Is there a future for Virtual Reality?

14

October

2017

No ratings yet.

I recently stumbled upon a video that went viral on several social media platforms. A man proposed to his now wife by having her parental home recreated in virtual reality. They lured her into a giant silo at the company that developed the environment under the disguise of a virtual reality shooting game. This got me thinking: what is the applicability of virtual reality now and how will that change in the future?

Virtual reality has been around for some time now. The first version of a head mounted display as we see them today was tested in 1968. The sheer weight of the machine meant it had to be elevated above the user or it would crush them. Since then, there have been many variations of virtual reality – from adding additional sensory experiences in cinemas such as moving chairs to the Oculus Rift. The latter is the most common nowadays and the main focus of this article.

The Oculus Rift was a pioneer into ‘consumer accessible virtual reality’. Starting out on crowdfunding giant Kickstarter in 2011, it gained massive media traction. The first few iterations were rolled out to backers and developers in 2013. The first problems surfaced: the well-known rollercoaster environment caused extreme nausea. This was caused by body inertia while the brain saw a moving environment. Promises of solving this issue were never truly conclusive.

Nevertheless, vast amounts of industries created new and inspiring ways of using virtual reality. The applications seemed endless. Surgeons practiced their operating skills and pilots tested their ability to control an air vehicle. However, as consumers got their hands on the product, some glaring issues came to light. Firstly, the system is incredibly expensive – a basic kit currently sells for $500. Secondly, using the software generally required a large and empty space, only available in dedicated virtual reality rooms. Consumers, who would mostly use it for gaming, created a vast library of videos where they hit objects in their rooms while using virtual reality devices. Lastly, the consumer applications were limited and received little support from major third parties. These three issues have brought us to a market where virtual reality is mainly used for training purposes by educational institutions and companies.
The application in several industries are revolutionary and new applications of virtual reality keep surfacing. Unfortunately, the consumer application remains limited and has somewhat halted over the past few years. The hope of the consumer to experience a virtual environment, to live in an artificially created world, is far from a reality.
Sources:
Anon, How did virtual reality begin? Virtual Reality Society. Available at: https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/beginning.html [Accessed October 13, 2017].
Kickstarter, 2016. A Brief History of Oculus, from Day Zero to Day One. Available at: https://medium.com/kickstarter/a-brief-history-of-oculus-from-day-zero-to-day-one-8878aae002f8 [Accessed October 14, 2017].

Please rate this

Is there a future for Virtual Reality?

14

October

2017

No ratings yet.

I recently stumbled upon a video that went viral on several social media platforms. A man proposed to his now wife by having her parental home recreated in virtual reality. They lured her into a giant silo at the company that developed the environment under the disguise of a virtual reality shooting game. This got me thinking: what is the applicability of virtual reality now and how will that change in the future?

Virtual reality has been around for some time now. The first version of a head mounted display as we see them today was tested in 1968. The sheer weight of the machine meant it had to be elevated above the user or it would crush them. Since then, there have been many variations of virtual reality – from adding additional sensory experiences in cinemas such as moving chairs to the Oculus Rift. The latter is the most common nowadays and the main focus of this article.

The Oculus Rift was a pioneer into ‘consumer accessible virtual reality’. Starting out on crowdfunding giant Kickstarter in 2011, it gained massive media traction. The first few iterations were rolled out to backers and developers in 2013. The first problems surfaced: the well-known rollercoaster environment caused extreme nausea. This was caused by body inertia while the brain saw a moving environment. Promises of solving this issue were never truly conclusive.

Nevertheless, vast amounts of industries created new and inspiring ways of using virtual reality. The applications seemed endless. Surgeons practiced their operating skills and pilots tested their ability to control an air vehicle. However, as consumers got their hands on the product, some glaring issues came to light. Firstly, the system is incredibly expensive – a basic kit currently sells for $500. Secondly, using the software generally required a large and empty space, only available in dedicated virtual reality rooms. Consumers, who would mostly use it for gaming, created a vast library of videos where they hit objects in their rooms while using virtual reality devices. Lastly, the consumer applications were limited and received little support from major third parties. These three issues have brought us to a market where virtual reality is mainly used for training purposes by educational institutions and companies.
The application in several industries are revolutionary and new applications of virtual reality keep surfacing. Unfortunately, the consumer application remains limited and has somewhat halted over the past few years. The hope of the consumer to experience a virtual environment, to live in an artificially created world, is far from a reality.
Sources:
Anon, How did virtual reality begin? Virtual Reality Society. Available at: https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/beginning.html [Accessed October 13, 2017].
Kickstarter, 2016. A Brief History of Oculus, from Day Zero to Day One. Available at: https://medium.com/kickstarter/a-brief-history-of-oculus-from-day-zero-to-day-one-8878aae002f8 [Accessed October 14, 2017].

Please rate this

How Facebook is keeping you in your own bubble

14

October

2017

No ratings yet.

It has been 11 years since Facebook first introduced their news feed. Since its inception, it has become way for people to know what people around them are doing, liking and sharing. Over the years, Facebook has been optimizing its algorithm so that your Facebook feed is as engaging and relevant as possible for you personally. In essence, this sounds great, but it has severe negative connotations for the perpetuation of one’s beliefs and convictions.

Facebook’s algorithm takes into account hundreds of thousands of variables to optimize your news feed. To simplify, one can divide them into four core categories: the creator, post, type and recency (Constine, 2016). The creator variable looks at your interest in the original content creator. The post variable looks at the level of traction said post is receiving among your friends and other users. Type concerns the format of the post, as in whether it is a picture, video or a piece of text. Lastly, recency refers to the novelty of the post, since Facebook prioritizes new content.

One might ask oneself: ‘Why would this be negative? I do not want to see content that is not going to be interesting to me!’. Generally, this would be correct. However, we are seeing a shift in society. With increased access to information, it is easier for a person to find people and information that agree with their point of view. This concept is referred to as selective exposure (Bakshy et al., 2015). This theory argues that people have a tendency to seek out information that is consistent with their own beliefs. Consequently, people generally see only one side of any given argument. The Facebook news feed perpetuates this by removing information one does not like or agree with and adding content that one will interact with.

Facebook is obviously not the only one to blame here, but it is definitely one of the main culprits. Having one’s own point of view constantly reinforced creates a feeling of false justice. When one only sees information consistent with their own pre-existing assumptions, this assumption can be regarded as the absolute truth. This creates an environment where every person with a certain opinion feels they know the absolute truth, creating large amounts of friction between groups of people with clashing opinions. People become ignorant of the other side’s arguments.

What can we do to combat this? Firstly, Facebook should be more transparent in how their algorithm works. The previously provided explanation is oversimplified and incomplete. The algorithm remains a black box. However, more importantly, people should actively challenge their own beliefs and be open to discussion: try to exit the bubble.

Sources:
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L.A., 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1130.full [Accessed October 11, 2017].

Constine, J., 2016. How Facebook News Feed Works. TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/06/ultimate-guide-to-the-news-feed/ [Accessed October 11, 2017].

Please rate this