So DED claims that people are buying iPhones because of AR? Hah! People aren’t buying iPhones for AR any more than they are buying android phones for VR. Photos may use ARkit, but that’s not what AR really is and Android phones achieve the same thing without ARkit. other than that the only AR we have is a gimmicky measure app that doesn’t really work that well.
For the vast majority of consumers, AR is exactly like VR - an over hyped technology in search of an actual use.
When it comes to product development, Apple looks at the technological horizon, figures out what's coming up in hardware, and starts developing products that will use the new hardware capabilities when they become available. You guys should all know this by now, Steve Jobs said it so many times --"skating to where the puck is going to be". In countless interviews, Apple execs have said so many times about how they have products under development for which the "technology isn't there yet". Yet. Got that? They said that about iPad and iPhone. AR is the same thing. The technology for AR isn't all there yet, but they've seeded the user base with AR-capable phones. Is it a gamble? Have they gotten the timing right? Will AR as they envisioned it be truly compelling? Of course nobody knows, but I'd put my faith on Apple's best guess over everyone else's.
Apple's competitors, on the other hand, get so excited about new technology that they convince themselves that something is ready when they really aren't. It's as if they've hired those kids who can't wait 15 minutes to eat the marshmallow* to do their product planning and development.
It seems a bit premature to put the title in the past tense. Yes not jumping on the VR bandwagon was smart. But AR is still only a gimmick. It isn't mainstream. Not that it won't necessarily, be huge eventually. But that is to be seen, as several comments pointed out, some years down the road. We don't actually know if AR will be huge, or will be the next 3D-TV.
This is my first time dabbling with the Apple Insider community here, but I have to say it’s a bit surprising to read the reactions to the story.
If the rumors are true that Apple’s AR glasses are finally coming this year, then you’d imagine a community of Apple fans would cheer this article on. Else, are you anticipating this is the riskiest thing Apple has ever done and it will fail? Clearly Apple has been ramping up in talent acquisition, software and hardware investments – as per the article – for precisely this release.
Google and Facebook totally bungled their respective strategies. Read Harris’ ‘The History of the Future’ or Kilday’s ‘Never Lost Again.’ Sure, VR will payoff one day but we’re not even close; whereas, people here are questioning AR when Niantic – Google expats – have grossed ~$4B since Q4-2016 on just one game. And the AR functionality on IOS is leaps and bounds ahead of Android, ironically. That’s one app.
I think you all may be using your Measure apps wrong: The article is premature but I’m all for it. This is what’s happening just like 2007. Kudos.
This is my first time dabbling with the Apple Insider community here, but I have to say it’s a bit surprising to read the reactions to the story.
If the rumors are true that Apple’s AR glasses are finally coming this year, then you’d imagine a community of Apple fans would cheer this article on. Else, are you anticipating this is the riskiest thing Apple has ever done and it will fail? Clearly Apple has been ramping up in talent acquisition, software and hardware investments – as per the article – for precisely this release.
Google and Facebook totally bungled their respective strategies. Read Harris’ ‘The History of the Future’ or Kilday’s ‘Never Lost Again.’ Sure, VR will payoff one day but we’re not even close; whereas, people here are questioning AR when Niantic – Google expats – have grossed ~$4B since Q4-2016 on just one game. And the AR functionality on IOS is leaps and bounds ahead of Android, ironically. That’s one app.
I think you all may be using your Measure apps wrong: The article is premature but I’m all for it. This is what’s happening just like 2007. Kudos.
Thanks for your comment. In addition to what you pointed out about clearly successful App Store AR ventures such as Ninantic's, it's useful to note that Apple materially participated in those successes as well. So Apple has been recouping its investments in AR in both hardware sales and in App Store sales and subscriptions, strengthening the iOS ecosystem as well.
Phone VR participants not only put significant efforts into building and marketing hardware that they essentially gave away but also spent big money on content that didn't find an audience willing to pay for it. Building a VR experience is more complex and expensive than other content, and there was never any indication that anyone was willing to pay anything for this kind of content, no matter how fun or technologically interesting it might have been. And VR gaming, the brightest potential content category, was demanding stuff that really asked for a dedicated PC or console setup, rather than running from your mobile phone and destroying its battery for a short bit of fun.
It seems a bit premature to put the title in the past tense. Yes not jumping on the VR bandwagon was smart. But AR is still only a gimmick. It isn't mainstream. Not that it won't necessarily, be huge eventually. But that is to be seen, as several comments pointed out, some years down the road. We don't actually know if AR will be huge, or will be the next 3D-TV.
One difference between Apple's current approach with AR and 3D displays is that AR is a passive technology that uses existing hardware (motion sensors and cameras) to do advanced new things. So when Apple launched ARKit 1.0 in iOS 11, it could support AR experiences on millions of existing iPhones/Pads with at least A9 chips sold over the previous 2 years-- customers that did not buy their devices "for AR" because it hadn't even been released yet. Maintaining and developing AR also requires limited extra cost for Apple beyond the software. And some of the support that drives AR (motion sensors, True Depth, etc) have other compelling uses as well. People who "adamantly refuse to use AR" are not really paying extra for Apple's AR support. 3D displays on the other hand add significant expense to the bill of materials.
