So why does AR even exist? Is it too expensive to just have an outward facing camera (or 2 or 5) and re-render everything on the eye screens in real-time?
I'm so shocked at this question that I don't know how to answer it other than yes it is very expensive to render in high resolution high fov low latency
So AR is essentially a transitional technology until we have better computers?
e: so I realize AR might be around for a while in things other than Goggles (like phones where resources are limited), but for fully goggled in people I assume VR > AR in nearly every way.
Because you can't render true black and rendering the world gives the developer more control over what the user sees.
I have no doubt that AR will power many "low end" gadgets like google-glass or snapchat's glasses, but for going full gargoyle mode, I imagine the ideal is a fully computer rendered landscape, even if it is mostly true to what you would see in the real world anyway (since it offers so much more power).
It's interesting this xkcd seems to be making the point that complaining about the increase in pace from the previous generation is as old as time itself. This conclusion is plausible, however I would be interested to hear opinions from earlier than the 1800s. If you consider the past 300 years in the span of human evolution, it's miniscule. On that timeline the 1800s seem much more closely related to modern day. My point being that decreasing attention span could still be considered a relatively 'recent' phenomenon.
