Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 27 2020, @03:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the promise-the-world dept.

Magic Leap's $2.6 billion bait and switch – TechCrunch:

Two years ago I attended an "Innovation in Immersive Storytelling" event at Industrial Light & Magic, featuring the Chief Game Wizard of Magic Leap. I should have known then, from all the strained corporate sorcery in that sentence, that their demise was inevitable. But in fact I went into that talk a Magic Leap skeptic, and came out ... less so.

Magic Leap drew in a lot of true believers over the years; $2.6 billion worth. Investors included Andreessen Horowitz, Kleiner Perkins, Google (not Google Ventures — Google itself) and many many more. Sundar Pichai joined Magic Leap's board. And did they rave. I mean, it's a VC's job to rave about their portfolio companies, but this was different:

Now there is something new. Not just an order-of-magnitude more pixels or a faster frame rate, but – thanks to sensors and optics and mobile phone volumes and breakthroughs in computer vision – something I always dreamed of ... The product is amazing ... this is different

Bing Gordon of Kleiner Perkins.

It was incredibly natural and almost jarring — you're in the room, and there's a dragon flying around, it's jaw-dropping and I couldn't get the smile off of my face

Legendary Pictures CEO Thomas Tull

Legendary and a16z had previously invested in Oculus Rift. Tull even told TechCrunch "Magic Leap takes a completely different approach." This is especially interesting because when Magic Leap finally — finally, after 5 years and $1.6 billion — released a product, Oculus's Palmer Luckey wrote a truly scathing teardown of the Magic Leap One. Again, yes he would do so ... but the details are quite striking ...

They call it the "Lightwear". This is the part that has gotten the most hype over the years, with endless talk of "Photonic Lightfield Chips", "Fiber Scanning Laser Displays", "projecting a digital light field into the user's eye", and the holy-grail promise of solving vergence-accommodation conflict, an issue that has plagued HMDs for decades ... TL;DR: The supposed "Photonic Lightfield Chips" are just waveguides paired with reflective sequential-color LCOS displays and LED illumination, the same technology everyone else has been using for years, including Microsoft in their last-gen HoloLens. The ML1 is a not a "lightfield projector" or display by any broadly accepted definition

What happened to that "completely different approach?"

See also:

Previously:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @11:12AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @11:12AM (#987783)

    You're not reading into the situation enough. They're telling you the money is flowing, they are getting paid, you are getting paid, everyone is happy. Of course, this is not to say, you and your boss are friends. He'll throw you under the bus as soon as it is convenient, nothing personal.

    Your boss is still at an advantage over you since he gets to look into the big picture financial reports. That's one insider information you don't have to determine when to jump ship.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 28 2020, @11:51AM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday April 28 2020, @11:51AM (#987787) Journal

    True enough, and when the money was gone, they did pull the old trick of not informing everyone that they couldn't make payroll. Our last month of work was involuntarily unpaid. At the start of the month, they gambled that with a few new features implemented and running they could magically turn the corner, see a sudden and highly improbable growth in sales, and with that revenue, pay everyone on time. The programmers delivered the features that the boss demanded, even meeting his much accelerated schedule, and that still didn't lead to the hoped for sales boost.

    Fact was, their product was not the great new breakthrough in work management and communication that they had envisioned it would be. It'd been hyped to the max, and not just by them, but also at trade shows. They wanted success so much that they got to believing all the hype, especially when it was echoed back at them. We were eating our own dogfood, give them that at least. As I had to use it, I could see a lot of problems with it. Chief among those was that it evaded hard questions. Well, Agile can't save a project either, if the idea to which the Agile-fu is being applied is no good. Mean old reality put an end to their dream. Afterwards, one of my thoughts was that trade shows are not to be trusted. At a trade show, talk is cheap.