Google's Tango partners were adding expensive hardware to offer Tango AR features, and these made them less competitive in the commodity market for Androids. None of them took off, partly for that reason.
ARKit added extra allure to Apple's best new iPhone X, allowing it to do more new things. So it was both supporting existing iOS users and helping to upsell new more expensive models. A lot of commenters here are being dogmatically cynical about AR being competely worthless because they don't see a personal attachment to the concept, but its certainly clear that if Android phones were offering AR while iOS lacked any capability, this would be unhesitatingly cited as an exciting, exclusive feature where Apple was behind. We certainly saw that with Gear VR/Daydream--at least until it became clear that nobody was really using it and certainly not paying for it, despite it being a fun thing to demo.
So DED claims that people are buying iPhones because of AR? Hah! People aren’t buying iPhones for AR any more than they are buying android phones for VR. Photos may use ARkit, but that’s not what AR really is and Android phones achieve the same thing without ARkit. other than that the only AR we have is a gimmicky measure app that doesn’t really work that well.
For the vast majority of consumers, AR is exactly like VR - an over hyped technology in search of an actual use.
Apple doesn't sell iPhones that don't support AR, so we have little way to say exactly how many people are attracted to AR as part of their buying decision. However, AR features into Apple's advertising in both overt (AR dinosaurs) and less apparent (Studio Lighting) ways that are clearly resonating or Apple wouldn't be pursuing them. Notice that the cost/complexity of 3D Touch didn't keep it around forever, while that's not an issue with AR. It's effectively free to make available and does add some value.
In contrast, while Gear VR was probably seen as a general positive by consumers, they weren't lining up to pay for it. Samsung was literally giving them away to sell Note and other flagship models, and it still barely moved any needle as sales retreated to lower ASPs. That's a clearly fail, and as you can see, Samsung stopped doing it.
Android phones don't offer portrait lighting. You can add filters to any photo, but there is an apparent difference between face mapping and simple filters. And the technolgoy to do AR-enhanced photos is also used in Face ID and features like Animoji/Memoji, which very clearly were selling new phones. And FaceTime is also using ARKit technolgoies, so there's a mix of technologies that are or "benefit in some way from" the work Apple put into ARKit.
Me too efforts by Google and Samsung to copy what Apple did or sort of ride on its AR coattails are pretty clearly not as cool and did not lift any apparent interest in Pixel phones or high-end Galaxy flagships.
AR was fun for about 10 minutes. The Ikea app, the ruler and the one where you could put some train on the floor. There just isn't anything to make it stick.
Agreed. The ruler doesn’t even work without irritating calibration issues at start... Even then, when it works, I wouldn’t do anything permanent with those measurements without checking with an actual ruler or tape measure first...
So DED claims that people are buying iPhones because of AR? Hah! People aren’t buying iPhones for AR any more than they are buying android phones for VR. Photos may use ARkit, but that’s not what AR really is and Android phones achieve the same thing without ARkit. other than that the only AR we have is a gimmicky measure app that doesn’t really work that well.
For the vast majority of consumers, AR is exactly like VR - an over hyped technology in search of an actual use.
Apple doesn't sell iPhones that don't support AR, so we have little way to say exactly how many people are attracted to AR as part of their buying decision. However, AR features into Apple's advertising in both overt (AR dinosaurs) and less apparent (Studio Lighting) ways that are clearly resonating or Apple wouldn't be pursuing them. Notice that the cost/complexity of 3D Touch didn't keep it around forever, while that's not an issue with AR. It's effectively free to make available and does add some value.
In contrast, while Gear VR was probably seen as a general positive by consumers, they weren't lining up to pay for it. Samsung was literally giving them away to sell Note and other flagship models, and it still barely moved any needle as sales retreated to lower ASPs. That's a clearly fail, and as you can see, Samsung stopped doing it.
Android phones don't offer portrait lighting. You can add filters to any photo, but there is an apparent difference between face mapping and simple filters. And the technolgoy to do AR-enhanced photos is also used in Face ID and features like Animoji/Memoji, which very clearly were selling new phones. And FaceTime is also using ARKit technolgoies, so there's a mix of technologies that are or "benefit in some way from" the work Apple put into ARKit.
Me too efforts by Google and Samsung to copy what Apple did or sort of ride on its AR coattails are pretty clearly not as cool and did not lift any apparent interest in Pixel phones or high-end Galaxy flagships.
I wasn’t aware that face FaceTime used ARKit and personally, I found Memoji’s to be fun for about 30 seconds, but that’s just me. If there are technologies/features that use AR in the background that help sell phones the picture is a bit more muddy. I still think that no one buys an iPhone (over an android or otherwise) specifically because of AR capabilities, but if features like Portrait Lighting or Memoji help to sell the phones then it may be a contributing factor. DED’s conclusion is still quite a stretch, IMO.
For all of those calling AR a gimmick, or unsure of its potential. That may be the case for the consumer market, but for enterprise, the hardware, software and services from Microsoft are showing everyone else how it's done.
