Holo vs VR vs MR vs AR vs any other reality (All realities)

[VRdommy]

Intel Project Alloy - A Must Read
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3108...first-open-source-third-party-vr-headset.html

The pace of change with new VR product designs is about to increase exponentially.
And while this is one thing to move that along, it's not the only thing.

...MORE...
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/intel-project-alloy-vr-ar-merged-reality

 

[Manusakos]

I've been having fun the last few days with the FaceAPP that lets you see yourself as an old man (frighteningly realistic). Has millions of downloads already. https://www.faceapp.com/ I think those names you listed could be gold.

ARFaces

 

[Manusakos]

ARdressup.com

ARDressingRoom

 

[MetaverseBranding]

AR Makeovers (.com)

 

[VRdommy]

VRTweeter (see this as a vr app for use with twitter)
and
VRCam.pro VRCam.chat VRCam.tube - I don't reg this kinda stuff often...LOL...

Longer shots as I know, but not bad ones.

 

[VRdommy]

I personally wouldn’t go near any ‘3D’ keywords in VR – VR by definition is 3D (360o 3D):-
===
Virtual Reality
"the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors."

So a VR company branding themselves VR+3D+keyword sort of makes the term redundant and any 3D+keywords will make companies/public think back to failed 3DTV’s, so I can’t imagine anyone wanting to brand with that.

While this is a true fact that 3D is required for Immersion, not necessarily VR as it is "REFEREED TO AS".
I went though this issue many years ago. I came to several different concussions but it depends on what we are talking about exactly how it plays out. So I will site 2 major examples.

And remember, I am only thinking of it as the 'referred to as' and not necessarily the marketing or truth.
So for branding names I doubt it has any major plays mixing VR+3D. Just generics.

In the field of VR Cams, not all of them are 3D, so without that you have no immersion but everyone will still refer to them as VR Cams without the 3D. They will even be marketed the same.
Folks will be looking for 3D versions of them. It is a major play for this segment.
I have mentioned this many times in many threads for a long time if you were reading them.

In other areas of generics, What I left myself thinking 5 years ago when I started playing them that way
(3D+VR) was that for the strongest keywords, there would not be enough great names to fill the vast number of needs, so VR3D/3DVR type names give a large generic need a method of getting the most important keywords without destroying the intent of that keyword and still keeping it 'short'.

Now will these have a greater or lesser value... I am sure they will depending on exactly what field we are speaking to and the exact name. I already played my hunches on this many years ago.
It was 3 or more years ago that I reg'd my last one. Mostly hardware names. No software/apps.
edit: except some adult names

 

[Domainsyrup]

Not sure but for just $5...
FreeVR.cam

 

[xr reality]

http://arglassesguide.com/

Good site as i have seen a large spike in traffic numbers to arsmartglasses.com

 

[Internet.Domains]

I just regged Varvai.com.

Virtual Augmented Reality Visual Artificial Intelligence... (I know that's a mouthful)
Virtual Augmented Reality Virtual Artificial Intelligence

My goal was a brandable word with meaning, involving all of the above keywords.
I feel it comes off the tongue nice and has the ever gaining popular letter "V" being very dominant. As a bonus it is the same length as Google.

 

[Ricardo M]

I own

VRsual.com
VRinema.com

Made me think of Visual and Cinema.
You think it has a decent value?

 

[VRdommy]

http://arglassesguide.com/

Good site as i have seen a large spike in traffic numbers to arsmartglasses.com

While I'm not knocking AR or smartglasses, That data is very misleading at best.
But that would take a page to explain why. So just take my word for it !

 

[VRdommy]

I own

VRsual.com
VRinema.com

Made me think of Visual and Cinema.
You think it has a decent value?

Quite honestly, NO. But one never knows when it comes to branding.
If you look back at historic sales sales, you will find few names of made-up words except where a Trademark Brand-able name is desired and will 'pay-off'. And those are extremely hard to predict. While it's always nice to chance a few here and there, be careful how deep you fish and how much bait you put on the hook.

 

[Ricardo M]

Quite honestly, NO. But one never knows when it comes to branding.
If you look back at historic sales sales, you will find few names of made-up words except where a Trademark Brand-able name is desired and will 'pay-off'. And those are extremely hard to predict. While it's always nice to chance a few here and there, be careful how deep you fish and how much bait you put on the hook.

After 8 years of active domaining i tried my first shots with the VR hype. Never say never altough i don't aim high. I just park and offer them and time will learn. Worth the reg fee for a try

 

[VRdommy]

After 8 years of active domaining i tried my first shots with the VR hype. Never say never altough i don't aim high. I just park and offer them and time will learn. Worth the reg fee for a try

Oh absolutely. Contrary to some thinking, there are names out there for the hand reg.
You just need to take your time and keep looking for a good one.
Good Hunting !

