> HoloLens Developer Edition will be available for $3000.
Wow. I'm a 23 year old Software Engineer living in the Bay Area and making six figures. I have plenty of disposable income yet I still find this expensive. If they aren't targeting me, who are they targeting? I don't think a senior executive at an Investment Banking firm will develop apps for their prototype in his free time.
This is still a bad method of distribution. It would make a lot more sense to make the hardware free but require an application process to purchase them (along the lines of how Google is managing distribution of the Glass v2.0... which likely almost no one actually knows much about).
I think you're the target market as a software engineer, not as a young dude with disposable income. $3000 as a business expense is small, it's the opportunity to build an app for a platform early. If it becomes something larger, then it was a great investment. Of course like all new bets, its risky. Anyone who bought into google glass early sunk with the ship.
It's completely standard for some companies to make their development kits ridiculously expensive (compared to actual cost) or put up other insane obstacles for people that want to build something that might create a ton of demand for their product.
A long time ago I was interested in applying Echelon LonWorks devices for a completely different market than they serve. But their development kit cost tens of thousands of dollars[1] for a $100 worth of parts and their development software. So screw that.
To take another example, Broadcom is simply impossible to talk to directly if you're after something as simple as the documentation and a library to access the API on one of their chips. You have to speak to idiot manufacturer's reps, who'll pass on your inquiry to Broadcom if they deem you a worthy customer. The only language a manufacturer's rep understands is the dollar value of the order you plan to make within 3 months for which they'll get a cut. They don't give a damn about wild new ideas or applications you might have if it doesn't translate into immediate large-volume orders for them.
The stated reason for all this BS is that the companies want really serious customers because of the demands and questions imposed by the developers. If that's the really the case, they should have 2 pricing tiers: cheap but no support, and expensive with access to support. But I don't think it's the case; I think it's just the usual big company delusion that they should speak only to important customers and all deals must be big deals.
> If they aren't targeting me, who are they targeting?
Why would the target market for a augmented reality device be "young college grad with a lot of money"?
I think the fact that this has gaming applications is tangential to what it actually is - a business productivity tool with a core feature set around product design and collaboration.
It's targeted at companies that invest in development kits with a goal of making serious money in the AR market. Microsoft does not intend this to be a product for use by early adopters.
It's clear that Microsoft is not targeting the same audience as Oculus and HTC. 3000 USD for a developer edition is a bold statement.
I guess hololens will "fail". A few big companies will buy them and develop random software to impress clients. But i'm pretty sure we will not see much else.
When I demoed it months ago, it was so not ready for primetime. The AR area was pathetic, and it used IR lasers for scanning.
The AR area is self-explanatory: when the size is not much bigger than a postage stamp, your project makes a great tech demo, and a really shitty customer product.
The IR laser is problematic in multiple ways:
1. If it's the same module as found on the kinect, it's a 90mW laser, which is a hell of a lot of power on a battery platform. Expect much reduced power in scanning mode.
2. IR means the device is useless outdoors and near windows. Think of anyplace where the Kinect fails: so too will this.
I'd pay $1000 for this, not the $3k they're asking. The tech just isn't there. I just hope this doesn't cause an AR desolation in the community the way VR had done for 10 years.
> I'd pay $1000 for this, not the $3k they're asking. The tech just isn't there. I just hope this doesn't cause an AR desolation in the community the way VR had done for 10 years.
reply
And so the high price works exactly as intended. Microsoft KNOWS that this isn't ready for prime-time, so they put this price tag on it to make sure that it isn't buyed by someone just enthusiastic who is then dismayed when it is "not ready for prime-time" (as advertised!). They've stated multiple times that this is the reason for the price tag.
Cost is only a part of the problems with this platform.
IR scanning is inherently erroneous. I simply can't be:
1. Outside
2. Near windows
3. Near IR flood sources
4. Reflective/glass areas
It just doesn't work on any of those areas. That's the huge unsolvable problem with this platform. And no, frequency shifting to a different wavelength still has the same problems (the sun is a great wideband emitter).
Even if their platform was brought to the best their hardware could bear, it still would fail.
EDIT: For those of you giving -1's, how about you comment and explain why you are doing so. I'm providing a technical argument why this platform will fail, based on my experiences with this headset and my work in computer vision.
"That's the huge unsolvable problem with this platform"
Unsolvable problems tend to be unsolvable. I can solve this with three words: Use it inside. And on the next version (which, let's be honest, they're targeting a "next version" for general release, not this one), they use lasers instead of IR.
If you want to use it outside, it might be unsolvable for the current release, but it's hardly unsolvable for the platform.
The IR emitted is a structured laser light at IR frequencies.
They're already using "lasers". The problem with using any sort of structured light is that your frequency can't be in the same band of any sort of flood lights (sunlight, ballasts, IR camera lights). It's also why X-Rays work well: it's a structured light (kind of) and can be used because we won't have a flood of XRays everywhere.
