5 ms·

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect b

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect bragg compliance in lightfield displays that has been well documented. But I didn't come here to argue about whether such a thing could exist in the world or not. Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no one on earth manufactures displays with the specs required to manipulate light in such a way. This isn't taking some already existing LCOS micro-displays and shoving them into an enclosure with fish-eye lenses. Oculus doesn't make their own displays and didn't spend the last 10 years perfecting them; that tech already existed because it came from the projector industry as a direct result of trying to make smaller projectors. What these guys are trying to do is basically as hard or harder than setting up a state of the art semiconductor company, that just so happens to be making a chip with special optical properties at the same time. Manufacturing stuff takes boat loads of money, let alone stuff that is that small. How long and how much money did it take to go from CRT->LCD is the correct frame of reference. They basically have to engineer and design the factory in tandem with developing the product/prototype. Not an easy feat, or cheap. They could partner with one of the existing fab companies but its not clear that would be any more efficient because most of those companies are setup in such a way that is highly customized based on whatever fab and process tech the company specializes in or adopted, and most that deal with precision optical stuff (displays) are based on ancient and rudimentary liquid crystal and polarizer tech that is optimized for smartphones or TVs -- nowhere near what's required here. It's useful to know that even Apple doesn't make or design their own displays (although they do heavily influence the technology), but they do design custom processors and such. I know its hard for the average reader here to visualize that someone was given a billion dollars to make something, without ever having made such a thing before and not yet releasing a product. And it probably makes people here mad, when they are struggling to raise a modest amount of money for their own startup. However, generally people who have billions to invest on high risk super high tech ideas aren't as stupid as people here would have you believe.

taytus 9y ago
>However, generally people who have billions to invest on high risk super high tech ideas aren't as stupid as people here would have you believe. Counterpoint: Theranos. Never assume investors are smarter than us mere mortals.
- iamleppert 9y ago
  Very true about Theranos, but in that case they hadn't even revealed how the technology worked, and the claims they made implied not only a novel core technology but some kind of discovery in physics/science as well, by someone without a formal science background who couldn't explain the science behind her technology. How do you measure something that occurs once per million unless you collect at least a million samples? Most people who understand basic science knew that company had a high chance of being fake. And if I recall properly, most of their investors were from the conventional startup industry, not biotech, and they thought they could play house in biotech without understanding what they were investing in. I would be inclined to believe the same of MagicLeap but in their case the science is already well understood and has been done in an analog form for a long time, using techniques similar to conventional off-axis holography.
  - bastawhiz 9y ago
    I'm less skeptical about their display technology and more skeptical about the ML/computer vision and 3D rendering (for both eyes, as light fields) that they claim to cram into a tiny hockey puck along with a battery.
- dmix 9y ago
  A counterpoint where willful negligence and manipulation of investors exists is not a good counterpoint to an example of bold investments in technology. If anything use "Segway", with Steve Jobs et al hyping them up before it bombed... Negligence like that is far far rarer than the technology not being feasible, at least in terms of startups failing.
- xfkechyk 9y ago
  Apples to oranges: "And this is where another comparison between Magic Leap and Theranos falls apart. Most of the former's investors are sophisticated tech venture capitalists, who Abovitz says were “sending their brilliant professors from all the top schools to try and shoot us down.” Theranos, on the other hand, largely raised money from rich individuals whose life sciences experience began and ended with high school biology. Magic Leap's board includes Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai ― whereas Theranos directors used to include former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-magic-leap-isnt-next-theranos-dan-primack/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-magic-leap-isnt-next-ther...
shusson 9y ago
Can you give any examples of companies in the past that have taken this much funding and were in a similar position?
- gradys 9y ago
  Bell Labs? They viewed the development of fundamental technologies as a multi-decade process.
  - shusson 9y ago
    Hmm my understanding was it was formed as a research arm of exisiting companies. It also has a very long history and didn't become famous until much later in it's lifetime.
munchbunny 9y ago
I'm pretty sure the main objection isn't how much money they took, it's that they've shown very little evidence of actually being able to back up their claims. How much money they were able to raise just makes it look more egregious.
- iamleppert 9y ago
  Again, this is your own bias rooted in the fact that most SV/tech people in bay area think you have to launch a product as soon as possible and that's the only way tech has ever been developed. It's not the only way, and the agile model that works well for web stuff and consumer/B2B applications often isn't suitable for other kinds of technology development, where there is a custom hardware component. If you want to see a lightfield display you can just visit Display Week (http://www.displayweek.org/ http://www.displayweek.org/). Once you see one in person your doubts will be put to rest.
  - utkarshsinha 9y ago
    I've noticed that the agile model doesn't work well for a lot of technologies too. Things that have been well studied (for example, creating a webapp with X frontend and Y backend, or creating a graphics engine with DirectX) have known costs and estimates. There are answers you can look up on StackOverflow. Not all realms of technology have such luxury. Is there an alternative to agile that's available out there?
    - foopod 9y ago
      I am not sure that agile is the right term for what you are both describing. It doesn't mean releasing things before they are ready. Agile is about potentially shippable increments and customer collaboration. Again this doesn't mean testing in production. While the manifesto was written for software, with minor changes it can applied to most industries. Even with hardware, agile principles can be used to iterate on design, not necessarily physical production. http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
- tommoor 9y ago
QAPereo 9y ago
Counterpoint: http://www.kguttag.com http://www.kguttag.com
fnord77 9y ago
I'm a naysayer just because of previous shadiness and lies by this company. their carefully controlled demo to a single journalist is just more shadiness.

