I disagree. AR mobile games have been around for a few years and VR first hit the market 2 decades before AR. If anything, VR has been a harder technology to break through. Which, in my personal opinion, is because it’s more likely to make people feel sick plus is less of a social tech.
It depends what you mean by AR - As this term is used to describe showing an overlay on video on a phone, a heads up display in the corner of your eye in a pair of glasses, or technology like hololens where you can make objects appear to float or overlay the real world.
These things have all been referred to as AR, and are all very different, but I’m specifically talking about the latter personally (which is the one the article is talking about).
It’s kind of the same with VR by the way - you used to be able to watch 360 videos on your phone and the viewport would change as you moved it, but it’s obviously very primitive compared to something like the VR oculus offers. These two things obviously are very different technologies, which is the same as in-phone AR and the AR described in the article.
All of the AR examples are legitimately AR. It’s a massive field.
VR, on the other hand, isn’t such a broad field. Take your 360 videos for example, there’s no interaction with the content.
Even 90s era VR was very specifically referring to interactive worlds. Whereas Augmented Reality has always just meant having our real world senses enhanced with digital technology. That means phone apps are legitimate examples. Google Glass is a legitimate example. The barrier for entry is much lower yet the possible utilities for AR are much higher than with VR. Which is why I’m surprised it hasn’t taken off in a much bigger way with all the hype that VR has.
The technology stack to support Google Glass is almost entirely distinct from the technology stack which supports in-phone AR. Maybe both are AR, but then all that means is it's not a particularly useful term, because it can mean things that are entirely different from both a technology and user perspective.
So I think we need to define terms - Otherwise if we are comparing overlaying a tape-measure on the camera on your mobile phone to being able to plug on a headset and playing beat-saber, it's not a particularly useful comparison and I'm not surprised that VR has bigger hype!
(But moving about a bit of furniture through the camera view on your mobile phone is very different to something like magic leap, or oculus passthrough).
> The technology stack to support Google Glass is almost entirely distinct from the technology stack which supports in-phone AR. Maybe both are AR, but then all that means is it's not a particularly useful term, because it can mean things that are entirely different from both a technology and user perspective.
Bullshit. The technology cinemas use for their stereoscopic 3D is totally different to the technology used for Samsung’s 3D TVs, and different again from the Nintendo VirtualBoy which is also different from Google Cardboard. Yet all of the aforementioned are stereoscopic 3D.
Not every technical term depends on a technical implementation.
> So I think we need to define terms
It is a defined term. You just seem intent on moving the goal posts for some reason.
> (But moving about a bit of furniture through the camera view on your mobile phone is very different to something like magic leap, or oculus passthrough).
I agree. But 30 years after the first time I tried VR and the whole industry is still basically a novelty. Whereas AR is already providing practical value to millions (eg Google Translate) simply because it is more accessible and has more scope for useful utilities.
Which brings us full back circle to the very point I opened with. ;)
