With the release of the Apple Vision Pro VR device, we’re seeing an interesting re-definition attempt of terminology. When I started again with VR about ten years ago after an about ten year hiatus from it, the definitions that everybody used were set in stone. Because they were clear and concise. Now we’re seeing the media just copying from Apple’s press releases and calling it “facts”. That’s just how the tech press works. To paraphrase Denzel Washington: They have to be first, they don’t have to be right.
So what’s the big difference between AR and VR and why do even big companies with enough staff for a two minute web search still get it wrong?
AR, augmented reality is just that. Your natural surroundings, peripheral vision, everything remains intact. You’re merely getting a data overlay. Nothing is blacked out or blocked off. Just like wearing prescription glasses and we’re already seeing some sunglasses manufacturers experimenting with AR glasses.
VR, virtual reality is a virtual environment. A common misconception (mainly fuelled by Apple’s marketing) is that a live-ish video feed mapped to a texture on a bent plane makes it magically AR. Unplug it and the virtual environment is gone. All you’re left with is darkness.
In Apple’s case I can understand the need of going so hard with the AR term. When they started with VR stacking on iOS, they branded it as AR. Now they’re stuck with it. They know it’s wrong but what are they supposed to do really? It’s their legacy term now. Changing the iOS naming conventions would cost a ton of money and confuse developers. Apple is not going to correct it. They have to “save face”.
In a nutshell, if the power goes out and you’re in the dark, it’s VR.
If the power goes out and the overlay (augmentation) is gone, that’s AR.
In 2016, Microsoft tried to establish the term XR for their HoloLens headset. It didn’t make much sense and also never caught on in the market. It’s either AR or VR. You’re either bringing something to reality (AR) or bringing an image of reality to a virtual realm (VR). There’s really nothing in between. Microsoft’s eXtended Reality was just a way to sell their headset. Just a marketing term and not a definition.
The fact that Merriam Webster also has the wrong definition doesn’t help either. But then again they also try to push for a re-definition of “phobia” from meaning “fear” into meaning “dislike” which would correctly be “odium”. So how reliable are they really? Maybe in the past, when facts carried relevance and dictionaries merely documented these. If you can simply buy a definition, why bother?