I think Microsoft re-branding Augmented reality as "holographic" is hugely impactful and, with the new wave of AR and CV products that are coming onto the market [1] might be the thing that makes people take it seriously.
It's just so much easier to explain to people what it is if you say Holographic vs Augmented Reality - even though it is technically wrong. Kudos to MSFT for making that leap.
I totally agree. AR made and makes ZERO sense to my non-technical spouse and family. Holographic makes total sense. It's a clever rebranding and it will help sell ALL AR platforms, IMHO.
It makes no sense at all if you think of an actual hologram, but makes perfect sense if you think of a Star Trek hologram. This is like a wearable holodeck. Just add a haptic body suit (no doubt in the works)!
From their marketing material, they pretend they figured a way to fake depth. If true, that would be a huge step compared to classic stereoscopic technologies or other cumbersome devices.
However, I doubt this is the case, else they wouldn't just slap this announcement at the end of a boring Windows 10 presentation. I mean, all I could remember about this presentation was: "Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10 with HOLOGRAMS using Windows 10! Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10."
Pretty much everything in this space is incorrect on some level. People casually call the Oculus "VR" when its just a HMD. The VR is going to be the software that works with the HMD. This is like calling a joystick a game.
Personally, I like the hologram branding. Its like the Star Trek holodeck, which invokes a really neat sense of futurism.
Its turned into shorthand for "seeing objects in space that aren't really there". They could have also gone with "compugraphic hallucinations" or "pink elephant computing".
Visidraft might be useful for an idea at our company. The video looks good but the "Get Visdraft Now" button doesn't do anything. Is it available yet? Pricing?
I tuned out when I read this: "Sensors flood the device with terabytes of data every second, all managed with an onboard CPU, GPU and first-of-its-kind HPU (holographic processing unit)."
I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s.
They probably confused that with GB. Not sure which sensors would even put out Terabytes per second. Let's assume they have a brand new high dynamic range RGB-D camera that has 32 bits per channel at 60 Hz. To reach 1 TB/s that camera would have to have approx. 1 Gigapixel. --> Not very likely.
I understood it as saying the sensors are reading terabytes of information every second. The data would get selectively loaded into the device based upon the task at hand. I don't see that as far-fetched -- I can hook 100 digital cameras up to my computer and make the same claim.
I got the impression that it was a write up of the demo video, not actually hands on... It's a confusing article and there's no 'real time video or images' of anyone actually interacting with it. I'm actually quite confused as to what this is, bad PR piece - more like a mocumentary on discovery channel...
A current generation Hawsell chip can easily manage terabytes per second in on-chip cache and by manipulating registers.
Eight or more virtual cores plus SIMD operations that can smash against large chunks of data per cycle adds up awfully fast on a 4GHz chip.
They're also probably counting the fact that data flows from one system to another in sequence, but adding up each sequence. Eight streams of 150 gigabytes per second for example.
This doesn't count information that's captured but discarded at the source, processed away before it's transmitted downstream.
It's probably more along the lines of the same data being processed within the same chip. Not actual memory bandwidth. This HPU they are talking about is processing depth information and eye lines (probably quite a bit more often than 60hz), it's quite possible they are processing the same data multiple times over achieving theoretical bandwidth in the TBs. It's disingenuous sure but it's like saying a network with 20 100GB routers can handle terabytes of data.
With the camera, it's easy to understand how they make the objects feel solid - they just overlay it over the video feed. How would that work on the glasses, I have no idea. Does it have LCD shutters that block incoming light where they want to add a "solid" object?
I'm so excited to see this. I cannot wait to try one of these on for the first time. I'm going to bet writing apps for this kit will be a lot of fun.
And all the C# .NET developers can say again, thank you Microsoft since they have committed to one platform, one store, all device types. I think it will be a while yet before there are thousands of developers working on this, but it will grow exponentially for a while.
If this is comfortable for extended wear, it's just going to further increase the value of remote workers. You can't beat time zones, but for everything else, there's holograms.
I really, really want to understand how high fidelity this is.
One point is we aren't seeing it used for video conferencing between two people each wearing a band. Probably because face-on you look pretty silly in it. So it's not quite a natural way to meet people. Just yet. I think it has world changing potential.
But in 2016 or whenever, this will not be selling for $499 or $899, it's more like $3299 I would guess. And really, that's more like the price level we expect for a very high quality gear. Actually, you could realistically go upward of $10k if the quality truly reflects that price.
