
Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping - zby
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_magic_nor_leaping/
======
ryandamm
I think what's missing from this discussion is the demo is apparently really,
really good. Google didn't put ~$500m, and Alibaba something like $800m, just
on a whim, or some investment thesis. And everyone I've spoken to who's gotten
the demo is a believer.

I think this article suffers from an overly binary view of technology -- if it
isn't market ready, it's vaporware. No, there's probably some real tech there
(aforementioned demo), but miniaturizing / productizing is still a risk. I
think the blowback has something to do with the marketing itself, and
Abovitz's amazing idiosyncracies. Neither of those indicate anything about the
tech, but (absent any public information) it helps fuel the hate.

And from what I understand about their likely approach, it's definitely more
aggressive than the HoloLens. I don't personally think that nearfield focus in
a headset is that valuable, but that's just a guess. If light field displays
are the tech that takes AR over the top -- from curiosity to a new computing
platform -- then Magic Leap is really well positioned, vis a vis a large lead
and big IP portfolio.

Also, with ~$1.4 bn raised, they're too big to fail.

~~~
Fricken
Facebook bought Oculus for 2 billion, and what were they buying there? Oculus
had a prototype cobbled together using off the shelf parts by a teenager in
his garage, a successful kickstarter campaign, and John Carmack jumped on
board.

And that made Oculus worth two thousand million dollars to Zuckerberg.

The acquisition sent a strong signal, though. Shortly afterwards a bevy of
competitors, big and small, started throwing out offerings.

Maybe signalling is the only reason to make these outrageous investments.
Google thinks AR is important, a massive bid on an early frontrunner can
kickstart an arms race which generates talent and knowledge, and even if ML
fails, so long as AR in general succeeds, a consumer tech company such as
Google will be able to benefit from it.

~~~
moron4hire
> The acquisition sent a strong signal, though. Shortly afterwards a bevy of
> competitors, big and small, started throwing out offerings.

In the case of the HTC Vive, given the timings of product development cycles
and marketing campaigns, that was just a coincidence.

------
oculusthrift
sometimes i get tired of all the fakeness in the world. it seems to corrupt
every part of society and makes me sick thinking about it. theranos, magic
leap, and a lot more. everything seems to be overhyped bs, while the only
successful things are essentially avenues to cram ads down your throat and
brainwash you to spend money you don't have.

~~~
new299
I'd like to break this down a bit. Firstly, why is this so frustrating.

On a practical level, it's frustrating for engineers because to operate as
engineers we have to work for these companies. It's not just the fakeness,
it's the bad management that comes with it. They dilute the pool of possible
good companies that we could work for.

They also increase the cost of doing something actually worth while. Salaries
get higher, cost of living increases.

So that's why these companies are annoying to engineers. It's not just people
being bitter exactly...

\---

The next question is why does this happen?

Firstly, tech investors are not great at DD of science/basic technology
startups. Maybe they hire external consultants to do the DD (due diligence).
Maybe they rely on their friends (prior investments/contacts). So they roll
the dice, invest in some company that looks safe (founders worked a Google
etc. etc.) and their friends like.

Then you get one big investor who throws a bunch of cash in. A large number of
other investors throw in as well. They assume that first, big investor did the
DD.

This is an easy play for the investors. They don't have to do much work. It's
easier than say, doing the DD on a smaller seed stage play.

Once it gets bit enough, I guess they assume that they can crush other players
in the same area just because they have a stack of cash.

TL;DR: They don't do the DD, it's easier to make big bets than lots of small
ones.

It would probably be better for us, if the cash that was thrown at Magic Leap
went to fund 2000 seed stage investments. But investors would find that too
hard to do...

That's my take anyway. I'd be interested to better understand what others
think.

~~~
throwanem
> to operate as engineers we have to work for these companies

Surely you don't mean _software_ engineers. There's a whole big wide world
outside the ongoing bubble, and in entire honesty I've never quite found "move
to the Valley, work for a startup" to be the no-brainer it's so often been
represented. In particular, the quality of life really doesn't seem to be
there, at least not reliably; we hear horror stories all the time from people
who've gotten hosed in what seem to be the same relatively small set of ways,
at a rate that suggests there's more going on than random chance or sour
grapes.

