I'm writing a middlebrow (lowbrow, really) dismissal because this actually deserves it. This is... shamelessly phony. "Your laptop is now a hologram"?[1] Do I have to 3D scan my laptop in? Are they going to mind-upload my Intel CPU to the cloud while they're at it?
Your use-case for AR is a ghostly 5FPS replica of my laptop or phone that I can vaguely gesture at? Tracing in the air to lathe a rocket hull will bring me closer to the world? Meta has access to non-rendered pages of app icons inside the iOS sandbox? "ROCKET COMPLETED"? "500+ Meta Applications in development"?
They say this is real footage, and have a big red "BUY NOW" button. What target audience is this supposed to convince?
Is that pocket computer required? If so, seems strange to access your virtual phone through a phone-sized pocket computer. I can appreciate that virtual screens will eventually be a selling point, but not maintaining the idea of a virtual phone and laptop.
This _really_ bugs me. It's pretty clear that the UI is simulated footage _maybe_ recorded through some strange projection system, so that they can claim it is real -- but only by a technicality.
It's one thing to promise a delivery date based on a simulated product, that could be passed off as wishful thinking. To claim that something is real footage, under a technicality, is dishonest. It's especially sad, coming from a YC company.
"Your laptop is now a hologram" refers to the fact[1] that you won't need a physical machine (aside from the Intel i5 cpu in your pocket). The keyboard is virtual, and the monitor is virtual. Everything else is physical but it's tiny.
that claim is ridiculous. How do they plan to mirror your smartphone and pc ? Something like VNC maybe, which will at least require a rooted/jailbroken phone. And why a virtual 11 inch form factor ?
Id love to be proven wrong, but as this clearly isn't real footage, lets see what comes out of it.
AR stereoscopic see-through displays are complex, difficult tech. This has nothing to do with Google Glass which is closer to being an aside information display.
Sony has the most IPR and expertise in the field when it comes to displays that create a 3D augmented experience for both eyes. They have examined this field for ages and had a hard time to discover application fields.
Meta hopefully cracks this nut and delivers a development program that brings stereoscopic AR to the next level. But as someone who managed an AR portable display team in this field for VF, I see it as a steep challenge.
I'm sorry to have to say it here on HN, but this wannabe apple.com spin-shit-in-3d-when-you-scroll crap is completely unusable.
I'm on a Retina 15" MBP – a laptop that their target demographic will be using – and I can barely make it through the site to try to piece together information about their product.
Am I supposed to scrounge up an external mouse with a scroll wheel and be impressed by the CSS3 transitions? I'm seeing this more and more and I'm really confused how something like this makes it through QA.
The site is remarkable, but undoes so much of its developers' hard work through its sluggishness. My maxed-out Haswell 15" hit 9fps during rapid scrolling in Chrome (FPS counted by dev tools).
Hopefully they're less tolerant of poor framerates in their actual product, which sounds very exciting.
I don't usually get angry just from seeing a product promo. But, this has done it. Note that the glasses are stationary for all but one shot where the movement is slow and linear and it still shows tracking error. If it's not ready, it's not ready. They should have kept their reputation in tact and tried again in a few years rather than trying to sell a bad prototype under a false banner.
My attention is directed toward the Oculus Rift. I own the dev kit and have been following Oculus VR closely. Save your VR/AR gadget money for their consumer release if you want something that lives up to the hype and delivers on its promises.
Didn't their website used to say shipping November 2013? What happened to the people who ordered with that promise?
Anyways, that was a crazy ship date they were never going to meet, even if their CAD had been completely 100% finalized and locked, it would have taken them that long just to make the tooling, let alone manufacture a run of parts. Maybe next time they hire 25 people at least one of them should know manufacturing.
This pitch struggles more than usual communicating "why" I need this product.
Apple's genius in their early iphone commercials was showing the product as it was seamlessly integrated into our daily lives.(1)
Email, video, maps, real internet on the go. As soon as you saw the commercial you knew you were going to buy one because you knew how it would benefit you.
I have yet to have that sort of connection with any sort of wearable AR device.
How about: your studio apartment feels like a mansion, your hellion offspring seem like perfect angels, and your car always looks (to you) as if it's just been detailed?
Agreed, it would have been better to have the chief scientist discuss the core technologies, design and potential applications than watch an Elon Musk/Tony Stark ripoff drive his Tesla-S home to his sweet pad and knob around with a CAD model of a rocket via a seemingly non-intuitive interface.
If the device was only a few hundred dollars to purchase then the marketing video might have had some merit. But at 3k, you're selling to people who want to know how it really performs, and what technical trickery Mann might have introduced to make it an exciting human-machine interface.