 

[Kingslayer]

In the field of VR Cams, not all of them are 3D, so without that you have no immersion but everyone will still refer to them as VR Cams without the 3D. They will even be marketed the same.
Folks will be looking for 3D versions of them. It is a major play for this segment.
I have mentioned this many times in many threads for a long time if you were reading them.

You are describing different things mate, I think you are getting confused with ‘360 cameras’ and calling them ‘VR cameras’.

‘VR cameras’ and ‘360 cameras’ are 2 different things:-

https://medium.cinematicvr.org/crit...ifferences-in-building-360-2d-vs-b3abff6185e3

360 cameras - You can record 360 2D videos – ‘360 video’ isn’t VR but you can use a VR headset to watch them, but also can be watched on phones/tablets/desktops etc.

Then there’s VR camera’s designed solely for making ‘Virtual Reality Video’ (360 degree VR videos).

Anything that immerses you in a 3D 360 degree environment is classed as ‘Virtual Reality’ – Watching 2D 360 videos on a VR headset is not Virtual Reality.

 

[Landov]

Augmented.courses

Augmented.training

 

[cordoba]

You are describing different things mate, I think you are getting confused with ‘360 cameras’ and calling them ‘VR cameras’.

‘VR cameras’ and ‘360 cameras’ are 2 different things:-

Yeah, but people are still calling them vr cameras and companies are still marketing them as such. That, btw, would also make the use of 3D in a domain more valuable as more educated consumers would be searching for a real VR Cam i.e a 3D VR cam.

It's like the holo thing where people here have been saying that because 'mixed reality' is not real holograms holo/graphic names are worthless. It's almost entirely irrelevant.

You could argue that stereoscopic images are not true 3D (and many techies did during the 3D TV hype) but it didn't have any impact on language or domain names.

Also, regarding the 3D part being irrelevant, a lot of words are seemingly unnecessary and yet they just tend to 'stick' with the 'real' keyword in terms of what people search for. For example, 'online chat' or 'live chat'.

I would agree that the the lumping together of VR and 360 is harming virtual reality, as experiencing 360 videos is a long way from the immersive experience of VR, and consequently people might be getting low expectations of what VR can really be.

 

[VRdommy]

You are describing different things mate, I think you are getting confused with ‘360 cameras’ and calling them ‘VR cameras’.

‘VR cameras’ and ‘360 cameras’ are 2 different things:-

https://medium.cinematicvr.org/crit...ifferences-in-building-360-2d-vs-b3abff6185e3

360 cameras - You can record 360 2D videos – ‘360 video’ isn’t VR but you can use a VR headset to watch them, but also can be watched on phones/tablets/desktops etc.

Then there’s VR camera’s designed solely for making ‘Virtual Reality Video’ (360 degree VR videos).

Anything that immerses you in a 3D 360 degree environment is classed as ‘Virtual Reality’ – Watching 2D 360 videos on a VR headset is not Virtual Reality.

Yes I am referring to 360 and VR. And that was the point.
For names we only need to be concerned with the reference term and not the truth.
Just like the statement you and I have both made about most of this being refereed to as 'VR'.
Even as the facts show different.
Edit:
I might also point out that where ever you got that definition from,
"the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors."
That it says 'OR' not 'and' in the middle. But I'm not sure I agree with it in any case.

 

[Onekey]

Outside of tech nerds and industry people that need to know all the nuances of 360 and VR I don't think it matters to the average Joe. If you are wearing a VR headset you are doing "VR" as far as they are concerned.

 

[VRdommy]

Outside of tech nerds and industry people that need to know all the nuances of 360 and VR I don't think it matters to the average Joe. If you are wearing a VR headset you are doing "VR" as far as they are concerned.

Yes, that is the point of 'reference term'.
The truth and the marketing are not always going to line-up the same.
In names because of search, the consumer reference is what matters most.

Edit: But not with branding. you can expect a brand to do it correct 90% of the time.

 

[VRdommy]

Magic Leap becoming a Acquisition ?
https://vrworld.com/2017/04/29/magic-leap-strategic-acquisition/
Despite the speculation, if anyone should pick up the pieces and more important 'Patents', it would be Google since they have the majority of venture capital put forward in several series of fund raising.
And I think Alibaba is lined up in 2nd place.
The real value is the US Government contracts they have with DOD in robotics and display tech. And that might keep Alibaba out of the bidding.
I also think that is what keeps Google from dev'ing their own pair of 'glasses'.
I think all of this is 'baked in' to the cake we are about to eat.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

Magic Leap becoming a Acquisition ?
https://vrworld.com/2017/04/29/magic-leap-strategic-acquisition/
Despite the speculation, if anyone should pick up the pieces and more important 'Patents', it would be Google since they have the majority of venture capital put forward in several series of fund raising.
And I think Alibaba is lined up in 2nd place.
The real value is the US Government contracts they have with DOD in robotics and display tech. And that might keep Alibaba out of the bidding.
I also think that is what keeps Google from dev'ing their own pair of 'glasses'.
I think all of this is 'baked in' to the cake we are about to eat.

