All things are possible. They might allow the degradation simply because
they know that it's not *real*.
Now there's a concept! People living out degrading, escapist
fantasies of guilt that they can't deal with in real life, precisely
because VR isn't real life... and the advertizers take advantage of
it... I'd like to think this is more the subject of a kinky work of
fiction, rather than anything people will get around to in real life.
Then again, what if you feel guilty about not being beautiful enough?
Cool enough? Sexy enough? Talented enough? VR is the escape, the
advertizers provide the means....
Advertizers are not above preying upon people's fears.
>Now if economically speaking hundreds of small VR service providers
>can survive in the marketplace, then consumers will really get a
>choice, and "no ads" may indeed become so common that ad-based
>approaches won't work. The question is how to ensure their survival.
>What's to stop a Microsoft or an MCI from "cyborg-ing" them, and
>creating a more monolithic playing field?
you seem to be in an Orwellian funk today;
Well, it's sparking conversation, so why not. :-)
the only thing stopping the monolith is us, the content providers who are
already here.
Right, and there's danger on the horizion for VR providers everywhere.
Shakeouts. Consolidations. But I suppose this is a topic for the
vbiz list, not here.
Again, I shoulda explained my meaning here a little more. In America, TV
advertising consumes nearly 1/3 of all broadcast time for shows. and the
images pop up at any point during the program. This is the paradigm that
can't and won't translate.
It could translate if there's a sufficient carrot added. Consumers
would have to be "bought" somehow - either with cheap online rates, or
fascinating content, or something.
Also, there's the paradigm of the "fast food strip," with billboards
everywhere the eye can see. I'm afraid the translation for this kind
of environment is all too obvious. It's what people are trying
already, with "virtual shopping malls" and all.
Also, once the net and VR and up to our wildest
expectations (10, 15 or 20 years?) with viewers being able to choose from
thousands and millions of things and advertisers being able to niche market
more, won't we look back at our previous infomercials and shiver?
This is where I caution us not to assume that the VR technology will
simply march forward and solve all these problems. Over the past 25
years, VR has _not_ marched forwards. It has made relatively little
progress compared to most other aspects of computerdom, because after
all, VR is really hard to do. The reason we talk about "VR hype" is
because it's just that - hype.
In computerdom we tend to assume that everything advances at breakneck
speed. In reality, only basic hardware advances at breakneck speed.
Look at DOS - we're only now just starting to get rid of it. Our
current widely-accepted computer language / programming technology is
merely C++. And I fear that the VR "technology track" may be even
slower than either of these.
When you've got that kind of technological sloth at work, you have to
start looking at how the social factors are going to affect the
technology development. It is not out of the realm of possibilty that
VR will completely stagnate, and become "the AI of the 90's." I think
this means we have to ask some hard questions about how to push VR
forwards, both socially and artistically. The technology ain't gonna
get there on it's own.
Cheers,
Brandon