So the new Apple iPhone X has a front sensor that can generate depth maps, and a rear-sensor that does even more sophisticated depth mapping. They also have a CPU that is as powerful as anything you get in Desktop PCs.<p>So tell me, what's to keep someone from using the depth information on the front camera, using a Google Dream VR setup (but instead of covering the back of the iphone, use that sensor for the world around them) and then projecting poor man's AR with today's world. If the answer is wrong sensors, they can fix that next year, and do it at a size and a scale that no one else can touch.<p>You just took a hardware problem, and made it a software problem.<p>The fact that Peter Jackson has evidently jumped ship to ARKit is a pretty big sign that Apple is going to get there first.<p>Apple's focus on ML on the phone directly, not requiring a server at the RTT latency is perfect for this application. They have hardware no one can touch, and do full stack miniaturization like no one else. Plus they also attract "lifestyle" buyers.
Have any other companies raised at this valuation pre-product, much less pre-market fit? Where does this value come from? Have they booked even 1% of that valuation in sales, or is it all speculative?<p>And I'm baffled in light of the space (AR), where I feel like there are a lot of high profile players and fast movers. Not delivering seems incredibly untenable.
As correctly predicted by Taek eight days ago<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15175635" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15175635</a>
Apple's ARKit release has opened many people's eyes to the potential of AR as the true nextgen platform.<p>Made possible by apples truly vertically integrated hardware/software biz.<p>Especially in comparison to goog with their stillborn Project Tango due to the huge android platform fragmentation.<p>So how is a magic leap worth $6b? Consider that Android generated in excess of $31billion in revenue by Jan '16(1).<p>Having a "killer app" to capture market share in the coming AR consumer platform wars is easily worth that price of admission and if ML pulls it off $6b will look cheap.<p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-...</a>
This company is now 7 years old and has no product.<p>Total raised: $1.39B[0]. The last round was almost $800M in Feb.<p>This $500M will bring the total to $1.9B.<p>Truly amazing.<p>0. <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap#/entity" rel="nofollow">https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magic-leap#/entity</a>
There has to be a lot of really dumb people at venture capital companies if it turns out magic leap has no real tech. Which, given the Theranos debacle, is very possible.
The contrarian in me is wondering what would make this feel like a safe bet from an investor's perspective?<p>For example, what is the value of the patent portfolio they are putting together by being first to most technical challenges?
The Magic Leap is investors putting so much money in a 7 year old company without a product. Even considering they have now a game changer product, what did they have 5 years ago to make investors put money on them? This is technology, who the hell put money in technology as a bet for more than 3 years in the future?
Unless this company comes out with a public demo showing their product minus any obfuscation you have to be a massive sucker to buy into this. Maybe this will be better than Segway and Theranos combined?
Seeing that Apple has packed so much into the top of the iPhone X gives me some hope for Magic Leap. I'm not a proponent nor a skeptic of their business, but I'm familiar with the space.<p>The technology has to be undeniably the most advanced thing ever created in order to succeed. Look at HoloLens. Truly incredible technology with lots of potential. But the UX isn't great and the form factor is a showstopper for every day use. Microsoft has opted to cancel their second iteration in favour of the third. Perhaps we'll see a magic leap then, from them, before Magic Leap.<p>It appears as though the technology is there to get near the form factor of glasses. If you tethered the glasses to a phone sized device in my pocket, that's good enough. I suspect that's what MS is working on now, and I suspect that's Magic Leap's goal.<p>What remains to be seen is how these companies can adapt their technology to interface better with humans. When you're using a computer, you sort of forget you're using a mouse. When you're using HoloLens, you're painfully aware of the input mechanisms - they leave a lot to be desired, and are in no way immersive. That's the other 99% of this problem for these companies. Holograms are one hard problem. But there are at least two. You have to make it useable. It needs to fall away from your consciousness when you use it.<p>VR is easier in that regard, and when it comes to user interfacing, VR still falls flat on its face. VR <i>sucks</i>.<p>Make it work and not look dorky, and make it easy to use and you'll kill cellphones.
They keep talking about a sunglasses size product. Is even such a thing possible? I understand they are using vectored graphics, and I can't imagine you could create an immersive world within a sunglasses sized computational unit, unless they have massive compression and crazy hardware. But can you pass that data wirelessly? Can BlueTooth 5 handle the necessary traffic?
So they previously raised a BILLION dollars. Why are they raising more? I can't imagine this company spending a billion dollars in only a couple of years considering they're not even shipping anything yet.
> Sources also told Bloomberg that Magic Leap will likely begin shipping devices<p>For $6B I would hope you would use a stronger word than "likely". Such as "definitely".
> All we have seen are a slew of videos “shot directly through Magic Leap technology” that give a sense of what is possible with a football helmet-sized rig, but perhaps not in their final consumer product which the company believes will be sized like a pair of sport sunglasses.<p>From "football helmet-sized rig" to "sport sunglasses" is a <i>huge</i> leap (ha ha). Is that much miniaturization plausible within a few years?
Is there anyway to bet AGAINST it? Can you buy some sort of put option on Magic Leap?<p>I guess like all bubbles/crazy tech you can know they are there, but unless you know exactly when they are going to pop, it's not to useful.<p>This is going to be a solid fail once they start selling the tech and everyone catches on. How could one go about betting against?
Wouldn't be surprised if Apple R&D is also working on AR Glasses considering their ambitious attempt in making AR the big in the newly launched iPhones. In fact they need a new product for masses just like their iPhone.<p>That must be a day when Magic Leap could face the fate of Blackberry or Pebble!
Magic Leap somehow feels less sketchy than Theranos for some reason. Definitely have my popcorn out though.<p>It's almost comforting to read about negative to neutral gossip from ex-engineers.
Do AR Glasses or contact lenses exist yet?<p>They act like normal glasses or contacts (prescription or not) until you use voice controls to view info and such.