[tootie]

That's my thinking as well. There are probably a ton of industry applications in design, engineering and architecture. Folks who are used to wearing goggles and hardhats aren't worried about looking funny. And if you can prove real ROI for businesses, you can charge $5-10K for a sturdy headset and businesses will pay it. Trying to go mass market out of the gate seems like overreach.

[AndrewKemendo]

Already existed for years at Daqri with pretty robust support, implementation capabilities and proof points in industry. Uptake is lackluster and sales cycles are long.

https://daqri.com/

https://shop.daqri.com/

[skewart]

I'd be really curious to hear if you have more insights on why uptake is lackluster? Do you suspect AR glasses just aren't actually that useful for most industries? Or is it more that current technologies have specific limitations that prevent these kinds of products from living up to their potential?

[AndrewKemendo]

It's all of the above really.

More Simply: It's not solving user problems better/faster/cheaper than current solutions.

It's an order of magnitude harder to create 3D content than it is 2D content. Tying 3D content to the real world in a way that is useful and persistent is incredibly difficult. The AR form factor (phone or HMD) is still wonky and nonstandard. Too many other factors to consider still.

[piva00]

Isn't construction/architecture nowadays moving more and more to BMI software?

I'd assume that with a BMI model and AR capabilities (even from a phone) where you set a square (or some other shape) with known dimensions on the ground to calibrate and use GPS (or other positioning systems) for determining position/heading, doesn't seem like software for visualisation of models in-site should be that hard. Even on a current phone it should be doable.

What am I missing? Because it feels like there is some complexity I'm not considering.

[AndrewKemendo]

It would be too much to really go into, but what I will say is that almost all of your assumptions are misguided.

I don't mean that in a mean way, but for example using GPS for AR anchoring is not viable and will never be. So we have to build computer vision systems for localizing content, and those are complex and expensive and have hardware, bandwidth and other constraints.

BIM is ubiquitous, but not easily integrated with other hardware, and the hardware best suited for it (HMD) are expensive and not yet everywhere - or even widely adopted.

[fsloth]

"GPS for AR anchoring is not viable and will never be"

You can get centimeter level accuracy from GNSS with off the shelf custom antennae and software, see e.g. Trimble Catalyst https://catalyst.trimble.com

You can combine that with AR devices to get good enough positioning onsite for review purposes.

It's not precise enough for attaching nails and such, for which there are other location based solutions.

We actually have most of the pieces for a 'smart construction site' in existence as off the shelf components. But the construction industry is such that startups are not very well positioned to lead the change - hence I understand you disenchanted tone.

[dingo_bat]

At a glance it really looks like magicleap straight-up lifted this device.

[ericd]

How so? The ML doesn't look anything like it to me.

[sytelus]

Proving ROI is however a real problem. First you need software for your specific need and that itself can easily consume half a million dollar budget even for small team. Then you need to distribute these expensive devices. And then everything needs to actually work and improve the bottom line. Someone in company needs to approve those massive POs. May be there are few cases where these pays off overwhelmingly over traditional methods.