Magic Leap: When Reality Hits the Fan(kguttag.com)
kguttag.com
Magic Leap: When Reality Hits the Fan
http://www.kguttag.com/2016/12/06/magic-leap-when-reality-hits-the-fan/
82 comments
I completely agree with point 2, and see it validated in what CTO/CIO types are paying attention to. I will further that by saying that there are tangible benefits in commercial cases that are better than the ones in the consumer space. Consumers have TVs, consoles, and computers. Businesses are looking now for transformative tech to replace systems that are much older and more outdated.
For the enterprise case, AR capabilities on the phone are a great and cheap place to start in order to get a HUD view around them. Kludgy solutions like reading QR codes also work fine for their expected use cases - i.e. reading machine states, maintenance records, etc. These solutions solve a mobile interface problem that helps align information retrieval with the context of being out the field looking at a physical object.
My personal favorite AR application would be drone operation, though. AR goggle can do two things. They can assist the Remote pilot in command in maintaining a computer aided visual line of sight to the drone. (circling it in red, in your field of view, for example). It also can provide a HUD of the drone's status (battery, altitude, attitude, settings, perceived wind speed, etc.), and finally it can allow you to view an overlay of FPV from the drone to aid in your both maintaining direct LOS to meet Part 107 requirements, and also to ensure that the pilot can be inspecting, aiming, orienting and piloting the drone successfully by relying of FPV input.
Those capabilities don't quite exist yet, but I wouldn't doubt that it will be my first AR use case.
For the enterprise case, AR capabilities on the phone are a great and cheap place to start in order to get a HUD view around them. Kludgy solutions like reading QR codes also work fine for their expected use cases - i.e. reading machine states, maintenance records, etc. These solutions solve a mobile interface problem that helps align information retrieval with the context of being out the field looking at a physical object.
My personal favorite AR application would be drone operation, though. AR goggle can do two things. They can assist the Remote pilot in command in maintaining a computer aided visual line of sight to the drone. (circling it in red, in your field of view, for example). It also can provide a HUD of the drone's status (battery, altitude, attitude, settings, perceived wind speed, etc.), and finally it can allow you to view an overlay of FPV from the drone to aid in your both maintaining direct LOS to meet Part 107 requirements, and also to ensure that the pilot can be inspecting, aiming, orienting and piloting the drone successfully by relying of FPV input.
Those capabilities don't quite exist yet, but I wouldn't doubt that it will be my first AR use case.
Though industrial applications 'seem' like a natural choice, it's a really tough market.
Mostly because the numbers just are not there.
Specific industries will want specific versions, specific apps - and without the scale ... it's hard to make money.
And although it may 'seem' rational to want to production line workers into a HUD ... the actual, tangible and measurably improvement in productivity may not be that much. Today, if workers need 'data on the fly' they can ref their tablet or mobile. Does a HUD really make such a huge difference that it's worth the cost? That's a real question.
So - I think you're right, essentially about the application opportunities, but the business case is really hard for that. The numbers just don't work out very well.
Mostly because the numbers just are not there.
Specific industries will want specific versions, specific apps - and without the scale ... it's hard to make money.
And although it may 'seem' rational to want to production line workers into a HUD ... the actual, tangible and measurably improvement in productivity may not be that much. Today, if workers need 'data on the fly' they can ref their tablet or mobile. Does a HUD really make such a huge difference that it's worth the cost? That's a real question.
So - I think you're right, essentially about the application opportunities, but the business case is really hard for that. The numbers just don't work out very well.
Yeah, this seems like a concern.
Already the biggest data/reality hurdle is not visualization but record accuracy - Amazon pickers get quick-and-easy guides to where products are, but face massive delays when something is mislabeled and they have to scan every item in the bin they're directed to.
Fancy HUD systems may be worthwhile for a handful of high-end industrial tasks that value time very highly and can justify custom purchases (power plants?), but for most applications boosting accuracy and system usability sounds better than investing in new methods of data access.
Already the biggest data/reality hurdle is not visualization but record accuracy - Amazon pickers get quick-and-easy guides to where products are, but face massive delays when something is mislabeled and they have to scan every item in the bin they're directed to.
Fancy HUD systems may be worthwhile for a handful of high-end industrial tasks that value time very highly and can justify custom purchases (power plants?), but for most applications boosting accuracy and system usability sounds better than investing in new methods of data access.