And the cost of living in that part of the country is no joke, too. Remote
working would solve that, but very few companies take it at all seriously -
many fewer than want to be perceived as doing so. It's understandable why they
don't, but the transparent duplicity is a bad look. Without remote? Sure, the
pay's probably better than you'll find almost anywhere else, but you either
plow three quarters of it into cost of living, or spend four hours a day
commuting.

Meanwhile, in the "enterprise" companies at which Valley _biens-pensants_
smirk and sneer, one finds often enough that among the various fiefdoms,
there's one or two with a savvy director and a team full of smart, capable
people who have everything they need for the asking, and whose job is to solve
problems the organization would otherwise find entirely intractable - sort of
18F or USDS, if you like, except in an industry context and with less politics
to worry about, and as well or better paid. The trick is knowing where to look
and how to bring value.

And unicorn valuation isn't the only startup bubble, either. From where I sit,
comfortably outside it, the whole tech entrepreneurship scene has gotten
amazingly up itself in the last few years, just like it did in the run-up to
the last bust. Buying into the mythos might feel nice, but unless you're a
founder it also makes you easier to exploit than you might otherwise be, and
even if you are, it ties you to a sector that's itself beholden to more or
less every vagary of financial fortune. Sure, engineering is a profit center
in a company like that, whereas in the enterprise world it's usually a cost
center. But next time the market takes a nosedive, who's in better shape?
Someone in a profit center of a company that found its runway suddenly
shortened to negligibility and collapsed for want of money? Or someone in a
cost center of a company with the cash reserves and ample profitability to get
through lean times effectively intact?

~~~
Pica_soO
>Meanwhile, in the "enterprise" companies at which Valley >biens-pensants
smirk and sneer, one finds often enough that >among the various fiefdoms,
there's one or two with a savvy >director and a team full of smart, capable
people who have >everything they need for the asking, and whose job is to
>solve problems the organization would otherwise find >entirely intractable -
sort of 18F or USDS, if you like, >except in an industry context and with less
politics to >worry about, and as well or better paid. The trick is >knowing
where to look and how to bring value.

True. But please tell the second part to the story too. Those innovative
teams, can discover cold-fusion, and they will be locked in and ignored- or
even worser, there idea would be patented to be held hostage in
lawyercabinetscryo until a advancing humanity is willing to pay the ransom.

Those startups have only runway to loose and everything to gain- they will not
throw away a discovery this way.

~~~
throwanem
I do what I do because I like solving problems. I do it where I do it because
I like to have a strong supply of new problems to solve, and because I want to
be well and reliably paid for the value I add in so doing.

Discovering and inventing new things hasn't really been a major part of that,
because the problems I solve, the problems very large companies tend to have,
rarely require it; the question is less one of coming up with novel tech and
more one of applying tools and ideas that already exist in ways that are novel
to the organization because the relevant knowledge and expertise is hard to
come by without specializing in software as a career.

If you want to discover new algorithms or invent the next React or C#, then
working for a large corporation outside the tech industry may not be the best
option for you. But there are many more kinds of problems to solve than those.

------
jaypaulynice
The problem is honesty isn't rewarded anymore. Someone working hard will be
beaten by someone who tells all the fancy stuff...I know a lot of startups
that raised millions, but their tech and growth is totally non-existent. I did
some research and a lot of companies have little to no social media presence,
yet are "growing" crazy. How do people find them?

Add network effect and you get overly hyped stuff that don't deliver. I wish
startup accelerators relied more on experienced, reputed judges in the
startup's field instead of growth gimmicks. Online contests/challenges seem to
be the way to find really good tech startups.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
I see the same phenomenon and think it's the opposite.

Raising millions is not a reward. I understand why you think that way since I
used to think that way too. But I learned the hard way that raising money is
nothing more than the price you have to pay to get to somewhere you want.

