Perhaps I am a cruel and cynical man, but I’m a writer, it’s my job to tell the truth as I experience it. I am just not feeling the oft cited “empathy” allegedly instilled by 360 video, which may be one of the worst story telling tools ever created. It’s fine for documentary, in a way, but not nearly as good as existing storytelling language used filmmakers and marketers on film and video. You want a director to tell you a story, to tell you what to look at in a sequence that manipulates time and changes perspective. 360 doesn’t do that. Instead you sit there, waiting for a story to unfold in real time around you. You can’t move around. The director tied down the camera and walked away. You what you see in real time. Not what’s important. The result is BORING. It is UNNECESSARY. It is ridiculously OVERHYPED. Its insistence on hijacking the phrase “virtual reality” is hurting the industry. If 360 video is VR because you watch it wearing a headset, then watching “Star Wars” through the screen door of my Vive or Gear makes it a virtual reality movie. I think we can agree at least that it’s not. The CTA doesn’t think 360 video is VR either. Here are their definitions: VR AR 360 Defined Finally. Keep calling 360 video VR though. Maybe you’ll even fool some clients, journalists and VCs who’ve bought into the hype and, officially now, the misnomer.

AR/VR Consultant, Columnist, Author of the AR-enabled books “Metaverse, A Guide to VR & AR” (2018) & “Convergence” (2019).

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store