Report
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
ft.com
I absolutely agree with you.
Having tested both 5 years ago, I concluded that AR was years behind VR. About 10 years behind. Today I still think it's the case. Many companies now believes that the best (/most affordable) AR is by doing VR pass-through (Meta, Apple, Lynx).
I remember many years ago that mobile AR kits and AR on mobile phones was trending but not that much applications are using it today.
I can pretty much say there's almost no way for AR to succeed any time soon (for consumer market). Some applications in military, industrial, research, do exists though.
I was the lead strategist for a tech company that held more than 80% AR's IP before they released to public (due to the result of my report). Basically, there's almost no way for this to make enough $ for any megatech, which is minimum $1B revenue/year.
That is baffling. Is it because of software (like bad positioning algorithms) or hardware limitations (mobile is cumbersume, no viable head mounted displays)?
I think it’s the use case. There are plenty of niche use cases but lacks one winning one that drives the industry forward.
It’s not a hardware limitations if you use certain soc. In fact, it’s one of those cases that hw was so powerful that they had to come up with a use case, which is ar.
Apple is also focused on VR, but it looks like we wont actually be using any of their headsets until 2023.
Heads up: this tidbit in the article says they will soon have a kit available for devs to use the tech.
This article discusses how Snap's spectacle glasses are the company's next big bet. They aren't widely available, but the author was given explicit access from Snap.
The author apparently has tried out VR headsets from all the major players and has been doing so since 2013. The Spectacles, however, stood out to him as a step above.
Despite his positive experience, the author mentions that the VR market has consistently failed to live up to expectations.
If you think VR is failing then you may not be viewing it correctly. The VR space is still in the early days but that doesn't mean it's not growing.
Just because VR isn't working the way Zuckerburg expected doesn't mean the entire technology is losing steam.
Look at the Windows computer in 1990 and then Windows computer of 1995. It some time for engineers to get it right.
I guess the tech is still not there yet, having read the article and the comments here. A shame, really, because it has so much potential.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.