9 ms·

This was actually a pretty well grounded article compared to what I was expecting. I'm with the author, I absolutely think this kind of thing will be the next

This was actually a pretty well grounded article compared to what I was expecting. I'm with the author, I absolutely think this kind of thing will be the next step in computing. It just seems so obvious. Get rid of screeens and wear a headset that lets you put application windows anywhere in your view. I'm glad they questioned a lot of Magic Leap's claims and didn't just parrot back the taglines and act like it's magic. That being said, I don't think Magic Leap is going to be the product that "wins". It seems from this article that it's going to run its own "OS", with it's own special apps, and most likely limited integration with other stuff. I don't want a new "device", a new os, a new "platform", I want a screen that I strap to my face. One that I can eventually connect to my Linux machine, or my windows desktop, or my MacBook. Maybe in wrong, but I feel like Magic Leap is going to die if it demands that kind of integration, regardless of how technically impressive it is. Hololens on the other hand is something I'm giving a good amount of consideration to, because they seem to be focusing on "a screen you strap to your face".

XorNot 8y ago
No mention of resolution (what I keyword search in every article about the Magic Leap). Anyone who's tried VR knows what that means - 1920x1080 is not enough useful lines for serious work with text, it's just barely enough for gaming.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  Well it seems they aren't pushing toward "serious work with text" based on this article. They are looking for devs to make apps, this means stuff like the NBA app, or games and stuff. I think you are right about higher resolution being needed for real "work", but since this doesn't run a "real" OS either, i'm not sure how much work you could get done on it anyway.
- bpicolo 8y ago
  Might not be mentioned because there's no actual pixel display?
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Lots of things technically don't have pixel displays, like many CRTs. It's still basically doing pixels, and can give a number.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  It's a lightfield display, so 1920x1080 is very very optimistic. 640x480 is more likely.
curiousgal 8y ago
> this kind of thing will be the next step in computing If by computing you mean video/game consumption then yeah sure, but for pretty much every other application (programming, editing, reading, etc) this is a poor medium.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  I can't disagree more. I actually think the opposite. Games and stuff are nice, but everyone I've known that uses a vive or oculus gets tired of needing to move around in VR pretty fast. But being able to get rid of the 3-4 screens on my desk, and replace them with a headset that I wear? That I can put windows everywhere? Behind me, far left, even throw one up above me to glance at? That's HUGE imo. And the cost can quickly make sense. I'm in the market for a new set of screens for my machine. I want to go to 4k. I'm looking at realistically $1500 for new screens. If something like Magic Leap or hololens was only 2x more than that and could get even "1080p equivalent" resolution compared to my screens, i'd happily drop the extra cash right now. Yes, it's still not at that point as far as I can tell, but I don't think needing to increase resolution a bit is going to be the thing that ends up making VR/AR "impossible".
  - foobarbecue 8y ago
    So basically, you want multiple desktops a la Win 10 Virtual Desktops or KDE activities, but instead of pressing a key combo to switch between desktops, you want to rotate your head? And then in order to stay in the virtual desktop you've selected, you want to have to keep your head pointed at a particular angle? Are you sure about this?
    - Klathmon 8y ago
      yeah i'm sure. How is it any different than working with papers on a physical desk? Or working with a large corkboard or whiteboard where you place many items while working on something big? Because that's the idea i'm envisioning. Being able to put papers or applications on a virtual whiteboard that completely encircles you. Move them to where you want, make them "fullscreen" (full-view?), maybe even be able to move them forward and backwards in focus and "position". Hell, with some extra work, we could even put them on surfaces around the room. Throw a monitoring program on the wall next to my window, "project" keybindings on top of my keyboard's keys when i'm pressing parts of a combo, etc... Hell, even if you hate the idea of an "augmented reality desktop", you could just project "fake" screens and use them the same as you normally do. I mean it's not like our current tools just go away and I'd start craning my neck to look up and to the left as far as possible for 9 hours a day... You could still have tools like "multiple desktops", and change/move them. But now I have the option of putting my task manager above me at like a 60 degree angle straight ahead and can glance up at it when needed.
dmortin 8y ago
