How Is ARCore Better Than ARKit?
Matt Miesnieks (via Michael Love):
So in terms of how AR applications are really being used, any differences in calibration are pretty much impossible to detect. By the time developers are pushing the boundaries of the SDKs, Google is betting there will be a new generation of devices on the market with far more tightly integrated sensor calibration done at the factory.
[…]
ARCore has:
- just enough extra features than ARKit that Apple can’t easily claim they’re better on paper
- a few years of content experiments from Tango & Daydream that work on ARCore and are visibly more mature than what devs could build in a month or two of ARKit work
- enough OEMs in the pipeline that they can claim similar reach “real soon”
[…]
I think as a technical solution they are very very close in capability. Effectively indistinguishable to users when it comes to the user experiences you can build today. ARKit has some tech advantages around hw/sw integration and more reliable tracking. ARCore has some advantages around mapping and more reliable recovery. Both of these advantages are mostly only noticeable by Computer Vision engineers who know what to look for.
When iOS 11 ships (probably only a matter of weeks from now), augmented reality is, overnight, going to transform from a fringe technology to something installed on hundreds of millions of iOS devices.
Previously: Why Is ARKit Better Than the Alternatives?.
[…] How Is ARCore Better Than ARKit? + The Potential of Apple’s ARKit […]