Monday, February 25th 2019

Microsoft Unveils HoloLens 2 Mixed Reality Headset

Since the release of HoloLens in 2016 we have seen mixed reality transform the way work gets done. We have unlocked super-powers for hundreds of thousands of people who go to work every day. From construction sites to factory floors, from operating rooms to classrooms, HoloLens is changing how we work, learn, communicate and get things done.

We are entering a new era of computing, one in which the digital world goes beyond two-dimensional screens and enters the three-dimensional world. This new collaborative computing era will empower us all to achieve more, break boundaries and work together with greater ease and immediacy in 3D. Today, we are proud to introduce the world to Microsoft HoloLens 2. Our customers asked us to focus on three key areas to make HoloLens even better. They wanted HoloLens 2 to be even more immersive and more comfortable, and to accelerate the time-to-value.
Immersion is greatly enhanced by advancements across the board, including in the visual display system, making holograms even more vibrant and realistic. We have more than doubled the field of view in HoloLens 2, while maintaining the industry-leading holographic density of 47 pixels per degree of sight. HoloLens 2 contains a new display system that enables us to achieve these significant advances in performance at low power. We have also completely refreshed the way you interact with holograms in HoloLens 2. Taking advantage of our new time-of-flight depth sensor, combined with built-in AI and semantic understanding, HoloLens 2 enables direct manipulation of holograms with the same instinctual interactions you'd use with physical objects in the real world. In addition to the improvements in the display engine and direct manipulation of holograms, HoloLens 2 contains eye-tracking sensors that make interacting with holograms even more natural. You can log in with Windows Hello enterprise-grade authentication through iris recognition, making it easy for multiple people to quickly and securely share the device.


Comfort is enhanced by a more balanced center of gravity, the use of light carbon-fiber material and a new mechanism for donning the device without readjusting. We've improved the thermal management with new vapor chamber technology and accounted for the wide physiological variability in the size and shape of human heads by designing HoloLens 2 to comfortably adjust and fit almost anyone. The new dial-in fit system makes it comfortable to wear for hours on end, and you can keep your glasses on because HoloLens 2 adapts to you by sliding right over them. When it's time to step out of mixed reality, flip the visor up and switch tasks in seconds. Together, these enhancements have more than tripled the measured comfort and ergonomics of the device.

Time-to-value is accelerated by Microsoft mixed reality applications like Dynamics 365 Remote Assist, Dynamics 365 Layout and the new Dynamics 365 Guides applications. In addition to the in-box value, our ecosystem of mixed reality partners provides a broad range of offerings built on HoloLens that deliver value across a range of industries and use cases. This partner ecosystem is being supplemented by a new wave of mixed reality entrepreneurs who are realizing the potential of devices like HoloLens 2 and the Azure services that give them the spatial, speech and vision intelligence needed for mixed reality, plus battle-tested cloud services for storage, security and application insights.

Building on the unique capabilities of the original HoloLens, HoloLens 2 is the ultimate intelligent edge device. And when coupled with existing and new Azure services, HoloLens 2 becomes even more capable, right out of the box.

HoloLens 2 will be available this year at a price of $3,500. Bundles including Dynamics 365 Remote Assist start at $125/month. HoloLens 2 will be initially available in the United States, Japan, China, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Australia and New Zealand. Customers can preorder HoloLens 2 starting today at this page.
Add your own comment

25 Comments on Microsoft Unveils HoloLens 2 Mixed Reality Headset

#1
punani
The possibilities are endless

Posted on Reply
#2
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Apparently some staff at Microsoft are trying to get this cancelled or get a version of it cancelled because Microsoft are trying to develop it for military purposes and that goes against some of their staff's moral code or code of ethics. They didn't join Microsoft to build weapons
Posted on Reply
#3
Ferrum Master
FreedomEclipse
Apparently some staff at Microsoft are trying to get this cancelled or get a version of it cancelled because Microsoft are trying to develop it for military purposes and that goes against some of their staff's moral code or code of ethics. They didn't join Microsoft to build weapons
Seriously?
Posted on Reply
#5
Vayra86
FreedomEclipse
Apparently some staff at Microsoft are trying to get this cancelled or get a version of it cancelled because Microsoft are trying to develop it for military purposes and that goes against some of their staff's moral code or code of ethics. They didn't join Microsoft to build weapons
Lol, so why did they ever build Windows Update then? If there ever was a WMD from MS...
Posted on Reply
#6
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Vayra86
Lol, so why did they ever build Windows Update then? If there ever was a WMD from MS...
Because helping people slaughter other people is a lot more serious than killing your windows install? :confused::confused::confused:
Posted on Reply
#7
kastriot
This looks more like a military gadget based on price.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
FreedomEclipse
Because helping people slaughter other people is a lot more serious than killing your windows install? :confused::confused::confused:
Twas a funny. Nothing else. But even so, this is like saying no to thermal goggles because they do something similar. Looks like a great outing of outrage culture and storm-in-teacup. This will happen regardless. There are tons of solutions that double as something for a military somewhere. The alternative? Huawei develops one for the Chinese and the US is forced to buy in ;)

Do read the Twitter page for the MS Workers 4 Good announcement and the discussion under it. Some pretty interesting stuff being said, and most of it with a whole lot more common sense in it than this initiative. Pacifism and technology don't mix too well, ethics are about guidelines and rules not about technology itself. Some people have trouble distinguishing the two, it seems to me.

Think of nuclear technology. It is the rules and guidelines and our stance on the technology (non proliferation etc) that determines what we do with it and what is considered ethically and morally correct. But a nuke is still a nuke.

Posted on Reply
#9
Ferrum Master
Those look even worse than Bible Belt peps...

Some people are really lost...
Posted on Reply
#10
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Vayra86
Twas a funny. Nothing else.
Didnt find it very funny at all. In any case, Im not saying that people's lives wasn't improved by military tech. But let's say you're a pharma working in bio-meds. wanting to make meds that cure some of the most horrific, fatal or debilitating diseases known to man - youre great at this stuff. Youve made serious breakthroughs and helped cure many serious and fatal diseases. You want to make the world a better place...but one day while messing with med formulas, you accidentally stumble across a formula that destroys the human nervous system. Your company takes this away from you and sells it to the military. The military uses it to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity against their fellow humans.

Its a different scenario but similar...

how would you feel that tech you developed or were working on to advance the limits of technology, help everyday people with their daily lives then your company wants to modify it and use it to kill people?

Some folks dont want to build weapons. They dont want a part in building things that kill other people.

If that is their choice then their opinions, objections, complaints, stances etc etc on such matters should be respected...

If Microsoft told them they would be building killing machines from the start and these developers said "where do i sign up??" then thats a different story - at least they knew what the final product was going to become and what it was going to be used for.

It could be the case that these members of staff knew that their device was being developed to aid the military but ended up with cold feet and wanted out when they realised what sort of implications their actions could have.

Some people just don't want that on their conscience and who are you to tell them otherwise? people can turn around and say "Its for the greater good" or"it will help protect your country and your people" but regardless of the fact. your arm is being twisted and your moral judgement is being held hostage by the people who want you to build them weapons that kill people rather than ones that cures them.

though we can all joke and say that "sometimes a bullet is the only cure" because of all the hollywood movies and HBO serieses that we watch.


Some folks dont want other peoples blood on their hands and they wont be able to live knowing that what theyve created or help create/develop has been used to take the lives of other people.

Not everyone will come to the same conclusion. There will be those who love developing stuff that kills other people and those that dont. Dont be so quick to judge and call them 'snowflakes' because they didnt want to help you develop nukes.



people should have the freedom to decide what they want to do and not be forced or shoehorned into doing things that dont morally sit right with them



--- Thats all i'll say on this matter - hopefully the mods wont delete my post as i felt this was something that really needed to be answered, debunked or rebuked.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vayra86
FreedomEclipse
Didnt find it very funny at all. In any case, Im not saying that people's lives wasn't improved by military tech. But let's say you're a pharma working in bio-meds. wanting to make meds that cure some of the most horrific, fatal or debilitating diseases known to man - youre great at this stuff. Youve made serious breakthroughs and helped cure many serious and fatal diseases. You want to make the world a better place...but one day while messing with med formulas, you accidentally stumble across a formula that destroys the human nervous system. Your company takes this away from you and sells it to the military. The military uses it to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity against their fellow humans.

