MobileInfocenter

Comments on: New Virtual Screens and Improved Batteries Could Revolutionize Handhelds

Two new technologies could bring big changes to handhelds.

Last week, Microvision demonstrated a prototype of a miniature display. As the user holds a cell-phone-sized device near one eye, the tiny display scans a single beam of multi-colored light through a small lens to project a full-color video image of the apparent size and resolution of a laptop display screen directly onto the eye.

Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (65 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Comments Closed Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.

Down

What......?!!!!

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 9:20:18 AM #
Are you serious? I love handheld technology, but seriously?!

Borg Babe
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 9:23:06 AM #
She looks like a Borg Babe on Star Shrek! If you want to be picked on and look like a total geek, this looks like the product for you. In order to be socially acceptable, they need to make the display fully conceiled into a form factor similar to the sunglasses worn by Keaneau Reeves in The Matrix.

RE: What......?!!!!
JeepBastard @ 2/17/2002 9:26:02 AM #
that thing is really nerdy. nobody is going to wear that ****.

[http://www.mediathreat.net]
RTA
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 9:45:39 AM #
RTA = Read The Article

"The company will spend the next 18 to 24 months reducing the size, weight, power consumption and, especially, cost of the miniature display."

That's the prototype. Of course the final version will be much smaller Read before you open your mouths. You'll look less dumb.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:01:40 AM #
re: RTA

Gee, so you would wear something like that if it were smaller? Any piece of technology strapped to your head and covering one eye looks ridiculous, no matter HOW small they make it.

The guy above you is right, they don't need to just work on reducing the size, they need to work to conceal it in sunglasses. With today's technology, the only way they could do that well is by having a secondary unit strapped to your belt or something. That makes it a completely different product.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:15:30 AM #
I disagree with the socially acceptable aspect. It probably took quite a while before spectacles were considered socially acceptable by the medieval Europeans and Chinese. Those were times when looking nerdy could get your head lopped off. Nevertheless, the world eventually looked past the obvious aesthetic issues to see the merit in being able to stare at the opposite sex behind a pair of dark shades. So bring on the Borg babe and those luscious lips -- assimilate me baby.

It's called progress, men.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:20:40 AM #
OR concealing your whole face so that no one will know ure Geeky enough to use one.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:36:55 AM #
As usual, you have missed the point. This is about a display that is only a couple of inches across that can display a SVGA screen. NOT about a device you clip to your head. You've totally ignored an amazing bit of technology and focused on a limitation of the prototype.

OF COURSE, the final version won't be this big. It will probably look like a pair of glasses wirelessly connected to a handheld device you write on. Or maybe you'll only hold it up to your eye during the few seconds you need to check the address you are looking for. I don't know.

Geez, have some vision. Some of you seem incapable of understanding that electronics always get smaller and better. You've seen it all your life but it somehow hasn't sunk in. What you are looking at is a prototype, not available for sale, that the company is going to spend 2 YEARS working to make smaller. Think about how much smaller and better all types of electronics get in 2 years.

Now keep your dumb comments to yourselves and wait until a real version gets shipped in 2004.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 1:07:01 PM #
I bet there will no wires, sunglasses, and communication with a unit either on the belt/in a pocket...all with Bluetooth technology...interesting

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 5:10:36 PM #
Will Bluetooth be fast enough though to keep refreshing the screen, entering text, etc?

This is amazing technology people. Before we know it, we'll just have to wear glasses, eye or sun, to use our PDA. Wouldn't surprise me if this had a little piece of plastic (like 5x3 inches), where you enter in text, "tap", etc. Also wouldn't surprise me if this used a mouse like interface to get around. Anyhow, very cool!

Mario
PalmInfoCenter Moderator

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 7:18:30 PM #
or maybe it would be all in voice commands.. do any of you guys remember the ibm commercial where the guys is in russia checking stocks all from one eye peiece.. and he was using voice commands..