> Get rid of screeens and wear a headset that lets you put application windows anywhere in your view. I don't think wearing headsets is a practical way to do everyday computing and it can even be bad for your eyes. With a monitor you can look away, look out the window, etc. but with a headset the screen is always in front of your eyes, so you have to take the whole thing off if you want to give your eyes some rest from the screen. It may be good for shorter special tasks like gaming, vr assisted surgery and such, but it doesn't seem a good match for programming, for example, which you do all day.
- kldavis4 8y ago
  In theory, if the screen is projected onto a surface (like a wall) there should be no reason you can't look away from it.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  But don't screens only hurt our eyes because they are at a fixed focal point? With a good AR headset, that focal point can be adjusted and moved around (possibly even in realtime if you want, move a screen to be "further away from you"). Not to mention that when you aren't looking at something that the headset is "generating", it's just basically a clear piece of plastic that you can see through. They are basically bad sunglasses. You can look away from a "projected" screen just as easily as you can look away from a physical screen.
- dagw 8y ago
  but with a headset the screen is always in front of your eyes Check out a Hololens if you ever get a chance. You can choose if the object you create is always in front of you or 'stuck' in a fixed point in (virtual) space. If I place a 'screen' on a wall it will stay exactly where I put it no matter how I move around.
bitL 8y ago
For widespread adoption we would need to wait another 10-15 years until semiconductors get <5nm, allowing low-power performance at the level of 1080Ti or better, unless we are fine wearing a backpack with a larger machine and battery.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  Thats why I really think the first breakthrough will be with professional work. I would buy a hololens today if it meant i could place application windows anywhere in my view without a need for screens, and at a high enough resolution. I don't care if i'm tethered to a $3000 desktop PC, because I have an office anyway and it's where i'm going to work.
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    >I don't care if i'm tethered to a $3000 desktop PC, because I have an office anyway and it's where i'm going to work. Presumably you're still going to need a keyboard.
    - Klathmon 8y ago
      Yeah keyboard and mouse most likely (at least in what i have in my head)
- navd 8y ago
  I'm fine with an external device if it is my phone...
- tomp 8y ago
  Why do you think it would need more power than e.g. your phone? Looks like it's "screens" are way smaller, so could/should consume less battery... If you limit the camera and "reality-processing" and just project the screen at a fixed distance in front of your eyes, it should be way more efficient than a phone.
  - bitL 8y ago
will_brown 8y ago
>I don't want a new "device", a new os, a new "platform", I want a screen that I strap to my face. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter what you (the consumer) wants. Do you want a single search engine that dominates 90+% of the market and serves shitty ads to you all over the internet? Do you want a single walled garden for your social presence online that captures/sells your data and serves you shitty ads? Do you want 2 main mobile OS’s that tightly control their platforms and the apps available to you? I will say this though...people saying they want a screen strapped to their face, as you did, is an advertisers wet dream and these tech companies can’t wait to sell you that screen and serve you those ads.
tokyodude 8y ago
But you don't really. (Well, I don't). It seems obvious to me that there's a progression. Back in Apple II, C64, DOS days computers generally ran a single app at a time. Windowing systems were invented allowing multiple apps to share the same screen. This is what we've had for 30-40 years. For AR though we need multiple apps to share the same 3D space all running at the same time just like I have 14 apps running on my laptop right now. I need my mapping app drawing the path to my destination. I need my transportation app showing me the next bus/train coming. I need my virtual pet app adding my virtual pet around my feet. I need my social networking app to show me my friends info next to them in me view. I need my dating app highlighting people that are potential matches. All of this has to happen simultaneously and at 90fps. That will require an entirely new OS and possibly new hardware (dual GPUs, ... or pre-emptable GPUs) one for compositing the 3D world at 90fps and one for apps so if app takes too long to generate it's portion of the scene the entire OS doesn't start running low. An old OS that only runs a single 3D app at a time and who's apps don't share the same 3D space will be a huge hindrance to AR being truly revolutionary. I'm not saying Magic Leap's OS is that OS but that OS is not MacOS/iOS/Windows/Linux/Android
- Klathmon 8y ago