So what _IS_ reward? Obviously, if your business does well and "growing"
crazy, that's your reward. That way you didn't even have to give up your
control over the company and still managed to outsmart others who wasted tons
of money and didn't even get anything done.

That's the reward you get for working hard honestly. I also used to think that
honest people never get rewarded, and that was a couple of years ago when I
was looking at all the pointless apps getting funded. Now if you look back,
none of them are alive. Even the ones that were growing like crazy all die
off, because most of the ones that grew like crazy were designed to grow like
crazy in a synthetic manner instead of organically growing based on the value
they provide to users.

So the lesson is, just look at your customers. If you see that more and more
people are using and buying your product, that means you are doing something
right. You don't need validation from investors and the press.

p.s. You can buy press anyway. Once you have enough money and traction just
hire a PR agency and pitch a story for a guaranteed spot on relevant
publications. This is much better than these VC funded startups wasting money
doing the PR piece when they have no substance.

~~~
misnome
> Raising millions is not a reward.

They get paid for the X years it takes their startup to crash, probably quite
well.

Afterwards, they are considered an "Experienced entrepreneur" and thus more
likely to get their foot in the door to more negotiations, given press time
etc.

What part of this is failing?

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
In most cases the companies that fail after X years have been failing for at
least X-1 years. This means these guys were under total stress for X-1 years.

One has no idea what that feels like if they haven't gone through the process.

Another thing is, you're pretty much locked into that company for X years.
Even if you realize on year 1 that it's not what you started out to build, you
still need to go with it, otherwise you're seen as an irresponsible prick, and
people won't see you as "experienced entrepreneur". Most of the times what
happens is you either trick yourself into thinking that it will work, or
compromise your initial vision into building something mediocre that generates
money (For example you may start out thinking you will build the next
generation social network that will change everything, and end up with a
behavioral targeting ad network)

Imagine wasting X-1 years of your life working on something you no longer
"truly" believe in. That part is failing.

If you still don't agree, try raising money and starting a company, and work
on it for X years. You will understand.

~~~
chillaxtian
> In most cases the companies that fail after X years have been failing for at
> least X-1 years. This means these guys were under total stress for X-1
> years.

> One has no idea what that feels like if they haven't gone through the
> process.

> Imagine wasting X-1 years of your life working on something you no longer
> "truly" believe in. That part is failing.

> If you still don't agree, try raising money and starting a company, and work
> on it for X years. You will understand.

please, enlighten us with the hardships of being paid lots of funny money, and
spending even more funny money, on something you know is going to fail for X-1
years, but you keep doing it anyways because ???

~~~
ericd
Have you ever worked hard on something for many years and faced the prospect
of it still failing? It's painful to think about your baby dying. Startup
founders generally don't do it for the (usually below market) salary.

~~~
Dylan16807
> Have you ever worked hard on something for many years and faced the prospect
> of it still failing?

Not with someone else paying for it, and knowing I'll still be well-regarded
even if it fails.

~~~
ericd
That definitely reduces the risk vs. funding it yourself, sure, but founders
are still investing a large chunk of their life into it, and that's not
something people usually breezily write off. Having other people funding it
can actually increase the amount of guilt and stress you feel about failing -
you let down the people that believed in you. For most people, that hurts.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and make snide remarks about founders who
you think are wasting others' money paying themselves cushy salaries (most pay
themselves far below what they'd make at Google), but I don't think you're
really in any position to until you've put yourself out there in some similar
fashion.

------
argonaut
The first video was known to be fake back in 2015, when they released another
video that explicitly stated no visual effects were used. And my guess is the
second video isn't fake, but it's using their non-miniaturized technology.
This is not news.

Unlike Theranos (where people's health was also at stake), if/when Magic Leap
fails, their investors will lose their money and capitalism will go on - this
is how things are supposed to work.

~~~
edblarney
"this is how things are supposed to work."

No - the information from ML boils down to falsehoods - this is not how
'capitalism' should work :)

Granted, it does sometimes happen this way.

