On: Meta cancels high-end mixed reality headset after ...

[paxys]

If I'm going about my day and a voice in my ear gives me context about my surroundings, identifies people and objects, answers questions, tells me which direction I need to walk in, records and live streams my POV and more, that's AR. The experience doesn't always have to be visual.

[teddyh → paxys]

That’s a phone. You are describing a smartphone. Does this make all phones “AR” devices?

[loeg → teddyh]

This you? https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/36/71/61/1000_F_136716109_nK...

Glasses are a fundamentally different UX than a smartphone.

[teddyh → loeg]

Put your phone in a shirt pocket, its camera visible. Add headphones (wired or bluetooth). Done.

The question remains: Does an audio-only interface qualify as “AR”?

[gmueckl → teddyh]

Yes! The true magic of AR is a computer understanding the user's real wolrd context. The UX modality is secondary.

[Izkata → teddyh]

There was an app over a decade ago called Layar that used the camera, screen, and GPS for AR.

[hughesjj → Izkata]

Also for VR there's, of course, https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/

Imo whether you overlay an image on your eyes or if they just do binocular camera passthrough, they could both count for VR. It's just most phones can't do binocular passthrough due to the lack of appropriately spaced cameras.

This is relevant for stuff like the f35 where you can look "through" the jet

[theshackleford → paxys]

“That’s AR”

That’s funny, because when I look up AR, that’s not at all what I see and it’s certainly not what anybody I know expects from AR.

“a technology that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus providing a composite view.”