Its a different scenario but similar...

how would you feel that tech you developed or were working on to advance the limits of technology, help everyday people with their daily lives then your company wants to modify it and use it to kill people?

Some folks dont want to build weapons. They dont want a part in building things that kill other people.

If that is their choice then their opinions, objections, complaints, stances etc etc on such matters should be respected...

If Microsoft told them they would be building killing machines from the start and these developers said "where do i sign up??" then thats a different story - at least they knew what the final product was going to become and what it was going to be used for.

It could be the case that these members of staff knew that their device was being developed to aid the military but ended up with cold feet and wanted out when they realised what sort of implications their actions could have.

Some people just don't want that on their conscience and who are you to tell them otherwise? people can turn around and say "Its for the greater good" or"it will help protect your country and your people" but regardless of the fact. your arm is being twisted and your moral judgement is being held hostage by the people who want you to build them weapons that kill people rather than ones that cures them.

though we can all joke and say that "sometimes a bullet is the only cure" because of all the hollywood movies and HBO serieses that we watch.


Some folks dont want other peoples blood on their hands and they wont be able to live knowing that what theyve created or help create/develop has been used to take the lives of other people.

Not everyone will come to the same conclusion. There will be those who love developing stuff that kills other people and those that dont. Dont be so quick to judge and call them 'snowflakes' because they didnt want to help you develop nukes.



people should have the freedom to decide what they want to do and not be forced or shoehorned into doing things that dont morally sit right with them



--- Thats all i'll say on this matter - hopefully the mods wont delete my post as i felt this was something that really needed to be answered, debunked or rebuked.
But that is just it, there is a fundamental difference to something used as an 'aid' and something used as a weapon. A hololens does not and will not kill people as it is not a weapon (well, maybe when thrown at somebody's face), whereas a that formula you describe is a very direct, uncompromising form of a weapon.

Here, what we have is a technology that can potentially double as something that is used to aid the military. Important difference, if not a crucial one! And that is exact same difference as many other technologies we now use globally, like the internet itself and GPS. Nobody is advocating those 'help kill people', at least... not in the sense of this topic.

In the same vein, what are we going to say about the Windows OS itself? Widely in use in military around the globe... All things considered, to me this 'outrage' reads like a fashion statement.

About respecting choices and people making them... in my world respect is earned, not just given away to everyone who opens his mouth, because that's just far too easy. 'Sign a petition'... yawn
Posted on Reply
#12
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Vayra86
But that is just it, there is a fundamental difference to something used as an 'aid' and something used as a weapon. A hololens does not and will not kill people as it is not a weapon (well, maybe when thrown at somebody's face), whereas a that formula you describe is a very direct, uncompromising form of a weapon.

Here, what we have is a technology that can potentially double as something that is used to aid the military. Important difference, if not a crucial one! And that is exact same difference as many other technologies we now use globally, like the internet itself and GPS. Nobody is advocating those 'help kill people', at least... not in the sense of this topic.

In the same vein, what are we going to say about the Windows OS itself? Widely in use in military around the globe... All things considered, to me this 'outrage' reads like a fashion statement.

About respecting choices and people making them... in my world respect is earned, not just given away to everyone who opens his mouth, because that's just far too easy. 'Sign a petition'... yawn
I think youre reading into it too deeply. its to aid the military in killing other people which they dont want. Just the same way as a gun is a tool. Thats why there are those people who love making guns and those that dont - its a balance, those that do, simply do and those that dont find jobs in a different field of work.

The staff dont like the idea or the fact that it could be used as a tool to help kill people. whats so difficult to understand?

As for respect, I agree that respect has to be earned but that is a different kind of respect. first and foremost you must respect your staff and respect them as people before anything else. because what you are saying is that you dont care about them, you dont care about their opinions or grievances they may have their their work or current project at hand and you'd go as far as taking any means necessary be it illegal, dodgy, underhanded or downright insane to have them carry on doing their work and have them forced make weapons for you because that is what you want, or that is what the company wants and their opinions or grievances dont matter because they "haven't earned your respect"?

Your words are words of a tyrant.

Last time I checked Microsoft isn't an arms manufacturer, nor did they start out as a company building hardware/writing software for military purposes. Though they may have picked up a few contracts to write or develop some software for the military over the years but as far as i can see, they arent a military company. And if people decide they dont want to make tools that aid people in killing each other then that is an opinion that should be respected and they should be offered a transfer to a different project if one is available or allowed to leave the company because they didnt agree with the direction it was going in. Because lets be clear, Microsoft aint going to cancel this contract. Work will still carry on. The only difference is that microsoft have to find people who like or dont mind making tools that can be used to kill other people with as opposed to the ones that dont.
Posted on Reply
#13
xtreemchaos
looks great but the price is a little on the crazy side as for military use its hard to find anything what the armed forces dont use and if it helps to save lives and give our military an edge it carnt be a bad thing.
Posted on Reply
#15
Xaled
Why call these mixed-reality instead of augmented reality?
Posted on Reply
#16
Easo
kastriot
This looks more like a military gadget based on price.
1st Gen was even more expensive, yet are in major use in various places, like airplane construction and on ISS. This thing is quite literally awesome for people like designers, architects, engineers from different specialisations, doctors, and so on. Oh, even the new Mars Rover is being designed with the assistance of HoloLens. Military, at least now, is not the top customer.

Ferrum Master
Those look even worse than Bible Belt peps...

Some people are really lost...
Not really important. They are bought for their funcionality and are not targeting consumer space.
Posted on Reply
#17
Rockarola
xtreemchaos
looks great but the price is a little on the crazy side as for military use its hard to find anything what the armed forces dont use and if it helps to save lives and give our military an edge it carnt be a bad thing.
"our military"?
You seem to be forgetting that MS is an international corporation with engineers from all over the world.
Some of their kin might be the next target of "our military"...which might explain their reluctance in this matter.
Posted on Reply
#18
xtreemchaos
no im meaning who ever im in the UK, let just say the not so free freeworld, troops use so many things that non military use i dont see why a pair of aug glasses would make a difference, would thay complain if thay worked at a TV factory the military uses god knows how many ? or a factory that make boots.
Posted on Reply
#19
Totally
FreedomEclipse
Yeah. It seems its a military vatient they want cancelled
Read it and their reasoning is pure idiocy because in the same breath it can be said that the technology has the propensity to save and preserve life to a much higher degree than ”increasing lethality.” Their logic is no matter how much good this potentially has it doesn't matter because of a percieved bad.

FreedomEclipse
Didnt find it very funny at all. In any case, Im not saying that people's lives wasn't improved by military tech. But let's say you're a pharma working in bio-meds. wanting to make meds that cure some of the most horrific, fatal or debilitating diseases known to man - youre great at this stuff. Youve made serious breakthroughs and helped cure many serious and fatal diseases. You want to make the world a better place...but one day while messing with med formulas, you accidentally stumble across a formula that destroys the human nervous system. Your company takes this away from you and sells it to the military. The military uses it to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity against their fellow humans.

Its a different scenario but similar...

how would you feel that tech you developed or were working on to advance the limits of technology, help everyday people with their daily lives then your company wants to modify it and use it to kill people?

Some folks dont want to build weapons. They dont want a part in building things that kill other people.

If that is their choice then their opinions, objections, complaints, stances etc etc on such matters should be respected...

If Microsoft told them they would be building killing machines from the start and these developers said "where do i sign up??" then thats a different story - at least they knew what the final product was going to become and what it was going to be used for.

It could be the case that these members of staff knew that their device was being developed to aid the military but ended up with cold feet and wanted out when they realised what sort of implications their actions could have.

Some people just don't want that on their conscience and who are you to tell them otherwise? people can turn around and say "Its for the greater good" or"it will help protect your country and your people" but regardless of the fact. your arm is being twisted and your moral judgement is being held hostage by the people who want you to build them weapons that kill people rather than ones that cures them.

though we can all joke and say that "sometimes a bullet is the only cure" because of all the hollywood movies and HBO serieses that we watch.


Some folks dont want other peoples blood on their hands and they wont be able to live knowing that what theyve created or help create/develop has been used to take the lives of other people.

Not everyone will come to the same conclusion. There will be those who love developing stuff that kills other people and those that dont. Dont be so quick to judge and call them 'snowflakes' because they didnt want to help you develop nukes.



people should have the freedom to decide what they want to do and not be forced or shoehorned into doing things that dont morally sit right with them



--- Thats all i'll say on this matter - hopefully the mods wont delete my post as i felt this was something that really needed to be answered, debunked or rebuked.
1. Geneva Convention.

2. The hololens iwould be equipment like a bulletproof jacket hence why this argument is absurd I'm
Posted on Reply
#20
Rockarola
Totally
Read it and their reasoning is pure idiocy because in the same breath it can be said that the technology has the propensity to save and preserve life to a much higher degree than ”increasing lethality.” Their logic is no matter how much good this potentially has it doesn't matter because of a percieved bad.



1. Geneva Convention.

2. The hololens iwould be equipment like a bulletproof jacket hence why this argument is absurd I'm
A bulletproof jacket that helps the user to be a little more lethal...a drone is just a remote controlled plane, just like the ones you played with as a kid, right?
Posted on Reply
#21
Totally
Rockarola
A bulletproof jacket that helps the user to be a little more lethal...a drone is just a remote controlled plane, just like the ones you played with as a kid, right?
Well, I'm an adult and we're not talking about they toys we played with when I was a kid.

Explain how the hololens makes the the user more lethal than a bulletproof jacket? I can argue the vest keeps the wearer from receiving significant or dying so the can continue to go on killing, should then should we petition a ban of such vests?

My gripe with this is the illogical jump that since it's going to be used by the army it must be used for killing. Applying some subjective and intelligent thought can be inferred that the hololens can only provide useful information to the operator quickly, ideally before the opponent. Then at their discretion they can chose to retreat, observe, engage. Asumming the decision to engage was made, depending the situation loss of life might not even occur.
Posted on Reply
#22
xtreemchaos
Rockarola
A bulletproof jacket that helps the user to be a little more lethal...a drone is just a remote controlled plane, just like the ones you played with as a kid, right?
where do it stop, troops have to eat ,should people stop eating because it could be a weapon of war or all run around in the nude because troops use cloths, if it was guns or WMD i could understand there being a case.
Posted on Reply
#23
Rockarola
Totally
Well, I'm an adult and we're not talking about they toys we played with when I was a kid.

Explain how the hololens makes the the user more lethal than a bulletproof jacket? I can argue the vest keeps the wearer from receiving significant or dying so the can continue to go on killing, should then should we petition a ban of such vests?

My gripe with this is the illogical jump that since it's going to be used by the army it must be used for killing. Applying some subjective and intelligent thought can be inferred that the hololens can only provide useful information to the operator quickly, ideally before the opponent. Then at their discretion they can chose to retreat, observe, engage. Asumming the decision to engage was made, depending the situation loss of life might not even occur.
AR technology is meant to make a soldier more effective...effective soldiers are not retreating, they are decimating the enemy.

On the bright side, it might make American less prone to Friendly Fire kills...the rest of NATO would love that!
Posted on Reply
#24
Totally
Rockarola
AR technology is meant to make a soldier more effective...effective soldiers are not retreating, they are decimating the enemy.

On the bright side, it might make American less prone to Friendly Fire kills...the rest of NATO would love that!
You wouldn't last long in a combat zone. Doesn't matter how much more effective they are if they are presented with a high mortality rate for instance an ambush. Instead of walking into one they can simply withdraw.
Posted on Reply
#25
Rockarola
Totally
You wouldn't last long in a combat zone. Doesn't matter how much more effective they are if they are presented with a high mortality rate for instance an ambush. Instead of walking into one they can simply withdraw.
You are responding with a specific situation to a general observation (and sounding like Rambo in the process)...will this technology directly help soldiers to kill or not?
That question is what is bothering those protesting, is it not?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment