3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoDidn't they release a headset using their proposed technology? Or were they using something else for that?
- beagle3 7y agoThe’ 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 agoThats 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 agoYes 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.
- radarsat1 7y agoReminds me of Virtual Boy