THIS is the story of the most exciting technology you’re ever likely to encounter, which could transform how we interact with computers in the 21st century.
That is a big claim. But I’ll bet that five, 10, 20 years from now, I’ll be able to point to this column and say, "I told you so."
I’m talking about augmented reality, or AR. It’s often misunderstood or mischaracterised, and has been overshadowed by its cousin, virtual reality. Moreover, the best-known example of AR, Google Glass, has largely been a failure so far.
To understand AR, imagine a display that sits, not on your desk or in your hand, but in front of your eyes. Today, these displays are unwieldy, ranging from bulkier versions of safety glasses to something akin to a bicycle helmet. They have other limitations, such as a narrow field of view, relatively poor resolution and problems with lag.
But many technologists believe that within five years, these displays will be able to project a virtual screen on every surface.
Imagine looking at your wrist and seeing a smartwatch — only you’re not wearing a watch. Imagine looking at your hand and seeing a smartphone or a tablet, only you’re not carrying one. Imagine looking at a wall and, with a gesture, transforming it into a giant display — your entire workspace, with you wherever you go. Imagine a world without screens, save the one we bring with us.
Nearly every tech giant is working on AR. Facebook CE Mark Zuckerberg has said his company is working on it. Samsung and Apple both hold intriguing patents, and are hiring specialists. Apple acquired Germany’s Metaio, an AR company. Microsoft’s forthcoming HoloLens headgear offers a wide field of view, crisp display, and responsiveness that helps make its images feel real.
Alphabet’s Google is still working on AR — Glass is now "Aura", with new editions available to developers. Seiko Epson has offered AR glasses for five years, and plans to ship the third iteration of its technology, the BT-300, by the end of 2016.
Dozens of startups are staking claims, including Meta and Daqri. Magic Leap has raised $1.37bn from the likes of Google and Andreessen Horowitz, among the largest sums for a company that has yet to reveal its core product. Goldman Sachs Group recently projected that AR and VR together would generate $80bn in hardware sales by 2025 — as big as the PC industry today. Even if such projections prove bullish, this will be a big market.
Goldman Sachs also projected that AR would by then dwarf VR. The reason is simple: VR is to the PC as AR is to the smartphone. One requires that you be in a safe, enclosed space, while the other can be used in the real world.
"There will absolutely be a time in the future where AR is so ubiquitous that we can’t imagine our lives without it," says Brian Mullins, CE of Daqri, which makes an AR system for engineers that is embedded in a futuristic-looking hard hat.
Getting there won’t be easy because the technical challenges of AR are, if anything, greater than VR. Really good AR requires an amount of computing power and sensors equivalent to the equipment in a self-driving car, engineers say. But such computing power already can be squeezed into a smartphone. Many new phones are more powerful than the computer in the car that won the 2005 Darpa grand challenge, in which an autonomous vehicle conquered 142 miles of trackless Mojave Desert.
Already, developers offer applications for Epson’s Moverio headset that let workers in the field see instructions from remote engineers, or let nurses see the location of a patient’s veins, as if they were painted on the patient’s arm.
For AR to take off, headsets and eyewear will have to shrink, but there are no unconquerable physical barriers to making them smaller, or lighter. Epson’s BT-300 weighs just more than 60 grams.
Prices will have to shrink, too. Daqri’s AR headset is in the range of $10,000, says Mr. Mullins, while Microsoft’s HoloLens is about $3,000. But the trend is favourable: Systems from Meta and Epson that once cost tens of thousands are now less than $1,000.
Perhaps AR’s biggest hurdle will be human. As we saw with Google Glass, wearing a computer on your face can provoke visceral reactions stemming from our fears of surveillance and sacrificing our humanity to the machines. The most likely reason my prediction may fail is that people won’t want to wear AR gear except when they have to for work.
AR is sneaking up on us because, unlike the smartphone, its first customers and applications are for businesses. Few consumers have seen an AR system, and fewer still have tried several. But I have, and I’m willing to stake my reputation on this: AR is the future, the dominant way we will interact with computers and the Internet.
• Mims is technology columnist at The Wall Street Journal
More Africa news from The Wall Street Journal
More news from The Wall Street Journal
Premium access to WSJ.com: $1 a week for 12 weeks
Picture: THINKSTOCK
THIS is the story of the most exciting technology you’re ever likely to encounter, which could transform how we interact with computers in the 21st century.
That is a big claim. But I’ll bet that five, 10, 20 years from now, I’ll be able to point to this column and say, "I told you so."
