Very interesting development. Personally I don't see AR being anywhere close to VR in terms of usefulness, polish, and mass market appeal. VR obviously is going to be a major player in the gaming/entertainment industries, while an AR headset is more of a general use device for everyone. It'll be interesting to see what MS comes out with.
AR is potentially much more useful, but VR is much more likely to lead to useful products in the near future. VR is hard, but AR has all the same problems of VR plus a whole bunch more.
Some AR is already present in some vehicles. My mother has a "HUD" that reflects off the glass that displays speed, and gas consumption in the direct LOS while driving, but not intrusive enough to distract, mid 2000's car.
But if I abstract what you are saying a bit, I would have to agree that AR is going to be an "easier" sell in b2b than b2c, it has been for a while. I think the cross over will happen when consumers are more exposed to the ways businesses leverage it.
Here's a scenario I can see before mainstream adoption: Imagine a sales clerk or rep with it as you walk into the store to pull in data from across the web about you from facial recog and be able to automatically point you to where you might be interested, maybe even using google's/microsoft's/facebook's/yelp's/some startup's "intent" api that pulls in your latest queries that may be relevant to the store you just we're identified in.
Then some people see such things used, and then want the same capabilities as they navigate their cities around them seeing that it could be useful in their life.
If HUDs are considered AR (a valid viewpoint, as far as I'm concerned) then they've been in warplanes since WW2.
I don't see AR getting mass customer adoption before it can be directly grafted.
> Imagine a sales clerk or rep with it as you walk into the store to pull in data from across the web about you from facial recog and be able to automatically point you to where you might be interested
That sounds horrifying. And unlikely, that customers efficiently go through their purchases in the least possible time is not really in most store's interest.
Well, the technology is here, the behavioral patterns in the way people use services are here, and with companies like foursquare[0], who are basically doing the same thing (minus the facial recog, which the tech is present for, but the challenge now is connecting disparate data sets available which can be leveraged at scale for general purposes [which I'm working on], and not being shackled to things large companies typically are [we don't have user accounts, so we don't have "users" to appease, and we don't have $X billion in revenue so we have to take chances/experiment in order to grow]), this will be a growing market where consumers will be exposed to such technology and its benefits (and drawbacks because not everything is rose colored through my lenses).
My startup is working in the periphery of this area now, so I can't say that I don't have financial/technical interest involved with this. From the issues that we get notified now about our current product is basically people are afraid because they don't have "control" over "their" data and don't understand how others are able to technically leverage it (or anything technical about how the internet works, besides the profitable skinner boxes that make up most consumer tech companies). People make baseless legal threats all the time against us, but it is always interesting how it is always complaints about them as the individual and not about for others; those same people are happy to observe/give up information about other people.
>And unlikely, that customers efficiently go through their purchases in the least possible time is not really in most store's interest.
Valid point for some stores, but I was thinking about this from the perspective of the store rep trying to establish some kind of human touch to the shopping experience more so than they do now, while leveraging the data they have so they can more efficiently decide who they should focus their efforts on rather than the stereotypes made from their experiences. I guess what I'm saying is that it may not be as clear cut as what some make it out to be, and in that ambiguity lies the opportunity.
> Valid point for some stores, but I was thinking about this from the perspective of the store rep trying to establish some kind of human touch to the shopping experience
I don't think this[0] is a "human touch". A creepy stalker touch maybe. And your scheme would go even further.
Which are attributes usually assigned to human beings, no? Or do you enjoy being trailed by officers/staff when you shop because of the color of your skin, or do you not have to face nor think about such things when you shop or in other interactions in your life? Because I don't particularly enjoy that either, and I'm doing what I can to address it among other issues assuming that if others could leverage information that is already out there about me, maybe, just maybe I won't have to be treated as subhuman by some on initial interactions, or at least while I patronize a store on occasion. What are you doing to address the problems you have surrounding the use of technology in such ways beyond vocalizing your displeasure? Do you still use social networking, webmail, play apps via smartphone, purchase via credit cards online/offline, etc…? If so, your behaviors are telling others otherwise.
I'm just stating that's the direction things are going in now, and for anyone to avoid such realities means that they shall continue to be suspended in a state of cognitive dissonance. Hardly just my "scheme", I'm just a piece in the puzzle that was already being built before I was even born.
> If HUDs are considered AR (a valid viewpoint, as far as I'm concerned)
I don't consider HUDs to be AR unless there is some aspect of registration. To be fully what I would consider AR, they need to understand at least something about the scene and modify it. To add data to the scene without understanding it doesn't really count.
But AR has the benefit of a built-in stable background with zero latency, which means that latency in e.g. head tracking might be a little distracting but won't result in VR's crippling nausea. Seems like that's one major problem solved out of the box.
