Return to the archive index

Re: Good HMDs

I agree here, the M-1 is a great product for it's price right now... I
remember a year ago, this same round of "I need a 1600x1200 32 bit color hmd
that costs $300.00" Yes, when you look at the prices of commercial HMD's out
there (and most are Binocular and not monocular so therefore useless to a
wearable) you could buy a new car or house for the price of one. Liquid
Image gave us an HMD that was useable for a price that was reasonable....
True it's no P-4 but then the P4 cost an arm and 2 legs in it's day.  he M-1
works great for a wearable.... if you want to use your wearable as a
wearable... if you want a computer you strap on and sit to use it, then
super high resolution is for you.... but living with your computer on your
person 24 hours a day is a different matter.... Thad and Steve dont have
megapixel displays with laser alignment and holographic projection... and
they have been in the wearable arena longer than all of us here put
together...  Steve has more wearable time then the entire customer base of
Xybernaut combined!  If you want an HMD then ask what is best... and realize
that the super res stuff will NOT exist in the sub $4000.00 price scale for
decades... there is no market for them, they will not be made, end of
story...

Tony, Thank you for bringing us the M-1.... it has advanced the wearable
computer as much if not more than any other device we use to build them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Havelka <>
To: Dan Ritter <>
Cc:  <>
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 6:31 PM
Subject: 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
>

--
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