Hacker News Reader

Comment by newark | Hacker News Reader

Would you shed more light on why there little interest in remote support / med applications? If there was a need for it, what held it back?

What do you see as a common weakness / deficiency in products from ODG, Vuzix, and RealWear that could sink them by competitors such as HoloLens and Magic Leap? On the other hand, what do they need to beat HoloLens and Magic Leap?

View on HN

There are many medical applications. One is remote care and surgical follow-up. In many places getting access to a specialist is difficult (esp for Pediatric and Derm). A nurse would wear Glass and act as a proxy for the remote specialist doc or allow for follow up post-surgery. This is a big deal for remote communities that have poor health outcomes because of lack of access. In the US there's no incentive to reduce cost or provide better care (really) so it's a hard sell.

Remote support is really targeted at operations that have a high cost when it's not working (like manufacturing) and have a high degree of sophistication. A lot of times someone might need to drives hours or get on a plane from some other location to address the issue.

There were issues with all the products, but for my money Glass or Realwear was the best solution. Glass if it needs to be easy and Realwear if it needs to be robust. I can be more specific if you like.

Those are interesting use cases for sure. It seems like they would have more than paid for themselves. So, what critical issues (technical, usability, etc) did those AR glasses have that would explain the lack of interests in them?

Yes, please share specifics. I hope similar mistakes would be avoided time around and not delay AR adoption for another decade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com