First, you did something. Nothing can take that away from you. So be proud of what you did. Next, you learned a valuable lesson that will come with you into your next projects. Learning to "sell" is absolutely critical for so much of life - not just tech startups.
Finally, this is not the end. There will be more ideas and more opportunity. You're already on to the next thing. Keep moving forward. It's not how long or short the game is, or how quickly you move. It's how long you stay in the game. Keep playing the game.
History is replete with examples of people who have found measurable success later in life. I might recommend starting with a review of those people and their lives and looking for any parallel that may suit you. Let me just leave one example from my culture, Rabbi Akiva, one of the most influential and revered Rabbi's of all time, that I often think of at times like these:
"When Akiva married the daughter of Ben Kalba Sabua,[a] a wealthy citizen of Jerusalem, Akiva was an uneducated shepherd employed by Ben Kalba Sabua. His wife's first name is not provided in earlier sources, but a later version of the tradition gives it as Rachel.[2][6] She stood loyally by her husband during the period of his late initiation into rabbinic studies after he was 40 years of age.[2] and in which Akiva dedicated himself to the study of Torah.
A different tradition[6] narrates that at the age of 40, Akiva attended the academy of his native town, Lod, presided over by Eliezer ben Hurcanus. Hurcanus was a neighbour of Yosef, the father of Akiva. The fact that Eliezer was his first teacher, and the only one whom Akiva later designates as "rabbi", is of importance in settling the date of Akiva's birth. These legends set the beginning of his years of study at about 75–80."
I love your work and admire your approach. But you should recognize a void will emerge and void get filled. Someone (probably reading this thread) will clone your idea and make it a supported for pay service.
It wont be me. But some enterprising engineer/pm/group who was recently laid off in this downturn will probably make a go of it.
If the client is worth enough to you, get on a plane and physically shadow the workers who use your system for a few days. Absolutely nothing can replace direct face to face engagement with real life users.
In this case the person you are speaking with is a boss who either will not or can not articulate his needs. You need to go the the source - the front line users.
While I’m sure everything in this PR is true, I’m also gonna take a moment to read between the lines. Apple will/should leverage this relatively unprecedented/innocuous statement to accelerate diversity in their supply chain.
With the US squeezing China with sanctions it is only a matter of time before China retaliates against Apple. Politically, reducing pressure on China in the US is not tenable in this climate. We’re in a one way ratchet and Apple needs to diversify away from China as quickly as possible. Covid lockdowns in China ultimately provide a fantastic opportunity and official/formal face saving measure for Apple (and all other US manufacturers) to establish alternate supply chains without openly antagonizing China.
This is not going to turn out well. Do we really want to edit reality in this way? This is like the printer that automatically watermarks your prints - for your security and protection! Coming to a child protection law near you real soon.
Want to take a picture of that Ferrari? That’ll be an extra $5.
No, you really can’t take photos in airports.
Thats a police officer(s). (Literally) Nothing to see here, move along.
Vampires/Ghosts. A class of people who’s faces are in a master redact database. You know, like some real CIA Jason Borne stuff.
Military installation? What military installation? Replace with slave labor camp or, a more economically favorable rendition - “sweatshop.”
I was just told by Amazon that I can't sell a used book there because the publisher, Morgan Kaufmann, is currently not accepting applications to sell and denied my request to sell.
I was pretty stupefied. Amazon and the publisher have colluded, for whatever reason, to police how used books are sold.
Who knows? Although, I actually bought this particular book off of Amazon.
In this case, after some research, I actually think this is related to the book sometimes being used as a textbook. I wouldn't really call it a textbook, as in the normal 30 editions type of textbooks, as it's just a really good book on its topic (and only the second edition, which is the latest). Apparently publishers want to funnel the used sale of such books through certain approved sellers? I imagine it's to keep the price artificially high and for the publisher to recover some of the money back themselves. Seems ridiculous, and it would be surprising if it's legal. It's basically a racket.
You have to to sell in their platform. When I tried to add it to my Amazon Seller inventory, it required approval. Selling on Abebooks (owned by Amazon) requires a subscription now.
> This is like the printer that automatically watermarks your prints - for your security and protection! Coming to a child protection law near you real soon.
You mean like most (or maybe all) color laser printers sold in the last couple decades?
It's already happening with AR; there was a demo on Twitter showing how using Apple's new AR SDK you can just plaster over things you don't want to see. This for me puts AR right up there with AI as a huge risk to society, for precisely the reasons you point out. "Pay $9.99 a month not to see homeless people" "Pay $2.99 a month to see enhanced street signs so only you can find your way quickly" etc
Better hope that's context-sensitive. Street meth addicts commit enough random assaults and smash enough car windows now, just imagine what they would do if they were literally invisible.
