I don’t even think of the goggles as real VR (as cool as they are). For me at least, it gets much more interesting once decoupled from our real bodies and all sensory input is generated artificially.
While the article isn’t really opposed to any of your ideas in this post, it does point out that (at least currently) the implementation is too clunky and isolated to really gain traction. Will VR end up being the laserdisc of the 00s?
The article also spends some time talking about how AR turns out to be a good middle ground… which rings true after seeing both VR & AR booths at Microsoft’s Build conference last spring.
Specifically, I can easily imagine this type of scenario:
imagine a $10k piece of equipment (a new jet engine or something?) that you want to carry around for training/sales purposes… you could replace that with $10k of AR equipment within a year or two (i.e. existing technology), reduce the costs, and expand what you are able to show people (zoomed-in views, more models or variants). Interaction between the instructor an students is much more natural.
On the other hand, doing the same thing with VR strikes me as a lot clunkier (esp moving around, as you noted) and harder for people to take seriously (and a bit gimmicky).
But of course… that could just be a failure of imagination on my part. Maybe VR just needs a couple of tweaks (resolution, movement) before it can reach critical mass. It’ll be interesting to watch things unfold
While the article isn’t really opposed to any of your ideas in this post, it does point out that (at least currently) the implementation is too clunky and isolated to really gain traction. Will VR end up being the laserdisc of the 00s?
That’s possible. But I am betting that we are simply over the hype, and down at the point where prices fall and people starting to build interesting things in their garage.
The article also spends some time talking about how AR turns out to be a good middle ground…
My view has remained the same in this respect. AR is a lot harder to do than VR. VR already works, right now. You can get fully immersive, convincing experiences today. I have not seen anything that works for AR. The closest thing to convincing AR I have seen is my iPhone (or iPad) adding Ikea furniture to my office. And I work with people who work on AR professionally. But, really, looking at the world through your phone? There are some niche applications, for sure, but not broad market, I think. Of course, if we are talking about 2025… then I have a different view.
imagine a $10k piece of equipment (a new jet engine or something?) that you want to carry around for training/sales purposes… you could replace that with $10k of AR equipment within a year or two (i.e. existing technology), reduce the costs, and expand what you are able to show people (zoomed-in views, more models or variants). Interaction between the instructor an students is much more natural.
You don’t need such a contrived scenario. Think about giving a class about… elephants. Imagine that everyone can see the elephant in the middle of the room. And so forth.
Nice!
But we don’t have anything like that! You cannot see the elephant in the middle of the room. You might get to see if through your iPhone, or something, but how natural is that?
In VR, right now, I can show you an elephant and you will really feel like the elephant is there. It works. Today.
Give me $200 headsets and I can distribute them to a class, and they can all get to see me by the elephant. That’s almost here. AR isn’t almost here.
On the other hand, doing the same thing with VR strikes me as a lot clunkier (esp moving around, as you noted) and harder for people to take seriously (and a bit gimmicky).
How is AR less gimmicky than VR?
The reason moving around in VR is difficult right now is that you need to be connected to a powerful PC for high-quality rendering. This will not last very long. But note that exactly the same problem exists with AR… and it is worse. Adding realistic 3D objects to your environment in a way that tricks the brain is crazily hard. Yes, Apple has good technology… but it is not good enough to trick your brain.
both VR & AR booths at Microsoft’s Build conference last spring
I haven’t been particularly impressed by what I have seen from Microsoft. And yes, we have a HoloLens thingy.
When I say that AR is ready, I was really basing that on some HoloLens demos 🙂 Definitely unimpressive (the small viewable area felt similar to just holding up my phone).
Contrasting an AR demo booth with a VR one:
I went into a (mostly) empty room with a tire. “clicking” on the tire created an expanded schematic view and a virtual instructor appeared and started explaining things. I was able to move around the room, walk closer or further from the different parts of the tire, and interact with the other people in the room… including asking how long the tire demo took to create (answer: a few months. It was fairly simple)
(The tire acted as a fixed reference point for the rest of the graphics. Definitely a limit, but not too bad for a training environment.)
OTOH there was a cool VR demo where you stood on a platform (irl) and rode up the side of a skyscraper (in the simulation). At the top, a gate opens (both irl and in the simulation) and you step out. People who tried it said it was pretty intense.
While I was watching the VR demo–but not bothering to get in line to try it–is when I started wondering how viable VR really it. It’s definitely cool for super immersive experiences… but it also was a lot more hassle to get the gear set up and to interact with staff when you had a question. It seems really isolating.
I also spent some time talking to someone at the Pearson booth (also at Build), and they’re in the middle of a longitudinal study with high school students… which she said is showing promising results.
> How is AR less gimmicky than VR?
haha. because I said so? talk about an arbitrary statement! sorry :-/
anyway, great post 🙂 I’m just trying to synthesize the opposite outlooks on VR
I don’t even think of the goggles as real VR (as cool as they are). For me at least, it gets much more interesting once decoupled from our real bodies and all sensory input is generated artificially.