More limited investment, with reasonable hype, a longer time frame might have
worked better - as a lot of the $$$ spent on ML today will be on marketing,
overhead, unecessary staff.

Granted, even if they do go bust, they'll have made some tangible progress
that will be leveraged elsewhere.

Google is a big investor - it could be that if ML goes bust, the Google can
take hold of the IP, and probably end up hiring a bunch of people and carrying
it on. That said, since Alphabet they operate differently.

~~~
argonaut
Company lies to _sophisticated_ investors. They fail. _Sophisticated_
investors who did not do proper diligence lose their money.

Yes, that's how capitalism works (technically, America's mixed market).

Now, if Magic Leap were a public company that lied to the public, yes I would
be totally in favor of regulatory/civil, maybe criminal, investigations.

------
curiousgal
"In general, signal theory says if you have a good way of proving something
and a noisy way of proving something and you choose the noisy way chances are
it's because you couldn't do the good way in the first place."

------
imode
I keep getting Magic Leap confused with Leap Motion.

though at least the latter has a proper, released product...

~~~
ENGNR
Leap Motion with a DK2 even is actually really good!

~~~
rocky1138
Especially after their Orion release last year. I'm really excited [1] about
Leap Motion 2.

[1] [https://johnrockefeller.net/leap-
motion-2/](https://johnrockefeller.net/leap-motion-2/)

------
grabcocque
That these guys are a bunch of snake oil merchants has been obvious from day
zero. Sometimes the overwhelming stench of bullshit is a little too difficult
to ignore.

~~~
skc
But one wonders why there has yet to be an exodus of talent from Magic Leap.

I suspect the work is interesting for the engineers but nobody has the heart
to tell the C level execs that what they are trying to sell the public is
bullshit.

~~~
_h_o_d_
There has already been an exodus of talent. I know one personally, and know of
a lot more. They lock them down with non-disclosure settlements. Bad
management, internecine politics, the whole caboodle. A pity, because it could
have been very good, but they went with exactly the wrong team, and insisted
people move from the Bay to Florida, which didn't help with retention.

~~~
aagh_why
Can confirm. Work there now. Major leadership failures across the board.
Engineering talent is mostly there. The "wrong team" starts at the C-level.

Looking for an out in FL now -- finding it very hard to maintain salary. May
move back to west coast, but not quite ready for that yet.

~~~
future1979
Are they at least paying you a Bay Area dev salary? Curious if they used
retention bonuses with a big cliff? I for one will never take a job with a
vesting cliff if I can help it.

~~~
_h_o_d_
NDAs of anything about the company for departing employees too, which is what
I meant to say

------
Geee
It doesn't matter if their tech doesn't yet work. Augmented reality is
inevitable and someone will make it happen. Now, the logic is that whoever
pours the most money into it will win the race and with patents be in a
monopoly position. It's a gamble, but they have a likelihood of succeeding
with money and hard work. That's what they've sold to their investors.

~~~
ggame
I'd hazard a bet that augmented reality already peaked with Pokémon Go.

~~~
CydeWeys
Pokemon Go isn't real AR though, it's just a phone app that uses the device's
camera. You need dedicated hardware to do real AR. I'm withholding judgment
until I see that.

~~~
ggame
It mixes a virtual world with the real world; thus augmenting the real world.
I would argue that a fine grain occlusion (individual pixels) vs coarse grain
(movable display) isn't that big of a difference with immersion. Consider that
we are immersed with our phones quite a bit already.

In addition the lack of 3D isn't that big of a deal given the brain fills in
the details with other cues. E.g. People that go blind in one eye can adjust
quite well to the lack of 3D.

I personally would love a HUD for my sporting activities; e.g. Skully. But my
phone is perfectly fine as a daily driver.

------
joelg
> Quick guide to spotting non-existent tech

> \- Refusing to give a launch date

> ...

> \- Confusing working hard with making progress

Some of these are valid, but some are _inevitable for any tech that is
actually revolutionary_. Magic Leap's actions seem so far to be consistent
with both theories. It's kind of unfortunately true that it's impossible to
distinguish between the exaggerated-for-media-coverage-sake case and the
actually-world-changing-but-really-technically-difficult case.

------
xorcist
It's easy to fool those who want to be fooled. The likelyhood that these
people developed electronics 10x smaller with 10x performance is roughly the
same as my cold fusion reactor in my garage delivers free energy for all. If
someone pulled that off they wouldn't need to fleece investors for their
money.

------
aphextron
I lost any respect I had for that company when they released that whale video
referenced in the article. Complete marketing hype nonsense.

------
redgc
Benedict Evans doesn't seem like the kind of guy to fall for BS though, let
alone defend it. And surely at least one of their investors had the technical
due diligence capability to investigate how much computing power is in the
demo "rigs" and be able to know if such power can be "miniaturized" into a
consumer product by year X, perhaps allowing for a little software
optimization on the way too.

