HoloLens and Windows Phone
Yep! These topics again.
HoloLens has already failed in my opinion. We'll see if I'm right. But the execution behind unveiling this device is what is cratering it. VR is a TERRIBLE alternative to AR as imagined by HoloLens. But I have the feeling that VR is going to win and either destroy the markets perception of AR indefinitely or delay its mainstream adoption by a matter of decades.
What happened when Microsoft unveiled HoloLens was that damn near everyone that used it, saw it or imagined what it could do sat back and said "Holy shit! That is amazing". The ones who didn't say that said "How can we kill this thing?" or "How can we bring a competing device to market quicker than them?".
Those last two camps would have been ineffective if there had been a quick turnaround on delivering the device or if the devices original launch specs promised to deliver the ideal experience. Neither of those happened. The device still isn't truly available, costs a ton and delivers a sub-par experience by having a rendered area the size of a mail slot by many accounts.
Shortly after the unveiling there were a lot of talks of similar devices from other companies, but that chatter died down. My guess is that they are facing the same sort of delivery problems Microsoft is. In fact, Microsoft has completed devices, they've even sent them to space. So, others are probably even further behind than that.
Which leaves the other camp. VR. VR basically shifted direction after HoloLens. A lot more effort went into things like spatial mapping so that they could fake the real world inside of the 3D headset. The processing power required is staggering. But there are far more VR makers out there. The technology is theoretically vastly simpler. It won't be long until someone gets the experience just right. And then it won't be long until that experience can be delivered more readily and cost effectively to the mainstream audience.
If that happens in VR before HoloLens is commercially viable (or a similar competing product) then AR will likely end up benched by the mass market for years. And that is what it seems is happening.
Without that initial unveiling I don't think VR companies were as concerned about spatial mapping. I'm sure it was on their radar. But without a competing tech to threaten them, it would have been several iterations down the road on product road maps. Why add that overhead in processing power and complexity if no one else is doing anything about it either?
Windows Phone is also "dead". It hasn't been buried it in the ground yet. But it isn't getting resuscitated. This is beating a dead horse, but failure to maintain interest after the Icon and 930 caused interest in the platform to sink. Even amongst the faithful. Their odd carrier partnerships continued after the MS acquisition as well. In most places you can't even find a Windows Phone even if you would have been willing to argue with the sales reps to get one. Availability of the phones has made it an effective impossibility.
So why only "dead"? Windows 10. Let's face it. There is no need to stop selling phones indefinitely or switch to another platform. They could simply slow or stop their efforts until there is a viable x86/64 based SoC available. At that point the phone just runs full Windows with perhaps some constraints when it isn't docked. Continuum done right. And frankly, it feels like they are doing just that. They have scaled back the number of devices and don't seem to be trying overly hard to get them out there. Most OEMs have backed off. And they don't appear to care.
Again, repeating an oft repeated story. But I think Microsoft will keep their own platform alive and not bother trying to re-invigorate it until they feel they can safely cut the ARM devices out of the mix.
HoloLens has already failed in my opinion. We'll see if I'm right. But the execution behind unveiling this device is what is cratering it. VR is a TERRIBLE alternative to AR as imagined by HoloLens. But I have the feeling that VR is going to win and either destroy the markets perception of AR indefinitely or delay its mainstream adoption by a matter of decades.
What happened when Microsoft unveiled HoloLens was that damn near everyone that used it, saw it or imagined what it could do sat back and said "Holy shit! That is amazing". The ones who didn't say that said "How can we kill this thing?" or "How can we bring a competing device to market quicker than them?".
Those last two camps would have been ineffective if there had been a quick turnaround on delivering the device or if the devices original launch specs promised to deliver the ideal experience. Neither of those happened. The device still isn't truly available, costs a ton and delivers a sub-par experience by having a rendered area the size of a mail slot by many accounts.
Shortly after the unveiling there were a lot of talks of similar devices from other companies, but that chatter died down. My guess is that they are facing the same sort of delivery problems Microsoft is. In fact, Microsoft has completed devices, they've even sent them to space. So, others are probably even further behind than that.
Which leaves the other camp. VR. VR basically shifted direction after HoloLens. A lot more effort went into things like spatial mapping so that they could fake the real world inside of the 3D headset. The processing power required is staggering. But there are far more VR makers out there. The technology is theoretically vastly simpler. It won't be long until someone gets the experience just right. And then it won't be long until that experience can be delivered more readily and cost effectively to the mainstream audience.
If that happens in VR before HoloLens is commercially viable (or a similar competing product) then AR will likely end up benched by the mass market for years. And that is what it seems is happening.
Without that initial unveiling I don't think VR companies were as concerned about spatial mapping. I'm sure it was on their radar. But without a competing tech to threaten them, it would have been several iterations down the road on product road maps. Why add that overhead in processing power and complexity if no one else is doing anything about it either?
Windows Phone is also "dead". It hasn't been buried it in the ground yet. But it isn't getting resuscitated. This is beating a dead horse, but failure to maintain interest after the Icon and 930 caused interest in the platform to sink. Even amongst the faithful. Their odd carrier partnerships continued after the MS acquisition as well. In most places you can't even find a Windows Phone even if you would have been willing to argue with the sales reps to get one. Availability of the phones has made it an effective impossibility.
So why only "dead"? Windows 10. Let's face it. There is no need to stop selling phones indefinitely or switch to another platform. They could simply slow or stop their efforts until there is a viable x86/64 based SoC available. At that point the phone just runs full Windows with perhaps some constraints when it isn't docked. Continuum done right. And frankly, it feels like they are doing just that. They have scaled back the number of devices and don't seem to be trying overly hard to get them out there. Most OEMs have backed off. And they don't appear to care.
Again, repeating an oft repeated story. But I think Microsoft will keep their own platform alive and not bother trying to re-invigorate it until they feel they can safely cut the ARM devices out of the mix.
Comments
Post a Comment