4 ms·

> Supposedly the magic leap demo was actually cool and used different technology than the eventually crappy hardware they ended up sort of shipping. i think th

> Supposedly the magic leap demo was actually cool and used different technology than the eventually crappy hardware they ended up sort of shipping. i think that technology was CGI: https://hothardware.com/news/magic-leap-admits-outrageous-augmented-reality-demo-faked https://hothardware.com/news/magic-leap-admits-outrageous-au...

CydeWeys 7y ago
That's not even a demo of the actual physical product though, that was just a video that was posted online that purported to show what the experience would look like (but actually was not). It's not like you would've seen that had you actually been looking through the glasses.
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
That was the concept video which was different from the demo, but you are correct and they did a horrible job conveying that that was a concept and not the actual product.
- CerealFounder 7y ago
  Did they? They raised a billions of dollars to try to basically try to drag reality to this demo. It feels like a bigger version of a regular venture story. "Gimme a ton of money to run this experiment. If I'm right you'll be rich"
  - fossuser 7y ago
    That would have been fine if they said that, but they pretended the concept videos were real. Even this post is another example of the continued dishonesty I'd expect from them. This pivot is obviously not about COVID-19.
fossuser 7y ago
I'm not talking about their fake demo ads they put everywhere, I think they actually had an impressive in person demo using some different technology they couldn't miniaturize.
- nogabebop23 7y ago
  WHy wouldn't they push the narative "Look at this - now we'll make it smaller" vs. "it's awesome - trust us and wait"? Even snake oil salesmen have a demo if they're good; these guys suck at being phonies.
  - fossuser 7y ago
    I'm not a marketing person, but constantly alluding to something amazing without revealing details is a hack that stirs up a lot of curiosity and people discussing what it could be. If you reveal the thing then that dies down (or worse knowledgeable people know that what you're dong isn't possible), but if you keep it secret while giving content-free little hints about it you can keep it going longer (and maybe raise more money by letting people in on the secret?). I have a strong dislike for this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean it's not effective.
  - papa_bear 7y ago
    They had a few-hundred-pound cart-bound prototype called The Beast that was supposedly mind blowing to use, and that's what convinced a lot of engineers to drop everything and move to Florida to work on it. I agree pushing that technical narrative would have sounded much better.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    They got to series E funding and raised over a billion dollars. If they were phonies, they were phenomenal ones.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      Tharanos raised almost a billion, and look how that ended up
moron4hire 7y ago
What's really crazy about that video--while it's technically possible to make something mostly like that with current hardware[0]-- is that, if you have any experience with AR at all, you know that most of those UIs would be terrible to use. [0] The FOV is accurate, given we're looking through a narrow camera lens, but gives the wrong impression that it fills what the user could see because it fills the video frame. The graphics wouldn't be "solid", they'd be transparent, but a pre-setup room can definitely do occlusion effects with foreground furniture. The physical gun controllers could be done, though nobody would fork out the money for it. And all the hand gestures and UI pinning stuff could be done, though the software support on Magic Leap does not help you in the least.
- fossuser 7y ago
  Yeah - even the fake demo use case isn't that compelling to me. This is the kind of thing that I think the real AR value will be from: https://twitter.com/st8rmi/status/1249950879807045633?s=21 https://twitter.com/st8rmi/status/1249950879807045633?s=21 Basically a meta-layer for the real world that you can interact with outside of a screen. This would let you do things like interact with a lightswitch from across the room by looking at it, get metadata about most object states by looking at it, anchor big displays to white walls, etc. I think there's huge potential for this kind of interface, but I suspect the hardware isn't possible yet.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    The hardware can do this, it's just that you can't get any funding for anything interesting. You're basically stuck with hobby apps and marketing demos developed via consultoware. The hobbiests can't afford the tech or the lack of reach and the consultoware shops have exactly zero imagination (I know, I worked at one). I personally define VR vs AR as "who provides the context in which we are working? The app (VR), or the user (AR)". A lot of extant "AR" apps don't do anything particularly interesting with your surrounding environment. If your AR app needs me to clear out a space in my livingroom to give you room to drop some 3D models that maybe bounce off my walls, you've not actually made an AR app, you've just made a crappy VR app instead. Facebook could release an update to the Quest any day now that auto-scans your room to set the boundary and then you'd have exactly the same experience in an occluded headset, but with twice the FOV and better input.
semerda 7y ago
As funny as this sounds I must agree. If they had something cool & innovative they could have shown the world and been upfront about the challenges to make it smaller. That could in turn bring new talent to help them. Instead we now see a drowning company. In some way this reminds me of Theranos.
ForHackernews 7y ago
Reminds me of this Magic Leap - Expectations vs Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7-F_vWUVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7-F_vWUVE

CydeWeys 7y ago

That's not even a demo of the actual physical product though, that was just a video that was posted online that purported to show what the experience would look like (but actually was not). It's not like you would've seen that had you actually been looking through the glasses.

michaelbuckbee 7y ago

That was the concept video which was different from the demo, but you are correct and they did a horrible job conveying that that was a concept and not the actual product.

