Other AR apps/ideas I think would be killer are...
- AR historic view: wave phone or point glasses at a location and see how it looked year’s ago via pics & a 3D model or maybe a mix. Make me feel I stepped back in time and have a Disney like feel/experience to it.
- AR night time/day time view: At nighttime view in glasses how it looks during the day
- AR Linkedin/Facebook: Know the strangers name your talking to and all their public iNet info via glasses view
Follow up question: Why?
Phone-based AR seems pretty useless.
I tried oculus desktop with the rift, and all I ended up with was a blurry, unreadable display and a headache. We have a long way to go.
A killer app indeed; it'd kill AR. At least I like to think we aren't so far gone that as a society we can't see how wrong that would be.
It's also likely inevitable. Every time you tag someone in a Facebook photo you are helping this happen.
I don't think most people will object. Here are some excuses that you can pick from to feel better about our dys... world.
"It only works when someone is near me, and I'd have more things to worry about if someone wished harm on me and was sitting next to me."
"Well privacy is dead anyway, and I get to play candy crush with friends for free! Personal data is worthless anyway."
"Even if they can change who I am given enough personal data, who cares? I'm already shaped by the people around me, what's wrong with adding companies to the mix?"
"China is doing it, and China is ahead of us in everything. We must copy them."
(These are all more or less from actual discussions I've had about privacy.) Take your pick.
If so, that train has largely sailed. Same advice as before holds: curate your social media presence and have the guts to turn down contacts that you don't want.
Obviously this would be a corporate wet dream if both movements continue.
To a computer geek it may not seem impressive now, but to the average person it casually sneaks up into their everyday life.
AR, on the other hand, is very amenable to incremental development. You don't need a Google Glass 2.0 with all the technical and social challenges associated with that. A phone that you can point at something and get information about it is already useful.
AR is much more instantly obvious to all with things like Night Sky and augmented maps.
I suppose we may get there someday but it may also be one of those things that it seemed logical to assume people would want (and many thought they did), but they mostly don't.
The proof is in the pudding, isn't it? We have way more VR games than AR apps, don't we?
It looks impressive whilst also being oppressive.
That's an apt description of the technological future in general...
There might be some cross over in some of the technology, and how you consume it, and the end game may be AR eyewear/contacts that can do proper virtual reality, but for now - they're quite far apart from each other.
Even Animoji is a special case for apple. They had the face unlock tracking so this kind of face tracking feature makes sense. It's not general purpose AR though. Does Apple have any official app features using AR that isn't face tracking?
Apple is hyping AR more because they don't have any VR to speak of but in terms of what's actually released and what people are using I could see an argument that VR comes out ahead in that comparison.
Maybe you personally can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. Our company increased a client's purchase rate, A/B tested over 100s of thousands of AR user instances, consistently by 1.89% in a sales cycle. So yes it works.
Where implemented well, there is a measurable shift in user behavior.
Apple is hyping AR more because they don't have any VR to speak of
No. It's because they want to own the AR mapping and content landscape which are both required for glasses to work.
>No. It's because they want to own the AR mapping and content landscape which are both required for glasses to work.
This also makes no sense. They don't own the text or image content creation landscape and they still make computers and browsers. AR already exist (although they're quite expensive and cumbersome) so a new proprietary asset format might be nice but its not a requirement. What are you saying here? Just that they're pushing AR to force adoption of USDZ?
Other than them, Ikea, Amazon, Wayfair and a handful of other e-retailers with MM+ users have AR integrated into their apps with comparable bumps.
This also makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if you have been an AR developer for 10 years. The simple version is that you need to a 3D "google maps" of sorts, to do something called re-localization before you release glasses. Bootstrapping such a system wouldn't get you very far, literally, because people will be expecting persistent content wherever they go without you - the user - having to insert it. So you have to have a pretty robust mapping corpus to start with. There are a half dozen ways to do this, but the best way is to source and create these maps with mobile/handheld AR systems first.
To the content piece, if you can "save" content to the real world - in context - which is what ARKit2 is now doing with their multi-user re-localization/multiplayer, then you can build out the "real estate" system you need for persistent objects - again, something necessary for AR glasses to "just work."
For more you can watch my talk on this from a few years ago I did remote for UMASS EE graduate students:
This is the current land rush in the AR dev world - Apple and Google already own it unfortunately.
Very useful indeed. (And on iOS too, someone above asked.)
As for killer apps ?
Ad blocking . Reading other people's faces and body language. Maybe even an interpersonal assistant/teacher. A better way to externalize memory and achieve a perfect photographic memory. Maybe useful tool for people doing hobbies and DIY, including cooking.
Also, some platforms are useful without a killer app(like browser extensions), to solving many small/niche problems and thus helping people achieve a sense of control.
Also, they suffer less from the bulky/inconvenient problems. If AR can save a company a lot of money, they can afford a more powerful and more expensive lightweight setup than a consumer. People are working, not doing recreation, so a slightly bulky and inconvenient headset would be put up with more etc.
But what you’re describing is an unrealized or early market. That’s an upside - not a negative.
If AR becomes truly ubiquitous, I hope that signs and signals can most fade away. Imagine walking through a city without street signs or advertisements or stoplights, or walking through an art museum without any labels on the wall, or an airport without screens and arrows pointing you around.
I’m also interested (but also concerned) from a consumer perspective—Amazon etc. will offer Shazaam for literally any object. Like her dress? Buy instantly. That house is tinted green because you qualify for a loan that could purchase it, but the newer one next door is tinted red. Follow the glowing footprints around that corner if you want the slice of cake that person is eating in the park.
