>...where the applications are pretty much limited to watching surround panoramas
Some are professionally produced. And in any case, the same hardware can be used to watch traditional video content on a virtual big screen. I seem to recall the Sony Walkman also started life providing in-flight entertainment to a rich and well-connected person (the then CEO of Sony).
>That would be nice - as it is, they cost an arm, two legs, half a dozen kidneys and some change.
Some do, some don't. The higher end models are pricey due in part to the GPU requirements - but GPUs will always be sold anyway; Sony's planning a PlayStation 4.5 for driving 4K televisions and the same grunt could power a VR headset. And hey, Nintendo made a killing with its Wii console that wasn't trying to compete with the graphical prowess of its rivals.
Not sure why you cite the £500+ flagship models of Apple and Samsung... every midrange phone today is a match for last year's flagship. All you've shown is that there are a fair few people out there who will spend £500+ on a gadget when a far cheaper gadget will do much the same job.
>Have you actually seen what one of those "360" multi-cameras aimed at enthusiats (not even pros) costs? Clue: almost a grand. Yup, aunt Jane will surely start shooting her holiday pics and videos with one of those one any day now...
I wasn't just talking about a 360 rig, but the sort of post-processing that lets people watch a sports match from any angle ( very fancy post-processing). The very technology that Intel acquired last week. The sports viewing market is huge, and will happily punt on a few new technologies.
I don't really want to watch Aunt Jane's videos, but Aunt Martha in Australia might want to virtually relive a family reunion. Really though, the £1000 price range was what half decent camcorders were a few years back, and they only seemed to be used for family parties and the like.
>Is that why only every single game studio who obviously promised VR support in their Kickstarter a few years ago is now wishing they haven't, going on about how even though the engine they use allegedly supports VR but actually making the game interface work half-decently in VR is much harder than they expected?
This old chicken-and-egg scenario has been played countless times in IT. Why bother writing software for a platform with no users? Why bother buying a platform with no software? It always resolves itself one way or another.
>Yup, I'm sure those supporting folks are working together in such a sublime harmony pushing all in a single direction, not at all the way ants "collaborate" by pushing the same thing from all sides simultaneously...
Even their rival efforts serve to raise public awareness of VR.
>Because I'm so not seeing it...
You're trying very hard not to see it. But have an upvote for taking the time to expand upon your views. I do not agree with you sir, but will defend to virtual death etc etc