5 ms·

So here's my concern with Magic Leap. (And I say this with friends working there, so I WANT them to succeed more than anything, but I can't help but look askew

So here's my concern with Magic Leap. (And I say this with friends working there, so I WANT them to succeed more than anything, but I can't help but look askew at some of the secrecy) If their technology is _so critically secret_ that everything needs to be under more NDA/IP protection than I've seen in almost any other consumer product, one would think that implies it's readily duplicatable if someone just had the secret sauce? But in that case, one would expect to see more results after how long they've been in dev. I've heard in many cases founders/VCs laugh at the concept of "keeping your million dollar idea secret" because of the concern that someone will steal it, let alone a concept so complex that a group of some of the better specialists in this area (AR/VR/robotics/wearables/vision) have taken this long to bring a product to market. So is the concern just about entities like Google/MSR who would show up out of the blue willing to throw essentially endless money at the problem? Because off the top of my head they have not shown a great track record of even executing on _their own_ ideas with a compelling end product on a fast enough time-scale to be competitive against someone with a multi year lead. I'm just not sure I follow the benefit of this level of secrecy compared to the amount of skepticism it naturally generates in someone who would love to be an early adopter.

mstresh 10y ago
Put it the other way: what would be the benefit of publicly disclosing their secret sauce? Perhaps to help fuel their recruiting pipeline, but I can't think of any other good reasons to do so. They don't have a product out, their secret sauce might change, Google/MSR might be working on something similar and just need a few hints in the right direction to get there, they get to keep a big first-mover advantage in whatever area their tech enables them to move into, and there's no opportunity for possible early adopters like yourself to get in on the action yet. I'm guessing their tech isn't so much "critically secret" as there just isn't a benefit to their business case for publicizing what they are doing
akhatri_aus 10y ago
If it is easily duplicatable this strategy allows them to build up tonnes of labour that would take a copier a lot of time to replicate. So there's a bit of time to capture up profits and evolve to the next iteration.
onion2k 10y ago
It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. Demonstrating an innovative product before it's in a state where people can really understand it is risky - getting written down by tech pundits would seriously increase the time it'd take to get the public to buy in. Arguably that's what happened with Google Glass; early adopters bought in but couldn't realise the potential of their investment, so there was something of a backlash. That limited Google's options for a bigger launch because people wouldn't have bought in. They apparently kept going but in secret. Magic Leap are doing the same thing but without the mistake of launching too early.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. It's like saying "invest in my rocket company that is going to take people to another solar system...and here's the demo of a rocket going to the stratosphere". No one has been able to send a rocket to another solar system but a plethora of organizations have done so to the stratosphere, so what additional insight does one have that makes me so confident that this is the team to get us to another solar system?
  - onion2k 10y ago
    So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? Google Ventures isn't Kickstarter. The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. They'll be able to extrapolate from the available data. Average people are very bad at extrapolation. In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. They don't have confidence. If Magic Leap was something you could be confident about then Magic Leap's founders would have raised debt rather than equity, and kept all the rewards for themselves. Confidence implies a lack of risk. GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
Good point. That reminds me, they've also raised more than $1.4 billion, which seems like a pretty good barrier to entry, imo. And, furthermore, there aren't even enough AR/VR programmers to support multiple companies in this market: http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-leap-lawsuit-secrets-revealed-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-leap-lawsuit-secrets-re... So anyone thinking of "stealing" their idea has to deal with the facts that 1. They're already way behind, 2. The monetary investment is massive, and 3. They may never catch up because they'll be in an endless employee poaching war
