The Magic Leap Con (gizmodo.com) 173
Reader merbs shares a report about Magic Leap, a US-based startup valued at north of $6 billion and which counts Google, Alibaba, Warner Bros, AT&T, and several top Silicon Valley venture capital firms as its investors. The company, which held its first developer conference this week, announced that it is making its $2,295 AR headset available in more states in the United States. Journalist Brian Merchant attended the conference and shares the other part of the story. From a story: After spending two days at LEAPcon, I feel it is my duty -- in the name of instilling a modicum of sanity into an age where a company that has never actually sold a product to a consumer can be worth a billion dollars more than the entire GDP of Fiji -- to inform you that it is not. Magic Leap clearly wants its public launch to appear huge -- who wouldn't? In decidedly Magic Leapian fashion, the company covered an entire side of LA Mart, the 12-story building in downtown Los Angeles where the conference was to be held, with a psychedelic image of an astronaut and the tagline 'Free Your Mind'. In similarly Leapian fashion, the actual demos and keynote took place in the basement, where a wrong turn could land you in shipping and receiving and cell reception was nil.
[...] You know that weird sensation when it feels like everyone around you is participating in some mild mass hallucination, and you missed the dosing? The old 'what am I possibly missing here' phenomenon? That's how I felt at LEAP a lot of the time, amidst crowds of people dropping buzzwords and acronym soup at light speed, and then again while I was reading reviews of the device afterwards -- somehow, despite years of failing to deliver anything of substance, lots of the press is still in Leap's thrall. Demo after demo, I felt like, sure, that was kind of neat. The games were charming, if often glitchy and simplistic, and yes, it might be helpful for architects to be able to blow up and walk around their designs. I liked the developers, who were smart and funny. Some of the graphics and interactions were very nicely rendered. But there wasn't anything -- besides a single demo, which I'll get to in a second -- that I'd feel compelled to ever do again. It felt genuinely crazy to me that people could get too excited about this, especially after years of decent VR and the Hololens, without having a distinct monetary incentive to do so.
As many have noted, the hardware is still extremely limiting. The technology underpinning these experiences seems genuinely advanced, and if it were not for a multi-year blitzkrieg marketing campaign insisting a reality where pixels blend seamlessly with IRL physics was imminent, it might have felt truly impressive. (Whether or not it's advanced enough to eventually give rise to Leap's prior promises is an entirely open question at this point.) For now, the field of vision is fairly small and unwieldy, so images are constantly vanishing from view as you look around. If you get too close to them, objects will get chopped up or move awkwardly. And if you do get a good view, some objects appear low res and transparent; some looked like cheap holograms from an old sci-fi film. Text was bleary and often doubled up in layers that made it hard to read, and white screens looked harsh -- I loaded Google on the Helio browser and immediately had to shut my eyes. Further reading: Magic Leap is Pushing To Land a Contract With US Army To Build AR Devices For Soldiers To Use On Combat Missions, Documents Reveal.
[...] You know that weird sensation when it feels like everyone around you is participating in some mild mass hallucination, and you missed the dosing? The old 'what am I possibly missing here' phenomenon? That's how I felt at LEAP a lot of the time, amidst crowds of people dropping buzzwords and acronym soup at light speed, and then again while I was reading reviews of the device afterwards -- somehow, despite years of failing to deliver anything of substance, lots of the press is still in Leap's thrall. Demo after demo, I felt like, sure, that was kind of neat. The games were charming, if often glitchy and simplistic, and yes, it might be helpful for architects to be able to blow up and walk around their designs. I liked the developers, who were smart and funny. Some of the graphics and interactions were very nicely rendered. But there wasn't anything -- besides a single demo, which I'll get to in a second -- that I'd feel compelled to ever do again. It felt genuinely crazy to me that people could get too excited about this, especially after years of decent VR and the Hololens, without having a distinct monetary incentive to do so.