So of course the next thing I did was check MSFT stock price. $382 billion market cap. This is a $100 billion idea, might be a good time to get back in. I guarantee you, the market has not fully priced in holograms. Just saying it, you know it's true. For now I will choose to believe the hype, because eventually, absolutely, this is all possible.
The goofy look is really just an image processing problem. If it has a camera watching the face (I know it has one watching the eyes), it wouldn't be impossible to reconstruct what the face looks like without the goggles.
It looks really really really impressive! It's a see through pair of glasses so not like Occulus and they said they invented a new technology: HPU. The glasses will have their own GPU, CPU and HPU and will be wireless.
So many questions. I can understand light reflecting into the eye from a microdisplay (using the same principle as a car HUD), but are they actually creating opaque imagery as well? How is that physically possible?
Then there's 3D spatial interaction: In my experience with Leap Motion, Kinect, and other competing tech, the level of accuracy still limits interactions to broad gestures. If they've made a big enough leap in this domain to enable precise object manipulation, that's a major achievement on its own.
Now it makes sense that Google just announced that they're stopping Glass from being sold retail. They did not want to have their device compared to the new product from MS. Actually I see this new device as more prone to success than the Glass. These devices are competing for the same markets: healthcare, education and entertainment. And here Glass is somewhat underpowered.
What are your thoughts about this? I'll tell you mine.
I just watched Google slowly, painfully, realize that Google Glass isn't commercially viable (in it's current form and to the general public). I can't help but feel that this is a larger, albeit more immersive, version of Google Glass.
I only make this point in regards to any plans for a sci-fi, everyday wearable HUD. There is obviously a great demand for this kind of immersion within the gaming community (although I would argue that Oculus will have market control for the forseeable future).
My opinion is that the kind of augmented reality that we all dream of, that sort of matrix-like constant data download, won't become a reality until someone figures out how to take it (visibly) out of human interaction, i.e. with smart contacts, etc. The current tech is just too intrusive in normal human interaction. My understanding is that this kind of tech is still a long way off.
Google Glass was to be used in personal interactions and that put a social barrier in the way of what was some cool technology. It seems that it was way too awkward to be 'glassing' in public no matter how useful or cool the technology was.
HoloLens is pitched to be used in the home and in the workplace, where you can comfortably immerse yourself in that experience without the social implications. This allows the technology to be judged on its own without mixing in the social implications.
I have high hopes for this, at least its a very different experience than what most others are doing (though its obviously taking cues from VR, augmented reality/Google glass etc.)
I agree for this to get 'really big' the form factor has to be a lot more portable, but this is a great stop-gap.
I think this product hits the sweet spot between the Oculus which covers/masks your eyes completely and Google Glass which had a relatively "small" and non immersive screen.
The glass front allows these holograms to appear more naturally to the user all the while still being aware of your surroundings.
The real challenge is not the hardware, but the software and "experiences".
I actually like the fact that it looks a little clunky. No one's going to want to wear this in a bar or restaurant, so the odds of a "Glasshole"-like backlash seem unlikely.
What I find interesting is Microsoft launching this technology just after Google dropped it. I think the focus on business is the right way to go in this case, not everything can start from the consumer, e.g. look at how PC started from a geeky thing for scientists and is now in our pockets and wrists.
I really hope the pinnacle of AR is not as intrusive and uncomfortable (for some) as placing plastic on my eyeball (this seems to be the goto for many people). Either equip the environment, give me eyewear (goggles, then lightweight glasses), and eventually (may be awhile) augmentation implants.
I think you're exactly right. Smart contacts are going to be the next huge computing revolution (punch-cards/no screen -> screen in front of you/keyboard -> small screen in your hand - > virtual big screen on your contacts).
But we're just not there yet tech-wise. And there have to be some intermediate steps along the way (i.e. big ugly glasses/goggles) because it's just going to be too hard to make it commercially viable to go directly to smart contacts.
What Google has shows is that the public won't accept this until it's _awesome_ (and Glass was not awesome). So perhaps the gaming route (Oculus/MSFT) is the path we'll have to take.
I think you're right. If I'm home alone, I don't mind wearing something on my head that covers my eyes. I don't want that if I'm out and about with other people.
