Did you try it as a one off or have you bought a headset for long term use? I feel that as a one off it would be mind blowing but soon loses its appeal over a period of time.
Dev. here, and in it daily, sometimes for hours at a time. It's true that the initial wow does wear off fairly quickly, but there is way more to the platform than that.
Indeed, the fact that the depth isn't immediately obvious is probably one of the best indications that it isn't a fad. Fads tend to be based on things that are shallow and ephemeral. The advent of synthetic space is anything but.
The fact that [uncertain thing] became a huge, lasting hit doesn't really give us information about [different uncertain thing], except the knowledge that the probability of being a hit is non-zero.
I don't think that's totally accurate. If you consider the popularity of adjacent technologies (games, mobile devices, entertainment), it's logical to predict that a certain technology will also be noteworthy.
Anecdotally this has not been my experience. Would love to see more data points in various geos at different degrees of surge. That said, this is reason enough to press notify every time now just in case.
> When Iribe said, Yeah, it’s pretty much just about gaming, at least for now, Zuckerberg seemed to lose interest. Facebook was not a video-game company and over the years had moved to make games a smaller part of what users saw when they logged on.
I've seen Mark's vision for Oculus described as the next step in connecting all of the people on the planet in a few pieces now. What interests me about this position is that it implies:
1) gaming and entertainment braodly are not the end game. Instead, the social interactions.
2) VR hardware will see broader consumer penetration in the population not yet reached by facebook than mobile phones
My bet is FB's end game with VR only starts to be realized once hardware is much smaller, much cheaper, performs better, and is ubiquitous.
Imagine how kids are glued to their cell phones today. Not
I true a slim, always on VR/augmented reality device that allows them to connect with their friends virtually. Add cameras and mics for shared experiences and streaming their lives and it is clear this is in its infancy.
"Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge starts to get into this a bit and provides great insight there. Functional "telepathy" seems almost reachable with how fast this has moved.
I agree. Many people (30% apparently) prefer text messages over voice calls. I don't see 360° VR video being convenient or worth the bother for casual communication.
Our home use has really diverged away from voice calls and towards messaging and FaceTime. Where FaceTime is reserved for special occasions (kids chatting to grandparents, long distance relatives, calling home when on a business trip).
I wonder if VR as a communication tool could supplant video calling? Although it lacks the ability for a family to physically gather around a screen and communicate as a group.
You have to include that in the price though. Most people don't have pc's capable of running it as very low %'s of people need a 980+. And that performance curve is likely to stay there for quite a few years as people try to eek more and more out of it, so I think it'll mirror game requirements.
I would also ask, what's the market penetration of a $600 smart phone that you can take everywhere and do tons and tons of useful things with? No where near facebook's total penetration. Sure they're becoming more and more ubiquitus but remember that most people don't have a need for a upper end gaming pc and convincing them that they have to have it so they can virtual-skype with their friends from only one room in their house makes it seem a lot like the original telephone for quite a while. Expensive, and tied to a single place.
Don't get me wrong, it's SUPER COOL to demo (I went onsite at valve).
After the context is set, the most important page appears to be 44. It suggests that the next blessing[1] of unicorns will tackle enormous markets by building products around mobile. Didn't this shift already happen? I couldn't think of many major industries that don't already have mobile-first contenders.
Maybe I'm missing the point of the "tech is outgrowing tech' sentiment?
(a) Mobile usage > 50% of total internet usage
(b) Mobile advertising ~ 25% of total internet advertising
Gap between (a) and (b) represents a ~$25B+ opportunity (slide 16).
Last few years, mobile ads have been propped up by VC funded companies buying installs. This means the opportunity is primarily for brands.
Why do you think it has been so slow? There seem to be enough mobile platforms to advertise on. Are the ad units too expensive for brand awareness campaigns? Or maybe that's wrong and inventory is limited and the platforms aren't charging enough? Maybe large companies are just slow?
I guess I'm trying to understand what shape this opportunity takes. Is it for new platforms to emerge? Existing platforms to sign more customers or charge more for their ad units? Novel ad exchanges to make it easier for companies to advertise on mobile?
"Are the ad units too expensive for brand awareness campaigns?"
Yes and No. No, in the sense that they're not too expensive relative to tradition desktop display rates, but yes, in the sense that they don't perform to the same same standards as desktop ads. The exception would be things that are native to mobile like app installs, which are also often incentivized through the various platforms they're advertised on. My theory is that mobile ad rates have to come down significantly to match the performance rates of desktop ads to meet the performance across all sectors, but native specific products like apps are keeping the prices higher in part through better performance but also because they're in a sector that's particularly over-funded right now and can afford the higher acquisition costs while cash is flush.
ArsTechnica has always been a leader in sponsored articles. You can pretty much tell what any new product article will say, based on the company behind it. Most of their authors have a pervasive pro-Apple bias, with the notable exception of their resident Microsoft fanboy, Peter Bright.
- Facebook makes money on desktop ads and mobile ads
- They are making less money on desktop
- They are making more money on mobile
- They may be seeing trends before anybody else that mobile is where they will make money
- So they might value engaging mobile apps more than competitors
Thus, as Snapchat, you realize that FB is willing to pay a lot of $$, but also that what you have (the active users on mobile) is valuable and will continue to grow in value. It's interesting because it sheds light on what went into Snapchat's decision to reject the acquisition.
Basically the same concept as the sous-vide (precision cooking) without the water bath, right? I like it a lot in theory because I cook several meals a week with sous vide and bet that Cinder will produce a slightly different cook with for the same time/temperature.
$500 is a tough sell though if you can get roughly the same thing with a sous vide for <$200.
Precision cooking is the same, but this goes way beyond sous vide, because we can go above boiling, which is where all the fun reactions happen.
Caramelization, browning, and similar reactions are what produce the really great, complex, flavors in the best food. It's not just about searing steak -- we can take apples and convert them into apple pie filling with no added sugar. We can make butternut squash sweet and eggplant creamy. We can perfectly brown cheese without burning it, so you can have a grilled cheese where the cheese inside is browned, like the stuff that sticks to the grill.
We have a test chef who is coming up with new ways to use this all the time, and we're going to share them through the app so everyone can play.
This definitely seems complementary to rather than a replacement for sous vide cooking (especially in terms of e.g. gelatinizing collagen in rare meat, since you'd get oxidative off-flavors over the duration necessary using your device).
I'd be very interested in hearing more comparisons between your device's caramelization abilities and e.g. pressure-cooker caramelization with or without added alkaline agents. My experiments doing temp-controlled caramelization in ambient air (rather than the hydrating environment of a pressure cooker) have had mixed results.
We really haven't noticed any significant oxidation over cook times of up to 4 hours; We have not yet tested something like a 72 hour recipe.
We do plan to have public demos from time to time (we've already done a few at various meetups and other events -- we're based here in SoMa). If you'd like, email info >>at<< cindercooks.com, and we can add you to our mailing list so you could be notified of these events.
Yes! The sooner you can upload some recipe ideas the quicker you'll pick up a pre-order from someone like me. Sous vide is a pretty popular concept right now- I'd hitch your product to "enhancing" its use (eg. Post and Pre sears). I'm incredibly curious in seeing the applications of this product.
Good suggestion. We plan to do that. There are already two early examples in our blog at blog.cindercooks.com: The grilled cheese grilled sandwich (the cheese is browned inside the sandwich) and an example of testing salmon recipes 4 different ways. But lots more to come...
Check out my blog post, which covers a bunch of this at http://blog.cindercooks.com/cinder/2015/3/4/hot-tips. We'll keep talking there about what we can do and soliciting ideas on new creative ways to use it.
