31–40 of 395 posts
Is it really "holographic", or just stereoscopic?
Key feature: see-through glasses. The eye strain was a major problem with Google Glass, that's not present here.
Yes, and Oculus Rift is now less relevant as well (good timing for selling it to Facebook). Why buy a dedicated heavy wired non-see-throw helmet? To shit yourself when someone is tapping your shoulder?
What are your thoughts about this? I'll tell you mine. I just watched Google slowly, painfully, realize that Google Glass isn't commercially viable (in it's current form and to the general public). I can't help but feel that this is a larger, albeit more immersive, version of Google Glass. I only make this point in regards to any plans for a sci-fi, everyday wearable HUD. There is obviously a great demand for this ki…
Google Glass was to be used in personal interactions and that put a social barrier in the way of what was some cool technology. It seems that it was way too awkward to be 'glassing' in public no matter how useful or cool the technology was.
HoloLens is pitched to be used in the home and in the workplace, where you can comfortably immerse yourself in that experience without the social implications. This allows the technology to be judged on its own without mixing in the social implications.
I have high hopes for this, at least its a very different experience than what most others are doing (though its obviously taking cues from VR, augmented reality/Google glass etc.)
I agree for this to get 'really big' the form factor has to be a lot more portable, but this is a great stop-gap.
Now it makes sense that Google just announced that they're stopping Glass from being sold retail. They did not want to have their device compared to the new product from MS. Actually I see this new device as more prone to success than the Glass. These devices are competing for the same markets: healthcare, education and entertainment. And here Glass is somewhat underpowered.
Google's response would presumably be their partnership with Magic Leap.
What are your thoughts about this? I'll tell you mine. I just watched Google slowly, painfully, realize that Google Glass isn't commercially viable (in it's current form and to the general public). I can't help but feel that this is a larger, albeit more immersive, version of Google Glass. I only make this point in regards to any plans for a sci-fi, everyday wearable HUD. There is obviously a great demand for this ki…
But we're just not there yet tech-wise. And there have to be some intermediate steps along the way (i.e. big ugly glasses/goggles) because it's just going to be too hard to make it commercially viable to go directly to smart contacts.
What Google has shows is that the public won't accept this until it's _awesome_ (and Glass was not awesome). So perhaps the gaming route (Oculus/MSFT) is the path we'll have to take.
What sort of use case is this for? The demos talked about in the article seem rather specific. I don't see how this will appeal to mass consumers.
Key feature: see-through glasses. The eye strain was a major problem with Google Glass, that's not present here.
Yes, and Oculus Rift is now less relevant as well (good timing for selling it to Facebook). Why buy a dedicated heavy wired non-see-throw helmet? To shit yourself when someone is tapping your shoulder?
How is this different than the Meta AR glasses? I have a pair, and I think they did a great job with the display and interaction.
I wanted to buy some to develop on, but they didn't really seem to have their act together.