5 ms·

You're not going to find the technical truth on this blog. Look at the history of posts; the author clearly believes that Magic Leap is fraudulent at its core a

You're not going to find the technical truth on this blog. Look at the history of posts; the author clearly believes that Magic Leap is fraudulent at its core and wants to prove it. Everything Magic Leap does/says is attacked from that inherently biased position. Any facts or data presented on the blog will be with that goal in mind, and any facts or data that support the opposite will be downplayed or omitted. I don't know whether Magic Leap actually will produce anything of merit, but this blog won't help anyone find out.

bhouston 9y ago
A lot of experienced people in the computer graphics industry doubt Magic Leap and their claims -- myself included. It is a fact that what ML started out saying they were going to do is not what they are currently doing. And what they are currently doing is incredibly similar now to the Hololens. > I don't know whether Magic Leap actually will produce anything of merit, but this blog won't help anyone find out. I think the author of this blog post isn't wrong.
- sbarre 9y ago
  Can someone provide a brief summary of that difference as of today? I thought they were always going to be a Hololens-like AR product?
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    No, they were a product that did not require goggles or glasses or anything. They promised that you could see the effects without any glasses or contacts or anything on your face. Either they engaged in highly illegal false advertising about their current product or their old product was too magic and futuristic so they cancelled it. Not sure which. But they pivoted from a non-goggles technology to a googles-technology somewhere along the road.
    - sbarre 9y ago
      Oh wow, ok yeah.. I don't remember those claims at all, how would that even have been possible? The first time I heard of ML was the Wired piece, and I think that one was already referring to glasses. edit: Like the other comment here says, I just went back and checked a few places (Wikipedia and other articles) and it seems they've always been about glasses..
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        Remember this? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_magic_nor_leaping/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_... https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/3q5bxc/magic_leap_whale_in_the_gym/ https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/3q5bxc/magic_leap... https://www.cnet.com/news/magic-leap-shows-demo-video/ https://www.cnet.com/news/magic-leap-shows-demo-video/
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        From your links: The hardware is yet to be revealed (but it'll presumably use a headset) they waved away the fact that reducing it down to a wearable pair of glasses and an affordable computer was far from inevitable. The truth is that Magic Leap cannot get its huge prototype working in a much, much smaller version. Nobody who knows anything about AR ever thought it was anything but some form of glasses.
        QAPereo 9y ago
        I would argue that the number of people who know much about the technical side of this is less than a rounding error against the population who watched that demo. Edit: Given the seeming impossibility of an FSD like the one they’re still selling to investors, it may be ML’s investors are not part of the “know much about...” side.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        That matters why? The majority of marketing materials for any technology are vague, abstracted and non-technical. That someone would make an assumption about something that they have no knowledge about, that isn't even available to them, means what exactly? You guys are shouting at clouds.
- zero_intp 9y ago
  The author of the post is trying to prove the negative, that ML can not succeed because GP can not reconcile a successful solution from the the disclosed technologies, or that one does not exist. This may be true, but can not be proven.
  - bhouston 9y ago
    Dealing with ML often feels like dealing with climate change deniers. But ML has pivoted away from nearly all of their major technology advances at this point, so they are much more likely to deliver now what is likely to be an underwhelming product that is little differentiated from Hololens.
1_2__4 9y ago
I would argue that at this point unbridled skepticism is reasonable.
QAPereo 9y ago
Why not drop the ad hominem and address the numbers presented?

bhouston 9y ago

A lot of experienced people in the computer graphics industry doubt Magic Leap and their claims -- myself included. It is a fact that what ML started out saying they were going to do is not what they are currently doing. And what they are currently doing is incredibly similar now to the Hololens. > I don't know whether Magic Leap actually will produce anything of merit, but this blog won't help anyone find out. I think the author of this blog post isn't wrong.

sbarre 9y ago
Can someone provide a brief summary of that difference as of today? I thought they were always going to be a Hololens-like AR product?
- cryptoz 9y ago
  No, they were a product that did not require goggles or glasses or anything. They promised that you could see the effects without any glasses or contacts or anything on your face. Either they engaged in highly illegal false advertising about their current product or their old product was too magic and futuristic so they cancelled it. Not sure which. But they pivoted from a non-goggles technology to a googles-technology somewhere along the road.
  - sbarre 9y ago
    Oh wow, ok yeah.. I don't remember those claims at all, how would that even have been possible? The first time I heard of ML was the Wired piece, and I think that one was already referring to glasses. edit: Like the other comment here says, I just went back and checked a few places (Wikipedia and other articles) and it seems they've always been about glasses..
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Remember this? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_magic_nor_leaping/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_... https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/3q5bxc/magic_leap_whale_in_the_gym/ https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/3q5bxc/magic_leap... https://www.cnet.com/news/magic-leap-shows-demo-video/ https://www.cnet.com/news/magic-leap-shows-demo-video/
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        From your links: The hardware is yet to be revealed (but it'll presumably use a headset) they waved away the fact that reducing it down to a wearable pair of glasses and an affordable computer was far from inevitable. The truth is that Magic Leap cannot get its huge prototype working in a much, much smaller version. Nobody who knows anything about AR ever thought it was anything but some form of glasses.
        QAPereo 9y ago
        I would argue that the number of people who know much about the technical side of this is less than a rounding error against the population who watched that demo. Edit: Given the seeming impossibility of an FSD like the one they’re still selling to investors, it may be ML’s investors are not part of the “know much about...” side.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        That matters why? The majority of marketing materials for any technology are vague, abstracted and non-technical. That someone would make an assumption about something that they have no knowledge about, that isn't even available to them, means what exactly? You guys are shouting at clouds.
zero_intp 9y ago
The author of the post is trying to prove the negative, that ML can not succeed because GP can not reconcile a successful solution from the the disclosed technologies, or that one does not exist. This may be true, but can not be proven.
- bhouston 9y ago
  Dealing with ML often feels like dealing with climate change deniers. But ML has pivoted away from nearly all of their major technology advances at this point, so they are much more likely to deliver now what is likely to be an underwhelming product that is little differentiated from Hololens.

1_2__4 9y ago

I would argue that at this point unbridled skepticism is reasonable.

QAPereo 9y ago

Why not drop the ad hominem and address the numbers presented?