For example, the US Military is looking to start to deploy IVAS headsets based on HoloLens 2 next year and already took on a close to $500 million contract for 100,000 headsets (this is expected to grow).
Video showing early prototypes of different IVAS variants:
Comments
Apple's competitors, on the other hand, get so excited about new technology that they convince themselves that something is ready when they really aren't. It's as if they've hired those kids who can't wait 15 minutes to eat the marshmallow* to do their product planning and development.
*Google Stanford marshmallow experiment
Yes not jumping on the VR bandwagon was smart. But AR is still only a gimmick. It isn't mainstream. Not that it won't necessarily, be huge eventually. But that is to be seen, as several comments pointed out, some years down the road. We don't actually know if AR will be huge, or will be the next 3D-TV.
Google and Facebook totally bungled their respective strategies. Read Harris’ ‘The History of the Future’ or Kilday’s ‘Never Lost Again.’ Sure, VR will payoff one day but we’re not even close; whereas, people here are questioning AR when Niantic – Google expats – have grossed ~$4B since Q4-2016 on just one game. And the AR functionality on IOS is leaps and bounds ahead of Android, ironically. That’s one app.
I think you all may be using your Measure apps wrong: The article is premature but I’m all for it. This is what’s happening just like 2007. Kudos.
Phone VR participants not only put significant efforts into building and marketing hardware that they essentially gave away but also spent big money on content that didn't find an audience willing to pay for it. Building a VR experience is more complex and expensive than other content, and there was never any indication that anyone was willing to pay anything for this kind of content, no matter how fun or technologically interesting it might have been. And VR gaming, the brightest potential content category, was demanding stuff that really asked for a dedicated PC or console setup, rather than running from your mobile phone and destroying its battery for a short bit of fun.
One difference between Apple's current approach with AR and 3D displays is that AR is a passive technology that uses existing hardware (motion sensors and cameras) to do advanced new things. So when Apple launched ARKit 1.0 in iOS 11, it could support AR experiences on millions of existing iPhones/Pads with at least A9 chips sold over the previous 2 years-- customers that did not buy their devices "for AR" because it hadn't even been released yet. Maintaining and developing AR also requires limited extra cost for Apple beyond the software. And some of the support that drives AR (motion sensors, True Depth, etc) have other compelling uses as well. People who "adamantly refuse to use AR" are not really paying extra for Apple's AR support. 3D displays on the other hand add significant expense to the bill of materials.
Google's Tango partners were adding expensive hardware to offer Tango AR features, and these made them less competitive in the commodity market for Androids. None of them took off, partly for that reason.
ARKit added extra allure to Apple's best new iPhone X, allowing it to do more new things. So it was both supporting existing iOS users and helping to upsell new more expensive models. A lot of commenters here are being dogmatically cynical about AR being competely worthless because they don't see a personal attachment to the concept, but its certainly clear that if Android phones were offering AR while iOS lacked any capability, this would be unhesitatingly cited as an exciting, exclusive feature where Apple was behind. We certainly saw that with Gear VR/Daydream--at least until it became clear that nobody was really using it and certainly not paying for it, despite it being a fun thing to demo.
Apple doesn't sell iPhones that don't support AR, so we have little way to say exactly how many people are attracted to AR as part of their buying decision. However, AR features into Apple's advertising in both overt (AR dinosaurs) and less apparent (Studio Lighting) ways that are clearly resonating or Apple wouldn't be pursuing them. Notice that the cost/complexity of 3D Touch didn't keep it around forever, while that's not an issue with AR. It's effectively free to make available and does add some value.
In contrast, while Gear VR was probably seen as a general positive by consumers, they weren't lining up to pay for it. Samsung was literally giving them away to sell Note and other flagship models, and it still barely moved any needle as sales retreated to lower ASPs. That's a clearly fail, and as you can see, Samsung stopped doing it.
Android phones don't offer portrait lighting. You can add filters to any photo, but there is an apparent difference between face mapping and simple filters. And the technolgoy to do AR-enhanced photos is also used in Face ID and features like Animoji/Memoji, which very clearly were selling new phones. And FaceTime is also using ARKit technolgoies, so there's a mix of technologies that are or "benefit in some way from" the work Apple put into ARKit.
Me too efforts by Google and Samsung to copy what Apple did or sort of ride on its AR coattails are pretty clearly not as cool and did not lift any apparent interest in Pixel phones or high-end Galaxy flagships.
https://youtu.be/XwOnHqiNAeU
https://youtu.be/d3YT8j0yYl0
https://youtu.be/V8c3pDKdHEc
https://youtu.be/rQqyORw4yY8
For example, the US Military is looking to start to deploy IVAS headsets based on HoloLens 2 next year and already took on a close to $500 million contract for 100,000 headsets (this is expected to grow).
Video showing early prototypes of different IVAS variants:
https://youtu.be/tAaIUaENynA
Or as DED likes to call it "vaporware"...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/24/i-bet-my-life-microsoft-hololens-perfectly-targets-its-core-competency