Well I'm impressed. I wasn't initially in the stock promo videos but once she put the actual device on and you could see the quality of the hologram, the spatial tracking, etc, pretty impressive. We're also not getting a feel for the sound system built into it. They mentioned in the demo the sound is also projected virtually from where the hologram is located.
I'm curious what the price tag will be? Battery life?
VR is going to be a real game-changer for entertainment, but it's AR that's going to change how we work and live our everyday lives. The key to making VR work is reducing lag, but this is even more important for AR, which carries additional complexity in sensing and blending the virtual with the real. The difficulty of sensing and correctly modelling the real world in real-time is immense. There aren't many companies I'd believe could make the leap directly to functional, useful AR, but MS's experience in gaming, with the Kinect, gives them a huge head-start. This could be the real deal!
I just finished reading Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End [1], and then this comes out!! I want it now!!! This is so the way to go. If you are a SciFi fan, you have probably heard of Vernor's books, if not, I really recommend them. They have actually given me a brighter outlook on the future of humanity :) Apart from Rainbows End, check out Zones of Thought[2] if you want a outlook at what space travel could become in the future.
Back to the AR subject, I much prefer AR over true matrix style VR. Let us stay in the real world, move about the real world, extend it with the virtual.
Skeuomorphic UI design makes a comeback ;) Ironic that after they push for flat UI that this device is going back to 3-D UI (obviously 3-D is the whole point).
It might look bad if light sources of the rendered objects are not consistent with your surroundings.
It makes the Minecraft purchase make a whole lot more sense now.
I mean, it made immediate sense it's a cash cow, but long-term Minecraft is perfect, it's simple, easy, forgiving and fun - a perfect entrance into VR/AR
Why do I get the feeling this is more akin to the trailer to a movie. One that I really really want to like. And with decent editing to fit in a small demo looks bloody awesome. But on arrival will mostly just be boring.
I also feel that the videos give a very misleading sense of what it will look like to see someone using something like this. Unless, I suppose, they have worked out the "shared" experience would be like. (That is, two of these in the same room.)
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|11 years ago|reply
It's just so much easier to explain to people what it is if you say Holographic vs Augmented Reality - even though it is technically wrong. Kudos to MSFT for making that leap.
[1] Shameless plug for (http://www.visidraft.com), my AR CAD company.
[+] [-] shanselman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Coincoin|11 years ago|reply
However, I doubt this is the case, else they wouldn't just slap this announcement at the end of a boring Windows 10 presentation. I mean, all I could remember about this presentation was: "Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10 with HOLOGRAMS using Windows 10! Windows 10. Windows 10. Windows 10."
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
Pretty much everything in this space is incorrect on some level. People casually call the Oculus "VR" when its just a HMD. The VR is going to be the software that works with the HMD. This is like calling a joystick a game.
Personally, I like the hologram branding. Its like the Star Trek holodeck, which invokes a really neat sense of futurism.
[+] [-] BobMarz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ftcHn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pxtl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discardorama|11 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s.
This sounds like a puff PR piece.
[+] [-] tormeh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsp1984|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccallebs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redbeard0x0a|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanv|11 years ago|reply
I'm confused Wire - please clarify
[+] [-] astrodust|11 years ago|reply
Eight or more virtual cores plus SIMD operations that can smash against large chunks of data per cycle adds up awfully fast on a 4GHz chip.
They're also probably counting the fact that data flows from one system to another in sequence, but adding up each sequence. Eight streams of 150 gigabytes per second for example.
This doesn't count information that's captured but discarded at the source, processed away before it's transmitted downstream.
[+] [-] arcticfox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SolarNet|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roywiggins|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rndn|11 years ago|reply
http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us
[+] [-] rbanffy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|11 years ago|reply
And all the C# .NET developers can say again, thank you Microsoft since they have committed to one platform, one store, all device types. I think it will be a while yet before there are thousands of developers working on this, but it will grow exponentially for a while.
If this is comfortable for extended wear, it's just going to further increase the value of remote workers. You can't beat time zones, but for everything else, there's holograms.
I really, really want to understand how high fidelity this is.
One point is we aren't seeing it used for video conferencing between two people each wearing a band. Probably because face-on you look pretty silly in it. So it's not quite a natural way to meet people. Just yet. I think it has world changing potential.
But in 2016 or whenever, this will not be selling for $499 or $899, it's more like $3299 I would guess. And really, that's more like the price level we expect for a very high quality gear. Actually, you could realistically go upward of $10k if the quality truly reflects that price.
