Why VR vs AR is an obsolete argument :
http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/18/why-vr-vs-ar-is-an-obsolete-arment/
The writer's point is that they are two different technologies that aren't competing with each other, rather like TV (virtual reality) and mobile (augmented reality).
Anyway, interesting that he doesn't use the term mixed reality at all. Tech writers still not getting the message. I get the feeling that a lot depends on what Apple calls their version of mixed reality/hologram/3D AR. If they stick with AR (perhaps using another inhouse term as well for the actual device) then the term AR will certainly remain bigger than MR whatever Microsoft does.
Still feel that while there's uncertainty over the adoption of the terms MR and AR, a lot of companies will play safe and go for tried and tested brands such as 3D, virtual etc.
I seen that article yesterday.
For names, it's about the actual adoption of the term and to what it actually means in the eye of the consumer. No matter what anyone thinks or says it is, it is about the marketing of the consumer.
It was not a good analogy. And I did understand his point. There is no 'better' tech. Just the one that meets the need of or just appeals to you more as a practical perception. I have been making that point here.
But, to extend his analogy, the hardware does not compete (yet) between TV and mobile.
But because the 'medium delivered' is crossing that line to mobile, you could say it is coming in a non-direct way. In the future, Folks may decide not to buy a TV when they can do what they want in a mobile device (even with 2D media) and view it even better/larger through a VR Goggle or like device and do it cheaper with something they can take with them on the go. (I used my original DK1 for the same after making a skew adapter and feeding it video in the form of a DVD movie... ...it's better than iMax but could not take it on the go)
But the 'Medium' delivered is not exactly competing per-Se, but it is as competing forces find new avenues to extend to a changing market as a new opportunity.
But it is all about the medium. Not the hardware. If anyone wants to sell you hardware, they are selling you access to the medium. And that is the bulk focus for me in names.
You might have a 'golf game' and that could match anything.
But if you make a point to brand it a 'VR golf game' in one form or another, being many ways to do that,
you have specifically ruled out what it is not.
So for names, it is strictly about the NEED to make a distinction in marketing.
That is where keyword value comes from.
'IF' it is there, domains will be needed to fill that marketing distinction.
The higher the need and volume for it (breath and depth), the higher the value of it and the more will sell.
I will say most all of my focus with what I have actually been buying the past year are the more universally accepted terms and I'm not done buying them. Most recognize that they are likely to produce more than one format of media. There will still be needs out there for individual media but the demand for universal descriptors will obviously be higher.
But make sure you understand the difference between how the company is branding themselves and how they brand the products they produce.
