Army delays $22B augmented reality goggle program

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/army/2021/10/army-delays-22-billion-augmented-reality-goggle-program/

by infodocket • 5 years ago

104 129 5 years ago

deeviant• 5 years ago

An actual news worthy event would be something like, "The Army's $XXB project two months ahead of schedule, and 5 billion under budget".

h2odragon• 5 years ago

That headline would be buried under reports of flying pigs, various people rising from graves, Hell freezing over, etc etc. But i might get my pink unicorn at long last.

debacle• 5 years ago

I wonder what the cost/benefit curve is for lobbying from $0.

$22B is about $150 for every working American. It probably cost Microsoft less than $1mm to lobby for this deal.

aardvarkr2• 5 years ago

Prime content for /r/im14andthisisdeep right here. It easily cost microsoft more than $1MM just to put together the proposal alone, much less fight for it in front of technical audits and careful scrutiny of every part of the project. Did you not read the article, which made clear just how much scrutiny is being applied to this deal? Do you think someone can just hand out a million dollar check and be given $22B of work without being qualified?

oh_sigh• 5 years ago

Not to nitpick but your post would stand on its own without the insult in the first sentence.

kaycebasques2• 5 years ago

No need for the disrespectful tone. You're violating a lot of HN's community guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

edge17• 5 years ago

Kinda makes one wonder what all the fuss about billionaires going to space is about. VR industry isn't exactly lacking in private funding rightnow. My guess is that this money is strategically aligned with shoring up chip manufacturing in the US (since I am guessing all the parts for this will be required to be sources domestically)

topkai22• 5 years ago

Statements like this imply that "lobbying" is the only reason the government does anything. That, in my experience, is simply not true. Government employees and even legislators are motivated by accomplishing their mission. An augmented reality system seems like an amazing tool to accomplish the Army's mission- I really don't think anyone needed to lobby them to much to be interested in an acquisition program.

trident50002• 5 years ago

In what world does it take 22 billion dollars to develop an AR goggle program. Its not a mystery why we have out of control spending and certain groups lobby and get wonderfully rich off the governments incompetence and corruption.

ydkme• 5 years ago

Two thoughts:

- I'd be very surprised if Apple releases their AR headset without a similar-size (70% or more) investment over the preceding decade. RDT&E for environment-aware devices is incredibly expensive.

- Defense funding and procurement amounts often shock those not in the industry, but the truth is that the entire market for most of what the DoD funds is...the DoD. Sure, a lot of the components and IP can be reused in the commercial sector, but for most programs the DoD has to fund both the initial R&D and the unit sales, because the market is so much smaller and device sales are heavily restricted (e.g. ITAR). The DoD also has MUCH broader and stricter requirements for security, safety, reliability, and compliance with a daunting array of standards and processes than the commercial industry. To be clear, this is on net a good thing for the DoD and by extension the rest of the USA, but it does increase development costs.

Certainly there is profit being made by Microsoft here, that's kind of the point of partnering with the DoD. But the intuitive comparison of "DoD programs should cost the same as developing a commercial equivalent" that many of us make is fundamentally apples and oranges in both the product development and the economics.

onlyrealcuzzo4• 5 years ago

In a world where engineers at MSFT make $300k+ - that pays ~70k engineers for a year.

There are nowhere near 70k engineers working on this - I'd be surprised if even 7k - but this has been in development for years, and will be in development for a few more.

Depending on how many headsets they planned to deliver - I wouldn't be surprised if they each cost more than $1k - there are like 60k infantry soldiers - so that could easily cost >$60M.

I'd imagine they spent >$100M lobbying on this and Jedi.

I can't see how this would cost anywhere near $22Bn - but military contractors are known to have profit margins >30%.

I'm obviously missing a lot of things - but I wouldn't be surprised if this cost MSFT >$10Bn.

texasbigdata• 5 years ago

The headsets currently retail for $6k each and they are consumer not military specs.

wespiser_20184• 5 years ago

The one piece of this that might end up costing a ton of money is the testing using live soldiers. Each of those deployments, along with all the heavy equipment is a lot of money. I saw they already have 80k hours of soldier feedback, so in part, that's where some of the money goes. The rest, of course, is figuring out how to make the HoloLens light and reliable, which no one has ever done. Idk, this could be a huge money pit. The Army has tried this idea before and failed. Now might be the time, or this could be another JSF spending fiasco. Either way, MSFT is doing well.

cryptica5• 5 years ago

This is job creation porn. These engineers don't deserve any public money, let alone to prop up their $300K per year salaries.

