We seem to have converged on a consensus that people will more quickly gravitate towards AR than VR. I don't understand how that came to pass. All of the AR experiences that I have seen -- including the examples in the article -- are potentially interesting, but far less compelling than what we have seen so far in VR.
Yes, the promise of true AR is great. But so far I have seen no example of an AR application that does a wonderful job semantically understanding the world around you and correspondingly attaching things into your view. Every experience I've seen for the Hololens so far does a great job with tracking, but there is no true interaction with the physical world -- the applications are simply aware of some general constraints on what the surfaces of the room look like.
In VR, on the other hand, a demo like Zuckerberg's I think convincingly showed just how powerful a VR experience can be and how seamlessly elements from the real world can be integrated into it.
I honestly am curious as to why people are so readily seeing much greater potential in AR. Perhaps in the VERY long term, but for a good long while I can only see VR applications dominating the market.
"All of the AR experiences that I have seen ...are ... far less compelling than what we have seen so far in VR."
The point of AR is not to offer compelling experiences, it's point is to expedite real world industrial and service processes and planning.
Don't think of how cool it's supposed to look. Think how much it saves when the maintenance crew can navigate a new building as easily as in a video game. The selling point is not to have some cool experiences. The selling point is to have for the repair crew a navigation track to the maintenance item, and a red arrow pointing to it.
I agree. I think it's become a glib bit of wisdom that ignores the many restrictions and challenges that AR faces.
Even when we have good subtractive rendering and a decent FOV - there are still massive constraints on the type of environment you need to have. AR reduces to VR with enough restrictions on room geometry.
Also - I want to be elsewhere - not in my house or office with extra things added in.
Personally I see VR dominating the entertainment and home market and AR dominating the industrial market. Just being able to look at a part in an aircraft engine, ask for the blueprints and specs for that part, flip through them for the info you need and get back to work all without having to move from where you are or even use your hands will be a game changer.
If AR worked a bit better than it currently does I could easily come up with 5 or 6 real practical (and quite dull) applications that would make life a lot easier for people here at work. I cannot say the same about VR.
Yes, the promise of true AR is great. But so far I have seen no example of an AR application that does a wonderful job semantically understanding the world around you and correspondingly attaching things into your view. Every experience I've seen for the Hololens so far does a great job with tracking, but there is no true interaction with the physical world -- the applications are simply aware of some general constraints on what the surfaces of the room look like.
In VR, on the other hand, a demo like Zuckerberg's I think convincingly showed just how powerful a VR experience can be and how seamlessly elements from the real world can be integrated into it.
I honestly am curious as to why people are so readily seeing much greater potential in AR. Perhaps in the VERY long term, but for a good long while I can only see VR applications dominating the market.