I am not downvoting you but... > One of the key limiting factors to the adoption of augmented reality was the lack of available 3-D objects that you could then

I am not downvoting you but... > One of the key limiting factors to the adoption of augmented reality was the lack of available 3-D objects that you could then put into the AR space. Is this true? There are so many assets. Problems with AR: #1: All AR experiences are crummy. #2: Delivery sucks. Phones are weak, the iOS GPU actually sucks, it overheats quickly. > The majority of time and money spent for companies they were trying to get into the AR space was in sending catalog of catalogs to India, Pakistan, etc. for thousands of three modelers to create the 3-D models. The money was misused on assets. You could cut the cost of generating assets to zero and nothing would change. Riddle me this, #1 worldwide most valuable retailer per sq ft Apple has only 100 SKUs that all already exist as CAD models and the #1 AR delivery platform, why aren't they making AR product experiences? Because it makes no fucking sense that's why. Show me in the autos vertical who is having trouble with assets. Nobody. Pixyz is great but so what? Autos vertical issues: #1 crummy experiences, #2 delivery. Clothing? Who is having trouble with clothing assets? Virtual try ons make no sense. Who is buying $3 SHEIN cumberbumbers and cares about the fit? Nobody. Some people working at a clothing company or a car manufacturer might express that they are interested in piloting an augmented reality orbit-around of some SKU... but that doesn't mean it makes any sense! Show me a SKU where an AR experience makes sense. Please tell me real estate, introduce me to the San Francisco family looking to buy a home that is saying, "man, give me an AR tour." Nobody has ever said that.