5 ms·

This cost 2.3B? 2.3B?! Its projectors and a couple of wave guides glued together. You could go to the moon with that cash. Capitalism needs a reboot.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sp332 8y ago
No, it costs $2,300. They have developed the tech to do multiple stacked waveguides (12 I think?) but this device only does 2, probably for price reasons. Anyway the company is valued at $4.5 billion which has nothing to do with how much it will cost, only the amount of profit they think they can make from devices and patent licensing.
- paulvorobyev 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood what he was saying. Magic Leap, as of now, has received $2.3B in the comments[1]. This is mentioned in the article's subtitle. [1]: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap
  - sp332 8y ago
    Yes but what they're buying is a share of the company and its profits. No one is paying $2.3B to develop the tech.
- memebox3v 8y ago
  Not for price reasons. Its because the more wave guides you super glue together the more image disruption you get. It's allready blocking a significant proportion of the light, not to mention the splitting out of colors.
- kopo 8y ago
  Any idea what they are doing differently from the Vuzix Blade?
  - moron4hire 8y ago
    Vuzix Blade is an "eye-mounted tablet". It has a basic orientation sensor in it, but it's really bad and most of the apps I've seen don't use it. You've basically got a low-power Android device in the corner of your eye, with an interface designed around three buttons. It has a front-facing camera, but it's used strictly as a web-cam for "see what I see" calls and QR code detection. It does not do any environmental analysis. About the only things they have in common is "they look like goggles".
EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago
A trip to the moon would need more like a hundred billion dollars
stephengillie 8y ago
> You could go to the moon with that cash. Not quite, but you could get low Earth orbit. To compare, ST3, the light rail project in the Seattle area, is costing about $54 billion. That could take 1 WA State resident to the Moon and back.
Impossible 8y ago
Other similar devices (Hololens, Oculus Rift, Google Glass, etc.) have had similar costs. Remember that not all of the costs are hardware design or even production, they need to build a developer ecosystem, software, do marketing, etc. The costs involved in bringing a new hardware device in a new category to market are much higher than a CRUD web app... CastAR raised "only" $15M, which is enough for some software startups to operate for years, and crashed and burned.
dqpb 8y ago
Hell, you could go to Mars with that cash! After all, a rocket ship is basically just a tube with fuel strapped to one end and people strapped to the other.
- theyinwhy 8y ago
  Right! And a computer is just a pile of sand in metal casing.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sp332 8y ago

No, it costs $2,300. They have developed the tech to do multiple stacked waveguides (12 I think?) but this device only does 2, probably for price reasons. Anyway the company is valued at $4.5 billion which has nothing to do with how much it will cost, only the amount of profit they think they can make from devices and patent licensing.

paulvorobyev 8y ago
I think you misunderstood what he was saying. Magic Leap, as of now, has received $2.3B in the comments[1]. This is mentioned in the article's subtitle. [1]: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap
- sp332 8y ago
  Yes but what they're buying is a share of the company and its profits. No one is paying $2.3B to develop the tech.
memebox3v 8y ago
Not for price reasons. Its because the more wave guides you super glue together the more image disruption you get. It's allready blocking a significant proportion of the light, not to mention the splitting out of colors.
kopo 8y ago
Any idea what they are doing differently from the Vuzix Blade?
- moron4hire 8y ago
  Vuzix Blade is an "eye-mounted tablet". It has a basic orientation sensor in it, but it's really bad and most of the apps I've seen don't use it. You've basically got a low-power Android device in the corner of your eye, with an interface designed around three buttons. It has a front-facing camera, but it's used strictly as a web-cam for "see what I see" calls and QR code detection. It does not do any environmental analysis. About the only things they have in common is "they look like goggles".

EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago

A trip to the moon would need more like a hundred billion dollars

stephengillie 8y ago

> You could go to the moon with that cash. Not quite, but you could get low Earth orbit. To compare, ST3, the light rail project in the Seattle area, is costing about $54 billion. That could take 1 WA State resident to the Moon and back.

Impossible 8y ago

Other similar devices (Hololens, Oculus Rift, Google Glass, etc.) have had similar costs. Remember that not all of the costs are hardware design or even production, they need to build a developer ecosystem, software, do marketing, etc. The costs involved in bringing a new hardware device in a new category to market are much higher than a CRUD web app... CastAR raised "only" $15M, which is enough for some software startups to operate for years, and crashed and burned.

dqpb 8y ago

Hell, you could go to Mars with that cash! After all, a rocket ship is basically just a tube with fuel strapped to one end and people strapped to the other.

theyinwhy 8y ago
Right! And a computer is just a pile of sand in metal casing.