As many have noted, the hardware is still extremely limiting. The technology underpinning these experiences seems genuinely advanced, and if it were not for a multi-year blitzkrieg marketing campaign insisting a reality where pixels blend seamlessly with IRL physics was imminent, it might have felt truly impressive. (Whether or not it's advanced enough to eventually give rise to Leap's prior promises is an entirely open question at this point.) For now, the field of vision is fairly small and unwieldy, so images are constantly vanishing from view as you look around. If you get too close to them, objects will get chopped up or move awkwardly. And if you do get a good view, some objects appear low res and transparent; some looked like cheap holograms from an old sci-fi film. Text was bleary and often doubled up in layers that made it hard to read, and white screens looked harsh -- I loaded Google on the Helio browser and immediately had to shut my eyes. Further reading: Magic Leap is Pushing To Land a Contract With US Army To Build AR Devices For Soldiers To Use On Combat Missions, Documents Reveal.
Well of course (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's times, hard work is replaced by fast talk. Valid for most new products, TBH.
Magic Leap isn't magic, or leap.
The problem is impatient people (Score:3, Insightful)
Some technology problems are just harder. I'm still optimistic about various fusion reactor companies that have been working for 15 or more years on it.
The issue is whether significant progress is being made or not. It is, so shut up
Re:The problem is impatient people (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the OP point is that companies with primary business in those areas, such as the fusion rector companies you mention, typically aren't worth six billion. Also there's a missing citation for "significant progress".
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. My point is that letting the facts talk was replaces by letting the talk be a fact instead. What scares me is that everyone else buys into the talk and jump around like monkeys who see a picture of a banana.
Sometimes I feel like a normal dude who just fell into Stupidland.
Re:The problem is impatient people (Score:5, Insightful)
The new generation, who get pissed off when a click takes longer than half a second, can't be bothered to wait for new technology that might take 10 or more years to develop to some kind of semi-maturity. So they throw a tantrum when version 1 isn't all that and a bag of chips.
I see it as a three step process.
Step 1: Hype something beyond all recognition.
Step 2: Fail to live up to hype
Step 3: Complain about an impatient "new generation" to cover for failure to have sufficient integrity to be honest with people from the beginning.
The issue is whether significant progress is being made or not. It is, so shut up and take your meds.
This isn't the authors issue. It's something you just made up.
Re:The problem is impatient people (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing. When a real problem is being solved, the tech that addresses it is used DESPITE its issues. Like Word Perfect embedded formatting characters you had to manage yourself because WYSIWYG tech didn't actually quite work yet. But office secretaries everywhere were forced to learn that crap because the value of editing a doc and reprinting it was too valuable to pass up.
VR is not like this. No one really uses it to solve a real problem, in any form. And so instead of the tech naturally moving forward by necessity and use, it moves forward by marketing and for research purposes. When it does finally work, it will be used in a few places, but it will never really go mainstream because it isn't solving a mainstream problem. If it were, we'd already be using it and tolerating its issues instead of saying they have to be fixed first.
Re: (Score:3)
> VR is not like this. No one really uses it to solve a real problem, in any form.
Nonsense. VR is a niche learning tool.
Over fear of heights [youtube.com]
High voltage training [youtube.com]
> but it will never really go mainstream because it isn't solving a mainstream problem.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
Re:The problem is impatient people (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Google etc are investing in AR is because they see it as the next user interface for ubiquitous computing, after the smart phone screen.
An Android smart phone (and the Google AI cloud behind it) are already incredibly context-aware and offering you suggestions and ads based on where you are and what it knows you're doing.
AR done right gives the world a new hi-res google maps type overlay, with info on what you're looking at, and of course, better targeted, directionally valid, ads.
Maybe this isn't a real problem to be solved. But a person with an F-35 helmet (and attached F-35) can kill you faster. And a person augmented with AR backed by Google-ish AI is just going to be generally more informed and capable, when interacting with the world around them.
At last, they will be able to walk directly toward and into the best Asian restaurant within 3 blocks, and get the last seat before the bumbling fool desperately finger-fumbling their smartphone of yesteryear. That's the vision anyway. Oh, and of course you can do your own plumbing.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose he could swing it by the straps as a kind of improvised flail.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd use AR to solve the problem of annoying ads. Just like we have ad blockers for the web, we could have ad blockers for real life.
