So I was almost impressed by just how many words you could squeeze out of a relatively short experience, though as an AVP owner I know it takes more than 30 minutes to really learn how to use it well, and think you walked out of there with the same preconceived notions you walked in with, but still a lot of words, congrats. But then you totally blew it on your last comment.
First of all, just what IS an iPad with a good 3D screen? Do you know how 3D works? Different perspectives of the same scene are given to your two eyes. That's why they all require special glasses, to separate out the overlapped perspectives. And why the AVP is so good at it, it IS two screens. Second of all, are you saying Apple should ask people to wear special glasses to watch an iPad? You do realize the television industry tried this and failed right?
So many many words.
The subject of the thread is is interest in the AVP is waning, so I gave a report on - so far as I can tell - how popular AVP demos are, how Apple is presenting it, my experiences demoing it, how it compares to what I’ve used before, and my overall conclusions.
Yes. Lots of words. But they were organized - note the hierarchy outline format. You don’t like details, you can skip to the next section.
Regarding ragging on me for suggesting an alternative of an iPad with a 3D capable screen:
- Yes, I am well familiar with screen technology. I even did some advanced design work 30+ years ago on one of the first color screens for cars. How about you?
- You state the public has a problem with wearing temporary inexpensive, easy to don and doff glasses to experience a 3D display, and you’re right, it failed on TV sets.
- But then you turn around and advocate for VR goggles, which are expensive, heavy, require extensive tech to reconnect the wearer to the world (while not doing it the other way around). I don’t think there will be many takers, outside of special short-use cases (games, etc.)
I gave my honest thorough opinion. You just don’t like my conclusions.