Not sure what you are attempting to commercialize, but your website doesn't explain at all what you have made. Unless I'm supposed to guess it from your background picture of 3d rendered glasses with some sensors in them...
From most studies I've read on the subject, there are a couple big issues. Firstly, physics is hard. It's very difficult to get a useful amount of digital information presented that closely to your eye, where it is in focus, and comfortable to look at. Scaling up resolution beyond a low-res screen is even more difficult. Secondly, tech just isn't there yet. The closest thing I've seen in the market is Google Glass, and that was a huge flop. It also looked dorky as hell, while providing very little real value. Sure, you could read a text, if you squinted and focused your attention up and to the right, but at that point, pulling out your phone is just as easy. It it also makes you look like a strange android while taking your attention away from the real world.
For a product like this to work in the market it has to meet a lot of requirements. Resolution, invisibility (as in, it doesn't feel like you're wearing a clunky awkward device on your face), battery life, safety (you're shining light into your eyes), and provide real, useful, functionality.
Useful functionality, to make it worth caring about a device like this, is good augmented reality integration. And I mean very good. If you put the device on your face and the mapping of the real world stutters for a second, you're going to hate it and never use it - and no one will buy it.
Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...
> Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...
I would think being able to do that means you've solved most the hard problems you mentioned, so if it can be done well it means we've achieved a certain level of usefulness.
Sort of like how bouncing a white square between two movable white rectangles was a "useful" bit of functionality for consumer AV electronics. Pong isn't exactly blowing anyone's mind now, but it did mean they had to solve a lot of problems to make a machine that could interface with current televisions, deal with user input, do it and update the display within an acceptable time period so it was responsive, and hit a cost and form factor so the general public could make use of it.
> I would think being able to do that means you've solved most the hard problems
I guess the other hard problem, besides just creating the tech, is real-world application,
Reminds me of the Leap Motion device. The creators made some really cool tech, and it works pretty well for what it is, but most people struggle to find a really useful application for it.
You think Google Glass is the closest thing to ever be made or the closest you've personally experienced? The Hololens and the Magic Leap execute much better on the idea of a HUD.
From most studies I've read on the subject, there are a couple big issues. Firstly, physics is hard. It's very difficult to get a useful amount of digital information presented that closely to your eye, where it is in focus, and comfortable to look at. Scaling up resolution beyond a low-res screen is even more difficult. Secondly, tech just isn't there yet. The closest thing I've seen in the market is Google Glass, and that was a huge flop. It also looked dorky as hell, while providing very little real value. Sure, you could read a text, if you squinted and focused your attention up and to the right, but at that point, pulling out your phone is just as easy. It it also makes you look like a strange android while taking your attention away from the real world.
For a product like this to work in the market it has to meet a lot of requirements. Resolution, invisibility (as in, it doesn't feel like you're wearing a clunky awkward device on your face), battery life, safety (you're shining light into your eyes), and provide real, useful, functionality.
Useful functionality, to make it worth caring about a device like this, is good augmented reality integration. And I mean very good. If you put the device on your face and the mapping of the real world stutters for a second, you're going to hate it and never use it - and no one will buy it.
Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...