Re: (Score:2)
At last, they will be able to walk directly toward and into the best Asian restaurant within 3 blocks, and get the last seat before the bumbling fool desperately finger-fumbling their smartphone of yesteryear. That's the vision anyway. Oh, and of course you can do your own plumbing.
"Best Asian restaurant" means what? I am afraid it will really mean the one that gives the biggest kickback to the company you are leasing your glasses software from. (Which is not to say it will be a bad restaurant, because they surely are willing to pay more if they are good enough to get repeat business. But "best" is a non-falsifiable claim.)
The last one is intriguing, but I think it will prove easier to replace doctors with software than plumbers. It is a worthy futuristic idea, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
AR done right is still missing the most critical of all pieces ... a lightweight, high resolution, volumetric display.
It's not clear (to anyone) that those pieces can be put together before next decade. Until then all we really have is various versions of a HUD which while sometimes interesting, us ultimately more of a hindrance that a help.
A halfway point would be a HUD that can shift focal distance combined with an eye tracking system to place the HUD focal distance to match where the user is looking.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true of VR... it isn't true of MR. MR does address a number of problems. The tech has a way to go, it'll be there when it is finally compacted into a set of light glasses that pairs with your phone and a great field of view with a better than 16hr battery life (which means 25hr+ rating so it continues to be that way) and that charges fast enough to be ready tomorrow.
The present tech is much better than merchant describes. Text isn't blurry if properly calibrated but doing that when you have dozens o
Re: (Score:3)
When it does finally work, it will be used in a few places, but it will never really go mainstream because it isn't solving a mainstream problem.
I'm not sure if "lack of VR porn" is an actual problem, but whoever "solves" it is going to be making so much money they won't know what to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that actually exists and works. No worries there, porn is THE leading media industry in terms of tech adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2 is actually the banksters who are funding and charging fees for the IPO also hype the product and of course step 3 IPO, the big cash in. Step 4 golden parachutes for the executive team or if they fucked up the con, well, a custodial sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought step 3 was "rant about short sellers".
[takes cover]
Re:The problem is impatient people (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you didn't chose one company and invest muc (Score:5, Insightful)
It's entirely possible that *someone* will *eventually* come out with an economically feasible fusion reactor.
The odds that any particular company will do so in the next few years, before I retire, is very small. I wouldn't invest in any particular company that is based on trying to build a fusion reactor. Heck, even if they successfully build one, the company will fail if someone else builds a better one, or builds a similar one sooner.
So it is with Magic Leap. Sure maybe someday some company will have success with something like this. If it's any other company other than Magic Leap, investors in Magic Leap lose. If Magic Leap does it, then someone else quickly copies them and comes out with a better version, Magic Leap loses. If Magic Leap does it, does it first, and nobody follows up with a better version, Magic Leap investors still lose if it takes too long. There about many ways this can go, and almost all of the possibilities would be bad news for people who invested in Magic Leap.
It's similar to another stock. The largest, most successful auto company in the entire world is worth about $50 billion. Another company with less than 1% of their sales is also valued at about $50 billion at their current stock price. Sure Tesla might eventually grow by 50000% and become the world's largest car company, but there are hundreds of ways for that to end up not happening, and the stock assumes it already has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Heck, even if they successfully build one, the company will fail if someone else builds a better one, or builds a similar one sooner.
With this mentality I don't think you'd be comfortable investing in any company.
Investing, not gambling. Walmart, P&G, Wrigley (Score:2)
I'm not comfortable *gambling* my retirement on any company that has never produced a saleable product.
I *invest* in companies which regularly produce good and profitable products and have continued to do so for a log time. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Walmart, Quaker Oats, etc. If P&G's new product, Tide Ultra Max, doesn't do well that's okay. They'll continue to do just fine as a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I'm more on the investing = gambling side of things.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we were more than happy to look forward to Oculus 2.0 and HoloLens 2.0.
But Magic Leap said "we've created this lightfield display that's like nothing you've ever seen!"
