Aside from being completely freaky to watch, there are some problems with this solution that doesn’t address any of the complaints about active-shutter-based 3D TVs:

• You’re still blocking a portion of the light getting into your eyes, making the picture overall dimmer
• You still need to wear something on your head (only now you look like Geordi LaForge without his VISOR)
• There is still likely flickering
• People without these devices still can’t see the picture (so you need to have enough of these devices for all your viewers)

Then there are all the new potential problems introduced with this solution:

• Instead of charging one set of glasses, you now need to charge an independent pair of devices
• The prototype is pretty small, which makes you question the size of the batteries (and their capacity)
• The size of the prototype also leads to the probability of the devices being more easily lost
• Obviously: eyelid fatigue.

Since this is just a prototype, some of these problems could be solved in the next hardware revision. For example: independent charging of the two pieces and battery size could be solved by tethering the two pieces together, much like some stereo BlueTooth headphones, but this adds weight and increases the size of the device, which could prevent it from being affixed to the skin as demonstrated here. This could be replaced with a circlet, but then you basically have glasses, except your eyes are the shutters, which still leaves the potential problem of eyelid fatigue, and doesn’t really offer much advantage over conventional active shutter glasses, unless their cost is significantly lower than most 3D glasses.

Another problem I noticed, but likely just a problem with the prototype, but the system didn’t deactivate when the demonstrator looked away from the screen. Immediately everyone I showed this video to began planning pranks based around it. I could also see other potential problems, though less intentionally. Like forgetting you’re wearing them and trying to drive with them on, potentially causing visual impairment (related to dimming the real world) or issues with reading electronic displays (like traffic signs, gas station prices, or LED-based traffic lights) because of the refresh rate of those signs isn’t quite compatible with 60+ Hz shutters (leading to incomplete looking images).

I guess the moral of this story is that while this is indeed, technically, “glasses-free,” (or, “no glasses,” as the video is labeled) it doesn’t mean it isn’t “device-free,” that it’s better than the glasses, or that it’s an optimal solution.

Consider for a moment, this Pepsi MAX ad:

For Pepsi, the decision was probably just a straightforward decision: it’s a good joke and a remake of a classic commercial. But what does it say about society when this is a widely understood convention? Has ubiquitous wireless Internet and the narcissism/obliviousness/flippancy/need-to-share-everything-with-everyone-now that has accompanied social media (or at least has been magnified in some way by social media) become that pervasive, or is it still relegated to the vocal minority?

Or is there still time for this to be a warning to people? According to Mashable (as linked above), 8% of companies have fired employees over various happenings on social networks (the number for disciplining is higher), but that doesn’t change the fact that this could happen to anyone at any time, if they don’t use common sense. I remember several times, Rowan had people speak in the Student Center Pit about the hazards of social networks and how it can damage your career, or a search for one (though they never seem to have any about how to use social networks to help your hunt for a job, but that’s for another time). For most of America, could this be the same thing, but told through a humorous parable that simultaneously sells us a refreshing soft drink with zero calories and great taste?

Personally, my feelings is that most people know about how social media snafus can make your employer become your ex-employer. However, it’s also like the rest of the good advice we’re given that we ignore because it’s “no fun.” Like eat less red meat, cut down on sugar, filter your own water, recycle, don’t drink alcohol (or only in moderation). We know what we’re supposed to do, but until we see it in some way that strikes us in some way (humerously, shockingly, what have you) like the Minnesota Department of Public Safety‘s PSAs in their campaign, “Over the Limit. Under Arrest.”

In my opinion, that Pepsi’s ad is funny will cause their ad to become an unintended PSA, demonstrating how not just what you do on social media, but what your friends do on social media (and, of course, vise versa), can be Bad News Bears. And I guess that because Pepsi featured this in an ad where there was no spoken punchline, no explanation about why that video on YouTube meant anything, means that social media really is that pervasive. Everyone knows what these things are, that you can post from anywhere, and that your friend can get you fired, even if you are careful (note how the Coke guy looks around before drinking from the Pepsi Max can?).

I’m curious what others think. Was Pepsi just trying to make a buck, or did they try and continue the positive karma momentum from their Refresh Project to try and teach a lesson with a laugh? Or do most people “get” this one? Are we social media nodes isolated up on our ivory tower, pontificating over the meaning of a joke no one else gets?

Download Video:
Closed Format: “MP4 (480p)” / “MP4 (720p)”
Open Format: “OGG (480p)” / “OGG (720p)” / “WebM (480p)”
Streaming Elsewhere: “YouTube” / “Vimeo”

Update: Apparently by way of my friend’s professor, and the Associate Provost for Research, this clip shall be shown to our university’s president.