Microsoft’s presentation showed high concept uses like a designer working on an application on a monitor, but with a projected 3D model appearing to the side.
I remembered that, so I captured the following image from the video:
The designer is using the real computer display to display various 2D views of the design he is creating --- and a virtual display of the 3D design to the side.
I don't [think I] need an additional 3D display. I use Photoshop and FCPX -- both tend to divide the real display into sub-windows to display ancillary information and controls to what you are focused upon. You can reconfigure/eliminate these windows to gain additional space when needed -- but, it's kind of a pain. Now, if you could move these off screen to a virtual display that is accessible with the cursor/mouse/kb ... that'd be something. Photoshop, especially, has a plethora of floating Windoids -- that always seem to be in the wrong place ... Not to mention the floating-on-top help screen for any Mac app ...
I would pay for that and wear the goggles!
Let's take it a step further. When using FCPX I prefer to use 2 monitors to put aside some of the ancillary content.
I use an iMac 27 5K (starts at $2,500) and an older iMac 27. I plan to buy a Apple 27" 5K external display when it becomes available ... Dell sells one now for $2,500.
With HoloLens (if I could get it on the Mac) I could just use a virtual display.
Games and CAD can certainly make use of additional screen real estate. But that demand is already being addressed by multiple monitors, which cost less and offer a much greater resolution than anything eye-mounted goggles can provide at any given price.
What advantage is depicted in your image that couldn't be better achieved with a second monitor? It's not a real hologram, so its not like you could even use it to show clients your model, unless you give them each an $$$ headset and ask them to look stupid while you show them something. In reality, you'd use a large display or an iPad.
Do they want to see it in 3D? No, no they don't. The market has rejected 3D TVs. I have one. It's unwatchableafter the 15 minutes of novelty wear off. In the tiny niche of areas where people might want to use stereoscopic 3D for some specialized task, we already have tons of products addressing those needs. Add a 3D monitor.
In your FCP example, you compare a 5K display with a low res headset. Does this improve your workflow? Is it more precise or easier to take in your video content or to make edits? No. It's worse in every possible way.
Perhaps Microsoft can find a need for head mounted displays & gesture/motion feedback like this, but so far all the company has done is copy iPods, copy iPhones, copy iPads, copy Macs and add some different graphics and arbitrarily change some things that don't actually make for more desirable products. Why is Microsoft going to develop this market if they can't manage to sell a music player anyone wants?
Keep in mind lots of companies have also been working on these ideas, and have published them. Microsoft is just taking credit for their work and using it as a distraction away from the fact that it hasn't done anything in the last 5 years but ship a poorly selling, incremental improvement to Windows 7.
It's like Google bragging up self driving cars when everyone else is & has been working on the technology, and most are better positioned to (and better experienced with) monetizing the sale of any usable tech that will get delivered.
It's a different CEO now though. How much of a reversal of fortunes would it be if Tim Cook's first completely new product (the Apple Watch) received a tepid response and Nadella's first new product (Hololens) actually took off?
But as I said earlier, even if it does take off, it will not (intially at least) be as a mobile device (due to the embarrassment of wearing it in public), it will be tethered to your computer in the workplace or the home. And in that sense Apple has nothing to fear since most of their money is made in the mobile space. And Microsoft may even release Mac drivers for this headset
Games and CAD can certainly make use of additional screen real estate. But that demand is already being addressed by multiple monitors, which cost less and offer a much greater resolution than anything eye-mounted goggles can provide at any given price.
What advantage is depicted in your image that couldn't be better achieved with a second monitor? It's not a real hologram, so its not like you could even use it to show clients your model, unless you give them each an $$$ headset and ask them to look stupid while you show them something. In reality, you'd use a large display or an iPad.
Do they want to see it in 3D? No, no they don't. The market has rejected 3D TVs. I have one. It's unwatchableafter the 15 minutes of novelty wear off. In the tiny niche of areas where people might want to use stereoscopic 3D for some specialized task, we already have tons of products addressing those needs. Add a 3D monitor.
In your FCP example, you compare a 5K display with a low res headset. Does this improve your workflow? Is it more precise or easier to take in your video content or to make edits? No. It's worse in every possible way.
