Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping • Hacker News Board

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#131

Post by Sologram » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

ryandamm wrote: post #50

I think what's missing from this discussion is the demo is apparently really, really good. Google didn't put ~$500m, and Alibaba something like $800m, just on a whim, or some investment thesis. And everyone I've spoken to who's gotten the demo is a believer. I think this article suffers from an overly binary view of technology -- if it isn't market ready, it's vaporware. No, there's probably some real tech there (afo…

Theranos which had huge investments turned out be mmm a sad story. Big money from big companies does not mean it is true. They also fell for the hype.

Rony Abovitz must be a great salesman.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#132

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

fuzzfactor wrote: post #118

DonHopkins wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J5BWL8oJY

Ringling College who is sharing the video with us, of course is an institution founded philanthropically in early Sarasota arising from earnings made by the Ringling Bros. Circus. Long associated with Barnum & Bailey, this is the legendary traveling spectacle whose touring will soon be permanently cancelled for the first time in over 100 years. Anyway, when it comes to Magic Leap, I don't see any way that PTBarnum wo…

[deleted]

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#133

Post by DonHopkins » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 10:16 PM UTC

fuzzfactor wrote: post #118

DonHopkins wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J5BWL8oJY

Ringling College who is sharing the video with us, of course is an institution founded philanthropically in early Sarasota arising from earnings made by the Ringling Bros. Circus. Long associated with Barnum & Bailey, this is the legendary traveling spectacle whose touring will soon be permanently cancelled for the first time in over 100 years. Anyway, when it comes to Magic Leap, I don't see any way that PTBarnum wo…

Wow. Thank you for sharing those James Burke quality Connections!

TEDxSarasota [1] => Saratosa, Florida [2] => Ringling College of Art & Design [3] => Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus [4] => P T Barnum [5] => Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College [6] => Magic Leap [7]

[1] http://www.tedxsarasota.com/surprises-abound-in-this-multime...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasota,_Florida

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_College_of_Art_and_De...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_...

[7] https://www.magicleap.com

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#134

Post by nradov » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 11:00 PM UTC

jaypaulynice wrote: post #32

The problem is honesty isn't rewarded anymore. Someone working hard will be beaten by someone who tells all the fancy stuff...I know a lot of startups that raised millions, but their tech and growth is totally non-existent. I did some research and a lot of companies have little to no social media presence, yet are "growing" crazy. How do people find them? Add network effect and you get overly hyped stuff that don't d…

Social media presence isn't a useful indicator of growth rate for the majority of companies. In many cases it's a waste of marketing budget.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#135

Post by ericd » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 11:43 PM UTC

Sologram wrote: post #126

ericd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hololens was pretty crappy, though. The Oculus is a much more refined experience, and even there it's not clear that it's good enough to step out of novelty into mass market. I'd say Oculus is close, and Hololens has a very long way to go.

Did u even use Hololens? Hololens is the best AR with best Tracking and mapping. Comparing AR device with VR device itself is not correct. Every one in VR world knows HTC Vive has far superior experience than Rift.

Yes, I have used the Hololens. It's technically impressive, and the structured light-based environment mapping seems to work well. It's easily the best of the AR bunch that I've played with, but it's still got far too many problems to get past the interesting tech demo stage, and it's nowhere near ready for mainstream adoption. The display quality is somewhere just north of flaming garbage, and it's certainly nowhere near the type of quality they've shown in those CG heavy videos.

I understand that AR and VR are very different challenges, I was simply comparing them as two nascent techs that are frequently talked about together as being upcoming. VR is much closer to being ready for primetime, despite Hololens' release. Even the Oculus DK1 was closer to ready for mass adoption.

And most of /r/oculus would vigorously debate your last sentence since Touch came out, which makes that sentence completely false. I say this as a Vive owner, Touch has taken away the Vive's main advantage.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#136

Post by epmaybe » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 12:45 AM UTC

new299 wrote: post #77

ryandamm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I thought it was significant that the two lead investors are strategic (the first big tranche came from Google, not GV), so there's even less signaling there. As for $1.4B vs $500K... they're different species of investment animal. The people making the hundred-million dollar decisions aren't prepared to make hundred-thousand dollar decisions. So I don't think those huge investments are actually replacing or c…

Well, perhaps think of it another way. Those billions are mostly going toward staffing costs (I would guess? If not direct employees then via semiconductor fabs etc). Would that engineer time be better spent proving out a bunch of smaller speculative ideas rather than throwing it all behind one speculative idea. That's the crux of it really. We could be spending our engineering time better. Maybe not funding 1000 sma…

Interesting because this is the same thing I've seen having worked for my first startup. They don't want much money, and want to keep it lean, yet that for some reason turns investors away because they're used to putting in millions and millions.

How do you keep the size small, yet still get the funding you desperately need?

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#137

Post by endorphone » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 4:25 AM UTC

Sologram wrote: post #129

endorphone wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HoloLens is being pushed with much of the same rigged demos. As a review from a few days ago mentioned- "Maybe Microsoft is saving all the wow factor for its keynotes, but my demo was a less refined and less capable version of what we've seen in on-stage demos. My experience, while impressive, felt like child's play AR compared to what's been in Microsoft's keynotes." Microsoft unveiled it well over a year ago, and s…

It is used by NASA and they are stupid as per your post. Where did you see the "rigged demos"? It works as shown in the demos if you even understand what it can do and do not. Your 20 minutes on hand demo never shows/teaches you any thing.

It is hardly "used" by NASA. As a conceptual study for the whole premise of AR they have tried it out in concert with Microsoft, but the project has gone entirely silent. And no, it doesn't work as shown in the demos -- it's very low resolution and has movement and 3D mapping issues. It will obviously improve, but I wouldn't be dropping thousands on a first generation unit, as it is certainly money down the toilet.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#138

Post by jayjay71 » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:09 AM UTC

new299 wrote: post #114

jayjay71 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do institutional investors fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy? If you don't meet your milestones, you're probably not getting more money from the same investors. VC's make a lot of mistakes, but throwing good money after bad seems pretty rare to me.

When developing a new basic technology the milestones are often vague, and they're generally not open to DD. So hitting milestones in taken on trust and open to interpretation quite often. Sink cost doesn't work quite the same way. It's more that they evaluate the investment as good because someone else put in a bunch of money (and they expect know what they're doing/did good DD).

I can agree that many investors will assume that because other firms invested, that is a "signal" that they use to invest themselves, and in that sense raising money can give you momentum. But I disagree that that is the same thing as the sunk cost fallacy. What I am claiming is that investors are not likely to reinvest once they realize the company is not performing as expected. It's only if they've spent their own money, and then put more money in a subsequent round that they are prey to the sunk cost fallacy.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#139

Post by new299 » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 9:06 AM UTC

jayjay71 wrote: post #138

new299 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When developing a new basic technology the milestones are often vague, and they're generally not open to DD. So hitting milestones in taken on trust and open to interpretation quite often. Sink cost doesn't work quite the same way. It's more that they evaluate the investment as good because someone else put in a bunch of money (and they expect know what they're doing/did good DD).

I can agree that many investors will assume that because other firms invested, that is a "signal" that they use to invest themselves, and in that sense raising money can give you momentum. But I disagree that that is the same thing as the sunk cost fallacy. What I am claiming is that investors are not likely to reinvest once they realize the company is not performing as expected. It's only if they've spent their own…

Right, I think we agree. It's not a sunk cost fallacy. It's more sink cost signaling or something.

Re: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping

#140

Post by quatrian » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

ggame wrote: post #62

Geee wrote: post #31

It doesn't matter if their tech doesn't yet work. Augmented reality is inevitable and someone will make it happen. Now, the logic is that whoever pours the most money into it will win the race and with patents be in a monopoly position. It's a gamble, but they have a likelihood of succeeding with money and hard work. That's what they've sold to their investors.

I'd hazard a bet that augmented reality already peaked with Pokémon Go.

Perhaps for gaming, but I see augmented reality's main use in replacing TVs, projectors, monitors, displays, phones. I think VR is for gaming, I think AR will be one of the biggest productivity tools ever created.