HoloLens vs. Magic Leap vs. VR
Well, I made a rather large error when HoloLens was unveiled. Well, error may not be the right term. More like, I made a sensible prediction, which this far, has proven wrong. Though, oddly, I think that is all thanks to a MASSIVE con by another company.
That error was predicting that Microsoft made a HUGE mistake unveiling HoloLens when they did. I believe it was something like 6 months - a year before they actually had dev kits for sale, and of course, we still don't have a timeline on a consumer version.
My concern was that HoloLens was/is so exciting a technology that other companies would jump on it and rush something to market sooner than MS could and make them look like "also ran" competitors in a market they popularized.
And I thought I was being proven right when not long after, Magic Leap started popping up in my news feed. But, it turns out Magic Leap was WAY further behind Microsoft and was really just trying to attract investment. And they succeeded in attracting investment. And all of that money pouring into Magic Leap has, I think, screwed over any other startup. The big money is tied up elsewhere and there is nothing to show for it making other investor leery of the tech. I suspect, if Magic Leap hadn't entered the scenes, we might actually hear of other teams which may have actually challenged Microsoft on timelines and/or product.
All of that being said, HoloLens is still the single best contender I've even heard of which not only has some level of production being fulfilled, but who even have a workable prototype. I also think Microsoft is more than just 1 step ahead of anyone else on spatial mapping and environmental recognition.
That being said, what I understand of Magic Leap... I think a marriage of that with HoloLens would be the ultimate. Though that seems even further off than a consumer version of HoloLens. The difference being, with HoloLens, the lens is where the AR images are rendered, but with Magic Leap they are rendered directly into the eye (could be wrong, but swear I read that somewhere).
Magic Leap would seem to have the edge then on a full FoV AR experience. While expect MS to increase the FoV over time. I imagine we are 10+ years away from reaching total or effective full FoV.
Of course, I think what is likely killing Magic Leap is exactly that problem. A full FoV is a larger resolution, which means requiring more GPU power... MUCH more. Rendering on the eye also adds another challenge... motion of the eye needs to accounted for in real time. When an image is rendered on a visor, it doesn't matter if your eyes move... the image stays still and that is fine. It only needs to be re-rendered/calculated/etc... when the head set moves. With it rendered on the eye, when I look down, for the AR image to stay in the same place in the real world, it needs to move.
You might be inclined to say "no, it isn't any more challenging, if the eyes move down and the projection stays in the same spot, it will have the same effect". Wrong. On many levels. Firstly, as I move my eyes down, my ENTIRE FoV shifts with it. So some stuff at the top is no longer included and some stuff at the bottom needs to be added to the rendering. Beyond that, the eye isn't a flat surface. If the image weren't completely re-rendered as the eye moved, it would appear to warp.
I suspect the technical challenges in building Magic Leap are bind boggling.
But, if you were able to get a perfect wireless headset which could handle all of that and marry it with HoloLens' spatial mapping, I think you would have the beginning of a completely new era of computing.
As things stand today though, HoloLens is king, despite it's small FoV. For consumers, it is VR. Microsoft is promising VR headsets starting at $299 along with their Creators Update in 2017. I think is fundamentally flawed in that immersive VR can't address all of the sensory issues required to make the experience feel truly immersive and it needs to effectively re-render the real world, in real time to simulate AR. But, it is cool tech to be sure and a stepping stone to the mixed reality future.
In a purely theoretical world where every entrant had their "perfect device" I would put them as follows:
Magic Leap > HoloLens > VR
In terms of current tech and their potential:
HoloLens > VR > Magic Leap
And, currently for consumers:
VR > HoloLens > Magic Leap
In the grand scheme of things, I think HoloLens and its vision for AR will have its time in the sun after a brief period of VR dominance... maybe in the next 3-5 years. If Magic Leap is facing the kinds of technical hurdles I think they are, then I wouldn't be surprised to see something else come along after the HoloLens era which eliminates the need for something like Magic Leap as an intermediary.
That error was predicting that Microsoft made a HUGE mistake unveiling HoloLens when they did. I believe it was something like 6 months - a year before they actually had dev kits for sale, and of course, we still don't have a timeline on a consumer version.
My concern was that HoloLens was/is so exciting a technology that other companies would jump on it and rush something to market sooner than MS could and make them look like "also ran" competitors in a market they popularized.
And I thought I was being proven right when not long after, Magic Leap started popping up in my news feed. But, it turns out Magic Leap was WAY further behind Microsoft and was really just trying to attract investment. And they succeeded in attracting investment. And all of that money pouring into Magic Leap has, I think, screwed over any other startup. The big money is tied up elsewhere and there is nothing to show for it making other investor leery of the tech. I suspect, if Magic Leap hadn't entered the scenes, we might actually hear of other teams which may have actually challenged Microsoft on timelines and/or product.
All of that being said, HoloLens is still the single best contender I've even heard of which not only has some level of production being fulfilled, but who even have a workable prototype. I also think Microsoft is more than just 1 step ahead of anyone else on spatial mapping and environmental recognition.
That being said, what I understand of Magic Leap... I think a marriage of that with HoloLens would be the ultimate. Though that seems even further off than a consumer version of HoloLens. The difference being, with HoloLens, the lens is where the AR images are rendered, but with Magic Leap they are rendered directly into the eye (could be wrong, but swear I read that somewhere).
Magic Leap would seem to have the edge then on a full FoV AR experience. While expect MS to increase the FoV over time. I imagine we are 10+ years away from reaching total or effective full FoV.
Of course, I think what is likely killing Magic Leap is exactly that problem. A full FoV is a larger resolution, which means requiring more GPU power... MUCH more. Rendering on the eye also adds another challenge... motion of the eye needs to accounted for in real time. When an image is rendered on a visor, it doesn't matter if your eyes move... the image stays still and that is fine. It only needs to be re-rendered/calculated/etc... when the head set moves. With it rendered on the eye, when I look down, for the AR image to stay in the same place in the real world, it needs to move.
You might be inclined to say "no, it isn't any more challenging, if the eyes move down and the projection stays in the same spot, it will have the same effect". Wrong. On many levels. Firstly, as I move my eyes down, my ENTIRE FoV shifts with it. So some stuff at the top is no longer included and some stuff at the bottom needs to be added to the rendering. Beyond that, the eye isn't a flat surface. If the image weren't completely re-rendered as the eye moved, it would appear to warp.
I suspect the technical challenges in building Magic Leap are bind boggling.
But, if you were able to get a perfect wireless headset which could handle all of that and marry it with HoloLens' spatial mapping, I think you would have the beginning of a completely new era of computing.
As things stand today though, HoloLens is king, despite it's small FoV. For consumers, it is VR. Microsoft is promising VR headsets starting at $299 along with their Creators Update in 2017. I think is fundamentally flawed in that immersive VR can't address all of the sensory issues required to make the experience feel truly immersive and it needs to effectively re-render the real world, in real time to simulate AR. But, it is cool tech to be sure and a stepping stone to the mixed reality future.
In a purely theoretical world where every entrant had their "perfect device" I would put them as follows:
Magic Leap > HoloLens > VR
In terms of current tech and their potential:
HoloLens > VR > Magic Leap
And, currently for consumers:
VR > HoloLens > Magic Leap
In the grand scheme of things, I think HoloLens and its vision for AR will have its time in the sun after a brief period of VR dominance... maybe in the next 3-5 years. If Magic Leap is facing the kinds of technical hurdles I think they are, then I wouldn't be surprised to see something else come along after the HoloLens era which eliminates the need for something like Magic Leap as an intermediary.
Comments
Post a Comment