I believe Apple already tried to purchase them but Rony turned down the approach.

TBH this is one of those articles that is fully based on what if. Magic Leap have made no indication that they would wan't to sell up so it's pretty much completely creating news for the sake of it.

 

[VRdommy]

I believe Apple already tried to purchase them but Rony turned down the approach.

TBH this is one of those articles that is fully based on what if. Magic Leap have made no indication that they would wan't to sell up so it's pretty much completely creating news for the sake of it.

Yes, conjecture.
But there are so many details that make what I said about it make more sense than what is being said publicly.

 

[Levi_charlz]

While I'm not knocking AR or smartglasses, That data is very misleading at best.
But that would take a page to explain why. So just take my word for it !

True, it's a well known fact that 60% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Kingslayer]

For names we only need to be concerned with the reference term and not the truth.

Truth or not, it all comes back to 3D TV’s, many people invested a lot of money in these TV’s and many companies invested a lot of money in this tech.

Would calling a camera a ‘3DCam360’ (for example) be more harmful marketing wise than just coming up with a name like ‘v360’ or ‘360o’? I believe it would, if people see ‘3D’ in a name it will trigger a negative memory of a failed tech people lost so much money in so it will effect sales as people will say “I’m not buying anything 3D again”, therefore I believe majority of companies won’t even go there with the ‘3D’ term.

Soon 3D will become the norm anyway, people won't even use 2D as technology and headsets progress, just like colour TV eventually became the norm from black and white TV, so if something’s the norm why would anyone brand with it?

If you believe a lot of companies may still use the 3D term (marketing wise) that's fair enough, I respectfully disagree for all I said above, a few might, but i can't see this happening on a large scale and with that is it investable (domain wise)? I guess we’ll see as time goes on, but as said it's not something I'd go near personally.

 

[VRdommy]

Truth or not, it all comes back to 3D TV’s, many people invested a lot of money in these TV’s and many companies invested a lot of money in this tech.

Would calling a camera a ‘3DCam360’ (for example) be more harmful marketing wise than just coming up with a name like ‘v360’ or ‘360o’? I believe it would, if people see ‘3D’ in a name it will trigger a negative memory of a failed tech people lost so much money in so it will effect sales as people will say “I’m not buying anything 3D again”, therefore I believe majority of companies won’t even go there with the ‘3D’ term.

Soon 3D will become the norm anyway, people won't even use 2D as technology and headsets progress, just like colour TV eventually became the norm from black and white TV, so if something’s the norm why would anyone brand with it?

If you believe a lot of companies may still use the 3D term (marketing wise) that's fair enough, I respectfully disagree for all I said above, a few might, but i can't see this happening on a large scale and with that is it investable (domain wise)? I guess we’ll see as time goes on, but as said it's not something I'd go near personally.

But 3DCam360 was not the issue. 3DVR / VR3D was and have nothing to do with 3DTV's.
There are no lessons here from the failure of 3DTV here. That failure was strictly a matter of the chicken or the egg condition and when the cable and satellite co's pulled the rug out from under it, all dev stooped with it. And they had a reason for doing so and I won't go there.

No, I don't see anyone outside of the CAM industry 'marketing' with the term 3D+VR in any large way.
3DVRCams is a definite play. 3D360Cams is also a play.
And there is more that could get tricky with this since not all cams are omnispheric (don't capture the absolute top and bottom) but are panospheric, but I won't go there to complicate this any more than it is.
But one could argue that they are not 'VR CAMS'. It's about the reference value.
We will know more when we see actual consumer search data. Not here yet.

But I have stated I'm not talking 'branding' or 'marketing', I'm talking generics.
I think you will understand what I'm saying when you see the crunch time when the market runs out of premium names without it. Valuation will reflect the lower demand for them. But they will be used.
For the same reasons you might buy the .net or .guru. Not the best but something that works.
But what do you do when they are all gone ?

Let me site a simple example in the case I just am not being very clear...
There is only one VRGoggle but you can get it in a least 9 tld's that 'make sense'.
I see a demand for the term VRGoggle higher than that.
So 3DVRGoggle has a chance for a play. How much demand remains to be seen on market strength.
Nobody is going to brand themselves with that and I doubt anyone will be marketing with that except the online retailer that most likely could use that to get the keyword 'VRGOGGLE'. In any case, that is a quick example, not necessarily the best one.