None of the things BV has worked on -- smart tiles or putting pieces of paper under a camera/projector -- do ANYTHING AT ALL like what he's talking about here. They don't change their size, shape, weight, feel etc. in response to data. Because that would be incredibly hard. I don't think you should get points for saying "we should do this impossible thing, that would be better."
I must admit I find BV's writing to be really facile... like he'll compare a piano app on the iPad with a real piano and shit on the entire idea of the iPad... without addressing the obvious point that an iPad can be a million things other than a piano.
His point is not about what we should do, it's about what we should aspire to. He's criticizing a video showing a Vision Of The Future, not the current status.
> shit on the entire idea of the iPad
That's not at all what he's doing. He's saying the iPad was the Vision of the Future in 1968. Now the iPad is here. It's no longer part of the Future, and we should stop talking about it as if it is, because we need to reach beyond it.
> I don't think you should get points for saying "we should do this impossible thing, that would be better."
When the other contenders at visionaries are saying "we should do this thing that has already been done", saying "we should do this impossible thing" is worthwhile.
> None of the things BV has worked on -- smart tiles or putting pieces of paper under a camera/projector -- do ANYTHING AT ALL like what he's talking about here.
Sure they do. At Dynamicland there are turn tables that can be manipulated, joysticks on springs, books with pages that turn, and pieces of paper that are manually rearranged on surfaces by groups of people. All of that involve physical devices, and using hands for something other than sliding on a 2d surface.
Does it solve all the issues he raises here? No, of course not. But it's clear that he's working on it, and providing rich avenues of exploration for other people.
>> without addressing the obvious point that an iPad can be a million things other than a piano.
I think you're missing the point. He's saying we should work toward creating a new kind of technology where the ipad would really feel like a piano when you're on the "piano app", but feel very differently for other apps.
What you're saying is that you don't think that such technology could ever exist; BV thinks otherwise and he's working toward that vision. He's also saying that we shouldn't take the future for granted as if a technology will just suddenly appear. It takes hard work, funding and a clear vision.
I can think of a few ways about how we could add tactile touch to a dynamic interface (I.e. turning a piano 2D screen to a real experience). VR is going in that direction (to see 3D from a 2D screen) and you can imagine some sensors at the tip of your fingers where depending where you touch you'd feel something different. Again, that's just an idea, there are many ways it could be achieved.
iPad cannot be any of those million things, no more so than a map of Paris is Paris; all it can be is a picture of those things under glass. Pictures of things might be the best we can build today, but it's a limited and unexciting dream for the future.
I don't think you should get points for saying "we should do this impossible thing, that would be better."
When everyone else seems happy to accept that a picture of a piano is a piano, maybe you should get points for pointing out that the Emperor's New Clothes are lacking many important features.
"We are inventing a new computational
medium where people work together
with real objects in the real world, not
alone with virtual objects on screens."
