
Modeling the Magic Leap One Experience - GW150914
https://www.kguttag.com/2018/04/13/the-magic-leap-one-experience-part-2-ml1-terrible-view-of-the-real-world/
======
eat_veggies
Google cache link:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.kguttag.com/2018/04/13/the-
magic-leap-one-experience-part-2-ml1-terrible-view-of-the-real-world/)

~~~
kguttag
Thanks,

There are so many hits on the site that it got throttled.

I just upgrade the hosting plan to hopefully solve the problems, but I won't
take effect until 2AM PDT.

------
cromwellian
I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular
fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors.

He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on
whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light
fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience
and content availability. And I really don't think this Kremlinology-based
approach could capture it anymore than people speculating on what the Apple
watch or iPhones would be like based on photos of the device and patents.

~~~
modeless
> whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff
> like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work,
> the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience

You can't separate "consumer experience" from the technology like that. This
is a case where the technology tightly constrains how good the consumer
experience can possibly be. The consumer experience absolutely depends on
whether fiber scanning displays or other new technologies can work, because
tha changes the possible form factor and capabilities of the device.

~~~
cromwellian
I think the AR experience will be far more dependent on rock solid tracking
and pose estimation, ergonomics of the headset, fashionability of the headset,
ability to work in many light conditions, and killer initial apps, than
display resolution or FOV.

Focusing too much on the display itself completely ignores the other aspects
that inhibit adoption. An AR display that had a resolution of 100x100, could
only display a green HUD, but was completely invisible inside a normal pair of
sunglasses or glasses, would completely trump a super high quality fibre
scanning display that was incredibly nerdly and unwieldly looking.

AR is pointless if you can't take it outdoors, if it's in-the-home only, you
may as well go with VR.

~~~
tfha
FOV is pretty important. It's difficult to feel like you are in an augmented
reality if you have to tilt your head just to see the full object in front of
you.

Maybe you could get by with little helper things, but that's just a fancy HUD
and not really AR.

~~~
dkersten
Outside of entertainment, who cares if you feel like you’re in the environment
vs being able to do useful things with it when you want to or need to? Using
AR purely for entertainment doesn’t seem like such a revolutionary thing,
really, especially when we have ok VR. I see some potential advantages for
sure, but enough to make it a mass market nust-have device? I personally don’t
see it.

~~~
dbspin
Much of the affordances of AR will require a higher FOV - irrespective of use
case.

E.g.: Tagging objects, directions and buildings with tracked information,
following characters in the real world etc.

Long term a complete immersive solution - where virtual objects persist in the
real world, will absolutely be more useful and compelling than both VR and
limited FOV AR. Such a solution would literally be able to selectively replace
and amend elements of reality as needed / desired. Although we can't fully
predict it's uses, it seems self evident there would be many more than a
poster sized slice of AR will allow.

------
slg
Just from my anecdotal experience of using the HoloLens, (but not the ML1) the
FOV problem these devices have is more tied to the display size than the
unobstructed view of the real world. You brain will compensate for the
obstructed view and you will forget about it pretty quickly. A larger FOV is
obviously better, but it isn't a deal breaking flaw. The display being limited
to an even smaller area will be something your brain will never get used to.
You will have to be looking directly at a virtual object to see it. As soon as
you slightly turn away the virtual object will disappear and immediately break
any immersion.

~~~
gumby
It's not simply the size of the display device, it's the optics of getting the
image to your eye, at a distance (virtual or real) you can focus on and clear
throughout the whole FOV. A few hours strugglng with Zemax will convince you
it's a Hard Problem.

------
jaggederest
I think the FOV estimates are pessimistic by a good margin, your eye looks
around edging very well, as you can see in binoculars and other low FOV
devices.

The rest is absolutely spot on though, without IPD adjustments any head
mounted display is going to have real problems.

------
ghostbrainalpha
Sorry for the really basic question but why is the narrow field of view a
problem?

This wasn't ever supposed to be like Google Glass, a device that you wear all
day as you walk around. You put the glasses on for a specific experience.

If I'm putting them on to play a game, or read interactive motion comics from
Marvel, I'm fine looking through a smaller window. I used to stare at my
GameBoy screen for hours and its only a couple inch rectangle.