The problem isn't with "IR": they should not be using a structured light solution. It's just not durable enough for 3d scanning applications. It's also why I've worked on a SLAM-like 3d scanner. Understanding geometry, corners, edges, and gradients are much more versatile in scanning, because it is passive. Our very eyes don't send out beams of light, and yet we manage a very accurate SLAM-like map inside our own heads.
The problem with the Hololens is that until they switch to a vision-only system, they're going to be plagued with problems regarding IR sources (or whatever freq they choose).
Source: me (3Dollar scanner, amateur radio operator, OpenCV reprap implementer)
"Use it inside" doesn't completely solve it, at least if you have windows inside.
During my master internship at INRIA, a coworker had to put a tablecloth on his desk to be able to get a proper depth image with a Kinect. It turned out to be a small window, 5 meters away, reflecting on his desk. Indirect sun light was enough to mess up the projected pattern.
So "Use it in a cave" can be a solution, but it's... less attractive.
Funny fact is, Hololens doesn't work with windows.
When I play games I want to get OUT of my reality. I don't want every game being painted onto my lounge room.
It might be a great experience if you have a lounge room as stylish and clean and spacious as Bill Gates or Satya Nadella, but I have a small cluttered lounge room and I have no interest in playing games projected into that reality.
I'm holding a fistful of dollars which I am trying to throw at Sony as soon as they'll take it from me for immersive VR.
I think this targets a completely different use case. It is not VR, it's AR -- enriching your environment vs. replacing it. Gaming is probably better in VR, but AR may be better when you want to interact with others in the same room (for example, when designing an object), or if you need some help with a real-life object (during an operation, etc.).
I don't think Microsoft really see this as just a gaming device. I saw a presentation by some members of the hololens team that really emphasised the devices use right through the product design process. I think they see it as a productivity device for design studios and businesses that happens to have some game applications.
And honestly, I think they're on to something. Using an HTC Vive with the tilt brush app really emphasises just how intuitive 3D design work can be in VR. The robot repair demo features a really eye-opening moment when you're looking into the innards of an exploded-view robot. It's such an intuitive way to work with 3D models, and so obvious that it will eventually become commonplace.
The biggest problem with the Vive demos is that you're fully immersed. Hololens addresses that.
Have you seen the film Her? The game he plays in his living room looked great.
I think, just like watching a movie at home, it's fairly easy to get immersed and "lose yourself" if it's engaging. Not that I'm uninterested in something totally immersive like you mean, just think there's room for both.
For now, VR is probably a better gaming solution, but X years down the line, when the Hololens can fill your entire field of view, I don't see why it can't provide the same experience.
Hololens really does sound like an absolutely extraordinary and revolutionary product. I'm genuinely excited to try it.
...And then I see mention of Skype, which is a product that -- since its acquisition by Microsoft -- has gone steadily downhill in terms of its form, functionality, stability, security, and essentially every other metric. It's hard to find anybody who doesn't loathe it. There's some serious cognitive dissonance in trying to contemplate Hololens and Skype simultaneously.
Actually, I had the same reaction when Hololens was first announced. "OMG, the future is here! Thank you Microsoft!" I thought, and then immediately spent the next 6 hours tracking down an idiotic standards-compliance bug which existed in every version of Internet Explorer up until IE 11.[1]
I could go on at some length, but suffice to say that I am routinely astonished by Microsoft's R&D capabilities, yet virtually every interaction I have with their actual software leaves me with a dire impression. (Except for Excel, which for some reason Just Works for me). So as much as I want to have high hopes for Hololens, I fear that crappy software will let it down.
Please, Microsoft -- prove me wrong!
1: window.location.origin, if you really want to know.
Kinect is really neat. It's hard to make it into a fun gaming device. I'm sure some people enjoy using it, but even for my 4 year old, he prefers a controller.
Kinect and similar depth cams really are neat but I think their potential won't be realized for a little while and selling an early one as a game controller belies that potential.
With VR, I think work on depth cams and software to "stitch" together data streams from multiple devices will become very important. It's one of the only ways you can currently record and transmit (admittedly low-quality in current iterations) actual 3d video that can be viewed from any angle.
When you look at early low quality webcams compared to digital video today, then apply that to something like this:
80/20 rule maybe... It's easy to have great ideas and even deliver on most of the idea ... But to actually make it great that final 20 percent is really hard and easy to mess up during the ebb and flow of product development...
Skype is terrible, I have to use it to connect with family in Europe & Australia and it's getting to the point where I'm contemplating teaching my 70 yr old mother how ti use google hangouts (shudders)
However, Skype for Business (formally known as Lync) is rock solid.
I would postulate that since the rebranding of Lync, the old consumer-Skype is on an end-of-life roadmap.
Hololens + LyncSkype in an enterprise & smb setting makes a lot of sense.
I have the exact opposite opinion. Skype still works quite well (although sometimes it's not great about syncing chats across devices, but it's better than Facebook), while Skype for Business has constant issues and makes me miss Lync.
Urk, I take it you haven't used Lync outside of Windows? The Mac version is horrible mixture of Silverlight+HTML5+Standalone App in which none of the mentioned pieces can't handle the full functionality. On the other hand Skype and Hipchat just works (unless you get hit by the Skype bugs:p).
I feel the exact opposite on both counts. I've never really had a problem with Skype for desktop (though I agree that Hangouts is better), but the week after I updated my work machine to Lync was full of lag, dropped connections, and a suddenly bloated interface.
This is bizarre because your experience is the exact opposite of mine (and the grandparent) - for me, Skype for Business is damn near perfect in every way, Skype desktop I hate with a fiery passion. Microsoft is a strange company.
Skype for business is the biggest dumpster fire of software that I've had to use for work in the last few years. Truly awful- resource hog, screen sharing rarely works, and frequently crashes.
Likewise, I'm amazed at how bad it is. Screen sharing issues, copy paste issues, lock ups (while everything else continues working fine), problems with not saving old messages properly, can't send messages because they are too long (really!?) ....on and on. Microsoft has been screwing up messengers for 20? years now - yes, I know different teams - and still, every new release or client is literally 1 step forward, 1 step back.
I love that MS tries to push the boundaries with new tech and ideas, but I absolutely loathe them because of their fake marketing of the products they actually do end up creating. Let me take this moment to remind everyone of the Kinect teaser [1]. Now watch the Hololens teaser again [2]. They couldn't deliver the Kinect as advertised 6 years ago, and the fact is they won't be able to deliver the Hololens either as advertised. $3000 is a lot of money to put on a lie.
It's fascinating to compare the comment sections under both videos. The first one is full of loathing and mockery for Microsoft and the features they simply did not deliver, the second one boils down to "this is the future, Microsoft is building the future". I wonder how the Hololens comments will look a few years from today.
Nonsense, $3000 is peanuts compared to the costs to actually write anything for it. I.e. if you are expecting to be entertained by the device and not augment your creative or professional output by it you are probably not in the core market. I have no idea how it will turn out but it's not a VR helmet as such, it's a wearable HUD with AR capabilities.
Oh I know exactly what it is, and I am a developer with the money who could buy it. But why would I when I know it will be nothing like what they said it is? I think I'll wait and watch the inevitable backlash before I spend my money.
>I think I'll wait and watch the inevitable backlash before I spend my money.
To the opposite of Kinect, a LOT of tech journalist and enthusiast tried hololens. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with only issues about the field of view being raised. I personally tried Hololens, I was blown away by the technology. I own an Oculus Rift DK2 and I tried the unreleased consumer version of oculus rift. They are both great technology, and Oculus clearly offer a more immersive gaming experience, but I personally saw more potential with hololens, and generally speaking I thought the technology was cooler. Anyway, if you are genuinely interested, you should definitely try to get at any of the event where they allow people to try it out.
I can understand the feeling of betrayal, but do you think they did it on purpose? I rather assume they were overly optimistic and reality made it harder to deliver on their promises.
That's naive. They are always looking to maximise profits, and what better way than to sell it as a dream product way ahead of any of it's competitors?
That is overly pessimistic. Given the years of research that went into this product and obviously has continued into the hololens - I highly doubt it was for this little scheme you mention.
Do you honestly think Microsoft is going to make a killer profit from Hololens from selling dev kits? Give me a break. The technology and cost behind this is astronomical, Microsoft is likely selling this close to cost.
People are singling out Microsoft here, but seemingly forget all of the promises Apple and Google are always making, when Google had to can Glass and Apple can't even get Airdrop to work correctly.
I'm not making any judgment call on this product, but selling something as a dream product at a high price and delivering a product that disappoints as a dream product can give the mass market, where the bulk of the money is, to a competitor coming out with a product that is inferior in features to your v1 product, even if your v2 product ships at the same time as your competitor's product with better features at a lower price.
That's why you look at track record to assess behavior. If it happens once, you can forgive it as optimism or somesuch. If it's a pattern, you would then need to assume it's deliberate.
I am not a gamer, but I bought an XBox 360 and Kinect because it had the messenger app and my parents 10000 miles away can see their grandkids who are always running around. And it worked really well. Then one day, they dropped support for messenger. Now, if you want to have the same functionality, you have to get an XBOX One that integrates with Skype. Several people complained in Microsoft forums about taking away a functionality they explicitly paid for. They were greeted with a link to the legal Terms of Service. That is it. I am not going to get something from a company that does this bait and switch.
I'm not here to say that MS doesn't have people doing bullshit marketing powerplays like the one you described. But in the console market, that's pretty much how the business works.
And in the larger PC market, you've got 3 realistic options and they're all frustrating in one way or another.
I'm not here to say that MS doesn't have people doing bullshit marketing powerplays like the one you described. But in the console market, that's pretty much how the business works.
And in the larger PC market, you've got 3 realistic options and they're all frustrating in one way or another.
They removed a perfectly working functionality. At the time of removal they said it was because they wanted to bring in Skype to XBOX 360. But skype never came to Xbox 360 and it came only in XBox One. This entire feature that is touted in this video [1] is not available in Xbox 360 now. And I bought an XBox 360 because Microsoft's marketing material said it is available.
Exactly. But what you described won't make money so we get these videos that don't take place in reality. Majority of non-technical users believe them too hence the hype. I'm interested to see how the reaction changes once hololens comes out.
If anything, I would consider their videos and their dishonesty as fraudulent.
It's also telling, that my previous post in this article was modded down pretty hard. a few of us went to Chicago to demo this, and I was sorely unimpressed. And the AR was only one facet. The bigger problem is their choice of active scanned IR.
They mentioned that their new API will to geocode everything you scan with GPS points, reference points (wifi) and other ways of triangulation. And those points will be linked to Lat/Lon. That sounds exciting and scary both... but with failure to adapt to that huge glowing ball of wideband radiation means the Hololens is a fail outside or near windows.
The "Product Evangelists" refused to answer that, by talking about how Cool the platform was. And it was also limited by the fact that there were only about 7 minutes of questions taken.
My guess is that yes, they would sync to MS local maps of your environments. It would make a great deal of sense, as that's where Google has a huge hole in on their maps service. It would put MS on the "map", literally and figuratively.
You are overly exaggerating the field of view issue. I've tried the hololens twice already (the untethered version they will be shipping). Field of view is definitely smaller that I'd like, but it's MUCH bigger than a 6 inch phablet at arms length. It's closer to the size a 24 inch monitor sitting on your desk at arm length.
Almost all tech journalist that tried it were blown away by the experience. Most of them mentioned the field of view issue, but I haven't read anyone saying that it was such an issue that it made the technology any less impressive.
Yes I've seen the video, and it scares me to what lengths they will go to to lie, and fool people such as yourself. Video [1] for those who haven't seen it (skip to 2:25).
I am routinely astonished by Apple's R&D capabilities, yet many interactions I have with their actual software leaves me with a dire impression. The lesson is: familiarity breeds contempt.
Which brings me to my favorite quote: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroustrup
You can expand that quote from [programming languages] to everything and it remains equally true. There's very few things everyone uses that they don't spend at least some time complaining about.
Microsoft is a HUGE company. I don't say this dismissively, even those who know the numbers don't always understand how distinctly many orgs work. It is essentially a bunch of independent companies that HAPPEN to be working on top of each other, with some common tech and staffing.
I'll admit I'm hesitant to speak more bluntly, but I'm sure you can inferr what I'm trying to imply from the above; namely, it'll to be seen once holo comes out which org it was in, metaphorically :). If you were looking for a comparison, destiny probably has more predictive ability in terms of dev patterns, since the studios I believe (may be talking out of my ass) had a hand in making both.
I'm also very excited about holo, a bit sad though that they didn't really make dev kits available internally to anyone who wasn't on the direct team; or even with a meaningful enough discount to make it viable to me as a hobby project.
Microsoft Research is a great institution. It's the XEROX PARC of our time, largely failing to commercialise its work. Although this time it tends to be locked up in patents so it's not commercialised by anyone else.
The problem was that it wasn't R&D. Research was separated from Development. This is something Satya publicly stated he wanted to change, and I hope he will.
It's called augmented reality, and HoloLens is just one of them, GoogleLens is another. I played with several research prototypes some years ago. All devices had a too small POV (point of view) and/or bad graphics. HoloLens suffer from a very small POV, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11195008
I really hope they fix that before general availability. But that probably is part of the reason why we are only seeing a limited developer release right now, especially since they'd compete with already more established VR solutions.
It's not necessarily for home users. It should be damn good for providing professionals a task specific hud. Think of architects surveying a construction yard where the the virtual model is laid over the construction work.
With their current implementation of IR laser structured light, your architect is only going to go to the construction yard at night, and have to turn the sodium lights off.
This to me, is a much bigger failure point with the way the Hololens is implemented. It's also a great deal harder to fix. (Mainly, they need a visual SLAM on stereo-cameras, similar to what we've been hearing about the MagicLeap.)
It's a devkit, not for general release. Microsoft has already addressed why the FoV is narrow, and it has to do with battery life and power needed to process the scene. So the wider FoV will come when battery tech and processing power catch-up.
I've used a Hololens, yes the FoV is off-putting, but the technology itself is incredible. If I had $3K to throw around, or if I were a big enterprise looking to invest for various research using Hololens, I'd say it would be worth it.