Perhaps Microsoft can find a need for head mounted displays & gesture/motion feedback like this, but so far all the company has done is copy iPods, copy iPhones, copy iPads, copy Macs and add some different graphics and arbitrarily change some things that don't actually make for more desirable products. Why is Microsoft going to develop this market if they can't manage to sell a music player anyone wants?
Keep in mind lots of companies have also been working on these ideas, and have published them. Microsoft is just taking credit for their work and using it as a distraction away from the fact that it hasn't done anything in the last 5 years but ship a poorly selling, incremental improvement to Windows 7.
It's like Google bragging up self driving cars when everyone else is & has been working on the technology, and most are better positioned to (and better experienced with) monetizing the sale of any usable tech that will get delivered.
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field. Consumers have largely rejected wearable goggles and glasses beyond a limited audience of gamers (and even they cannot wear these things for extended periods of time).
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field.
That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe you should change "simulated 3D imagery" to "Microsoft Hololens", because I can think of plenty more uses. The JPL, gaming, manufacturing/repair tutorials, fitness training, exploration, combat operatives, to name a few.
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.
Oh yeah I remember playing 3DS Ar gams back in early 2011. They were really interactive and had trippy effects. Like bending surfaces and breaking walls. You physically had to move around to navigate the 3D environment.
As far as allowing the user to interact with a pet by petting it,
Microsofts got you covered ! Lol
That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe you should change "simulated 3D imagery" to "Microsoft Hololens", because I can think of plenty more uses. The JPL, gaming, manufacturing/repair tutorials, fitness training, exploration, combat operatives, to name a few.
The point is they are all very small specialized markets.
The point is they are all very small specialized markets.
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field. Consumers have largely rejected wearable goggles and glasses beyond a limited audience of gamers (and even they cannot wear these things for extended periods of time).
But consumers haven't been able to golf on Mars until now... err, until 10 years from now... or whenever this HoloLens b.s. actually ships.
It's going to be really great to clear out all of the furniture in your apartment or house, so it will look like you're really on Mars! If only Microsoft would figure out a way to hide the corners of the room and windows so they don't underlay the fantastic imagery of the Martian landscape.
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field.
That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe you should change "simulated 3D imagery" to "Microsoft Hololens", because <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I can think of plenty more uses. The JPL, gaming, manufacturing/repair tutorials, fitness training, exploration, combat operatives, to name a few.</span>
I didn't want to bring up military uses, but since you did ...
After thinking about how the JPL Rover Mars exploration works: Deploy Rover; 3D Map Area; Transmit Data; On-Earth Explore Mars surface ... Rinse and repeat.
It became obvious that the same process could be applied by the military -- using high-resolution Drone cameras and high-resolution Satellite cameras to 3D-Map the battlefield.
The Transmit Data step would be significantly faster. Likely, the Exploration step would be much faster because they are looking for changes to things they have already explored.
With some computer assistance,* Transmit Data and Explore could be reduced to something close to real-time.
Given that -- it's not much of a leap to trigger air attacks (maybe using the same drones) or other military action ...
Then the Rinse and repeat steps provide near-real-time feedback for additional actions.
IMO, the military will be all over this, Now!
* The Drone Wears goggles too, and has an image of the previous [expected] map of the area. Any variances could be detected by the Drone, and only that data immediately transmitted to command and control -- who triggers any actions based on their analysis. The entire Mapping Data would be logged on the Drone and Transmitted as time permits.
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
Whenever I see someone say 'it's not about the money'...it's always about the money.
But consumers haven't been able to golf on Mars until now... err, until 10 years from now... or whenever this HoloLens b.s. actually ships.
It's going to be really great to clear out all of the furniture in your apartment or house, so it will look like you're really on Mars! If only Microsoft would figure out a way to hide the corners of the room and windows so they don't underlay the fantastic imagery of the Martian landscape.
How many people will fall down the stairs or wander out into traffic first?
I didn't want to bring up military uses, but since you did ...
After thinking about how the JPL Rover Mars exploration works: Deploy Rover; 3D Map Area; Transmit Data; On-Earth Explore Mars surface ... Rinse and repeat.
It became obvious that the same process could be applied by the military -- using high-resolution Drone cameras and high-resolution Satellite cameras to 3D-Map the battlefield.
The Transmit Data step would be significantly faster. Likely, the Exploration step would be much faster because they are looking for changes to things they have already explored.
With some computer assistance,* Transmit Data and Explore could be reduced to something close to real-time.