I agree; one counter example is that AR might be the catalyst for improvement of an antique process. The Arizona Public Utilities commission (disclosure, my company helped them with this initiative) has replaced paper processes with AR on phones + QR codes. The real value is probably in converting an antique paper-based process with a database, but the AR proved to be the defining interface for their field workers.
You're correct about it being a tough market, but you (and your commenters) wrong about nearly everything else. It's tough because industrial giants are slow moving, and very particular about certain hard things (reliability and being real, mostly) that are actually hard. To contrast, media companies are fast moving and very particular about expensive things (art and design), but are bloody cheap and don't mind smoke-and-mirrors. This is why consumer AR is hard, but industrial AR is "easier".
Source: Early Daqri employee (when marketing apps were the thing), and industrial solutions architect at the same while they had any. (No longer work there)
There is a bejeebus amount of money in the industrial sector for these kinds of solutions, although at first glance it might not be clearly "AR", although you would use pretty much exactly the same technology.
First up - although there's not a lot of information, the information that IS present is staggeringly decisive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-qJ6U-ixX0&feature=youtu.be... http://www.recode.net/2015/6/8/11563374/boeing-says-augmente...
TL;DR - ~70% time spend with <10% errors made on a first-time assembly task, when using AR instructions vs classic instructions. Gains are (mostly) kept even if you stop using AR on subsequent assemblies.
Second up -
My favorite anecdote from a boss, about building satellites: Once, while building this $100m+ object, they got to the end and found a left over bolt. They then had to spend a giant chunk of money taking the thing back apart, first to find where that bolt was supposed to go (and put it there), and then to prove that nothing else was missing.
If you're doing AR-instructions, not only are you (probably) not going to make that mistake in the first place (>90% error reduction), but you're going to have video records (ideally already in a reality-capture format, rather than just raw feeds) to review instead of an expensive disassembly, to prove nothing else is wrong.
This mistake was worth tens of millions, and mistakes of this cost-magnitude are so common they're part of the costing structure. You expect them.
As a counter examples to my points, we once looked at document pick-and-place for a document storage company. The value they'd get from the AR, after development and equipment costs were factored in, just didn't make sense. Another company wanted to use AR tech as a replacement for existing industrial quality checks (parts fly by on a conveyer, how do you know if they'd been made correctly?). AFAIK, what they wanted to do is still basically impossible. Finally, there was an ongoing debate as to whether it'd make sense for people building buildings to use industrial AR (everyone? only managers / shift leads / etc?). AFAIK, there are still issues with making that happen, although people are making solid progress.
Finally, you're forgetting about the value of a hands-free display; which is an AR headset minus the computer vision; if you've ever spent time in a facility (which is so totally awesome and I miss those trips) it's pretty clear why that's valuable.
So you're right about a couple of things - it's still hard, and you still have to run the numbers to see if makes sense for your situation (or which people in your situation) - but you're essentially wrong about the application opportunities, and the numbers usually work out amazingly well.
Any questions? Happy to answer what I think I'm allowed to.
Source: Early Daqri employee (when marketing apps were the thing), and industrial solutions architect at the same while they had any. (No longer work there)
There is a bejeebus amount of money in the industrial sector for these kinds of solutions, although at first glance it might not be clearly "AR", although you would use pretty much exactly the same technology.
First up - although there's not a lot of information, the information that IS present is staggeringly decisive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-qJ6U-ixX0&feature=youtu.be... http://www.recode.net/2015/6/8/11563374/boeing-says-augmente...
TL;DR - ~70% time spend with <10% errors made on a first-time assembly task, when using AR instructions vs classic instructions. Gains are (mostly) kept even if you stop using AR on subsequent assemblies.
Second up -
My favorite anecdote from a boss, about building satellites: Once, while building this $100m+ object, they got to the end and found a left over bolt. They then had to spend a giant chunk of money taking the thing back apart, first to find where that bolt was supposed to go (and put it there), and then to prove that nothing else was missing.
If you're doing AR-instructions, not only are you (probably) not going to make that mistake in the first place (>90% error reduction), but you're going to have video records (ideally already in a reality-capture format, rather than just raw feeds) to review instead of an expensive disassembly, to prove nothing else is wrong.
