Thread by @timoni

Some thoughts on why I started to prefer the term 'spatial computing' to ' [x] reality' last year.

There is an assumption (in pop culture, in people's minds, in media) that AR/VR/MR are...well, other realities. Digital, sure, but more 'real' than dealing with a computer today.

And so people put on a device assuming they are not interacting with a *regular* computer anymore, but a somehow more advanced computer, one that understands them better—one that mimics the laws of the human world, but has a perfect blend of intuitive digital magic.

When the reality is: when you put on a headset you are putting on two tiny projectors shooting light into your eyeballs in a way that tricks you into thinking 2D frames are 3D. What powers this is a pretty fast, probably small, but still technically possible computer.

These computers are getting better, of course, with more sensors, and more ability to take in sensor data and execute on it concurrently with robust apps running at the same time.

Eventually, we *will* get to that beautiful blend of real world + digital magic.

But in the end, even when computers are tiny chips, free from almost all physical hardware sizes & location constraints, you're still interacting with a computer.

That's why I like spatial computing: it reminds us of what's actually happening. It grounds us in the medium.