Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

> As the next paradigm of human-computer interaction, the emerging AR Cloud will fundamentally change the way we live, play, learn, and work.

Tangent: why is AR so attractive to people?

I've had VR since the first Oculus Quest came out, so I definitely understand the value in a good spatial experience. I've never had the desire for that immersion to lessen so I can start working with holographic oversight. Much like transparent displays, I think the idea of AR is a lot cooler than it will work in practice. It's fitting function to form, which is the wrong way to approach a problem like this.

View on HN

When Google Maps came out in 2004 and revolutionized mapping with the sheer quantity of data presented unbelievably smoothly, there was a similar (though smaller) excitment about "map-based" apps. It seemed like such a big blue ocean had opened and fortunes would be made on the back of new killer apps. I worked on a few prototypes myself and saw many pitches from various maps-based startups.

But pretty much only Yelp was able to succeed. There just aren't a lot of highly-monetizable applications that are primarily map-based. No one knew the limits at the time, though.

I think AR is in kind of the same place. The demos are mindblowing and there's enthusiasm, but there aren't a lot of killer apps with the state of the technology. For location-based apps, they really required a second piece in order to really open up the space: the smartphone. It may be that AR is waiting for some other supporting technologies before it becomes obviously laden with utility.

I think the key point with AR is: How do you interact with it? The smartphone works because of the touchscreen. The blackberry was cool, but the smartphone wasn't ubiquitous until the iPhone. Similarly, the PC works because of the mouse. Other computer systems existed, but normal people weren't really using them day to day until you had systems with a mouse.

AR has a peripheral problem. There's just no easy way to interact with it.

I admit I'm always puzzled by this as well, and can't help feeling (perhaps unfairly) that it's like preferring vinyl. Every VR thread I've ever seen has a lot of "VR is dead because of the resolution and it makes people sick, but AR! AR is endless possibilities!" Like, I think augmenting the world is cool. But going to an imaginary world is much cooler. Maybe it's just that I'm an escapist by nature, and other people are more adult and practical.

AR will replace your phone

VR could replace your TV

Correction:

VR will replace your TV

AR could replace your phone

I think it's because VR can give you super powers in an imaginary world while AR can give you super powers in the real world.

What experiences does AR enable that are otherwise not possible with VR/traditional displays?

Walking around the city and seeing everyone's sins displayed above their heads.

To give a very short answer: getting most people to purchase and commonly use a VR headset is much more difficult than getting them to purchase a light set of glasses that they can wear and use anywhere with ease. There's many more applications as well, but there is absurd potential in it still imo.

Counterpoint: The Oculus Quest 2 costs $300, and I have yet to see a headset come close to it's level of adoption, let alone it's price. AR will be wildly expensive for the foreseeable future, and by the time we've fully democratized it there will be some new computing paradigm right around the corner.

Sure, more people will likely prefer AR to VR in terms of comfort, but you need to manage your expectations. A "light set of glasses" isn't going to come within spitting distance of the resolution, FOV, contrast or brightness of even the earliest VR headsets.

That's the wrong way to think about it - they allow you to have experiences in the real world that would otherwise only be available in virtual worlds.

And there are lots of examples:

- seeing the upcoming birthdays/recent messages/interests you have in common etc of people you meet above their heads as you walk around.

- having a map projected onto the sky of the world around you (like you're on a globe inside a globe looking up)

- removing visual clutter, like unwanted adverts

- allowing each user of a house or space to have it decorated the way they like

- having x-ray vision to see things like cables, pipes etc in walls

- seeing historical reconstructions in the same place as the real thing

- visualizing a new item in the real world and manipulate it before you 3d print it

- time-inverted trails - having an inverse trail showing you had to do movements you're trying to learn.

- when trying to build something, seeing the exact places and actions you need to take in the real world

- adding panes of information into the world where otherwise you don't have easy access to the internet. Like having a mobile phone of whatever size you want that hovers next to you.

- leaving virtual objects in locations for friends

- embodying virtual assistants into daemon like creatures

In fact, with well implemented AR (a much harder problem of course than VR), you can have all the same experiences you can have in VR plus versions of those experiences that blend in the real world and environment you are in. It's strictly a superset of VR.

