5 ms·

Have any other companies raised at this valuation pre-product, much less pre-market fit? Where does this value come from? Have they booked even 1% of that valua

by beager 9y ago

Have any other companies raised at this valuation pre-product, much less pre-market fit? Where does this value come from? Have they booked even 1% of that valuation in sales, or is it all speculative? And I'm baffled in light of the space (AR), where I feel like there are a lot of high profile players and fast movers. Not delivering seems incredibly untenable.

jmcgough 9y ago
I'm skeptical, but the Magic Leap engineers I've met have been really confident that their tech is going to be a game changer (and of course wouldn't tell me anything about it ;)). Guess we'll see when they show their product publicly - it's weird that they've decided to stay stealth for this long.
- beager 9y ago
  I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but still, confidence does not a six billion dollar valuation make.
- objclxt 9y ago
  > the Magic Leap engineers I've met have been really confident that their tech is going to be a game changer Sure, but I'm sure there were engineers at Theranos who thought their tech was going to be a game-changer as well. Being confident in a product doesn't mean the product is actually any good. > Not delivering seems incredibly untenable. I would happily place a bet they will never deliver, or if they do deliver it ends up being lackluster and nowhere near what they originally promised. They showed a demo video two years ago (that turned out to not actually be a demo), and haven't released anything since. Technology does not stand still in that time: in 2015, the iPhone had a single rear and front-facing camera. Soon you'll be able to buy one with stereographic rear cameras and a dot-projection IR depth mapper on the front, with what is from all accounts an extremely good AR software framework. Oculus, Apple, and Google aren't just twiddling their thumbs waiting for Magic Leap to release a product. They are actively putting money into R&D, and shipping iteratively. Apple's going to have real-world AR experience and feedback from iOS 11 and the iPhone X that Magic Leap won't have. I'd love to be wrong - it'd be great to have another player in the space, and maybe their tech is awesome. But if you look at what everyone else is doing compared to what they've released...it doesn't look good.
  - apersona 9y ago
    Yeah except Google is one of the backers. If one of the companies actively working on R&D is backing it, isn't that saying something?
    - Judgmentality 9y ago
      Google Ventures is legally distinct from Google. And Google Ventures is actually a mediocre venture firm based on their history.
      - gumby 9y ago
        Google Ventures passed on Magic Leap but Sergey liked it so produced an investment directly from Google's balance sheet.
      - sah2ed 9y ago
        > And Google Ventures is actually a mediocre venture firm based on their history. Mediocre relative to which CVCs? Intel Capital? Intel Capital has been around for quite a bit so that would be an unfair comparison. I am curious to how you reached your conclusion?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - objclxt 9y ago
      Google Ventures backed Uber, but that doesn't stop Google from running its own self-driving car unit.
      - thrownblown 9y ago
        Didn't stop that lawsuit either.
    - listentojohan 9y ago
      Google Ventures also backed Juicero...
- seattleeng 9y ago
  Have you spoken to current or former engineers? I have spoken to a few former engineers, and the responses ranged from neutral to negative on the prospects of the product appeal of the tech. Obviously both groups will be biased in their own way. My own impression is that the stealthiness comes from the lack of a quality deliverable, and not a holdout of some mind-blowing reveal.
  - bobsil1 9y ago
    Yep. Pretty clear they haven't demoed a consumer-ready product because they can't yet.
  - beager 9y ago
    The pace of the product space and the profile of players in the space both indicate that sandbagging is an awful strategy. I'm likely to believe it's a lack of deliverable.
Nition 9y ago
I thought maybe Skycar since it spans 40+ years, but even they've apparently "only" spent 100 million (although inflation adjustment would boost it a bit).
- dogruck 9y ago
  Wow thanks for the TIL Skycar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
ingenieros 9y ago
Theranos is the only other one that comes to mind and we all know how that played out.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Trilogy Systems perhaps. (It seems they IPO'ed pre-product? Someone on this forum was probably around when this happened.) Trilogy Systems Corporation was a computer systems company started in 1980. Originally called ACSYS, the company was founded by Gene Amdahl, his son Carl Amdahl[1] and Clifford Madden. Flush with the success of his previous company, Amdahl Corporation, Gene Amdahl was able to raise $230 million for his new venture. Trilogy was the most well funded start-up company up till that point in Silicon Valley history. It had corporate support from Groupe Bull, Digital Equipment Corporation, Unisys, Sperry Rand and others. The plan was to use extremely advanced semiconductor manufacturing techniques to build an IBM compatible mainframe computer that was both cheaper and more powerful than existing systems from IBM and Amdahl Corporation. ... In 1983, the company had an initial public offering and raised $60 million. By mid-1984, the company decided it was too difficult to manufacture their computer design. Gene Amdahl stepped down as CEO and Henry Montgomery was brought in as replacement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogy_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogy_Systems

by beager 9y ago

jmcgough 9y ago

I'm skeptical, but the Magic Leap engineers I've met have been really confident that their tech is going to be a game changer (and of course wouldn't tell me anything about it ;)). Guess we'll see when they show their product publicly - it's weird that they've decided to stay stealth for this long.

