Skip to main content

Virtual Reality - Samuel Greengard ***

This is an entry in a new series of pocket-sized guides which take on subsets of what would be covered by a typical book (I'm looking forward to Recycling in the same series). It covers the genuinely interesting topic of virtual reality, but the way it does so shows a degree of exaggerated expectation. The technology is simply not up to the promise yet.

Even Samuel Greengard acknowledges this when he writes 'Although virtual technologies have been around in one for or another for a few decades, the hype has mostly exceeded the reality.' Unfortunately, said hype is present through most of the book. Greengard tells us that we have experienced 'a massive wave of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality'. Not in my world, we haven't. I'm not anti VR, but I think any technology that involves strapping something on your face will always be niche. The maximum the mass market is likely to put up with is the inconvenience of glasses, though even those proved too much faff for 3D TV to succeed. It's okay for the occasional visit to the cinema, but not use every day.

The book begins by spending the first chapter somewhat tediously defining virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality, then giving examples, only to spend much of the second chapter doing the same again. (Then, later in the book, we get yet more of lists of examples of what's to come.) The technology chapters give significantly more information, but tend to be lists of technologies with little narrative flow.

I'd also say that the history is a little off as it implies that the first commercialisation of 3D pictures was Viewmaster, but 3D was a huge commercial technology in Victorian times (much more so than virtual reality is now). One other detailed moan - in his enthusiasm to give examples that normal people use, Greengard gives the example of banking apps on phones used to scan cheques, where he claims that putting a frame around the cheque when viewing it through the app is augmented reality. But if that's the case, the frames in camera viewfinders have been augmented reality for at least 100 years - stretching the definition to make an application seem more prevalent is not attractive. 

Overall, I think the real position is summed up nicely when Greengard enthusiastically tells us that 'Gaming and entertainment are also taking on new and different forms. In 2016, for instance, a movie theater in Amsterdam became the world's first permanent VR movie cinema.' After explaining the experience he then has to throw in that 'the theater shuttered its doors in 2018.' That went well, then.

I'm not anti-VR. I'm sure it has good, interesting, specialist applications already and will eventually become mass market beyond the likes of Pokemon Go when it can be done in a less intrusive way. But, for the moment, I would suggest that a good book on virtual reality should be clear about its shortcomings and realistic about timescales - and I don't think that happens here.


Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under