4 ms·

I'm definitely a Magic Leap skeptic, but these Karl Guttag posts do not read like posts from someone who is trying to do an objective analysis of the tech, they

by drcode 9y ago

I'm definitely a Magic Leap skeptic, but these Karl Guttag posts do not read like posts from someone who is trying to do an objective analysis of the tech, they read like posts from someone who has an axe to grind. Often, when I see posts from very smart and technically savvy people that call things "cons" or "scams" it's because they have very high personal standards of technology and are disappointed that others do not share their views. Frequently in these situations, it turns out that the mass consumer market is still satisfied with the product, since their expectations of the technology are more modest than those of a tech expert. I guess only time will tell whether Magic Leap will end up being a "con" or, instead, whether they are able to put in place some crude mitigations for these technical challenges that allows them to still release interesting and usable technology. In the latter case, the technology would likely still have flaws that Karl would find wholly unbearable, but may nevertheless allow for compelling products for ordinary consumers.

kguttag 9y ago
Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part. In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed. I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.
- drcode 9y ago
  I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.
- sytelus 9y ago
  But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?
  - 9y ago

by drcode 9y ago

kguttag 9y ago

Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part. In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed. I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.

drcode 9y ago
I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!
CamperBob2 9y ago
I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.
sytelus 9y ago
But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?
- 9y ago