> Do people really want to run around wearing glasses/headsets all the time?

Absolutely! If I could wear some regular looking glasses that could identify objects, give me directions, etc, I would totally wear them.

I'm really good with faces, in that I can see someone after a long time and know that I know them, but I'm really bad with names, so I can never remember their name. If I could have glasses that looked in my contacts or Facebook or whatever and told me the name of the person I'm looking at, that would help me be less awkward at social gatherings.

If the glasses can name people from your contacts, it's only one more step to name and recognize everyone it can including strangers, including showing any related info like reddit aliases (known and suspected), reputation in some reputation tracker or even criminal history, favorite alcoholic beverages and other interests to help with dating... enough people don't want that so they'll ban AR devices and punch out people they catch wearing them. This stuff is already going on to varying degrees, but mostly businesses watching people. Getting people watching people and really kicking off AR needs, besides the tech, more assurances that no one can tell you're watching. I agree there wouldn't be much adoption barrier for having to wear hardware, so many people wear glasses and sunglasses and hats all the time anyway, the barrier is just being inconspicuous.

At one point there was an Android app that could identify strangers. They nerfed it so that it couldn't do that anymore. I'm sure they could do the same for the glasses.

But yeah, that's why it would have to be real subtle.

Wasn't it an app by a Russian guy that looked on the social network for people's name? I think it served as a brilliant demonstration of the current state of privacy.

This sounds like an amazing idea for a Black Mirror episode

> that would help me be less awkward at social gatherings

And how do you think the people you are "talking" to feel when you're constantly occupied with your AR glasses? :)

Hopefully they would be subtle enough not to be distracting. Like my smart watch. :)

It's worth pondering why Google Glass totally failed as a consumer product before we get too excited about this.

google glass wasn’t really AR the same way that arkit is.

glass was more of a novelty camera you wore on your face. it was extremely unfashionable, and quickly became associated with “people trying to record you” and invasion of privacy in general.

i think if apple releases some kind of headset, it will look more like regular eyewear. it will also unquestionably be for augmented reality. society probably won’t conflate it with someone trying to snap candid shots like glass.

ARKit what these guys are talking about isn't even that. Its just holding up your phone. This functionality has been around forever. From Worldlens, to Yelp to the Ikea app. I don't know why all of the sudden its considered "Around the corner"

> I don't know why all of the sudden its considered "Around the corner"

Because at the end of the Summer hundreds of millions of users will upgrade to an OS that has the ARKit API built in and developers will have a standard solution that works well. That's with the hardware out now, enhanced AR friendly sensors will probably start shipping on the new iPhone and then in subsequent model years it's anyone's guess.

Ubiquity and accessibility. Sure, giant corporations like Ikea and Yelp made AR apps, now every iOS developer can too and there'll be buckets of documentation and tutorials to help them along the way.

layar was an api anyone could have built ar apps with

and Android 2.2 also had an api. but don't try to argue with people that just watched an apple announcement.

They're different things, but don't try and argue with people on hacker news.

Not markerless, not coupled with a relatively to use 3D api.

I already wear glasses all the time. Lots of tradespeople wear eye protection all the time.

I don't think I've seen the killer app yet, but if it's awesome, wearing glasses won't be too much of a problem once they become slim and light.

I don't want to carry a big flat phone in my pocket, but its worth it.

I think its all about marketing when it comes to convincing people, nobody imagined computer phones and the idea would seem weird then, like why put a computer on your phone.

I think ARKit has potential, Pokemon Go is still big and Snapchat glasses has generated hype among people that don't identify the glasses with AR.

I actually think ARkit will be big precisely because it's not a headset. You can just hold it in your hand.

Imagine the Metaverse exists, fully fledged, and there are two products which can access it:

1) A headset that you strap on your head, and you're "inside"

2) A picture frame that you can hold up and look through, and the Metaverse appears on the other side. You can reach behind the frame with your other hand, and it's then inside, and can touch stuff inside

Which will be more popular?

Now, I know a lot of VR enthusiasts are going say #1, but I suspect a lot of people will prefer #2. It has several benefits:

- No nausea

- If freaky shit starts happening, you can just look away or put the device down

- You can keep talking with real world people

- You can look back and forth between the Metaverse and the real world without taking your headset off or performing any kind of switch

- You can still make eye contact with people in the real world

- A bajillion people already have an iPhone

- There's nothing really to learn, the Metaverse is just a new app on your phone, not a whole new interaction paradigm

The downsides are two:

- Less immersive

- One of your hands is taken up

I can see the uses for both devices, but I predict the picture frame gets at least 50% of Metaverse interactions over the next decade, maybe more.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I believe what you are describing is what is referred to as VR (Virtual Reality), not AR (Augmented Reality).

From what I understand, I believe other commenters in this thread refer to AR as a combination of 'real' reality and computer generated overlays. This is opposed to VR where all of reality is generated. So when we talk about AR headsets we're talking about things akin to Google Glass or Microsoft Hololens if you're familiar with these products. In that sense you are never 'inside' AR (with a headset or phone), it simply augments what you currently experience with extra data. With a true AR headset it is still possible to interact with people in the real world, you can turn on/off the extra data easily (since you are still immersed in the real world) and the computer generated overlays fit in with your real surroundings in a way that is simple and intuitive. Granted such a headset does not yet exist, but I believe that is the end goal.

What you describe as 'stepping inside the Metaverse' with no possibility of interacting with the real world is exactly what VR is all about (full immersion). (As an aside, the Metaverse as described in Snow Crash is exactly this: a Virtual Reality.)

As for the headset vs phone debate, personally I believe that the applications of AR in a non-headset configuration will be limited. There are definitely applications for one-off utilities which don't require constant use (ie. don't require gorilla arm), but having it available at all times and transparently via some sort of headset is where I believe it will really be useful.

What is the Metaverse and why do I want to go there?

I think there are a few different opinions on this, one is a total emersion world with streets of your own and it's own landscape. See Snow Crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

Another version would be something like the "darknet" in the book Daemon/Freedom by Daniel Suarez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom%E2%84%A2

The AR in Pokemon Go is already kind of a thing. 750m app downloads to date.