5 ms·

>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:

by 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...

by taytus 9y ago

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...