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 8:05:11 PM #
Where's the accessories???! I want a big slide-on modem! I want a leather belt-clip case.

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 2:07:37 AM #
"or maybe it would be all in voice commands.. do any of you guys remember the ibm commercial where the guys is in russia checking stocks all from one eye peiece.. and he was using voice commands.."

Now he was a total GEEK! sounded like he was talking to himself.

New Technology?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 2:24:36 AM #
New Technology?

Only if you ran this story three years ago!

I hope it's not going to take them 2 years to shrink the bloody thing. They are alway way behind the technology curve.

RE: What......?!!!!
JeepBastard @ 2/18/2002 9:49:53 AM #
They already have a device that is integrated into shades that is shipping now.

Calling people names doesn't seem very nice. This unit is crappy right now, and their press release is positioned so they can get funding.

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Prod/vims/wia/index.html

Now that is a nice unit. It still isn't the kind of shades that dont attract attention unforunately, but they are much better than that borg helmet.

And it's shipping now.



[http://www.mediathreat.net]

RE: What......?!!!!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 1:14:04 PM #
hmmm.. those shade... still look pretty big.. if only the screen was thinner it might look decent...

The colours were so nice when suddenly ... SPLAT!

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 10:05:10 AM #
As the user walks along with his now monocular vision, concentrating on the movew he walks into a tachnologically challenged wall!

RE: The colours were so nice when suddenly ... SPLAT!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 10:09:49 AM #
A guy was driving along in his car, dialing on his mobile phone, when he ran into a wall. Too bad. This caused mobile phones to not catch on anywhere in the world. If it weren't for this, billions of them might have been sold. Too bad.

Seems geared towards G.I. Joe

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:08:27 AM #
Have you ever seen an Apache pilot aim by looking? These things might give marines, etc. the same kind of capability. It would be a personal HUD.

Also, using a palm pilot backlight at night is bound to get ones hands shot off. So much for Tak on R&R.

RE: Seems geared towards G.I. Joe
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:17:41 AM #
Yeah they'll be playing Bejeweled instead of looking for some terrorists.

RE: Seems geared towards G.I. Joe
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 12:28:15 PM #
They fight for trouble, wherever there's freedom, Jihad Joe is there.

Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:13:20 AM #
Of course, the contact lens would probably feel like a boulder in your eye.

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:45:10 AM #
In less than 20 years this will be built into your EYE.

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 11:54:19 AM #
*Person walking along, then all of a sudden...* "THE BLUE SCREEN, THE BLUE SCREEN!!!! THE HUMANITY!!!! THE PAIN!!!"

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 12:10:48 PM #
Having forgotten to neutralize lens cleaning fluid before placing a contact into my eye, I can just imagine the pain.

Your eye snaps shut as the tear ducts go into overdrive. You will your eye to open, but the searing pain forces you to pry your unyielding eyelids apart and tear at the offending implement. As you toss it to the ground, you hear the earphone chirp "You've Got Mail!"

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 7:58:41 AM #
In less than 20 years this will be built into your EYE.

Actually, there was a Japanese animated series about that very concept. The neat thing about it, was that this guy's eye had access to every public and private network on earth and he could interact with it purely by thought!

Here's more info on it if anyone's curious:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12F12D6

8==8 Bones 8==8

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 8:11:54 AM #
Dude, talk about being a geek. Japanese animated series? Good lord, looking like a nerd with the headgear is the least of your problems!

Sorry, but I don't 'get' the whole anime thing at all.

RE: Now only if they could build this into a contact lens.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 10:24:56 AM #
> Dude, talk about being a geek.

"Dude", if you looked in the dictionary for the the word "geek", you'd find a picture of someone dressed better than you are. Posting comments onto sites like this one makes you a major league geek. Either accept it or go watch some football and never come back.