  Why can't that OS be one of the standard ones? Sure, it might require special hardware and software (even your screen has it's own software and processing that it is doing on the signals coming from your desktop), and at the end of the day the OS would need to change and evolve to handle this new paradigm, but it's not impossible to imagine a system where the "PC" does what it does now, and just tells the "VR" sub-processor/sub-machine where to put the rendered "window". Already there are some VR apps that basically wrap your normal "windows" desktop in almost a cylinder around you and you can move screens around on it as much as you want with current VR headsets.
  - Stanleyc23 8y ago
    Imo it's not that the traditional OSs can't be the OS of the future. It's that the future OS needs to be developed from scratch without carrying over the assumptions and obligations to older design principles. Historically, this has been very difficult. E. G. Cocoatouch (ios) has significant differences to its cocoa (osx). Bottom line is you have to go all to do it right, but its risky for those big companies that have a financial interest in squeezing out as much value as possible from their cashcow OSs
gremlinsinc 8y ago
I think this is a war just beginning... this is a pda... smartphone/ipod hasn't been invented yet.. when we get the ipod nano of AR, I'll buy one...that's when we know we'll have arrived... It may come from ML 4 generations and a decade from now, it could come from google, apple, microsoft, or some as-yet unknown company... but it will come and it'll change everything.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
I think AR definitely has a future but it clearly isn't here yet. Magic Leap has been under a lot of pressure to prove that they are not vapor ware. Which, is why I assume that they chose to launch this now. Unfortunately, their vision and their product are obviously still miles apart and the content is a little underwhelming right now. Probably the best way to look at this would be as SDK for early adopters. The first version of the product that doesn't require a ton of NDAs to be signed to even be allowed in the same room with it. However, the price point is such that this is clearly not intended to be a mass market product. For a mass market product the price could actually be fine but then the experience needs to match the price. People spend way more on fancy TVs, high end laptops, gaming hardware, etc. For that to happen there needs to be a supply of compelling content. The UX for AR is going to have to be substantially different from whatever your current OS does. Overlaying a lot of 2D windows in your peripheral vision doesn't really make a lot of sense. Sure, it's a neat trick but probably not that practical. Similarly a lot of mobile UX is inherently 2D currently and actually optimized for tiny screens manipulated by clumsy fingers. Slapping some AR on that is not going to be very compelling. With VR this was more straightforward since there were a lot of 3D games that with a little work can be awesome in VR. So far gaming is the killer use case for VR. People spend money on the latest VR kit so they can play all the awesome games that are out there and immerse themselves. On the AR front the most popular thing so far has been pokemon go and a range of me too style clones of that. That was only possible because of a critical mass of cheap, camera equipped mobile phones. With AR we need new content specifically made for AR. Most VR content does not port over well to AR since the whole point of that content is full immersion and the whole point of AR is not replacing reality but enhancing it. Clearly magic leaps strategy for this is to have their own OS, app store, devices, and platform. This sounds like a risky strategy since clearly all their marketing is about the qualities of the device and how cool the technology powering that is. It's significant how they are not talking about the rest of the ecosystem. From what I've heard via a friend of a friend on the hololens team, MS is putting a lot of resources into building out that with a lot of cool R&D in the pipeline. MS of course has a long history of cool R&D projects that ultimately never turned into products but this looks like they are pretty serious about it.
Holomakerbot 8y ago
Ironic that you think HoloLens would be the one that plays nice with every device when it’s already limited to Windows. Magic Leap on the other hand is a less than two week old device that already plays nice with iOS/Android/MacOS and Windows.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  I don't think HoloLens is the one that plays nice with everything, just that they seem to be targeting the level i'm looking for. "A virtual screen you strap on your face". MagicLeap is "An OS for VR/AR stuff that you make apps for", and that's not what I'm personally looking for regardless of how many other OSs it will integrate with. My "perfect" AR system is one where I can run Slack, Chrome, my code editor, a few terminal windows, and more, all unchanged. And MagicLeap looks like it will never be that. HoloLens will, even if only on windows. Now I might be wrong, and MagicLeap might knock it out of the park and become a new "category" of device like phone apps did, but I still can't use a phone OS to do real work outside of a few choice situations, and I REALLY want a VR/AR device that lets me do real work. I wish them the best, and while I get annoyed at every article that talks about it handwaving away the tech and calling it "magic", I hope they do well, because more competition is always a good thing, but from what I've seen they aren't making a device for me.

