TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

214 pointsby ycom13__about 4 years ago

26 comments

remarkEonabout 4 years ago
Anyone work this technology and can talk about it (without breaking whatever NDA of course)? I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology for all but the most niche use-cases (think, AR for the driver in the hole of the truck). Obviously for pilots stuff similar to this has been around for a while, but the article is not really clear about how exactly this would be used.
评论 #26652532 未加载
评论 #26652484 未加载
评论 #26653231 未加载
评论 #26652989 未加载
评论 #26652386 未加载
评论 #26652449 未加载
评论 #26654590 未加载
评论 #26657510 未加载
评论 #26653367 未加载
评论 #26664789 未加载
评论 #26652635 未加载
评论 #26652415 未加载
评论 #26652732 未加载
评论 #26653365 未加载
评论 #26652523 未加载
评论 #26652407 未加载
评论 #26653076 未加载
评论 #26653039 未加载
paxysabout 4 years ago
People on the ground never have use for such tech. These deals are all political and the actual equipment arrives by the truckloads and sits unboxed.<p>When people rant about ridiculous military budgets and spending it isn&#x27;t about cutting soldiers&#x27; salaries but shit like this.
评论 #26652719 未加载
评论 #26652429 未加载
评论 #26652485 未加载
评论 #26652518 未加载
评论 #26652417 未加载
评论 #26652587 未加载
评论 #26652767 未加载
评论 #26652501 未加载
评论 #26652414 未加载
screyeabout 4 years ago
Huh, I find it weird that Amazon and Msft fought so rabidly for the $10B JEDI contract, and this $22B contract seems to have gone through without any fanfare.<p>This is 10x what Facebook paid for Oculus.<p>I wonder what MSFT showed to them in the demos. I imagine it must have been mindblowing.
评论 #26653208 未加载
评论 #26653153 未加载
评论 #26653671 未加载
评论 #26653410 未加载
friscoabout 4 years ago
On the plus side, this means we are much more likely now to get actually awesome prosumer&#x2F;consumer-grade AR systems with many of the current issues worked out in the next N years. It&#x27;s starting to get to a point where, though it&#x27;s still kind of lame, you can see how it would be awesome, but still needs $B of R&amp;D so... I&#x27;ll take it.
评论 #26652504 未加载
评论 #26652802 未加载
评论 #26653856 未加载
mirekrusinabout 4 years ago
Blue screen of death can have whole new meaning.
zabzonkabout 4 years ago
While I am not a fan of enormous military spending, any improvement on necessary targeting that possibly avoids frightened little girls running down roads with their clothes blown off after indiscriminate napalm strikes gets my agreement.<p>This improvement has seen us hitting the targets like ISIS fighters accurately, rather than flattening the whole city they happened to be in. I&#x27;m not in favour of war at all, but as it seems it isn&#x27;t going away any time soon, more effective and accurate targeting seems to be the way to go.
jtdevabout 4 years ago
“That war only made billionaires out of millionaires. Today&#x27;s war is making trillionaires out of billionaires. Now I call that progress.”<p>― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
blunteabout 4 years ago
I don&#x27;t look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of &quot;make love, not war&quot;.<p>I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military.<p>Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity?<p>Do we really need a conflict to be willing to stand behind an expense?<p>Now in the case of AR, most of our lives are not lacking because we don&#x27;t have AR headsets. But there are a lot of workplace (and entertainment) situations where good AR headsets would be beneficial or simply fun. Wouldn&#x27;t it be great if that were a technology funded for the general benefit of all people?
评论 #26652720 未加载
评论 #26652508 未加载
评论 #26652561 未加载
评论 #26652763 未加载
评论 #26652627 未加载
评论 #26652748 未加载
评论 #26652909 未加载
评论 #26652556 未加载
评论 #26652503 未加载
评论 #26654520 未加载
评论 #26653152 未加载
评论 #26652851 未加载
评论 #26653060 未加载
评论 #26652644 未加载
评论 #26653077 未加载
评论 #26652672 未加载
评论 #26652591 未加载
评论 #26652668 未加载
评论 #26652801 未加载
评论 #26652710 未加载
评论 #26652517 未加载
评论 #26652605 未加载
评论 #26653030 未加载
评论 #26652704 未加载
评论 #26653073 未加载
评论 #26652578 未加载
评论 #26652976 未加载
mrkstuabout 4 years ago
And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government entities, whether ICE or the Army.<p>There is way too much money to be lost.
