So, the HoloLens
Quite interesting stuff. Of particular interest to me is the mention of a lightfield processor - if I interpret this right the term "holographic" might actually be fitting. This might also mean that you could be able to focus your eyes on different items instead of having to mess around with artificial blurring.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015...craft-reality/
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
http://www.ign.com/videos/2015/01/21...-demonstration
http://www.ign.com/videos/2015/01/21...-apps-and-more
This is bigger than the Occulus Rift. The Rift is great for entertainment, but if this works out it's augmented reality instead of virtual reality, which has the potential to be internet levels of world changing. The games part of things is really more of a sideshow; it'll help speed adoption, but the Rift will probably have more impact in this arena. The augmented reality applications for everything else though could be huge - there is a ridiculous amount of stuff you can do here that will impact business, social interaction, education, basically everything.
The Minecraft acquisition makes a lot more sense now - the game is popular and, once Microsoft engineers optimize the shit out of it, will still be small enough to run well on the type of hardware cheap enough to be suitable for wearable computing.
Yeah, just imagine the stuff for Physics lessons - instead of having to do representations of 3-dimensional stuff on a 2-dimensional board, you could simply project everything on the object itself.
Magnetic fields, the Lorentz force, you could let people take apart an electric motor virtually and so on and so forth.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I mentioned the importance of, and progress made with, augmented reality 2...3 years ago on this board? This is what Google Glass dreamed of doing.Originally Posted by Wraith
Phone apps have been laying the groundwork for AR for several years now, so adoption hopefully won't be that big of an issue since the main data gathering tasks needed for AR are already there.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I know I'm not anywhere near the first person to talk about it. People have known AR was coming for more than a decade now. This hololens is the first time I've noticed where it looks like AR could become an actual consumer good. Google Glass may have been headed in this direction, but they seemed to be more interested in wearable computing applications than augmented reality.
Unfortunately, while Microsoft has an amazing record of inventing incredible new technologies, they also have an abysmal record when it comes to bringing those new technologies to market. I'm curious to see how they manage to screw this one up.
Then again, they have a new CEO as well. He might very well turn the ship around - there are quite a number of other indicators. For example, the next version of Visual Studio will open up quite a bit - not only can anyone get it (and not only a reduced-to-one-language version) but they've integrated Android development into that one as well. Then there's the fact upgrading to Win 10 is free for one year. And so on.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Promise a bunch of revolutionary services, explain them poorly, then backtrack when people flip out.
Or maybe they will go the sidewinder route, create a great product then treat it like a red headed step child.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
An aside... incomprehensible professors would still be incomprehensible, though.But, maybe the class could go faster and those incomprehensible professors could be where they belong: in the academic paper writing field.
Headsets have been the Next Big Thing since the 80s. I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm very curious about the actual device rather than showing on a camera how it would look - have journalists tried it themselves yet?
Edit: should probably just gave googled that first - yes they have.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/wea...1281834/review
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/30/hol.../#.sabpmy:Ec8r
Last edited by Flixy; 06-16-2015 at 12:27 PM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You're confusing the form with the technology. This isn't VR, it's AR, and it's only the second consumer headset device that has capabilities in the this. The other one, Google Glass, is much more limited and hasn't really seemed to interested in AR applications, going for wearable computing instead.
No I'm not confusing them. I appreciate the difference between VR and AR but both rely upon headsets that have frankly never hit mainstream success despite repeatedly being the Next Big Thing for roughly three decades. My problem is with the form, I said headsets* not VR/AR - and it is the same as with the failure of at home 3DTV usage (as 3D TVs not just as a regular one) to take off. Realistically people have a tremendous aversion to wearing anything over their eyes. It is very antisocial, crossing a line even those who will happily use a mobile phone while holding a conversation won't cross.
I don't believe any technology which requires wearing something in front of your eyes (obviously not regular glasses/sunglasses) is going to go mainstream any time soon.
* Clearly drawing a distinction between headsets that go over your eyes like this/VR/Google Glass etc and those that merely go over your ears or with a mic by your mouth which are a completely different matter.
And that's what I'm saying, you're focusing on "headset", but that's not the important aspect here. Head-mounted displays have never been "the next big thing". There was a small amount of excitement in the mid/late 90's over VR, but the costs were too high for real VR back then - and the hype was always about VR, not head-mounted displays. The more recent excitement over VR has also been about the VR, centered on the Oculus Rift, which kept selling out of dev kits (to over-eager consumers) even though the consumer version isn't due out for another year. The company has already seen great commercial success.
3D movies have been a monumental commercial success - it's why everyone's doing it these days. The Occulus Rift has also generated ridiculous amounts of interest and commercial success, and it's still a year from even going to market. Even though you handwave it away in the next paragraph, glasses is a good counter-example too.Realistically people have a tremendous aversion to wearing anything over their eyes.