~~~
roywiggins
When you're trying to interact with objects placed around you, and you can't
seem them out of the corner of your eye, it's weird. You're looking at your
desk, and you can see the AR objects placed right in front of you, but
slightly to the left and right, the desk is empty. Swivel your head, and you
can see some more objects, but now the entire left side of your desk is empty.

It's a pretty big problem, it feels like you're looking at the world through a
straw that you have to scan back and forth.

------
vokep
kind of unfortunate but if they can get this out and then do it better the
second time around...

Where have all the billions gone? did they spend it already?

~~~
yborg
>where have all the billions gone?

Hookers and blow, same as always. The good news is that the huge investors who
were hoodwinked here will be highly incentivized to avoid the embarrassment of
shareholder lawsuits. And unlike Theranos, they at least have some kind of
product that does something vaguely related to their claims.

Still, you'd think that at this point the CEO/founder black mock turtleneck
should abort any pitch meeting instantly.

------
capdotnet
its seem all the AR headsets have this "Small view range" problem. ....
Hololens , Magic Leaps, .... Anyone know the view range of the meta 2?

~~~
modeless
Leap Motion (which is _not_ Magic Leap) recently showed a design with a much
larger FOV, using so-called "bird bath" optics (which Meta 2 is also based
on). It's not anything you'd want to actually wear in everyday life, but it
should be an interesting platform for prototyping AR software.
[http://blog.leapmotion.com/northstar/](http://blog.leapmotion.com/northstar/)

~~~
Dibbles
To be fair, VR headsets look ridiculous as well. So, use them in the same
settings and it'd be fine.

~~~
dkersten
But how much does it really buy over VR if you only use it in the same
setting?

~~~
Dibbles
It would buy a lot more if it wouldn't only be in the same setting, but I
think pretty much all current day AR headsets are too dorky to wear on the
subway anyway. But it would still help a lot with office work, being able to
continue working and doing small chores is still a big pro that VR can't
fulfill.

------
matte_black
After all this time (and money) this is really the best they can do? This has
to be some sort of early prototype thing. Surely they will never ship this to
market in it's current form.

------
imh
The title implies (and some commenters seem to believe) that this is about an
actual magic leap product, not a speculative recreation thereof. Can we get a
title change to something like "Recreating a Magic Leap device" or "The view
through a magic leap recreation"

~~~
dang
Sure. I put "model" in the title because that's the word the article uses for
this.

~~~
imh
Thanks. I feel like a good 5-10% of my comments are me curmudgeonly grumbling
about titles. I hope it's not a bother.

~~~
dang
I see it as a collaborative effort by the community to have at least one place
on the internet that isn't driven by baitiness and spin. That seems worth
doing and we're happy to help.

------
h9283y
"The Model-T is a piece of shit. I has hard tires that don't absorb the bumps,
requires a manual crank, and no cup holders."

Seriously, does no one realize product development is a process?

Self-aggrandizing voices like this really turn me off. "Sorry the world didn't
do better by you! We'll all really try harder next time, dad."

~~~
oldgradstudent
The Model-T is a great comparison. It was a commercially successful __product
__, not a prototype under NDA. It also tells you a lot about the state of the
industry.

Ford Motor Company was founded with an investment of $28,000 in 1903, the
equivalent of 34 Model-T cars - say around $2 million now (for a very
expensive $50,000 car).

It was profitable in very short order, selling several models of cars. The
Model-T itself was available for sale in just over 5 years after the company
was founded. Ford innovated in production and product design, and made ground
breaking products available for the masses.

Magic Leap raised $2.3 billion (the equivalent of 46,000 cars) 8 years ago.
Total publicly available output: a few promotional videos.

~~~
Holomakerbot
Magic leap did not raise $2.3b 8 years ago. They raised that amount gradually
over the course of the last 4 years.