So of course the next thing I did was check MSFT stock price. $382 billion market cap. This is a $100 billion idea, might be a good time to get back in. I guarantee you, the market has not fully priced in holograms. Just saying it, you know it's true. For now I will choose to believe the hype, because eventually, absolutely, this is all possible.
[+] [-] machinesofn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CmonDev|11 years ago|reply
Did you factor in the potential disruption by Magic Leap? Retinal projection could be a better bet long-term.
[+] [-] abrahamepton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|11 years ago|reply
It looks really really really impressive! It's a see through pair of glasses so not like Occulus and they said they invented a new technology: HPU. The glasses will have their own GPU, CPU and HPU and will be wireless.
[+] [-] aquark|11 years ago|reply
"Sensors flood the device with terabytes of data every second" ... somehow I doubt the aggregate bandwidth of the device is > 1TB\s
Makes it harder to know how much of the rest of the 'explanations' are accurate.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|11 years ago|reply
Then there's 3D spatial interaction: In my experience with Leap Motion, Kinect, and other competing tech, the level of accuracy still limits interactions to broad gestures. If they've made a big enough leap in this domain to enable precise object manipulation, that's a major achievement on its own.
[+] [-] mnglkhn2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brosky117|11 years ago|reply
I just watched Google slowly, painfully, realize that Google Glass isn't commercially viable (in it's current form and to the general public). I can't help but feel that this is a larger, albeit more immersive, version of Google Glass.
I only make this point in regards to any plans for a sci-fi, everyday wearable HUD. There is obviously a great demand for this kind of immersion within the gaming community (although I would argue that Oculus will have market control for the forseeable future).
My opinion is that the kind of augmented reality that we all dream of, that sort of matrix-like constant data download, won't become a reality until someone figures out how to take it (visibly) out of human interaction, i.e. with smart contacts, etc. The current tech is just too intrusive in normal human interaction. My understanding is that this kind of tech is still a long way off.
I'd love to be wrong though!
[+] [-] tjbarbour|11 years ago|reply
Google Glass was to be used in personal interactions and that put a social barrier in the way of what was some cool technology. It seems that it was way too awkward to be 'glassing' in public no matter how useful or cool the technology was.
HoloLens is pitched to be used in the home and in the workplace, where you can comfortably immerse yourself in that experience without the social implications. This allows the technology to be judged on its own without mixing in the social implications.
I have high hopes for this, at least its a very different experience than what most others are doing (though its obviously taking cues from VR, augmented reality/Google glass etc.)
I agree for this to get 'really big' the form factor has to be a lot more portable, but this is a great stop-gap.
[+] [-] josefresco|11 years ago|reply
The glass front allows these holograms to appear more naturally to the user all the while still being aware of your surroundings.
The real challenge is not the hardware, but the software and "experiences".
[+] [-] CurtHagenlocher|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dewiz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdamFernandez|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlh|11 years ago|reply
But we're just not there yet tech-wise. And there have to be some intermediate steps along the way (i.e. big ugly glasses/goggles) because it's just going to be too hard to make it commercially viable to go directly to smart contacts.
What Google has shows is that the public won't accept this until it's _awesome_ (and Glass was not awesome). So perhaps the gaming route (Oculus/MSFT) is the path we'll have to take.
[+] [-] jgrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benmorris|11 years ago|reply
I'm curious what the price tag will be? Battery life?
[+] [-] fenaer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mentos|11 years ago|reply
Where is your imagination racing to?
[+] [-] Animats|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calgoo|11 years ago|reply
Back to the AR subject, I much prefer AR over true matrix style VR. Let us stay in the real world, move about the real world, extend it with the virtual.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Rainbows-End-Vernor-Vinge/dp/081253636... [2] http://www.amazon.com/A-Deepness-Sky-Zones-Thought/dp/081253...
[Edit: Grammar]
[+] [-] plingamp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameisvlad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BobMarz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliyoung|11 years ago|reply
I mean, it made immediate sense it's a cash cow, but long-term Minecraft is perfect, it's simple, easy, forgiving and fun - a perfect entrance into VR/AR
[+] [-] taeric|11 years ago|reply
I also feel that the videos give a very misleading sense of what it will look like to see someone using something like this. Unless, I suppose, they have worked out the "shared" experience would be like. (That is, two of these in the same room.)