But doesn't this completely contradict your earlier point? It is very antisocial. And yet, done by everyone. If you're going to form an argument on the basis of things people will never do, you can't just handwave away all the times they've done it.I don't believe any technology which requires wearing something in front of your eyes (obviously not regular glasses/sunglasses) is going to go mainstream any time soon.
* Clearly drawing a distinction between headsets that go over your eyes like this/VR/Google Glass etc and those that merely go over your ears or with a mic by your mouth which are a completely different matter.
Last edited by Wraith; 06-16-2015 at 06:28 PM.
I'm also not quite sure how "anti-social" even comes into play here. It's neither marketed as something your wear outside nor is it even intended to be worn outside.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I've never seen a VR set that doesn't go over the eyes, so you can't divorce the two. We'll see if the Oculus Rift makes it big in the mainstream, I'm not confident it will. Specifically because the headset goes over the eyes.
They've been a success at the cinema where people go and switch off the world for upto three hours. They've not been a major success at home. Sky just shut down their 3D channel in the UK due to this a week ago. Now TV companies are prioritising 4K as their Next Big Thing rather than at home 3D.3D movies have been a monumental commercial success - it's why everyone's doing it these days. The Occulus Rift has also generated ridiculous amounts of interest and commercial success, and it's still a year from even going to market. Even though you handwave it away in the next paragraph, glasses is a good counter-example too.
No it doesn't, my point is specifically any form of headset that goes over the eyes. I can't think of a single example of a successful set ever that goes over your eyes. Nor is it the same thing (full response to Khen below).But doesn't this completely contradict your earlier point? It is very antisocial. And yet, done by everyone. If you're going to form an argument on the basis of things people will never do, you can't just handwave away all the times they've done it.
Does it have to be? I can play a games console and hold a conversation with my wife. Good luck doing that with a headset on. Antisocial is an example of an issue but it is not the only problem, I found my 3D glasses for my TV very irritating when I tried to use them as (outside of a cinema) it isn't unusual to multitask somewhat while at home. EG I might be playing a game or watching the football and still want to glance at my phone or do something else. A headset covering the eyes prevents that.
Aren't you just setting up to be unfalsifiable? So you can keep moving the goalpost for "big in the mainstream"? I mean, in tech, 100k units is usually the milestone for mainstream success, and a million units is a blockbuster, and anything over ~50m is just a silly made up number that virtually never gets reached. If we use that benchmark, Oculus Rift is already a mainstream success, a year before release. But I'm sure you're not going to be happy with those numbers.
So then it can happen, right? We know that VR/AR units it'll work if it's marketed as a way to switch off the world for up to three hours.They've been a success at the cinema where people go and switch off the world for upto three hours.
Though since we're getting off track, I should point out that AR units don't do anything themselves to shut out the world - they're more like tricked-out glasses than VR units.
Content is a problem because of the lack of hardware, which was very expensive until recently, and still represents extra expense. Hardware was a problem because of a lack of content. The differences between the home and theater markets for 3D have been well studied, and it basically comes down to the fact that theaters were able to cheaply upgrade their hardware all at the same time(it was easy to modify the projectors they use for polarized light), which provided the market for 3D content to be produced in large quantities, and which you can't get consumers to do. Without that, the market for content is strangled, and without the market for content there's no market for hardware.They've not been a major success at home. Sky just shut down their 3D channel in the UK due to this a week ago.
You're kinda using "Next Big Thing" like a GGT-esque thought-terminating phrase in this thread.Now TV companies are prioritising 4K as their Next Big Thing rather than at home 3D.
You're just arbitrarily changing your definitions to avoid the counter-examples.No it doesn't, my point is specifically any form of headset that goes over the eyes. I can't think of a single example of a successful set ever that goes over your eyes. Nor is it the same thing (full response to Khen below).
Let me just jump back to the basis of my objection, before we get further afield: I was taking issue with how you offhandedly dismissed a new technology entirely due to a superficial resemblance to a previous hypothetical technology that once generated some interest but never actually produced a consumer-level unit. You gave no and are still refusing to give any consideration towards how AR glasses are fundamentally different from the VR units of the 90s - and again, mass-market VR never got further than early prototypes and expensive, bulky units with pretty huge space requirements.
Okay,let me stop you right there:
First: The HoloLens is see-through. It has to be, after all (you do know what the A and the R in AR stand for, right?). I honestly don't see what should prevent you from talking to your wife while wearing it. Unless you're also unable to hold a conversation while wearing ski glasses.
Secondly: This is NOT even REMOTELY the 3D technology used for 3D TVs or at the cinema. It's lightfield (hence the need for a 3rd processor besides the CPU and GPU). This is the reason why in this case it's actually valid to talk about holography and holograms - it's NOT a projected image onto a screen which then is reflected back to you. Or two LCD/OLED flat screens projecting an image.
No, it's an image projected into your eyes with FULL phase information. In case you don't understand the importance of this:
This is the same way the light from ACTUAL objects reaches your eyes. It means you can focus on "far" objects and "near" objects will become blurry - just like they were actually in the room with you.
So, please, inform yourself before scoffing. And, let me repeat that: The HoloLens is SEE THROUGH. This argument of yours shows me that you're talking out of your ass and haven't even looked at the tiniest bit of information about the technology, making yourself look like an idiot.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No I'm not. Where are you pulling these figures from? To put into context from some media reports about another nascent industry, the Smartwatch (of which I'm wearing one currently) I'd say that the general media consensus (at least until the launch of the Apple Watch) is that the industry is "about to take off", not that it has done yet. That is on sales estimated at 5-7 million for 2014. The Wii U at just under 10 million sales is so far deemed a failure. I've never seen anyone suggest that 100k sales would make the industry mainstream - and the Wii U is a fraction of the industry not the whole one. If you want I can provide plenty of media articles suggesting the current sales levels in the millions do not represent mainstream success.
My figure for mainstream would be industry sales in the tens of millions plus. But if you're referring to just tens or hundreds of thousands of units instead then sure that's possible.
To put into context last year alone: roughly a quarter of a billion tablets were sold, nearly 2 billion mobile phones, over 300 million PCs. They're all very mainstream. Close to 50 million consoles were sold in 2014 alone (the lowest figure for a long time, probably as the new consoles only came out so late). I don't think tens of millions for an entire industry is unachievable or "a silly made up number". If you do then we could be on the same page regarding expectations.
Of course it can work. I never suggested it couldn't, I just think it won't be mainstream.So then it can happen, right? We know that VR/AR units it'll work if it's marketed as a way to switch off the world for up to three hours.
We'll see. The same was said about Google Glass yet that still flopped. Again I've never said its impossible, just that I'm skeptical.Though since we're getting off track, I should point out that AR units don't do anything themselves to shut out the world - they're more like tricked-out glasses than VR units.
Not sure I agree. Top TVs have included 3D for years but the market of 3D TV owners is much bigger than the market of 3D TV users. The issue isn't just people not owning the sets but even those who do, don't use them in 3D mode.Content is a problem because of the lack of hardware, which was very expensive until recently, and still represents extra expense. Hardware was a problem because of a lack of content. The differences between the home and theater markets for 3D have been well studied, and it basically comes down to the fact that theaters were able to cheaply upgrade their hardware all at the same time(it was easy to modify the projectors they use for polarized light), which provided the market for 3D content to be produced in large quantities, and which you can't get consumers to do. Without that, the market for content is strangled, and without the market for content there's no market for hardware.
No, I've been using it in a consistent perspective as is frequently used in media articles - you never asked me to define the quantities etc, which I have done.You're kinda using "Next Big Thing" like a GGT-esque thought-terminating phrase in this thread.
No my definition from the start has been any headset that goes over the eyes. I drew that distinction in my first full post.You're just arbitrarily changing your definitions to avoid the counter-examples.
Sure its possible, I'm just skeptical. At least for example regarding within the next decade. I could be wrong but I doubt sales figures will be in the tens of millions before 2025.Let me just jump back to the basis of my objection, before we get further afield: I was taking issue with how you offhandedly dismissed a new technology entirely due to a superficial resemblance to a previous hypothetical technology that once generated some interest but never actually produced a consumer-level unit. You gave no and are still refusing to give any consideration towards how AR glasses are fundamentally different from the VR units of the 90s - and again, mass-market VR never got further than early prototypes and expensive, bulky units with pretty huge space requirements.
I know that. We'll see again - you'll laugh at me saying this but 3D glasses are see through too but they still make me feel sort of seasick when I look around which is why I don't use them. We'll see how this works in practice, I have no hands-on experience yet. I'm just stating an opinion.
Last edited by RandBlade; 06-16-2015 at 10:46 PM.
They're common industry target numbers. Real sales targets vary by product, of course, but usually if you're targeting 10 million units you'd better be either a game console, Apple, or selling Windows or Office. Most products do not break a million units, even in profitable market spaces.
The Rift is in the hundreds of thousands already, again a year before release, and with supply shortages and overpriced units. The company famously sold for $2 billion. The consumer model is tracking to sell north of a million units during its first year.My figure for mainstream would be industry sales in the tens of millions plus. But if you're referring to just tens or hundreds of thousands of units instead then sure that's possible.