Given that -- it's not much of a leap to trigger air attacks (maybe using the same drones) or other military action ...
Then the Rinse and repeat steps provide near-real-time feedback for additional actions.
IMO, the military will be all over this, Now!
* The Drone Wears goggles too, and has an image of the previous [expected] map of the area. Any variances could be detected by the Drone, and only that data immediately transmitted to command and control -- who triggers any actions based on their analysis. The entire Mapping Data would be logged on the Drone and Transmitted as time permits.
The military probably will be a major buyer of this stuff.
It's a different CEO now though. How much of a reversal of fortunes would it be if Tim Cook's first completely new product (the Apple Watch) received a tepid response and Nadella's first new product (Hololens) actually took off?
But as I said earlier, even if it does take off, it will not (intially at least) be as a mobile device (due to the embarrassment of wearing it in public), it will be tethered to your computer in the workplace or the home. And in that sense Apple has nothing to fear since most of their money is made in the mobile space. And Microsoft may even release Mac drivers for this headset
The worst thing Apple could do right now is hire somebody like John Scully full of big ideas about technologies that are impractical bullshit (which is what Google and Microsoft are doing right now).
The primary difference of Microsoft today versus under Steve Ballmer is that more of its remaining talent has left, along with consumer revenue growth, any real future prospects that the 1990s PC will grow again, and its fleeting monopoly control. Losing Ballmer doesn't make up for that.
Steve jobs fixed Apple by trimming the visionary BS and focusing on its viable remaining products that were selling well, and investing in the mobile future - laptops then iPods then phones and iPads
Emerging markets in India and China are not going to buy a future wave of PC boxes with a $15 Windows license. They'll buy premium mobile devices from Apple on the high end, the mass market will buy cheap/free netbooks/phones with AOSP benefiting Google's competition in China, and Windows desktops will remain a stagnant plateau. Then in 2020 something else will be happening that we can't see yet. Not goggles
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
"Money," specifically profitability, is critical to capitalist enterprise because that's how you pay for and retain engineering and management talent.
Money is indeed not the only (or even the most powerful) motivation for people who want to change the world.
At Google, those people are dreaming up concepts that could sell ads, supported by the remains of a PC ads business that isn't growing - rates and volumes are slipping. None have been very profitable because there is no discipline to make a profitable product.
Apple is in the same innovation race. It may appear to be behind (or did) in the race to introduce some features or technologies that weren't ready (LTE), but the primary directive of a .com is to make money, not to be the first failure.
Apple is currently doing a really good job of pairing and balancing profitability with creative/risky innovation, solidly establishing that they will have enough capital to remain highly innovative--and enough innovation to remain highly capitalized.
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
Whenever I see someone say 'it's not about the money'...it's always about the money.
I disagree!
Sometimes its about "being the only way or the best way of doing something -- damn the costs".
I suspect the military applications (conduct effective battlefield warfare without butts on the ground) is one of those somethings.
If so, the government could underwrite the costs of development and refinement of the implementation -- to the point where more mundane commercial uses could be quite affordable and cost-effective.
Remember, the Space program brought forth commonplace items like Tang powdered drink and Velcro ...
And the US Government kept the Lockheed Skunkworks in business for years -- in the 1960s Lockheed had more satellites in space than all the others combined (foreign and domestic). And many of the top-secret Lockheed Aircraft capabilities are now used in today's commercial airplanes. Lockheed made the Jetstar a small 10-seat high-speed jet * that set a coast to coast speed record in the 1960s -- AIR, it took 4 1/2 hours.
* Film buffs will remember that the JetStar was the plane being flown when Goldfinger was sucked out the window ... I may be wrong about this, but AIR, the pilot was a woman named Pussy Galore ...
I have skimmed through most of the posts to get this far. I am glad you guys are having earnest (mostly) discussions about the merits of HoloLens, but boy, is it boring! You guys are soo seeriouuss…
I want to credit Devastating DED with yet another very funny article! Biased, unfair, sure, but he backs it up with compelling arguments. Maybe it is funny only if you can appreciate high-quality snark.
And I am appalled that no-one has even mentioned the brilliant song lyrics deconstruction! Kudos to DED for that advanced lesson in creative interpretation. Soo funni!
