this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
263 points (97.1% liked)
Virtual Reality
1806 readers
14 users here now
Virtual Reality - Quest, PCVR, PSVR2, Pico, Mixed Reality, ect. Open discussion of all VR platforms, games, and apps.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree. Companies have demonstrated how well AR can work.
If my mom had an AR headset, I could more easily help her troubleshoot why her printer won’t print or why her PC has no internet.
AR can also use enhanced data sources to overlay information you cannot normally get on your own. (example: sporting events. See player stats when looking at each player. See game related info. etc.)
The issue is that we don’t have quality, lightweight AR headsets yet. Ideally something with both cellular and wifi.
Apple’s Vision Pro may change things.
Also I think Pokemon Go gave us a sneak peak into what AR gaming could be.
Let's be realistic: if your mom had an AR headset, you'd be troubleshooting that and the printer.
Normally I would agree with you, but she actually took classes and is quite good with tech thanks to that.
Your comment absolutely made me chuckle, however.
Aside from checking if the cable is plugged in what can AR tell her that the monitor can't?
Off the top of my head: replacing ink or paper, navigating the on-device menu, or troubleshooting bad prints.
I could even record my own 3D instructions with animations of interaction with the printer and all, showing exactly what buttons to press and what lids to open where and how, etc.
Wait: Are you suggesting that people read the manual to troubleshoot‽
I disagree.
Troubleshooting something is such a niche use case and it would be hardly any better than a well written manual, but would require more faffing around with a headset.
I would rather just have an extra screen to view any extra sports stats, sport doesnt exactly require 100% of your attention to warrant the need to look at a player to see their stats vs just clicking them on a tablet.
Apples headset changes nothing, people are not going to walk around with it strapped to their face, it's a novelty product (even though AR has existed already for years now).
AR has uses in special cases, such as engineering, military and medical uses, but to a regular consumer it is just extremely niche, a lot more so than VR.
I really want AR so that I can walk in downtown Chicago and have historic photos overlayed over the existing building. I'd be excited to see the past in a way that screens can't really show me.
Apple's product will be more of a dev kit and demo than anything else. The stuff regular people want to use will need to be lighter and preferably offload heavy processing to a processor located elsewhere nearby.
I think you make good points - social and collaborative activities are where AR will do best. Integrating real world and virtual content could also be huge, though not necessarily the way you described. Overlaying sports data in a sporting event setting is a very late case and unlikely to be developed until the technology is incredibly mature. But overlaying GPS directions or creating beacons and other constructs in real space could be huge if the tech gets just a little more practical.
Also Pokémon Go plays just as well if you turn off AR. It’s mostly a gimmick in my opinion. But other AR gaming examples do exist.