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

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#21

Post by roywiggins »

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…

When you're trying to interact with objects placed around you, and you can't seem them out of the corner of your eye, it's weird. You're looking at your desk, and you can see the AR objects placed right in front of you, but slightly to the left and right, the desk is empty. Swivel your head, and you can see some more objects, but now the entire left side of your desk is empty.

It's a pretty big problem, it feels like you're looking at the world through a straw that you have to scan back and forth.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#22

Post by wtvanhest »

modeless wrote: post #20
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 absolut…

I worked at Intel in 2010 for a summer. I remember going to a presentation about why the iPhone was so good.

It was so good because they figured out how to do more with limited hardware. As an example, if you wanted to see an image on the iPhone, apple stored a version with just as many pixels as the screen, the windows treo pulled the full image. The difference was that one felt snappy and one felt slow.

My point is that your comment sounds like what everyone said back then... you need more or better hardware. Maybe, maybe not.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#23

Post by Holomakerbot »

rburhum wrote: post #19
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.

2b is a drop in the bucket compared to other companies like Microsoft and Apple. They’re not just building a headset, but the software to run it and funding both 1st and 3rd party content.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#24

Post by Holomakerbot »

modeless wrote: post #20
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 absolut…

And yet this analysis from someone who hasn’t even touched the actual hardware or even has specs to base his analysis on is painting a completely different picture than the people who have reported on it since December. People are right to be skeptical of this just as they are magic leap.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#25

Post by Dibbles »

modeless wrote: post #10
capdotnet wrote: post #8

its seem all the AR headsets have this "Small view range" problem. .... Hololens , Magic Leaps, .... Anyone know the view range of the meta 2?

Leap Motion (which is not Magic Leap) recently showed a design with a much larger FOV, using so-called "bird bath" optics (which Meta 2 is also based on). It's not anything you'd want to actually wear in everyday life, but it should be an interesting platform for prototyping AR software. http://blog.leapmotion.com/northstar/

To be fair, VR headsets look ridiculous as well. So, use them in the same settings and it'd be fine.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#26

Post by cromwellian »

modeless wrote: post #20
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 absolut…

I think the AR experience will be far more dependent on rock solid tracking and pose estimation, ergonomics of the headset, fashionability of the headset, ability to work in many light conditions, and killer initial apps, than display resolution or FOV.

Focusing too much on the display itself completely ignores the other aspects that inhibit adoption. An AR display that had a resolution of 100x100, could only display a green HUD, but was completely invisible inside a normal pair of sunglasses or glasses, would completely trump a super high quality fibre scanning display that was incredibly nerdly and unwieldly looking.

AR is pointless if you can't take it outdoors, if it's in-the-home only, you may as well go with VR.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#27

Post by Bizarro »

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…

We need Carmack to do an analysis.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#28

Post by cromwellian »

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…

I've read his site, but he focuses way too much on aspects of AR that have little to do with consumer needs or concerns. A "worse is better" AR display that violates pretty much every concern he has could win the market as long as it was done really well in terms of comfort and applications, the same way the limited Apple Watch pretty much dominates the market today, even though it falls far short of the kinds of magic people thought it would be capable of originally.

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#29

Post by joe_the_user »

freeone3000 wrote: post #16
hammerandtongs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a natural argument extrapolating from the phone, electronics and laptop market.

I think it is wrong in this case, however. As I understand it, the problem is "half-working" in the case of VR/AR/etc isn't something like less convenient that early adopters can simply put up with. Half-working VR has ability to sicken a person and injure the vision system.

See for example. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dan...

Re: Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience

#30

Post by [deleted] »

cromwellian wrote: post #28
hammerandtongs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've read his site, but he focuses way too much on aspects of AR that have little to do with consumer needs or concerns. A "worse is better" AR display that violates pretty much every concern he has could win the market as long as it was done really well in terms of comfort and applications, the same way the limited Apple Watch pretty much dominates the market today, even though it falls far short of the kinds of mag…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN