3 ms·

I cannot think of a similar trajectory for a company that is today a large platform. The big companies of our, and previous, eras began with small products, tar

I cannot think of a similar trajectory for a company that is today a large platform. The big companies of our, and previous, eras began with small products, targeting markets and grew organically and gradually. Stealth had a purpose, but there was a technology serving a market at a relatively early point. Even in semiconductors. There's no precedent for this degree of fundraising, lack of product release and opacity. I can't think of reasons that this is justified when product/market fit is so unproven. Even if the experience is fantastic, the product flawless, the content engaging -- none of that means that there'll be product/market fit. Iterations will likely be needed. I'll be delighted if it's a big success, and hey it's not my money. But, the systemic signaling (and actual) risk posed by a potential Magic Leap failure on the larger AR/VR community is being sorely underestimated by everyone. And that is worrisome.

QAPereo 9y ago
By the same token, some of the great failures, frauds, and cons in history did look a lot like this.
dig247 9y ago
I was discussing this in a similar context yesterday in regards to AR/VR. I appreciate the technology/investment and realize it will have a place in the future but there are a great many BUTS. I think like many things, its primary use will be tied to consumer goods initially. As a great many projects that seem to raise(or make) billions are these days. FB or Google banking billions on advertising, ML/AI used to save corporations money, track customers, create more robust profiles on users/customers to sell them MORE "stuff". I see great value in all these technologies that can truly have a positive impact on the planet but most of it is tied to non-essential consumer goods. I see some pain ahead for some of these companies and technologies that are tied to non-essential goods/services. Interactive experiences, movies, games, touch your phone on a package and watch magic happen. Really neat tech, but most of it is tied to surplus whether that be time, money or otherwise. Consumer fatigue will catch up at some point. The cognitive load required to make it through a day is extreme and not necessarily being reduced. Many companies are doing a great job raising capital but I am just not seeing a positive short term outcome. Part of my argument is tied to the fact that there will be another correction in most markets. When they pull back and billions get pulled out of the consumer slush fund on a weekly basis how important is AR/VR? How lucrative is leveraging ML/AI to sell more consumer goods if the capital isn't there to purchase said goods? At what point do people become numb or blind to the newest "buy my goods/services" technology. I think some people fail to see that it is the global top 1% of earners building products for the same group and then attempting to convince the lay folk they should buy into all. Maybe the next version of Juicero is simply someone selling an AR organic veggie farming experience to someone who can't afford to pay for their food delivery courtesy of Amazon...I am just struggling with seeing how this story has a good ending. The first time I saw ML's site I said, "This is some super cool sh*t" and over time I began to try and wrap my brain around where it fits...I am obviously still struggling with that.

QAPereo 9y ago

By the same token, some of the great failures, frauds, and cons in history did look a lot like this.

dig247 9y ago

I was discussing this in a similar context yesterday in regards to AR/VR. I appreciate the technology/investment and realize it will have a place in the future but there are a great many BUTS. I think like many things, its primary use will be tied to consumer goods initially. As a great many projects that seem to raise(or make) billions are these days. FB or Google banking billions on advertising, ML/AI used to save corporations money, track customers, create more robust profiles on users/customers to sell them MORE "stuff". I see great value in all these technologies that can truly have a positive impact on the planet but most of it is tied to non-essential consumer goods. I see some pain ahead for some of these companies and technologies that are tied to non-essential goods/services. Interactive experiences, movies, games, touch your phone on a package and watch magic happen. Really neat tech, but most of it is tied to surplus whether that be time, money or otherwise. Consumer fatigue will catch up at some point. The cognitive load required to make it through a day is extreme and not necessarily being reduced. Many companies are doing a great job raising capital but I am just not seeing a positive short term outcome. Part of my argument is tied to the fact that there will be another correction in most markets. When they pull back and billions get pulled out of the consumer slush fund on a weekly basis how important is AR/VR? How lucrative is leveraging ML/AI to sell more consumer goods if the capital isn't there to purchase said goods? At what point do people become numb or blind to the newest "buy my goods/services" technology. I think some people fail to see that it is the global top 1% of earners building products for the same group and then attempting to convince the lay folk they should buy into all. Maybe the next version of Juicero is simply someone selling an AR organic veggie farming experience to someone who can't afford to pay for their food delivery courtesy of Amazon...I am just struggling with seeing how this story has a good ending. The first time I saw ML's site I said, "This is some super cool sh*t" and over time I began to try and wrap my brain around where it fits...I am obviously still struggling with that.