[null_shift]

The fixed base station is a fundamentally different tradeoff for AR vs VR.

Base station for AR would be detrimental, as you inherently want to explore and interact with the world around you.

For most VR use cases that is not the case, and I can see the argument for the benefits of a base station (higher performance) outweighing the costs (limited movement).

[treesknees]

One solution to this for AR is using "fog computing", where your AR device may offload its computation to a node on the local network that's more powerful but also not as far away (in terms of latency) as a cloud server. Perhaps with the continued adoption of UWB 5G, those AR basestations could exist at cell towers or in local establishments - think about a clothing store running fog nodes to allow AR users to visualize wearing different clothes as they see them in the store.

I haven't read more than the abstract, but it seems there is some good research going into this. It must be years off however, as we barely have LTE networks in some locations, let-alone UWB 5G to even begin supporting this type of architecture.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9103475

[jayd16]

Streaming 4k video per eye per user? Can I get that kind of bandwidth for general wifi, please?

[perryizgr8]

This kind of throughput is quite achievable if you get a high quality 6E router. Of course you need compatible client devices too, which is a bit of a challenge right now.

[bin_bash]

If the base station was wireless and doubled as a charger/stand it likely wouldn’t even be a noticeable drawback for most VR use-cases.

[redisman]

Quest 2 is already a stand alone device so the base station requirement has already partially gone away

[plasticchris]

Quest 1 was standalone too.