I specified product, not family of goods. The industry hasn't really formed yet, there's only two companies deeply in the VR space and the other company (Sony) probably won't be ready to enter the market until at least 2017, maybe later. Microsoft is looking like it's going to be the first mover in the AR space (speculation is that they could be ready by this Christmas, but I strongly doubt that, and would expect late 2017 is more realistic), though Google went totally dark after the Hololens reveal, so who knows when they'll jump in.To put into context last year alone: roughly a quarter of a billion tablets were sold, nearly 2 billion mobile phones, over 300 million PCs. They're all very mainstream. Close to 50 million consoles were sold in 2014 alone (the lowest figure for a long time, probably as the new consoles only came out so late). I don't think tens of millions for an entire industry is unachievable or "a silly made up number". If you do then we could be on the same page regarding expectations.
Google Glass never left the prototype phase. They haven't even announced a release date for the consumer grade product yet beyond "when it's perfect" (quote from this year). Like I indicated above in the thread, I'm more optimistic about the Hololens than Google Glass (which seemed reluctant to embrace AR uses), though I expect now Google will be changing course a bit to be more like them due to the hype it's generating.We'll see. The same was said about Google Glass yet that still flopped.
AFAIK, there's been exactly one consumer-grade mass-market product that's been released that meets your current definition, it's from two decades ago and you haven't even brought it up. That's not much of a data set.No my definition from the start has been any headset that goes over the eyes. I drew that distinction in my first full post.
Breaking ten million before then should be easy, even if nothing makes it to market until 2017-2018.Sure its possible, I'm just skeptical. At least for example regarding within the next decade. I could be wrong but I doubt sales figures will be in the tens of millions before 2025.
Active or passive? If they're passive, I don't even know how that works - they're just sunglasses, really.I know that. We'll see again - you'll laugh at me saying this but 3D glasses are see through too but they still make me feel sort of seasick when I look around which is why I don't use them. We'll see how this works in practice, I have no hands-on experience yet. I'm just stating an opinion.
I suspect Rand doesn't fully understand how popular AR already is on smart devices. Its got nothing to do with people not wanting to use/wear it. Its more about molding it to what people already use/wear. Thats why there is so much interest in even the simplest VR designs like Google Cardboard, or if you prefer plastic Samsung's model. Both of those use your existing phone. How many smart phones are currently in use?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-17-2015 at 01:50 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The fact that Google Cardboard is even a thing is pretty indicative of market interest. It's absolutely shit as an AR/VR solution, seriously terrible, and people are still using it because it's the closest thing to actual AR/VR that's really available right now.
I'm still willing to stand by my earlier statement that if AR takes off, it's going to change the world on the same scope as the internet.
I think Cardboard etc and other current smartphone AR are currently gimmicks. That gimmicks exist isn't news. A gimmick with potential sure but no more yet.
Cardboard is not AR.
For chrissakes!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Once again: 3D glasses are not based on holographic techniques. It works completely, utterly and 100% different. The ONLY thing they have in common: They're using light.
And you obviously DON'T know that because you insist on conflating AR and VR (once again, two completely DIFFERENT things) and you're also insisting on conflating current 3D techniques and holograms.
To make it absolutely clear how big a difference this is: You're currently insisting that a bicycle and a F-22 Raptor are the same thing because they can be used to travel distances.
Oh,and just because you were on this "anti-social" nonsense: This demonstration here should prove differently. Plus, this is what it actually looks like - unless you want to accuse the 100+ journalists who got to try out this technology of lying.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
What I would like to know is: will this damage my eyesight?
Why should it? Also, the current prototype can be adjusted to easily accomodate glasses.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I think you're confusing the hololens with this:
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
similar reasons to the problems with virtual boy, or why those whos bodies are still developing aren't supposed to use 3D.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I dare say that due to the difference in how the objects are projected, the risks should be just as large as when you're looking at real-life objects.
The current 3D techniques essentially simulate an infinite distance between the screen and your eyes - the 3D effect only stems from the difference in view points. The problem with this is that you can't focus on different parts of the picture - either everything looks crystal sharp or a viewing distance has been chosen beforehand by choosing the focal plane when rendering the picture. It's basically two 2D pictures which the rays of light coming straight from the screens to your eyes. Which means that you can tell your eyes to focus on something all day long - if the producer has chosen something to be out of focus, it will stay out of focus. And that's most likely where the problems stem from.
A lightfield projection is fundamentally different - here you can choose the focal plane yourself which is much more natural because that's the way it works in real life as well, because this technology doesn't only project straight rays of light - but also angular rays of light, just like a real object would do.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote