4 ms·

For analysis of new AR/VR technology I highly recommend Karl Guttag's blog: https://www.kguttag.com/ https://www.kguttag.com/ He's an engineer that understands

For analysis of new AR/VR technology I highly recommend Karl Guttag's blog: https://www.kguttag.com/ https://www.kguttag.com/ He's an engineer that understands the limitations of physics, especially when it comes to optics and light. He is very good a parsing marketing hype vs reality. (He called BS on Magic Leap years before it launched.) His posts are exceptionally well researched and explained, even if you don't have a background in physics or optics. He recently did an analysis of the Apple Glass leaks. I expect he'll post his thoughts on this new technology from FB soon.

oh_sigh 6y ago
I'd be careful about statements about 'limitations of physics'. Yes, there are actual physical limitations, but we frequently have beliefs about the limitations of physics that are not actually limitations of physics.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  Like what? This is a wriggling statement without making any claim, stuff like thermodynamics, speed of light etc. is so fundamental to how we build machines (that work) that most of the limitations we accept as limitations are highly unlikely to be wrong. Fundamental skepticism is nice in a thought experiment, but what value are you trying to add with such a vague statement?
- lrhegeba 6y ago
  to strengthen your argument here an example where a beliefed limitation was circumvented (and resulted in a nobel prize): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy and the Abbe limit i suppose parent was downvoted bc some thought he was questioning the "hard" laws of physics. but perhaps he could correct this by traveling back in time and changing his wording ;-)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krm01 6y ago
I second Karl’s blog. Been following the ML journey through his eyes from the beginning and his insights couldn’t have been more accurate. Despite the many criticism Magic Leap Fanboys gave him. Edit
- ivankolev 6y ago
  Nitpick: giving slack usually means being less strict, perhaps you meant flak as in excessive and abusive criticism.
fudged71 6y ago
There's nothing on this website about OP's news.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Noted in the comment you are replying to: > I expect he'll post his thoughts on this new technology from FB soon.
moron4hire 6y ago
For someone who claims to be so concerned about display quality, he makes some really, really shitty choices in font colors when annotating images. I've been reading Karl's takedowns for a few years now and, while there is never anything technically wrong about what he says, it's also just not as important as he thinks it is. Yes, waveguide optics aren't the best possible visual experience once could have. But does that matter all that much? I think Karl's terrible diagrams point out why he makes this mistake. He doesn't understand that design is the much more important consideration here. The technical limitations of the display technologies that we have today are not impediments to product development. Good software can be designed to work around these issues. Can't render black? Don't design around dark themes. Have a narrow field of view? Don't require people to try to keep mental track of things around them by vision alone. Karl looks at the HoloLens, sees the waveguides, and misses all the amazing operating system features. Speech recognition, spatialized audio, a fully spatialized desktop metaphor. These things are important and they go a long way towards the usability of the system. And that was why the Magic Leap failed. Not because the displays were crap, but because the entire system was crap. It was basically "just a" stock Android system with super flaky WiFi and no systems view on delivering a unified product. The entire product was fundamentally mismanaged. The hardware was slightly better than the first HoloLens, but you were far more limited in making good software for the Magic Leap than you were for the HoloLens.

oh_sigh 6y ago

I'd be careful about statements about 'limitations of physics'. Yes, there are actual physical limitations, but we frequently have beliefs about the limitations of physics that are not actually limitations of physics.

igorkraw 6y ago
Like what? This is a wriggling statement without making any claim, stuff like thermodynamics, speed of light etc. is so fundamental to how we build machines (that work) that most of the limitations we accept as limitations are highly unlikely to be wrong. Fundamental skepticism is nice in a thought experiment, but what value are you trying to add with such a vague statement?
lrhegeba 6y ago
to strengthen your argument here an example where a beliefed limitation was circumvented (and resulted in a nobel prize): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy and the Abbe limit i suppose parent was downvoted bc some thought he was questioning the "hard" laws of physics. but perhaps he could correct this by traveling back in time and changing his wording ;-)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

krm01 6y ago

I second Karl’s blog. Been following the ML journey through his eyes from the beginning and his insights couldn’t have been more accurate. Despite the many criticism Magic Leap Fanboys gave him. Edit

ivankolev 6y ago
Nitpick: giving slack usually means being less strict, perhaps you meant flak as in excessive and abusive criticism.

fudged71 6y ago

There's nothing on this website about OP's news.

nitrogen 6y ago
Noted in the comment you are replying to: > I expect he'll post his thoughts on this new technology from FB soon.

moron4hire 6y ago

For someone who claims to be so concerned about display quality, he makes some really, really shitty choices in font colors when annotating images. I've been reading Karl's takedowns for a few years now and, while there is never anything technically wrong about what he says, it's also just not as important as he thinks it is. Yes, waveguide optics aren't the best possible visual experience once could have. But does that matter all that much? I think Karl's terrible diagrams point out why he makes this mistake. He doesn't understand that design is the much more important consideration here. The technical limitations of the display technologies that we have today are not impediments to product development. Good software can be designed to work around these issues. Can't render black? Don't design around dark themes. Have a narrow field of view? Don't require people to try to keep mental track of things around them by vision alone. Karl looks at the HoloLens, sees the waveguides, and misses all the amazing operating system features. Speech recognition, spatialized audio, a fully spatialized desktop metaphor. These things are important and they go a long way towards the usability of the system. And that was why the Magic Leap failed. Not because the displays were crap, but because the entire system was crap. It was basically "just a" stock Android system with super flaky WiFi and no systems view on delivering a unified product. The entire product was fundamentally mismanaged. The hardware was slightly better than the first HoloLens, but you were far more limited in making good software for the Magic Leap than you were for the HoloLens.