Most of all, I want to take a walk in the woods and be able to identify any tree, fungus, flower or bird instantly and beautifully. AR will hopefully let us take intelligent guided tours of almost anywhere. Learn about architecture as you walk to work, trace important sites out the window of an airplane onto the ground below, see a bustling Mayan market animated over what is now a set of rectangular fields.
Will that get us a Black Mirror episode where no door or amenity will function until you put the lenses in? LargeCorp was concerned at the potential loss of trade so lobbied for a city bylaw requiring them. Or perhaps the Netflix Anon movie where all buildings are covered with 100' high virtual ads?
Don't get me wrong I'd love to get back to a built environment usually only seen in older photos where every surface isn't required to be a marketing opportunity. I just suspect somewhere along the way to this beautiful future there'll be a bait and switch. Cue uBlock for Lens(tm).
The only downside is that you’d have to wear extra glasses, which might not be ideal if you already wear prescription, and that the technology is way too expensive for most people.
But overall, I don’t think an AR boom is that far away.
I also believe accurate tracking of the eyes of the user will have tremendous impact on the applications that can exploit AR.
AR is a tremendously promising field and Apple has gone the easy way, to capture the market and developer mind share. Oculus Rifts' and HoloLens' have failed to adequately capture developer mindshare as on date.
Just look at the measure app. It's a tremendously useful app. Though I know it will not have much accuracy, it will satisfy most use cases for normal users.
I am excited about the future of AR apps. I can see a lot of potential applications in Engineering, Medical, Civil surveying, etc.
The moment (hopefully it's coming) we have (relatively) normal-looking glasses capable to perform like the Magic Leap's headset (haven't tried it - only judging by the publicly available info and investments), that's when handheld devices become obsolete and that's when we will see AR pick-up and win.
Having stuff just "appear" is way better. Remains to be seen how this will play out in the short run, but the fantasy is something like smart contact lenses.
- It is because you can not use AR everytime and results are not consistent and not work in all environment unlinke touch which can be used everytime perfectly.
- Battery and heating problem with AR on phones.
- Intreaction is major problem.
Intreaction with glasses and all those things is very akward and really not comfortable.
I think we have to go long way to have enable the AR.
Of course this could be done with PIN codes too and I hope that would be an addition, but it'd particularly natural using faces and having the system be able to actively look for signs of distress. Apple is in a real position to do this in an extremely user friendly way and it'd be a huge boon for personal privacy and security.
In fact leveraged even farther and using more data points (even just GPS and time of day) I think Apple could make a framework that could go beyond just privacy/security and into helping everyone better handle their usage of mobile devices (which is something else they are clearly at least aware of). Imagine being able to create "views", where underneath granular key release is utilized to allow a user to make any arbitrary set of apps/data be visible or unavailable, and then be able to assign arbitrary trigger conditions for what view the phone shows at any given time. It'd be possible to have a device with personal entertainment, social media, communications and such and also work related material and hobby material and create hard barriers between all them. At work entire or certain times of day entire bits of distraction would simply vanish, totally transparently and without effort, while at home vice versa could happen. While traveling everything but a few key travel apps could go. Users could set it so that financial apps could only be accessed easily at secure geographic locations. All under the control of the owner, and it'd help with self control and information overload, allowing owners to pick the right set of data to take their attention for the right setting. And of course it'd ensure that even if threatened sensitive material could have been made unavailable ahead of time.
I'd love that, I think it'd leverage a lot of Apple's strengths and existing frameworks anyway, and that it'd be a real step forward for getting a handle on the ever increasing amount of stuff being thrown at us.
Apple makes secure devices but doesn’t go for the type of customizable security you’re interested in, I imagine because the number of people compelled to unlock their phone under duress is so small as to be negligible. I hope.
This seems like an exceptionally and unfairly reductionist, close minded and bad faith reading. I only gave that as one example option, and if you actually consider it it's easy to imagine that there could be restrictions like "You must have Backups on to enable this option". Or it could just not go that far, it wouldn't subtract from the overall feature at all.
>I imagine because the number of people compelled to unlock their phone under duress is so small as to be negligible.
I don't think that's a safe assumption at all, particularly outside the first world (or even in the first world considering how borders are hardening). Apple like anyone (more then many corps in fact given their startup-type org structure) must prioritize features and build up, and considers new things as the world changes and as their foundations continue to improve. They didn't always have FDE at all. They didn't always have the network lockdown to discourage theft. They didn't have biometric auth, until they did. They spent a lot of time and effort building up their HSM implementations, it wasn't there day 1. They are only now in iOS 12 apparently planning to push out a lock down of the wired port. Etc etc.
Finally, you completely ignored how these same measures would fit into another major current public issue and just announced Apple effort: allowing people to get "digital addiction"/information overload under control. There are multiple compelling lines here of which privacy/security are just one angle.
[EDIT] - Edited to add an example of the above from just this past WWDC: HN discussion on "iOS 12 introduces new features to reduce interruptions and manage Screen Time": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17230469
"Views" or however Apple chose to convey/brand it would be a great extension of that. "While I'm doing X, I only want to see Y" with a nice GUI is something that makes intuitive sense, it's how our lives tend to be ordered anyway IRL. GUIs got started by leveraging real world systems and symbols, and while that of course can be overdone and be too restrictive I don't think it's played out yet either at all. Lots of people don't bring work home with them or home to work but rather try to maintain a separation. Why shouldn't our digital devices be capable of automatically supporting that partitioning?
e.g. Apple supports iOS per-app VPNs today, but refuses to make these available to individual users, only corporate users with enterprise MDM. Why can’t individual device owners route all Facebook or banking or gaming traffic through a specific VPN?