yeah this is really a part of it. Both founders and investors get spooked by the rapid entries into a market but persistent not just when it’s hard but when it’s boring goes so much farther.
The adoption of it in various industries for training is larger than most people might suspect. First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now). That said, it’s still not mass adoption.
At the end of the day, you are asking someone to put something on their face that is still very different ergonomically than glasses (and I’m not sure even glasses would overcome enough friction). The ROI has to overcome the business (or personal) friction of buying the hardware, the friction of the form factor plus any friction from changed workflows.
Now put that in an operational workflow instead of training and the risks go up. Most are still skeptical of device reliability (not to say there aren’t suitable devices for operational roles but the perception is still a hurdle, and the applicability is often device-specific). Now add on to that limited experience with devices (many decision makers have never put one on), added security complications, specialized software development skills, limited content libraries and very real accessibility concerns and a lot of enterprises can never get past an “innovation center demo.”
For many industries the value proposition just isn’t there yet. But that said, I’d recommend digging a little deeper as there’s a lot of existing use-cases and deployments, both failed and successful, outside of IVAS.
This. I’ve seen businesses where sending a crew to a very remote location in the wilderness (natural resources, oil, mining, etc) is very cost prohibitive. The less time spent over there figuring out what’s up, the better. They’ll have software devs model the remote site in Unity or whatever then have the crew rehearse the task at hand in VR.
>First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now)
Very curious, don't leave us hanging! Assuming it's not confidential.
Thanks for posting this. Water rights and who gets priority was the first thing that came to mind. The thought of “wind augmentation plans” is fun to think about.
Yep, the procurement process (and related) requires a lot be baked into pricing. I’d also be curious what the fully burdened rate of in-house staff is compared to consultants. I’ve seen situations in the gov (not DoD) where despite high consulting rates, the full cost of hiring was even higher per hour.
But I’m loath to defend the big firms. Generally, quality plus the ever push for expanding scope leaves a sensation of waste. The solution is just going to need more than simply tossing them out.
Appraisals also act as a gate for prices due to lender requirements. A bit round about, but I can see how looser appraisals can enable inflated prices. Imagining the opposite extreme is interesting: What if appraisals never returned with higher prices than the last sale of that house? Some markets would see increases from people paying the difference out of pocket, but I’d guess the rate of price increase would be much lower. (plus other effects, of course).
I’m not following the “unconnected” part. There are definitely problems with our patent system (referring to US), especially around software, but in my experience examiners are indifferent to your background and lineage (though not indifferent to their own status at USPTO). There is absolutely a monetary barrier to entry on using a lawyer to draft your patent application, but I feel like that’s more an issue of private law firms than patents in general. Though I’m sure others might have comments on how those intertwine.
But filing fees, etc (ie those things set by the USPTO) are really quite reasonable imo. Strictly speaking you don’t have to use a lawyer to file (I know that can be a minor concession in the landscape of practical success). Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “connected” vs “unconnected”in this case? I’m missing how patent law directly related to connections/lineage beyond what sister comments have said re: ability to litigate or be patent trolls. But I think that’s the point of the sister comment on it (at least ideally) cutting both ways.
There are explicit and implicit aspects of connectivity.
Explicit are things like racism, lineage requirements (like Ivy leagues asking if you have family that attended), etc.
Implicit are things like growing up in poverty and not having the knowledge, access to mentors, or access to the money to secure ideas.
The rich and connected have access to everything to buy and secure ideas. They can even buy people and take their ideas for themselves without proper compensation, because generally, creators are not negotiators.
It is a rigged system that empowers slavers.
People in poverty, for example, expend significantly more energy to develop a creative mindset, and have little to no energy for negotiation and navigating legal frameworks. So because of this, they relinquish that power to abusers who benefit for their relative disability.
I could write a book about this but if you think it through, it is clear. You could also paste my comment into AI and have a discussion about it.
One of my favourite texts. One of those that I found influential early in academics as well as when re-reading later in my career. Even for younger students I think it can be great introduction to more formal approaches, as well as a taste for the austere.
Agreed. There’s a lot of variables (and I think price is a big one). But, while slow, adoption in enterprise is showing signs that the basic concept has some legs. Even if the tech today needs some time to marinate.
That said I also don’t think we’re are a time-local maxima of users either.
And it penalizes in many ways. Focusing too much on grades can be detrimental in graduate studies, despite graduate admissions focusing on GPA and test scores. I remember seeing 4.0 undergrads really struggle with research in grad school, sometimes to the point of dropping out. Certainly not always the case, but for the ones that did I think it speaks to your point about different skillsets.
Maybe worse was seeing the undergrads who passed on research opportunities out of fear it would distract them from keeping a high GPA.
Curiously, while I had a 2.7 in undergrad. I thrived in the workplace. The initial GPA restricted my options for the first 3-5 years, but I eventually became a Principal Engineer at a FAANG. In hindsight, I wish I had balanced my objectives more - but I also lacked the discipline to do things I didn't want to back then.
