451–460 of 653 posts
Since the 1st iteration of the design is apparently ready, why can't they just show a small demo? It's supposed to be shipping in 2018. They could easily have hired a team of top notch creators to showcase some of the capabilities of the device live -even if the device is still not 100% ready- instead of this silly Manhattan project secrecy. I hope they deliver as promised, but something smells fishy. It's a pity, be…
I share the concern that there's still nothing too publically accessible, but the device itself isn't completely under wraps. The journalist in the Rolling Stone article[0] viewed a few demos built between the ML team, including one with Sigur Ros that's got a very small clip on youtube[1]. I suspect building a demo of this kind of tech that's remotely as impressive viewed on a website or youtube video is challenging…
I hadn't read the article in rolling stone to be honest, but after reading it I get the impression that it would be even easier to prepare a more public demonstration (in a controlled environment) instead of this NDA shackled article. It wouldn't be that hard for example to show a video of the journalist in the room wearing the device and side-by-side a cloned view of what the journalist is visually experiencing. Something like what Steve Jobs did in the first iphone unveiling, but not live - an edited version would be more than fine, conveying both the visual experience and the journalists reactions.
This is a ground breaking technology with so many non-gimmicky applications that it's mind boggling. I was thinking earlier this morning how it can be used for driving assistance: wear the headset in your car and get an overlaid "google maps" experience without ever having to get your eyes off the road, pair it with the car's sensors and get collision distance information, coloured lanes in dark roads, etc.
How about (paired with sensors) measuring dimensions, inspecting components, counting objects, etc. in professional/industrial environments?
I don;t know, maybe I'm wrong but I feel this obsession with secrecy is hurting both their product and the technology
What I want to know, more than anything, is where this image is used in the page? https://www.magicleap.com/_next/images/5099815a87b8b930e9846... I was inspecting the network traffic of the page and found this image…
What I want to know, more than anything, is where this image is used in the page? https://www.magicleap.com/_next/images/5099815a87b8b930e9846... I was inspecting the network traffic of the page and found this image…
Luckily for me you found direct links to the interesting content. Thanks.
Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no one on earth manufactures displays with the specs required to manipulate light in such a way. This isn't taking some already existing LCOS micro-displays and shoving them into an enclosure with fish-eye lenses. Oculus doesn't make their own displays and didn't spend the last 10 years perfecting them; that tech already existed because it came from the projector industry as a direct result of trying to make smaller projectors. What these guys are trying to do is basically as hard or harder than setting up a state of the art semiconductor company, that just so happens to be making a chip with special optical properties at the same time. Manufacturing stuff takes boat loads of money, let alone stuff that is that small. How long and how much money did it take to go from CRT->LCD is the correct frame of reference. They basically have to engineer and design the factory in tandem with developing the product/prototype. Not an easy feat, or cheap.
They could partner with one of the existing fab companies but its not clear that would be any more efficient because most of those companies are setup in such a way that is highly customized based on whatever fab and process tech the company specializes in or adopted, and most that deal with precision optical stuff (displays) are based on ancient and rudimentary liquid crystal and polarizer tech that is optimized for smartphones or TVs -- nowhere near what's required here. It's useful to know that even Apple doesn't make or design their own displays (although they do heavily influence the technology), but they do design custom processors and such.
I know its hard for the average reader here to visualize that someone was given a billion dollars to make something, without ever having made such a thing before and not yet releasing a product. And it probably makes people here mad, when they are struggling to raise a modest amount of money for their own startup. However, generally people who have billions to invest on high risk super high tech ideas aren't as stupid as people here would have you believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you explicitly saying that the Rolling Stones journalist is lying? And the only supposed "proof" you bring is an article over an year old written when the miniaturised prototype didn't even exist?
"This is a game we’re playing around the office right now,' Magic Leap wrote in the description of the video." "In addition to the bulky demo connected to a computer, Mr. Abovitz showed The Information a prototype of the compact device it intends to build. It looked as if somebody fastened electronics to every inch of a pair of wire-framed glasses. It had a multi-layered, flat lens. He would not turn the device on, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they will have some ability to have variable focus, and it sounds like the field of view is slightly bigger, but not by enough yet.
The form factor also looks significantly better.
I 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…
If it took up less space than multiple large monitors, it would already be better by one criterion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I doubt that. If you make a VR/AR/?R version of a Bloomberg terminal or Factset then finance firms will literally rol…
I've never worked at a financial firm but I have a hard time imagining the uptight social culture of finance being one that embraces employees being spotted wearing goofy headsets and waving their hands around. The boost in productivity from any such app would seemingly be negligible, especially when you consider that the popularity of the Bloomberg terminal lies in its chat function: https://www.ft.com/content/5d6c2…
looooool ... You mean like the men having competitions to see who can hit the urinal from furthest away? or barefoot wrestling on the trading floor?
Those are both reputable stories I've had relayed to me about people I've worked with. More like a frat than an uptight environment ;)