4 ms·

The lofty ask price may be unduly anchored by the hypothetical value it could have represented to Google in the scenario where something like this turned out to

by blevin 7y ago

The lofty ask price may be unduly anchored by the hypothetical value it could have represented to Google in the scenario where something like this turned out to be the next big platform. Web and later mobile represented big shifts of economic activity, and the incumbents all know they need to place a big bet on candidates for any next potential shift, hence many of them making similar moves on VR, AR, self driving cars, etc. If they didn’t, and missed the next big step entirely, they would be judged to be incompetent; if they did and it simply didn’t pan out, no big deal since all the other players were making similar bets. In this context ML may see itself as still representing that potential future value, while others have updated their pricing based on limited uptake of VR and AR so far. It’s unclear where they could find a buyer at that price.

arthurcolle 7y ago
I agree with your analysis, and I think the fact that they've struggled to actually bring a compelling product to market at a price point that attracts consumers (outside of the technology bubble) means that, even if they had the best of intentions at disrupting the market for innovative user interfaces, either they are another Research In Motion (great product, with a long-term idea that wasn't quite ready for primetime yet), or just another side show that won't end up being culturally relevant beyond the passing captivation that individuals felt upon watching their "whale stadium" mock-up video. In retrospect (at the time, even) it felt like complete BS. If you look back at the threads posted on HN, I distinctly remember people calling out their methods as super vague, and probably completely fictitious - amazing to see that the angry, dismissive comments actually turned out to be the most factually based! The problem with Magic Leap is that it was always vaporware. I think the second you start using 3D CGI to "show what the product will be like" you're already kind of fucking up. I mean I get it, if youre building a concept car, you can't just immediately build it. But Magic Leap's videos were always like "yeah literally, it'll be like you're in Avatar." Give me a break. I hope some mega-corp eats up the IP for like 7 cents on the dollar and actually uses some of the tech for something that sees the light of day.
- beagle3 7y ago
  From what I’ve heard (cannot confirm) their technology has to do with projecting directly into your eye, which for now supposedly provides better augmentation of reality than screen-based systems like Hololens; however, it requires a room fool of equipment to pull through. The valuation was predicated on being able to miniaturize that down to portable size. The thing is, there is no way to “show” this to the masses, and there is not even a comparable experience (you can’t show oculus/vibe in an ad either, but everyone has played with a 3D display at some point even if only static - such as the red disc toy with 3D images whose name escapes me - stereoscope, maybe?) What’s the comparable experience of something projecting into your eye?
  - Fr0styMatt88 7y ago
    Didn't they release a headset using their proposed technology? Or were they using something else for that?
    - beagle3 7y ago
      The’ expectations sold 6,000 pieces so they got something, but from what I’ve heard still way too heavy and expensive to be commercially viable. (Did not hear about compromises they made, if any, to image quality - compared to the room size prototype that wowed investors and got them well funded.
      - addHocker 7y ago
        Thats where there actual value is - if the technology is getting smaller, leighter, they are a ip-claim on any competitor trying to get on the next onion layer around what is currently the cellphone market. To be honest, as long as there IP is absolutly necessary for that to happen- they would have a valid claim for that evaluation. Lawyers might differ.
  - jimmySixDOF 7y ago
    Yes that was it. ML were supposed to be about a dynamic light field display. I would have bought a motorcycle helmet with a backpack from them if it delivered on the original concept from their prototype phase.
netcan 7y ago
Lets say AR/VR it does become important... It doesn't seem to be exploding, but it is growing... so, lets say. What does buying ML buy you? The goal isn't to own a product. The goal is the product. When Google bought Android, it was a two years (and a lot of money) away from being the only sane option for manufacturers not named apple. ML is years and billions away from (I assume) an entrant in a high-end subsector of the market. The counter-example to google's android is MSFT's nokia/windows mobile experience. A money suck and no benefit.
- SahAssar 7y ago
  > When Google bought Android, it was a two years (and a lot of money) away from being the only sane option for manufacturers not named apple. It took three years from google buying android until the absolute first android phone was launched, and I'd say that when microsoft bought nokias mobile bussiness (in 2014, nine years after google bought android) it still looked like there was a chance windows would be a serious third player in the mobile OS market.
  - netcan 7y ago
    Sure. I'm not claiming that msft was wrong to make that attempt. It just illustrates what a failure case looks like, even when it's a good risk. Correction taken on Android timing.

by blevin 7y ago

arthurcolle 7y ago

I agree with your analysis, and I think the fact that they've struggled to actually bring a compelling product to market at a price point that attracts consumers (outside of the technology bubble) means that, even if they had the best of intentions at disrupting the market for innovative user interfaces, either they are another Research In Motion (great product, with a long-term idea that wasn't quite ready for primetime yet), or just another side show that won't end up being culturally relevant beyond the passing captivation that individuals felt upon watching their "whale stadium" mock-up video. In retrospect (at the time, even) it felt like complete BS. If you look back at the threads posted on HN, I distinctly remember people calling out their methods as super vague, and probably completely fictitious - amazing to see that the angry, dismissive comments actually turned out to be the most factually based! The problem with Magic Leap is that it was always vaporware. I think the second you start using 3D CGI to "show what the product will be like" you're already kind of fucking up. I mean I get it, if youre building a concept car, you can't just immediately build it. But Magic Leap's videos were always like "yeah literally, it'll be like you're in Avatar." Give me a break. I hope some mega-corp eats up the IP for like 7 cents on the dollar and actually uses some of the tech for something that sees the light of day.

beagle3 7y ago
From what I’ve heard (cannot confirm) their technology has to do with projecting directly into your eye, which for now supposedly provides better augmentation of reality than screen-based systems like Hololens; however, it requires a room fool of equipment to pull through. The valuation was predicated on being able to miniaturize that down to portable size. The thing is, there is no way to “show” this to the masses, and there is not even a comparable experience (you can’t show oculus/vibe in an ad either, but everyone has played with a 3D display at some point even if only static - such as the red disc toy with 3D images whose name escapes me - stereoscope, maybe?) What’s the comparable experience of something projecting into your eye?
- Fr0styMatt88 7y ago
  Didn't they release a headset using their proposed technology? Or were they using something else for that?
  - beagle3 7y ago
    The’ expectations sold 6,000 pieces so they got something, but from what I’ve heard still way too heavy and expensive to be commercially viable. (Did not hear about compromises they made, if any, to image quality - compared to the room size prototype that wowed investors and got them well funded.
    - addHocker 7y ago
      Thats where there actual value is - if the technology is getting smaller, leighter, they are a ip-claim on any competitor trying to get on the next onion layer around what is currently the cellphone market. To be honest, as long as there IP is absolutly necessary for that to happen- they would have a valid claim for that evaluation. Lawyers might differ.
- jimmySixDOF 7y ago
  Yes that was it. ML were supposed to be about a dynamic light field display. I would have bought a motorcycle helmet with a backpack from them if it delivered on the original concept from their prototype phase.

netcan 7y ago

Lets say AR/VR it does become important... It doesn't seem to be exploding, but it is growing... so, lets say. What does buying ML buy you? The goal isn't to own a product. The goal is the product. When Google bought Android, it was a two years (and a lot of money) away from being the only sane option for manufacturers not named apple. ML is years and billions away from (I assume) an entrant in a high-end subsector of the market. The counter-example to google's android is MSFT's nokia/windows mobile experience. A money suck and no benefit.

SahAssar 7y ago
> When Google bought Android, it was a two years (and a lot of money) away from being the only sane option for manufacturers not named apple. It took three years from google buying android until the absolute first android phone was launched, and I'd say that when microsoft bought nokias mobile bussiness (in 2014, nine years after google bought android) it still looked like there was a chance windows would be a serious third player in the mobile OS market.
- netcan 7y ago
  Sure. I'm not claiming that msft was wrong to make that attempt. It just illustrates what a failure case looks like, even when it's a good risk. Correction taken on Android timing.