Part of the magic of VR is the immersion. AR doesn't appeal to me, it seems more of a gimmick.
I don't see VR providing a whole lot outside the area of entertainment. How often do you want to be completely removed from the physical world on a regular basis. Even when you do want immersion a good story or a game with good mechanics is far more important in entertainment than the medium it's delivered though. This is the reason people still read books, why retro video games are still played, and why 3D continually fails. A high tech medium, doesn't improve bad entertainment, but great entertainment can be delivered though a low tech medium. I'm not saying VR has no value, but I don't see it being some giant revolution.
On the flip side, AR doesn't provide immersion, but rather enhances the world around you. AR allows pretty much any information you get from your phone or computer currently to be instantly hands free and always available. If I told you I had a pill that allowed you to remember 20% more than you currently do, I can't think of many industries that wouldn't be improved by giving that to every employee. Once headsets become light enough and cheap enough, that's what AR provides. Instant access to relevant information without diverting focus.
VR seems to me like an extension of 3D technology, AR seems like an extension of the smartphone.
There in lies the problem — if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way. That has negative consequences to human interaction.
Plus don’t forget — popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve.
I agree with you there, but I'd argue it's less distracting than trying to pull something not readily available from memory. Sure having to read something is distracting for a second, but it's far less distracting that trying to remember something that's just on the tip of your tongue, or having to pull out your phone.
> popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve.
It is for a generic solution, but I feel like custom built solutions will be what really revolutionizes the work place. If I'm a UPS driver, I can have a custom UPS app that allows me to look into my truck and instantly see the package id of each box overlaid on the box. That's not a hard problem to solve with the proper AR tools and it instantly provides value.
I'm not saying that wouldn't be cool, but using coding as an example, how much more immersed are you going to be coding in VR as opposed to going into a quite room where no one will disturb you with multiple monitors. The extra immersion is cool, but I don't being slightly more immersed in the way VR provides will lead to any sort of technological revolution.
> But AR? What can I get with it that I can't with a phone?
It's not about getting new information, it's about not needing the phone to provide that information. Think about a surgeon having the parts of heart overlaid on the body while doing surgery. Think about firefighters having the blueprints of the building they are entering in front of their eyes.
The value of AR isn't providing new information, it provides an alternative to relying on memory for that information.
Well, having access to as many monitors of any size you want without taking up any space in your home or office is a good enough reason for many.
You can code in VR, but it's crap.
VR is great, but trying to use VR as a replacement for classic computers isn't the right way. It's an entirely new paradigm. Take Tilt Brush VR for example - you're creating virtual 3D art which can only be viewed in a headset and that's how I'd view content creation in VR.
No, right now VR's best market is games and storytelling, that's what will really push the technology forward and eventually make the business cases a possibility as the tech becomes viable.
I must be mis-understanding what you mean by 3D continually fails. 3D titles are the majoriy of the 140billion game business. Titles like Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends, Call of Duty, to name a few billion dollar titles are all 3D. I don't know if there is a single billion dollar 2D title. Maybe the top 3 mobile games?
Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty etc. are (largely) presented on two dimensional screens
Even if it was about 3D on 2D screens vs 3D in VR, VR wins in almost every case (except market share, haha). Put a non-gamer in a well designed 6DOF VR game with hand controllers and they'll pick it up immediately because instead of having to learn how to control the camera they just look, and instead of having to learn which of the 8 buttons to press on their Xbox/PS4 controller to do anything they just reach out and touch stuff.
Anacdata: My mother (77) and my step father (82) have both never played a video game in their lives. I'm not sure my mom has even played Pong or PacMac or Tetris but I brought a Oculus Rift home 2 years ago to show them and they were both enamored and wanted to know how much and where they could buy one. I advised them not to do it since it would likely be used for 2-3 days and then not touched (not enough content) but still, it was neat to see them pick it up easily.
Of course there are poorly designed VR experiences. The ones that use less controller buttons and more in world UIs arguably work best.
I can probably think of a million different uses for an AR display.
What’s really missing is a good way to interact with that display. Voice recognition and hand gesture recognition need to improve.
Meanwhile, VR can take me to another world. Games like Thumper, Audioshield and Beat Saber are enough to sell me on a crazy musical experience.
Imagine eye glasses that allowed you to just "zoom in" by clicking your fingers. Or glasses that seamlessly translate written text into your native language. Or highlighted the path you should take whilst walking to work using GPS navigation. Any of those alone would be compelling products, the cool thing is these are just possible "apps" for an AR device.
But the "killer apps" you mention are all just slightly more convenient versions of existing products (smart phones, binoculars) and are thus very dependent on a small enough form factor to realize that convenience.
Not having to carry and pullout a laptop out to view live Google maps directions is a killer app. Not having to pull my phone out is a much smaller convenience. It only becomes a killer app when the convenience of wearing smart glasses surpasses that of having a smart phone in your pocket (which is a long way off).
I do think there are killer apps that are in the nearer future. Anything where the rapidity of access to information conveys significant advantages is far less dependent of the form factor for success. You see this in the existing success of AR for business where those efficiencies can boost productivity.
AR promises to be much more of a light touch in mixing digital content with the physical. You’re still grounded in reality so the motion sickness goes away (but if not well calibrated/tracked and is overused can still be annoying).
That said, the total number of applications where this is desirable is way less than predicted by those who want a big new product category. You’re still wearing a screen on your face, in a world that’s largely starting to rebel against screen culture. Everyday use has a lot of problems in terms of attention management, leading to dystopia if not done correctly. There are targeted everyday applications that can be useful, although many are hard to justify over the cheaper 2D screen you already have in your pocket and certainly won’t get rid of simply because of both keyboard and the cognitively grounded value of direct manipulation.
Also how would I text privately with someone? One theory I have is that we will eventually just carry around phone like slates which AR would display normal phone stuff on.
But I agree. I never said AR would replace keyboards -- just screens.