Maybe someone here can answer this. Do founders of important technologies generally have a good idea of the primary use case(s) for their product? Seems silly to ask, but I posed this very question to Meta, and their answer was essentially that they are going to "let their users decide that." Three use cases were listed off, but I didn't find them particularly impressive. What should be made of this?
I ask because it seems contrary to the importance of solving a problem. With SpaceGlasses, the users run around deciding how the product can enrich their lives. Seems pretty odd.
I've found that with lots of successful tech products, I've been able to pretty quickly see the how I could use it in my everyday life. The iPhone is the classic example, but even search, email, Facebook. I don't really see that here. I'm pretty young though, so my experience is really limited. Also, I realize my personal experience doesn't make for a very strong argument. Still, it's a pretty terrible pitch.
Does this mean 1280x720 for each display, or combined? That's a bit vague. Still, this is quite neat; the resolution was what made me not back their first Kickstarter. Maybe this is worth throwing a couple grand into, to see what comes out.
And at what pixel density? I'd like to know what happens if I take the entire contents of my 1920x1080 desktop and project it say...4 feet away. Does it look like crap or not? For some reason in all of their promo material I can't see a normal looking desktop projected.
They're going to have to show much less marketing hype and much more practical use. Especially for a $3000 pre-order.
I do not believe that people in general will be interested in having permanent digital displays attached directly over their field of vision. Maybe specialists. Doctors. Mechanics. People who have their hands full but still need to access informational resources. But for general use, they're just too distancing. And intimidating, frankly.
(Don't get me wrong -- they look cool and I'd love to try it out. And there might be a business, here. But it reminds me of the Segway: Touted as the revolutionizer of cities, but in the end something with limited utility once the hype-wave settled.)
Given high enough resolution and light enough hardware, I can see it happening. Many already drive or walk outside wearing sunglasses, or wear glasses for reading. A pair of very light-weight goggles that could switch quickly from fully opaque display to translucent overlay to what appeared to be standard vision (but was replicated by cameras) could be useful.
Add in ear buds that can open a valve (rather than be removed) and you could do all sorts of things. Virtually furnished rooms, watching virtual displays in any position, any angle, etc. TVs and monitors could well become obsolete if the resolution is enough to simulate them.
I wonder if it would even be possible to set your goggles to show other wearers in your home and office as though they weren't wearing theirs, even if they were. Some sort of internal eye-tracking could potentially simulate their eyes realistically enough if the uncanny valley could be surpassed.
I'm pretty sure I'd do it, but I'd actually prefer an audio system, which is trivial with tech had even 10-15 years ago -- basically 24x7 microphone and headset, connected to something with less computation than Siri, giving me essentially an "audio tour" of wherever I am, mixed in with internet content (e.g. reading me mail), etc.
The price is steep but Steve Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann) is there chief scientist. I think if anyone we can trust about AR, Steve Mann is the guy. He's wearing those glasses before it was cool. He got a lot of experience, and troubles with those glasses (see "steve mann mcdonalds"). He really know what he's doing.
I dont think they are doing themselves a favor with a bullshit marketing video like this.
They seem to have a great team but all we have seen from Meta other than pre-rendered marketing videos has been a bit rough, to put mildly. Example [1]
Id love my virtual AR 70 inch high res computer display though, so i hope they succeed ;)
This seems cool if you want to hold your hands in front of you and spin things around in virtual 3D.
Personally I could do without all that - I just want a really nice looking virtual 2D screen projected in front of me so I can finally ditch my fixed-in-place monitor.
Visionary, but seemingly impractical. Any way of seeing videos of real use that isn't spinning rockets around? Not trying to be condescending, but that seems more marketing than reflective of what people can/will use Meta for.
Is this tech for tech sake that just drains the pockets of early adopters...
Not being snarky, just trying to understand what it solves, ultimately who is the customer of these types of device?
As an aerospace engineer I laughed so hard at Rocket Completed. What exactly is your market? I am confused on why I would use your system to combined two parts to create my rocket assembly.
[+] [-] lalc|12 years ago|reply
Your use-case for AR is a ghostly 5FPS replica of my laptop or phone that I can vaguely gesture at? Tracing in the air to lathe a rocket hull will bring me closer to the world? Meta has access to non-rendered pages of app icons inside the iOS sandbox? "ROCKET COMPLETED"? "500+ Meta Applications in development"?
They say this is real footage, and have a big red "BUY NOW" button. What target audience is this supposed to convince?
[1] http://i.imgur.com/unxD96I.jpg
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
I found this early demo based on the Oculus Rift to be a bit more promising, even though it's currently far, far rougher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_TCLoH2CA
[+] [-] newhouseb|12 years ago|reply
This _really_ bugs me. It's pretty clear that the UI is simulated footage _maybe_ recorded through some strange projection system, so that they can claim it is real -- but only by a technicality.
