[tootie]

My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. AR/VR is just UI. It doesn't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect headset will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a phone and much less convenient for a lot of others.

[hexomancer]

My contention isn't that it won't happen only that it's irrelevant. Smartphones are just UI. They don't really make anything new possible. An absolutely perfect smartphone will be marginally more convenient for some modalities than a laptop and much less convenient for a lot of others.

[tootie]

Smartphones make loads of things possible that weren't possible before. They are extremely portable, have excellent displays for text, can connect to mobile data networks and contain an array of sensors that benefit from mobility.

[hexomancer]

You can connect usb GSM adapters to have the mobile network on a laptop (same for all the other sensors). It is just a lot more "convenient" to have a smartphone in your pocket rather than carry a giant laptop with you everywhere. Which is the point I was trying to make. Yes, technically all thinks VR does is possible with a smartphone but it is a lot more "convenient" to have google maps directions overlayed on top of real world rather than looking at it through a smartphone.

[tootie]

I'm not sure it is more convenient. Google Glass did heads up directions years ago and nobody cared. I don't get lost so quickly that I can't just peak at my phone every minute or two. I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing. The current pinnacle of AR adoption is still Pokemon Go and that was 5 years ago. And it was really just a gimmick.

[hexomancer]

> I'm not buying a piece of hardware to strap to my face for just that one thing.

Obviously this was just one example to demonstrate the convenience of VR/AR over smart phones. You would not be using VR/AR for "just that one thing". The applications are numerous:

* Ability to have virtual workspaces with multiple high-resolution simulated monitors (and that's just the low-hanging fruit of simulating existing workspaces at a lower cost and more portability, it is entirely possible that VR will lead to completely new workspaces. But let's be a pessimist and assume simulating existing workspaces is the best we can do.). I mean if VR can deliver this one thing and nothing else, I would say it will be a huge success.

* Ability to read/work on commute without getting a headache from vibrations (since the image will be stable)

* Lifelike interaction with friends and family in a moment's notice and no air pollution

* Videogames

And these are some of the easier and less speculative uses of VR.

[bigmealbigmeal]

> It doesn't really make anything new possible

How are you actually defining "new" here? Have you considered that you are defining "new" in an amorphous way that allows you to reject everything new that VR/AR offer?

AR allows one to create virtual objects with actual position and shape in the real world. We can see these objects in their location in the world, and interact with them. That is the abstracted case of what is truly new -- the thing that simply does not exist without AR.

From this abstract case, we can give concrete examples. When buying products online, one can discover what furniture will look like in their house, or what clothing will look like on their body -- they can better see it from every angle and the form it will take. In terms of "adult entertainment", one can literally experience a virtual person up in your face and on your body, something that is just not offered by any existing form. Shit, we can attach a virtual note to a physical object (that only select people get to see!), we can use a ping pong table without needing to own a ball, we can see "subtitles" next to a person who is talking, we can see a label next to our friend in a crowded place without having to constantly cross-reference a map on a phone screen... honestly. Have some imagination.

If you can see this list of things and say "none of that is new", then I seriously challenge you to define "new" for me, because I'm willing to bet you are not applying the same rigorous definition to smartphones.

[tootie]

Sure, but that's still all just UI. You can build all of those things on a 2D screen. If you build a Unity 3D app, you get to choose to build for whatever platform if it's Windows or Android or VR rig. In fact, I have done the 3d furniture simulator thing for a furniture retailer but it was all just done on screens. I've also done a load of work in AR with both handheld and headset devices. We had clients who desperately wanted a cool AR experience and we spent many weeks and months brainstorming things we could do and really just came up with fluff. We looked at everything in the market, talked to manufacturers, did some experiments with users. Nobody came up with anything compelling. We built some cool novelty experiences, but nothing anyone would pay money for. I can believe that a massive (and it has to be like 10X current gen) improvement in resolution and refresh rate will make the experience smooth enough to be a complimentary technology for some niches.

[bigmealbigmeal]

A smartphone is merely a dumbphone with better UI. Look how transformative that was.

None of these things are achievable in the same way with a 2D screen because by definition a 2D screen lacks the ability to literally display along the Z axis. Our minds perceive in 3D, not 2D. A 2D screen literally provides less information about distance and location to the senses. Moreover, a 2D screen has a complete inability to create the feeling of presence, something that is new to AR/VR.

Actually, to act as if the feeling of presence is not new, despite you apparently having used a headset, seems bizarre to the point of incomprehensibility. Use VR porn and tell me that’s not a completely new, compelling experience. I’m addicted to it — it’s like I’m literally having sex. Honestly, your rejection of presence as revolutionary means I don’t actually think it’s possible to get anywhere with this discussion.

Lastly, your difficulties developing something compelling with AR is not a sufficient argument that nothing compelling can ever be achieved with it.

[bigmealbigmeal]

I'll add to this that having subtitles next to the person one is speaking to is completely transformative for hearing-impaired people. The only way you could replicate this with a 2D screen is by having them either (a) avert eye contact to look down at a phone, which prevents them from being engaged with the person, or (b) hold up a phone camera to someone's face, which is obviously significantly more cumbersome and socially awkward than wearing some glasses (and please try to imagine the future of AR headsets that are becoming increasingly compact like sunglasses, not a bulky existing Hololens headset).

So, take that idea. It's not a novelty experience. It's not fluff. It significantly improves the lives of hearing-impaired people.

Did you even come up with this idea? If so, why were you not able to create it? Have you considered that perhaps it was due to the fact that something like this is extremely difficult to develop and can't be done by a regular team over a period of 'months'? Have you considered that AR/VR isn't just going to be made transformative within a <1 year time period of you getting your hands on it?

On the other hand, if you didn't even come up with such a practically beneficial idea as this (or were unable to see how life-changingly useful it'd be for the hearing-impaired), then the issue with all of your ideas being "fluff" was not due to the technology at hand.

This even sparks my imagination further. Right now, if someone yells at a hearing-impaired person from behind, they have no immediate way of knowing (any phone-based solution is not going to give quick information about the direction of the yell when it's in-pocket). On the other hand, an AR headset will be able to immediately inform that person that a loud voice has come from exactly the direction it is pointing to, because it can literally show an arrow in their visual sight. That is so goddamn exciting and useful. And I simply can't comprehend how you cannot see it.

[tootie]

Believe it or not, overlayed closed captions was one the first things I came up with. It's also not that hard to do with commodity voice and face recognition. We did a POC just on a 2d phone screen in like a week. Trying to capture multiple people speaking at once is way beyond the capability of any retail headset and would require an elaborate 3d microphone array and noise filtering to pinpoint where a voice is coming from. Ours worked pretty well sitting across a table, but would struggle mightily trying to hear something across any distance in a noisy room.