4 ms·

How are we even surprised. They are the Theranos of AR. They pushed the 'fake it until you make it' mantra a bit far, and now reality is biting hard. Hopefully

How are we even surprised. They are the Theranos of AR. They pushed the 'fake it until you make it' mantra a bit far, and now reality is biting hard. Hopefully they will still trigger a revolution of some sort... but this was predictable.

MBCook 7y ago
The difference is their product works (to some degree) as opposed to being total vaporware like Theranos.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  The original product is still vaporware.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Pretty sure they had an original product that was definitely not vaporware, the issue is it turned out to be not scaleable at all. A product that is obscenely expensive and therefore can't be sold as a consumer device is not vaporware.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      A prototype is not enough to stop something from being vaporware. Edit, to people that disagree: Did they have an even half-finished form? Did they offer it for sale? Was it "announced to the general public but never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled"? Vaporware doesn't always mean it's a scam. Sometimes it means there were intractable tech problems. Coming out with a fundamentally different product doesn't negate the missing product.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - fastball 7y ago
        Except you can buy the Magic Leap One. They promised light-field AR goggles, and you can buy light-field AR goggles.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        So there was an "original product" that was "not scaleable", "obscenely expensive" and "can't be sold as a consumer device", right? If we distinguish the magic leap one as a different product, then from what I can see the original qualifies as vaporware.
      - lostgame 7y ago
        In this sense, was Duke Nukem Forever still vapourware in the sense that it didn’t end up being whatever the original game would’ve been?
- masswerk 7y ago
  Mind that the advertised technology relied on Fiber Scanning Displays and extensive computing power – and I'm not aware of this having been refined to a producible and marketable item.
jayd16 7y ago
This is way overblown. They have at least a Hololens equivalent, and if you value occlusion, they're ahead. And that's without Microsoft's reach. Equating them to vaporware isn't fair at all.
- pvarangot 7y ago
  Have you used one?
  - jayd16 7y ago
    Both.
    - pvarangot 7y ago
      I can't see how you would really take their implementation of occlusion seriously, what's it useful for? it's so laggy that it's not even tech-demo worthy.
      - jayd16 7y ago
        It seemed fine for static object geometry. Throw a virtual ball behind a couch and its gone. AR toys can fall behind tables. It does add to the experience. I don't have the most up to date view but has the Hololens significantly improved over that?
- whoisjuan 7y ago
  Also, from the reviews that I have read their software seems to be pretty good, at least when it comes to spatial awareness and surface detection. Most reviews are positive but main problem seems to be the price and the fact that the overall end-to-end experience still feels pretty rough.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

MBCook 7y ago

The difference is their product works (to some degree) as opposed to being total vaporware like Theranos.

Dylan16807 7y ago
The original product is still vaporware.
- fastball 7y ago
  Pretty sure they had an original product that was definitely not vaporware, the issue is it turned out to be not scaleable at all. A product that is obscenely expensive and therefore can't be sold as a consumer device is not vaporware.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    A prototype is not enough to stop something from being vaporware. Edit, to people that disagree: Did they have an even half-finished form? Did they offer it for sale? Was it "announced to the general public but never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled"? Vaporware doesn't always mean it's a scam. Sometimes it means there were intractable tech problems. Coming out with a fundamentally different product doesn't negate the missing product.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - fastball 7y ago
      Except you can buy the Magic Leap One. They promised light-field AR goggles, and you can buy light-field AR goggles.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        So there was an "original product" that was "not scaleable", "obscenely expensive" and "can't be sold as a consumer device", right? If we distinguish the magic leap one as a different product, then from what I can see the original qualifies as vaporware.
    - lostgame 7y ago
      In this sense, was Duke Nukem Forever still vapourware in the sense that it didn’t end up being whatever the original game would’ve been?
masswerk 7y ago
Mind that the advertised technology relied on Fiber Scanning Displays and extensive computing power – and I'm not aware of this having been refined to a producible and marketable item.

jayd16 7y ago

This is way overblown. They have at least a Hololens equivalent, and if you value occlusion, they're ahead. And that's without Microsoft's reach. Equating them to vaporware isn't fair at all.

pvarangot 7y ago
Have you used one?
- jayd16 7y ago
  Both.
  - pvarangot 7y ago
    I can't see how you would really take their implementation of occlusion seriously, what's it useful for? it's so laggy that it's not even tech-demo worthy.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      It seemed fine for static object geometry. Throw a virtual ball behind a couch and its gone. AR toys can fall behind tables. It does add to the experience. I don't have the most up to date view but has the Hololens significantly improved over that?
whoisjuan 7y ago
Also, from the reviews that I have read their software seems to be pretty good, at least when it comes to spatial awareness and surface detection. Most reviews are positive but main problem seems to be the price and the fact that the overall end-to-end experience still feels pretty rough.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]