Can anyone explain what force is recoiling the shooter's hand in the second video? Or is that gun computer-generated?
Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
31–40 of 183 posts
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be able to find someone to create a derivative on it. You would probably need a non-trivial amount of money to make it happen.
That's what I figured. I wish there was some SaaS-ish fund/Kickstarter where multiple small investors could go together for this kind of thing for a nominal fee.
That would probably get shut down pretty quickly, as it would be essentially allowing a group of small-time players to make non-sports-related proposition bets.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
When your product has been featured in nearly every science fiction movie of the last few decades does "the market" really need to be proven?
Given the former omnipresence of flying cars in science fiction movies, I would say yes.
Flying cars don't exist. That's a technology problem, not a market problem.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#34I don't know where I stand on this. To be raising such ridiculous amounts, they must have some incredible technology to demo. If they're anything close to what the second demo video shows, then they're basically building Tony Stark's home computer interface in Iron Man.
>To be raising such ridiculous amounts, they must have some incredible technology to demo.
I used to think along this line too. But examples like Theranos make me more skeptical
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#35I don't know where I stand on this. To be raising such ridiculous amounts, they must have some incredible technology to demo. If they're anything close to what the second demo video shows, then they're basically building Tony Stark's home computer interface in Iron Man.
Let's hope so. We see a lot of promises with this and HoloLens, but somehow production versions are still not here. I'm still not really sure if the latter isn't just a prank, or at least mostly post-recording CG.
> they're basically building Tony Stark's home computer interface in Iron Man.
Since you're bringing up Marvel - I fear the reality, at least with first released products, will turn out somewhat like this:
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#36Seems a bit much, doesn't it? This might be the pets.com of the twenty-teens.
They need to fabricate their light field emitter photonic IC. I imagine that's pretty expensive.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#37Can anyone explain what force is recoiling the shooter's hand in the second video? Or is that gun computer-generated?
Even if the graphics are real (and that's a big if), the video is certainly a staged "proof of concept", and the apps are not real.
Thus, the shooter is recoiling the gun himself, to fit the narrative.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I figured. I wish there was some SaaS-ish fund/Kickstarter where multiple small investors could go together for this kind of thing for a nominal fee.
That would probably get shut down pretty quickly, as it would be essentially allowing a group of small-time players to make non-sports-related proposition bets.
What would be wrong with that? People do it informally all the time.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Along these lines - is there an example of a technology company that succeeded after raising so much money without proving their product in the market?
When your product has been featured in nearly every science fiction movie of the last few decades does "the market" really need to be proven?
Case in point: PADD -> iPad.
Re: Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
#40Magic Leap has a patent application for "contact lenses" technology [1] Imagine if instead of having to put somewhat ridiculous and obtrusive glasses in front of your face, you could just use contact lenses that had this augmented reality capability. It would be ... life changing. [1] http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
The main problem is power. There's no way to project light into the retina without power, and it's difficult to get power to the lens without using wires. Induction is promising, but the falloff is dramatic. Meaning your inductive power generator would have to be pretty much on top of your eyes for it to power your contacts.
Glasses plus contacts might be a good idea. The generator could sit on the frames. The contacts would allow you to use a small amount of light to get the same effect as an Oculus, which means much smaller power requirements.
Still, to project light, you need some way of projecting light. It's hard to imagine something that can be embedded into a contact lens which is also transparent. And if it's not transparent, it's not really augmented reality.
Fun to imagine. Hopefully someone will come up with something.