I was struck by the careful phrasing in the article and didn't want to dog pile on it at first - I note other reasons elsewhere why I'm rather dubious - but her

I was struck by the careful phrasing in the article and didn't want to dog pile on it at first - I note other reasons elsewhere why I'm rather dubious - but here's the line: >The centerpiece of Magic Leap’s technology is a head-mounted display, but the final product should fit into a pair of spectacles. When you’re wearing the device, it doesn’t block your view of the world; the hardware projects an image directly onto your retina through an optics system built into a piece of semitransparent glass (the product won’t fry your eyeballs; it’s replicating the way we naturally observe the world instead of forcing you to stare at a screen). This is purely my impression, but reading the line that says "the final product should..." leads me to believe they still have significant development hurdles that have been unconquered thus far, and being coy about the release window (the journalist speculated 18 months, the CEO just went with "soon-ish") encourages me to read between the lines. Others may interpret the line differently - that's fine - but I'm simply sharing my impression. Lots of things "should" work the way their visionary has in mind...