~~~
DonHopkins
Well now he does seem like that kind of guy, apparently.

------
oelmekki
Sounds like Magic Leap is making the same prelaunch communication errors than
Hello Games did with No Man's Sky : creating high expectations without showing
much, which causes expectation to build up when people imagination feels the
gaps, and cause backslash in the shape of frustrations.

But to be fair, author does the exact same thing than he is accusing Magic
Leap of : making claims without displaying anything to back them up. He states
that Magic Leap won't happen, just like flying cars. Based on what, except his
frustration of not seeing the product? Same there : "The truth is that Magic
Leap cannot get its huge prototype working in a much, much smaller version".
Starting a sentence with "The truth is" doesn't make it true by itself, we
need evidences.

As far as I know, maybe author is stating exactly what will happen, but I
can't agree with him given so few evidences.

~~~
rasz_pl
What do you mean by errors? They both get to keep all the money = win.

------
ismail
I have a theory secretive + massive hype = emperor without clothes

------
norea-armozel
This is why I'm steering clear of AR since no one wants to show off the actual
prototypes for various reasons. And frankly, I don't blame them for wanting to
protect their technology but the fact remains if you can't show us a live and
real demonstration of the devices in question then there can't be a product to
buy because it effectively doesn't exist.

------
wodenokoto
The article mentions a large helmet. Any pictures of it around?

~~~
DonHopkins
The best thing we have so far is this revealing illustration tweeted by Rony
Abovitz himself:

[https://twitter.com/rabovitz/status/807077358624772098?ref_s...](https://twitter.com/rabovitz/status/807077358624772098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

~~~
tyingq
I believe this picture from wired is supposed to be of "the beast" that they
use for demos: [https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1200/wp-
content/uploads/20...](https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1200/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/ff_magic_leap-eric_browy.jpg)

There are drawings of something more helmet like in their patents, like this
one:
[http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0758367&homeurl=http%3A%...](http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0758367&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-
Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3DD758,367.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD758,367%2526RS%3DPN%2FD758,367&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)

~~~
DonHopkins
Aren't most of the illustrations in their patents just unattributed tracings
of other people's work?

[http://gizmodo.com/magic-leap-ripped-off-those-awesome-ui-
co...](http://gizmodo.com/magic-leap-ripped-off-those-awesome-ui-
concepts-1682716916)

------
Walf
But why do people think it can project _dark_?! I understand the dimly lit
room demo video, where the ML graphics are all brighter than the environment,
but how can you make dark whaleskin over light timber flooring _by adding
light_?

------
drelihan
It's unlikely that 500m or 800m investment is 1.) all in cash or 2.) given out
on day 1. If there are proper investor controls in place, cash is likely
staged in and noncash vests over time as milestones are hit. At least, I hope
that is the way it is setup...

------
evo_9
Similar tech, less hype, perhaps more 'real':
[http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-
hologr...](http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-hologram-
display/)

------
orasis
I saw an AR demo earlier this week using a google cardboard type setup with a
phone screen and it was fairly compelling already.

Based on this cheap setup I'm confident we'll see something mind blowing in
the near future.

------
dicroce
They have some interesting, cool tech. It may not be miniaturizable (or it may
be, dunno). But the hype about them is way too big. They have essentially put
themselves in very tough spot.