> with well implemented

That's your crux. You can talk a big game about how cool the concept of AR is, but we're still far off from implementing anything remotely similar to what you've just described.

> It's strictly a superset of VR

Nope, it's the other way around actually. It might logically follow that augmenting reality is easier than virtualization it, but AR technology is only as good as the VR technology it's based on.

> we're still far off from implementing anything remotely similar to what you've just described

Absolutely. Well, you can do poor implementations of quite a few of these already but not at all at the level that would make them compelling yet.

But that's not surprising. True AR has all the same challenges as VR plus realtime detection, location, registration, occlusion, lighting... And much stricter constraints on portability, brightness, etc.

But you shouldn't be surprised that something with so much potential is interesting to people.

> augmenting reality is easier than virtualization it

Not at all! It's massively harder. Well, to do real AR (which in my opinion involves actual engagement with the real environment). To do floating HUDs is much less of a challenge, and also much less interesting.

You left out the INEVITABLE real time deep learning based nudificafion mode where someone can choose whether or not your clothing exists in their reality.

Classically Augmented reality has been just to add things to the visual perception of the world that were not there but with advancements in various geometry manipulative neural networks and processing power creating new things will probably take a back seat to visually changing what is already there.

Also as facial recognition becomes a much more public and available technology we are going to see AR net platforms emerge that allow people to “rate” and “comment” on other people which will be something permanently and publicly associated with their biometric geometry. The potential for offensive and unremovable graffiti and reputation sabotage is extremely high.

Needless to say there are significant and negative real world implications for this and other similar emerging technologies which will cause major social conundrums which have not yet had to be considered.

One issue with these things is the only method for doing anything about it is legislation. AR and VR can be just considered just a significant extension of what we call the human imagination although there is one major difference, this imagination can be shared with anyone whereas ones imagination is available exclusively to the individual.

Sure - but some flavor of this objection can be made about most technological advances. The harms will be identified and if the people maintain some level of accountability over the system and society, we will adapt to ameliorate those harms.

One way to think about AR is that it can do everything your Oculus Quest can do, but in the form of a pair of glasses that you can wear all day (like those prescription glasses that people already wearing).

VR is like the PC you use at home / in office, AR is more like smartphones on the go. There is obviously quite a big technical gap :)

This "AR" that you're describing doesn't exist though. Current AR-equipped devices don't have anywhere near the FOV or contrast you can find in a basic HMD.

Also, your second analogy is paradoxical. If AR is capable of doing "everything [the] Oculus Quest can do", why does VR even exist today?

I understand the concept of AR, I just want to talk to someone actually involved in the hardware space about what they're doing to move the market forwards.

Tangent: why is AR so attractive to people?

Or, why is the idea of AR so attractive to people? We haven't seen much AR yet. Magic Leap was faking it. The Microsoft Hololens had some great demos, but was too expensive and not very useful. Google Glass was somewhat useful but socially unacceptable. Pokémon GO was wildly successful but googles are still too expensive for it.

OK, so you can annotate the world. Now what? Games? Customer relationship management? Equipment maintenance guides? Doordash picking guidance?

I have the horrible feeling that most people who wear AR goggles will be wearing them because their employer told them to. The goggles tell them what to do.

(As usual, see "Manna" and "Hyperreality").

Magic Leap was real. It just kinda sucked.

The Magic Leap they sold everyone on:

https://youtu.be/watch?v=GbpqwUUfMAQ

The Magic Leap they actually delivered:

https://youtu.be/veSZJQ5_Wmg?t=122

> The Microsoft Hololens had some great demos, but was too expensive and not very useful

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/microsoft-awarded-army-contrac...

For me it's virtual screens. Let's have that and see where it takes us.

The killer app will be meetings. Apple knows this.

Thirty years ago, you might drive around an unfamiliar city with a friend offering directions as you go. Twenty years ago, you woukd print off turn by turn Mapquest directions and check them occasionally at a stop light. Now, you can have turn by turn directions piped into your ear without any other human assistance, allowing you to do the task at hand easier, safer and more quickly. Don’t be distracted by the challenges of the visual HUD, this is absolutely our AR present: overlaying digital tools and information onto our lived experience to make ourselves happier, smarter, more effective, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com