5 ms·

There's a huge difference between a highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet, and a co

There's a huge difference between a highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet, and a company actively and knowingly engaging in fraud in the medical space. Nobody is going to die because of Magic Leap.

manigandham 8y ago
> highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't.
- gkoberger 8y ago
  Sure, but so far Magic Leap hasn't done anything illegal or unethical or immoral... they've just been a bit behind schedule. They also aren't in the medical space. Nobody is going to die because of them.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    With all of their secrecy, you have no idea if they're being unethical or not. Their marketing materials are certainly nothing near reality.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      You're being completely disingenuous. Magic Leap is a glorified toy. It is not going to affect your life.
      - pavlov 8y ago
        I’d agree otherwise, but the article mentions that Magic Leap is bidding for a $500M military contract. Putting these toy lenses on soldiers can get people killed — both the fighters themselves as well as civilians are at risk from these digital goggles that block 86% of incoming light unless the AR graphics can do something really, really useful in the battlefield.
        jobigoud 8y ago
        I doubt it's for the battlefield. More likely for planning, where you'd have a briefing with several people around a tabletop projection of the ground scene and AR tanks and characters moving around.
        jtbayly 8y ago
        FTA: “for use with troops in the field (as opposed to training).” Not quite clear either way. You could still be right, but the implication seems to be otherwise.
        darkerside 8y ago
        Until they start faking results to the DoD, the analogy falls completely flat
        bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        I wonder what legal repercussions one would be open to for faking results to DoD.
        UpshotKnothole 8y ago
        If the F35 is an example, I’d say a trillion dollar, ten year contract?
        maxxxxx 8y ago
        The Theranos board is looking for work and just the right people to move such a deal forward :)
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ytpete 8y ago
        Seems like you're moving the goalposts though: the original question was whether Magic Leap is "unethical," not how much damage they could do by being unethical. Releasing much-hyped, highly-produced, and very compelling marketing content while knowing your company can't possibly deliver on it certainly meets my bar for unethical. It's certainly not as bad as Theranos, sure - but bilking consumers (or investors) can still be unethical too. If your bar for a company acting unethical requires literally killing people, you'll be overlooking a lot of bad behavior...
- _pmf_ 8y ago
  > That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't. You conveniently skipped the part where Magic Leap isn't actively engaging in medical fraud.

manigandham 8y ago

> highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't.

gkoberger 8y ago
Sure, but so far Magic Leap hasn't done anything illegal or unethical or immoral... they've just been a bit behind schedule. They also aren't in the medical space. Nobody is going to die because of them.
- cm2012 8y ago
  With all of their secrecy, you have no idea if they're being unethical or not. Their marketing materials are certainly nothing near reality.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    You're being completely disingenuous. Magic Leap is a glorified toy. It is not going to affect your life.
    - pavlov 8y ago
      I’d agree otherwise, but the article mentions that Magic Leap is bidding for a $500M military contract. Putting these toy lenses on soldiers can get people killed — both the fighters themselves as well as civilians are at risk from these digital goggles that block 86% of incoming light unless the AR graphics can do something really, really useful in the battlefield.
      - jobigoud 8y ago
        I doubt it's for the battlefield. More likely for planning, where you'd have a briefing with several people around a tabletop projection of the ground scene and AR tanks and characters moving around.
        jtbayly 8y ago
        FTA: “for use with troops in the field (as opposed to training).” Not quite clear either way. You could still be right, but the implication seems to be otherwise.
      - darkerside 8y ago
        Until they start faking results to the DoD, the analogy falls completely flat
        bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        I wonder what legal repercussions one would be open to for faking results to DoD.
        UpshotKnothole 8y ago
        If the F35 is an example, I’d say a trillion dollar, ten year contract?
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        The Theranos board is looking for work and just the right people to move such a deal forward :)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ytpete 8y ago
      Seems like you're moving the goalposts though: the original question was whether Magic Leap is "unethical," not how much damage they could do by being unethical. Releasing much-hyped, highly-produced, and very compelling marketing content while knowing your company can't possibly deliver on it certainly meets my bar for unethical. It's certainly not as bad as Theranos, sure - but bilking consumers (or investors) can still be unethical too. If your bar for a company acting unethical requires literally killing people, you'll be overlooking a lot of bad behavior...
_pmf_ 8y ago
> That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't. You conveniently skipped the part where Magic Leap isn't actively engaging in medical fraud.