This mistake was worth tens of millions, and mistakes of this cost-magnitude are so common they're part of the costing structure. You expect them.
As a counter examples to my points, we once looked at document pick-and-place for a document storage company. The value they'd get from the AR, after development and equipment costs were factored in, just didn't make sense. Another company wanted to use AR tech as a replacement for existing industrial quality checks (parts fly by on a conveyer, how do you know if they'd been made correctly?). AFAIK, what they wanted to do is still basically impossible. Finally, there was an ongoing debate as to whether it'd make sense for people building buildings to use industrial AR (everyone? only managers / shift leads / etc?). AFAIK, there are still issues with making that happen, although people are making solid progress.
Finally, you're forgetting about the value of a hands-free display; which is an AR headset minus the computer vision; if you've ever spent time in a facility (which is so totally awesome and I miss those trips) it's pretty clear why that's valuable.
So you're right about a couple of things - it's still hard, and you still have to run the numbers to see if makes sense for your situation (or which people in your situation) - but you're essentially wrong about the application opportunities, and the numbers usually work out amazingly well.
Any questions? Happy to answer what I think I'm allowed to.
They have had these kinds of things, in more basic form for quite a long time. There's no need to have MagicLeap style realism to realize 'possible industrial gains' - and yet there aren't any such companies doing an IPO soon.
Google was keen on using Google glass for all sorts of relevant things, and so far, they've failed.
In the first link, I see someone saying 'this could be huge'. Emphasis on 'could'.
The second link is similar. Some nice feasibility/test studies. Have they made a purchase order yet? No? Why not?
Is anyone using this in production yet? No?
"It's tough because industrial giants are slow moving, and very particular about certain hard things"
Yes, exactly. Slow moving, very specific - and even then, the number of such workers is not that big. If Airbus and Boeing both make orders for 50K units each, that's still not enough to make a company work - and those would be the biggest clients imaginable.
i.e. bad business. They're not going to get a $5 Billion dollar valuation by selling to these clients, at least not for a very long time.
Google was keen on using Google glass for all sorts of relevant things, and so far, they've failed.
In the first link, I see someone saying 'this could be huge'. Emphasis on 'could'.
The second link is similar. Some nice feasibility/test studies. Have they made a purchase order yet? No? Why not?
Is anyone using this in production yet? No?
"It's tough because industrial giants are slow moving, and very particular about certain hard things"
Yes, exactly. Slow moving, very specific - and even then, the number of such workers is not that big. If Airbus and Boeing both make orders for 50K units each, that's still not enough to make a company work - and those would be the biggest clients imaginable.
i.e. bad business. They're not going to get a $5 Billion dollar valuation by selling to these clients, at least not for a very long time.
I have consulted two of the (I guess) "big names" in AR here in Germany and I can basically confirm point 2. AR agencies struggle to get any hold in any market. While they (legitimately) try (and technically succeed) to innovate and automate, AR is far from being a thing accepted by the average consumer. People don't use QR codes anymore, they certainly won't load yet another app and scan your marker.
(Intermission: Unless "they" is Chinese. While pitching the tech in front of a Chinese delegation, the audience went quite literally wild. The enthusiasm about gimmick-y tech radiated by Chinese business (wo)men is the exact opposite of the stone-cold non-interest of Germans)
Where ARA shine however is, as you predicted, industrial tech. The implementations I witnessed were used by Airbus, Siemens, Bosch, Audi et al. for exactly two purposes:
1. Assembly line education or 2. Massive scale marketing (in a physical sense) like projecting actual buildings for architects
At least this is my experience.
(Intermission: Unless "they" is Chinese. While pitching the tech in front of a Chinese delegation, the audience went quite literally wild. The enthusiasm about gimmick-y tech radiated by Chinese business (wo)men is the exact opposite of the stone-cold non-interest of Germans)
Where ARA shine however is, as you predicted, industrial tech. The implementations I witnessed were used by Airbus, Siemens, Bosch, Audi et al. for exactly two purposes:
1. Assembly line education or 2. Massive scale marketing (in a physical sense) like projecting actual buildings for architects
At least this is my experience.
Microsoft's HoloLens has an acceptable form factor. They crammed an incredible amount of electronics into a reasonably lightweight self-contained headset. Cordless, even. It's nowhere near as clunky as the HTC Vibe, Oculus Rift, or the 1990s stuff. The field of view is too narrow, but maybe that can be fixed.
