4 ms·
It's interesting reading startup literature regarding MVPs and iterating quickly and notice that almost none of it applies to the AR/VR space. Between Magic Lea
by 40acres 8y ago
It's interesting reading startup literature regarding MVPs and iterating quickly and notice that almost none of it applies to the AR/VR space. Between Magic Leap and Ubiquty6 it seems like the most interesting players in AR are more notable for their funding rounds than for anything else. Magic Leap is rolling out their own hardware so it's more understandable but its really hard to justify spending $2K on a first generation AR device.
If I had to put money on it I think Magic Leap will go the way of General Magic, lots of cool tech and ideas in a product that was ultimately too expensive and too late to drive the company forward but will be looked upon as a great innovator once another company uses their inventions and packages it in a low cost, user friendly interface.
- dantheman 8y agoOculus started out as an MVP. It was a kickstarter project.
- kapauldo 8y agoAnd so shall it die. The most overpriced buyout in history.
- eganist 8y ago> ultimately too expensive and too late Their only (admittedly public) rival in the space is Microsoft, and adoption of HoloLens even as a developer platform hasn't exactly been groundbreaking. There are still many laps left 'til the finish line.
- jvagner 8y agoOr we remember it like we remember 3D TVs.
- turbojerry 8y agoThere are more rivals than Microsoft e.g.- https://www.osterhoutgroup.com/home https://www.osterhoutgroup.com/home https://www.vuzix.com https://www.vuzix.com https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/805968217/mix-the-smallest-ar-glasses-with-immersive-96fov https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/805968217/mix-the-small... https://www.epson.co.uk/products/see-through-mobile-viewer/moverio-bt-300 https://www.epson.co.uk/products/see-through-mobile-viewer/m...
- oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y agoStartup literature about MVPs is mostly relevant to software products, which are inexpensive to develop compared to almost anything else.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gowld 8y agoIt's new tech. It's not for you to keep in your closet. It's for hotels and arcades and parties and other such rental use cases.
- ghaff 8y agoI'd be skeptical you get sufficient volume with just specialty uses.
- dymk 8y agoMagic Leap only needs to sell (roughly) 17% as many Ones as Oculus Rifts, to have equivalent sales ($2.3k vs $400 device). And while their current hardware is expensive, I would bet that their longterm plan isn't to sell devices that cost more than $2000.
- albinofrenchy 8y agoEquivalent sales is a nonsensical metric between the two. I doubt their profit margin is 5x per device compared to the rift.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- killerpopiller 8y agoI remain sceptical and feel reminded on the 3D-Displays in the late 90ies from 4D-Vision, later x3d and then opticality. 3D without glasses but no content (except some plugins for 3D-SW) to drive adoption.
- scosman 8y agoIt's called the "creator edition". I'd dare to say this release is targeted at devs/creators.
- sharkweek 8y agoI know they barely count, but there was a whole slough of little cardboard boxes you could like... slide your phone into and "experience a 360 VR environment" that seemed like MVPs to me.
- sspyder 8y agoAR is an order of magnitude harder than VR because of overlaying visuals on top of a view instead replacing/blocking it.
- kapauldo 8y agoIt's the opposite. Vr requires intensive 3d modeling and rendering, ar is largely 2d on 2d and sometimes pseudo 3d on 2d. The vision component of ar is hard but ar itself is not hard compared to vr.
- dzhiurgis 8y agoOn flip side you need 60-120 fps for VR to make it look real. 30 fps and you get sick. Where as on AR you can tolerate even 15fps without getting sick.
- mr_toad 8y agoIt’s less than a top of the line UHD TV.