And then launched HoloLens v1.1 that we've had for years already. The Segway did the same thing. "This is going to revolutionize transportation. You'll all own a segway in a few years! Hilariously 10 years later electric scooters are insanely popular but only the cheapest most simple implementation imaginable.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a magic leap set. Merchant is off here. The magic leap technology does need more polish to go mainstream. In fact I'd estimate about five years but to suggest it isn't amazing is way off base.
Was it over-hyped vs where it is at? Yes, absolutely. Is this the next evolution in computing? Yes. The current set is basically a release because everyone was claiming they were total vaporware IMHO. As a developer device to get ahead in a new field it is wonderful to have a piece of. Where they are at serious
Re: (Score:2)
Today's times? Fast talkers have been selling snake oil since the invention of talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Snake oil sellers were selling an actual product and lying about its ingredients, or properties. Today's sellers don't even have a product most of the time. They are selling a theoretical product, and even more successfully.
Re:All you need.... (Score:5, Funny)
That''s the magic part!
Hard to claim Magic Leap is that much a con (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about Magic Leap is, they actually built what they said they would. Maybe it's expensive, maybe it's still shipping in limited numbers, maybe the technical capabilities are less than what some expected. But they still have delivered real hardware. So to me, I do not feel like it's a con. I feel like it's a perfectly valid attempt to move augmented reality forward - and whoever does it, the first steps are going to be clunky and take an enormous about of money.
The question of why so many people
Re:Hard to claim Magic Leap is that much a con (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly the product that a good number of people want and vote for with their attention, so it's difficult to fault anyone for giving the good people what they desire. And this is hardly some recent event lest anyone think the world has gone to hell recently. I don't recall a time when the checkout lines at the grocery stores didn't have the National Enquirer or similar tabloids for sale. There's always been a market for sensationalist crap.
Re: (Score:3)
I see what you are saying and (and kind of agree based on things like that whale in the gym marketing), but these days I guess over-hyped marketing is so expected that you kind of discount that from the start?
That is to say, I personally was not all that surprised at what they delivered vs. what the marketing said they would have. Frankly I was actually more surprised they delivered anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
they actually built what they said they would
maybe the technical capabilities are less than what some expected
So didn't build what they said they would.
That's just the point. For all the talk that Magic Leap put into (including the company name itself), what was delievered was to a certain degree, ... meh.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Magic Leap. It's VR and AR completely. Where does it fit in the broader world? What real problem does it solve?
My work is trying to shoehorn AR in somehow and so far the best we've managed to use it for is glorified QR codes.
It is not... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
After spending two days at LEAPcon, I feel it is my duty -- in the name of instilling a modicum of sanity into an age where a company that has never actually sold a product to a consumer can be worth a billion dollars more than the entire GDP of Fiji -- to inform you that it is not.
It is not what?
See, this is what happens when you don't have anyone actually editing what gets submitted...
(For anyone who cares the answer is: it is not going to be "huge")
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is not... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, "--" should be a long dash.
Secondly, the sentence is supposed to still make sense when you remove everything between the two dashes.
"After spending two days at LEAPcon, I feel it is my duty [...] to inform you that it is not."
That's how the sentence is written and wonkey_monkey is right to complain.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a quote from TFA and it makes perfect sense. It is not worth more than the GDP of Fiji.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that in TFA, it clearly refers to the preceding sentence. The sentence itself is OK, in context. As someone else points out, grammatically you should be able to remove everything within the dashes and still have a coherent sentence. You can't do that - clearly - if the referent is the GDP of Fiji. You can do it in the original, because the referent is '"It's going to be huge"'. It is the author's duty to tell you it isn't going to be huge, which is completely lost in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for dashes and parentheses as well, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in TFA, it refers to the preceeding sentence, where it is claimed MagicLeap will be "huge." It does not refer to the part between the dashes because that's not how written English works.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is what happens when you don't understand what a quote is and why you aren't supposed to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the article, the quote refers to a preceeding sentence which has been removed in the summary.
Quotes absolutely should be changed if you aren't going to include their original context.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get it (Score:2)
"It felt genuinely crazy *
To believe this, you need a leap of faith ....or magic. :-)
The next Theranos? (Score:2)
DId you see any hot blondes with Barry White-on-whiskey voices there?
Film at eleven. (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Maybe it's just me (Score:1)
And the ZX spectrum investors are all trillionaires today!
Magic Leap is crap tech. The HTC Vive sells more, does the same in VR, but has way more support. Rift too. Windows Mixed Reality is about the same as this, but a tenth the price. Or HoloLens for much better support at the same price.
I run a custom WMR rig, superimposed over a low latency 1080 cam feed. I wouldn't want to play table tennis with it on, but golf, and noncompetitive levels of sports like basketball that aren't millisecond reaction based
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that more is possible?
Application development.
Do you think processors are going to get faster?
Yes, they are [wired.com]. Moore's Law "being dead" doesn't mean processors aren't getting faster. It just means the industry no longer doubles the number of transistors every two years.
Also, Spectrum was never "valued" at $6 billion.
Ok?
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, it is clear the problem is not that this is less cool than the ZX spectrum back in its day. But what if they told you back then, the ZX spectrum is worth 6 billion years before making it to market? Would you find that sane?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but this feels like reading a review my Grandmother might write if I put her in front of a ZX Spectrum in the early 80s. I don't think as much about what's available now as what is possible.
Quite a fitting comparison since most of the technological progressions that made computers what they are were ultimately not provided by Sinclaire.
Likewise, AR is an amazing field with amazing potential. Unfortunately there's nothing magical nor a great leap provided by this product.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, AR is an amazing field with amazing potential.
Agreed, as I said:
I don't think as much about what's available now as what is possible.
Magic Leap Con (Score:1)
When the bubble is going to burst? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, when the market will realise the king is naked and finally adjust?
Re: (Score:2)
Never being profitable isn't a problem. The goal is to get lots of users and then get bought out by someone like Facebook. Maybe Facebook can make some money using your app to drive users to get a Facebook account, harvesting their data or whatever, but your app itself doesn't need to have any potential to be profitable on its own.
I don't understand the hate (Score:5, Interesting)
The ML1 isn't cheap, but its price really isn't out of line with what you'd spend if you bought an Oculus Rift and a gaming laptop comparable to what's inside the ML1's LightPack controller.
If anything, the single biggest problem with mixed/augmented/virtual reality today is that it really needs way more horsepower than any mainstream (let alone cheap) consumer device currently has. Current hardware is kind of like a NeXT back when it was the computer to die for... lots of promise & future-looking software, running on hardware that just wasn't quite fast enough to satisfy people's expectations.
In all honesty, XR (my favorite umbrella term for mixed/augmented/virtual reality) is what the currently-moribund PC industry NEEDS... an excuse to RADICALLY increase computing power. We haven't had an excuse like that for 10 years. The same beefed-up hardware that will enable realtime XR applications with low latency and fluid animation will finally give us things like "Aero Diamond" (Aero-like Windows graphics, but with realtime-raytraced eyecandy and translucency effects) once even a mid-range laptop has the equivalent of today's most expensive hardware.
NVidia has taken the next step towards realtime hardware-accelerated raytracing, and Intel & AMD have started moving into 8+ core 5+GHz territory. Pair the display hardware of a ML1 or Hololens with a 16-core i9 running at 4.5-5GHz with 64gb of RAM, a 2TB SSD, and a top of the line dual-slot NVidia GPU (call it "personal cloud"), and watch the real magic happen. Pair the same display tech with the equivalent of a high-end Android phone, and prepare to be kind of underwhelmed, just like we were 25 years ago with NeXTSTEP. The fundamental idea is good, it just needs radically more-powerful computer hardware driving it to make it truly awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're mixing up cause and effect here. It's not that the computer industry doesn't *want* to radically improve hardware speeds. It's becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to do so. We're no longer on track with Moore's law due to physics, not from a lack of effort.
Re: I don't understand the hate (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the reason computing power stalled was due to hitting die-shrinkage limits, but much of it is due to the expectation that modern hardware has to be dirt cheap. I paid around $2500 for an a
Amiga 3000 circa 1992. What kind of a beast of raw, brute-force AMD64 power could you build TODAY with that same inflation-adjusted amount (say, ~$7,000)? If people still routinely bought $2,500-3,200 laptops & tolerated inch-thick 10lb form-factors, what kind of laptop power COULD we have now?
