And? I'm not talking about the $400 headset that was doing both. That was the Quest Pro (which already exists in the market as mixed reality) and eventually the fully AR glasses in R&D assuming you read my comment? Meta already has more than one product for this.
> What might happen in the future is for the discussion about the future. currently not the case.
The over-arching discussion is already about the future Apple AR glasses, and Meta's intention about their own AR glasses couldn't have been more clearer and relevant with their acquisitions.
It all gets a bit hazy as soon as you start bringing in video from the headset cameras.
But, AR is generally now meant to mean see through displays. Where as MR is cameras capturing and then reprojecting images to the display inside a light proof case.
In terms of software they basically have the same requirements, in terms of hardware, the screens don't exist yet, and the batteries don't either.
I don't think its hazy. video pass through on these headsets don't extend the VR into AR, its an ease of use function to let you navigate your environment while wearing a headset. It might be in the future cheap headsets have AR, but that not is the case today.
VR replaces your world with a virtual one. AR casts virtual things into the normal world.
Camera pass through isn't AR, the same way a security camera isn't AR just because you could potentially view it on a VR HMD. There needs to be the component of combining the normal and virtual worlds. Camera pass through is just an ease of use feature.
> Camera pass through isn't AR, the same way a security camera isn't AR just because you could potentially view it on a VR HMD.
I would suggest that this is a very modern interpretation. Pokemon go is an "AR" game, even though its camera-mediated. Wayfair has an "AR" furniture viewer, apple has "AR" feature to view the new mac mini: https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/ (search for AR)
as I said, its hazy, and its only now that laser/waveguide see through displays are possible that we can have real-world overlays.
I think the next $400 unit from Meta will focus on camera-based XR features. The new $1,500 Quest Pro is clearly a trial round for features they're hoping to be able to include in the next consumer unit.
That's debatable - the Quest Pro has been roundly criticised for having passthrough that isn't good enough for many AR applications (e.g.: you can't read text through it and it has very poor temporal stability), while being marketed for those applications. If they can't do great passthrough at 1,500 dollars, it unlikely that they'll do good passthrough for 400. Hope to be proven wrong, as I'd love to use a headset for productivity.
I have a Quest Pro and I find the passthrough pretty impressive (not knowing any better I suppose — I wasn't expecting to read a newspaper wearing the headset anyway).
If the same capability were available in a $400 unit, I think it would appeal to many people.
Given that AR headset also tend to reduce vision (need to block incoming light to be able to project these 'augmented' object), I'm not sure that the distinction between AR and VR-with-passtrough is very important.
There are different AR implementations possible with different tradeoffs.
>And VR with passthrough is AR unless you're being pedantic.
It isn't. It doesn't do what AR does. It's just an ease of use of feature. IUf you watch a security camera through a VR HMD is it AR? No, because none of the virtual world is being cast into the real world. It doesn't meet the basic requirements of being AR.
Have you used any passthrough apps on VR headsets? I work on one and it's functionality is the same whether it runs on VR/passthrough or traditional AR hardware.