I guess Microsoft will put out some sort of hololens at some point. The REAL name is IOLO-Lens (It Only Lived Once Lens).
The military probably will be a major buyer of this stuff.
If JPL is using it,* then I suspect that the military already is, too!
* deploying this summer and using it this July.
Edit: I did some surfing and found the following
Fastest spacecraft so far
The fastest spacecraft launched from Earth was NASA's New Horizons mission, which is en route to Pluto. In January 2006, the probe left Earth at 36,000 mph (58,000 kph). The time it would take such a probe to get to Mars would be:
Just to illustrate how effective high-resolution satellite and drone cameras can be -- And how some of the military benefits eventually benefit the public ...
[QUOTE] • KH-11 is digital-imaging non-film satellite with 4-6-in. resolution. The first [B][I][COLOR=blue]was launched in 1976. [/COLOR][/I][/B]
• KH-12, or Advanced KH-11, weighs 30,000 lbs. and [B][I]can see 100 miles to the left and right of its ground track.[/I][/B] [B][I]The resolution of the optical images are said to be [COLOR=blue]as fine as 4-6 in. during daytime[/COLOR][/I][/B]. At night, other infrared and radar satellites can see things as small as 2-3 ft. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [B][I][COLOR=blue]Since around the late 70s,[/COLOR][/I][/B] the military has used [B][I][COLOR=blue] high-resolution spy satellites capable of reading newspaper headlines in Red Square. [/COLOR][/I][/B] But only in recent years the technology became available to the public and businesses while concurrently making dramatic strides in coverage and resolution. For example, when Google Earth launched in 2004, its imagery was low-res and spotty. But by March 2006, a third of the world population could get a bird’s-eye view of their own homes in high resolution. [/QUOTE]
Sometimes its about "being the only way or the best way of doing something -- damn the costs".
I suspect the military applications (conduct effective battlefield warfare without butts on the ground) is one of those somethings.
If so, the government could underwrite the costs of development and refinement of the implementation -- to the point where more mundane commercial uses could be quite affordable and cost-effective.
Remember, the Space program brought forth commonplace items like Tang powdered drink and Velcro ...
And the US Government kept the Lockheed Skunkworks in business for years -- in the 1960s Lockheed had more satellites in space than all the others combined (foreign and domestic). And many of the top-secret Lockheed Aircraft capabilities are now used in today's commercial airplanes. Lockheed made the Jetstar a small 10-seat high-speed jet * that set a coast to coast speed record in the 1960s -- AIR, it took 4 1/2 hours..
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
Sometimes its about "being the only way or the best way of doing something -- damn the costs".
I suspect the military applications (conduct effective battlefield warfare without butts on the ground) is one of those somethings.
If so, the government could underwrite the costs of development and refinement of the implementation -- to the point where more mundane commercial uses could be quite affordable and cost-effective.
Remember, the Space program brought forth commonplace items like Tang powdered drink and Velcro ...
And the US Government kept the Lockheed Skunkworks in business for years -- in the 1960s Lockheed had more satellites in space than all the others combined (foreign and domestic). And many of the top-secret Lockheed Aircraft capabilities are now used in today's commercial airplanes. Lockheed made the Jetstar a small 10-seat high-speed jet * that set a coast to coast speed record in the 1960s -- AIR, it took 4 1/2 hours..
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
I have him pegged as an old, conservative geezer who still has a zest for life.
Comments
Microsoft’s presentation showed high concept uses like a designer working on an application on a monitor, but with a projected 3D model appearing to the side.
I remembered that, so I captured the following image from the video:
The designer is using the real computer display to display various 2D views of the design he is creating --- and a virtual display of the 3D design to the side.
I don't [think I] need an additional 3D display. I use Photoshop and FCPX -- both tend to divide the real display into sub-windows to display ancillary information and controls to what you are focused upon. You can reconfigure/eliminate these windows to gain additional space when needed -- but, it's kind of a pain. Now, if you could move these off screen to a virtual display that is accessible with the cursor/mouse/kb ... that'd be something. Photoshop, especially, has a plethora of floating Windoids -- that always seem to be in the wrong place ... Not to mention the floating-on-top help screen for any Mac app ...
I would pay for that and wear the goggles!
Let's take it a step further. When using FCPX I prefer to use 2 monitors to put aside some of the ancillary content.
