"The core value of VR is to replace our real life"
That's ... debatable. It's no more that than a regular screen.
VR displays track head movement in 3D space and then give the possibility to use this positioning information when rendering a 3D scene.
This is the basic requirement for AR as well. Pokemon level AR just gives an image of real
world where the 3D scene can be overlaid. ARkit level AR uses what ever data inputs are available to guestimate the 3D geometry surrounding the user and offering this 3D information available for the program context. I suppose the third step is when this data is fed to some machine learning algorithm to 1. detect features in the data 2. label them (i.e. 'carrot' etc).
Now, what to do with all this data is the business of the developer of the application.
It's the application and it's users who decide what the value proposition is. It's not stamped on the underlying technology. The technology is the substrate and the facilitator for the end user applicariona but they alone do not provide any value. Owners of Vive in the current ecosystem where VR applications are scarce and unpolished can probably understand this intuitively.
The potential of VR and AR to provide value are different but the value proposition depends wholly on the application developed for the substrates.
Sorry about the long rant. I just wanted to point out that it's non-value adding and detrimental to innovation to slap labels and qualities on things that don't posses them.
Nobody[0] wants just a Ferrari engine. Everybody wants the whole car.
0: In the general consumer context, I know somebody would want it
That's ... debatable. It's no more that than a regular screen.
VR displays track head movement in 3D space and then give the possibility to use this positioning information when rendering a 3D scene.
This is the basic requirement for AR as well. Pokemon level AR just gives an image of real world where the 3D scene can be overlaid. ARkit level AR uses what ever data inputs are available to guestimate the 3D geometry surrounding the user and offering this 3D information available for the program context. I suppose the third step is when this data is fed to some machine learning algorithm to 1. detect features in the data 2. label them (i.e. 'carrot' etc).
Now, what to do with all this data is the business of the developer of the application.
It's the application and it's users who decide what the value proposition is. It's not stamped on the underlying technology. The technology is the substrate and the facilitator for the end user applicariona but they alone do not provide any value. Owners of Vive in the current ecosystem where VR applications are scarce and unpolished can probably understand this intuitively.
The potential of VR and AR to provide value are different but the value proposition depends wholly on the application developed for the substrates.
Sorry about the long rant. I just wanted to point out that it's non-value adding and detrimental to innovation to slap labels and qualities on things that don't posses them.
Nobody[0] wants just a Ferrari engine. Everybody wants the whole car.
0: In the general consumer context, I know somebody would want it