XorNot 8y ago

No mention of resolution (what I keyword search in every article about the Magic Leap). Anyone who's tried VR knows what that means - 1920x1080 is not enough useful lines for serious work with text, it's just barely enough for gaming.

Klathmon 8y ago
Well it seems they aren't pushing toward "serious work with text" based on this article. They are looking for devs to make apps, this means stuff like the NBA app, or games and stuff. I think you are right about higher resolution being needed for real "work", but since this doesn't run a "real" OS either, i'm not sure how much work you could get done on it anyway.
bpicolo 8y ago
Might not be mentioned because there's no actual pixel display?
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Lots of things technically don't have pixel displays, like many CRTs. It's still basically doing pixels, and can give a number.
bufferoverflow 8y ago
It's a lightfield display, so 1920x1080 is very very optimistic. 640x480 is more likely.

curiousgal 8y ago

> this kind of thing will be the next step in computing If by computing you mean video/game consumption then yeah sure, but for pretty much every other application (programming, editing, reading, etc) this is a poor medium.

Klathmon 8y ago
I can't disagree more. I actually think the opposite. Games and stuff are nice, but everyone I've known that uses a vive or oculus gets tired of needing to move around in VR pretty fast. But being able to get rid of the 3-4 screens on my desk, and replace them with a headset that I wear? That I can put windows everywhere? Behind me, far left, even throw one up above me to glance at? That's HUGE imo. And the cost can quickly make sense. I'm in the market for a new set of screens for my machine. I want to go to 4k. I'm looking at realistically $1500 for new screens. If something like Magic Leap or hololens was only 2x more than that and could get even "1080p equivalent" resolution compared to my screens, i'd happily drop the extra cash right now. Yes, it's still not at that point as far as I can tell, but I don't think needing to increase resolution a bit is going to be the thing that ends up making VR/AR "impossible".
- foobarbecue 8y ago
  So basically, you want multiple desktops a la Win 10 Virtual Desktops or KDE activities, but instead of pressing a key combo to switch between desktops, you want to rotate your head? And then in order to stay in the virtual desktop you've selected, you want to have to keep your head pointed at a particular angle? Are you sure about this?
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    yeah i'm sure. How is it any different than working with papers on a physical desk? Or working with a large corkboard or whiteboard where you place many items while working on something big? Because that's the idea i'm envisioning. Being able to put papers or applications on a virtual whiteboard that completely encircles you. Move them to where you want, make them "fullscreen" (full-view?), maybe even be able to move them forward and backwards in focus and "position". Hell, with some extra work, we could even put them on surfaces around the room. Throw a monitoring program on the wall next to my window, "project" keybindings on top of my keyboard's keys when i'm pressing parts of a combo, etc... Hell, even if you hate the idea of an "augmented reality desktop", you could just project "fake" screens and use them the same as you normally do. I mean it's not like our current tools just go away and I'd start craning my neck to look up and to the left as far as possible for 9 hours a day... You could still have tools like "multiple desktops", and change/move them. But now I have the option of putting my task manager above me at like a 60 degree angle straight ahead and can glance up at it when needed.

dmortin 8y ago

> Get rid of screeens and wear a headset that lets you put application windows anywhere in your view. I don't think wearing headsets is a practical way to do everyday computing and it can even be bad for your eyes. With a monitor you can look away, look out the window, etc. but with a headset the screen is always in front of your eyes, so you have to take the whole thing off if you want to give your eyes some rest from the screen. It may be good for shorter special tasks like gaming, vr assisted surgery and such, but it doesn't seem a good match for programming, for example, which you do all day.