It's one thing to promise a delivery date based on a simulated product, that could be passed off as wishful thinking. To claim that something is real footage, under a technicality, is dishonest. It's especially sad, coming from a YC company.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|12 years ago|reply
[1]best guess
[+] [-] kayoone|12 years ago|reply
Id love to be proven wrong, but as this clearly isn't real footage, lets see what comes out of it.
[+] [-] fromdoon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianpye|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radley|12 years ago|reply
If the price drops enough: Dennō Coil.
[+] [-] Whitespace|12 years ago|reply
I'm on a Retina 15" MBP – a laptop that their target demographic will be using – and I can barely make it through the site to try to piece together information about their product.
Am I supposed to scrounge up an external mouse with a scroll wheel and be impressed by the CSS3 transitions? I'm seeing this more and more and I'm really confused how something like this makes it through QA.
[+] [-] bede|12 years ago|reply
Hopefully they're less tolerant of poor framerates in their actual product, which sounds very exciting.
[+] [-] TillE|12 years ago|reply
I've seen weird scrolling used reasonably well when most of the content is text, but in this case it really should just be a video.
[+] [-] NamTaf|12 years ago|reply
Stop doing this, people. It's a horrible idea.
[+] [-] interpol_p|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tree6014|12 years ago|reply
My attention is directed toward the Oculus Rift. I own the dev kit and have been following Oculus VR closely. Save your VR/AR gadget money for their consumer release if you want something that lives up to the hype and delivers on its promises.
[+] [-] 2013throwaway|12 years ago|reply
Anyways, that was a crazy ship date they were never going to meet, even if their CAD had been completely 100% finalized and locked, it would have taken them that long just to make the tooling, let alone manufacture a run of parts. Maybe next time they hire 25 people at least one of them should know manufacturing.
[+] [-] goldenkey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2013throwaway|12 years ago|reply
They were crazy to announce such an early ship date. Maybe none of those 25 people know about manufacturing...
[+] [-] smallegan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinglizard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aresant|12 years ago|reply
Apple's genius in their early iphone commercials was showing the product as it was seamlessly integrated into our daily lives.(1)
Email, video, maps, real internet on the go. As soon as you saw the commercial you knew you were going to buy one because you knew how it would benefit you.
I have yet to have that sort of connection with any sort of wearable AR device.
(1) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4acWkNihaxc
[+] [-] qq66|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nemo1618|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alwaysinshade|12 years ago|reply
If the device was only a few hundred dollars to purchase then the marketing video might have had some merit. But at 3k, you're selling to people who want to know how it really performs, and what technical trickery Mann might have introduced to make it an exciting human-machine interface.
[+] [-] catch23|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rohunati|12 years ago|reply
I ask because it seems contrary to the importance of solving a problem. With SpaceGlasses, the users run around deciding how the product can enrich their lives. Seems pretty odd.
I've found that with lots of successful tech products, I've been able to pretty quickly see the how I could use it in my everyday life. The iPhone is the classic example, but even search, email, Facebook. I don't really see that here. I'm pretty young though, so my experience is really limited. Also, I realize my personal experience doesn't make for a very strong argument. Still, it's a pretty terrible pitch.
[+] [-] daeken|12 years ago|reply
Does this mean 1280x720 for each display, or combined? That's a bit vague. Still, this is quite neat; the resolution was what made me not back their first Kickstarter. Maybe this is worth throwing a couple grand into, to see what comes out.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|12 years ago|reply
They're going to have to show much less marketing hype and much more practical use. Especially for a $3000 pre-order.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rj9nMJq1Vk
[+] [-] riobard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|12 years ago|reply
(Don't get me wrong -- they look cool and I'd love to try it out. And there might be a business, here. But it reminds me of the Segway: Touted as the revolutionizer of cities, but in the end something with limited utility once the hype-wave settled.)
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
Add in ear buds that can open a valve (rather than be removed) and you could do all sorts of things. Virtually furnished rooms, watching virtual displays in any position, any angle, etc. TVs and monitors could well become obsolete if the resolution is enough to simulate them.
I wonder if it would even be possible to set your goggles to show other wearers in your home and office as though they weren't wearing theirs, even if they were. Some sort of internal eye-tracking could potentially simulate their eyes realistically enough if the uncanny valley could be surpassed.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MojoJolo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayoone|12 years ago|reply
Id love my virtual AR 70 inch high res computer display though, so i hope they succeed ;)
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWPdAhhUWD0
[+] [-] grannyg00se|12 years ago|reply
Personally I could do without all that - I just want a really nice looking virtual 2D screen projected in front of me so I can finally ditch my fixed-in-place monitor.
[+] [-] zcase|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] locusm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mercnet|12 years ago|reply