Microsoft's AR Headset Was a Complete Disaster During a Military Test
futurism.com
futurism.com
It just feels like this fell out of the sky, or some General saw a HoloLens demo and said "I want those on every soldier" and voila.
For those of us old enough to remember, it also sort of smells like those old Cold War era programs where we pumped money into hopeless development programs hoping our adversaries started to do the same, except we knew we could absorb the loss while they couldn't.
> US soldiers using Microsoft Corp.’s new goggles in their latest field test suffered “mission-affecting physical impairments” including headaches, eyestrain and nausea, according to a summary of the exercise compiled by the Pentagon’s testing office.
> More than 80% of those who experienced discomfort had symptoms after less than three hours using the customized version of Microsoft’s HoloLens goggles, Nickolas Guertin, director of Operation Test and Evaluation, said in a summary for Army and Defense Department officials.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/microsoft...
Can't handle it? Guess you're not cutout to be in the AR unit. Just like not everyone is cut out to be a pilot or a navy diver.
That’s a huge efficiency loss, even ignoring that the enemy will start targeting those wearing one.
The hololens sets were also trying to do a lot with Nightvision/Thermal capabilities, which also have the same issues oddly enough. Anyone that's worn them for an extended period will tell you that they suffer the same issues as AR/VR.
Its still early days for that program.
Note that this is not exactly the militaries first heads up display or helmet mounted display. This is "ancient" tech for helicopters and some ground vehicles with remote weapons systems. The new part of this program is the hardware is going to be dirt cheap in comparison (although still about $30K each) and its not just going to be for vehicle drivers / pilots / gunners but for infantry soldiers.
From publicized informations it seemed to:
- show simple edge-detection overlay at night
- show basic HUDs, such as compass bearing, brightness
I’d imagine it would:
- connect to Wi-Fi
- report locations, “$NAME take a picture”, make VoIP calls
- show vehicle paths for satellites and aeroplanes as needed
…which are/would be cool but not too much arficifial realitying. Notably, feature sets above don’t necessitate multi-camera array at all. Which makes it still cool and futuristic, but AR?
Another use case is in field combatant/user identification without having to have a hand held device.
- show the location of ROE protected sites (no shooting zones)
- show instructions from your remote operator, a helpful contractor in DC who tells the human components what to do
“Microsoft has been awarded a massive contract to supply the US Army with more than 120,000 augmented reality headsets, MSNBC reports.
The contract, amounting to about $21.88 billion over ten years, follows a 2018 contract to build prototypes of the Army's Integrated Visual Augmented System (IVAS). The new contract will involve building working production versions of the system — a deal that stands to change the face of ground combat.”
Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?!
Meanwhile DoD is giving Elon shit for asking to get paid for ongoing Starlink service in Ukraine, which has fundamentally changed the way they engage Russian troops and combat positions on the front lines.
It's been a while since i've seen some of the tech but the best way i can put it is stare at the center of your tv screen, don't move your head, only move your eyes. That feeling of strain is what is amplified. I think it's going to need to be a more gradual phase in of the tech rather than putting all the info on display they were trying.
A charitable interpretation of his actions is that he's occasionally unable to contain his narcissistic traits, a less charitable interpretation is that he's looking for leverage to get his dick out of the hornet's nest that is the Twitter deal, and the least charitable option is that Russia is applying some leverage to force his hand. No matter the reason there's a good chance he'll end up regretting that (to the extent he's able to feel things like regret anyway).
Instead he called Putin to talk about "peace" (read: appeasement) and then posts literal Kremlin talking points to Twitter and only mentioned getting money to maintain starlink after getting a ton of people telling him to fuck off.
Literally first DuckDuckGo result.
Third:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/kremlin-de...
He has access, has talked in the past, repeats kremlin talking points, threatens to withhold access to strategic technology from the kremlin’s victims, and then claims to not be involved when he starts taking heat for it.
Musk is notoriously dishonest, I don’t know why his claims are seen as trustworthy given the surrounding context.
Pay attention to the details. A year and half ago he was not engaged in a conflict with Ukraine. Plenty of people send letters and or talk with heads of state. You think Bill gates hasn't spoken with numerous heads of state? Sure has, otherwise microsoft wouldn't have been in Russia, China, and other nations.
