What was vague? I though I was pretty clear, the article author wrote a hit piece on unreleased technology where he offered nothing but spurious speculations on his own interpretations of the technologies uses, and a series of sarcastic asides. Who cares about the history of things named Surface? What does that matter? [Blah blah blah]
You should really be more selective in picking your battles.
That's a lot of effort you've put into defending a big dumb corporation with zero sense of what consumers want, and which just blew out the most atrocious mix of nonsense-bullshit and a purely dishonest misrepresentation of its own contributions to a group of technologies by claiming credit for stuff that's been out there in the public for at least two years.
Your long rambling response really just reflects on your willingness to be intellectually dishonest.
But please, keep making yourself out to be a fool. It's thoroughly enjoyable to see that the only real critics are of your caliber and capacity.
Seems to me their inspiration might have been "Denno Coil".
Which we've been able to do since the Nokia N95 in 2008 , and more recently with the Nintendo 3DS (which came with a bunch of AR cards too.)
But has there been a single thing developed that actually worked in AR? Nope. Part of the problem has always been being able to interact with that AR space. The N95 example, isn't a touch-screen device, so all you can do is wave the device around. The 3DS, likewise all you can do is wave it around as well. So for Microsoft to one-up this input problem, Microsoft has to make it's AR interaction absolutely flawless. There's no haptic feedback for someone to go "I'm trying to pet an AR pet", rather the AR pet has to react to being "pushed" rather than the person's fingers going through the AR pet.
An AR keyboard is a perfact example of how good or bad AR is. If you can type as fast as you can on an AR keyboard without the haptic feedback of a real keyboard (see iPad keyboard) then maybe this is really a jump ahead. But I digress, I think this is yet another solution in search of a problem, and like the Kinect, will have no appeal outside a very limited scope.
Rather than anything practical. Dennou Coil and Robotics;Notes do feature practical applications for AR (eg digital geocaching) and it would be useful to go to a grocery store and find things without having to wander around. Maybe even purchase items without needing a checkout, by waving the item's barcode to an AR "checkout". A smarter AR app could actually recognize items like Cabbage and Lettuce from each other.
Inventory control in a store would be much improved, as another example of a practical application, because you could just look at the shelf's barcode and tell the computer how many you see, or individually pull all the items off the shelf and scan them. When stuff is put on the shelf the computers can dynamically update the inventory, instead of relying on the checkout.
Thank you so much for calling out Microsoft--and the worthless media--for their misuse--and mindless parroting--of the word "holography"! Yes, Microsoft demonstrated a 3d visualization tool for augmented reality, but it does not use holographic principles. Holography isn't just 3d imaging (and it isn't tied to augmented reality, although augmented reality may result from the use of holography). The word holography characterizes how 3d imagery is created and viewed and HoloLens does not fit that definition.
Microsoft even has the gall to advertise HoloLens when people search Google for "holography".
That's a lot of effort you've put into defending a big dumb corporation with zero sense of what consumers want, and which just blew out the most atrocious mix of nonsense-bullshit and a purely dishonest misrepresentation of its own contributions to a group of technologies by claiming credit for stuff that's been out there in the public for at least two years.
And Apple have never done that? Give me a break.
It took me a few minutes to write, I'd wager you wasted a lot more time on your hit piece.
Your long rambling response really just reflects on your willingness to be intellectually dishonest.
Rambling? It was a bulleted list that entirely followed the vector of your own post! If I was rambling then it was entirely a reflection of you!
Point out an instance of intellectual dishonesty. One.
But please, keep making yourself out to be a fool. It's thoroughly enjoyable to see that the only real critics are of your caliber and capacity.
And not a single counter point.
Tell me, was I wrong with the points I labelled as inaccuracies, or opinionated gumpf?
And please, recommend my posts again. That's a cute new weapon in your arsenal of pettiness.
This isn't a successful product, but it's a start and you have to start somewhere. (Well, maybe that was Oculus Rift or the various early AR apps for iPhone.)
This won't be an every day consumer thing, but it WILL be worth having for specialized workplace uses. A niche, but potentially a valuable one.
