![]() The expensive pricing is another major thing Magic Leap is getting wrong-perhaps the company is having supply or manufacturing issues, but regardless, it is on track to repeat Google Glass’s mistake of being too expensive for consumers’ tastes (and we all remember how that turned out). Magic Leap isn’t doing a lot of outreach, although is holding its LeapCon developer conference on October 9 th and 10 th and I’m sure we’ll hear more about it there.Īt a price tag of $2,300, I won’t be putting the money down for a headset of my own. Microsoft made this same mistake with Hololens and left many people disappointed. Nevertheless, the FoV does not match the experiences that Magic Leap teased in its promotional videos. The headset still has a relatively narrow FoV compared to other VR headsets (like StarVR, with its 210 degrees of FoV), but I have seen some developers cleverly address these limitations with their well-designed applications. My experiences support these impressions. ![]() Still, first impressions have been mostly positive about the Magic Leap One itself, with people saying it has a wider FoV than the Hololens and good image quality. Different companies appear to be taking different approaches to AR and VR compute placement, and with AR glasses you generally have less space to work with than VR. ![]() It could be argued that putting the compute into a separate piece of hardware helps reduce head strain and improve performance, but I suspect that Magic Leap just isn’t there yet in terms of the technology necessary to make it fully standalone. Magic Leap didn’t do that, opting instead to put the compute inside of a clip-on wired hockey puck which has active cooling inside. Hololens also has the benefit of having integrated compute built into the headset. This is virtually an eternity in a bleeding edge market like immersive computing. Snark aside, the Magic Leap One looks like a slightly sleeker Hololens-a set that is multiple years old. Perhaps Magic Leap should have spent less time and resources trying to impress celebrities and other influencers with the headset and more towards getting it to a place where it doesn’t look like early-2000s futuristic Oakley goggles. I’m talking about those consumer-facing YouTube videos that the company published showing off the capabilities of its headset. It spent far too much time and effort trying to make the technology look cooler than what’s actually possible today. Magic Leap’s first mistake was that it hyped its product beyond what it could deliver. While Magic Leap’s valuation may make it seem like a giant, its biggest competitors could easily spend an equivalent to the startup’s valuation in a single year on their XR ambitions. On the other hand, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google have way more resources and are more willing to acquire and license technologies where it makes sense. Sure, it’s got over $1 billion, but it also has a lot more expenses than other companies. This fundamentally puts limitations on what Magic Leap can accomplish with its capital and resources. However, Magic Leap’s approach to developing its headset and platform is both time and capital intensive, since it seeks to do almost everything in-house. To date, Magic Leap has raised by far the most money of any startup in the immersive computing space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |