The reality of AR/VR business models
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
> VARcrypt is the world's first blockchain content distribution platform designed specifically for VR (Virtual Reality) and AR (Augmented Reality) content. VARcrypt derives its name from a combination of both VR (Virtual Reality) and AR (Augmented Reality) resulting in the combination of VAR which when mixed with a cryptographic blockchain content distribution and payment processing protocol combines to create VARcrypt. VARcrypt's blockchain will be powered by its own proprietary cryptocurrency, VARcoin. VARcoin will become its own medium of exchange for goods and services within the VARcrypt blockchain universe and beyond.
> The future of media will not be either VR or AR, it will be both, it will be VAR and that future will be brought to you by VARcrypt. VARcrypt is a place for artists, a place for content, a place for the future, because at VARcrypt we are breaking everything.
Sometimes I just love the startup world.
It has to be.
When will it be available?
I am wondering everybody is talking about AR & VR, but what about the Word "Reality". Most of the people are turning toward VR.
You could try out clothes and accessories and anything else in front of any mirror and get incredibly realistic renders of how you'd look. You could even experiment with different colors trivially. It could even render multiple alternatives next to each other. And you could be assisted just like normally by a sales person who can give you personal advice and suggestions.
Just about anything involving design could benefit beyond fashion as well, like being able to try different colors or other customizations on a car, or with furniture, etc.
In fact you could even get live remote assistance with this like home decoration and layouts, getting suggestions with live renders for what to place where. Or that same service but for gardening.
Then there's IRL MMORPG, LARP:s would never be the same again. Imagine Ingress with AR.
You only render the particular things to substitute, nothing else is needed. And it won't get your view angle screwed up, and trivially allows for multiple people.
Or maybe VR is just the next 3D TV. Remember 3D TV? 3D TV viewership peaked in 2013. Samsung killed off their entire 3D line in 2016.[1] Some other manufacturers still make them, but they're not selling.
We've already had AR. It was called "Google Glass".
[1] http://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-announces-15-new-tv-ran...
Not that it has to be Apple, but someone has to come up with an angle that is innovative if these technologies are going to make an impact.
That all said and hindsight being 20/20, the thing that 3D TV, AR, and VR have in common is that it is the collective willpower of the bleeding edge evangelists alone that is powering discussion. Real tech innovations are immediately recognized as game changers by the general public.
Gamers are already spending lots of time in VR. If we all have new interfaces for doing our jobs maybe some people will prefer that experience to using a mouse and keyboard all day.
My wishes:
AR:
Keeping an eye on something while doing something else. Anything from udemy to a simple timer or a webcam on the delivery dock.
VR:
A wearable replacement for a multiscreen setup. Possibly with a cam in front so you can adjust translucency to get back at office pranksters the first few months.
Edit:
Bonus of a easy-to-use VR solution that goes mainstream: work on widescreen on the train, plane or whatever without nobody nosing into your business (eh, as long as you stay away from Oculus Facebook:-P )
Already done on AR:
- temperature and other sensoe overlays
- escape routes
What I don't need:
- everything google glass turned out to be it seems.
But AR/VR seems to be different. Virtually everyone I've seen try it has been absolutely amazed by it and wanted more. Sure, it could still die out, but it seems less likely IMO.
Edit: I'm specifically talking about the high-end AR/VR devices like the Vive here. Not Google cardboard and the likes. Those would probably fall under the 'meh' category.
3D TV on the other hand was heavily hyped & pushed. But even before the screens the the market, mediocre 3D cinema experiences already gave people a taste. The market spoke.
With that all said, there are certain things VR will be suitable for (games and only a subset of genres within games) and many things it will not be suited for.
Personally I was not excited about it. Most people were never excited about it, only manufacturers that wanted to increase sales of expensive devices.
In fact, it was a huge marketing lie: stereoscopic is not 3d. It never was. Stereoscopic only gives you depth in a very close distance range:30-60 cms from the viewer(but you focus on your tv set a meter away or more), and with healthy people in the real wold just moving 1 centimeter side to side changes significantly your view at close ranges, something those sets are unable to do.
It was clear to me that "3d tvs" were never going to work.
I am very much sure VR is going to work great. It already works. We had been using expensive VR for CAD work for years now and it is worth every penny. It is the real 3D: move your head, your view changes.
That's a poor outlook IMO and a mindset that would kill innovation. Hadn't there been plenty of touch screen/smartphones before the iPhone? Failure doesn't indicate the end of technology, but a good opportunity to improve.
So, you know, grain of salt; the Digi-Capital numbers were followed by much more sane (and significantly smaller) numbers from Piper Jaffray and others. Digi-Capital then revised their numbers so they didn't look like quite such an outlier.
First, like the Apple Watch, I do not think that consumers are keen to wear more objects every day. So this is a first challenge to AR being something we carry all the day like a mobile. The fact that it looks cool to a few techies doesn't warrant wide adoption.
Two, as it is, they require a lot of computing power. Computers aren't really getting any faster. Engraving may get a little thinner but I understand the physical limits are in sight. Will these things really become so power efficient that they become portable?
Then you have motion sickness which has more to do with the fact that we do not move while our eyes are telling us we are moving. This is something structural to VR. Though this should only apply to non static scenarios. But if you are sitting and using VR to work on a peripheral screen, if done well that shouldn't induce motion sickness. I would be tempted to consider the experience of 3D TVs as a warning.
It's not obvious to me VR will be such a big thing, outside of video games for a limited time per day.
This fits with the article hinting at smartphone capabilities being integrated in AR/VR headsets.
I would like a device that looks like normal glasses but can display images on the inside of the glasses to create an AR or VR experience when the user wishes to do so. Like Google Glass, but not as obnoxious. If that thing can replace my smartphone, sign me up.
(The most important feature would be an easily triggered silent mode where it does not pop notifications into my eyesight while I'm socializing or focussing.)
Funny thing with its rising real estate prices and large number of bums (I hear), San Fran is turning into exactly what Gibson envisioned.