Quick caveat, this is written by the same firm (Digi-Capital) that came out with a totally preposterous estimate (on the high side) for the market potential and uptake speed of VR.
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.
Just in case you think the article wasn't expansive enough in the possibilities for AR/VR business models, I'll just leave this here: http://www.varcrypt.com/info/
> 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.
Nope, a real company hosting an event with the Harvard Business School Club of New York this month. Whether it should be parody is entirely a matter of opinion.
"AR/VR is the fourth major platform shift (after PC, web and mobile)."
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".
Yes, 3D TV was a failure, but I still hold out a little hope that someone will get VR/AR right. Saying that AR has failed in 2016 because Google Glass could be like saying MP3 players failed because Creative Nomad in early 2001.
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.
There may be niche applications, but people spending their days in Oculus Rift headsets is not likely to happen. (Even in SF, that only showed up in the 1980 Flash Gordon movie.)
You should give these headsets a shot and try them out. Also I'm not sure you know how the real world works... Gamers alone will wear these headsets for extended periods of time.
I wasn't impressed with VR until I saw a demo of Tilt Brush. When you can use your hands accurately in a virtual world it opens up millions of possibilities for new interfaces.
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.
Yep, there is a ton of useful stuff you could do with ar/vr.
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.
AR's killer app might very well be instant communication. That's why Facebook took such interest on it, to avoid the next Facebook being a different company that displaced them.
Now I am just waiting for Websites to utilise WebRTC and WebAssembly to have multi-user experiences whilst shopping. Imagen wanting to show a friend about a make-up combination, share the experience and then buy/collect. I see AR/MR streamlining and enhancing current human experiences rather than trying to force something un-human. The best thing about this is that you do not need to buy new gadgets...
Haven't we gotten over the 'if X has failed then Y must fail too' argument yet? Technology progression doesn't always follow such simple rules. Eg. Since the Newton failed, the iPhone must fail too.
I can't remember any potential customers ever being super excited about 3D TV. Manufacturers lauded them and the media also to an extent but normal people didn't really care. It was just a "nice to have" feature that people tried once or twice and then forgot about. I'm also getting the same vibe from smart watches actually. They seem cool until you try them and then they become just 'meh'.
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.
You are exactly right. E.g. Sony's PSVR sold out within minutes of going on pre-order in Europe and NA. There has been little to no hyping on the part of the manufacturers. Just lots of extremely positive reviews from demos & testers.
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.
Google Glass isn't AR. It's a tiny HUD. AR understand your immediate visual context, not just your situational context, and can display any kind of overlay, anywhere in your field of vision.
Technically true but I don't think consumers care much about that distinction. They care about the value provided by the device and I think the value provided by AR over context aware HUD is incremental rather than revolutionary. The disruptive part is bringing the screen in front of the eye in glass form factor which seems failed.
If they cared about the value provided by the device, they would have adopted it. Instead everyone focused on how it looked (or how you looked wearing it), how it was invading everyone else's privacy by having a video camera, and how you might be beat up going into a bar with one.
It had nothing to do with the value provided by it.
In my company years ago we tested every single manufacturer 3d set for engineer applications. We were never excited about it, so we did not follow.
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.
Everyone I've seen that's used it has been totally blown away. If it's going to fail, it'll be a wii-like failure. Sell millions and millions and millions of units that will sit unused in people's closets.
> We've already had AR. It was called "Google Glass".
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.
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.
> 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.
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.)
I think the enterprise chunk is too small in the info graphic. I envision a pretty huge market, especially for AR. There are very few AR applications that seem viable from a business model POV right now. The ones that are pretty easy to spot tend to be in the enterprise world. It seems like a very valuable technology along the entire supply chain from R&D (for building machines, automobiles etc.) to distribution (try on this dress in AR = less returns = higher margins; we can offer this kitchen sink service online now with AR instructions).
AR is in fact already used and generating value in some enterprisy field, specifically marketing (mostly just "ZOMG cool" branding) and in logistics (dedicated AR glasses for warehousing)
AR glasses that understand mirrors and with a good physics engine could do wonders for the fashion industry.
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.
It's a lot easier to replace the mirror with a screen. You can cram a lot more CPU power into something the size of a mirror that doesn't have to run on tiny batteries. The fact that such "mirrors" are not widespread yet indicates that the tech either isn't there yet or that it's just simpler to try on the dress.
You have a screen already, given that we're talking AR glasses. The mirror is for reducing latency, not screwing up your skin tone, etc.
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.
Every time AR is discussed, I link to the CC-BY-NC comic Vision Machine.[1] As all good SF, it describes current trends with a veneer of future technology; I find that it offers insight on a lot of use cases for AR and VR.
There are a lot of quite awful marker tracking apps (I am looking at you Blippar) which are useless. Yes you could see what a sofa _may_ look like... But the rendering of the Sofa is off, the lighting is weird and the scale most likely incorrect. Or yea... lets look at this advert for longer... like anyone wants to do that... All these apps do is devalue peoples perception of these mediums.
For this medium to succeed they need HQ apps which add to a users experience, not distract them and most importantly... have a fun factor. Another problem is how do you take these experiences from a mobile / glasses to a web browser (currently Javascript is a bit too slow to run custom tracking solutions)...
While not specifically about the business model, where I really think that both will shine is in encouraging a separation of user from chair, getting them active and possible even turning AR/VR into a fitness movement. I've been working on the side on a UE4 based game, and as I realize the potential for it's use in fitness, especially with Vive style roomspace-play, the more I think it will be a huge industry of VR fitness. Maybe I can ride that wave, maybe not, but I hope to see it regardless.
The forecast is also leaving out this important application: playing Chevette Washington looking down upon San Francisco to see the city as it will be rebuilt by the tech titans mentioned. Honestly, I would pay for that.
46 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadSo, 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.
> 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.
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 what she does find useful, and fun for me..., is Make-up try-on http://holition.com/portfolio/cover-girl
Now I am just waiting for Websites to utilise WebRTC and WebAssembly to have multi-user experiences whilst shopping. Imagen wanting to show a friend about a make-up combination, share the experience and then buy/collect. I see AR/MR streamlining and enhancing current human experiences rather than trying to force something un-human. The best thing about this is that you do not need to buy new gadgets...
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.
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.)
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.
[1] http://visionmachine.net/
There are a lot of quite awful marker tracking apps (I am looking at you Blippar) which are useless. Yes you could see what a sofa _may_ look like... But the rendering of the Sofa is off, the lighting is weird and the scale most likely incorrect. Or yea... lets look at this advert for longer... like anyone wants to do that... All these apps do is devalue peoples perception of these mediums.
For this medium to succeed they need HQ apps which add to a users experience, not distract them and most importantly... have a fun factor. Another problem is how do you take these experiences from a mobile / glasses to a web browser (currently Javascript is a bit too slow to run custom tracking solutions)...
Funny thing with its rising real estate prices and large number of bums (I hear), San Fran is turning into exactly what Gibson envisioned.