I hope to be wrong, but secrecy like this usually doesn't bode well. Best case, I'm expecting something like Segway or Apple Watch -- overhyped from secrecy, but legitimate, but not all that amazing. Middle case is something like Theranos; not overt fraud from the beginning, but the result of a lot of pivots and coverup. But most often it is outright bad.
Short term practical or tactical secrecy, sure. And in some industries, probably not as bad a signal. But software-heavy hardware ecosystems aren't one of those.
Outside of wars, Ultra or Manhattan just aren't that good a way to work. Why cut yourself off from the global community?
I was, at one time very recently, very deep in the VR/AR space. It seems to me that there will be quite a bit of time before people accept projectors pointed at their eyeballs (or however you want to explain Magic Leap's "digital light field" technology).
$800M on $4.33B post- is a big chunk of a company, particularly one that does not have a working product demo yet. Maybe it'll all shake out positively, but I am of the opinion that this is not real.
Lastly, all of Magic Leap's demos are very clearly not using wearable hardware (and also not being demonstrated using any kind of light-accurate reproduction). For example, metallic effects usually require "black" as a shade and things like the Lumus Optical lenses cannot reproduce such an effect (despite being basically the cutting edge of lightfield reproduction).
In short, I am bearish on Magic Leap.
Also, I am super confused as to why Magic Leap is operating their own silicon fab... That seems crazy to me.
Michael Abrash wrote article about why hard AR is unlikely any time soon. It's not only that you need low enough latency for the human visual system, but also the ability to draw black (which is an unsolved problem).
I'd be surprised if Magic Leap was actually able to solve both of these problems in secret separated from the rest of the world.
Secrecy - for this long seems bad. It's also not the Apple secrecy where you say nothing and then have a big reveal. Magic Leap has put out teaser trailers with no information and talked about their 'revolutionary' technology without details. That doesn't inspire confidence.
I am surprised they're able to raise so much money though, but that's a mistake that's been made before.
For a moment, I felt bad about having reservations about the prospects of ML - I've seen some neat public videos and announcements, but they all struck me as similar to a AAA videogame release from years ago, you know, "Not actual game footage" type stuff.
Then I come here and see you mention something that popped into my head as a related case - the Segway - and I don't feel like I'm being overly negative.
I grew up learning to deal with hype in part thanks to Saturday morning cartoon ads for action figures, so I'm trying to stay on a general "Wait-and-see" positive angle, but as time marches on, it's taxing on the patience.
Slightly off topic, but I don't see how this is similar at all to the Apple Watch. What secrecy was there about it, other than the completely normal "secrecy" that every product undergoes when it hasn't even been announced yet?
Apple was extremely forthcoming with details about it from the moment it was announced. They flooded the internet with concrete images, videos, and marketing material for months prior to its release. They had video tutorials on their site showing how to use mostly all of its features long before it was available in stores.
More importantly, the Apple Watch was just the latest product from a long-established product company that was basically printing money from other products. It went through the same development cycle that all their other products go through. This is tremendously different from a brand new, completely unproven company crystallizing out of the dust, given form from hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of investor money, and then being extremely secretive about their only product on which the entire company will be based. Magic Leap and Theranos fit that mold, but Apple most certainly does not.
Furthermore, these promises of "mixed reality lightfields" make even Apple's marketing seem modest.
This blows my mind. Not because of the amounts raised without a single released product: investors have shown a propensity to throw spectacular amounts of money at baffling ventures.
Instead, my shock is the implied burn rate of these raises. LinkedIn reports Magic Leap is between 201-500 employees. They are no indications of them mass-producing a product. No sales, and their marketing seems to be exclusively articles about the enormity of their rounds.
How, then, is a company raising 790M 1.5 years after raising 500M? What possible expenditures, without mass product development, sales and marketing, consumes finances at a rate that warrants these raises?
Or, alternatively, maybe the founders and employees simply despise maintaining ownership of their company.
Aside from the massive research efforts they're undertaking I'm under the impression that they're also manufacturing. I'd guess that comes at a serious cost.
I really hope what they have is real, but my mind keeps going back to clinkle. A company that was able to raise a large sum of money with smoke and mirrors. Granted Magic Leap is raising an order of magnitude more than clinkle, but smart people have been fooled before.
I find it interesting that the top image (of the floating robot) has the text saying "no special effects" whereas the gif of the elephant in the hands (been available online for awhile) does not. This tells me that all the videos/gifs we've seen (the elephant, the whale splashing down thru the gym floor) are "aspirational" (AKA "bullshit").
Don't get me wrong, the floating robot is cool but this is doable on HoloLens (yet to ship but coming in Q1). Definitely seems like there's a real risk here of overhyping MagicLeap.
EDIT: Fixed the link to TechCrunch...If you saw the other link we're hiring :)
The floating robot is not doable on the hololens because metallic effects require black, which is not reproducible on the hololens display... Yes, I have seen the photos of hololens output that show black. I don't believe that's a reproducible effect on their wearable.
Someone else in this thread mentioned Theranos and while the two businesses are wildly different, I still think there's something to it: investors can be fooled by flashy presentations.
I'm going to continue to be suspicious of Magic Leap until I actually see something that delivers on the promises they are making. Luckily(!) for me, I don't have enough spare money to be an investor in these things anyway...
> I see AR being useful in verticals ie "pipe fitter" or "nurse".
I do think IT folks forget just how many nurses, doctors, pipe fitters, car mechanics, telephone engineers, etc etc etc are out there. Literally millions.
Hook these glasses up with google maps and other online databases will be neat.
What's the first supposed application of any technology? I'm not really in favor of this idea, but here's a shot at what someone will do with AR: "what do people shopping with me and eating the free samples here at Costco look like when they're naked?"
To me Magic Leap is an interesting test of the investment people at Google and Ali Baba. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, but if Magic Leap is a spectacular failure, I think it will be a strong signal that Google and Ali Baba's investment groups are similar to the groups at other big tech companies. i.e. full of strong political players without much industry acumen.
I'm particularly biased though. I've always been a bit skeptical of the amount of money corporate development people make ... I feel like they don't bring that much value to the table as individuals, even when the corporate development function is essential.
When you meet a good engineer, lawyer, or salesperson, you can usually pretty quickly understand what they are bringing to the table. With investment people I feel like they just make decisions, and then they aren't often measured against what the results of those decisions are.
The people that should probably actually be corporate development people ... the ones that are unsure of themselves without sufficient data. The ones that listen quietly and form measured opinions. Those awkward types ... the ones with valuable insight ... I never see that type coming to visit our offices as part of the steady stream of investors.
All I see are well put-together people, with good personalities, strong handshakes, excellently tailored clothes, good presentation skills ... and a fair understanding of the industry ... plus maybe slightly above average intelligence. They are usually warm and personable though. Its clear they have that skill.
I have no idea why the CEOs select these people for the job though. Any one of our engineers if tasked to evaluate companies like ours, would ask better questions, would be more intelligent about figuring out what is our marketing fluff, and what is actually ready to go.
It's a very shortsighted reasoning. If this turns out to be a completely lost investment, investors will become wary of investing in VR startups, which will have for consequences less R&D jobs in virtual reality (which itself will decrease negotiating leverage of all R&D engineers), and less VR products, sold at a more expensive price.
I don't know anybody who works at Magic Leap, but I'd rather prefer they don't waste all that money.
Whether it succeeds or fails, you might consider the opportunity cost of that financial investment and hours of work.
For example, that's a lot more than the development of the original Macintosh, roughly 0.5% of the Apollo program and roughly 3% of the Manhattan project (both in today's dollars).
This can't possibly just be a hardware play. This investment would buy 1.3 million Oculus Rifts at retail price. At component prices and figuring economies of scale lets say it could fund the construction of perhaps 5 million units. Are there really 5 million people waiting to buy an AR device? Google Glass sold perhaps 50,000 units--has the market somehow grown by a factor of 100x in the past couple of years? I just don't see enough people wanting to own this tech. Not now, not even in 10 years.
The more likely possibility in my mind is media (this becomes the thing that replaces 3D movies or 3D TV) where they collect a royalty on everyones content, or perhaps theme parks (they are in Florida after all). A Hogwarts where you could actually see the spells you cast, or an Imagineered experience where you could walk through Mary Poppins' animated countryside might be capable of generating enough revenue to justify this.
I agree with much of what you're saying. However I'm not sure your comparison with Google Glass is fitting. The market for a functional Google Glass might also have been a lot bigger than 50 000. Not a lot of people outside the tech-environment knew a whole lot about it, and there weren't really an eco-system around it since it was never a consumer-grade product.
So I think the market is bigger than previous numbers indicate, however I'm not sure how close to perfection it would need to be to show it's true colors. Hopefully the launch of Oculus and Vive might give us an indicator this year.
(As an anecdote,) personally I would want something like this if it actually had enough content to let me reuse the product without indefinitelly replaying tech-demos. :)
It's going to work but it's not going to work amazingly so, probably just suffering from a low FOV. With that said, there's too much money and too many people being hired for this to fail incredibly hard; it just wouldn't make sense.
Is there anything stopping these guys from covering the whole view field ?
I've tried a number of VR headsets and they all feel like a stopgap solution, there has to be something better than wearing 2 x 4" screens mounted in a cone on your head....
The same thing which is stopping anyone from covering the whole visual field, the need for serious technological innovation. It's possible they've figured that out, but who knows.