Microsoft could get better engineers for cheaper. Including within the US. The problem is that this isn't about engineering. It's a scheme.

ahepp4• 5 years ago

$1k? I would guess $10k+

wtf_is_up2• 5 years ago

but military contractors are known to have profit margins >30%.

Based on what data? Contract bidders must show all direct and indirect costs and are typically allowed to price in ~10% profit when submitting their proposal. In fact, you can look at historical financial data for LMT, NOC, GD, etc and see profit margin float around 7-10%. A proposal with 30% profit margin baked in would be laughed out of the selection committee.

wespiser_20184• 5 years ago

A maze or requirement, bureaucracy, and interoperability with existing and TBD systems? Software is expensive to build. Reliable software all that much more.

If you consider an alternative, just make an app and stick phone on a rifle, sure, that will work for 90% of the stuff you want to do, but it would break and that's bad. A true "heads up display" that you can bet your life on, anywhere on earth, at any time, is just a truly massive undertaking.

dralley2• 5 years ago

I'm sorry but even taking into account the clusterf*** of government procurement this is a truly obscene price tag. Even by government standards, this is ridiculous.

It's half as much as the development of the entire flipping Space Shuttle. It's more than Apple's entire yearly R&D budget. It's more than the James Webb Space Telescope and the entire Hubble program (including operations and the repairs that were needed post-launch) combined. It's roughly the cost of 8 Mars rovers of the same type as Curiosity / Perseverance.

This is worse, even, than the Joint Strike Fighter program, which at least started out reasonably with only a pair of 1 billion dollar grants handed out to Boeing and Lockheed to develop two functional prototype fighter aircraft (never mind how the costs spiraled later).

Setting aside the question of how much it should or shouldn't cost to develop such a product, it's absolute insanity to do it with a single massive project. The DoD loves to claim in public they're trying to be more agile, and this is the exact opposite of that. This ought to have been done $100 million (or less) at a time with limited initial scope and incrementally expanding goals.

Don't make excuses for this. There is no possible justification.

darkerside4• 5 years ago

In your simplest web software, there's the first 80% and the second 80%. With projects like this, which are literally life and death, there's many more 80%s to be considered and executed.

Do you ask why space travel is expensive? It's arguably much simpler than this is.

cryptica5• 5 years ago

We all have nuclear weapons, why do we need rifles and infantry? This narrative is total BS. Is the goal to waste money today in order to be able to waste even more money later on countries like Iraq and Afganistan? We've seen what those rifles are used for... These rifles would be more useful to society if politicians would just shove them up their ***!

paganel• 5 years ago

true "heads up display" that you can bet your life on, anywhere on earth, at any time, is just a truly massive undertaking.

At some point you have to make a cost-benefit analysis and look at the bigger picture. For example and in this particular case, yes, spending let’s say 10 billion instead of 22 billion for a rougher solution might increase the dead count on the battlefield in the near future, but if those 12 billion that you’ve now saved go to better free education at home (more engineers in the future to design better weapons) or/and to free healthcare (more fit soldiers in the future) maybe it will all even out at a higher threshold.

jjk1663• 5 years ago

If you consider an alternative, just make an app and stick phone on a rifle, sure, that will work for 90% of the stuff you want to do, but it would break and that's bad.

Given that soldiers are currently getting by with something that works 0% of the time, the assumption that 90% isn't good enough seems highly suspect. Exactly how many more soldiers will be saved by developing a true heads up display versus an off the shelf app running on a ruggedized phone?

This seems like an obvious case of a failure to actually define requirements and make real engineering decisions.

ahepp4• 5 years ago

It was a competitive bidding process, no? I don't mean to suggest there aren't huge problems with the army's acquisition process, but it seems no one wanted to make them for less.

trident50002• 5 years ago

I dont think the list of contractors the Army considers is very deep; its not competitive in a true sense. That may be part of the problem.

jakey_bakey• 5 years ago

Playing devils advocate here, Magic Leap has managed to burn through $3.5 billion and has made no achievements of note - instead of solving the two primary optics challenges of AR, they allocated their capital to make blacks look slightly blacker.

m0zg2• 5 years ago

I worked with a Federal Contractor once (you, as a rule, have to go through a middleman to work with US Govt, and that's where most of the profit ends up). Their requirement was that we use their hardware in their datacenter to do our work and never move data out of there. So they asked us for configs. I priced it out, it came to something like $120K in total, sent them the specs. They tore it up and bought $1.2M worth of hardware instead. Insane CPUs, maxed out RAM, Infiniband, you name it. We didn't need any of that. Literally 10x the price. Ever since then I have extra bad taste in my mouth when filing my taxes, and I know for a fact that merely passing money through the government makes most of it disappear into a black hole.

hooande• 5 years ago

The tax dollars didn't completely disappear. They were used to pay you and hundreds of thousands of others

greenreptar2• 5 years ago

it's "up to 22 billion over 10 years." So $2b/year once things get moving. They're still in testing, so likely less than that figure.

sneak3• 5 years ago

A good reminder that working at MSFT means that your code may one day be applied in products used to conduct mass murder.

rightbyte• 5 years ago

So does working on Linux. Or like the 7zip lib.

memonkey• 5 years ago

Think the difference is who is explicitly signing contracts.

teakettle42• 5 years ago

This is true working just about anywhere.

I’m far more concerned about the demand-side of this equation.

sneak3• 5 years ago

This is true working just about anywhere.

I’ve worked at a lot of places, and none of the code I’ve ever written has been used to conduct warfare.

Invictus0• 5 years ago

A good reminder that working at Bell Labs means that your phone lines may one day be used by mass murderers.

Technology is amoral; the science of the atom is not evil just because it led to the atomic bomb.

sneak3• 5 years ago

General purpose technology is amoral; specialized tools are not. Microsoft makes custom software for military applications.

stefan_• 5 years ago

Remember, the F16 runs Kubernetes!

rmdashrfstar• 5 years ago

https://gcn.com/articles/2020/01/07/af-kubernetes-f16.aspx?m... What a world we live in…

Edit: here’s the DOD case study by the CNCF:

https://www.cncf.io/case-studies/dod/

asah• 5 years ago

By that logic, so does buying cereal and paying taxes.

keewee7• 5 years ago

I would be proud to code stuff that the Danish military and allies use.

fsagx• 5 years ago

Seems like delay of such a big program would have at least a little negative effect on MSFT, but there doesn't appear to have been any at all.

lucasmullens• 5 years ago

Maybe MSFT is already locked in to the profits from the deal, regardless of delays?

darkerside4• 5 years ago

Maybe the good news they didn't cancel it offsets the bad news that they postponed it

wtf_is_up2• 5 years ago

Gov't acquisition always involves shifts 'to the right'. Even in 100x smaller programs than IVAS.

lifeisstillgood6• 5 years ago

I recently bought my children an Oculus Quest because ... nagging. And I was utterly blown away.

I understand why every billionaire is betting on this in some way.

I would however put these goggles firmly in the camp of weapons like the tank that fires hundreds of missiles that fly off independently and destroy a hundred passing tanks. There is such a distance from "kinda works in demo" to "killing active enemy" that it is barely worth thinking about for five years or more.

I would have to put other projects up top like

- when all the civilian engine development turns to batteries and electric, how the hell do we keep our planes trains and automobiles running. Just how expensive will getting the gas get?

- Do ship defences really work? I would want to be pretty sure we test fire every kind of drone and missile at real ships and see if they shoot them down.

- In defiance of everything i wrote above, Apparently there is a cool targeting sight that puts a red dot on where the bullet will land based on distance, weather etc etc. It "apparently" makes every squaddie a sniper and is going to roll out to US army real soon. My question is once soldiers get out of a vehicle, how lethal is the battlefield now? What's the survival time measured in minutes under sniper and artillery fire? The last time the battlefield was insanely lethal people just dig trenches to even survive the day.

mr_overalls• 5 years ago

The last time the battlefield was insanely lethal people just dig trenches to even survive the day.

Trench warfare proliferated when a revolution in firepower was unmatched by similar advances in mobility.