taytus 9y ago

>However, generally people who have billions to invest on high risk super high tech ideas aren't as stupid as people here would have you believe. Counterpoint: Theranos. Never assume investors are smarter than us mere mortals.

iamleppert 9y ago
Very true about Theranos, but in that case they hadn't even revealed how the technology worked, and the claims they made implied not only a novel core technology but some kind of discovery in physics/science as well, by someone without a formal science background who couldn't explain the science behind her technology. How do you measure something that occurs once per million unless you collect at least a million samples? Most people who understand basic science knew that company had a high chance of being fake. And if I recall properly, most of their investors were from the conventional startup industry, not biotech, and they thought they could play house in biotech without understanding what they were investing in. I would be inclined to believe the same of MagicLeap but in their case the science is already well understood and has been done in an analog form for a long time, using techniques similar to conventional off-axis holography.
- bastawhiz 9y ago
  I'm less skeptical about their display technology and more skeptical about the ML/computer vision and 3D rendering (for both eyes, as light fields) that they claim to cram into a tiny hockey puck along with a battery.
dmix 9y ago
A counterpoint where willful negligence and manipulation of investors exists is not a good counterpoint to an example of bold investments in technology. If anything use "Segway", with Steve Jobs et al hyping them up before it bombed... Negligence like that is far far rarer than the technology not being feasible, at least in terms of startups failing.
xfkechyk 9y ago
Apples to oranges: "And this is where another comparison between Magic Leap and Theranos falls apart. Most of the former's investors are sophisticated tech venture capitalists, who Abovitz says were “sending their brilliant professors from all the top schools to try and shoot us down.” Theranos, on the other hand, largely raised money from rich individuals whose life sciences experience began and ended with high school biology. Magic Leap's board includes Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai ― whereas Theranos directors used to include former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-magic-leap-isnt-next-theranos-dan-primack/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-magic-leap-isnt-next-ther...

shusson 9y ago

Can you give any examples of companies in the past that have taken this much funding and were in a similar position?

gradys 9y ago
Bell Labs? They viewed the development of fundamental technologies as a multi-decade process.
- shusson 9y ago
  Hmm my understanding was it was formed as a research arm of exisiting companies. It also has a very long history and didn't become famous until much later in it's lifetime.

munchbunny 9y ago

I'm pretty sure the main objection isn't how much money they took, it's that they've shown very little evidence of actually being able to back up their claims. How much money they were able to raise just makes it look more egregious.

iamleppert 9y ago
Again, this is your own bias rooted in the fact that most SV/tech people in bay area think you have to launch a product as soon as possible and that's the only way tech has ever been developed. It's not the only way, and the agile model that works well for web stuff and consumer/B2B applications often isn't suitable for other kinds of technology development, where there is a custom hardware component. If you want to see a lightfield display you can just visit Display Week (http://www.displayweek.org/ http://www.displayweek.org/). Once you see one in person your doubts will be put to rest.
- utkarshsinha 9y ago
  I've noticed that the agile model doesn't work well for a lot of technologies too. Things that have been well studied (for example, creating a webapp with X frontend and Y backend, or creating a graphics engine with DirectX) have known costs and estimates. There are answers you can look up on StackOverflow. Not all realms of technology have such luxury. Is there an alternative to agile that's available out there?
  - foopod 9y ago
    I am not sure that agile is the right term for what you are both describing. It doesn't mean releasing things before they are ready. Agile is about potentially shippable increments and customer collaboration. Again this doesn't mean testing in production. While the manifesto was written for software, with minor changes it can applied to most industries. Even with hardware, agile principles can be used to iterate on design, not necessarily physical production. http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
tommoor 9y ago

QAPereo 9y ago

Counterpoint: http://www.kguttag.com http://www.kguttag.com

fnord77 9y ago

I'm a naysayer just because of previous shadiness and lies by this company. their carefully controlled demo to a single journalist is just more shadiness.