beager 9y ago
I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but still, confidence does not a six billion dollar valuation make.
objclxt 9y ago
> the Magic Leap engineers I've met have been really confident that their tech is going to be a game changer Sure, but I'm sure there were engineers at Theranos who thought their tech was going to be a game-changer as well. Being confident in a product doesn't mean the product is actually any good. > Not delivering seems incredibly untenable. I would happily place a bet they will never deliver, or if they do deliver it ends up being lackluster and nowhere near what they originally promised. They showed a demo video two years ago (that turned out to not actually be a demo), and haven't released anything since. Technology does not stand still in that time: in 2015, the iPhone had a single rear and front-facing camera. Soon you'll be able to buy one with stereographic rear cameras and a dot-projection IR depth mapper on the front, with what is from all accounts an extremely good AR software framework. Oculus, Apple, and Google aren't just twiddling their thumbs waiting for Magic Leap to release a product. They are actively putting money into R&D, and shipping iteratively. Apple's going to have real-world AR experience and feedback from iOS 11 and the iPhone X that Magic Leap won't have. I'd love to be wrong - it'd be great to have another player in the space, and maybe their tech is awesome. But if you look at what everyone else is doing compared to what they've released...it doesn't look good.
- apersona 9y ago
  Yeah except Google is one of the backers. If one of the companies actively working on R&D is backing it, isn't that saying something?
  - Judgmentality 9y ago
    Google Ventures is legally distinct from Google. And Google Ventures is actually a mediocre venture firm based on their history.
    - gumby 9y ago
      Google Ventures passed on Magic Leap but Sergey liked it so produced an investment directly from Google's balance sheet.
    - sah2ed 9y ago
      > And Google Ventures is actually a mediocre venture firm based on their history. Mediocre relative to which CVCs? Intel Capital? Intel Capital has been around for quite a bit so that would be an unfair comparison. I am curious to how you reached your conclusion?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - objclxt 9y ago
    Google Ventures backed Uber, but that doesn't stop Google from running its own self-driving car unit.
    - thrownblown 9y ago
      Didn't stop that lawsuit either.
  - listentojohan 9y ago
    Google Ventures also backed Juicero...
seattleeng 9y ago
Have you spoken to current or former engineers? I have spoken to a few former engineers, and the responses ranged from neutral to negative on the prospects of the product appeal of the tech. Obviously both groups will be biased in their own way. My own impression is that the stealthiness comes from the lack of a quality deliverable, and not a holdout of some mind-blowing reveal.
- bobsil1 9y ago
  Yep. Pretty clear they haven't demoed a consumer-ready product because they can't yet.
- beager 9y ago
  The pace of the product space and the profile of players in the space both indicate that sandbagging is an awful strategy. I'm likely to believe it's a lack of deliverable.

Nition 9y ago

I thought maybe Skycar since it spans 40+ years, but even they've apparently "only" spent 100 million (although inflation adjustment would boost it a bit).

dogruck 9y ago
Wow thanks for the TIL Skycar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar

ingenieros 9y ago

Theranos is the only other one that comes to mind and we all know how that played out.

hkmurakami 9y ago

Trilogy Systems perhaps. (It seems they IPO'ed pre-product? Someone on this forum was probably around when this happened.) Trilogy Systems Corporation was a computer systems company started in 1980. Originally called ACSYS, the company was founded by Gene Amdahl, his son Carl Amdahl[1] and Clifford Madden. Flush with the success of his previous company, Amdahl Corporation, Gene Amdahl was able to raise $230 million for his new venture. Trilogy was the most well funded start-up company up till that point in Silicon Valley history. It had corporate support from Groupe Bull, Digital Equipment Corporation, Unisys, Sperry Rand and others. The plan was to use extremely advanced semiconductor manufacturing techniques to build an IBM compatible mainframe computer that was both cheaper and more powerful than existing systems from IBM and Amdahl Corporation. ... In 1983, the company had an initial public offering and raised $60 million. By mid-1984, the company decided it was too difficult to manufacture their computer design. Gene Amdahl stepped down as CEO and Henry Montgomery was brought in as replacement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogy_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogy_Systems