Forget the misleading demos--there's still something here.
This isn't a successful product, but it's a start and you have to start somewhere. (Well, maybe that was Oculus Rift or the various early AR apps for iPhone.)
This won't be an every day consumer thing, but it WILL be worth having for specialized workplace uses. A niche, but potentially a valuable one.
Forget the misleading demos--there's still something here.
"This isn't a successful product..."
For that to actually happen it has to be selling. Once it does then the market will gauge its success. But in terms of mind share, it has accomplished what it set out to do so so in terms of that it has been a success.
None, but then why does it have to? HoloLens, and technologies / technology products like it, represent the future of digital interaction. Give it 5 years.
5 years? That seems incredible optimistic. Personally I found the article rather amusing and very much agree with the vaporware gist. HoloLens looks interesting, sure, but practical? Useful? Yeah, right. Who is going to wear something like that? It makes Google Glass seems downright stylish. That said, I'm glad to see companies like Google and Microsoft pushing the envelope. Apple seems rather conservative these days by comparison. Of course, who knows what they're up to in their R&D department. Apple is never one to show off total vapor products just to get some headlines. They don't need to.
When you're bordering on totally irrelevant, like Microsoft is today, you have to do something to get attention. But it's going to be many years before wearables like this are practical, much less mainstream (if ever). Personally, I can't imagine wearing some sort of augmented reality screen. Maybe when it's inside my sunglasses, but even then I'm not sure. When I was a kid, technology was so exciting. Today it's more frightening than anything else. We're being pushed relentlessly to access, consume, and produce information like never before. We're supposed to always be connected. Soon the screen will be in our glasses. Which will eventually lead to replacing eyeballs with implants. I'm beginning to think that wearables is where my enthusiasm for technology ends and my genuine fear of the future begins. Ray Kurzweil is right. Our future culture will not be biological, but it will be "human."
Unlike Google Glass, I could hardy tell the HoloLense wearer was wearing a thing... I mean, this thing is practically invisible!
I'm also very impressed with how Microsoft must have spent some serious money to come up with a name that doesn't invite ridicule. For example, with Google Glass, it's natural to call their users "Glassholes," what do you have to work with "Holo...?"
Many things said in this ridiculous article are often said of Apple as well, and are just as wrong.
Microsoft never said they invented AR.
Apple also uses ridiculous names sometimes like Retina HD. If Microsoft wants to call AR 'holograms', that's just a marketing move not relevant to the discussion about Hololens being good or not.
Hololens is an integrated computer that allows for instantaneous lag-free AR content. That in itself is huge and way way better than the stupid Google Glass. I'm not saying that it will be successful, but Glass was dead from the beginning, while this has a lot of potential imo.
I saw the title and knew the author. A quick scan and the length of the article and it was even more obvious. Most of the links going back to articles written by the author to support points made before the end the loses its relevance and yes I give you Dan the man who won't write 1 word when 50 will do.
I really enjoyed the article. It playfully took jabs at MS and pointed out things I'd missed, part of it due to not watching the 2 hour 20 minute presentation. Glad he brought up things to tie it all together, like reminding us of things we didn't like it the past in regards to MS.
MS is out of ideas at the moment, or the structure in place at MS is not allowing fresh ideas to be implemented. New MS same as the old MS. Marketing must have been putting pressure on the tech people to keep doing the same old song and dance and without much to show.
I guess I should watch the CES show to get a real sense of what happened, but don't have the time...haven't even watched but one Apple keynote since the new bosses took over. I miss the massive understatements that Steve used to give and let our imaginations feel the gap. Like showing mail on the first iPad and him saying, "yeah, this is pretty great" in a very humble way. He let the product talk for itself. As Peter Drucker said, The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.
For that to actually happen it has to be selling. Once it does then the market will gauge its success. But in terms of mind share, it has accomplished what it set out to do so so in terms of that it has been a success.
We won't know about possible patent infringement either until Microsoft starts trying to sell it. They can demo all they want without issue, but once they start using or selling HoloLens... then we'll get a better idea of just how innovative Microsoft was.