kldavis4 8y ago
In theory, if the screen is projected onto a surface (like a wall) there should be no reason you can't look away from it.
Klathmon 8y ago
But don't screens only hurt our eyes because they are at a fixed focal point? With a good AR headset, that focal point can be adjusted and moved around (possibly even in realtime if you want, move a screen to be "further away from you"). Not to mention that when you aren't looking at something that the headset is "generating", it's just basically a clear piece of plastic that you can see through. They are basically bad sunglasses. You can look away from a "projected" screen just as easily as you can look away from a physical screen.
dagw 8y ago
but with a headset the screen is always in front of your eyes Check out a Hololens if you ever get a chance. You can choose if the object you create is always in front of you or 'stuck' in a fixed point in (virtual) space. If I place a 'screen' on a wall it will stay exactly where I put it no matter how I move around.

bitL 8y ago

For widespread adoption we would need to wait another 10-15 years until semiconductors get <5nm, allowing low-power performance at the level of 1080Ti or better, unless we are fine wearing a backpack with a larger machine and battery.

Klathmon 8y ago
Thats why I really think the first breakthrough will be with professional work. I would buy a hololens today if it meant i could place application windows anywhere in my view without a need for screens, and at a high enough resolution. I don't care if i'm tethered to a $3000 desktop PC, because I have an office anyway and it's where i'm going to work.
- VectorLock 8y ago
  >I don't care if i'm tethered to a $3000 desktop PC, because I have an office anyway and it's where i'm going to work. Presumably you're still going to need a keyboard.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    Yeah keyboard and mouse most likely (at least in what i have in my head)
navd 8y ago
I'm fine with an external device if it is my phone...
tomp 8y ago
Why do you think it would need more power than e.g. your phone? Looks like it's "screens" are way smaller, so could/should consume less battery... If you limit the camera and "reality-processing" and just project the screen at a fixed distance in front of your eyes, it should be way more efficient than a phone.
- bitL 8y ago

will_brown 8y ago

>I don't want a new "device", a new os, a new "platform", I want a screen that I strap to my face. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter what you (the consumer) wants. Do you want a single search engine that dominates 90+% of the market and serves shitty ads to you all over the internet? Do you want a single walled garden for your social presence online that captures/sells your data and serves you shitty ads? Do you want 2 main mobile OS’s that tightly control their platforms and the apps available to you? I will say this though...people saying they want a screen strapped to their face, as you did, is an advertisers wet dream and these tech companies can’t wait to sell you that screen and serve you those ads.

tokyodude 8y ago

But you don't really. (Well, I don't). It seems obvious to me that there's a progression. Back in Apple II, C64, DOS days computers generally ran a single app at a time. Windowing systems were invented allowing multiple apps to share the same screen. This is what we've had for 30-40 years. For AR though we need multiple apps to share the same 3D space all running at the same time just like I have 14 apps running on my laptop right now. I need my mapping app drawing the path to my destination. I need my transportation app showing me the next bus/train coming. I need my virtual pet app adding my virtual pet around my feet. I need my social networking app to show me my friends info next to them in me view. I need my dating app highlighting people that are potential matches. All of this has to happen simultaneously and at 90fps. That will require an entirely new OS and possibly new hardware (dual GPUs, ... or pre-emptable GPUs) one for compositing the 3D world at 90fps and one for apps so if app takes too long to generate it's portion of the scene the entire OS doesn't start running low. An old OS that only runs a single 3D app at a time and who's apps don't share the same 3D space will be a huge hindrance to AR being truly revolutionary. I'm not saying Magic Leap's OS is that OS but that OS is not MacOS/iOS/Windows/Linux/Android