This is AR, not VR, right? The two are quite different. VR does not aspire to be AR. It seeks to completely replace the world around you, not just add onto it.
From what I understand, upcoming VR headsets like the Rift and Vive have pretty solid FOVs, but Microsoft's HoloLens AR headset has a significantly more limited FOV.
[+] [-] rdl|10 years ago|reply
Short term practical or tactical secrecy, sure. And in some industries, probably not as bad a signal. But software-heavy hardware ecosystems aren't one of those.
Outside of wars, Ultra or Manhattan just aren't that good a way to work. Why cut yourself off from the global community?
[+] [-] josh2600|10 years ago|reply
$800M on $4.33B post- is a big chunk of a company, particularly one that does not have a working product demo yet. Maybe it'll all shake out positively, but I am of the opinion that this is not real.
Lastly, all of Magic Leap's demos are very clearly not using wearable hardware (and also not being demonstrated using any kind of light-accurate reproduction). For example, metallic effects usually require "black" as a shade and things like the Lumus Optical lenses cannot reproduce such an effect (despite being basically the cutting edge of lightfield reproduction).
In short, I am bearish on Magic Leap.
Also, I am super confused as to why Magic Leap is operating their own silicon fab... That seems crazy to me.
Edit: Fixed the $'s from VC-land.
[+] [-] gonehome|10 years ago|reply
I'd be surprised if Magic Leap was actually able to solve both of these problems in secret separated from the rest of the world.
Secrecy - for this long seems bad. It's also not the Apple secrecy where you say nothing and then have a big reveal. Magic Leap has put out teaser trailers with no information and talked about their 'revolutionary' technology without details. That doesn't inspire confidence.
I am surprised they're able to raise so much money though, but that's a mistake that's been made before.
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-...
[+] [-] defen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|10 years ago|reply
Then I come here and see you mention something that popped into my head as a related case - the Segway - and I don't feel like I'm being overly negative.
I grew up learning to deal with hype in part thanks to Saturday morning cartoon ads for action figures, so I'm trying to stay on a general "Wait-and-see" positive angle, but as time marches on, it's taxing on the patience.
[+] [-] nilkn|10 years ago|reply
Apple was extremely forthcoming with details about it from the moment it was announced. They flooded the internet with concrete images, videos, and marketing material for months prior to its release. They had video tutorials on their site showing how to use mostly all of its features long before it was available in stores.
More importantly, the Apple Watch was just the latest product from a long-established product company that was basically printing money from other products. It went through the same development cycle that all their other products go through. This is tremendously different from a brand new, completely unproven company crystallizing out of the dust, given form from hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of investor money, and then being extremely secretive about their only product on which the entire company will be based. Magic Leap and Theranos fit that mold, but Apple most certainly does not.
Furthermore, these promises of "mixed reality lightfields" make even Apple's marketing seem modest.
[+] [-] liquidise|10 years ago|reply
Instead, my shock is the implied burn rate of these raises. LinkedIn reports Magic Leap is between 201-500 employees. They are no indications of them mass-producing a product. No sales, and their marketing seems to be exclusively articles about the enormity of their rounds.
How, then, is a company raising 790M 1.5 years after raising 500M? What possible expenditures, without mass product development, sales and marketing, consumes finances at a rate that warrants these raises?
Or, alternatively, maybe the founders and employees simply despise maintaining ownership of their company.
[+] [-] rsp1984|10 years ago|reply
Probably what they are planning to do with the money is a couple of acquisitions. I'd not be surprised.
[+] [-] ryanSrich|10 years ago|reply
I really hope what they have is real, but my mind keeps going back to clinkle. A company that was able to raise a large sum of money with smoke and mirrors. Granted Magic Leap is raising an order of magnitude more than clinkle, but smart people have been fooled before.
[+] [-] jkestner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soared|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monk_e_boy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benlower|10 years ago|reply
I find it interesting that the top image (of the floating robot) has the text saying "no special effects" whereas the gif of the elephant in the hands (been available online for awhile) does not. This tells me that all the videos/gifs we've seen (the elephant, the whale splashing down thru the gym floor) are "aspirational" (AKA "bullshit").
Don't get me wrong, the floating robot is cool but this is doable on HoloLens (yet to ship but coming in Q1). Definitely seems like there's a real risk here of overhyping MagicLeap.
EDIT: Fixed the link to TechCrunch...If you saw the other link we're hiring :)
[+] [-] sbochins|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh2600|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonas21|10 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0-JRa9n94
[+] [-] RangerScience|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bamboo_7|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aresant|10 years ago|reply
http://www.magicleap.com/#/blog/atoms-not-included
[+] [-] untog|10 years ago|reply
I'm going to continue to be suspicious of Magic Leap until I actually see something that delivers on the promises they are making. Luckily(!) for me, I don't have enough spare money to be an investor in these things anyway...