There's still no killer app for AR, but that may be a price point problem. If the HoloLens was cheap enough for Pokemon Go, it would sell quite well.
VR may be stuck in the FPS game niche forever.
There's still no killer app for AR, but that may be a price point problem. If the HoloLens was cheap enough for Pokemon Go, it would sell quite well.
VR may be stuck in the FPS game niche forever.
I'm not sure most consumers would agree. Fashion-conscious people (read: a large part of consumer society) likely still wouldn't wear it. It is too bulky and obvious still. Even Google Glass was too much.
I increasingly feel like it will take a fashion-forward approach like Apple and Snapchat have done in their respective areas to make these devices hip enough to truly gain mass market acceptance.
I increasingly feel like it will take a fashion-forward approach like Apple and Snapchat have done in their respective areas to make these devices hip enough to truly gain mass market acceptance.
The HoloLens doesn't seem like a device you'd be wearing out and about on city streets. Seems more like something you'd be wearing at home in your living room by yourself or with friends, or at work as part of your business process, not something you'd wear on your face going out to a bar to meet a date.
Sure it's bulky and obvious, but it can also be very cool. https://imgur.com/PEZ9LtJ Well you might need to be an astronaut to pull off this look :)
It shouldn't be marketed as a lifestyle device of any kind. It's a tool. It's a toy. There's just no way to pass it off as something a millenial might wear walking down the street to look cool.
Yeah, the HoloLens form factor currently is great. Had a chance to try it a few weeks ago.... When it becomes available to consumers, I'd definitely pick it over Vive or Oculus for gaming applications.
The wires on the current VR setups are a nightmare, as is the requirement for a $2K PC setup.
The wires on the current VR setups are a nightmare, as is the requirement for a $2K PC setup.
You can probably get away with a $1k PC build these days, and the HoloLens itself is pretty expensive now as a devkit ($3k IIRC).
The HoloLens is great, but it doesn't really seem to be designed for gaming. Games are cool to demo in AR, but less practical I feel, given the requirement of meshing with the real world. Meanwhile, gaming in VR is taking off decently, and the FOV in the current generation of VR devices is much better than what the HoloLens has, and that's a pretty big deal for gaming.
Also, wireless is almost here for VR headsets: http://www.roadtovr.com/tpcast-wireless-vr-htc-vive-relased-...
The wires are annoying I agree, but not really a "nightmare".
The HoloLens is great, but it doesn't really seem to be designed for gaming. Games are cool to demo in AR, but less practical I feel, given the requirement of meshing with the real world. Meanwhile, gaming in VR is taking off decently, and the FOV in the current generation of VR devices is much better than what the HoloLens has, and that's a pretty big deal for gaming.
Also, wireless is almost here for VR headsets: http://www.roadtovr.com/tpcast-wireless-vr-htc-vive-relased-...
The wires are annoying I agree, but not really a "nightmare".
Also, as far as the $1k-2k PC thing goes, I think that a lot of people (especially early adopters) will already have a decent PC so the cost of a nice GPU instead of a more modest one is a lot less than the cost of a whole computer.
That was my experience when messing with the Rift dev unit I got a couple years ago. It was more an excuse to buy a new video card than a need for a whole new computer.
That was my experience when messing with the Rift dev unit I got a couple years ago. It was more an excuse to buy a new video card than a need for a whole new computer.
I think a similar thing is applicable to self driving cars regarding 2) - we will likely see self driving commercial trucks on dedicated lanes much before we reach the "self driving cars available to anyone at anytime" future so many (including myself) dream of.
> self driving commercial trucks on dedicated lanes
It takes forever to get new HOV lanes added to big interstates - I somehow doubt that 'dedicated' lanes are going to appear faster than self-driving tech takes hold.
It takes forever to get new HOV lanes added to big interstates - I somehow doubt that 'dedicated' lanes are going to appear faster than self-driving tech takes hold.
Would it be so crazy that the HOV lanes would just become self driving lanes?
Yes. It was a good article.
It also made the point that in addition to specific issues around form factor (i.e. size/weight/looks), AR in glasses brings with it the whole social acceptance factor. This can be ameliorated to some degree with decreased size and less obtrusive design but there will still be the potential for a "Glasshole" factor in a consumer environment until/unless societal expectations change.
