51–60 of 183 posts
I 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.
Kinda amazing how these guys are past Series C now and still haven't released a product.
By the way, how good has Facebook been at acquisitions? Instagram alone has already paid off in gains all the total dollars spent, and they also have WhatsApp and Oculus which are both huge, important "companies". Good for Zuck.
Can 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.
Try it really quickly. Hold your hand in front of you like you are holding a gun. recoil your hand. feels pretty cool, right?
Now, just imagine that the software is tracking your hand and the gun shoots whenever you intentionally recoil.
I 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
There's a certain amount of seeing is believing to Magic Leap. If I were to wear a Magic Leap headset and was able to play the game that they demo, I would sign on in a heartbeat. You can fake a demo, but you can't fake the game. And I'd imagine investors at this valuation/amount of money (which btw is 10x what Theranos raised total!) are definitely getting into the nuts and bolts, making sure that the tech isn't being faked.
Can anyone explain what force is recoiling the shooter's hand in the second video? Or is that gun computer-generated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except that Magic Leap's technology problem has had $1B in investment capital thrown at it -- much more than flying cars, no?
It's easy to think of reasons why this isn't a sound investment. However, here are some thoughts why this may be sensible: * This is largely Google's investment to cover possible future success of Facebook's Occulus or Microsoft's Hololens. * They could have valuable non-tangible patents or employees. This is way past the "acquihire" funding levels, but perhaps the technology itself is valuable. Perhaps they get arou…
The main reason why ML is able to attract this level of investment is that their technology is literally decades ahead of what anybody else has. I haven't had the opportunity to try their headset out, but I know some people who have, and I haven't heard a single bad thing about it. The closest metaphor I can think of is seeing a GUI for the first time or seeing a TV set for the first time. I've used almost all of the other technology on the market or in development, and nothing comes anywhere close to what Magic Leap has.
Not many people realize this, but Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, and everyone else is pouring millions into AR/MR technology. You only hear about Google and Magic Leap because internal R&D budgets aren't public, but this is a huge area of research for everybody. A number of the largest tech companies have recently opened up small research shops in Seattle, Israel, and Cambridge, where AR/MR researchers have traditionally been based.
Proper AR/MR won't revolutionize entertainment consumption. It will revolutionize all of computing, especially productivity. That's one of the reasons why I love AR/MR so much more than VR, even though I've never experienced AR/MR that's anywhere near the quality of good VR. Good AR/MR is a significantly bigger leap for computing than iOS and Android were over Blackberry, Palm, and Windows Mobile. Again, the best metaphor I can think of is the GUI vs. text-based computing.
Lastly, ML does have an amazing patent portfolio and a world-class workforce that would be a dream acqu-hire for any large tech company, but top-notch VC's don't invest in startups for their patent portfolios.
If this turns out to be the successor to smartphones, then these comments will look like people laughing at the Instagram acquisition.
Kinda amazing how these guys are past Series C now and still haven't released a product.
Oculus got acquired without having released a product to be fair, and that looks like a phenomenal acquisition. By the way, how good has Facebook been at acquisitions? Instagram alone has already paid off in gains all the total dollars spent, and they also have WhatsApp and Oculus which are both huge, important "companies". Good for Zuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The game could pick up on a recoiled hand to trigger the virtual gun. Try it really quickly. Hold your hand in front of you like you are holding a gun. recoil your hand. feels pretty cool, right? Now, just imagine that the software is tracking your hand and the gun shoots whenever you intentionally recoil.
I still think it's staged. The motions look way too "casual" and not deliberate enough to be interpreted easily in software without some revolutionary tech, in addition to the unrelated revolutionary tech needed to do the AR "live".