Virtual reality is back in the news this week, as Facebook has just forked out $2 billion for Oculus VR. The social media giant is betting that immersive virtual and augmented reality will become a part of people’s everyday life, which raises the question of whether the technology has managed to escape the barfogenic zone during the last 20 years.
The kind of head tracking technology the company uses can normally help refresh on-screen images about 125 times per second – from the beginning the Oculus’ creators insisted on a faster refresh rate of 250 times per second to reduce movement lag. The latest version of the headset refreshes on-screen images four times faster still, reducing the lag between head movement and the headset response to just 2 milliseconds. Reportedly, users can tell the difference. Virtual reality has finally left the barfogenic zone.
Well, all I can say is... if they're planning a tens of millions for marketing budget then they must idiots. Just have Zuckerberg spam Facebook with Oculus ads for free (hey it's his company now) and they'll sell a hundred million units in a few months.
"EarlGrey" wrote: Well, all I can say is... if they're planning a tens of millions for marketing budget then they must idiots. Just have Zuckerberg spam Facebook with Oculus ads for free (hey it's his company now) and they'll sell a hundred million units in a few months.
Who's saying they won't do this? Facebook promotion seems like a no-brainer, that doesn't mean you don't throw a few million at it to get the word out on Youtube and other big sites.
The webpage of OP's link doesn't inspire any confidence or respect. A page full of clickbait links is not worthy of your time and attention (and I'm glad I've got addblock. I don't even want to see how it would look like without it).
I'll give the author some credit for providing links to its sources. That's more than what you can expect from most other "news" websites.
"Christophe" wrote: The webpage of OP's link doesn't inspire any confidence or respect. A page full of clickbait links is not worthy of your time and attention (and I'm glad I've got addblock. I don't even want to see how it would look like without it).
I'll give the author some credit for providing links to its sources. That's more than what you can expect from most other "news" websites.
As far as i can see, there are no ads (i don't have adblock), and as for clickbait - every other story on there is for the BBC, and it's a BBC website?
I find it hard to believe there's anybody that hasn't heard of the British Broadcasting Corporation before. They've been around for 93 years (oldest national broadcaster in the world).
