zlacker

>>74d-fe+(OP)
I must admit I'd forgotten about Magic Leap, amazed to see they're still going and raising even more money.

In my head, I always put them in a bucket with Theranos and uBeam, Startups who made product claims which experts in their fields said were not possible.

I guess slick marketing wins over those doubts in some VC circles but you wonder if anyone at the early stage Magic Leap investors is getting asked tough questions about why they approved it, or if they've all just moved on to other roles.

>>raesen+15
I have tried the leap in practice and the experience was significantly above what I expected. The tracking worked most of the time (how???), with occasional wonkyness. The accuracy was very good (outside of the wonks). Where it is very limited is number of applications.

>>krageo+p5
The problem, to me, looks like getting 90% of the way there is possible. However, getting from 90% to 99.9% (to get rid of that "wonkyness"), seems to be way way way harder. Magic Leap has made little to no progress in working out the kinks in their product despite raising literally billions of dollars.

>>cmeach+J9
I wrote a camera/IMU tracking software (VIO) before. I can confirm this statement. Get it working is difficult and requires getting all the algos right. Getting it work reliably is a lot of rigorous testing, collecting datasets, evaluating slightest changes, tuning numerical stability, experimenting with different techniques which might work better in low light and optimizing for the hardware (VIO is intensive but the best VIO is useless if there is no computation power left for the app itself).

Neither of this is required for a slick demo in well lit room and perhaps on better HW.