- w1ntermute 10y ago
  That's like saying it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug, so there's a big barrier to entry. Making the first pill (or Magic Leap) might cost $1B, but the second will only cost a couple hundred bucks. That's why there's a patent system.
  - gthtjtkt 10y ago
    True, but this is a little different since the market for this technology is still a huge unknown. When you're making a new drug, you know there's going to be guaranteed demand.
    - w1ntermute 10y ago
      You can just wait until the demand has been proven, and then jump in. That's what's happened to GoPro and to most PC/smartphone OEMs, and it's what happens to pharma companies when their drugs go off patent. I don't think the money to be made in VR/AR will come from making the headsets themselves, but from providing some sort of software with lock-in. If Magic Leap has that, then they could become the Apple of AR, but so far it looks like they're just developing fancy hardware that the Chinese will quickly clone.
      - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
        The Chinese "knock off" people have trouble making an equivalently good iPhone. A scanning fiber array based virtual retinal display can't be quickly cloned.
6stringmerc 10y ago
If you'd like an individual take on secrecy and inventions from a bootstrap / one-guy perspective, I wrote an informal essay discussing a lot of the questions and concepts you touch upon: https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/why-i-keep-secrets-as-a-wannabe-inventor-cc06886147d3#.rqkekitur https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/why-i-keep-secrets-as-a-wann...
- fapjacks 10y ago
  Ah, I'm just now noticing that this is your post. I enjoyed your writing in this post and others I read after clicking around. We seem to share interests, though I suppose that's not so surprising considering this is HN.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Why thank you for mentioning this, it's a nice thing to see on a Friday! This is a neat community in a lot of respects and I appreciate the challenges and questions and whatnots that I come across here. Cheers!
hyperpallium 10y ago
The problem with VR/AR is latency. It needs to be 10ms or less to feel real. We aren't anywhere near it. The same is true of touch screens: when latency gets below 10ms, the experience changes to an actual physical object. Current touchscreen latencies are terrible, but we don't notice it because they are still useful for input and we don't know any better. If we can't even do it for touch screens, how can we do it for VR/AR? The glut of products is just a supply-side bubble.
- doublerebel 10y ago
  Hololens runs at 60Hz and the leading VR glasses run at 90Hz. We're quite near it. Having used these products myself, it definitely can be enough for suspension of disbelief. The reason touch screens have lag is because the render thread isn't as prioritized. An iOS device that isn't loaded with software has a basically instant response. I would love it though if we prioritized the UI thread across all devices, it feels a bit nutty to have this much processing power these days, and still have a UI lock up.
  - hyperpallium 10y ago
    Unfortunately, refresh rate is different from latency, it's the pipeline that matters. I've tried iOS devices on display, with no extra software loaded (is that what you mean?). If you waggle your finger back ane forth, it's easy to see the lag.
- smaddox 10y ago
  Magic leap is way beyond designing low latency display drivers (hardware or software). They're designing and fabricating their own many-layer photonic crystals with complexity rivaling that of VLSI chips from a couple decades ago (except not on silicon, meaning they've had to reinvent a significant fraction of the process). Latency may be an issue for them in terms of making seamless AR, due the limitations of existing camera hardware in terms of latency (existing camera hardware is not designed for low latency), but I suspect they're partnering (or will be partnering soon) with major players in the CMOS imaging realm. As far as display latency, I doubt it will be an issue for them. They're already having to design the entire display from the ground up---I suspect they have the forethought to design it as a low latency system.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alando46 10y ago
vaporware

