Dynadot

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

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

VRdommy

Top Member
Impact
6,733
Last edited:
16
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I don't really see where what Apple does is going to change anything for names.
Unless they should 'generically brand' a new reality such as Intel did with 'MERGED'.

Oculus VR's next device will be a "mixed reality device". Probably will hit market by/before Nov 2017.
Likely it will be 'announced' at their dev show before Apple goes public with their device .
Do you think Oculus VR they will change their name ?
Do you think the new device brand name will have AR/MR or Mixed Reality in it ?
And what about those like MR devices coming from Lenovo, HP, Dell & Acer ?

Much of the problem identified with the definition of terminology was created by someone wanting to proclaim/explain how Augmented Reality was different many years ago.
And so they RE-DEFINED what Virtual Reality was based on what they seen in hardware at the time.
And when mixed reality came, they again used the redefined VR and proceeded to say why MIXed was different again.
Then Intel defined Merged and it kinda blew those hardware definitions about AR & MR.

Virtual Reality continues to be any reality that is not your true reality, even if it is augmented or mixed or merged. If it is not real, it is virtual. It's only the method of virtual that is in question here.
One could make the argument that AR/MR is only partial VR.

Facebook's announcement of pumping $3B came yesterday from the trial that Oculus is in when Zucerbugh stated that in defense of Oculus. But that is from Facebook's view and most of that money is not all going into hardware, but the social side of the platform and content at Facebook. And they did just split Oculus up into 2 divisions before the trial started. PC & Mobile. Which division is the Santa Cruz in ?
 
3
•••
Apple should jump on the Merged Reality train:-

nu04On8.gif
 
2
•••
Everyone is free to judge this as they wish,
but many folks are holding a lot of brand names with AR/MR,
I am sure there will be many that will make it part of their brand.
and until I see many 'heavy hitters' branding with it, I remain on the sidelines.

To Me.... Branding with it says there is a difference worth taking note of.
Because they are saying "THIS IS WHAT WE DO" in marketing.
If it is not the only thing they do, they will not want to lock their brand into it.
Outside of that, you have to watch for folks to 'SEARCH' for it to be on the names radar for experiences.
I am sure that will happen also. I only question is how strong that will be in comparison

If I don't see evidence of either over the next full year period. I'll stop watching for it because the AR/MR products will be on the market and they will outnumber the 'VR only' hardware.
If not then, when ?
I have had a short list of available names for it. Just not playing them. Many others are more promising.
 
0
•••
Everyone is free to judge this as they wish,
but many folks are holding a lot of brand names with AR/MR,
I am sure there will be many that will make it part of their brand.
and until I see many 'heavy hitters' branding with it, I remain on the sidelines.

I agree 100%. Also, the acronyms 'ar' and in particular 'mr' (especially with the 'mister' confusion) just don't sound as natural as 'vr'. You could say that this is simply because vr has had a headstart (decades long headstart if you go back to the 90s), but even so, at this stage there should be more startups and apps using ar or mr in their names. Microsoft are pushing the term 'mixed reality' to distinguish the HoloLens and Windows Holographic from vr, but they don't seem to see any branding value in the acronym 'mr' as yet. On the other hand, every week I read of a new virtual reality website or startup that has chosen the 'Holo' branding, and anything remotely to do with holograms is always branded as Holo.

Also, I've read a rash of new articles on 'merged reality' in the last few days. I honestly don't think the general consumer public has the capacity to use all of these different names for technology which is broadly so similar and all breaking onto the scene at more or less the same time. All of them, essentially, present the viewer with virtual 3D holograms. I would say 'vr', 'virtual', 'holo' and maybe even good old '3d', are the bankers for branding purposes.
 
2
•••
I agree 100%. Also, the acronyms 'ar' and in particular 'mr' (especially with the 'mister' confusion) just don't sound as natural as 'vr'. You could say that this is simply because vr has had a headstart (decades long headstart if you go back to the 90s), but even so, at this stage there should be more startups and apps using ar or mr in their names. Microsoft are pushing the term 'mixed reality' to distinguish the HoloLens and Windows Holographic from vr, but they don't seem to see any branding value in the acronym 'mr' as yet. On the other hand, every week I read of a new virtual reality website or startup that has chosen the 'Holo' branding, and anything remotely to do with holograms is always branded as Holo.

Also, I've read a rash of new articles on 'merged reality' in the last few days. I honestly don't think the general consumer public has the capacity to use all of these different names for technology which is broadly so similar and all breaking onto the scene at more or less the same time. All of them, essentially, present the viewer with virtual 3D holograms. I would say 'vr', 'virtual', 'holo' and maybe even good old '3d', are the bankers for branding purposes.
I agree that the consumer is the question unknown here. And as I have always warned that anything could come out of the blue with them. Something that comes from social media could spread rapidly and change it all. Unlikely at this stage but could happen. I do watch for it.

