I know a few people have posted what Robert Scoble has said in the past on here.
I’ve never really took much notice what he’s said personally, but he’s no doubt a guy with a lot of influence in VR/AR, has a lot followers and a lot of contacts and today he's tweeted he’s no longer using the term ‘XR’ reason being Apples killed it.
https://twitter.com/Scobleizer/status/1042679405036810241
Nothing Scoble say's is going to change my day,. week or year.
His following comes from stating things folks 'want to hear'.
...BTW... where is that see-through iPhone ? And a dozen other things he stated. Short memory for some ?
I think many are still the same 'knee jerk reactionaries ' they were here a few years ago and should broaden their vision as they don't seem to be learning by experience.
I have warned how some of these terms were likely to be re-interpreted and mis-interpredted and stated that you need to sharpen your pencil to play them. Blanket plays on chance risk are going to have a downside.
How much downside is up to the investor.
Buying more than 6 names without accurately being able to determine who would have a need for them spells disaster in my book. And I am uncertain how you do that when the meaning of a term is in question.
The 'consumer language' is key here regardless of those with a financial interest attempts in putting those terms on the consumers tongue.
If Apples model number effects things that much, then you never had anything to begin with.
But I see no change from it.
I will say again, we will likely see someone inject a new term when they want to say their product is different from the rest, even if it is not different outside of how it looks or how they get the same end result.
But none of it is going to remove the value of VR & AR. But that does not mean they can't have value of their
own.
Example:
I could see that VR and AR are going to have platforms to interact (as XR or MR or something else ?) and one of my targeted plays was xrchatrooms and xrchats being probably the first large scale good example. Now, I don't need 20 names that are similar to play that. It's a future important social interaction play.
If it is good, that will do just fine 'if' I wait for the market that I see developing in my crystal ball actually happens, it should have a fine value.
But this VR/AR interaction is probably 5 or more years from having a solid base. But it will happen.
Microsoft's Mixed Reality was actually originally based on this principle as seen at the OS and some may remember me saying that this was not a new and separate tech, and perhaps now understand how I seen it all along. And with that competes with the XR term.
.
The development software to make these cross platform interaction possible is being refined as we speak. And AR is at the 'DK-1' stage right now and I don't have any unreasonable expectations that anything is going to speed that up unless some miraculous breakthrough happens in the 'price of quality' AR products.
We are a long way from having a AR install base of over 100 million worldwide. That is where things start to get interesting.
Not counting 'cardboard and things like it', that is just about where VR will be after xmas 2018.
But XR does not play well for generics outside of the theory I have just demonstrated. But for branding it's great for a select market of content folks.. So if it plays well at all, it is limited and select.
But it does play no matter what Apple has done, and unless something happens to create some kind of negative stigma that make some abandon the term, will continue it's course as,
'not all the above', but 'many of the above'. and that is not how it was originally described.
Marketing folks that everyone needs to be concerned with will use what the consumer most identifies with. And that will determine the value. Sharpen those pencils.
