Industrial Augmented Reality Status Check

Aug. 8, 2023
A look at the factors that have slowed AR headset adoption thus far as new headset and metaverse technologies enter the market.

From 2013, with the release of the first generation of Google Glass, until COVID altered nearly every aspect of our business and personal lives, the rapid development of augmented reality (AR) technologies gave the impression that some sort of headset wearable would soon become a routine component of an industrial workerā€™s toolset.

Though AR has certainly not disappeared, widespread use of the technology, particularly when paired with a headset, seems a bit further off than it did in 2019 when Lenovo released Think Reality A6, Microsoft announced the second generation of HoloLens and Google launched its second version of Google Glass. Appleā€™s forthcoming Vision Pro AR headset (expected to be released in early 2024) seems to be geared more toward consumer and front-office applications than plant floor use based on early promotional materials.

Key reasons for the slow uptake of AR headsets in industry include cost, durability (only a few headsets are specifically designed for industrial use, such as those from Tacit, RealWear and Honeywell) and the fact that the data delivered by many industrial AR applications can also be accessed via handheld devices when needed or via text and email notifications.

A potential gamechanger for AR headsets would be wide adoption of metaverse technology. Though various aspects of the industrial metaverse technology are being developed by suppliers such as Aveva and Siemens/Nvidia, these products are not readily available yet and, even then, the jury is still out on whether these products will be accessed using headsets in an immersive way or via desktop and mobile devices. At present, only simulated plant environments for worker training are the principal use for headsets in industry.

IoT Analytics, in its recent report on the enterprise AR market and the industrial metaverse, says ā€œthe current generation of augmented reality hardware has been received with mixed feedback, and its adoption is lagging behind ambitions.ā€ According to IoT Analyticsā€™ data, less than 17% of enterprises have rolled out AR technology in some form.

However, among those companies that have deployed headset AR technologies, some ā€œraved about the use in industrial settings,ā€ says IoT Analytics. For example, Michael Hinckley, manager of digital manufacturing at Northrop Grumman, says, ā€œThe feedback from users has been 10 out of 10. We have gotten hardly any negative feedback from the hundreds and hundreds of users that we have put our HoloLenses on.ā€

Positive comments, however, are equalized by complaints, such as from the U.S. army, which, in some reports, says AR technology made soldiers worse at their job.

IoT Analytics notes two applications for AR as being among the most successful for industry:

  • Remote field assistance. Using AR to virtually guide users in tasks they have not performed before (e.g., receiving aid from an expert in a different, remote location). Companies such as Boeing and Xerox have adopted this use case.
  • Operations guidance.Using AR alongside traditional processes to provide additional guidance to workers through visual assistance.

Though different, these two applications are closely connected in terms of guiding worker actions. The principal difference is in whether the workers using the AR technology are using it to connect with remote experts who can provide relevant information and visuals to the worker or whether workflow software in the AR technology guides the worker through the tasks.

ā€œMany potential adoptersā€”even some of the early proponents of the technologyā€”are waiting for the [AR headset] technology to improve and costs to come down,ā€ according to IoT Analytics. ā€œKey pain points include the weight of the devices, limited battery life or computing capacity, dizziness when using the devices, and a limited field of view.ā€

About the Author

David Greenfield, editor in chief | Editor in Chief

David GreenfieldĀ joinedĀ Automation WorldĀ in June 2011. Bringing a wealth of industry knowledge and media experience to his position, Davidā€™s contributions can be found inĀ AWā€™sĀ print and online editions and custom projects. Earlier in his career, David was Editorial Director ofĀ Design NewsĀ at UBM Electronics, and prior to joining UBM, he was Editorial Director ofĀ Control EngineeringĀ at Reed Business Information, where he also worked onĀ Manufacturing Business TechnologyĀ as Publisher.Ā 

Sponsored Recommendations

Rock Quarry Implements Ignition to Improve Visibility, Safety & Decision-Making

George Reed, with the help of Factory Technologies, was looking to further automate the processes at its quarries and make Ignition an organization-wide standard.

Water Infrastructure Company Replaces Point-To-Point VPN With MQTT

Goodnight Midstream chose Ignition because it could fulfill several requirements: data mining and business intelligence work on the system backend; powerful Linux-based edge deployments...

The Purdue Model And Ignition

In the automation world, the Purdue Model (also known as the Purdue reference model, Purdue network model, ISA 95, or the Automation Pyramid) is a well-known architectural framework...

Creating A Digital Transformation Roadmap Using A Unified Namespace

Digital Transformation has become one of the most popular buzzwords in the automation industry, often used to describe any digital improvements to industrial technology. But what...