Most likely, ongoing advances in stealth, armor, area denial, anti-drone tech, etc. will preclude its reappearance on the battlefield.

Qworg• 5 years ago

Also, among other things, laser guided airburst 40mm grenades make trenches not a great option.

sudosysgen2• 5 years ago

There aren't really anymore advances in stealth and armor. If anything anti-stealth and anti-armor tech is advancing much more rapidly.

What is advancing is area denial, anti-drone tech, and active protection systems.

fennecfoxen• 5 years ago

Trenches weren't even all that great at protecting people in their days. What the multi-layer trench systems were good at was more or less "making it hard for the enemy to hold this territory for more than a few hours or days after taking it."

nvelty2• 5 years ago

During the more conventional phase of the 1st Chechen War, the Chechens made good use of hastily dug zig-zag trenches to limit the effects of Russian artillery and air support. The real revolution now is the proliferation of precision weapons and the use of drones to enable targeting for supporting fires. The trench still matters, but now camouflage and deception is equally important to prevent accurate targeting of a position. The marines did some testing in a drone-saturated environment and had to reshuffle their tactical doctrine to put a much higher emphasis on immediately camouflaging their position.

na85• 5 years ago

The last time the battlefield was insanely lethal people just dig trenches to even survive the day.

This occurred during a time when trenches actually protected those soldiers. Modern artillery with GPS-guided rounds can not only target a specific building (so far away that you need to account for the rotation of the earth as it spins underneath the round) but you can pick the window of the building you want the round to go through.

For a fraction of the cost there's also the ol' hand-grenade-duct-taped-to-a-quadcopter.

Hiding in a trench isn't really going to save anyone.

mc322• 5 years ago

Can’t do much about missiles but against quadcopters with grenades just add a storm fence dome over your trench. And unless the quadcopters get equipped with high strength wire cutters they’re not going to do much.

ortusdux• 5 years ago

Air-burst rounds have definitely rendered trenches obsolete.

https://imgur.com/c17lPxF

dragontamer7• 5 years ago

For a fraction of the cost there's also the ol' hand-grenade-duct-taped-to-a-quadcopter.

Its like people don't know we have CIWS or something.

Rockets flying at 500mph are shot down regularly by aimbot defensive weapons. But suddenly a drone flying at 20mph is too tough to handle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d_h5uqnYOI

--------

"Duct-taped grenade on drone" is just a crappy TOW missile. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW), which were around in the 70s. That's not a new strategy. We have CIWS today that provide mild-protection against weapons like this.

Wire-guided missiles are older than the TOW system. But I assume most military buffs would know about the TOW.

EDIT: Wow, I knew that there were wire-guided missiles before TOW. I didn't know that wire-guided missiles were in play in Nazi Germany during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4

In any case: the problem with pure wire-guided missiles is that when people are shooting guns at you, and you're hiding in a trench... fiddling around with a joystick trying to move your "drone" (or wire-guided missile) to hit them is a lot harder than it looks. Even if the enemy is the size of a tank (remember: the tank is moving surprisingly fast)

TOW were optical-guided + wire-guided, meaning a computer calculates the positioning, and you "only" need to point the optical scanner towards your target, no joystick involved. 1940s style joysticks being used in modern combat would be a significant disadvantage compared to modern systems.

--------

EDIT2: CIWS is the big version we put onto the Iron Dome or Cruisers / Supercarriers. Apparently the smaller version is called APS (active protection system), when its put onto a tank or IVF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JI0cYo6rag

-------

For an actual anti-tank weapon (or really, anti-anything weapon), look up what TOW missiles can do today with their simple point-and-shoot interfaces: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17654/wat...

That's two explosions: once "over" the target, the TOW 2B Missile (one of the many, many variants of TOW) explodes, sending an armor-piercing round over the top of a tank where the armor is weaker.

The 2nd explosion is the actual explosion designed to kill the tank.

TOW missiles fly at 300m/s (or ~650+ miles per hour).

treeman79• 5 years ago

It will once the various factories have been blown up. Imagine they are in the short list.

swayvil• 5 years ago

They've got drones that can track you by BO.

https://www.wired.com/story/this-drone-sniffs-out-odors-with...

nitwit005• 5 years ago

People have been bragging about the accuracy of weapons for the last half century or so, and they haven't been wrong. The weapons do hit what you aim them at.

