of automation.
IoT technology, almost everything will be connected to the cloud. Won't have to enter details for insurance as they'll already know how safe you drive or your home is etc.
Longer term possibly nanobots, where we won't have to use smartphones etc. as we can access virtual reality with our brains.

VR gets relaunched every 4-5 years, with all manner of publicity and possibility attached.

But it's never mainstreamed and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And the reason for this is that the vast majority of humans do not like losing full control of their senses. It's just too unsettling to inhabit two spheres at once. Not even pornoland is a viable industry for this tech. Men who want to pleasure themselves in the real world will not be drawn to channelling that elevation from a different world. It just too confusing, nauseating, uneven.

Hence connecting to VR with our brains just won't happen. The technology to do this will appear. The interest levels to generate an industry will not.

Correct. Facebook can launch whatever metaverse they want. People aren't going to give up hours of their day to enter an avatar and goof around.

Even the augmented reality which is more reality based isimited in scope. Please take off your Internet glasses, this is a business meetimg.

Is that not what computer games are? I hear they've become pretty popular.

[screenexile]

NFTs though lads I hope ye're all on that gravy train!!!

[thebigfella]

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

[Milltown Row2]

I just want a car and a road system that is fully computer controlled that'll take me safely from the a to b pub without crashing

[thewobbler]

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

[trailer]

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

VR will be huge, especially with sport. It's the next leap. Sitting in your living room watching the Superbowl or WC final from the best seat in the stadium. Once the hardware is refined it will take off. One of us will be proved right and the other wrong. Time will tell.

[thewobbler]

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

VR will be huge, especially with sport. It's the next leap. Sitting in your living room watching the Superbowl or WC final from the best seat in the stadium. Once the hardware is refined it will take off. One of us will be proved right and the other wrong. Time will tell.

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

VR will be huge, especially with sport. It's the next leap. Sitting in your living room watching the Superbowl or WC final from the best seat in the stadium. Once the hardware is refined it will take off. One of us will be proved right and the other wrong. Time will tell.

Again I think this is a case of not really understanding how the human brain works.

The reason why so many people feel nauseous when they use VR has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with how unsettling it is to have one or two of your senses detach themselves from the rest of the senses. Your mind cannot help getting confused and concerned.

Technology cannot solve this problem unless it can find a way to migrate all the senses to virtual land. Which won't happen.

Although you may want to believe that a 360 degree matchday stadium experience would be more fun than watching a game in 2d on your TV, in reality it will disappoint nearly everyone. VR will never be able to replicate the sense of smell, the sense of touch that are so important to days like this. It'll never be able to replicate the sense of anticipation and awe that comes from travelling to / meeting up with and attending / watching that match with friends. Tech will try to find ways to fill these gaps. But it won't be able to.

[Milltown Row2]

Apps have completely changed everything, they have made life easier for things that we required more effort for in the past but technology has ruined social interaction or at least lessen them.

What other Apps haven't been designed yet that are floating around in your head?

[trailer]

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

VR will be huge, especially with sport. It's the next leap. Sitting in your living room watching the Superbowl or WC final from the best seat in the stadium. Once the hardware is refined it will take off. One of us will be proved right and the other wrong. Time will tell.

The entry point to VR too expensive and the headsets too cumbersome. Once the hardware catches up it will become mainstream.

It really won't.

Why Google Glass didn't take off is straightforward. Two simple reasons:

1.  apart from a small group of fashionistas, nobody in history has chosen to wear spectacles when they didn't have to.  The concept behind Glass confused something that is an inconvenience as being convenient.

2. Glass required you to redirect one of your primary senses away from doing something useful, towards doing something that was usually trivial.

VR only works if it takes control of that same primary sense.

Most of us will always refuse to allow this to happen.

VR will be huge, especially with sport. It's the next leap. Sitting in your living room watching the Superbowl or WC final from the best seat in the stadium. Once the hardware is refined it will take off. One of us will be proved right and the other wrong. Time will tell.

Again I think this is a case of not really understanding how the human brain works.

The reason why so many people feel nauseous when they use VR has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with how unsettling it is to have one or two of your senses detach themselves from the rest of the senses. Your mind cannot help getting confused and concerned.

Technology cannot solve this problem unless it can find a way to migrate all the senses to virtual land. Which won't happen.

Although you may want to believe that a 360 degree matchday stadium experience would be more fun than watching a game in 2d on your TV, in reality it will disappoint nearly everyone. VR will never be able to replicate the sense of smell, the sense of touch that are so important to days like this. It'll never be able to replicate the sense of anticipation and awe that comes from travelling to / meeting up with and attending / watching that match with friends. Tech will try to find ways to fill these gaps. But it won't be able to.

I don't see it as a replacement to the matchday experience. Totally agree with you there. But as a viewing experience I see it as the next big thing. Maybe I'm wrong but I think people will adopt it. I can houses having 3 or 4 headsets to watch sport and concerts. Live events essentially. Not Eastenders.

[Eamonnca1]

Space elevators. The hold-up is a material that's strong and light enough to support it. Graphene, or similar nanotech materials, will be what enables it. It'll need graphene to be produced inexpensively, currently the stuff costs about $200,000/tonne to produce. It'll transform access to space, slashing the cost in the way the space shuttle was supposed to but didn't. Going up to space won't be the preserve of billionaires anymore. Rockets are inherently expensive and dangerous, but a space elevator would be a game changer that opens up all sorts of possibilities. Satellite launches for a pittance, tourism, convenient access to the moon, etc.

[thewobbler]

I'm kind of intrigued by the business case there Eamon.

I know the world is an eclectic space - but I can't believe there's a queue of people in an hurry to float around space in a small box.

Would it not be fair to say that rockets  are inherently expensive, mainly because there isn't much demand for the outcome they would deliver, especially not a repeat demand ?

[Eamonnca1]

Yeah, it's one of those chicken-and-egg situations, I suppose, Wobbler. Aeroplanes used to be expensive to produce because there wasn't a whole lot of demand for them, but the industry picked up a head of steam when they got more affordable so they ended up being mass produced rather than custom built. If you asked someone a hundred and ten years ago how much demand there was for air travel, they'd have said there wasn't much since only the rich could afford it. It would have been very hard to conceive of jet travel in those days or why it's better than piston-engined planes, to say nothing of a world in which it was affordable to ordinary people. How many peasants and coal miners would want to fly to Spain for a holiday? The market for mass air travel just didn't exist yet because there was no enabling technology for it.