Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

kguttag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#11

Post by hammerandtongs »

cromwellian wrote: post #5

I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…

I suggest you spend some time reading his pretty extensive set of high quality articles on many companies and aspects of AR.

This is an industry where outsiders have a very limited understanding of the serious serious problems in front of AR.

It's also an industry that is taking advantage of the very limited understanding of just about everyone not in it to hype things far beyond their capabilities.

If you care about AR in even an offhand way you should spend some time self educating and Karl Guttag's site is a good way to get started.

It's very interesting field but there are tremendous challenges in front of it and it serves no purpose to just assume the companies involved have actual magic leaps that solve the problems.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#12

Post by ssewell »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #6

Sorry for the really basic question but why is the narrow field of view a problem? This wasn't ever supposed to be like Google Glass, a device that you wear all day as you walk around. You put the glasses on for a specific experience. If I'm putting them on to play a game, or read interactive motion comics from Marvel, I'm fine looking through a smaller window. I used to stare at my GameBoy screen for hours and its o…

There is a pretty significant difference between the expectations of a GameBoy screen, in which your focusing your fovea on the screen, and a visual projection in AR. The biggest issue with narrow FOV in this case is AR strives to make items appear as if they are in the real world. The moment you slightly turn your head and item is clipped by the projected FOV, yet you can still see the real world where the AR item "was", breaks the immersive illusion.

With VR, even a narrow FOV doesn't have this problem: As you rotate your head and a virtual item moves out of the FOV, it's simply clipped into blackness... no visual dissonance as you have with AR item vs. real world it lives within.

Edit to address the article: I think the fixed IPD is the real deal-breaker here. People have greatly varied IPDs. Some VR HMDs, such as the Oculus Rift, have a physical IPD adjustent. I don't see why the ML headset couldn't have this feature in the consumer version as well, though.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#13

Post by h9283y »

"The Model-T is a piece of shit. I has hard tires that don't absorb the bumps, requires a manual crank, and no cup holders."

Seriously, does no one realize product development is a process?

Self-aggrandizing voices like this really turn me off. "Sorry the world didn't do better by you! We'll all really try harder next time, dad."

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#14

Post by gumby »

slg wrote: post #9

Just from my anecdotal experience of using the HoloLens, (but not the ML1) the FOV problem these devices have is more tied to the display size than the unobstructed view of the real world. You brain will compensate for the obstructed view and you will forget about it pretty quickly. A larger FOV is obviously better, but it isn't a deal breaking flaw. The display being limited to an even smaller area will be something…

It's not simply the size of the display device, it's the optics of getting the image to your eye, at a distance (virtual or real) you can focus on and clear throughout the whole FOV. A few hours strugglng with Zemax will convince you it's a Hard Problem.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#15

Post by TipVFL »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #6

Sorry for the really basic question but why is the narrow field of view a problem? This wasn't ever supposed to be like Google Glass, a device that you wear all day as you walk around. You put the glasses on for a specific experience. If I'm putting them on to play a game, or read interactive motion comics from Marvel, I'm fine looking through a smaller window. I used to stare at my GameBoy screen for hours and its o…

The current/near future of augmented reality is mainly about preparing for the future of AR, and the future of AR is full-FOV devices that you wear all the time to seamlessly integrate data with the world around you.

As it is, a tiny FOV drastically changes the experience and the possibilities of the equipment. It could also mask issues that are only apparent at higher FOVs (like lagging overlays causing motion sickness). They've managed to make one of the smaller and sleeker AR devices, which will be important for mass adoption, but based on the current state of the tech it's probably putting the cart before the horse.

At this point I'd rather work on a tethered and bulky system with a massive FOV like Leap Motion's Project North Star, as it more closely matches the capabilities (but not form factor) of what we should expect from the first mass market AR devices.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#16

Post by freeone3000 »

hammerandtongs wrote: post #11
cromwellian wrote: post #5

I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…

I suggest you spend some time reading his pretty extensive set of high quality articles on many companies and aspects of AR. This is an industry where outsiders have a very limited understanding of the serious serious problems in front of AR. It's also an industry that is taking advantage of the very limited understanding of just about everyone not in it to hype things far beyond their capabilities. If you care about…

It's also entirely possible they offer partial solutions to some problems, no solution to other problems, and still produce am experience worth paying money for.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#17

Post by yborg »

vokep wrote: post #7

kind of unfortunate but if they can get this out and then do it better the second time around... Where have all the billions gone? did they spend it already?

>where have all the billions gone?

Hookers and blow, same as always. The good news is that the huge investors who were hoodwinked here will be highly incentivized to avoid the embarrassment of shareholder lawsuits. And unlike Theranos, they at least have some kind of product that does something vaguely related to their claims.

Still, you'd think that at this point the CEO/founder black mock turtleneck should abort any pitch meeting instantly.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#18

Post by drcode »

h9283y wrote: post #13

"The Model-T is a piece of shit. I has hard tires that don't absorb the bumps, requires a manual crank, and no cup holders." Seriously, does no one realize product development is a process? Self-aggrandizing voices like this really turn me off. "Sorry the world didn't do better by you! We'll all really try harder next time, dad."

Well, I think what folks hope for on HN is a certain "meritocracy" for news surrounding advanced technology. Magic Leap has arguably been trying to build buzz around their product with slick marketing and has been gaming the tech press to get unfair attention for their project and syphoning investment money away from other companies in this process. I think it's only fair, in turn, to keep the company accountable to at least a tiny sliver of their original claims.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#19

Post by rburhum »

h9283y wrote: post #13

"The Model-T is a piece of shit. I has hard tires that don't absorb the bumps, requires a manual crank, and no cup holders." Seriously, does no one realize product development is a process? Self-aggrandizing voices like this really turn me off. "Sorry the world didn't do better by you! We'll all really try harder next time, dad."

I think the issue is that some people think that $2,000,000,000 USD and 8 years should be able to produce a better first product.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#20

Post by modeless »

cromwellian wrote: post #5

I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…

> whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience

You can't separate "consumer experience" from the technology like that. This is a case where the technology tightly constrains how good the consumer experience can possibly be. The consumer experience absolutely depends on whether fiber scanning displays or other new technologies can work, because tha changes the possible form factor and capabilities of the device.

Post reply on HN