So proof of this peace call is where?
EDIT: I think you editing your post after being proven wrong is just as dishonest. Further your second post does nothing to help your argument. The kremlin will say what ever they need to for their agenda regardless. In this case they deny it and there is no way to prove it happened.
Not a whole lot of gratis.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/14/23404069/spacex-ukraine-...
> CNN’s report also sheds light on who’s been footing the bill for Ukraine’s Starlink connectivity until now, and says that around 85 percent of the terminals were at least partially paid for by American, Polish, and British governments, as well as other organizations like NGOs.
I personally find it a bit odd that Musk would suddenly publicly make these demands instead of just having SpaceX call their contacts in the DOD. I presume it makes the DOD question future involvement with companies controlled by Musk.
From the outside the only fact we can ascertain is that we know his services are not net 0 in cost, so by that assumption any expense is one he can argue he deserves support on.
Well like I said it all basically comes down to whether you consider Musk trustworthy. Personally I see a him as a grandstanding, lying charlatan. This is a belief I've held for many years long before you say it now has become the cool thing. But I don't run the DOD and only watch this from the sidelines. We'll just have to see how the the DOD and other portions of the government react.
> From the outside the only fact we can ascertain is that we know his services are not net 0 in cost, so by that assumption any expense is one he can argue he deserves support on.
This is a bit of a straw man. I haven't heard anyone argue that he must give out services for free. The criticism I've heard has been to question the actual numbers Musk has provided and the way he's gone about doing it.
He literally fell for Russian disinfo claiming that he was on some "Ukrainian hitlist": https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1581068904021241857
The guy cannot do basic due diligence on easily verifiable crap spewed out on the platform that he is buying.
1. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15809342033858600...
2. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15802752142728028...
Yes, how dare he suggest that a peaceful resolution involving some compromise of both sides of the conflict might be better for humanity to avoid it escalating into full world war with the inevitable nuclear apocalypse.
Certainly we can’t undermine those actions and goals—it would be simply terrible to avoid all that death and destruction.
If you interrupted a rape, would you suggest a compromise where he promises to finish up quickly in order to keep it peaceful?
I’m not suggesting by any means what Russia is doing is justified and not horrific. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a country that has a nuclear arsenal that can do a significant amount of damage and may be willing to use it. That has to be considered.
Also I just think ‘compromise’ is a ludicrous term to use - it’s not an informed business-like ‘compromise’ to allow someone to permanently subjugate you it’s submission.
Let's say a tyrannical dictator wants to brutally oppress millions of people and threatens that if you try to stop him, he'll shell Seoul and may throw a few nukes too. Not many nukes, just a few. Do you run in guns blazing to throw him out of power? For the past several decades, the US has seen fit to leave the Kim family in power because the alternatives have all been judged worse for a variety of reasons.
So of course there are limits, but where are the limits? That's the meat of the matter, and there is no one objectively correct answer. Where those limits are is a political matter, and can be debated endlessly.
(FWIW, I hope the US government continues to support Ukraine in their war against the invading russians. But I'm not going off on people who suggest there is a limit; obviously there is a limit. The Biden administration certainly perceives such limits, otherwise why isn't the full force of the US Military in Ukraine right now fighting alongside Ukrainians? Because there are limits and the Biden administration is realistic enough to recognize that.)
People are incredulous that people think that at some point you need to stop him, but they have the same limit in mind just at a different red line.
The current limit of these people has been shown repeatedly to be in the wrong place - appeasement has encouraged Putin to create more violence and suffering. Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it?
"these people", it sounds like you're doing a lot of generalizing. Different people have different limits and the concern is for the future of the conflict, not the past. Hindsight has limited applicability to the future.
The Biden administration is presently operating with limits that more hawkish parties can characterize as appeasement. Why not gift Ukraine some tanks? More missiles? Why not bring the full force of the US Military to bear against Putin? These limits are all forms of appeasement from the perspective of those more hawkish than the Biden administration. Who is right, Biden presently, or those more hawkish than him, or even those less hawkish than him? Personally I think Biden is doing a very good job so far, but only time will tell. Nothing about the future is known for certain in the present.
> Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it?
You can't demonstrate something about the future, except to wait and see how things unfold. We may yet be blundering our way into a thermonuclear war, or maybe we aren't. Time will be the judge of it. Everybody who perceives a line that shouldn't be crossed is engaging in some form of appeasement, so using that term as a cudgel is short-sighted; the same accusation could easily be made against you. Why don't you support [measure which you think would go too far]? Appeasement, right? That's probably not how you'd characterize your own position, but unless you're the most hawkish voice in the room that accusation can certainly be leveled against you just as you level it against those people.
Without being able to see the full web of possible outcomes, what does it even mean to be demonstrably wrong? Take my position, that the Biden administration is generally doing a good job of managing NATO support and involvement. Well objectively, the war has not ended yet. Maybe somewhere in the web of possible realities, the war has already ended in Ukraine's favor because Biden behaved differently. Has Biden's handling of the war then been demonstrably wrong because the war is demonstrably still ongoing? Do you see the problem? Counterfactuals cannot be objectively judged. Neither the alternate reality with more appeasement, nor the one with less. The basis for my support of Biden's handling of the war is simply this: thus-far there is no nuclear war, and I subjectively judge the present and near-future risk of nuclear war to be low. The passage of time will reveal the truth about the decisions made in our timeline, but even that won't reveal the outcomes of counterfactual realities. Those are closed to us, we can only speculate about what could have been. How then can speculation about a counterfactual reality be demonstrably wrong?
Controlling it is stopping him taking land, not allowing it.
And do you have any idea how to eradicate the cancer of Putin long term? If not then you’re delaying with no way to stop, so he’ll eventually get everything he wants.
I do actually, this particular cancer will certainly not last longer than about 20 more years, probably even significantly less if the news reports are accurate. Keep the patient alive, this cancer goes away in time.
If the problem is a single man with an already limited lifespan, why not wait it out? Why kill the patient to cure a temporary cancer?
Do you think there's nobody who will take power in Russia after he dies? I think there will be, and I think he'll be similar.
We will not permanently fix this if Putin is out of power even at the cost of a worldwide conflict.
You can hop off Elon’s dick now.
@dang why can’t I flag this bullshit?
Flag away if it allows you, or have the moderator remove me, but bear in mind that all you are doing is flagging/removing a comment suggesting that peace is preferable to war.
EDIT: I bet the vast majority of the people downvoting and pressing for conflict in this thread have never seen such atrocities up close. The primary goal always needs to be de-escalation and saving lives.
Where do you stand on gun control / gun rights? Do you think it's important to have the ability to stand up and defend against armed agressors?
Your solution extends the human suffering indefinitely. Not only the fighting - but because citizens of Russia are less free than others countries.
When he comes for your family and home are you handing them over without any fuss?
Bizarre.
That phrase assumes that we have the power to stop him without creating a greater loss of life than the death he would create in the areas he wants to subjugate.
It also assumes that if we do enter into a worldwide conflict to remove him and we succeed, that whatever and whoever is left will be less tyrannical, less expansionist and less likely to create suffering.
And to answer your question…if he comes for my family and home, I will fight for them fiercely, because I will likely have not yet been nuked off the bloody planet by some “well intentioned” warmongering jackass from halfway across the globe who thinks he is doing the world a favor by killing it.
For all of human history borders shift, leaders shift, some are tyrants, some are not…however 2022 by engaging in an apocalyptic war over Putin and Ukraine will not resolve the human nature and eliminate suffering.
But why not compromise instead? It’d be less violence for your family.
The problem is the level of sacrifice required in a worldwide conflict that may include nuclear to “take Putin out” only solves the problem of a single man. It doesn’t create a lasting solution because it doesn’t correct human nature. It doesn’t prevent the next worse tyrant. In fact it makes tyranny much more likely because the possibility of many tyrants that will come from the one.
There just isn't a lot of incentive for an autocratic ruler to destabilize his regime and crash his country's economy to grab a piece of territory at a massive price that the world will never recognize. Putin wanted to annex six eastern provinces of ukraine and create a client state in central Ukraine; not be in a position where he needs to threaten to lob nuclear weapons. Putin was able to grab Crimea precisely because there was no military resistance not because he was able to create a fait accompli that he was able to blackmail the world into accepting. Yet the sanctions imposed after Crimea was annexed dramatically weakened the civilian economy and putin's military buildup.
To be clear, I don't think Ukraine should negotiate or be forced to negotiate but that isn't because I believe Putin would not be deterred in the future.
nope, this is just how expensive doing such projects where none of the participants is able to undesrtand how it all comes together; because of military level safety requirements.
but also, becuase if most people knew what they are working for they wouldn't do it. none of them want more snowdens, and these are costly to 'prevent'
The Army didn’t ask for a ruggedized Hololens, they asked for[1] a globally capable end-to-end real-time augmented reality solution for waging war.
1. https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Mana...
Looking at the kit it's clear it's not some crazy deviation. Hell just a modern NV/Thermal capable helmet and optics can be 70-100k worth of equipment without hololens, and look just as bulky.
The contract is not just for headsets - it’s also for the backend infrastructure that allows them to function. Microsoft is not getting $21B to add gaskets and swap ABS out for PA6 Nylon.
I’m not super familiar with the broader Hololens platform as it exists today but I can’t imagine that much of it would be widely useful for e.g. a Marine on the ground in Baghdad to task an F-35 pilot with close air support by looking at a 3D map of the building he’s standing in front of.
One use case I can talk about that i've seen tested is nano drones and live data feeds from them. That would be valuable in varying types of combat situation. Additionally, i'm not sure what your relationship to "boots on the ground" is but many of infantry / frontlines are armed with electronic devices that fill all the same goals, this is just a means to put them in the field of vision and provide easier access.
It's going to take time and a "killer" no pun intended, app for them to be eat'n up by the average joe though.
The word “just” is doing some very heavy lifting in this sentence.
An iPhone is still a Phone, a smart one with all sorts of features but that doesn't remove the fact that you can call it a phone and it's 100% correct.
I think we're playing a game of semantics now so i'm not sure what else to say other than we'll agree to disagree.
How are other companies suppose to compete? How are European companies suppose to compete?
It's an ultra-high-risk project because there are huge gains to putting EVERYTHING electronic for a soldier in one headset. The GPS, the maps, NVGs, some kind of limited FLIR, replace the existing RWS UI systems for weapon sight video feeds, a replacement for the 80s era MILES "lasertag" training gear, replace everything a soldier carries that uses batteries or a computer chip right now. The problem with that huge gain is its now a huge risk, one blue screen or one "cyber incident" and that soldier is back to WWI level of tech across ALL categories.
The other problem, which seems obvious in retrospect, is the invention of the "swiss army knife" did not eliminate the manufacture of all other hand tools. In fact 99% of manual labor does not use swiss army knives because dedicated hardware is so vastly superior. So its an interesting technological achievement to build a "soldier's electronic swiss army knife", but our opponents will be using dedicated tools that individually will be vastly superior to our soldier's swiss army knives. This turns it into a battle between vastly superior hardware vs theoretical gains in reduced weight, simpler logistics because there's just one thing, and possible gains from integration. Which will win on the battlefield? I guess we find out in the next big war?
I'm a little skeptical of these gains.
I was an infantry platoon leader in OEF, and I'm really not seeing the value of putting the entire operating picture into an AR headset for every joe on the line. Maybe certain guys in certain roles could use it, but overloading your field of vision will all that information sounds like a terrible idea because of the cognitive load. Maybe you're saying that this could replace a number of existing devices, which ... maybe! The Swiss army knife analogy is probably apt. I just don't think this is useful for everyone.
I'm not sure when and where you were deployed but even in OEF / OIF we saw an increase in head cams and other things being bolted onto helmets. I would imagine again, this is all just to get a standard loadout.
That said, if I was back in those days, i'd be more excited about the armys new sig rifle, optic, and supressor than any bulky headset like this.
I don't know the details of the deal, but assuming it contains a clause "you cannot sell it to anyone else without our approval" it might be a realistic price when you know you're selling only 120k units of something you have to develop against interfaces with an equally small user- (and thus developer-) base ....
Sounds like something that could be easily solved with a color filter, same way it works in red dot sights.
Also, there’s surprisingly little content in this article, and nothing of it is sourced.
Is this the future of mobile?
No. It's the present. Where have you been?
Microsoft is known to bribe governments all around the world [1,2,3,4], whistleblowers wake up before it's too late
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-settlement-idUS...
[2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/22/microso...
[3] - https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/25/microsoft_accused_of_...