If Google Glass and Oculus Rift had a weird baby, this would be the result.
When science fiction has been demanding something for 70 years, there might be something there. But if it's been possible for 20 and nobody bit, it's possible that there are practical reasons blocking its adoption. That whole "360 degree view" thing of VR goggles has been trotted out for about 30 years now, but nobody wants it. They still want giant walls of monitors. The reasons are simple: the resolution isn't there yet. Give me a head-mounted display whose resolution is such that I will never see aliasing or pixels, and head-mounted displays are great. Otherwise they're a cheap also-ran compared to a conventional display. The "let's use our hands" thing is another trope going back before the Nintendo Power Glove. There's nothing wrong with the gloves - people wear gloves professionally all the time so there must be something wrong with humungous gestures. And, in fact, if you examine the ergonomics of every kinetic control system ever developed, you'll discover that minimizing gross motor control is always the most important task. That said, I finally saw a head-mounted display that makes sense: That's a Skully AR-1, pride of kickstarter, vaporware fave of bikers everywhere. When it comes out it'll be $1500 and I for one am happy to wait for Gen II or Gen III. I like my motorcycle helmets to protect my skull first and foremost. But this, right here, provides a reason for VR: 1) On many bikes, the rearview mirrors are worthless. On my KLR they did nothing over 35 because they vibrated too much. On Ducatis they legendarily provide a great view of your elbows. But my friend Skully here has a 180 degree rear-view camera, which it shoots right below your right eye. 2) My hands are busy and deep in their gauntlets. I'm not tapping shit right now. Voice activation is a great solution. 3) If my choice is "looking slightly down" or "staring at my crotch" to see a map, I'll look slightly down. I can see this making sense for snowboarding or skiing. I can see it (or something like it) making sense on a bicycle. And we'll happily pay extra and that's okay because this actually solves a problem we have, rather than providing a solution that looks cool to a problem we aren't currently experiencing. It doesn't require me to use "gestures" either.
Only microsoft could take AR technology and make it look boring and commonplace. Where's the fucking sci-fi? Where's all the enthusiasm that should come with being able to change any part of what the world around you looks like? Why the hell would you advertise the weather as icons and numbers on a wall? Why not make looking into the wall like looking into the future? Storms and hurricanes or even just pretty landscapes and rendered art. Even if you're limited by resolution, framework, whatever the constraint, you can still find some art style that doesn't feel boring and hollow. Fucking rotating motorcycle? Show people molding skin with z-brush. Show a coach drawing his next play and a player seeing a model of themselves moving through the play. Why would I want Windows tiles on my wall? They look ugly even on my computer. Render a zerg skin shader over snakes surrounding my music. Make my walls sports-themed (or dota themed in my case). Show your product being the defining product for the decade. Don't let grey it with a corporate mindset. Let me insert Seinfeld into my morning walk. Let me theme the world in my own way, I know what I'd do ( or ). Fuck. Maybe Apple will not fail to have a vision on this (but hey, it probably won't be affordable). At least give it a decent API for others to play around with, too.
I wonder what they perceive as the target market, gaming? I can see industry uses and gaming, but if it's going to be mapping on my physical world, it has to be as subtle as eyeglasses. Someone needs to make eyeglasses that can do this and link to the computer in your pocket or on your wrist.
Microsoft, I believe, still believes in buying markets. Their constant crowing about how fast the Kinect sold, for example: Sure, throw millions of dollars at titles that require Kinect, you're going to drive rapid adoption. That doesn't mean people particularly like interacting with Kinect. Microsoft was also shoving tablet PCs down everyone's throats long before the iPad... and now, in an era of iPads, they're still trying to convince you that the iPad they're selling you is better than an iPad because it's also a tablet PC. The original Surface - their multi-touch table - was a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem, as most VR doohickies tend to be.
This is a problem of energy density as much as anything. There just isn't room to fit all of the electronics (even if you offload the heavy processing) and enough battery to run them for ~6-8 hours in the form factor of traditional eyeglasses. Of course, both component size and battery energy density are getting better all the time, but not at a rate that will allow for the HoloLens product to be shrunk to that degree in less than 5-10 years. That said, I tend to agree that we need to hit that point before we see widespread adoption.Someone needs to make eyeglasses that can do this and link to the computer in your pocket or on your wrist.