Someone taking pictures of you and having data displayed in real-time is just not something most people would be comfortable with today.
The article was also more generally bullish on AR than VR. Which seems right. Even given another generation or two of development, VR seems like a niche for hard-core gamers and maybe a few other uses.
It also made the point that in addition to specific issues around form factor (i.e. size/weight/looks), AR in glasses brings with it the whole social acceptance factor. This can be ameliorated to some degree with decreased size and less obtrusive design but there will still be the potential for a "Glasshole" factor in a consumer environment until/unless societal expectations change.
Someone taking pictures of you and having data displayed in real-time is just not something most people would be comfortable with today.
The article was also more generally bullish on AR than VR. Which seems right. Even given another generation or two of development, VR seems like a niche for hard-core gamers and maybe a few other uses.
(2) seems to be also true for VR. Business people when introduced to the current VR hardware often react enthusiastically and easily figure out compelling applications of VR technology to their businesses.
This generation of AR is going to be like the last generation of VR -- a cool gimmick with great promise of things to come, but not really advanced enough to deliver on that promise. Even the virtualboy was pretty cool at the time, but it took 20 years to get to occulus. If someone can make these things work like they do in the movies then everybody will get one, but the technology doesn't seem to be there yet. I don't understand most of the words in this article, but it sounds like even if the computation equipment is powerful enough to render these images that the hardware to transmit them to the viewer has a lot of limitations.
I used the HoloLens at a demo and it was amazing, but after 3 demos of 5 minutes each over the course of 30 minutes, my eyes felt tired for the next hour. And the limited field of view did detract from the experience.
I've been wanting a heads up display in my glasses for years ever since the first "wearable computing" wave. Eventually it will happen, but all the hardware breakthroughs are so much slower than software.
I used the HoloLens at a demo and it was amazing, but after 3 demos of 5 minutes each over the course of 30 minutes, my eyes felt tired for the next hour. And the limited field of view did detract from the experience.
I've been wanting a heads up display in my glasses for years ever since the first "wearable computing" wave. Eventually it will happen, but all the hardware breakthroughs are so much slower than software.
virtualboy was pretty cool at the time
The Virtualboy was objectively, empirically utterly uncool the second it came out. There are multiple peer-reviewed papers on this. The µVb was a widely used unit for uncoolness for a while at the time.
The Virtualboy was objectively, empirically utterly uncool the second it came out. There are multiple peer-reviewed papers on this. The µVb was a widely used unit for uncoolness for a while at the time.
I dunno. I believe a lot of kids at the time did think the Virtual Boy was cool (less so for adults), but the timing of its release was also unfortunate.
People were getting their first taste of the 3D rendering capabilities of the Playstation and Saturn around that time. Given a choice between asking their parents to spend their hard earned money on what was basically a new monochrome vector based, single player VirtualBoy and the new, flashy 32-bit systems that supported multiplayer, it's pretty clear which systems were going to win.
Add the fact that Nintendo fans were also saving up their money for the Nintendo 64, and the Virtual Boy all of a sudden becomes a very hard sell.
People were getting their first taste of the 3D rendering capabilities of the Playstation and Saturn around that time. Given a choice between asking their parents to spend their hard earned money on what was basically a new monochrome vector based, single player VirtualBoy and the new, flashy 32-bit systems that supported multiplayer, it's pretty clear which systems were going to win.
Add the fact that Nintendo fans were also saving up their money for the Nintendo 64, and the Virtual Boy all of a sudden becomes a very hard sell.
Do you have any idea how that turkey made it through multiple levels of management to eventually reach the market? You seem knowledgeable in this arena.
Wasn't the Virtual Boy created by Gumpei Yokoi, the guy who basically created the Game Boy? Maybe it got through based on his reputation alone?
I recall reading (unconfirmed) stories in the gaming press that after the Virtual Boy failed, Yokoi was basically relegated to an office where he basically did nothing.
I recall reading (unconfirmed) stories in the gaming press that after the Virtual Boy failed, Yokoi was basically relegated to an office where he basically did nothing.
Apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_Boy&oldid... Yokoi didn't really choose to ship the product that actually came out: like many another long-drawn-out, ambitious project Virtual Boy ended up being basically thrown out the door as-was once senior management lost patience with it.
They looked back at what the Vectrex 3D Imager had done a decade earlier and thought, "the technology has advanced; this time it's different!" ?
Is that even fair though (that your eyes were tired)? I mean non-techies get eye strain after looking at a screen for a couple of hours. I've been looking at screens for 10 hour days since my childhood and never have an issue. Isn't it just adjusting to the new experience? Not to mention you are probably processing a lot of new information in an AR scenario causing brain fatigue.
I have a Gear VR and I'm finding I can "last" longer and longer in VR the more I use it. Initially it was like maybe 30min to 1 hour and then a few days rest. Now it doesn't really bother me much at all.
I do wonder how many people give up on VR before the comfort level sets in.
I do wonder how many people give up on VR before the comfort level sets in.
Also, the difference between cell-phone VR and something with full positional tracking is huge. I can't really deal with Daydream/GearVR for more than 30 minutes but I can use even my Rift dev unit for hours. I'd imagine the retail Rift or the Vive would be even nicer but I've not used either for extended periods.
Google cache version as the blog seems to be up and down.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oh3mPHO...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oh3mPHO...
archive.is copy, if you don't want to hit google: https://archive.is/DONtE
Archive.org link while site is down:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161221172829/http://www.kguttag...
Magic Leap seems like it's on the trajectory to be a patent holding company in an emerging market.
Unfortunately for them, other big players already have similar related patents.
And "patent holding company" is not what their investors spent over a billion dollars on.
I was one of the people dooped into believing this was going to happen because I assumed a huge investment from Google meant something and they were so secretive because it was that good, like Steve Jobs was so secretive. At least we can look at tangible VR at this point but those sales are lagging as well. Overall, I'm bummed out but I still hold onto the hope we'll have 3d holograms coming out of phones or contact lenses that overlay huge arrows on the road for driving directions.
VR sales aren't just lagging, they're bad enough that no company will give official numbers for sales. The current estimates for sales are roughly an order of magnitude less than the previous expectations (admittedly dictated by analysts and media), and there is a lot of obfuscation from companies to make it seem better. They will tout the Samsung Galaxy Gear numbers, but what they won't tell you is how many of those were given away (probably the vast majority) vs how many were sold - and that's at a $100 price point.
I really, really want VR to improve and become a commodity in the near future, but most people I talk to think it's dumb even after they try it. I think VR is at least 4 years away from being a serious part of gaming (and that assumes a lot of things go right), and I honestly don't know how many years before it finds other consumer applications.
I really, really want VR to improve and become a commodity in the near future, but most people I talk to think it's dumb even after they try it. I think VR is at least 4 years away from being a serious part of gaming (and that assumes a lot of things go right), and I honestly don't know how many years before it finds other consumer applications.
You have to squint pretty hard to see VR today as any sort of success. It's mostly the province of a gamer niche that's willing to overlook shortcomings, some of which will be inherently hard to overcome, and general lack of content.
How is that not a success?
They have hundreds of thousands of units out, developers of all sizes working on content, and an enthusiastic (and paying) community of users. That's a pretty good launch for a new consumer tech category.
They have hundreds of thousands of units out, developers of all sizes working on content, and an enthusiastic (and paying) community of users. That's a pretty good launch for a new consumer tech category.
Do you remember the enthusiasm just 6 months to a year ago? Did you see how media was was proclaiming that VR was the next big thing, and I even recall that line repeated on the Motley Fool podcast.
Then the devices came out, and you hear nothing anymore. Sure, there are a bunch of people who bought it, but when none of the vendors are even releasing sales figures, you know it's disappointing. With the recent news that Oculus is closing their demo stations because no one is using them suggests that things aren't going too well.
VR is probably not as bad as 3D TV in terms of a flop, but I don't think anyone can call it a "success" unless your expectations are very different from that of most people.
Then the devices came out, and you hear nothing anymore. Sure, there are a bunch of people who bought it, but when none of the vendors are even releasing sales figures, you know it's disappointing. With the recent news that Oculus is closing their demo stations because no one is using them suggests that things aren't going too well.
VR is probably not as bad as 3D TV in terms of a flop, but I don't think anyone can call it a "success" unless your expectations are very different from that of most people.
