[hammerandtongs]

I suggest you spend some time reading his pretty extensive set of high quality articles on many companies and aspects of AR.

This is an industry where outsiders have a very limited understanding of the serious serious problems in front of AR.

It's also an industry that is taking advantage of the very limited understanding of just about everyone not in it to hype things far beyond their capabilities.

If you care about AR in even an offhand way you should spend some time self educating and Karl Guttag's site is a good way to get started.

It's very interesting field but there are tremendous challenges in front of it and it serves no purpose to just assume the companies involved have actual magic leaps that solve the problems.

[cromwellian]

I've read his site, but he focuses way too much on aspects of AR that have little to do with consumer needs or concerns. A "worse is better" AR display that violates pretty much every concern he has could win the market as long as it was done really well in terms of comfort and applications, the same way the limited Apple Watch pretty much dominates the market today, even though it falls far short of the kinds of magic people thought it would be capable of originally.

[leoc]

He certainly seems to know a lot about the optics involved. However he was also, for example, suggesting recently that Magic Leap had faked the SLAM tracking in their recent Rolling Stone demo https://www.kguttag.com/2018/01/17/magic-leap-how-rigged-was... https://www.reddit.com/r/magicleap/comments/7r267v/blog_arti... . So I would not take his overall view of Magic Leap as gospel.

[freeone3000]

It's also entirely possible they offer partial solutions to some problems, no solution to other problems, and still produce am experience worth paying money for.

[joe_the_user]

That's a natural argument extrapolating from the phone, electronics and laptop market.

I think it is wrong in this case, however. As I understand it, the problem is "half-working" in the case of VR/AR/etc isn't something like less convenient that early adopters can simply put up with. Half-working VR has ability to sicken a person and injure the vision system.

See for example. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dan...

[hammerandtongs]

That is a pretty bad article about VR that might have been excusable in 2013 but is not on firm ground in 2017 much less 2018.

Broadly, almost everything in it has been either not born out (vision concerns) or less of a problem then first assumed (motion sickness) once the limitations of different users were understood.

Many people using VR find that the vestibular concerns are not an issue over time as long as the framerate of the system is high enough (90fps+). People actually do get their "sea legs" over time and many (largely gamers so far) ask for locomotion systems that were considered terrible ideas even 2 years ago.