I use an iMac 27 5K (starts at $2,500) and an older iMac 27. I plan to buy a Apple 27" 5K external display when it becomes available ... Dell sells one now for $2,500.
With HoloLens (if I could get it on the Mac) I could just use a virtual display.
Games and CAD can certainly make use of additional screen real estate. But that demand is already being addressed by multiple monitors, which cost less and offer a much greater resolution than anything eye-mounted goggles can provide at any given price.
What advantage is depicted in your image that couldn't be better achieved with a second monitor? It's not a real hologram, so its not like you could even use it to show clients your model, unless you give them each an $$$ headset and ask them to look stupid while you show them something. In reality, you'd use a large display or an iPad.
Do they want to see it in 3D? No, no they don't. The market has rejected 3D TVs. I have one. It's unwatchable after the 15 minutes of novelty wear off. In the tiny niche of areas where people might want to use stereoscopic 3D for some specialized task, we already have tons of products addressing those needs. Add a 3D monitor.
In your FCP example, you compare a 5K display with a low res headset. Does this improve your workflow? Is it more precise or easier to take in your video content or to make edits? No. It's worse in every possible way.
Perhaps Microsoft can find a need for head mounted displays & gesture/motion feedback like this, but so far all the company has done is copy iPods, copy iPhones, copy iPads, copy Macs and add some different graphics and arbitrarily change some things that don't actually make for more desirable products. Why is Microsoft going to develop this market if they can't manage to sell a music player anyone wants?
Keep in mind lots of companies have also been working on these ideas, and have published them. Microsoft is just taking credit for their work and using it as a distraction away from the fact that it hasn't done anything in the last 5 years but ship a poorly selling, incremental improvement to Windows 7.
It's like Google bragging up self driving cars when everyone else is & has been working on the technology, and most are better positioned to (and better experienced with) monetizing the sale of any usable tech that will get delivered.
It's a different CEO now though. How much of a reversal of fortunes would it be if Tim Cook's first completely new product (the Apple Watch) received a tepid response and Nadella's first new product (Hololens) actually took off?
But as I said earlier, even if it does take off, it will not (intially at least) be as a mobile device (due to the embarrassment of wearing it in public), it will be tethered to your computer in the workplace or the home. And in that sense Apple has nothing to fear since most of their money is made in the mobile space. And Microsoft may even release Mac drivers for this headset
Games and CAD can certainly make use of additional screen real estate. But that demand is already being addressed by multiple monitors, which cost less and offer a much greater resolution than anything eye-mounted goggles can provide at any given price.
What advantage is depicted in your image that couldn't be better achieved with a second monitor? It's not a real hologram, so its not like you could even use it to show clients your model, unless you give them each an $$$ headset and ask them to look stupid while you show them something. In reality, you'd use a large display or an iPad.
Do they want to see it in 3D? No, no they don't. The market has rejected 3D TVs. I have one. It's unwatchable after the 15 minutes of novelty wear off. In the tiny niche of areas where people might want to use stereoscopic 3D for some specialized task, we already have tons of products addressing those needs. Add a 3D monitor.
In your FCP example, you compare a 5K display with a low res headset. Does this improve your workflow? Is it more precise or easier to take in your video content or to make edits? No. It's worse in every possible way.
Perhaps Microsoft can find a need for head mounted displays & gesture/motion feedback like this, but so far all the company has done is copy iPods, copy iPhones, copy iPads, copy Macs and add some different graphics and arbitrarily change some things that don't actually make for more desirable products. Why is Microsoft going to develop this market if they can't manage to sell a music player anyone wants?
Keep in mind lots of companies have also been working on these ideas, and have published them. Microsoft is just taking credit for their work and using it as a distraction away from the fact that it hasn't done anything in the last 5 years but ship a poorly selling, incremental improvement to Windows 7.
It's like Google bragging up self driving cars when everyone else is & has been working on the technology, and most are better positioned to (and better experienced with) monetizing the sale of any usable tech that will get delivered.
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field. Consumers have largely rejected wearable goggles and glasses beyond a limited audience of gamers (and even they cannot wear these things for extended periods of time).
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field.
That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe you should change "simulated 3D imagery" to "Microsoft Hololens", because I can think of plenty more uses. The JPL, gaming, manufacturing/repair tutorials, fitness training, exploration, combat operatives, to name a few.
Oh yeah I remember playing 3DS Ar gams back in early 2011. They were really interactive and had trippy effects. Like bending surfaces and breaking walls. You physically had to move around to navigate the 3D environment.
As far as allowing the user to interact with a pet by petting it,
Microsofts got you covered ! Lol
That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe you should change "simulated 3D imagery" to "Microsoft Hololens", because I can think of plenty more uses. The JPL, gaming, manufacturing/repair tutorials, fitness training, exploration, combat operatives, to name a few.
The point is they are all very small specialized markets.
The point is they are all very small specialized markets.
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
I tend to agree that there is no real market demand for simulated 3D imagery beyond CAD visualization or possibly in the medical field. Consumers have largely rejected wearable goggles and glasses beyond a limited audience of gamers (and even they cannot wear these things for extended periods of time).
But consumers haven't been able to golf on Mars until now... err, until 10 years from now... or whenever this HoloLens b.s. actually ships.
It's going to be really great to clear out all of the furniture in your apartment or house, so it will look like you're really on Mars! If only Microsoft would figure out a way to hide the corners of the room and windows so they don't underlay the fantastic imagery of the Martian landscape.
I didn't want to bring up military uses, but since you did ...
After thinking about how the JPL Rover Mars exploration works: Deploy Rover; 3D Map Area; Transmit Data; On-Earth Explore Mars surface ... Rinse and repeat.
It became obvious that the same process could be applied by the military -- using high-resolution Drone cameras and high-resolution Satellite cameras to 3D-Map the battlefield.
The Transmit Data step would be significantly faster. Likely, the Exploration step would be much faster because they are looking for changes to things they have already explored.
With some computer assistance,* Transmit Data and Explore could be reduced to something close to real-time.
Given that -- it's not much of a leap to trigger air attacks (maybe using the same drones) or other military action ...
Then the Rinse and repeat steps provide near-real-time feedback for additional actions.
IMO, the military will be all over this, Now!
* The Drone Wears goggles too, and has an image of the previous [expected] map of the area. Any variances could be detected by the Drone, and only that data immediately transmitted to command and control -- who triggers any actions based on their analysis. The entire Mapping Data would be logged on the Drone and Transmitted as time permits.
True, but imagine the difference it could make. NASA scientists collaborating on a virtual Mars, soldiers receiving visual instructions from their commanders, construction workers being visually directed by an architect. It's not always about the money
Whenever I see someone say 'it's not about the money'...it's always about the money.
But consumers haven't been able to golf on Mars until now... err, until 10 years from now... or whenever this HoloLens b.s. actually ships.
It's going to be really great to clear out all of the furniture in your apartment or house, so it will look like you're really on Mars! If only Microsoft would figure out a way to hide the corners of the room and windows so they don't underlay the fantastic imagery of the Martian landscape.
How many people will fall down the stairs or wander out into traffic first?
I didn't want to bring up military uses, but since you did ...
After thinking about how the JPL Rover Mars exploration works: Deploy Rover; 3D Map Area; Transmit Data; On-Earth Explore Mars surface ... Rinse and repeat.
It became obvious that the same process could be applied by the military -- using high-resolution Drone cameras and high-resolution Satellite cameras to 3D-Map the battlefield.
The Transmit Data step would be significantly faster. Likely, the Exploration step would be much faster because they are looking for changes to things they have already explored.
With some computer assistance,* Transmit Data and Explore could be reduced to something close to real-time.
Given that -- it's not much of a leap to trigger air attacks (maybe using the same drones) or other military action ...
Then the Rinse and repeat steps provide near-real-time feedback for additional actions.
IMO, the military will be all over this, Now!
* The Drone Wears goggles too, and has an image of the previous [expected] map of the area. Any variances could be detected by the Drone, and only that data immediately transmitted to command and control -- who triggers any actions based on their analysis. The entire Mapping Data would be logged on the Drone and Transmitted as time permits.
The military probably will be a major buyer of this stuff.
The worst thing Apple could do right now is hire somebody like John Scully full of big ideas about technologies that are impractical bullshit (which is what Google and Microsoft are doing right now).
The primary difference of Microsoft today versus under Steve Ballmer is that more of its remaining talent has left, along with consumer revenue growth, any real future prospects that the 1990s PC will grow again, and its fleeting monopoly control. Losing Ballmer doesn't make up for that.
