Magic Leap vs. HoloLens... should Microsoft be afraid?
Was reading this and watched the video and did a bit of research. And honestly, the answer is no. Microsoft has nothing to fear.
Lets start with the demo. The demo is much more impressive than Microsoft's. But it is also infinitely more staged (IE - Not real). The gun props are real physical devices, not part of the augmented reality experience. That also means that the kickback and other realistic looking effects are simply acted. It also means that the FPS shooter demo is highly dependent on additional accessories.
Those points right there knock the tech down to a level that is at most on par with HoloLens. And worse, that means that they are already positioning this as a device that is dependent on gimmicky accessories for gaming. It isn't to say that gaming accessories can't be a valuable addition, the problem is more that they are starting off assuming a need for them. But anyway, that is where the video provided falls apart.
Moving on, HoloLens is MUCH further along in production. So, initially it won't even be a competitor. ML is just exiting the R&D phase now.
While both products are obviously not yet available in final production form, there are differences in approach. HoloLens is untethered, while ML has a backpack. There have been a bunch of people asking for a HoloLens with a backpack to maintain portability while increasing FoV and/or battery life, but that is totally impractical. The right way to do tethered is simply with a long cord, not a backpack. The places where a backpack like scenario make sense are FAR too niche. Basically, outdoor nerd fests only. And even those scenarios require games to built around those scenarios. That is really the biggest missing piece.
It is the Wii nun-chuck problem all over again. There were a handful of first party games that leveraged the tech well and a handful of 3rd party companies that made a half assed attempt at leveraging it, and then the concept basically died. It is the same problem Kinect faces. Only worse. At least with Kinect and Wii the half-assed attempts could be baked into a game that didn't require that tech because it ran on a very popular gaming platform. This won't have that advantage and it is harder to come up with strategies that blend the AR experience with a more widely accepted one.
Platform itself is the next major hurdle. Not only are games and apps that truly leverage this sort of tech atypical, but the device doesn't have a platform or an ecosystem of developers. HoloLens runs Windows 10 and Windows already has a strong developer base. So, not only can standard Windows 10 apps run on HoloLens, but it can also run the AR type applications aimed at that hardware. This is a huge advantage.
The final problem from the video would have to be that the holograms did not appear to be able to go as opaque as HoloLens and there were none of the crazy simulated "seeing through" things like was achieved with the Minecraft demos where you could see "underneath" the surface where you placed the game to view underground in your world. Or through walls, etc... The 1st party examples were also incredibly bubbly and cartoony looking with the general UI looking like it is targeted at 5yr olds. That is a subjective comment to be sure. But I doubt I'm alone.
All of the gaps and problems above can be fixed over time either through changes, improvements or partnerships, but, even a first implementation as a viable (and affordable*) consumer product is probably still quite a ways off. The fact that they are partnered or sponsored by or funded by Google but that Google hasn't said anything gives an indication as to just how far off this tech is. Because with Google putting up the amount of money they are putting up, they would undoubtedly want this device to run Android and Android apps and they should at least have mentioned it and possibly even had it demoed at one of their events.
Basically, what I've seen and read puts this probably 1-2 years behind HoloLens at least.
Lets start with the demo. The demo is much more impressive than Microsoft's. But it is also infinitely more staged (IE - Not real). The gun props are real physical devices, not part of the augmented reality experience. That also means that the kickback and other realistic looking effects are simply acted. It also means that the FPS shooter demo is highly dependent on additional accessories.
Those points right there knock the tech down to a level that is at most on par with HoloLens. And worse, that means that they are already positioning this as a device that is dependent on gimmicky accessories for gaming. It isn't to say that gaming accessories can't be a valuable addition, the problem is more that they are starting off assuming a need for them. But anyway, that is where the video provided falls apart.
Moving on, HoloLens is MUCH further along in production. So, initially it won't even be a competitor. ML is just exiting the R&D phase now.
While both products are obviously not yet available in final production form, there are differences in approach. HoloLens is untethered, while ML has a backpack. There have been a bunch of people asking for a HoloLens with a backpack to maintain portability while increasing FoV and/or battery life, but that is totally impractical. The right way to do tethered is simply with a long cord, not a backpack. The places where a backpack like scenario make sense are FAR too niche. Basically, outdoor nerd fests only. And even those scenarios require games to built around those scenarios. That is really the biggest missing piece.
It is the Wii nun-chuck problem all over again. There were a handful of first party games that leveraged the tech well and a handful of 3rd party companies that made a half assed attempt at leveraging it, and then the concept basically died. It is the same problem Kinect faces. Only worse. At least with Kinect and Wii the half-assed attempts could be baked into a game that didn't require that tech because it ran on a very popular gaming platform. This won't have that advantage and it is harder to come up with strategies that blend the AR experience with a more widely accepted one.
Platform itself is the next major hurdle. Not only are games and apps that truly leverage this sort of tech atypical, but the device doesn't have a platform or an ecosystem of developers. HoloLens runs Windows 10 and Windows already has a strong developer base. So, not only can standard Windows 10 apps run on HoloLens, but it can also run the AR type applications aimed at that hardware. This is a huge advantage.
The final problem from the video would have to be that the holograms did not appear to be able to go as opaque as HoloLens and there were none of the crazy simulated "seeing through" things like was achieved with the Minecraft demos where you could see "underneath" the surface where you placed the game to view underground in your world. Or through walls, etc... The 1st party examples were also incredibly bubbly and cartoony looking with the general UI looking like it is targeted at 5yr olds. That is a subjective comment to be sure. But I doubt I'm alone.
All of the gaps and problems above can be fixed over time either through changes, improvements or partnerships, but, even a first implementation as a viable (and affordable*) consumer product is probably still quite a ways off. The fact that they are partnered or sponsored by or funded by Google but that Google hasn't said anything gives an indication as to just how far off this tech is. Because with Google putting up the amount of money they are putting up, they would undoubtedly want this device to run Android and Android apps and they should at least have mentioned it and possibly even had it demoed at one of their events.
Basically, what I've seen and read puts this probably 1-2 years behind HoloLens at least.
Comments
Post a Comment