Comments
What was vague? I though I was pretty clear, the article author wrote a hit piece on unreleased technology where he offered nothing but spurious speculations on his own interpretations of the technologies uses, and a series of sarcastic asides. Who cares about the history of things named Surface? What does that matter? [Blah blah blah]
You should really be more selective in picking your battles.
That's a lot of effort you've put into defending a big dumb corporation with zero sense of what consumers want, and which just blew out the most atrocious mix of nonsense-bullshit and a purely dishonest misrepresentation of its own contributions to a group of technologies by claiming credit for stuff that's been out there in the public for at least two years.
Your long rambling response really just reflects on your willingness to be intellectually dishonest.
But please, keep making yourself out to be a fool. It's thoroughly enjoyable to see that the only real critics are of your caliber and capacity.
..HoloLens is a solution in search of a problem.
Should be renamed ZuneLens maybe?
Or re-capped as hoLOLens.
What PR game does Apple play?
Which we've been able to do since the Nokia N95 in 2008
But has there been a single thing developed that actually worked in AR? Nope. Part of the problem has always been being able to interact with that AR space. The N95 example, isn't a touch-screen device, so all you can do is wave the device around. The 3DS, likewise all you can do is wave it around as well. So for Microsoft to one-up this input problem, Microsoft has to make it's AR interaction absolutely flawless. There's no haptic feedback for someone to go "I'm trying to pet an AR pet", rather the AR pet has to react to being "pushed" rather than the person's fingers going through the AR pet.
An AR keyboard is a perfact example of how good or bad AR is. If you can type as fast as you can on an AR keyboard without the haptic feedback of a real keyboard (see iPad keyboard) then maybe this is really a jump ahead. But I digress, I think this is yet another solution in search of a problem, and like the Kinect, will have no appeal outside a very limited scope.
I mean sure, if the headset is light and lasts 48 hours without a charge, I'd might be willing to suggest it has gaming applications, but it's far more likely that the kind of games are like this:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/hacker-augmented-reality-anime-romance/
and nonsense-apps this
Rather than anything practical. Dennou Coil and Robotics;Notes do feature practical applications for AR (eg digital geocaching) and it would be useful to go to a grocery store and find things without having to wander around. Maybe even purchase items without needing a checkout, by waving the item's barcode to an AR "checkout". A smarter AR app could actually recognize items like Cabbage and Lettuce from each other.
Inventory control in a store would be much improved, as another example of a practical application, because you could just look at the shelf's barcode and tell the computer how many you see, or individually pull all the items off the shelf and scan them. When stuff is put on the shelf the computers can dynamically update the inventory, instead of relying on the checkout.
Thank you so much for calling out Microsoft--and the worthless media--for their misuse--and mindless parroting--of the word "holography"! Yes, Microsoft demonstrated a 3d visualization tool for augmented reality, but it does not use holographic principles. Holography isn't just 3d imaging (and it isn't tied to augmented reality, although augmented reality may result from the use of holography). The word holography characterizes how 3d imagery is created and viewed and HoloLens does not fit that definition.
Microsoft even has the gall to advertise HoloLens when people search Google for "holography".
Or re-capped as hoLOLens.
That's good! Or maybe HollowLens.
It took me a few minutes to write, I'd wager you wasted a lot more time on your hit piece. Rambling? It was a bulleted list that entirely followed the vector of your own post! If I was rambling then it was entirely a reflection of you!
Point out an instance of intellectual dishonesty. One.
And not a single counter point.
Tell me, was I wrong with the points I labelled as inaccuracies, or opinionated gumpf?
And please, recommend my posts again. That's a cute new weapon in your arsenal of pettiness.
This won't be an every day consumer thing, but it WILL be worth having for specialized workplace uses. A niche, but potentially a valuable one.
Forget the misleading demos--there's still something here.
This isn't a successful product, but it's a start and you have to start somewhere. (Well, maybe that was Oculus Rift or the various early AR apps for iPhone.)