Vanity wins everytime...

ssummer @ 2/17/2002 12:24:51 PM #
It's funny, everyone is more concerned about how they would look wearing the device than the possible health complications of having a higher-than-normal-energy light beam blasting directly onto your retina. Talk about the ultimate screen burn-in.

Vanity wins everytime...

higher than normal?
mj6798 @ 2/17/2002 2:49:34 PM #
What makes you think its energy is "higher than normal" under normal use?

My main concern would be that the scanning hardware would fail. Then, you would indeed have a high intensity beam of light focussing on a tiny part of your retina.

Cell Phone Radiation
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 4:47:09 PM #
What about all of the Cell Phone Radiation we are all getting????

RE: Vanity wins everytime...
jws @ 2/18/2002 6:42:20 AM #
i agree with ssummer, I use my palm intensely now, such a gadget would require a big amount of light to be readable, judging by the fact that the display would relatively far from your eye (see photo).

RE: Vanity wins everytime...
ssummer @ 2/18/2002 9:14:43 AM #
The product's light energy (produced by a laser mind you) has to be higher-than-normal to get any discernable image much less a 150:1 contrast ratio image otherwise it would just blend in with the ambient light...

Are you kidding- who is the editor?

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 12:53:25 PM #
This is the most ridiculous story I've ever read

RE: Are you kidding- who is the editor?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 2:13:03 PM #
These comments are ridiculous. No more anonymous posts.

RE: Are you kidding- who is the editor?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 3:55:38 PM #
I thought the comments were fairly amusing in parts -- I enjoy reading this site when I have a little downtime to get a laugh; it's better than a lot of the other websites out there today. The batteries thing is definitely the big news, as long phosphate can be substituted for cobalt. I'm not a chemist but I didn't think you could do that... As at least one comment points out, virtual head-up displays are nothing new. They've even made it onto Cadillacs in recent years. Anyway, I'm impressed that you guys don't feel like big geeks when you pull out your handheld in the middle of party to jot down someone's e-mail address. There's a reason why telephone numbers only have 7 digits, guys -- to make them easy enough to remember that even you can manage it...

RE: Are you kidding- who is the editor?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 6:05:14 PM #
Memorize only one 7-digit number? Who hit you with the ugly stick?

;-)

RE: Are you kidding- who is the editor?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 7:21:41 PM #
its 10 digits in my area now....

RE: Are you kidding- who is the editor?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 2:10:34 PM #
Actually it's ten digits in my area too. But if the first three are different from my own, who needs the rest of the number? As to the ugly stick, that reminds me: I've often wondered why the lower model palms or the new Sonys don't come with nicer styli? I mean, can you imagine how many more people I could impress if I whipped out a well-weighted sizeable silver stylus...? :P

Do I hear stylus envy?
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:07:05 PM #
If it was even larger, it could have other, ahem, recreational uses.

Ugly!!. I want one in my sunglasses and BlueTooth Enable.

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 5:19:56 PM #
I think the best way to go is an LCD screen and BlueTooth Enable clip on in my sunglasses. These are just wasting their time.

We are the BORG

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 5:29:48 PM #
...Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated...learn Swedish today...

RE: We are the BORG
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 10:38:29 PM #
Taken over by the Swedes? Err.. yeah. Even the Norwegians kick could your ass.

Resistance is futile
jws @ 2/18/2002 6:46:58 AM #
...

RE: Resistance is futile
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 8:21:59 AM #
WE ARE THE BORG! LOWER YOU LAPTOPS AND GO VIRTUAL. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

We are the PDA BORG
sandbuck @ 2/18/2002 10:18:33 AM #
Resistance is futile. Banging the hell out of your shins is futile....

nice one!

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 6:16:49 PM #
"However, one question not addressed by Microvision is how the user would enter text..."

Another question not addressed by Microvision is who the heck is going to want to walk around with a computer clipped to their head??

Beaming things directly into their eye??

Nice one- I needed a good laugh!

RE: nice one!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 12:40:06 AM #
Maybe you head-butt people to enter text - you could attach a fitaly stamp on the front side of it...BUTT-"A"-BUTT-"M" -> not really social-life enhancing but...

RE: nice one!
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 2:29:03 PM #
IBM and Dragon have shown that voice recognition is coming. Whilst not a mature technology yet, give them another two years and maybe we won't have to use keyboards or styli at all...

I prefer my IIIc

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/17/2002 9:07:21 PM #
"...video image of the apparent size and resolution of a laptop display screen..."
I think the right title must be:
"New Virtual Screens and Improved Batteries Could Revolutionize laptops"


It's out there

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 12:18:25 AM #
Thing is, these guys have made it - it's going to be used.

RE: It's out there
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 9:12:29 AM #
I don't know how I will ba able to look at the screen and walk normally without bumping into people at the same time, unless you are down, its one good way to get un alert. At least with a pda, i can constantly pay attention to what's going around. That eye thing seems confusing.
http://pdan.has.it

RE: It's out there
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/19/2002 10:26:53 PM #
in time people will get used to it... your brain will adapt...you just gotta get used to it.

HUD not dud

mrscarey @ 2/18/2002 4:25:07 AM #
This thing, while looking a little odd at the moment, WILL revolutionise the market it is aimed at. Everyone has gone off half-****ed at the look and seeing it in their own little PDA world.
Go to the link people! It is a useful invention which will have a value FOR THE MARKET IT IS AIMED AT!
No I don't have anything to do with Nomad or Microvision but I do have the foresight to check out the web address before bad-mouthing the product.....

mrscarey

palmist and visionary

RE: HUD not dud
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 9:53:50 AM #
Sorry, I went to the web page. I saw what they figure the intended market to be.
Since when is consumer electronics used on a warehouse floor? That's why Symbol
has their rugged versions of PalmOS devices.

As I see it, these folks are trying to take something that is used in the military (or at
least on the "soldier of the future" shows on TLC, etc), and commercialize it. The problem
is, they don't know where to market it. IBM had the right idea, and even presented it
to the public in such a way that the guy using it looked ridiculous, scaring pidgeons, etc.,
but it was functional. Note that it also used voice instead of writing. The ONLY way this
will succeed in a market where PalmInfoCenter would be interested in it is if a new class of
PDA is developed. And in a case like that, voice commands are a must, audio is a must, etc.

And if that is the case, then all the agruements presented here against it are valid, even if
you don't read the web site.

1. It will be unfashionable (a minor thing IMHO)
2. It will be MORE distracting than cell phones, so running into things is more likely. Keep
in mind we are talking about PDA functions here, not something that complements your
field of vision such as a HUD. So now not only is your hearing being used as a distraction
as in a cell phone, but your eyesight is used as well as a double distraction. And with voice
commands, why use a display at all?
3. If you have 800x600, why use this in such a limited capacity as a PDA? Put the thing into
a wearable computer. Hmmm....wearable computer...seems like I've heard about this thing
before.

In short, I believe the consumer electronics space isn't ready for something like this. Or, put
less kindly, this thing isn't right for the consumer electronics space, whether used in a 3G
environment or not (as the web site says). And if you get the idea of the device, it is not
necessary to read the source web page since PIC provides enough information on the subject.

-- Pds

Thank You
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 9:57:46 AM #
While reading the other comments, all I could think about is "these people don't get it." Thank you for this post. At least SOMEONE understands the currently envisioned application of this technology.

Latte served by Borgs.
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:11:08 PM #
Hey, I've seen people in upscale boutique clothing stores at the mall wearing Garth Brooks type mics. Don't you see these eye-pods (sorry Apple) being worn by Gap showroom girls? Or how about by clerks at Borders? Even better still, by servers at Starbucks?

Costs-Benefits

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 10:12:09 AM #
Forget that you'd look like an idiot with something strapped to your head.

Forget the implications of light shooting point-blank into your eyes.

Anyone consider the implications of such a technology when it comes to a little thing known as "distractions?" It's bad enough that we have idiots driving down the road with phones affixed to their heads (or even headsets, which many statistics show don't really help the cell-driver problem). I look at the future, and I see someone look at their PDA-screen-built-into-sunglasses while talking on their wireless phone headset, weaving like a drunkard on the road when they're SUPPOSED to be driving.

Words of wisdom: Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

RE: Costs-Benefits
nategall @ 2/18/2002 2:41:27 PM #
> Forget that you'd look like an idiot with something strapped to your head.

actually... a good point, but if the final version looks like the prototype, them must be in a huge rush to get the product out the door.

> Forget the implications of light shooting point-blank into your eyes.

like anything you can see? remember, all vision is light "shooting" into your eyes.

> Anyone consider the implications of such a technology when it comes to a little thing known as
> "distractions?" It's bad enough that we have idiots driving down the road with phones affixed to
> their heads (or even headsets, which many statistics show don't really help the cell-driver problem).
> I look at the future, and I see someone look at their PDA-screen-built-into-sunglasses while talking
> on their wireless phone headset, weaving like a drunkard on the road when they're SUPPOSED to be
> driving.

when radio's were first introduced for the car, there was alot of people who said the same thing. All distractions in the car are bad, but i will put my cell phone against your two-children-in-the-back-seat anyday, but you don't see anyone saying "children shouldn't be allowed in cars because they are distractions."

heck, it might even help. A h.u.d. that can help me see in the dark, or in the fog would be amazing.

> Words of wisdom: Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

well, i think that was more towards the fact that you COULD jump off a bridge, but you probably SHOULDN'T. All technology is meet with fear and uncertainty, that is human nature. And NO advance is made without any consequences. The big question is if the plus-es out weight the minus-es. Heck, how would you know what you should or shouldn't do? I personally use common sense. Or i get drunk and do whatever seems funniest.


nategall says "blah!"

RE: Costs-Benefits
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 10:28:25 PM #
Looks like "nategall" totally misses the point of the first post here.

All light is light "shooting" into your eyes? You need to go back to Biology, Nate. When you see, you're perceiving the variations of light rays that occur naturally or through man-made means. That's a far cry from putting a virtual screen 1-2 inches from your eyeball. Have you ever taken a plain light bulb, or a flashlight, and put it that close? Well, you probably have whenever you're drunk...

Do you honestly believe that 2 kids in the backseat are as big a distraction to driving as a phone you're holding to your head with one hand? Either you don't have children, or you're a piss-poor parent... And yes, a radio is potentially just as big a distraction--just ask someone who's been hit by an idiot trying to change the station or find a CD.

As for your "it all depends on plus-es versus minus-es" statement...well, NO SH**! The original post is titled "Costs-Benefits!" As in, "the costs outweigh the benefits."

nategall may say "blah," but nategall's an idiot...

RE: Costs-Benefits
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:16:17 PM #
Children are less of a distraction if you put them in pet carriers.

:-)

RE: Costs-Benefits
I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:18:56 PM #
A laser is more than just "shooting light into ones eye." I've carelessly zapped myself with 10 mW laser light reflected off of non-matte surfaces before, and I can tell you it's more than just bright. It's less like staring into a flashlight than like surgically inserting the flashlight into your eyeball. And I had an optics professor who had lasting damage done to his retina by a non-visible 15 mW plus laser.

A 100 W light bulb emits light in almost all directions. A laser emits practically all of its energy in a tiny point. That's what makes a laser so powerful. I would definitely not want to be at the business end of a 100 mW laser.

Does anybody remember a time when TV's actually did put out X-ray's? Or when women used personal X-ray devices to depilate their skin? And let's not forget Thalidomide, unless you want to hold down your lunch. Sometimes it isn't wise to take a company's safety guarantees at face value.

RE: Costs-Benefits
nategall @ 2/19/2002 12:39:52 PM #
> Looks like "nategall" totally misses the point of the first post here.

possibly. if the point was the "Costs-Benefits", I don't think i missed the point. First off, we have no "cost", second we don't have any "benefits". So, an option on the Cost-Benefits would be purely speculative; and just for the record, with the information that is provided at this site, I have no option on the "Costs-Benefits"

>All light is light "shooting" into your eyes? You need to go
>back to Biology, Nate. When you see, you're perceiving the
>variations of light rays that occur naturally or through
>man-made means. That's a far cry from putting a virtual
>screen 1-2 inches from your eyeball. Have you ever taken a
>plain light bulb, or a flashlight, and put it that close?

(should I?... oh heck, why not) Actually the way all vision works is sensing of light waves (or photons, but lets not get into a discussion on the dual nature of "light") that stimulate Cones and Rods on the back of your eye. Now the light that we generally "see" comes from a source which then reflects off of surfaces or object and then "shoots" into our eyes. If the "strength" of the light is too strong, it hurts our eyes, and if it is to low, our eyes cannot discern anything. In between these two limits (which vary from person to person) there is a range which normal vision takes place. If the light beam is the correct strength, it is perfectly feasible to "beam" the picture directly into the eye. And, (now this is the cool part) it looks just like a screen. I am not sure if this particular product is beaming directly into the eye or just onto the screen.

>Well, you probably have whenever you're drunk...

Usually, i just pass out in a puddle of drool.


>Do you honestly believe that 2 kids in the backseat are
>as big a distraction to driving as a phone you're holding
>to your head with one hand? Either you don't have children,

yes. I know a woman who had a perfect driving record until she had a baby. As she was driving she was completely turned around trying to give the baby a bottle, she rear-ended the car in front of her. Now, don't get me wrong, a responsible drive would never have turned around, but that's my option.

>or you're a piss-poor parent... And yes, a radio is
>potentially just as big a distraction--just ask someone
>who's been hit by an idiot trying to change the station
>or find a CD.

Anything in the car is a distraction, other people, cell phones, food, whatever. It is how big of a distraction and what is it adding that matter. And yes, I do not have any children.

>As for your "it all depends on plus-es versus minus-es"
>statement...well, NO SH**! The original post is titled
>"Costs-Benefits!" As in, "the costs outweigh the benefits."

Well, Per my first comment. It is a silly point to make. Now, "I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 10:28:25 PM" you may be an industry insider who has a lot more experience with this particular product, in which case you may have a valid point. But nothing you said leads me to think that is true.

>nategall may say "blah," but nategall's an idiot...

a well made point

ps. "I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:18:56 PM" - i hope to god it is a less powerful version :)

nategall says "blah!"

Handheld?

I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 12:17:38 PM #
How about Headheld?

Not consumer electronics

rigter @ 2/19/2002 4:42:43 AM #
All you guys are kidding, right?

This is not some piece of consumer gadget.
This is an industrial/military toy.

The only reason this company is crying victory with their product is to catch investors. Nobody is selling anything yet.

This piece of equipment is ideal in environments where technicians/soldiers cannot carry handheld computers with them because they need both their hands for other things. Extreme example: how about one of these headhelds in an astronaut's helmet?
The target audience works with professional applications that could be voice controlled with a limited set of commands. No sci-fi there. Possible today.

What's the use of wearable computers if you still have to push your desk around with your monitor on it? This makes a nice monitor for those computers. Available today.

I do see a possibility for a consumer version though.
I'm sure a lot of hardcore gamers would buy this thing if it had TWO screens on it. Imagine playing a 1st person shooter or a flight sim where you would actually be inside the theatre of operations, able to look around you in 3-D.
But THAT is another year or two away I suppose. That would require a serious desktop gaming machine to run the graphics engine...

Cheers,
Jan

Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass: