3 ms·

I didn't say that every thing being laughed at is the next big thing to redefine the industry. I only predicted that augmented reality really is one of those th

I didn't say that every thing being laughed at is the next big thing to redefine the industry. I only predicted that augmented reality really is one of those things. Further, the person I was replying to claimed that the next big thing to redefine the industry is something that will be laughed at. Neither party claimed that everything being laughed at will redefine the industry. The statement that augmented reality is "like touch keyboards" is a statement that you haven't given justification for. Augmented reality is not a technology centered around replacing physical input with non-physical input, and so the analogy is not self-evident. You might potentially have a good point, but you'd have to explain how this analogy is relevant to the technology of placing graphics and information at any position in a person's 3D visual space. Remember, most augmented reality objects don't need to be controlled at all to be useful, and you can still control an augmented reality screen with a mouse and keyboard. I'm interested to hear more detail to your thoughts on why you think augmented reality won't be a paradigm shift. I'm also happy to elaborate on why I think it will, if you like.

necovek 4y ago
The biggest issue with AR imo (or rather, why it doesn't appeal to me as a universal paradigm) is that it requires a device in your field of view to "augment" the reality. Sure, a HUD in a car with AR is nice. A pair of binoculars or a telescope with AR is nice. Even a camera works. As long as the device is already "there", AR is a nice improvement (look through a telescope and it identifies stars or constellations for you) — provided it can be turned off for when you want to enjoy simple reality. But otherwise, it's an unnecessary gimmick that you won't bother to use, simply because it's not universal (you won't get a pair of AR sunglasses for the day, and see-through glasses for the night, esp if you are not wearing glasses otherwise). With a lack of universality, I don't see it as a "paradigm shift". And there are orthogonal concerns like privacy. As the processing speed improves, privacy concerns will diminish (as you can have in-device processing), but just like with high resolution screens, this requires a lot of processing (visual data takes a lot of bandwidth, and while it's quadratic growth for 2D data, it's even more for stereoscopic or 3D data), that we are progressing towards very slowly.

necovek 4y ago

The biggest issue with AR imo (or rather, why it doesn't appeal to me as a universal paradigm) is that it requires a device in your field of view to "augment" the reality. Sure, a HUD in a car with AR is nice. A pair of binoculars or a telescope with AR is nice. Even a camera works. As long as the device is already "there", AR is a nice improvement (look through a telescope and it identifies stars or constellations for you) — provided it can be turned off for when you want to enjoy simple reality. But otherwise, it's an unnecessary gimmick that you won't bother to use, simply because it's not universal (you won't get a pair of AR sunglasses for the day, and see-through glasses for the night, esp if you are not wearing glasses otherwise). With a lack of universality, I don't see it as a "paradigm shift". And there are orthogonal concerns like privacy. As the processing speed improves, privacy concerns will diminish (as you can have in-device processing), but just like with high resolution screens, this requires a lot of processing (visual data takes a lot of bandwidth, and while it's quadratic growth for 2D data, it's even more for stereoscopic or 3D data), that we are progressing towards very slowly.