This won't be an every day consumer thing, but it WILL be worth having for specialized workplace uses. A niche, but potentially a valuable one.
Forget the misleading demos--there's still something here.
"This isn't a successful product..."
For that to actually happen it has to be selling. Once it does then the market will gauge its success. But in terms of mind share, it has accomplished what it set out to do so so in terms of that it has been a success.
"What Apple product is this competing with? "
None, but then why does it have to? HoloLens, and technologies / technology products like it, represent the future of digital interaction. Give it 5 years.
5 years? That seems incredible optimistic. Personally I found the article rather amusing and very much agree with the vaporware gist. HoloLens looks interesting, sure, but practical? Useful? Yeah, right. Who is going to wear something like that? It makes Google Glass seems downright stylish. That said, I'm glad to see companies like Google and Microsoft pushing the envelope. Apple seems rather conservative these days by comparison. Of course, who knows what they're up to in their R&D department. Apple is never one to show off total vapor products just to get some headlines. They don't need to.
When you're bordering on totally irrelevant, like Microsoft is today, you have to do something to get attention. But it's going to be many years before wearables like this are practical, much less mainstream (if ever). Personally, I can't imagine wearing some sort of augmented reality screen. Maybe when it's inside my sunglasses, but even then I'm not sure. When I was a kid, technology was so exciting. Today it's more frightening than anything else. We're being pushed relentlessly to access, consume, and produce information like never before. We're supposed to always be connected. Soon the screen will be in our glasses. Which will eventually lead to replacing eyeballs with implants. I'm beginning to think that wearables is where my enthusiasm for technology ends and my genuine fear of the future begins. Ray Kurzweil is right. Our future culture will not be biological, but it will be "human."
I'm also very impressed with how Microsoft must have spent some serious money to come up with a name that doesn't invite ridicule. For example, with Google Glass, it's natural to call their users "Glassholes," what do you have to work with "Holo...?"
/s
Don't worry, a shot of Fabreeze will make it go away...It stunk up my computer too.
Innovators in this market must SHIP.
Many things said in this ridiculous article are often said of Apple as well, and are just as wrong.
Microsoft never said they invented AR.
Apple also uses ridiculous names sometimes like Retina HD. If Microsoft wants to call AR 'holograms', that's just a marketing move not relevant to the discussion about Hololens being good or not.
Hololens is an integrated computer that allows for instantaneous lag-free AR content. That in itself is huge and way way better than the stupid Google Glass. I'm not saying that it will be successful, but Glass was dead from the beginning, while this has a lot of potential imo.
edit : I agree with the end of the article tough
HollowLens, I like that, abbreviated ... HOWL
Microcrap, on the other hand SLIP
I saw the title and knew the author. A quick scan and the length of the article and it was even more obvious. Most of the links going back to articles written by the author to support points made before the end the loses its relevance and yes I give you Dan the man who won't write 1 word when 50 will do.
I really enjoyed the article. It playfully took jabs at MS and pointed out things I'd missed, part of it due to not watching the 2 hour 20 minute presentation. Glad he brought up things to tie it all together, like reminding us of things we didn't like it the past in regards to MS.
MS is out of ideas at the moment, or the structure in place at MS is not allowing fresh ideas to be implemented. New MS same as the old MS. Marketing must have been putting pressure on the tech people to keep doing the same old song and dance and without much to show.
I guess I should watch the CES show to get a real sense of what happened, but don't have the time...haven't even watched but one Apple keynote since the new bosses took over. I miss the massive understatements that Steve used to give and let our imaginations feel the gap. Like showing mail on the first iPad and him saying, "yeah, this is pretty great" in a very humble way. He let the product talk for itself. As Peter Drucker said, The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.
"This isn't a successful product..."
For that to actually happen it has to be selling. Once it does then the market will gauge its success. But in terms of mind share, it has accomplished what it set out to do so so in terms of that it has been a success.
We won't know about possible patent infringement either until Microsoft starts trying to sell it. They can demo all they want without issue, but once they start using or selling HoloLens... then we'll get a better idea of just how innovative Microsoft was.