Return to the archive index

RE: Good HMDs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Ritter [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 4:27 PM
> To: 
> Cc: Rehmi Post; 
> Subject: Re: Good HMDs - Was: help!!!
>
> I think the biggest problem facing us all is
> the lack of
> >useful mainstream applications that effectively utilize
> _current_ affordable
> >technology. It is quite interesting that some people are willing to base
> >their wearable design on a 386 PC/104 module, or that they are willing to
> >reverse-engineer a camcorder CRT and risk death by high voltage
> shock, in an
> >effort to save cost, but are "holding off" on purchasing a commercial HMD
> >because there isn't one available that will do 800x600.
>
> Contrarily, I think that this just shows that a good display is now
> the minimum necessary component for the tasks that people want to put
> a wearable on.
>
> If I want a lightweight general purpose computer with a crappy display,
> I can get a Pilot really cheaply. (I did, in fact.) But in order for me
> to make the compromises in weight and battery life to get a serious CPU
> (386/486/Px/StrongArm) then I demand a real display at a reasonable
> price point.

While our display's are very real and only the image is virtual (bad play on
words) - what price point is reasonable, and who is it reasonable to? If it
is reasonable to the consumer, it would be say $300 - in line with the CRT
on your desk. If it is reasonable to the manufacturer, it would be $1,500 -
capturing the development cost and risk associated with selling product in
such a small market.

This is an extremely difficult area for manufacturers - if you set the price
to low, you make no profit and run out of stock quickly.  If you set the
price too high, you make no profit and have lots of stock.  With perfect
data, we could set the price where supply=demand, but we don't have perfect
data.  Without polling each user, before hand, about price we base it on
input costs and risks involved with the 1st production run - hence the
$1,500 price.

> Note that a 386 PC/104 setup plus a camcorder CRT will fit in a student's
> price range - but if you're going to convince them to drop $500-800 on a
> display, it had better have a minimum resolution that lets them feel like
> they've made a serious investment. Even 640x480 is too wussy these days,
> and in a year or so the baselevel for a mass-experimenter's HUD will be
> 1024x768.

Who and what sets this baselevel? If I gave you a 1024x768 6" panel that you
could strap to your head, would this fit the requirement? What I'm getting
at here is that in order for this industry to grow, people have got to
develop with current technology. Without this approach, this vertical sector
of the market will not be taken seriously and take a back seat to sectors
that are buying today's tech.

This goes out to everyone:

What is your current wearable configuration and is it based on current
technology?

- Tony

--
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org

From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty

Archive created with babymail