As it turns out, I feel I missed one of the higher probability universal keywords,
and that was VIRTUAL. Of course I did poke at it even 4-5 years ago, but even then the best names were taken for some time. It was a hard nut to crack. I have taken a new look at it looking for a good sub-niche.
And I know others played it heavy. I was not willing to go to long tail unless it was strong.
3DVirtualCinema (example) It is a more universal keyword.
Holo 3D Virtual and a few others are very universal.

Ya Know, I do have a good bit of action lately relating to my 3D keyword names.
Some just 3D(keyword) (keyword)3D and others that also have 3DVR(keyword) VR3D(keyword)
But 'mostly' xx3D / 3Dxx most of which I have had 8-10 years. AR3D etc.
That action is split between end-users and investors.
But of end-users, it is mostly media company's lately. Interesting and very promising.
3D is playing well in the near term anyway.

But, I don't think it will be a quite summer in the northern hemisphere this year.
Many start-ups are getting funded with many more in line and they will be looking for a web presence before the x-mas season gets here. Just a heads-up.
Polish off your brands. You might need to look for them to sell'm in the short term.
 
2
•••
1
•••
MobileHolography - HolographicAR

‘HOLOSCOPE’ Headset Claims to Solve AR Display Hurdle with True Holography

RealView recently announced plans to turn their previous desktop holographic display tech into the HOLOSCOPE augmented reality headset. This new headset is similar to Magic Leap‘s AR efforts in two big ways: one, it aims to address the issue of vergence-accommodation conflict inherent in current VR headsets such as Oculus Rift or Vive, and AR headsets such as Microsoft’s HoloLens; and two, we know almost no details about it. Here they explain vergence-accommodation conflict:


Read more: http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-hologram-display/


 
6
•••
4
•••
1
•••
LiveHolograms - Holographies
 
Last edited:
3
•••
MobileHolography - HolographicAR

‘HOLOSCOPE’ Headset Claims to Solve AR Display Hurdle with True Holography

RealView recently announced plans to turn their previous desktop holographic display tech into the HOLOSCOPE augmented reality headset. This new headset is similar to Magic Leap‘s AR efforts in two big ways: one, it aims to address the issue of vergence-accommodation conflict inherent in current VR headsets such as Oculus Rift or Vive, and AR headsets such as Microsoft’s HoloLens; and two, we know almost no details about it. Here they explain vergence-accommodation conflict:


Read more: http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-hologram-display/

Ya know, there are at least 3 similar products like this due to release this year.
Will they actually make it to market ?
Unfortunately, none of them are expected to be under 1k usd @ retail.
Cramming all the tech we want in a package that is light, preforms with quality and has some stand-alone battery life is not a easy task. A glasses style holographic display is the ultimate.
Many of these are expected closer to 2k usd.

And I don't expect Magic Leap will be able to break that 1k price either if they can bring theirs to market next year.
But I am excited that they may indeed start to trickle out into the market this year. Even if not the best quality or have other issues. It can only get better and cheaper from there.
But when these do hit the market, I don't expect any wide sweeping changes because the price makes it prohibitive to the masses. But the future is bright for them.
 
1
•••
MobileHolography - HolographicAR

‘HOLOSCOPE’ Headset Claims to Solve AR Display Hurdle with True Holography

RealView recently announced plans to turn their previous desktop holographic display tech into the HOLOSCOPE augmented reality headset. This new headset is similar to Magic Leap‘s AR efforts in two big ways: one, it aims to address the issue of vergence-accommodation conflict inherent in current VR headsets such as Oculus Rift or Vive, and AR headsets such as Microsoft’s HoloLens; and two, we know almost no details about it. Here they explain vergence-accommodation conflict:


Read more: http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-hologram-display/


I think this is really interesting. Not just in what it is (apparently an ar headset that makes use of REAL holograms), but the fact that another ar headset with no connection to Microsoft could brand itself holo (and with no apparent trademark concerns with the HoloLens).
 
4
•••
I think this is really interesting. Not just in what it is (apparently an ar headset that makes use of REAL holograms), but the fact that another ar headset with no connection to Microsoft could brand itself holo (and with no apparent trademark concerns with the HoloLens).
There are no trademark concerns with the term holoscope.
It would need to be the full term HOLOLENS. It is a made-up word (hack) and holds true branding because it is protectable. HOLOSCOPE can hold the same protect-ability if they chose to do that. And they should.

I am reminded of Rick Schwartz one name play for this entire category several years ago...
SmartGlasses.com - well played.
For a pair of glasses that have no normal form of input except perhaps by a wireless connection to your smartphone, the only other methods for input is a voice response command system, most likely provided by a smartphone or a smartwatch. So the term is well fitted. The same may hold true with the goggle side of it.
The closest thing I have is ARSmartGoggles that may better fit those Merged Reality style HMD's.
 
2
•••
One other thing to point out today...

NameSilo just started a program to sell names on a payment program.
I have sold many names on a lease to own program but I have to say, when it is built into the DLS/Registrar,
it should yield a pretty high result for both buyer and seller.
The buyer can use the name once they select the buy-it-now and pay the down payment.
But they can not move it from the registrar until paid.
If the buyer defaults, the seller keeps the money and gets the name back (after a grace period).
WIN-WIN
 
0
•••
There are no trademark concerns with the term holoscope.
It would need to be the full term HOLOLENS. It is a made-up word (hack) and holds true branding because it is protectable. HOLOSCOPE can hold the same protect-ability if they chose to do that. And they should.

I am reminded of Rick Schwartz one name play for this entire category several years ago...
SmartGlasses.com - well played.
For a pair of glasses that have no normal form of input except perhaps by a wireless connection to your smartphone, the only other methods for input is a voice response command system, most likely provided by a smartphone or a smartwatch. So the term is well fitted. The same may hold true with the goggle side of it.
The closest thing I have is ARSmartGoggles that may better fit those Merged Reality style HMD's.

There were a couple of people here claiming that the value of holo could be limited because Microsoft would trademark countless holo + keywords. Nonsense, of course, as shown by the fact that even other ar headset makers can brand themselves holo something.

But to be honest, with the delays regarding Magic Leap, still no concrete sign of Apple making a move into ar/mr, and HoloLens software driving the first generation of affordable quality vr headsets, and which are also the first that can also do some kind of ar/mr as well, and now with other ar companies and headsets branding themselves as holo, I think the future domain value of holo is bright, to say the least.

I would also say that even without all this, I would bet money that the majority of the first dozen of adult ar/mr sites will brand themselves as holo. We can assume this because even a significant number of adult vr sites are branding themselves as holo. And as we are all aware of the influence of adult upon tech (and especially this new tech in which most of the content being paid for currently is adult), then I think it will be soon a done deal that ar/mr video is referred to as holo by the general consumer.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
It's amazing how fast all this holo software and hardware is developing.

I think we have every right to be excited about the potential of 'holo' domains, given how amazing the tech looks and how companies are already branding themselves with the term.
 
5
•••
There was a couple of people here claiming that the value of holo could be limited because Microsoft would trademark countless holo + keywords. Nonsense, of course, as shown by the fact that even other ar headset makers can brand themselves holo something.

But to be honest, with the delays regarding Magic Leap, still no concrete sign of Apple making a move into ar/mr, and HoloLens software driving the first generation of affordable quality vr headsets, and which are also the first that can also do some kind of ar/mr as well, and now with other ar companies and headsets branding themselves as holo, I think the future domain value of holo is bright, to say the least.

I would also say that even without all this, I would bet money that the majority of the first dozen of adult ar/mr sites will brand themselves as holo. We can assume this because even a significant number of adult vr sites are branding themselves as holo. And as we are all aware of the influence of adult upon tech (and especially this new tech in which most of the content being paid for currently is adult), then I think it will be soon a done deal that ar/mr video is referred to as holo by the general consumer.
Yes, the meaning of HOLO is "whole or complete"
You can not own a dictionary word. That's why it is normally a hacked word(s) or a combination of words that can provide brand protection. example...
It is Oculus VR, not Oculus.
There are many Oculus trademarks, it is a dictionary word, and each of them is for something
"very specific" so you can't stop others from using the word unless for your specific trade.
One of them makes lenses for lighthouses. One other makes sky-light windows.
But there can be only one Oculus VR without confusing the brand.
One method quickly used to make-up a word that can be brandable is to add a Z at the end in place of S.
I did this with a few...
VRChatz VRShortz Holodeckz etc. All Protectable/Brandable made-up words/Hacks.
Very risky to do with long tails and when there is not much market demand for the segment.
It is a way to have a somewhat non-generic protectable that makes it truly brandable.
 
3
•••
There are no trademark concerns with the term holoscope.
It would need to be the full term HOLOLENS. It is a made-up word (hack) and holds true branding because it is protectable. HOLOSCOPE can hold the same protect-ability if they chose to do that. And they should.

I am reminded of Rick Schwartz one name play for this entire category several years ago...
SmartGlasses.com - well played.
For a pair of glasses that have no normal form of input except perhaps by a wireless connection to your smartphone, the only other methods for input is a voice response command system, most likely provided by a smartphone or a smartwatch. So the term is well fitted. The same may hold true with the goggle side of it.
The closest thing I have is ARSmartGoggles that may better fit those Merged Reality style HMD's.

This makes me feel even better about my HoloSmartglasses(.com). I also have HologramLenses and HolographicHeadset.
 
4
•••
There were a couple of people here claiming that the value of holo could be limited because Microsoft would trademark countless holo + keywords. Nonsense, of course, as shown by the fact that even other ar headset makers can brand themselves holo something.

But to be honest, with the delays regarding Magic Leap, still no concrete sign of Apple making a move into ar/mr, and HoloLens software driving the first generation of affordable quality vr headsets, and which are also the first that can also do some kind of ar/mr as well, and now with other ar companies and headsets branding themselves as holo, I think the future domain value of holo is bright, to say the least.

I would also say that even without all this, I would bet money that the majority of the first dozen of adult ar/mr sites will brand themselves as holo. We can assume this because even a significant number of adult vr sites are branding themselves as holo. And as we are all aware of the influence of adult upon tech (and especially this new tech in which most of the content being paid for currently is adult), then I think it will be soon a done deal that ar/mr video is referred to as holo by the general consumer.

This was about Micrisoft trademarking certain Holo + Keyword phrases though so it wasn't nonsense.

They have trademarked:

HoloStudio
HoloTour
HoloPet

Etc etc.

This makes selling the .com versions of those phrases almost impossible?

Of course not every Holo Keyword is going to be trademarked by Microsoft but the fact that they have done this with some pretty big keywords already does make me question how much I would be willing to pay for a top keyword Holo Domain.

I have always said I am a huge Holo fan. But you don't even see it as a slight concern that Microsoft can apply a trademark as and when they feel like which could potentially effect that version of our .com ?

I know you have mentioned before that you have some top Holo Adult Keyword domains so I feel those will be a pretty safe bet as Microsoft won't trademark any of those phrases.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
This was about Micrisoft trademarking certain Holo + Keyword phrases though so it wasn't nonsense.

They have trademarked:

HoloStudio
HoloTour
HoloPet

Etc etc.

This makes selling the .com versions of those phrases almost impossible?

Of course not every Holo Keyword is going to be trademarked by Microsoft but the fact that they have done this with some pretty big keywords already does make me question how much I would be willing to pay for a top keyword Holo Domain.

I have always said I am a huge Holo fan. But you don't even see it as a slight concern that Microsoft can apply a trademark as and when they feel like which could potentially effect that version of our .com ?

I know you have mentioned before that you have some top Holo Adult Keyword domains so I feel those will be a pretty safe bet as Microsoft won't trademark any of those phrases.
If you owned those names before the mark, you do have rights.
Is that the case ?
 
1
•••
If you owned those names before the mark, you do have rights.
Is that the case ?

Yes, if you owned the names before the TM was filed, you will be ok.
 
2
•••
If you owned those names before the mark, you do have rights.
Is that the case ?

Yes you do have rights. If a new owner buys that name though they won't have those rights.

Yes, if you owned the names before the TM was filed, you will be ok.

I have always seen your comments advising people to stay away from trademarks because it is not worth the hassle?

Have you now changed your tune and you would advise external companies to buy the following domains:

HoloNotes
HoloStudio

Etc ?

You have always stated that if a domain is ever sold to a new owner after a trademark filed date, that trademark then could be used by the trademark owner against the new domain owner?

dot weekly did a piece on this before which gives a similar view that Microsoft are not doing the .com equivalents much benefit when they are filing these trademarks without purchasing the domains.

http://dotweekly.com/microsoft-files-holonotes-and-holoshot-trademarks/

I have always stated I am a huge Holo domain name fan. But in the same context I am only trying to be honest enough to say that Microsoft filing trademarks on Holo Keywords does give a little concern.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
@NamePov

Yes, that's what I said above..haven't changed my tune...

I strongly advise against going out and buying a trademarked term but if you have owned the name before the trademarked was filed..then you are fine...just like I have holotech and have owned it for years...a company trademarked the term last year but they cannot come in and take the name for me, so they have registered a bunch of other "holotech" related names in other extensions

Stay away from holonote, holotour, holopet etc, all have been trademarked...It does look like they did change ownership after the TM was filed though
 
Last edited:
3
•••
@NamePov

I strongly advise against going out and buying a trademarked term but if you have owned the name before the trademarked was filed..then you are fine...just like I have holotech and have owned it for years...a company trademarked the term last year but they cannot come in and take the name for me, so they have registered a bunch of other "holotech" related names in other extensions

Stay away from holonote, holotour, holopet etc, all have been trademarked...

Yes I totally agree Giles that being the owner of a domain name before the trademark filed date means that we are personally ok to own the domain.

But if that domain name ever changes ownership in the future that pretty much means that the trademark can be enforced?

Therefore the problem arises in the sale/purchase of that given domain if after the filed trademark date?

This makes the domain almost unsellable/buyable (at least morally) unless the trademark owner purchases the domain.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
@NamePov

Absolutely correct..It's a new owner so he has purchased a TM domain....whether he knew or not doesn't really matter...thats why you always check first☺
 
2
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back