I’m talking about augmented reality, or AR. It’s often misunderstood or mischaracterised, and has been overshadowed by its cousin, virtual reality. Moreover, the best-known example of AR, Google Glass, has largely been a failure so far.
To understand AR, imagine a display that sits, not on your desk or in your hand, but in front of your eyes. Today, these displays are unwieldy, ranging from bulkier versions of safety glasses to something akin to a bicycle helmet. They have other limitations, such as a narrow field of view, relatively poor resolution and problems with lag.
But many technologists believe that within five years, these displays will be able to project a virtual screen on every surface.
Imagine looking at your wrist and seeing a smartwatch — only you’re not wearing a watch. Imagine looking at your hand and seeing a smartphone or a tablet, only you’re not carrying one. Imagine looking at a wall and, with a gesture, transforming it into a giant display — your entire workspace, with you wherever you go. Imagine a world without screens, save the one we bring with us.
Nearly every tech giant is working on AR. Facebook CE Mark Zuckerberg has said his company is working on it. Samsung and Apple both hold intriguing patents, and are hiring specialists. Apple acquired Germany’s Metaio, an AR company. Microsoft’s forthcoming HoloLens headgear offers a wide field of view, crisp display, and responsiveness that helps make its images feel real.
Alphabet’s Google is still working on AR — Glass is now "Aura", with new editions available to developers. Seiko Epson has offered AR glasses for five years, and plans to ship the third iteration of its technology, the BT-300, by the end of 2016.
Dozens of startups are staking claims, including Meta and Daqri. Magic Leap has raised $1.37bn from the likes of Google and Andreessen Horowitz, among the largest sums for a company that has yet to reveal its core product. Goldman Sachs Group recently projected that AR and VR together would generate $80bn in hardware sales by 2025 — as big as the PC industry today. Even if such projections prove bullish, this will be a big market.
Goldman Sachs also projected that AR would by then dwarf VR. The reason is simple: VR is to the PC as AR is to the smartphone. One requires that you be in a safe, enclosed space, while the other can be used in the real world.
"There will absolutely be a time in the future where AR is so ubiquitous that we can’t imagine our lives without it," says Brian Mullins, CE of Daqri, which makes an AR system for engineers that is embedded in a futuristic-looking hard hat.
Getting there won’t be easy because the technical challenges of AR are, if anything, greater than VR. Really good AR requires an amount of computing power and sensors equivalent to the equipment in a self-driving car, engineers say. But such computing power already can be squeezed into a smartphone. Many new phones are more powerful than the computer in the car that won the 2005 Darpa grand challenge, in which an autonomous vehicle conquered 142 miles of trackless Mojave Desert.
Already, developers offer applications for Epson’s Moverio headset that let workers in the field see instructions from remote engineers, or let nurses see the location of a patient’s veins, as if they were painted on the patient’s arm.
For AR to take off, headsets and eyewear will have to shrink, but there are no unconquerable physical barriers to making them smaller, or lighter. Epson’s BT-300 weighs just more than 60 grams.
Prices will have to shrink, too. Daqri’s AR headset is in the range of $10,000, says Mr. Mullins, while Microsoft’s HoloLens is about $3,000. But the trend is favourable: Systems from Meta and Epson that once cost tens of thousands are now less than $1,000.
Perhaps AR’s biggest hurdle will be human. As we saw with Google Glass, wearing a computer on your face can provoke visceral reactions stemming from our fears of surveillance and sacrificing our humanity to the machines. The most likely reason my prediction may fail is that people won’t want to wear AR gear except when they have to for work.
AR is sneaking up on us because, unlike the smartphone, its first customers and applications are for businesses. Few consumers have seen an AR system, and fewer still have tried several. But I have, and I’m willing to stake my reputation on this: AR is the future, the dominant way we will interact with computers and the Internet.
• Mims is technology columnist at The Wall Street Journal
More Africa news from The Wall Street Journal
More news from The Wall Street Journal
Premium access to WSJ.com: $1 a week for 12 weeks
Change: 1.19%
Change: 1.36%
Change: 2.19%
Change: 1.49%
Change: -0.77%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.19%
Change: 0.69%
Change: 1.19%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.44%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.62%
Change: 0.61%
Change: 0.23%
Change: 0.52%
Change: 0.12%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.21%
Change: -1.22%
Change: -0.69%
Change: -0.51%
Change: 0.07%
Data supplied by Profile Data