评论 #26652908 未加载
评论 #26653619 未加载
评论 #26652728 未加载
评论 #26653163 未加载
评论 #26652888 未加载
评论 #26652482 未加载
评论 #26653711 未加载
评论 #26652669 未加载
评论 #26654153 未加载
评论 #26654037 未加载
crakhamster01about 4 years ago
Reading through these comments, it sounds like most people assume these will be used as some sort of enemy targeting overlay for soldiers on the frontline. Is there any reporting to back this?<p>My understanding was that HoloLens had found usefulness in enterprise settings for applications like machine&#x2F;vehicle maintenance, quality assurance, repairs, etc. Why would that not be the case here?
评论 #26654663 未加载
ghostwreckabout 4 years ago
This makes me think of some of the battles that play out in Daemon and Freedom [1]. They&#x27;re able to visualize all other parties in the area mapped by drones in real-time. They fight with massive AI swarms and are able to control the AI bots with hand gestures as they see them on the field, all while cruising around on modified motorcycles. We&#x27;re in for a wild future.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Daemon_(novel_series)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Daemon_(novel_series)</a>
评论 #26652562 未加载
IG_Semmelweissabout 4 years ago
Military is one of the few functions even the founders agreed to delegate to the state.<p>So, it is a bit strage to suggest we should reduce the military, to then fund someone&#x27;s opinion of a worthy cause. (Yet i fully agree that current military spending is out of control and needs to be reined in massively)<p>Aside from assumptions made on what is worthy are truly eye of the beholder, what about letting people decide for themselves?<p>We are willing to explore our altruistic desires first....instead of putting others first.<p>That&#x27;s likely why we need a military in the first place.
评论 #26653154 未加载
fasteddie31003about 4 years ago
As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;d want some annoying UI in my eye telling me were to shoot.
评论 #26653053 未加载
评论 #26653666 未加载
评论 #26653363 未加载
评论 #26652958 未加载
评论 #26653360 未加载
king_magicabout 4 years ago
... but why?<p>I&#x27;m not military, so maybe I&#x27;m just not seeing it... but what use cases does the Army really care enough about to spend $22B on AR headsets for? I could maybe see a billion here, a billion there... but $22B... on <i>AR headsets</i> seems batshit insane.<p>Certainly can&#x27;t imagine soldiers in a firefight keeping them on. Maybe logistics use cases? It was hard enough to find commercial use cases for HoloLens, so I can&#x27;t even begin to imagine what is important enough to source this kind of hardware.
评论 #26652825 未加载
评论 #26652941 未加载
LatteLazyabout 4 years ago
After the 7&#x2F;7 bombings on the tube, people wearing earbuds or headphones showed much less hearing damage. Given the nature of battlefields anything that protects the ear seems like an easy sell to me.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thetimes.co.uk&#x2F;article&#x2F;earphones-may-have-saved-victims-hearing-kh2j73rq9vf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thetimes.co.uk&#x2F;article&#x2F;earphones-may-have-saved-...</a>
uytabout 4 years ago
I don&#x27;t care how it is used as long as the technological advances transfer back to civilian headsets too. We already have unmanned weapons that can vaporize cities. Adding a human back into the mix doesn&#x27;t sound all that bad.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_military_inventions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_military_inventions</a>
colordropsabout 4 years ago
Considering that there are around 150 million taxpayers in the US, this is around $150 a taxpayer. That&#x27;s CRAZY.
评论 #26652891 未加载
评论 #26652844 未加载
curiousgalabout 4 years ago
Microvision&#x27;s stock shot up ~50% because of this. Their technology powers the Hololens 2 apparently.
评论 #26652785 未加载
ProAmabout 4 years ago
The army probably misunderstood what they meant by telemetry.
thr0waway7771about 4 years ago
My understanding of how Microsoft won this bid is they had a special team of Hololens developers work overtime to setup a special demo for the US Armed forces, where they rented out a warehouse and setup a maze. Then the armed forces decision makers could run around and &quot;shoot terrorists&quot; that were overlaid on their hololens.<p>It is amazing a demo this stupid resulted in a 21 billion windfall for Microsoft. I&#x27;m only posting this because this is such a terrible use of taxpayer dollars.
mrwnmonmabout 4 years ago
They hope to train the soldiers with it, so they can be more ready in the real world? is that their thinking?
crypticaabout 4 years ago
BRRRR, straight from the money printer. May the US taxpayer continue to subsidize Microsoft. May Microsoft continue to fail to deliver projects.<p>I still can&#x27;t believe people don&#x27;t see what&#x27;s going on. People must be getting dumber.
mupuff1234about 4 years ago
&quot;Could be worth up to&quot;.<p>Not quite the same as actually worth.
bloopeelsabout 4 years ago
What’s left for Microsoft to do? Open a Walmart-like?
评论 #26653201 未加载
graycatabout 4 years ago
Technology, useful for the US military and also useful later for US civilians? Are there any examples?<p>(1) US Research Universities. For nearly all the US research universities, a huge fraction of their annual budgets comes from Federally funded research grants via the National Science Foundation (NSF), but, trust me on this, passes Congress and gets signed by the POTUS heavily for US national security, i.e., the US military.<p>As a result, the teaching is heavily supported by that funding. Else college would cost much more.<p>Yes, not all the Federal funding is so closely tied to the US military: Since the Members of Congress also like progress in medicine, there is also a lot of funding via the National Institutes of Health for bio-medical research and, thus, support for the research-teaching hospitals.<p>(2) GPS.<p>The Global Positioning System (GPS), now heavily used for non-military purposes, was done by the US Air Force (USAF) and built on the work of the earlier system for the US Navy. GPS has been terrific for the US military.<p>(3) Aircraft Engines.<p>Aircraft engine development got a big push during WWI and then again during WWII. By the end of WWII, the best piston aircraft engines were mechanical marvels.<p>But near the end of WWII, both the Germans and the British saw that just for military purposes jet engines would be much better. And the US saw the same: GE had been making turbines for supercharging the piston engines so with their turbine experience moved to make some of the best jet engines.<p>With an aircraft engine, we use energy from the fuel to generate gas pressure to push mass out the back of the engine. Then the momentem of that mass (momentum is mass m times velocity v) provides force to propel the plane. But the mass moves out with kinetic energy (1&#x2F;2)mv^2. So, we want to pick a pair, mass m and velocity v, to maximize the momentum for the given energy. Since in energy we pay for velocity v with v^2 but mass m with just m, we should pick the pair to have mass m large and velocity v small. So, going out the back of the engine (from a propeller or a jet) we want lots of mass moving slowly, not a small mass moving quickly.<p>So, the US military saw this point for, e.g., their big cargo plane the C5A and developed &quot;high bypass jet engines&quot; where the turbine at the back of the engine drives a shaft to drive the compressor but also is used to drive a huge <i>fan</i> at the front of the engine that acts as a propeller in a <i>duct</i> to move huge amounts of cool air around, past (<i>bypass</i>), the engine and out the back. Now essentially all large commercial aircraft have high bypass jet engines -- the cost of jet fuel makes this crucial.<p>Actually a little before the high bypass development, could also get some of the same benefits with just an <i>aft fan</i>: So, mount a <i>fan</i>, turbine, on the back of the engine. Have the fan blades relatively long so that they extend pass the flow of the hot gas from burning the fuel. Then the hot gas turns the fan and the extended parts of the fan blades push cold air out the back. A GE engine did that early on; the French Dassault FanJet Falcon DA-20 used two of those aft fan engines; and FedEx started with 33 of those planes modified for cargo.<p>So, net, the jet engines used in commercial airplanes were heavily developed by the US military.<p>(4) Digital Computers.<p>So, sure, digital computers got developed in WWII for calculating artillery tables, etc. And after the war the US military was a big customer of digital computers and pushed the computer companies -- IBM, GE, Hewlett-Packard, Univac, Control Data, Systems Engineering Laboratories, etc. -- hard for more powerful computers.<p>(5) Atomic Power.<p>We have atomic power for the electric grid and applied nuclear physics more generally due mostly to developments paid for by the US military.<p>Then it is common for the electronics on spacecraft -- often for science and not specifically for the military -- to be powered by nuclear power.<p>(6) Radar.<p>Commercial aviation is massively dependent on radar, and the first developments were for military purposes.<p>(7) The Hubble Telescope.<p>We can regard the Hubble telescope as used heavily for non-military science, but in simple terms the Hubble was a US military Keyhole surveillance telescope (supposedly can read car license plate numbers from orbit) but aimed away from the earth.<p>(8) Rockets.<p>Rockets are crucial for getting spacecraft into orbit (around the earth, the sun, Mars, etc.) or at escape velocity from the earth, and of course most of rocket development was for military purposes.<p>(9) Optimization.<p>Optimization, e.g., linear and non-linear programming, grew out of WWII military logistics efforts by G. Dantzig and others. Then asking for whole number solutions led us to the research on computational complexity and one of the most important research problems today, the question of P versus NP.<p>(10) The Internet.<p>Early on the Internet was ARPA-Net, funded by ARPA, the US military&#x27;s Advanced Research Projects Agency.<p>(11) The Interstate Highways.<p>Early on President Eisenhower wanted the Interstate highways as a big contribution to US military logistics, that is, moving supplies and equipment.
评论 #26653635 未加载
lvsabout 4 years ago
BSOD on your face.