This year's CES was probably the point where a lot of people realized that, whether or not there's a glorious future coming, it's not there today.
https://www.cnet.com/news/vr-disappoints-at-ces-2017-lenovo-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/vr-disappoints-at-ces-2017-lenovo-...
If most people buy into the ridiculous hype, then yes, I do have much lower expectations. Or at least, much slower ones.
Selling hundreds of thousands of $800 units is $80M in revenue, not a bad start for a new technology starting out in the "consumer goods, luxury entertainment" market.
Selling hundreds of thousands of $800 units is $80M in revenue, not a bad start for a new technology starting out in the "consumer goods, luxury entertainment" market.
At least Sony is positive about this.
Secretive doesn't imply good, e.g. Theranos.
I would say secretive implies "not good." Everybody hears about the inventors of perpetual motion machines or cold fusion that refuse to divest their secrets until they get an investment or patent.
It's true.
But one 'killer app' could change it all.
VR needs it's 'Halo' :)
But one 'killer app' could change it all.
VR needs it's 'Halo' :)
A lot of people talked about Superhot VR as that leap, and it doesn't seem to have driven many sales for people who didn't have VR already. If anything, I've talked to more people who tried Gear VR and decided it was cool enough to upgrade to a non-terrible VR product.
I suppose Superhot could have sufficed without a non-VR alternative, but I rather doubt it.
I suppose Superhot could have sufficed without a non-VR alternative, but I rather doubt it.
The sad thing is Super hot could have been the game to beat on VR, but they partnered with Oculus and released as an Oculus exclusive. This split the market right down the middle with many Vive owners now refusing to buy the game at all even when it does come to the Vive.
The worst part? The Oculus version of the game works perfectly on the Vive through ReVive so it's not like they had to do much extra work to get the game working.
The worst part? The Oculus version of the game works perfectly on the Vive through ReVive so it's not like they had to do much extra work to get the game working.
I keep thinking valve should use their one shot at HL3 as a move to push VR on their desperate fans. HL3 is so hyped it can't avoid disappointing.
Why would Valve want to push VR?
They think it's an emerging technology and want to be at the forefront? Hence building the Vive with HTC and working on their tracking technology. Gabe Newell has been waxing lyrical about their VR plans just this week. They are currently making three VR games.
I saw him talking about it. He said:
> We're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure.
About Vive he said:
> Vive is the most expensive device on the market. It's barely capable of doing a marginally adequate job of delivering a VR experience.
Not sure if he's underselling, but he doesn't sound that enthusiastic about it. It sounds more like the Vive investment is an insurance policy.
> We're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure.
About Vive he said:
> Vive is the most expensive device on the market. It's barely capable of doing a marginally adequate job of delivering a VR experience.
Not sure if he's underselling, but he doesn't sound that enthusiastic about it. It sounds more like the Vive investment is an insurance policy.
Reading the original source article [1], I think he's enthusiastic enough. He also comes across as being more conservative than many at the pace that it's going to be picked up and realistic about how limited the tech is currently.
Per your quote, he apparently also is open to the possibility that VR could turn out to be a dead end but that's not so much a lack of enthusiasm as not being a mindless cheerleader.
[1] http://www.polygon.com/features/2017/2/15/14616192/gabe-newe...
Per your quote, he apparently also is open to the possibility that VR could turn out to be a dead end but that's not so much a lack of enthusiasm as not being a mindless cheerleader.
[1] http://www.polygon.com/features/2017/2/15/14616192/gabe-newe...
I think your assessment is spot on. I think his conservative take probably stems from the fact that he and Valve are going to be okay no matter what happens with VR. Almost nothing is at stake for him.
Because it's the company vision that they want it to succeed. Also they are partnered with HTC to make the VIVE.
Not strong enough, which is why not everyone owns a console.
(compare with phones or even PCs)
Something like a spreadsheet or communication would be just the thing.
Something like a spreadsheet or communication would be just the thing.
Vendors would be perfectly happy to get game console-like penetration, moreover, they would have a viable business and an industry.
If the technology is "that good", it'll be hard enough to replicate that they won't need to be all that secretive.
Looks like the site is getting so much traffic that it's no longer available.
Here is an alternative cached view:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
Here is an alternative cached view:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
"Error establishing a database connection" - also reality I guess.
