Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 27 2019, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the hollow-holo-promises dept.

Microsoft Significantly Misrepresented HoloLens 2's Field of View at Reveal

To significant anticipation, Microsoft revealed HoloLens 2 earlier this week at MWC 2019. By all accounts it looks like a beautiful and functional piece of technology and a big step forward for Microsoft's AR initiative. All of which makes it unfortunate that the company didn't strive to be clearer when illustrating one of the three key areas in which the headset is said to be improved over its predecessor. [...] For field of view—how much of your view is covered by the headset's display—[Alex] Kipman said that HoloLens 2 delivers "more than double" the field of view of the original HoloLens.

Within the AR and VR markets, the de facto descriptor used when talking about a headset's field of view is an angle specified to be the horizontal, vertical, or diagonal extent of the device's display from the perspective of the viewer. When I hear that one headset has "more than double" the field of view of another, it says to me that one of those angles has increased by a factor of ~2. It isn't perfect by any means, but it's how the industry has come to define field of view.

It turns out that's not what Kipman meant when he said "more than double." I reached out to Microsoft for clarity and found that what he was actually referring to was not a field of view angle, rather the field of view area, but that wasn't explained in the presentation at all, just (seemingly intentionally) vague statements of "more than twice the field of view."

[...] But then Kipman moved onto a part of the presentation which visually showed the difference between the field of view of HoloLens 1 and HoloLens 2, and that's when things really became misleading.

Microsoft chief defends controversial military HoloLens contract

Microsoft employees objecting to a US Army HoloLens contract aren't likely to get many concessions from their company's leadership. CEO Satya Nadella has defended the deal in a CNN interview, arguing that Microsoft made a "principled decision" not to deny technology to "institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy." The exec also asserted that Microsoft was "very transparent" when securing the contract and would "continue to have that dialogue" with staff.

Also at UploadVR, Ars Technica, and The Hill.

See also: Stick to Your Guns, Microsoft

Previously: U.S. Army Awards Microsoft a $480 Million HoloLens Contract
Microsoft Announces $3,500 HoloLens 2 With Wider Field of View and Other Improvements

Related: Google Drafting Ethics Policy for its Involvement in Military Projects
Google Will Not Continue Project Maven After Contract Expires in 2019


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:41AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:41AM (#807927)

    > The military is not the enemy

    Are you sure? Nukes done away with the US's nation-level foreign threats some 50 years ago. Nuclear power-plants could have resolved US dependence on foreign oil too and saved America every single war post-WW2. What "friendly" service has the military done for you lately? Really, what positive value of the moral kind does the military-industrial complex add to your existence? Cause from over here at the sidelines, it sure looks like a boot firmly pressed against your face.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:41PM

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:41PM (#808156) Journal

    Once the world really got the picture of how destructive and environmentally unfriendly Nuclear bombs actually are, they ceased to be useful in conventional wars. They exist only for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) reasons. They could possibly have a use in a last resort kind of situation, but generally that'd be likely to trigger a MAD situation. Nukes will do us no good in conventional warfare, because we actually want a world where we can survive. You think too much CO2 is bad for the atmosphere / environment. How about detonating a few dozen Nuclear Warheads or even just one or two?

    The military doesn't exist to make moral decisions. The military is there to win. The civilian leaders are the ones that should be making the moral decision to go to war or not. Sure, even military personnel should have some moral compass, but that moral compass is based on wanting to protect their own country. Chivalry ended a very long time ago, perhaps the last widespread act of Chivalry in war was this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christmas-truce/ [snopes.com]

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"