I think you have a point but I also think we need to work on understanding what we have right now.
Interestingly, I finally got around to reading TechCrunch’s article, “This VR Cycle is Dead”, yesterday, here:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/26/this-vr-cycle-is-dead/
While the article isn’t really opposed to any of your ideas in this post, it does point out that (at least currently) the implementation is too clunky and isolated to really gain traction. Will VR end up being the laserdisc of the 00s?
The article also spends some time talking about how AR turns out to be a good middle ground… which rings true after seeing both VR & AR booths at Microsoft’s Build conference last spring.
Specifically, I can easily imagine this type of scenario:
imagine a $10k piece of equipment (a new jet engine or something?) that you want to carry around for training/sales purposes… you could replace that with $10k of AR equipment within a year or two (i.e. existing technology), reduce the costs, and expand what you are able to show people (zoomed-in views, more models or variants). Interaction between the instructor an students is much more natural.
On the other hand, doing the same thing with VR strikes me as a lot clunkier (esp moving around, as you noted) and harder for people to take seriously (and a bit gimmicky).
But of course… that could just be a failure of imagination on my part. Maybe VR just needs a couple of tweaks (resolution, movement) before it can reach critical mass. It’ll be interesting to watch things unfold
While the article isn’t really opposed to any of your ideas in this post, it does point out that (at least currently) the implementation is too clunky and isolated to really gain traction. Will VR end up being the laserdisc of the 00s?
That’s possible. But I am betting that we are simply over the hype, and down at the point where prices fall and people starting to build interesting things in their garage.
The article also spends some time talking about how AR turns out to be a good middle ground…
My view has remained the same in this respect. AR is a lot harder to do than VR. VR already works, right now. You can get fully immersive, convincing experiences today. I have not seen anything that works for AR. The closest thing to convincing AR I have seen is my iPhone (or iPad) adding Ikea furniture to my office. And I work with people who work on AR professionally. But, really, looking at the world through your phone? There are some niche applications, for sure, but not broad market, I think. Of course, if we are talking about 2025… then I have a different view.
imagine a $10k piece of equipment (a new jet engine or something?) that you want to carry around for training/sales purposes… you could replace that with $10k of AR equipment within a year or two (i.e. existing technology), reduce the costs, and expand what you are able to show people (zoomed-in views, more models or variants). Interaction between the instructor an students is much more natural.
You don’t need such a contrived scenario. Think about giving a class about… elephants. Imagine that everyone can see the elephant in the middle of the room. And so forth.
Nice!
But we don’t have anything like that! You cannot see the elephant in the middle of the room. You might get to see if through your iPhone, or something, but how natural is that?
In VR, right now, I can show you an elephant and you will really feel like the elephant is there. It works. Today.
Give me $200 headsets and I can distribute them to a class, and they can all get to see me by the elephant. That’s almost here. AR isn’t almost here.
On the other hand, doing the same thing with VR strikes me as a lot clunkier (esp moving around, as you noted) and harder for people to take seriously (and a bit gimmicky).
How is AR less gimmicky than VR?
The reason moving around in VR is difficult right now is that you need to be connected to a powerful PC for high-quality rendering. This will not last very long. But note that exactly the same problem exists with AR… and it is worse. Adding realistic 3D objects to your environment in a way that tricks the brain is crazily hard. Yes, Apple has good technology… but it is not good enough to trick your brain.
both VR & AR booths at Microsoft’s Build conference last spring
I haven’t been particularly impressed by what I have seen from Microsoft. And yes, we have a HoloLens thingy.
When I say that AR is ready, I was really basing that on some HoloLens demos 🙂 Definitely unimpressive (the small viewable area felt similar to just holding up my phone).
Contrasting an AR demo booth with a VR one:
I went into a (mostly) empty room with a tire. “clicking” on the tire created an expanded schematic view and a virtual instructor appeared and started explaining things. I was able to move around the room, walk closer or further from the different parts of the tire, and interact with the other people in the room… including asking how long the tire demo took to create (answer: a few months. It was fairly simple)
(The tire acted as a fixed reference point for the rest of the graphics. Definitely a limit, but not too bad for a training environment.)
OTOH there was a cool VR demo where you stood on a platform (irl) and rode up the side of a skyscraper (in the simulation). At the top, a gate opens (both irl and in the simulation) and you step out. People who tried it said it was pretty intense.
While I was watching the VR demo–but not bothering to get in line to try it–is when I started wondering how viable VR really it. It’s definitely cool for super immersive experiences… but it also was a lot more hassle to get the gear set up and to interact with staff when you had a question. It seems really isolating.
I also spent some time talking to someone at the Pearson booth (also at Build), and they’re in the middle of a longitudinal study with high school students… which she said is showing promising results.
> How is AR less gimmicky than VR?
haha. because I said so? talk about an arbitrary statement! sorry :-/
anyway, great post 🙂 I’m just trying to synthesize the opposite outlooks on VR