3 ms·

Although the tech to achieve both are somewhat similar, AR and VR solve completely different problems. The core value of VR is to replace our real life. Graphi

by rawnlq 9y ago

Although the tech to achieve both are somewhat similar, AR and VR solve completely different problems. The core value of VR is to replace our real life. Graphics to convince you of this new reality is a hard requirement. The core value of AR(or MR?) is to augment our real life. Being able to surface information about the world around you is the hard requirement. For example while cooking if it can tell you what and how much of the next ingredient you need in a recipe, it doesn't matter if the displaying of that information on top of the item is a bit laggy. The stepwise jump in utility is still there.

Ajedi32 9y ago
These aren't AR headsets though, they're VR headsets. Microsoft seems to have decided they're going to use the term "Mixed Reality" to refer to both.
- rawnlq 9y ago
  Oh I didn't know. That's pretty confusing since I remember mixed reality being just a rebranding of AR...
fsloth 9y ago
"The core value of VR is to replace our real life" That's ... debatable. It's no more that than a regular screen. VR displays track head movement in 3D space and then give the possibility to use this positioning information when rendering a 3D scene. This is the basic requirement for AR as well. Pokemon level AR just gives an image of real world where the 3D scene can be overlaid. ARkit level AR uses what ever data inputs are available to guestimate the 3D geometry surrounding the user and offering this 3D information available for the program context. I suppose the third step is when this data is fed to some machine learning algorithm to 1. detect features in the data 2. label them (i.e. 'carrot' etc). Now, what to do with all this data is the business of the developer of the application. It's the application and it's users who decide what the value proposition is. It's not stamped on the underlying technology. The technology is the substrate and the facilitator for the end user applicariona but they alone do not provide any value. Owners of Vive in the current ecosystem where VR applications are scarce and unpolished can probably understand this intuitively. The potential of VR and AR to provide value are different but the value proposition depends wholly on the application developed for the substrates. Sorry about the long rant. I just wanted to point out that it's non-value adding and detrimental to innovation to slap labels and qualities on things that don't posses them. Nobody[0] wants just a Ferrari engine. Everybody wants the whole car. 0: In the general consumer context, I know somebody would want it

by rawnlq 9y ago

Ajedi32 9y ago

These aren't AR headsets though, they're VR headsets. Microsoft seems to have decided they're going to use the term "Mixed Reality" to refer to both.

rawnlq 9y ago
Oh I didn't know. That's pretty confusing since I remember mixed reality being just a rebranding of AR...

fsloth 9y ago

"The core value of VR is to replace our real life" That's ... debatable. It's no more that than a regular screen. VR displays track head movement in 3D space and then give the possibility to use this positioning information when rendering a 3D scene. This is the basic requirement for AR as well. Pokemon level AR just gives an image of real world where the 3D scene can be overlaid. ARkit level AR uses what ever data inputs are available to guestimate the 3D geometry surrounding the user and offering this 3D information available for the program context. I suppose the third step is when this data is fed to some machine learning algorithm to 1. detect features in the data 2. label them (i.e. 'carrot' etc). Now, what to do with all this data is the business of the developer of the application. It's the application and it's users who decide what the value proposition is. It's not stamped on the underlying technology. The technology is the substrate and the facilitator for the end user applicariona but they alone do not provide any value. Owners of Vive in the current ecosystem where VR applications are scarce and unpolished can probably understand this intuitively. The potential of VR and AR to provide value are different but the value proposition depends wholly on the application developed for the substrates. Sorry about the long rant. I just wanted to point out that it's non-value adding and detrimental to innovation to slap labels and qualities on things that don't posses them. Nobody[0] wants just a Ferrari engine. Everybody wants the whole car. 0: In the general consumer context, I know somebody would want it