[+] [-] WhatIsDukkha|10 years ago|reply
I see AR being useful in verticals ie "pipe fitter" or "nurse".
As a general tool for everyone what is the problem solved?
"It's like an iWatch but in your vision all the time"
"you can enhance X with digital information"
"you can play games that somehow make sense in your ambient environment?"
I have not heard very many use cases that don't just sound like visual clutter for little benefit.
Balance that against what is likely to be more then putting on a pair of Raybans ie the battery pack and display bits.
What's the not-awkward input method that's even plausible? edit: Gestures have some serious downsides.
[+] [-] monk_e_boy|10 years ago|reply
Hook these glasses up with google maps and other online databases will be neat.
[+] [-] com2kid|10 years ago|reply
Heck make it only for people I've met before, that's fine.
[+] [-] nwatson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheMagicHorsey|10 years ago|reply
I'm particularly biased though. I've always been a bit skeptical of the amount of money corporate development people make ... I feel like they don't bring that much value to the table as individuals, even when the corporate development function is essential.
When you meet a good engineer, lawyer, or salesperson, you can usually pretty quickly understand what they are bringing to the table. With investment people I feel like they just make decisions, and then they aren't often measured against what the results of those decisions are.
The people that should probably actually be corporate development people ... the ones that are unsure of themselves without sufficient data. The ones that listen quietly and form measured opinions. Those awkward types ... the ones with valuable insight ... I never see that type coming to visit our offices as part of the steady stream of investors.
All I see are well put-together people, with good personalities, strong handshakes, excellently tailored clothes, good presentation skills ... and a fair understanding of the industry ... plus maybe slightly above average intelligence. They are usually warm and personable though. Its clear they have that skill.
I have no idea why the CEOs select these people for the job though. Any one of our engineers if tasked to evaluate companies like ours, would ask better questions, would be more intelligent about figuring out what is our marketing fluff, and what is actually ready to go.
[+] [-] seibelj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robinsloan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shady_trails|10 years ago|reply
1. The product is developed and released in a few years, its amazing, and everyone is happy.
2. It sucks, investors lose their money.
#1 is a win for me, #2 is a who cares.
[+] [-] S4M|10 years ago|reply
It's a very shortsighted reasoning. If this turns out to be a completely lost investment, investors will become wary of investing in VR startups, which will have for consequences less R&D jobs in virtual reality (which itself will decrease negotiating leverage of all R&D engineers), and less VR products, sold at a more expensive price.
I don't know anybody who works at Magic Leap, but I'd rather prefer they don't waste all that money.
[+] [-] robotresearcher|10 years ago|reply
For example, that's a lot more than the development of the original Macintosh, roughly 0.5% of the Apollo program and roughly 3% of the Manhattan project (both in today's dollars).
[+] [-] beisner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] femto113|10 years ago|reply
The more likely possibility in my mind is media (this becomes the thing that replaces 3D movies or 3D TV) where they collect a royalty on everyones content, or perhaps theme parks (they are in Florida after all). A Hogwarts where you could actually see the spells you cast, or an Imagineered experience where you could walk through Mary Poppins' animated countryside might be capable of generating enough revenue to justify this.
[+] [-] NegatioN|10 years ago|reply
So I think the market is bigger than previous numbers indicate, however I'm not sure how close to perfection it would need to be to show it's true colors. Hopefully the launch of Oculus and Vive might give us an indicator this year.
(As an anecdote,) personally I would want something like this if it actually had enough content to let me reuse the product without indefinitelly replaying tech-demos. :)
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|10 years ago|reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/43tehp/magic_leap_r...
[+] [-] melted|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomgyatwork|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephpmay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|10 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0-JRa9n94
(the demo with the robot and solar system)
quite cool but I'm not sure how that converts in to a product people buy
[+] [-] ogreveins|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _lbaq|10 years ago|reply
I've tried a number of VR headsets and they all feel like a stopgap solution, there has to be something better than wearing 2 x 4" screens mounted in a cone on your head....
[+] [-] bosdev|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilkn|10 years ago|reply
From what I understand, upcoming VR headsets like the Rift and Vive have pretty solid FOVs, but Microsoft's HoloLens AR headset has a significantly more limited FOV.
[+] [-] koolba|10 years ago|reply
Every article has the same "mini elephant in hands" picture. I've never seen anything else.
[+] [-] late2part|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeisawesome|10 years ago|reply
"getting investment" === "success"
Even my JavaScript runtime knows better.
[+] [-] ilaksh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaostheory|10 years ago|reply
Has anyone tried the ex-Valve AR system? I think it's called castAR.