CerealFounder 7y ago
Did they? They raised a billions of dollars to try to basically try to drag reality to this demo. It feels like a bigger version of a regular venture story. "Gimme a ton of money to run this experiment. If I'm right you'll be rich"
- fossuser 7y ago
  That would have been fine if they said that, but they pretended the concept videos were real. Even this post is another example of the continued dishonesty I'd expect from them. This pivot is obviously not about COVID-19.

fossuser 7y ago

I'm not talking about their fake demo ads they put everywhere, I think they actually had an impressive in person demo using some different technology they couldn't miniaturize.

nogabebop23 7y ago
WHy wouldn't they push the narative "Look at this - now we'll make it smaller" vs. "it's awesome - trust us and wait"? Even snake oil salesmen have a demo if they're good; these guys suck at being phonies.
- fossuser 7y ago
  I'm not a marketing person, but constantly alluding to something amazing without revealing details is a hack that stirs up a lot of curiosity and people discussing what it could be. If you reveal the thing then that dies down (or worse knowledgeable people know that what you're dong isn't possible), but if you keep it secret while giving content-free little hints about it you can keep it going longer (and maybe raise more money by letting people in on the secret?). I have a strong dislike for this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean it's not effective.
- papa_bear 7y ago
  They had a few-hundred-pound cart-bound prototype called The Beast that was supposedly mind blowing to use, and that's what convinced a lot of engineers to drop everything and move to Florida to work on it. I agree pushing that technical narrative would have sounded much better.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  They got to series E funding and raised over a billion dollars. If they were phonies, they were phenomenal ones.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Tharanos raised almost a billion, and look how that ended up

moron4hire 7y ago

What's really crazy about that video--while it's technically possible to make something mostly like that with current hardware[0]-- is that, if you have any experience with AR at all, you know that most of those UIs would be terrible to use. [0] The FOV is accurate, given we're looking through a narrow camera lens, but gives the wrong impression that it fills what the user could see because it fills the video frame. The graphics wouldn't be "solid", they'd be transparent, but a pre-setup room can definitely do occlusion effects with foreground furniture. The physical gun controllers could be done, though nobody would fork out the money for it. And all the hand gestures and UI pinning stuff could be done, though the software support on Magic Leap does not help you in the least.

fossuser 7y ago
Yeah - even the fake demo use case isn't that compelling to me. This is the kind of thing that I think the real AR value will be from: https://twitter.com/st8rmi/status/1249950879807045633?s=21 https://twitter.com/st8rmi/status/1249950879807045633?s=21 Basically a meta-layer for the real world that you can interact with outside of a screen. This would let you do things like interact with a lightswitch from across the room by looking at it, get metadata about most object states by looking at it, anchor big displays to white walls, etc. I think there's huge potential for this kind of interface, but I suspect the hardware isn't possible yet.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  The hardware can do this, it's just that you can't get any funding for anything interesting. You're basically stuck with hobby apps and marketing demos developed via consultoware. The hobbiests can't afford the tech or the lack of reach and the consultoware shops have exactly zero imagination (I know, I worked at one). I personally define VR vs AR as "who provides the context in which we are working? The app (VR), or the user (AR)". A lot of extant "AR" apps don't do anything particularly interesting with your surrounding environment. If your AR app needs me to clear out a space in my livingroom to give you room to drop some 3D models that maybe bounce off my walls, you've not actually made an AR app, you've just made a crappy VR app instead. Facebook could release an update to the Quest any day now that auto-scans your room to set the boundary and then you'd have exactly the same experience in an occluded headset, but with twice the FOV and better input.

semerda 7y ago

As funny as this sounds I must agree. If they had something cool & innovative they could have shown the world and been upfront about the challenges to make it smaller. That could in turn bring new talent to help them. Instead we now see a drowning company. In some way this reminds me of Theranos.

ForHackernews 7y ago

Reminds me of this Magic Leap - Expectations vs Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7-F_vWUVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7-F_vWUVE