------
camus2
This comment is interesting :

> If you were investing millions into something, would you not request a
> personal demo where you actually see the demo for yourself, in your own
> time, and see how it works?

I know I would.

------
soneca
I believe that will be a lot of frustation when they finally launch something.
But I dont believe that Microsoft Hololens has "fallen short" as they say. I
believe the Hololens demo was great and transparent on how the tech is, how it
shows, what it takes to produce. Not a "magical" new sci-fi world made real,
but definitely more close to reality than flying cara.

~~~
hacker_9
Are you joking? Just watch the Hololens announcement trailer [1] and tell me
it's as good as that.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA)

~~~
ericd
Nothing looks at all like that when actually using the Hololens.

------
Kiro
The author of this article needs to try Hololens. The technology is definitely
here.

~~~
endorphone
HoloLens is being pushed with much of the same rigged demos. As a review from
a few days ago mentioned-

"Maybe Microsoft is saving all the wow factor for its keynotes, but my demo
was a less refined and less capable version of what we've seen in on-stage
demos. My experience, while impressive, felt like child's play AR compared to
what's been in Microsoft's keynotes."

Microsoft unveiled it well over a year ago, and still when people can actually
try the device the demos are a fraction of the myth presented in their
keynote. And of course these things always rely upon the development of
technology, but we often get 80% and think the last 20% is the easy part when
really it's the extraordinarily difficult barrier between realistically
credible and a toy.

The projection technology (the field refraction grid) is very interesting, and
the environment mapping is fantastic, but the resolution of the device makes
the demos farce out of the gate -- the total overlay resolution is 1268x720
max (in most realistic scenes much less), so when you see someone demo
something like a web browser in their AR display, if you ever see the demo
it's just entirely unusable (far too low of a resolution) unless you move
directly in front of the projection occupying the majority of your FOV, at
which point what is the point.

The technology will improve, obviously, but right now it definitely falls in
the category of gimmick to me, with several generations before it's remotely
as usable as being pitched.

~~~
Sologram
It is used by NASA and they are stupid as per your post.

Where did you see the "rigged demos"? It works as shown in the demos if you
even understand what it can do and do not. Your 20 minutes on hand demo never
shows/teaches you any thing.

~~~
endorphone
It is hardly "used" by NASA. As a conceptual study for the whole premise of AR
they have tried it out in concert with Microsoft, but the project has gone
entirely silent. And no, it doesn't work as shown in the demos -- it's very
low resolution and has movement and 3D mapping issues. It will obviously
improve, but I wouldn't be dropping thousands on a first generation unit, as
it is certainly money down the toilet.

~~~
Sologram
You are the first one to say it has "3D mapping issues". I can send you links
with experts saying Hololens is the holy grail of 3D mapping and tracking.

------
DonHopkins
Sounds like Magic Leap developed schpilkaz in their genektagazoink. The demo
was like buttah. Like a big stick of buttah. I love Rony Abovitz, but he's a
little ibaboodled in the kebbie. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a
topic: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping. Discuss.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiJkANps0Qw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiJkANps0Qw)

~~~
Neliquat
You see, this is the type of comment that tears me on HN. On one hand I
actually lold, on the other, it added nothing but some humor to the
discussion. What is the guideline here? We sure don't want to become 'insert
failed or failing aggregator here'. Or the race to the bottom, who gets the
1st clever chuckleluck comment in, contest of internet points and paid
marketing. So I made this comment instead.

~~~
DonHopkins
Good meta-discussion. I assumed the article's title was a reference to the SNL
skit, but there weren't any more references or allusions to it in the article,
so I though other people who didn't recognize the skit might appreciate a
reference. I hope my other post linking to their TEDx talk balanced out my
frivolity! ;)

~~~
ratdiary
You don't have to apologize for your post (... to me, anyway, who laughed out
loud). There is value in humor that is separate from information yield.

~~~
shpx
Reference humor has no value. But sure, it feels good if you get the
reference.