Steve jobs fixed Apple by trimming the visionary BS and focusing on its viable remaining products that were selling well, and investing in the mobile future - laptops then iPods then phones and iPads
Emerging markets in India and China are not going to buy a future wave of PC boxes with a $15 Windows license. They'll buy premium mobile devices from Apple on the high end, the mass market will buy cheap/free netbooks/phones with AOSP benefiting Google's competition in China, and Windows desktops will remain a stagnant plateau. Then in 2020 something else will be happening that we can't see yet. Not goggles
"Money," specifically profitability, is critical to capitalist enterprise because that's how you pay for and retain engineering and management talent.
Money is indeed not the only (or even the most powerful) motivation for people who want to change the world.
At Google, those people are dreaming up concepts that could sell ads, supported by the remains of a PC ads business that isn't growing - rates and volumes are slipping. None have been very profitable because there is no discipline to make a profitable product.
Apple is in the same innovation race. It may appear to be behind (or did) in the race to introduce some features or technologies that weren't ready (LTE), but the primary directive of a .com is to make money, not to be the first failure.
Apple is currently doing a really good job of pairing and balancing profitability with creative/risky innovation, solidly establishing that they will have enough capital to remain highly innovative--and enough innovation to remain highly capitalized.
I disagree!
Sometimes its about "being the only way or the best way of doing something -- damn the costs".
I suspect the military applications (conduct effective battlefield warfare without butts on the ground) is one of those somethings.
If so, the government could underwrite the costs of development and refinement of the implementation -- to the point where more mundane commercial uses could be quite affordable and cost-effective.
Remember, the Space program brought forth commonplace items like Tang powdered drink and Velcro ...
And the US Government kept the Lockheed Skunkworks in business for years -- in the 1960s Lockheed had more satellites in space than all the others combined (foreign and domestic). And many of the top-secret Lockheed Aircraft capabilities are now used in today's commercial airplanes. Lockheed made the Jetstar a small 10-seat high-speed jet * that set a coast to coast speed record in the 1960s -- AIR, it took 4 1/2 hours.
* Film buffs will remember that the JetStar was the plane being flown when Goldfinger was sucked out the window ... I may be wrong about this, but AIR, the pilot was a woman named Pussy Galore ...
I want to credit Devastating DED with yet another very funny article! Biased, unfair, sure, but he backs it up with compelling arguments. Maybe it is funny only if you can appreciate high-quality snark.
And I am appalled that no-one has even mentioned the brilliant song lyrics deconstruction! Kudos to DED for that advanced lesson in creative interpretation. Soo funni!
I guess Microsoft will put out some sort of hololens at some point. The REAL name is IOLO-Lens (It Only Lived Once Lens).
If JPL is using it,* then I suspect that the military already is, too!
* deploying this summer and using it this July.
Edit: I did some surfing and found the following
http://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html
This suggests that the technology may already be on its way to Mars.
[QUOTE]
• KH-11 is digital-imaging non-film satellite with 4-6-in. resolution. The first [B][I][COLOR=blue]was launched in 1976. [/COLOR][/I][/B]
• KH-12, or Advanced KH-11, weighs 30,000 lbs. and [B][I]can see 100 miles to the left and right of its ground track.[/I][/B] [B][I]The resolution of the optical images are said to be [COLOR=blue]as fine as 4-6 in. during daytime[/COLOR][/I][/B]. At night, other infrared and radar satellites can see things as small as 2-3 ft.
[/QUOTE]
http://spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html
and
[QUOTE]
[B][I][COLOR=blue]Since around the late 70s,[/COLOR][/I][/B] the military has used [B][I][COLOR=blue] high-resolution spy satellites capable of reading newspaper headlines in Red Square. [/COLOR][/I][/B] But only in recent years the technology became available to the public and businesses while concurrently making dramatic strides in coverage and resolution. For example, when Google Earth launched in 2004, its imagery was low-res and spotty. But by March 2006, a third of the world population could get a bird’s-eye view of their own homes in high resolution.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.wired.com/2008/10/geoeye-1-super/
Mmm ... I wonder what the fineness of the image is today in 2015 as compared to the 4-6 in in 1976 (39 years earlier).
The credit card is ~ 2 in x 3 1/2 in.
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
I have him pegged as an old, conservative geezer who still has a zest for life.