You may notice though, that war hasn't ended up being people lobbing a bunch of smart weapons at each other, and militaries still seem to be digging holes and building walls.

nextaccountic• 5 years ago

There is such a distance from "kinda works in demo" to "killing active enemy" that it is barely worth thinking about for five years or more.

It depends on the level of investment. WW2 saw a tremendous technological progress in 5 years because that was it took to win the war. Nowadays, I don't see why AR would be so urgent.

lifeisstillgood6• 5 years ago

I am a little dubious about the "war makes technological progress faster" meme. I think technology has a pace determined mostly by physics and what is possible. War perhaps only stops us getting in our own way( see torpedoes).

Just to (cherry) pick a few examples

- WW2 was not even going to start unless progress had already passed the point that doctrine could see a way past the stalemate of the previous war. Germany had proven this (to itself) in Spain in 1936 - that tanks with close air support was now a viable thing at the divisional level. Progress from the say Panzer II to IV was not "quantum leaps" but solid well tested progress as was similar Russian tanks who were going up against them. Adding bigger engines and more armour, or sloping armour. This was progress by "failing fast". That is an organisational decision less than a technical one. for example :

- Torpedoes : In the battle of midway US torpedoes frankly did not work (it's a terrible thing to ask a pilot to fly low and slow into AA fire and not give them a torpedo that actually will shoot straight or explode on contact). That was fixed in the latter part of the Pacific war but not because of technological progress but organisational change. ie firing everyone who thought there was no need to test torpedoes by, you know, live firing even one.

- Manhattan Project. Yes and no I mean in early 1939 science did not think it was actually possible to make a nuclear bomb. After Piles' memo that changed and so there was a race on. But the goal was so tempting / threatening that even without a war it would still have been a major strategic goal. just like Rockets

- Rockets. Frankly these are like VR glasses. Basically the technology was just possible in the late 30s. And we would have worked on it anyway - war or not. But despite going from toy demo to actual bombs on London, they were ... well the V2 was the biplane compared to the Apollo 20 years later. It was not war that made rockets go up, it was funding.

War perhaps gives a focus to develop at a pace that would not be seen otherwise, but the space race showed you can do it without an actual live war-

Technology cannot be forced -the materials science or energy equations either make it possible or not. No amount of investment in 1917 would have made a Panzer tank by 1920. You also could not turn a V2 into Apollo by 1950.

Ultimately my view is that war strips away the self-serving excuses that organisations build up around why their progress is slow. It makes things faster because it gives clear unmistakable feedback (see torpedoes) and focuses funding, prioritisation and talent.

It seems it would be nice if we could find ways to improve our organisations without the deaths of millions.

Thank you had not thought about that before.

RangerScience• 5 years ago

Having worked in AR, the first place to use it in the military isn't in weapons; but rather training, logistics and construction.

duped• 5 years ago

I think if you return to first principles, where the military exists as a tool of the state to conduct policy through violence (or threat of it) then most of the projects don't make sense given the abject failure of the military to achieve success over the last few decades.

A better use of technology for this kind of policy would be on offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, control and monitoring of social or media networks and telecommunications. The CCP seems to understand that those are better tools for conducting diplomacy with 21st century violence more than making it easier for a soldier to hit someone with a bullet, since that is mostly a solved problem (shoot more of them and care less about who they hit)

goagw• 5 years ago

Defensive cyber capabilities make sense but I dont know what offensive capabilities means when you are just completely cut off from Chinese networks. Maybe shoot a few Zuckerbergs into China or something...

barry-cotter• 5 years ago

I think if you return to first principles, where the military exists as a tool of the state to conduct policy through violence (or threat of it) then most of the projects don't make sense given the abject failure of the military to achieve success over the last few decades.

Tell it to Azerbaijan. The fact that the US didn't have a coincidence of plan and excution sufficient to achieve anything doesn't mean others can't, even with vastly fewer material resources.

HWR_14• 5 years ago

The US has successfully conducted a lot of policy through violence and the military. As you point out, the purpose of the US military is not nation building, and it has been those steps that failed.

jvanderbot• 5 years ago

The US navy does test its weapons in live fire demonstrations for both offensive and defensive systems, and includes drones and other asymetric deliveries. You can find some cool videos on YouTube.

Source: built one such system for US Navy.

nradov• 5 years ago

I think the real concern is that such live fire tests have been unrealistically small with only a few target drones at a time. There has never been a real all-up fleet defense exercise with hundreds of high speed antiship missiles coming in simultaneously from multiple axes. They run electronic simulations of those scenarios all the time but doing it for real would cost billions.

paul7986• 5 years ago

Would you want to virtually co-work with your co-workers Memojis using the oculus T instead of working in an office with them and or remotely from your couch no VR?

gigel822• 5 years ago

I've heard the contract team (PMs) over-promised (as usual) literal SciFi features that can't physically be implemented (especially around the size of the helmet).

Engineers on the project are leaving in droves (we got a couple interviewing for us, but I presume a lot more are just moving internally) to avoid the crunch and (likely) eventual crash & burn (because if they can't physically implement the requirements today I doubt they'll breakthrough in a year).

Frost1x2• 5 years ago

I've had multiple recruiters contact me this week representing contractual organizations working directly on and with aspects of IVAS.

AR, VR, sensor technology, battery technology and portable computing have come a long way for certain, but most of what's being promised is just grandiose.

I'm always surprised at how much snake oil and empty promises the federal government keeps buying in bulk. I realize why the DoD wants to invest in this, because you should to stay current if not ahead of adversaries, but why do they have to push it as a development effort when it's really a lot of research and exploratory engineering work. Does it take take big promise to get adequate funding for slightly less grandiose but still cutting edge work?

The older I get, the more tired I get of the constant oversell in technology.

R0b0t12• 5 years ago

I worked for a relatively mundane company that had to bid on government contracts. This lying made it nearly impossible to win bids for the longest time. Government was always happy to go with someone who was lying because everyone was lying and the one or two companies giving legitimate bids looked like they were below industry standards.

greenreptar2• 5 years ago

Based on these conversations, I'm curious what you think the chances are of the Army's IVAS program being implemented by September next '22 as they're suggesting.

gigel822• 5 years ago

I'm sure they'll have something, but it's unlikely to be what MS folks originally promised.

nova22033• 5 years ago

* “The devices met the Army’s requirements of rugged, waterproof and shockproof. But no one had considered, for example, that the headsets needed to allow users to brace a rifle against a cheek.”*

I mean...

remarkEon• 5 years ago

Yeah, tell me you don't have any former Infantrymen on your product team without telling me you don't have any former Infantrymen on your product team.

Arrath• 5 years ago

Designer's solution: a 3lb camera and battery pack you strap onto the muzzle to give you a Picture-in-Picture boresight reticle on your goggle lens.

josefresco• 5 years ago

While reading about this over at The War Zone* I found a video of "enhanced night vision" which looked very cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Poi0bOi91X8

*https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42739/army-halts-widel...

buescher• 5 years ago

Two things have kept "good enough" versions of these kinds of systems from being widely deployed:

1) Batteries are inherently dismal, and getting enough of a sci-fi aesthetic and feature set to wow the military brass will always demand enough power to be at the edge of battery logistics hell

2) Infantrymen will destroy any cable you come up with in five minutes

sonthonax• 5 years ago

In all fairness, trying to keep cables intact that are plugged into an overpacked rucksack and are attached to your head is pretty hard for anyone.

tech_timc• 5 years ago

Some decent pictures in this story: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42739/army-halts-widel...

This seems important. . .

However, early prototype IVAS systems were simply not rugged enough for operational use, with one iteration notably unable to work in the rain. The Army has conducted more rigorous testing of the latest version, with what it had indicated were positive results. Soldiers have also experimented with using IVAS headsets within vehicles and during airmobile operations.

Questions have also been raised about the conformal batteries that soldiers need to carry in their gear to power the IVAS headsets, both in regard to how long they can keep the systems running and safety concerns about what might happen if they get shot or otherwise damaged in combat. The Army has said in the past that it has made progress on improving the capabilities of the batteries and their resistance to incoming fire.

Shadonototra2• 5 years ago

why title omits "Microsoft", don't want to hurt that company stock market?

zenalg• 5 years ago

who are they going to kill?

Army delays $22B augmented reality goggle program

Related Stories