My mind is just blown with the possibilities of a software-layer on our real world, slowly growing from this initial piece of hardware. I want to be a part of this.
And then they put THAT picture, with the selling-point being games, 3D tours and Skype. This is just horrible.
Not to mention the shallow, trollish comments following the article. But then, I suppose a publication that calls itself "MS Power User" is going to have a bit of a rah-rah cheerleader tinge.
I tried the hololens at the Microsoft store on fifth avenue. I got 3 five minute demos: a 3d modeling app, a wristwatch marketing presentation and the robots attack video game. The device is really quite amazing. Being wireless seems like a big deal to me. The limited field of view is certainly an issue, but seeing objects suspended in front of you is surreal and futuristic. With cardboard and oculus I got motion sickness. Holo lens didn't cause vertigo, but it made me feel like I had eye fatigue. I don't know a better way to describe it. The possibilities for these devices are amazing, I hope they live up to the expectation.
To me the killer app for these would be football replays and extra overlays beyond TV.
This. "The limited field of view is certainly an issue".
I hope this is eliminated in future versions. The Epson Moverio has this issue too and it is very awkward seeing a rectangle of available AR. I haven't tried the Hololens yet but I hear it is still there.
p.s. The Virtual Reality NYC meetup is actually hosted inside Microsoft each month. They have given any talks or demos on the Hololens since I have been going. I hope this will change with this announcement!
I think the FOV limitations are a result of decisions made based on current tech capabilities. While I'm sure they could've made something with much wider FOV (and I believe earlier prototypes had this) it would mean being tethered to a more powerful computer or a bulkier/more expensive headset.
When faced with this, it looks like they went with limited FOV in order to keep it standalone and relatively ergonomic. I think this makes sense because processing power and software will continue to improve and allow wider FOV with equally good performance. They just chose to keep the ergonomics and lower the FOV in these early units to keep performance good. With better chips and software, wider FOV will be akin to raising the resolution on a game when you get a new video card.
I've a very strong vision of holoprojections. From sitting through numerous meetings with remote teams, where tele- or video-conferences just doesn't work.
People lose focus, even through video interaction. How incredible would it to be to walk through an office and interact with colleagues, that simply aren't there (not an American Psycho reference. They are there, any you can see and talk to them in the physical whole, they're simple not _physically_ there).
How would this change things? Initially, perhaps not a lot, 10 to 15 years out. Physical interaction would still be deemed prime. And this vision is sans-headset (office decoration firms get busy preparing multiple remote sites). Beyond that timeframe, would it be so normal to have a strong business relationship with someone never physically met? What would be the impact of 'hanging out' over lunch to develop relationships. That seems a bigger challenge.
But to put that in perspective, it is only 400 years since Shakespeare's death, that's 10 generations of people that live until 40, or more realistically around 7 generations of hereditary lifespans where the youngest generation is in physical/educational contact with the eldest generation. That's not a long time for transfer of ideas for revolutionary ideas to happen.
Will we all be on a tropical beach developing VR apps? No. Old nature dies hard. This is an augmentation, not a replacement.
The most realistic part of the video was the instructor helping the woman fix the pipe under the sink. Not to over the top and actually useful. But for this plumbing task and similar tasks, it seems a cheaper headset could be made.
Would be a great opportunity for lower cost, more focused product to be "good enough" instead of being overly ambitious but out of reach for most people.
You are right I am certainly no expert in AR (or VR) but seems having a person circle something on a screen is easier than projecting 3d images that you can manipulate?
but seems having a person circle something on a screen is easier than projecting 3d images that you can manipulate?
Well it is, that's basically what ScopeAR does, but they use 3D based markers and animated objects.
The Hololens video however is showing that the new element (circle something) is being "glued" to the object without a specific image tag - which means you have to have both an accurate scan of the environment and 3D object glued to it. Very hard to do.
The Hololens technology looks really exciting. I can't wait for a consumer version. That said, this release looks like it is analogous to the Oculus Rift dev kit, we are years away from a consumer version. On the positive side, most the shortcomings of the device look like that can be solved with a little bit of time. The field-of-view will improve with processing power and battery life, and room scanning and tracking will improve with a cheaper and smaller sensors.
Does anyone know the resolution? There doesn't seem to be any numbers out, but roughly, it's very much likely less than 4K, probably 1080p and not too unlikely less, right?!
Stupid Windows always asks to update and resets all the apps to defaults(i.e its own apps). It will be much worse and more irritating if microsoft wins in this space. Fc* you Microsoft.
117 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadwill it _require_ Skype?
Wow. I'm a 23 year old Software Engineer living in the Bay Area and making six figures. I have plenty of disposable income yet I still find this expensive. If they aren't targeting me, who are they targeting? I don't think a senior executive at an Investment Banking firm will develop apps for their prototype in his free time.
They must be targeting businesses? It is a Developer Edition after all.
The price point is designed to stop people like yourself grabbing it thinking it's going to be a full experience day 1.
But it's cheap enough where anyone who'll be in the position to develop anything of quality to grab it without thinking twice.
A long time ago I was interested in applying Echelon LonWorks devices for a completely different market than they serve. But their development kit cost tens of thousands of dollars[1] for a $100 worth of parts and their development software. So screw that.
To take another example, Broadcom is simply impossible to talk to directly if you're after something as simple as the documentation and a library to access the API on one of their chips. You have to speak to idiot manufacturer's reps, who'll pass on your inquiry to Broadcom if they deem you a worthy customer. The only language a manufacturer's rep understands is the dollar value of the order you plan to make within 3 months for which they'll get a cut. They don't give a damn about wild new ideas or applications you might have if it doesn't translate into immediate large-volume orders for them.
The stated reason for all this BS is that the companies want really serious customers because of the demands and questions imposed by the developers. If that's the really the case, they should have 2 pricing tiers: cheap but no support, and expensive with access to support. But I don't think it's the case; I think it's just the usual big company delusion that they should speak only to important customers and all deals must be big deals.
[1] Their kits seem to be "only" $2-3K now. http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/echelon-corporation...
Why would the target market for a augmented reality device be "young college grad with a lot of money"?
I think the fact that this has gaming applications is tangential to what it actually is - a business productivity tool with a core feature set around product design and collaboration.
For $3000 now days you can visit half the world.
I guess hololens will "fail". A few big companies will buy them and develop random software to impress clients. But i'm pretty sure we will not see much else.
When I demoed it months ago, it was so not ready for primetime. The AR area was pathetic, and it used IR lasers for scanning.
The AR area is self-explanatory: when the size is not much bigger than a postage stamp, your project makes a great tech demo, and a really shitty customer product.
The IR laser is problematic in multiple ways:
1. If it's the same module as found on the kinect, it's a 90mW laser, which is a hell of a lot of power on a battery platform. Expect much reduced power in scanning mode.
2. IR means the device is useless outdoors and near windows. Think of anyplace where the Kinect fails: so too will this.
I'd pay $1000 for this, not the $3k they're asking. The tech just isn't there. I just hope this doesn't cause an AR desolation in the community the way VR had done for 10 years.
And so the high price works exactly as intended. Microsoft KNOWS that this isn't ready for prime-time, so they put this price tag on it to make sure that it isn't buyed by someone just enthusiastic who is then dismayed when it is "not ready for prime-time" (as advertised!). They've stated multiple times that this is the reason for the price tag.
IR scanning is inherently erroneous. I simply can't be:
1. Outside 2. Near windows 3. Near IR flood sources 4. Reflective/glass areas
It just doesn't work on any of those areas. That's the huge unsolvable problem with this platform. And no, frequency shifting to a different wavelength still has the same problems (the sun is a great wideband emitter).
Even if their platform was brought to the best their hardware could bear, it still would fail.
EDIT: For those of you giving -1's, how about you comment and explain why you are doing so. I'm providing a technical argument why this platform will fail, based on my experiences with this headset and my work in computer vision.
Unsolvable problems tend to be unsolvable. I can solve this with three words: Use it inside. And on the next version (which, let's be honest, they're targeting a "next version" for general release, not this one), they use lasers instead of IR.
If you want to use it outside, it might be unsolvable for the current release, but it's hardly unsolvable for the platform.
They're already using "lasers". The problem with using any sort of structured light is that your frequency can't be in the same band of any sort of flood lights (sunlight, ballasts, IR camera lights). It's also why X-Rays work well: it's a structured light (kind of) and can be used because we won't have a flood of XRays everywhere.
The problem isn't with "IR": they should not be using a structured light solution. It's just not durable enough for 3d scanning applications. It's also why I've worked on a SLAM-like 3d scanner. Understanding geometry, corners, edges, and gradients are much more versatile in scanning, because it is passive. Our very eyes don't send out beams of light, and yet we manage a very accurate SLAM-like map inside our own heads.
The problem with the Hololens is that until they switch to a vision-only system, they're going to be plagued with problems regarding IR sources (or whatever freq they choose).
Source: me (3Dollar scanner, amateur radio operator, OpenCV reprap implementer)
During my master internship at INRIA, a coworker had to put a tablecloth on his desk to be able to get a proper depth image with a Kinect. It turned out to be a small window, 5 meters away, reflecting on his desk. Indirect sun light was enough to mess up the projected pattern.
So "Use it in a cave" can be a solution, but it's... less attractive.
Funny fact is, Hololens doesn't work with windows.
When I play games I want to get OUT of my reality. I don't want every game being painted onto my lounge room.
It might be a great experience if you have a lounge room as stylish and clean and spacious as Bill Gates or Satya Nadella, but I have a small cluttered lounge room and I have no interest in playing games projected into that reality.
