Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point being, it's not actually that far away.
Are you trolling?
No, are you? Maybe you are an Angular developer and don't understand that a year is not actually a lot of time.
Magic Leap One
281–290 of 653 posts
Re: Magic Leap One
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing will need some serious tech in it, there's really no way to make it not look ugly. I think aesthetics are somewhat overrated: If a device is useful, people (including the "cool kids") will use it regardless.
You're just wrong. Aesthetics are crazy important on consumer devices. I'd argue it is THE most important aspect on something you WEAR. People put an awful lot of thought into their clothes, and accessories. Some people don't care, but they're rare. If aesthetics didn't matter there wouldn't be 100 different clothing stores in the mall. When we choose what to wear, we're annoucing to the world who we are. When you we…
Imagine a hundred years ago if you came up with a fashion that involved having strings dangle out of your ears- It looks completely stupid and ridiculous.
Yet everybody does this every day in 2017 because headphones are super useful- Now we even think they'er fashionable!
Re: Magic Leap One
#283I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand". There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I…
1. resolution 2. fatigue 3. (for VR) limited input options Beyond these, the main reason is that gaming is a much better exploration and experimentation field than productivity because each app can have far less capital investment, lifecycles are short, and there's no need for a reliable, successful output.
> 2. fatigue
Do we know the (eye) health effects, yet, of looking at AR/VR screens an inch from your eyes for 6+ hours a day?
Re: Magic Leap One
#284I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand". There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I…
The big problem there is resolution and the "Screen door" effect. Text has to be fairly large in order to be readable. We will need an enormous resolution and incredibly low dot pitch to solve those issues and make productivity tools possible. This is the tech space where I dream of working. I have been designing features for developer teams in AR but without the hardware being available, it's all theory.
Yup! I cringed when I read the above comment and imagined working in Excel on current AR displays. Resolution is still an issue, as you've stated, and there are still heaps of issues in the realm of focal depths/focal rivalry when it comes to AR. Current displays have a set focal depth and people don't realize how much that can affect things.
Re: Magic Leap One
#285The old demo videos from a year or two ago showed that the Magic Leap could not do opaque black. Black = transparent on their clear screens. If that's still the case, then every single example image on their site is a misrepresentation. They all show black and indicate the Magic Leap can do opacity. I call bullshit until I see that they've solved that problem.
Just put a backing LCD in the line of sight so it can darken. And project on top of that. I think it is possible to solve.
Nope, sorry. The backing LCD will be out of focus. The whole AR thing is a lot of technology that sounds simple, but ends up being really really hard in practice.
Re: Magic Leap One
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing will need some serious tech in it, there's really no way to make it not look ugly. I think aesthetics are somewhat overrated: If a device is useful, people (including the "cool kids") will use it regardless.
You're just wrong. Aesthetics are crazy important on consumer devices. I'd argue it is THE most important aspect on something you WEAR. People put an awful lot of thought into their clothes, and accessories. Some people don't care, but they're rare. If aesthetics didn't matter there wouldn't be 100 different clothing stores in the mall. When we choose what to wear, we're annoucing to the world who we are. When you we…
No, it's you who has said something wrong. You're talking as if this device has no "aesthetics". As if skilled industrial designers didn't produce a design. The way you're talking raises doubts about your qualifications. But I'm going to put that aside for now.
Plenty of people thought the Walkman was futuristic because they were blown away by what it could do in that package. Maybe some of the more insecure people didn't start using them until it became sufficiently safe to be seen with one. But we're very lucky that in mankind there will be those one or two people who don't care what you think because you obviously can't see what they can see.
Re: Magic Leap One
#287In my opinion, the new Magic Leap seems to do exactly what Microsoft Hololens could do two years ago. The only advantage they could have is in the UI, which MS 100% failed at, and in content availability which was really poor for MS as well.
This thing could be huge, if the first people who try it on find an abundance of interactive experiences, so much that they rave about it, and make everyone else want one. Best yet, if this all happens in public spaces.
Again, personal experience with MS lens is the basis for this, but having played with it, I am not overly optimistic here. This would be interesting.
Re: Magic Leap One
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming Because gamers are a community well know to spend several hundreds of dollars easily for any kind of upgrade to their existing hardware. At least the core PC gamers, and that's quite a large segment nowadays.
Myself and millions of others would spend thousands for this, and thousands more for upgrades. When you consider this is the tool that you use to make your salary, anything that makes me more productive with a better quality of life starts to be worth more than the price of a new car.
I think your comment illustrates why they should stick to games, but I'm not quite sure how to say it. It has something to do with less pressure, or reducing the requirements or feature creep.
It also has to do with enterprise products suck.
Re: Magic Leap One
#289I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand". There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I…
There are two reasons why the field is focused on gaming and not productivity: fidelity and familiarity. It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. In gaming, on…
Those are valid points, especially your point about fidelity, current tech is good enough for gaming and apparently not good enough for work (or we haven't figured out how to use it right). So they can sell it for that right now.
But this and other comments are vastly underestimating the resources that people would be willing to exchange to make their work better. For what I described, a "reasonable" price point could easily be around $10,000. Apple is selling their new iMac at a starting price of $5,000 and there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it, it's an upgrade of what is already available. When you are spending all day using it, and it is the tool you use to make your money, it is worth a lot.
Re: Magic Leap One
#290The old demo videos from a year or two ago showed that the Magic Leap could not do opaque black. Black = transparent on their clear screens. If that's still the case, then every single example image on their site is a misrepresentation. They all show black and indicate the Magic Leap can do opacity. I call bullshit until I see that they've solved that problem.
"Rendering black" is an unsolved problem technically.
There are a few approaches. One is selectively blocking incoming light at the lens, however due to the nature of light because the distance between the lens and the eye that would allow for the right per pixel degree specificity is relatively large, you would get bleeding from the other incident light and the "black" would look at best fuzzy.
The other way to do it is to create a "standing wave" so to speak on the retina, and again that requires an almost photon control level of the display.
Neither of which I am confident ML has demonstrated effectively.