Magic Leap is Pushing To Land a Contract With US Army To Build AR Devices For Soldiers To Use On Combat Missions, Documents Reveal (bloomberg.com) 78
Magic Leap, a US-based startup valued at north of $6 billion and which counts Google, Alibaba, Warner Bros, AT&T, and several top Silicon Valley venture capital firms as its investors, is pushing to land a contract with the U.S. Army to build augmented-reality devices for soldiers to use on combat missions, Bloomberg reported Friday, citing government documents and interviews with people familiar with the process. From the report: The contract, which could eventually lead to the military purchasing over 100,000 headsets as part of a program whose total cost could exceed $500 million, is intended to "increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy," according to an Army description of the program. A large government contract could alter the course of the highest-profile startup working on augmented reality, at a time when prospects to produce a consumer device remain uncertain.
Building tools to make soldiers more deadly is a far cry from the nascent consumer market for augmented reality. But the army's program has also drawn interest from Microsoft, whose HoloLens is Magic Leap's main rival. The commercial-grade versions of both devices still face significant technological hurdles, and its not clear the companies can fulfil the army's technical requirements. If recent history is any guide, a large military contract is also sure to be controversial within the companies. Last month, Magic Leap unveiled its much-hyped AR device to the press and select developers.
Building tools to make soldiers more deadly is a far cry from the nascent consumer market for augmented reality. But the army's program has also drawn interest from Microsoft, whose HoloLens is Magic Leap's main rival. The commercial-grade versions of both devices still face significant technological hurdles, and its not clear the companies can fulfil the army's technical requirements. If recent history is any guide, a large military contract is also sure to be controversial within the companies. Last month, Magic Leap unveiled its much-hyped AR device to the press and select developers.
Re: (Score:1)
I think in theory with the right hardware and software there are scenarios where this type of technology could significantly increase combat survivability.
I heavily doubt that anything Magic Leap - or really any of these other wanna-be game hardware vendors - has up their sleeves is up to the task however.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think they're scammers? Just the company? "Augmented reality" is the norm when looking through the sights of a tank, with potential targets identified and highlighted, and the ability to communicate targets directly between teammates - the tank commander can create a target queue for the gunner to "service".
That all harder to do with lightweight gear, of course, but it would certainly be useful! Heck, the point of camouflage is to delay recognition by a couple of seconds, just highlightin
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds great right up until they find out how to hack the WEP encryption on the wireless headsets and spoof false targets all over the place while erasing the legitimate ones.
HA! Not going to happen (Score:1)
There is literally no way this will happen. The military cares about one thing for soldiers: weight. They know down to the ounce how much the kit of a soldier weighs. They have extensive information about how much each ounce of additional weight added to a soldier's kit affects performance. Getting something on to a soldier's back, even if it's one soldier in the unit, is a massive uphill battle.
The Magic Leap system will not add enough advantages to offset the weight. The headgear weighs too much, and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are giving the army waaay too much credit here. They have some general guidelines but nothing even close to what you're saying. A lot of soldiers carry different guns for instance if their preference is something else and qualifies. That will weigh a different amount. Some soldiers already carry some pretty heavy gear. I'll agree that Magic Leap is dreaming and I worry the military is spending money on vaporware. As someone with family in the army I'd rather see properly HUDs that can highlight enemy ac
Re:HA! Not going to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
If the only use of this was the ability to identify friend-foe on the battlefield, it would be worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm not giving them too much credit. I've worked selling hand-held diagnostic devices, and they are all over this weight issue. It's exactly the kind of thing one would think they would want: 1 guy needs it (the medic or the corpsman), theoretically light weight, and would have a significant impact on saving soldiers lives particularly in regions with difficult logistics like jungles and islands. The program was scrapped over battery size.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: HA! Not going to happen (Score:1)
The USArmy has to care about weight.
GIs carry more hardware than any other unit in history.
They invested in research in exoskeletons to increase their GIs' carrying capacity.
Don't Worry (Score:2)
Building tools to make soldiers more deadly is a far cry
Don't worry, it won't happen. Let me count the ways...
Feeding at the trough (Score:2)
Re: Feeding at the trough (Score:2, Funny)
I show my junk to the public constantly
i have used what they have (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, when I started seeing the videos, military use was the first thing that popped in my head. A heads up display like this could make urban warfare far safer for the soldiers and make operations more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a technical problem they would have to solve, yes.
LeapFrog (Score:1)
I accidentally read that thinking of LeapFrog instead of Magic Leap. That gave me a totally incorrect, but awesome mental image.
Controversial? (Score:2)
I don't see why this would be controversial for the company. This is different than AI or robotics. This is about making soldiers and operations more effective for the human soldiers on the ground. This is no different than making a better individual radio or night-vision goggles.
I think the controversy would be along the lines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to stop believing everything you read on internet blogs. The F-35 is the most advanced and most highly capable piece of equipment ever produced by humans. It's not the cluster internet blogs want you to believe it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, our local Lockheed-Martin rep! Good to meet you. I like your cargo planes, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also a Boeing sales rep (odd conflict of interest I know.) Do you remember how the V-22 was the previous leader for the worst military financial disaster of all time? Yeah, that one turned out to be pretty useful after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, absolutely, that tilt-rotor stuff was just hard to do. And the F16 was a dog for a while. Fwiw, I don't remember too many complaints about the F15 (besides its cost, ofc).
Software was critical to both of these. It's just that I look around at the quality of complex software and sometimes I despair.
Equipment only goes so far... (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah... Meanwhile, Ukraine's participants in the ongoing joint military exercises have just managed [rt.com] to capture the American participants' Headquarters and "kill" 32 personnel — "losing" only 2 of their own. Although the unit is, probably, among the best-equipped in Ukrainian army, they have none of the Americans' fancy stuff...
(RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English — the Rus
Re: (Score:2)
US Soldiers are happy to call the Taliban "camel fuckers" but guess who's actually getting fucked in Afghanistan? Even the best-equipped army in the world can't win against stubborn people defending their homeland.
Meanwhile, plenty of consumers will refuse to support companies building the weapons of war. It's amazing that Magic Leap thinks it's worth $6B but still needs DoD money. Maybe that shows the real story.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not venture off topic — neither side was fighting for its country during the joint exercises in Germany...
Re: Equipment only goes so far... (Score:1)
With everyone dead, what would you have won?
A free trip to Den Haag?
Re: (Score:2)
Like failure, victory is its own reward.
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, victory would be its own punishment.
You expend lots of resources to win exactly nothing.
You aren't even able to recoup your expenses.
And that is assuming that you would win at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The resources are cheap — once designed (that's the expensive part), making ammunition is not expensive. You win your objective. You also win reputation — the next bunch of assholes may choose to accept your terms (like what happened to Qaddafi, when he saw Hussein dug out from his hole).
Contrary to what some raging anti-Americans would have you believe, we don't wage war for profit...
Re: (Score:1)
I'm talking about the cost of resources and shipping.
Ammunition is cheap. So are soldiers' lives: They are a self-replenishing resource.
But until they expire, you need to feed them, and keep the logistics pipeline going.
And yes, you are building a reputation by waging war.
The reputation that you can't be trusted.
It doesn't matter if you win or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You absolutely can be trusted — to wage and win a war, if crossed. Such reputation discourages others from crossing you, which reduces the need for expenses and bloodshed in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
You absolutely can be trusted — to wage and win a war, if crossed.
You can be trusted to wage war, at least.
This encourages your friends to invest in defenses against you specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
The victory — which you earlier renounced as hollow and worthless — increases the trust, you'll win too.
Except, it does not happen. To a fault — for many years many European countries did not invest in their defenses, counting on the US to help them. You may have heard about it from the press criticizing Trump for "endangering NATO". For example, France, Germany, and Czechia [euromaidanpress.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Except, it does not happen. To a fault — for many years many European countries did not invest in their defenses, counting on the US to help them.
Where do you get such nonsense?
European countries have been paying for their defenses, and NATO members more than others. Nobody is counting on the US to help them.
In fact, several have been threatened by the US over their own domestic policies.
Everyone is counting on the US to be at war constantly, and hoping it isn't them. You have attacked former allies before.
China and Russia also try to improve their militaries, but they aren't — and never have been — our friends.
Except they have been. In World War 2, China was you ally against Japan, Russia was you ally against Germany.
Don't you know your own history?
Re: (Score:2)
I offered citations.
Your citations? Who's been threatened by the US for spending too much on defense?
They have been allies — out of necessity. They've never been friends. USSR in particular was allied with Hitler up until June 22, 1941 — German fighters strafing British ships e
Re: (Score:1)
I offered citations.
Right. You did. I should have expected that you take opinion pieces as fact.
Your citations? Who's been threatened by the US for spending too much on defense?
I said they have been threatened over their domestic policies. Mostly these were about copyright law.
What's interesting is that those threats were often rather vague. Spain was told that if they ratified the law they had planned, they would be on the list. No explanation what that meant, but Spain caved in anyway. When the USA demanded that the EU embargo Russia, the EU did so, except only Germany actually reneged on any standing co
Re: (Score:2)
The "opinion pieces" quoted actual numbers. For someone, who offers no of any kind, harping at the quality of the opponent's is ridiculous.
Which is completely irrelevant to the topic. The topic being, whether a country's willingness to wage and win a war pushes its friends to arm themselves. You've asserted earlier, that such willingness causes one'
Re: (Score:1)
Which is completely irrelevant to the topic.
The topic being whether you can be trusted.
You can be trusted to break the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.
The topic being, whether a country's willingness to wage and win a war pushes its friends to arm themselves. You've asserted earlier, that such willingness causes one's friends to arm themselves against you:
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
I said that such a policy encourages your friends to invest in defenses against you.
I said nothing about armaments specifically.
But of course the Japanese Defense Force could be taken as such.
Although you have established that you don't have any friends.
Your ally in the first Gulf War, the one you had attack Iran (after he negotiated a peace treaty with them that was very
Re: Equipment only goes so far... (Score:2)
RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English
Which, of course, means that it's like totally real and 100% accurate. Because it tells you things you want to believe and comes to us from the super trustworthy Russian government.
Choosing news-sources (Score:2)
It was proudly reported by Ukraine's own sites — including a Tweet by Ukraine's President [twitter.com]. But none of it was in English, which is why I posted the link to RT — after personally verifying the text and concluding, it does not include anything I haven't already read on the other sides.
RT's owners hate Ukraine with passion. This makes the site a very reliable source of good news abo
Pro tip (Score:1)
Logical next step for Magic Leap (Score:2, Funny)
Lets see:
- They've spent $6 Billion
- They have yet to produce a viable product
- They are years behind schedule, and
- Previews suggest that they have wildly oversold their technology.
Are we sure they aren't *already* a defense contractor?
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see:
- They've spent $6 Billion
- They have yet to produce a viable product
- They are years behind schedule, and
- Previews suggest that they have wildly oversold their technology.
Are we sure they aren't *already* a defense contractor?
Ha!
Oh... how many ways is this wrong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Landwarrior Project (Score:1)
I thought they already had AR devices. If that wasn't good enough, then what is wrong with Google Glass?
Fools and money... (Score:2)
Holo Lens? (Score:1)