Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magic Leap One

magicleap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 653 posts

Re: Magic Leap One

#541

Post by munchbunny »

iamleppert wrote: post #455

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect bragg compliance in lightfield displays that has been well documented. But I didn't come here to argue about whether such a thing could exist in the world or not. Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no…

I'm pretty sure the main objection isn't how much money they took, it's that they've shown very little evidence of actually being able to back up their claims. How much money they were able to raise just makes it look more egregious.

Re: Magic Leap One

#544

Post by vvanders »

koolba wrote: post #315
shimon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two reasons why the field is focused on gaming and not productivity: fidelity and familiarity. It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. In gaming, on…

> It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. I doubt that. If you make a VR/AR/?R version of a Bloomberg terminal or Factset then finance firms will literally rol…

It's been a while since I've been in the AR/VR/3D space but last time I was there you just couldn't do high density text well at all.

Look at the effective resolution of your monitor and consider the percentage of the field of view that it occupies. You'd need to get something in the area of 6-8k resolution screens if not more to match the same effective resolution.

Re: Magic Leap One

#545

Post by iamleppert »

taytus wrote: post #517
iamleppert wrote: post #455

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect bragg compliance in lightfield displays that has been well documented. But I didn't come here to argue about whether such a thing could exist in the world or not. Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no…

>However, generally people who have billions to invest on high risk super high tech ideas aren't as stupid as people here would have you believe. Counterpoint: Theranos. Never assume investors are smarter than us mere mortals.

Very true about Theranos, but in that case they hadn't even revealed how the technology worked, and the claims they made implied not only a novel core technology but some kind of discovery in physics/science as well, by someone without a formal science background who couldn't explain the science behind her technology. How do you measure something that occurs once per million unless you collect at least a million samples? Most people who understand basic science knew that company had a high chance of being fake. And if I recall properly, most of their investors were from the conventional startup industry, not biotech, and they thought they could play house in biotech without understanding what they were investing in.

I would be inclined to believe the same of MagicLeap but in their case the science is already well understood and has been done in an analog form for a long time, using techniques similar to conventional off-axis holography.

Re: Magic Leap One

#546

Post by Impossible »

doublerebel wrote: post #214

Gesture recognition is glossed over in the Rolling Stone article, and Magic Leap is also using a 6dof hand controller. Hololens and Meta also only support basic gestures, since as Leap Motion showed significant power draw is required to run high speed depth cameras. The eye tracking feature will be a game-changer though, if they really have it working. Disappointed to see that the advertised game with a team of 55 is…

Yes, the input features alone make Magic Leap a more interesting device to develop for than Hololens, even if the field of view is similar.

Re: Magic Leap One

#547

Post by angersock »

jMyles wrote: post #429
mrighele wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Is it ? If we talk abour VR, yes, but there are a number of companies actually delivering AR products whose focus is on productivity. Some examples (but there are more) are Microsoft with Hololens [1] Epson with Moverio devices [2] Sony [3] Vuzix [4] Their oldest model are simple smart glasses, it seems to me that they are mo…

Interesting - of these, I had only heard of the Hololens. Do you have a take on which, if any of these, are ready or nearly ready for regular use?

I've used both the Hololens and the Moverio.

Hololens is kinda neat but gesture recognition isn't there yet and the limited FOV really, really sucks. That's the biggest problem with any of these.

The Moverio is setting out to be pretty modest--think "Google Glass screen projected in field of view, but not shit"--but the execution there is solid. It also plays very nicely with glasses.

Re: Magic Leap One

#548

Post by afinno »

downandout wrote: post #157
kilroy123 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is, they are wanting more money. It's not really ready and won't ship next year. I agree something is fishy.

This is what I was thinking. That conversation probably went something like this: “We need more money.” “We gave you $2 billion. You’re going to have to ship something before we give you more.” “Hmmm...we aren’t ready to ship and may not be for some time...what if instead of shipping, we can show you that 50K people are interested in buying it? Will you give us some more money then?” “Sure, you show us that 50k peopl…

To be fair, if all I have to do is give them my email address for them to get a bunch more money to make something that could either completely fail or revolutionise human computer interaction, sure, please have my email address.

They seem to be trying to bring a new thing into the world, I'm inclined to support it.

Re: Magic Leap One

#549

Post by WillPostForFood »

mbesto wrote: post #442
tigershark wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got almost 2B$ of investment, I can't see why having 3 years of crazy sprint would be a problem.

3 years... Also, having more money and no biz model is a bigger issue than you think.

That's why Amazon's stock crashed and lost 90% of its value in 2001.

Re: Magic Leap One

#550

Post by iamleppert »

munchbunny wrote: post #541
iamleppert wrote: post #455

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect bragg compliance in lightfield displays that has been well documented. But I didn't come here to argue about whether such a thing could exist in the world or not. Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no…

I'm pretty sure the main objection isn't how much money they took, it's that they've shown very little evidence of actually being able to back up their claims. How much money they were able to raise just makes it look more egregious.

Again, this is your own bias rooted in the fact that most SV/tech people in bay area think you have to launch a product as soon as possible and that's the only way tech has ever been developed. It's not the only way, and the agile model that works well for web stuff and consumer/B2B applications often isn't suitable for other kinds of technology development, where there is a custom hardware component.

If you want to see a lightfield display you can just visit Display Week (http://www.displayweek.org/). Once you see one in person your doubts will be put to rest.

Post reply on HN