mstresh 10y ago

Put it the other way: what would be the benefit of publicly disclosing their secret sauce? Perhaps to help fuel their recruiting pipeline, but I can't think of any other good reasons to do so. They don't have a product out, their secret sauce might change, Google/MSR might be working on something similar and just need a few hints in the right direction to get there, they get to keep a big first-mover advantage in whatever area their tech enables them to move into, and there's no opportunity for possible early adopters like yourself to get in on the action yet. I'm guessing their tech isn't so much "critically secret" as there just isn't a benefit to their business case for publicizing what they are doing

akhatri_aus 10y ago

If it is easily duplicatable this strategy allows them to build up tonnes of labour that would take a copier a lot of time to replicate. So there's a bit of time to capture up profits and evolve to the next iteration.

onion2k 10y ago

It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. Demonstrating an innovative product before it's in a state where people can really understand it is risky - getting written down by tech pundits would seriously increase the time it'd take to get the public to buy in. Arguably that's what happened with Google Glass; early adopters bought in but couldn't realise the potential of their investment, so there was something of a backlash. That limited Google's options for a bigger launch because people wouldn't have bought in. They apparently kept going but in secret. Magic Leap are doing the same thing but without the mistake of launching too early.

mbesto 10y ago
> It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. It's like saying "invest in my rocket company that is going to take people to another solar system...and here's the demo of a rocket going to the stratosphere". No one has been able to send a rocket to another solar system but a plethora of organizations have done so to the stratosphere, so what additional insight does one have that makes me so confident that this is the team to get us to another solar system?
- onion2k 10y ago
  So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? Google Ventures isn't Kickstarter. The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. They'll be able to extrapolate from the available data. Average people are very bad at extrapolation. In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. They don't have confidence. If Magic Leap was something you could be confident about then Magic Leap's founders would have raised debt rather than equity, and kept all the rewards for themselves. Confidence implies a lack of risk. GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

Good point. That reminds me, they've also raised more than $1.4 billion, which seems like a pretty good barrier to entry, imo. And, furthermore, there aren't even enough AR/VR programmers to support multiple companies in this market: http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-leap-lawsuit-secrets-revealed-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-leap-lawsuit-secrets-re... So anyone thinking of "stealing" their idea has to deal with the facts that 1. They're already way behind, 2. The monetary investment is massive, and 3. They may never catch up because they'll be in an endless employee poaching war

w1ntermute 10y ago
That's like saying it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug, so there's a big barrier to entry. Making the first pill (or Magic Leap) might cost $1B, but the second will only cost a couple hundred bucks. That's why there's a patent system.
- gthtjtkt 10y ago
  True, but this is a little different since the market for this technology is still a huge unknown. When you're making a new drug, you know there's going to be guaranteed demand.
  - w1ntermute 10y ago
    You can just wait until the demand has been proven, and then jump in. That's what's happened to GoPro and to most PC/smartphone OEMs, and it's what happens to pharma companies when their drugs go off patent. I don't think the money to be made in VR/AR will come from making the headsets themselves, but from providing some sort of software with lock-in. If Magic Leap has that, then they could become the Apple of AR, but so far it looks like they're just developing fancy hardware that the Chinese will quickly clone.
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      The Chinese "knock off" people have trouble making an equivalently good iPhone. A scanning fiber array based virtual retinal display can't be quickly cloned.

6stringmerc 10y ago

If you'd like an individual take on secrecy and inventions from a bootstrap / one-guy perspective, I wrote an informal essay discussing a lot of the questions and concepts you touch upon: https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/why-i-keep-secrets-as-a-wannabe-inventor-cc06886147d3#.rqkekitur https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/why-i-keep-secrets-as-a-wann...

fapjacks 10y ago
Ah, I'm just now noticing that this is your post. I enjoyed your writing in this post and others I read after clicking around. We seem to share interests, though I suppose that's not so surprising considering this is HN.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Why thank you for mentioning this, it's a nice thing to see on a Friday! This is a neat community in a lot of respects and I appreciate the challenges and questions and whatnots that I come across here. Cheers!

hyperpallium 10y ago

The problem with VR/AR is latency. It needs to be 10ms or less to feel real. We aren't anywhere near it. The same is true of touch screens: when latency gets below 10ms, the experience changes to an actual physical object. Current touchscreen latencies are terrible, but we don't notice it because they are still useful for input and we don't know any better. If we can't even do it for touch screens, how can we do it for VR/AR? The glut of products is just a supply-side bubble.

doublerebel 10y ago
Hololens runs at 60Hz and the leading VR glasses run at 90Hz. We're quite near it. Having used these products myself, it definitely can be enough for suspension of disbelief. The reason touch screens have lag is because the render thread isn't as prioritized. An iOS device that isn't loaded with software has a basically instant response. I would love it though if we prioritized the UI thread across all devices, it feels a bit nutty to have this much processing power these days, and still have a UI lock up.
- hyperpallium 10y ago
  Unfortunately, refresh rate is different from latency, it's the pipeline that matters. I've tried iOS devices on display, with no extra software loaded (is that what you mean?). If you waggle your finger back ane forth, it's easy to see the lag.
smaddox 10y ago
Magic leap is way beyond designing low latency display drivers (hardware or software). They're designing and fabricating their own many-layer photonic crystals with complexity rivaling that of VLSI chips from a couple decades ago (except not on silicon, meaning they've had to reinvent a significant fraction of the process). Latency may be an issue for them in terms of making seamless AR, due the limitations of existing camera hardware in terms of latency (existing camera hardware is not designed for low latency), but I suspect they're partnering (or will be partnering soon) with major players in the CMOS imaging realm. As far as display latency, I doubt it will be an issue for them. They're already having to design the entire display from the ground up---I suspect they have the forethought to design it as a low latency system.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alando46 10y ago

vaporware