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
The 90% statement is both true and is one of the things that really sucks people in. There are any number of technologies that kinda/sorta work as a PoC. There's a gaping chasm between that PoC and a viable working product but a lot of people look at the PoC and can imagine what the working product looks like--and think to themselves that it's only about some refinement.