Thin, light, and power-sipping has won for now... and the computer industry needs a reason to say, "fuck all three, give me a backpack-sized mainframe". AR *is* that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that a large part depends upon how you distribute the weight and handle your physical connectivity. Twenty points on your upper back is tiring. Ten pounds on your head is worse. Forty pounds anchored to your hips is just an alternative to "leg day" at the gym (or a few hours on a Stairmaster, or cleaning your house and making 200 trips up and down the stairs). Your legs & hips can handle a fair amount of weight without much impact (assuming you're reasonably in shape to begin with).
Likewise, i
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a case to be made for having a gradient of capabilities and power options.
For example, if you just want environmental metadata (a-la-Google Glass), that doesn't necessarily require a lot of local horsepower (and generally DOES require good, low-latency network connectivity), so cordless/wireless functionality is important and totally do-able.
On the other hand, if you're doing 3D CAD work, or things like you'd commonly see on a TV show like "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.", being tethered to both loc
I don't understand the mobility. (Score:2)
I partially agree. Horsepower needed? Definitely. Portable horsepower needed? Most definitely because for AR to reach the potential as depicted in games, and fiction, it has to be portable. In VR you bring the universe to you, and can afford to be tied down. In AR you go to what's in the universe, and modify thusly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't understand the hate (Score:2)
> There are no ways that we know of to radically increase computer power.
Of COURSE there are. They just aren't cheap, low-power, or within the capabilities of semi-passive cooling.
Do you REALLY believe that an agglomeration of i9-class CPUs (in good old fashioned SMP, not performance-compromised multicore chips) with water cooling & the kind of heat output we accepted as normal in the Pentium 4 era can't radically raise the performance bar?
We've settled for stagnated performance in a race to cheaper
Re: I don't understand the hate (Score:3)
The current software giants have explicitly said you may NOT *own* such software because ye ole Microsoft model led to people going too many years on plenty good enough Windows XP / 7 and Office 2003/2010. You will be advertised to, you m
Re: I don't understand the hate (Score:2)
Disagree. The problem with ML1 isnâ(TM)t computing power at all, itâ(TM)s the diffraction grating. All the computing power in the world isnâ(TM)t going to get you more than two focal planes, a wider field of view, occlusion of objects in the real world or overhead lights that donâ(TM)t turn into rainbows.
What they promised was a new optical technology that brings the future of AR we all imagine onto our faces today. What we got was a slightly better diffraction grating. Personally I
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that at some point these things will take off.
But... look at the kids. Are they fighting to get the latest VR headsets, etc.? No. I watched a TV program the other day with a VR rollercoaster ride. The bit you can do at home (watch a movie of a rollercoaster that you can look around in) is... well... boring. The bit you can't do at home (sit in a seat that throws you about in time to the images) is the fun bit.
If VR were anywhere close to taking off then you'd see it in things like arcad
In other words (Score:1)
It's the tech equivalent of Theranos. Although in this case, there are no public investors, only unicorns and such.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be better off buying a 2nd hand Hololens. And I'm not a MS fan BTW.
Presbyopia (Score:4, Insightful)
All these AR glasses and related systems are being developed by the kids, who have no issues with focusing on near and far objects at the same time. Anyone over 50 is going to have problems with presbyopia destroying the illusion. Either you can correct for near or far, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue the opposite point... the constraints imposed by present-day AR/MR systems generally match the limits imposed by age-induced presbyopia on someone who was myopic to begin with. If you can't comfortably focus on things that are closer than 15-20 inches without eyestrain (or at all), a 1-meter "near" focal plane isn't much of a limit anyway. Likewise, if you can't clearly see things that are more than 10 feet away without glasses due to residual myopia, a 3-meter "distant" focal plane is about as fa
$5 (Score:2)
Do you need five fish, or will you take a pepperoni and two soups?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need five fish
Today's fish is Trout a la Creme, enjoy your meal.
Re: (Score:2)
FISH!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...FISH!