Mixed Reality Headset Letdown
This week Microsoft started pre-orders for their Mixed Reality dev kits. The problem is... they aren't mixed reality or augmented reality. They are, as far as I can tell, just plain old 3D headsets with a bit of HoloLens tech.
Don't get me wrong. As far as 3D is concerned there are reasons to be excited by what Microsoft is doing here. But, if all goes based on what we've seen, then there are also concerning gaps given the way this is being positioned.
The good is threefold. Affordable, Improved Tech, and Lower Barrier to Access. The first and last kind of go hand in hand. But, they are different topics in the current 3D landscape.
So, cost wise, these things are in the $300 range. And while expect an array of devices over time at different price points, this entry level cost is less than half what existing tech costs for the headsets alone. That makes this all pretty exciting on that level.
Next is the aforementioned added HoloLens tech. Existing solutions required additional, external hardware in the form or mounting things on walls or other devices to assist as visual cues for the headset to orient itself in its environment. These new headsets are self-contained in that respect. Between cameras and other sensors the headset is just able to know where it is. This again brings down overall cost as well as complexity. Another plus.
Lastly, none of these units are self contained from a processing perspective. They are all tethered and all require a computer to handle rendering. Current headsets require basically top tier gaming machines. Right now, this will generally put you out $1-2k depending on how resourceful you are. Given the cost of the current headsets, this basically put VR out of reach of almost everyone.
So, from a VR perspective, this is great. I'm not sure the demand for VR, and tethered VR at that, is really all that high. But, I think all of these things combined make a compelling enough argument to enable Microsoft to more or less take over whatever market is there.
But, the size of the market is the problem. I think Microsoft's OEM partners are going to get burned and that will slow future adoption of true Mixed Reality.
If these devices can also go the AR route and map the real world even if it is a live feed, and map 3D on top of that... then you're making progress. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Immersive Augmented Reality is the future. 3D is not. 3D is a great idea with far too many limitations, even for areas where it could theoretically be better than AR. Until VR can resemble Star Trek holodecks it won't be the future of anything. It is a dead end. And even then, as in Star Trek, the holodeck was recreational purposes only.
But, I've seen no demos of these devices indicating that you'll be able to map onto the real world. And I think that would be heavily publicized if true. And so I'm left disappointed and a bit concerned. Especially since they insisted on calling these Mixed Reality Headsets. If they can't do true mix reality they are going to taint the name ahead of when that vision becomes a reality.
Don't get me wrong. As far as 3D is concerned there are reasons to be excited by what Microsoft is doing here. But, if all goes based on what we've seen, then there are also concerning gaps given the way this is being positioned.
The good is threefold. Affordable, Improved Tech, and Lower Barrier to Access. The first and last kind of go hand in hand. But, they are different topics in the current 3D landscape.
So, cost wise, these things are in the $300 range. And while expect an array of devices over time at different price points, this entry level cost is less than half what existing tech costs for the headsets alone. That makes this all pretty exciting on that level.
Next is the aforementioned added HoloLens tech. Existing solutions required additional, external hardware in the form or mounting things on walls or other devices to assist as visual cues for the headset to orient itself in its environment. These new headsets are self-contained in that respect. Between cameras and other sensors the headset is just able to know where it is. This again brings down overall cost as well as complexity. Another plus.
Lastly, none of these units are self contained from a processing perspective. They are all tethered and all require a computer to handle rendering. Current headsets require basically top tier gaming machines. Right now, this will generally put you out $1-2k depending on how resourceful you are. Given the cost of the current headsets, this basically put VR out of reach of almost everyone.
So, from a VR perspective, this is great. I'm not sure the demand for VR, and tethered VR at that, is really all that high. But, I think all of these things combined make a compelling enough argument to enable Microsoft to more or less take over whatever market is there.
But, the size of the market is the problem. I think Microsoft's OEM partners are going to get burned and that will slow future adoption of true Mixed Reality.
If these devices can also go the AR route and map the real world even if it is a live feed, and map 3D on top of that... then you're making progress. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Immersive Augmented Reality is the future. 3D is not. 3D is a great idea with far too many limitations, even for areas where it could theoretically be better than AR. Until VR can resemble Star Trek holodecks it won't be the future of anything. It is a dead end. And even then, as in Star Trek, the holodeck was recreational purposes only.
But, I've seen no demos of these devices indicating that you'll be able to map onto the real world. And I think that would be heavily publicized if true. And so I'm left disappointed and a bit concerned. Especially since they insisted on calling these Mixed Reality Headsets. If they can't do true mix reality they are going to taint the name ahead of when that vision becomes a reality.
Comments
Post a Comment