31–40 of 56 posts
Google cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
There are so many hits on the site that it got throttled.
I just upgrade the hosting plan to hopefully solve the problems, but I won't take effect until 2AM PDT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/vi…
Broadly, almost everything in it has been either not born out (vision concerns) or less of a problem then first assumed (motion sickness) once the limitations of different users were understood.
Many people using VR find that the vestibular concerns are not an issue over time as long as the framerate of the system is high enough (90fps+). People actually do get their "sea legs" over time and many (largely gamers so far) ask for locomotion systems that were considered terrible ideas even 2 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Maybe you could get by with little helper things, but that's just a fancy HUD and not really AR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
FOV is pretty important. It's difficult to feel like you are in an augmented reality if you have to tilt your head just to see the full object in front of you. Maybe you could get by with little helper things, but that's just a fancy HUD and not really AR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I think however there is no "proof of existence" of any software or capability that would compel even early adopters to use a 100x100 display, even with all the other physical issues being polished to a high sheen.
Looking down at your phone or smartwatch seems far more likely.
The "maybes" that people frequently suggest require a staggering amount of unwritten software infrastructure (sometimes up to and including sentient AI).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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."
Ford Motor Company was founded with an investment of $28,000 in 1903, the equivalent of 34 Model-T cars - say around $2 million now (for a very expensive $50,000 car).
It was profitable in very short order, selling several models of cars. The Model-T itself was available for sale in just over 5 years after the company was founded. Ford innovated in production and product design, and made ground breaking products available for the masses.
Magic Leap raised $2.3 billion (the equivalent of 46,000 cars) 8 years ago. Total publicly available output: a few promotional videos.
The title implies (and some commenters seem to believe) that this is about an actual magic leap product, not a speculative recreation thereof. Can we get a title change to something like "Recreating a Magic Leap device" or "The view through a magic leap recreation"
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.