Klathmon 8y ago
Why can't that OS be one of the standard ones? Sure, it might require special hardware and software (even your screen has it's own software and processing that it is doing on the signals coming from your desktop), and at the end of the day the OS would need to change and evolve to handle this new paradigm, but it's not impossible to imagine a system where the "PC" does what it does now, and just tells the "VR" sub-processor/sub-machine where to put the rendered "window". Already there are some VR apps that basically wrap your normal "windows" desktop in almost a cylinder around you and you can move screens around on it as much as you want with current VR headsets.
- Stanleyc23 8y ago
  Imo it's not that the traditional OSs can't be the OS of the future. It's that the future OS needs to be developed from scratch without carrying over the assumptions and obligations to older design principles. Historically, this has been very difficult. E. G. Cocoatouch (ios) has significant differences to its cocoa (osx). Bottom line is you have to go all to do it right, but its risky for those big companies that have a financial interest in squeezing out as much value as possible from their cashcow OSs

gremlinsinc 8y ago

I think this is a war just beginning... this is a pda... smartphone/ipod hasn't been invented yet.. when we get the ipod nano of AR, I'll buy one...that's when we know we'll have arrived... It may come from ML 4 generations and a decade from now, it could come from google, apple, microsoft, or some as-yet unknown company... but it will come and it'll change everything.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

I think AR definitely has a future but it clearly isn't here yet. Magic Leap has been under a lot of pressure to prove that they are not vapor ware. Which, is why I assume that they chose to launch this now. Unfortunately, their vision and their product are obviously still miles apart and the content is a little underwhelming right now. Probably the best way to look at this would be as SDK for early adopters. The first version of the product that doesn't require a ton of NDAs to be signed to even be allowed in the same room with it. However, the price point is such that this is clearly not intended to be a mass market product. For a mass market product the price could actually be fine but then the experience needs to match the price. People spend way more on fancy TVs, high end laptops, gaming hardware, etc. For that to happen there needs to be a supply of compelling content. The UX for AR is going to have to be substantially different from whatever your current OS does. Overlaying a lot of 2D windows in your peripheral vision doesn't really make a lot of sense. Sure, it's a neat trick but probably not that practical. Similarly a lot of mobile UX is inherently 2D currently and actually optimized for tiny screens manipulated by clumsy fingers. Slapping some AR on that is not going to be very compelling. With VR this was more straightforward since there were a lot of 3D games that with a little work can be awesome in VR. So far gaming is the killer use case for VR. People spend money on the latest VR kit so they can play all the awesome games that are out there and immerse themselves. On the AR front the most popular thing so far has been pokemon go and a range of me too style clones of that. That was only possible because of a critical mass of cheap, camera equipped mobile phones. With AR we need new content specifically made for AR. Most VR content does not port over well to AR since the whole point of that content is full immersion and the whole point of AR is not replacing reality but enhancing it. Clearly magic leaps strategy for this is to have their own OS, app store, devices, and platform. This sounds like a risky strategy since clearly all their marketing is about the qualities of the device and how cool the technology powering that is. It's significant how they are not talking about the rest of the ecosystem. From what I've heard via a friend of a friend on the hololens team, MS is putting a lot of resources into building out that with a lot of cool R&D in the pipeline. MS of course has a long history of cool R&D projects that ultimately never turned into products but this looks like they are pretty serious about it.

Holomakerbot 8y ago

Ironic that you think HoloLens would be the one that plays nice with every device when it’s already limited to Windows. Magic Leap on the other hand is a less than two week old device that already plays nice with iOS/Android/MacOS and Windows.

Klathmon 8y ago
I don't think HoloLens is the one that plays nice with everything, just that they seem to be targeting the level i'm looking for. "A virtual screen you strap on your face". MagicLeap is "An OS for VR/AR stuff that you make apps for", and that's not what I'm personally looking for regardless of how many other OSs it will integrate with. My "perfect" AR system is one where I can run Slack, Chrome, my code editor, a few terminal windows, and more, all unchanged. And MagicLeap looks like it will never be that. HoloLens will, even if only on windows. Now I might be wrong, and MagicLeap might knock it out of the park and become a new "category" of device like phone apps did, but I still can't use a phone OS to do real work outside of a few choice situations, and I REALLY want a VR/AR device that lets me do real work. I wish them the best, and while I get annoyed at every article that talks about it handwaving away the tech and calling it "magic", I hope they do well, because more competition is always a good thing, but from what I've seen they aren't making a device for me.