there hasn't been a single interesting technology product

I don't think VR has really happened yet, the next gen might actually be compelling.

File: 1498351328679.png (584KB, 589x720px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 589x720px

>>62004976
VINETTO-CHAN DAISUKI

File: vigne face.jpg (156KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x720px

>>62004998
people have been saying this for 30 years

vr ha'nt even started yet

>>62005042
People said that self driving cars wouldn't happen either, but here we are.

>>62004976
>>62005032
>>62005042
Will you be my gf

>>62005058
sure it "works" in theory, and some car manufacturers are testing it on the roads but its not a viable replacement for manual driving
at best it will replace taxi and uber and maybe long-distance transport
its same with fusion

>>62005058
here we are without self driving cars yes

>>62005075
Go hump Satania if you must, but leave my pure girl alone.

File: 1500252850661.png (288KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1000x1000px

>>62005058
the thing about self driving cars is that some people predict we're at least 50 years off while others think it will be reality in 5 years. that's not really a good point to use to prove anything in this context

>>62005095
I just want my own pure gf

File: 1496017155968.jpg (393KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1333x1000px

>>62005102
gaburiel is available because she is SHITE

>>62005042
30 years ago the mainstream wouldn't even touch it, today they advertise on TV. It has just begun.

>>62005119
perfect, a shit gf for a shit person like me

>>62005119
/who/

>>62005085
It has proven itself in fact, Google's car has been around for about 15 years I believe with only one at-fault collision because they wanted the algo to be more "human".

File: Anime-Tsukinose-Vignette-April-Gabriel-DropOut-suisen-toire-(moko924)-3995601.png (3MB, 1544x2597px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1544x2597px

>>62005131
and as >>62005091 said, here we are without driving cars. not interesting

>>62005167
well I'm that guy and I also think vr hasn't "begun" properly yet

but I like cars as they are and I do not want them to change

>>62005218
It's only a matter of time until they only make self driving cars, and a decade or two from that they'll ban human driver cars, after most of them have been replaced with newer vehicles.

File: 1494873176806.png (195KB, 293x468px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 293x468px

>>62005165
yeah sure but i still doubt it will replace manual driving cars within at least 100 years because people like driving cars and motorcycles
taxi's and the shipping sector is another thing though

Technology is boring if you don't have a specific use in mind for it. Normies only want shiny gizmos to ogle at when they don't have hobbies.

>>62005255
Most people only commute and hate driving. The mainstream will lap this up. I enjoy driving but only at night or away from the city.

File: 1394936194493.jpg (46KB, 505x490px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 505x490px

>>62004976
you're just depressed; so many things came and went over the past decade

>>62004976
why is ryzen an interesting technology product?

>>62005097
>5 decades away from universal acceptance
>5 years from usable cars
both are reasonable assumptions the question should be what timeframe do you want for what

File: 1388439517501.jpg (1MB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1196px

>>62005358
We've already accepted self-driving metros.. boats and aeroplanes already do pretty much everything themselves and humans are just supervising.

Cars is only the next logical step

File: com.Lyly.animekissVR_5.png (204KB, 512x307px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 512x307px

>>62004976
Desktop VR flopped. Mobile VR is thriving. Where HTC and Oculus sold 400k and 200k headsets in 2016, Samsung flew past the 5 million ark on the GearVR.

Turn out that joe public doesn't want to play blockbuster games in VR, they just want the same shitty cat videos and 'freemium' crap as before.

>>62005596
these things are terrible, aren't they?

>>62005596
you are comparing completely different products
gearvr barely more than a plastic box where you can fit in your phone for ~40 bucks
wherein the htc and oculus are full-fledged vr headsets
the real reasons desktop vr is a flop are price, required performance, software and the godawful resolution in exactly this order

>>62005619
They're not that bad. PPI is about the same as the vive/rift if you've got a 1440p phone, and the lower fov means less sde and bigger sweet spot. Oh, and no god rays. And they've got semi-tracked controllers like dayream now.

>>62005651
Both are VR anon, whether you like it or not. And one is selling while the other isn't. The public doesn't want super high quality vr, they want it dirt cheap and portable. Sales figures don't lie.

>>62005596
>they just want the porn

ftfy

>>62005739
I figured that was implied from the related image.

>>62004976
Thats because tech is busy with hoarding your personal data.

>>62005167
avatar fagging hard mane

>>62005727
yes both are vr but they are not the same product
just like a 1971 Ford Pinto is not the same as a Ferrari GTC4Lusso even though both are cars
but yes you are right the public wants it dirt cheap and if you were able to read what i wrote you'd realize that i wrote the price as the main issue

>>62005727
>PPI is about the same as the vive/rift
that means it's bad
the ppi of the vive/rift is garbage

>>62006014
It's as good as the tech can possibly be right now. As 'garbage' as the vive/rift are, they're still better than the Pimax 4k.

>>62006363
it may be as good as it can be right now but it's not good in the sense of "good enough" and for the price they want this is plain not enough.
This is the first time i heard of Pimax and looking at it it's quite weird why is it worse? my guess would be the latency since they seem to have it wireless? but besides that i know of no problems with it

>>62004976
>there hasn't been a single interesting technology product in the past 7 years or so besides ryzen.
Maybe you should look beyond computers.

>>62006452
tell me what i'm missing then

>>62005727
>Both are VR anon, whether you like it or not. And one is selling while the other isn't. The public doesn't want super high quality vr, they want it dirt cheap and portable. Sales figures don't lie.
The Vive is selling close to parity with production capacity. I work at a company that's part of the supply chain. The number of parts HTC ordered is basically equal to headset sales. You can't say that it's not selling as well as intended.

>>62005119
holy legs O__O

>>62006442
>it may be as good as it can be right now but it's not good in the sense of "good enough"

It's good enough for the GearVR and Daydream to be a success. The PSVR has an even lower resolution, and that's still trouncing Desktop VR. The problem isn't the resolution, it's the form factor. Desktop VR is too expensive and too much of a pain to use for anyone except enthusiasts.

>but besides that i know of no problems with it

Screen quality is measured in more than just the number of pixels. Mobile 4k works in theory, but the overall quality is nowhere near up to snuff yet.

>>62006492
>HTC Production line is dogshit

some things never change

vr is a great wild-west type medium. weird, crazy, bad, and extraordinarily impressive games all exist. vr video, porn, desktop, multiplayer desktops, live dj sessions, etc. Its exciting in a way that games haven't been in a long time. There are tons of vr games too across the occulus store and steam.