The article references a weird quote from Fortune:
"Abovitz says that Magic Leap's "light-field" technology essentially mimics the brain's visual-perception mechanisms to create objects and even people who look and behave just the way they would in the real world, and interact with that world seamlessly."
If Magic Leap's use of the term light-field is anything like its meaning in the literature, and it does sound like it, from one other source that I googled, then it is very much not to do with "the brain's [...] mechanisms", it's a totally geometric/optical concept that any optically equipped device/creature could enjoy. It could be tailored for the typically horizontal human eye arrangement, like some previous autostereo displays have been. That is an anatomical/geometrical shortcut, though. If there's real neuroscience-style brain science here I'd be interested to hear more about it.
"Abovitz says that Magic Leap's "light-field" technology essentially mimics the brain's visual-perception mechanisms to create objects and even people who look and behave just the way they would in the real world, and interact with that world seamlessly."
If Magic Leap's use of the term light-field is anything like its meaning in the literature, and it does sound like it, from one other source that I googled, then it is very much not to do with "the brain's [...] mechanisms", it's a totally geometric/optical concept that any optically equipped device/creature could enjoy. It could be tailored for the typically horizontal human eye arrangement, like some previous autostereo displays have been. That is an anatomical/geometrical shortcut, though. If there's real neuroscience-style brain science here I'd be interested to hear more about it.
If you are getting the database error:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oh3mPHO...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oh3mPHO...
I really don't understand a lot of the terms in the article, but one thing that I always found very attractive about magic leap is the amount of people they have staffed that are "story tellers" - professional movie types. I can imagine that magic leap will be the next Pixar. They would combine technology that they develop in house with content also made in house. No one knows why google gave them so much money. Maybe this half of the equation, which you can't really ascertain from patents and technical sources, is what is missing for people to crack the code.
Google (and others) gave them so much money because ML is aiming to build a platform that is not only the thing after smartphones, it's the thing after the Web: spatialized information seamlessly interleaved with reality, everywhere.
At that time (>2 years ago), Magic Leap seemed to have achieved the holy grail of Mixed Reality: optics that selectively block out light in real-time. Combined with demos, mockups, and sketches of real-world applications, this tech provided compelling evidence that ML was going to unlock true Mixed Reality real soon.
As erikpukinskis commented, even if Magic Leap fails to deliver, it will likely end up with an extremely valuable IP in an emerging space. Magic Leap did not invent Mixed Reality, but they filed patents on many first-order applications of the tech (there are countless others).
At that time (>2 years ago), Magic Leap seemed to have achieved the holy grail of Mixed Reality: optics that selectively block out light in real-time. Combined with demos, mockups, and sketches of real-world applications, this tech provided compelling evidence that ML was going to unlock true Mixed Reality real soon.
As erikpukinskis commented, even if Magic Leap fails to deliver, it will likely end up with an extremely valuable IP in an emerging space. Magic Leap did not invent Mixed Reality, but they filed patents on many first-order applications of the tech (there are countless others).
Just a quick note, not to debate the whole premise of this post or it's parent - but I don't believe Magic Leap (or anyone else) has developed the ability to selectively block out light.
The most I've seen done in this space is using very very bulky electrochromatic glass of which the 'pixels' are ~32x the size of actual pixels on the AR display, and have extremely "fuzzy" borders
The most I've seen done in this space is using very very bulky electrochromatic glass of which the 'pixels' are ~32x the size of actual pixels on the AR display, and have extremely "fuzzy" borders
They hired those story tellers to make attracine promo videos basically. Using traditional animation technology. They seem entirely "aspirational".
We hugged it a bit hard, anyone got a link to text?
The microsoft hololens is a great piece of tech. Works great, no cords. Its development only though. It's cool that I can tinker with it, but at the end of the day I cannot sell a product with it.
Should have a "2016" appended to the title, as this is from December of 2016.
(removed due to wrong company, thanks josephpmay)
You're confusing Magic Leap with Leap Motion. Two totally different companies
you're right, my bad.
[deleted]
[deleted]
1. Not achieve a form factor acceptable to the general consumer for a while.
2. Be more immediately useful to companies looking to improve worker productivity (like on assembly lines), where form factor is a lesser concern.
As a consequence of (1), we will probably start seeing more robust applications of AR tech using the smart phone and camera (like Pokemon GO and Snapchat filters) before we see any reasonable hardware device.