You're naive if you think this way. You're not forced to use AR, yet. That's different to never will be forced to.
Smartphones are already all but mandatory for certain locations/demographies. Not owning one carries an immense penalty when it comes to access to government services, banking, and general daily functioning.
Such technology could also represent a huge improvement in quality of life. Imagine augmented reality glasses with built-in ad blockers.
It all depends on who's in control of the device. It'll be great if we're in control and the technology is used to empower us. It'll suck if the corporations and governments are in control and the technology is used to manipulate public perception and extract revenue.
We have enough of people acting like their own experiences are indicative of the norm or are evidence of something happening or not happening, and using that to spread that message, that making this even easier seems like it would be a real problem.
Are news bubbles a problem? Imagine if people actually block out reality on an even more direct level and what that means to their perception of the world. What if people can opt into trusty AR programs to "show" them the stuff in the world they're missing (the conservative conspiracy or liberal agenda), and those also selectively omit some other things?
I'm not sure who you're arguing against. Where did I say we shouldn't allow AR or this technology? I stated why it might be a problem (which is what you asked for), and why we should possibly pay attention to the negative consequences that might follow.
I mean, maybe some people are homeless by choice, but some are due to misfortune and poverty. Using technology to turn a blind eye to poverty in our communities seems bad. Also you may trip over a homeless person.
It would defeat the entire point of having them: As an example why to obey. It is not like you cant scale a tax with housing requirements. Could give them jobs too. It would take a bit of getting used to but if the only thing a person wants is drugs their potential productivity could be 10x that of ours combined.
You may trip over a homeless person if you can't see them.
Also papering over social problems means those social problems will bite you in the ass eventually. Never underestimate the power of a bunch of desperate people.
If you don't want a TV that doesn't track your viewing habits, force automatic software updates, show ads, and do other objectionable things while claiming it's "smart", don't buy one.
Well yeah, those TVs are cheap because they use crappy panels and get subsidized by ads. If you just want a cheap panel and driver, you can message a wholesaler on panelook and buy them for like $200 plus some change for a sound bar.
A fast 4K monitor costs ~$700 because it’s a much better product.
The example of yellow tracking dots in printers has already been mentioned. Our governments had zero problems mandating the use of that specific technology. Same with kill switches in cars so that police can remotely disable your vehicle.
Maybe we could have laws that protect us from these kind of cameras instead of enforcing them. I'm against saying "No you can't do this" but I'm all for "You must show us how you do this" or "This thing must be optional".
It's moving it away from your control. Right now we have the option to edit the images and videos we capture. This kind of technology allows those same choices to be made by someone else without any regard for your wishes. Your options can be limited to editing only what they allow to be captured in the first place.
Would a government even want that? Not even from the moral stance, just the strategic point of view. We know from the social media experiment how bad things can go if you hook an entire population to some "product".
Sure, you can make (even though incentives) everyone wear AR glasses (because they're so cool), and they'll censor out undesired things. That's as much a form of control as it is a form of being controlled. Hooking your entire population's vision to the internet means it could possibly be maliciously used by bad actors.
It’s not that sophisticated and is a physical artifact that had to be forged for some purpose. Effectively it’s like having a zero power neural network. You could make something like a motion sensor that only spots human faces, but very low power.
All power to you! Congratulations. For me, the takeaway is that XR (AR+VR) opens up a new market and attracts new people (customers). Everything in our world is a continuum. Candles to lightbulbs, horses to ICE to EV mobility. Telegraphs to phone to cell. The adoption curve is the continuum.
Your comment is such a clear signal that this technology, XR, has a place on this continuum. It will evolve and attract new people to it who have not been sold on/motivated to engage with previous generations of presentation - in your case exercise.
Totally agree. This experience gave me a very strong sense of applications that I would have been much more skeptical of before. Really powerful (and for me, unexpected) gateway.
For sure. Honestly, I would love to have an established open-source respecting company like RedHat come along and say "We'll be your official hosting partner, we'll handle hosting, payments and offer these services, we'll need x hours from you per week for support, otherwise focus on the project, we'll give you £x per month, You retain ownership and other revenue streams."
A bit idealist and of course the contract would be more complicated, but to focus on the project while having established support would be ideal.
Finally, this is not the end. There will be more ideas and more opportunity. You're already on to the next thing. Keep moving forward. It's not how long or short the game is, or how quickly you move. It's how long you stay in the game. Keep playing the game.