I'm holding a fistful of dollars which I am trying to throw at Sony as soon as they'll take it from me for immersive VR.
VR is becoming huge and so far they have no product in the game.
"Mobile is the next phase of VR, and augmented reality, also known as mixed reality, is the third phase, said (Piper Jaffray analyst Gene) Munster."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/07/welcome-to-the-future-virtual...
And honestly, I think they're on to something. Using an HTC Vive with the tilt brush app really emphasises just how intuitive 3D design work can be in VR. The robot repair demo features a really eye-opening moment when you're looking into the innards of an exploded-view robot. It's such an intuitive way to work with 3D models, and so obvious that it will eventually become commonplace.
The biggest problem with the Vive demos is that you're fully immersed. Hololens addresses that.
http://www.scopear.com/
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=o_cD_jVaWJo
I think, just like watching a movie at home, it's fairly easy to get immersed and "lose yourself" if it's engaging. Not that I'm uninterested in something totally immersive like you mean, just think there's room for both.
...And then I see mention of Skype, which is a product that -- since its acquisition by Microsoft -- has gone steadily downhill in terms of its form, functionality, stability, security, and essentially every other metric. It's hard to find anybody who doesn't loathe it. There's some serious cognitive dissonance in trying to contemplate Hololens and Skype simultaneously.
Actually, I had the same reaction when Hololens was first announced. "OMG, the future is here! Thank you Microsoft!" I thought, and then immediately spent the next 6 hours tracking down an idiotic standards-compliance bug which existed in every version of Internet Explorer up until IE 11.[1]
I could go on at some length, but suffice to say that I am routinely astonished by Microsoft's R&D capabilities, yet virtually every interaction I have with their actual software leaves me with a dire impression. (Except for Excel, which for some reason Just Works for me). So as much as I want to have high hopes for Hololens, I fear that crappy software will let it down.
Please, Microsoft -- prove me wrong!
1: window.location.origin, if you really want to know.
With VR, I think work on depth cams and software to "stitch" together data streams from multiple devices will become very important. It's one of the only ways you can currently record and transmit (admittedly low-quality in current iterations) actual 3d video that can be viewed from any angle.
When you look at early low quality webcams compared to digital video today, then apply that to something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgbycqb92c
you can see how it opens up the possibility of real VR movies (not just pano) and even VR telepresence.
However, Skype for Business (formally known as Lync) is rock solid.
I would postulate that since the rebranding of Lync, the old consumer-Skype is on an end-of-life roadmap.
Hololens + LyncSkype in an enterprise & smb setting makes a lot of sense.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA
The games:
- Fake Fighter 2 Turbo - Project Fake Racing - FakeZilla - Fifa Fakeball 2009 - Tony Hawk's Fake Skater 9
Nonsense, $3000 is peanuts compared to the costs to actually write anything for it. I.e. if you are expecting to be entertained by the device and not augment your creative or professional output by it you are probably not in the core market. I have no idea how it will turn out but it's not a VR helmet as such, it's a wearable HUD with AR capabilities.
To the opposite of Kinect, a LOT of tech journalist and enthusiast tried hololens. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with only issues about the field of view being raised. I personally tried Hololens, I was blown away by the technology. I own an Oculus Rift DK2 and I tried the unreleased consumer version of oculus rift. They are both great technology, and Oculus clearly offer a more immersive gaming experience, but I personally saw more potential with hololens, and generally speaking I thought the technology was cooler. Anyway, if you are genuinely interested, you should definitely try to get at any of the event where they allow people to try it out.
People are singling out Microsoft here, but seemingly forget all of the promises Apple and Google are always making, when Google had to can Glass and Apple can't even get Airdrop to work correctly.
That's why you look at track record to assess behavior. If it happens once, you can forgive it as optimism or somesuch. If it's a pattern, you would then need to assume it's deliberate.
I'm not here to say that MS doesn't have people doing bullshit marketing powerplays like the one you described. But in the console market, that's pretty much how the business works.
And in the larger PC market, you've got 3 realistic options and they're all frustrating in one way or another.
I'm not here to say that MS doesn't have people doing bullshit marketing powerplays like the one you described. But in the console market, that's pretty much how the business works.
And in the larger PC market, you've got 3 realistic options and they're all frustrating in one way or another.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBsTimrYTIQ
The AR side is equivalent of taking a 6" phablet and holding it at arms length: that dinky rectangle is your augmented viewport.
It doesn't do anywhere near a full AR on everything everywhere you look.
It's also telling, that my previous post in this article was modded down pretty hard. a few of us went to Chicago to demo this, and I was sorely unimpressed. And the AR was only one facet. The bigger problem is their choice of active scanned IR.
They mentioned that their new API will to geocode everything you scan with GPS points, reference points (wifi) and other ways of triangulation. And those points will be linked to Lat/Lon. That sounds exciting and scary both... but with failure to adapt to that huge glowing ball of wideband radiation means the Hololens is a fail outside or near windows.
I guess that leaves the basements to us?
Do they "conveniently" upload all this to "the cloud" too?
My guess is that yes, they would sync to MS local maps of your environments. It would make a great deal of sense, as that's where Google has a huge hole in on their maps service. It would put MS on the "map", literally and figuratively.
Almost all tech journalist that tried it were blown away by the experience. Most of them mentioned the field of view issue, but I haven't read anyone saying that it was such an issue that it made the technology any less impressive.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgakdcEzVwg
You can expand that quote from [programming languages] to everything and it remains equally true. There's very few things everyone uses that they don't spend at least some time complaining about.
There's also quite a nice round table video with some of the original authors 30 years on. [2]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3rid26/we_are_the_mic...
[2] http://www.geekwire.com/2015/recalc-or-die-30-years-later-mi...
I'll admit I'm hesitant to speak more bluntly, but I'm sure you can inferr what I'm trying to imply from the above; namely, it'll to be seen once holo comes out which org it was in, metaphorically :). If you were looking for a comparison, destiny probably has more predictive ability in terms of dev patterns, since the studios I believe (may be talking out of my ass) had a hand in making both.
I'm also very excited about holo, a bit sad though that they didn't really make dev kits available internally to anyone who wasn't on the direct team; or even with a meaningful enough discount to make it viable to me as a hobby project.
I fear that the limited field of vision will severely cripple the experience.
https://www.google.hu/search?q=hololens+fov&tbm=isch
This to me, is a much bigger failure point with the way the Hololens is implemented. It's also a great deal harder to fix. (Mainly, they need a visual SLAM on stereo-cameras, similar to what we've been hearing about the MagicLeap.)
I've used a Hololens, yes the FoV is off-putting, but the technology itself is incredible. If I had $3K to throw around, or if I were a big enterprise looking to invest for various research using Hololens, I'd say it would be worth it.
> catch-up
So... never?
My mind is just blown with the possibilities of a software-layer on our real world, slowly growing from this initial piece of hardware. I want to be a part of this.
And then they put THAT picture, with the selling-point being games, 3D tours and Skype. This is just horrible.
Do they even care?
Seems a bit steep. Hopefully this doesn't represent the retail price.
https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015392929212465...
To me the killer app for these would be football replays and extra overlays beyond TV.
I hope this is eliminated in future versions. The Epson Moverio has this issue too and it is very awkward seeing a rectangle of available AR. I haven't tried the Hololens yet but I hear it is still there.
p.s. The Virtual Reality NYC meetup is actually hosted inside Microsoft each month. They have given any talks or demos on the Hololens since I have been going. I hope this will change with this announcement!
http://www.meetup.com/Virtual-Reality-NYC/
When faced with this, it looks like they went with limited FOV in order to keep it standalone and relatively ergonomic. I think this makes sense because processing power and software will continue to improve and allow wider FOV with equally good performance. They just chose to keep the ergonomics and lower the FOV in these early units to keep performance good. With better chips and software, wider FOV will be akin to raising the resolution on a game when you get a new video card.
Google Glass was a notification system that sits above-ish your one eye.
Holo Lens is trying to be full AR.
Funny, they show football players, all I can see is future generals guiding their troops in the field with this.
People lose focus, even through video interaction. How incredible would it to be to walk through an office and interact with colleagues, that simply aren't there (not an American Psycho reference. They are there, any you can see and talk to them in the physical whole, they're simple not _physically_ there).
How would this change things? Initially, perhaps not a lot, 10 to 15 years out. Physical interaction would still be deemed prime. And this vision is sans-headset (office decoration firms get busy preparing multiple remote sites). Beyond that timeframe, would it be so normal to have a strong business relationship with someone never physically met? What would be the impact of 'hanging out' over lunch to develop relationships. That seems a bigger challenge.
But to put that in perspective, it is only 400 years since Shakespeare's death, that's 10 generations of people that live until 40, or more realistically around 7 generations of hereditary lifespans where the youngest generation is in physical/educational contact with the eldest generation. That's not a long time for transfer of ideas for revolutionary ideas to happen.
Will we all be on a tropical beach developing VR apps? No. Old nature dies hard. This is an augmentation, not a replacement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEL8XDQFrlI
Would be a great opportunity for lower cost, more focused product to be "good enough" instead of being overly ambitious but out of reach for most people.
I don't think you appreciate how difficult that use case is and it ends up being the same level of difficulty as doing basically anything else in AR.
Well it is, that's basically what ScopeAR does, but they use 3D based markers and animated objects.
The Hololens video however is showing that the new element (circle something) is being "glued" to the object without a specific image tag - which means you have to have both an accurate scan of the environment and 3D object glued to it. Very hard to do.