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.
1. Teranos
2. Magic Leap
3. Andelur Ghost
Only the last one still didn't get enough media attention. People who scored Andelur handshakes with the military & intelligence are the types who did it for Advanced Tactical Security & Communications Ltd ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 )
Andelur is basically trying to sell the governments around the world a Chinese toy copter for millions of dollars through incredible "Tech 2.0" type marketing fudging.
One thing these fellows can do for sure is a Hollywood grade CG. I was with a company on a competing bid for border patrol drone.
Even I, somebody with quite good experience with CG, was initially fooled by their videos. Indeed, they intentionally were trying to numb your guard by showing it flying in the rain, and being sprayed by water. https://youtu.be/5xDEroiMQWk?t=100
It took me a few minutes to figure out that the rain, and water spay in their videos were also impressively disguised computer graphics.
And their overall engineering level is totally amateurish — you cannot have such shoddy job being done for money, let alone such amount of money, but they have everything to tick the checkbox in the buzzword department: waveguides, holographics, structural colour, photonic chips...
Want talk more, leave a way to contact you on your profile page
One main point:
Holographic waveguides, and such are a dead end development with a substandard image quality which you cannot do anything about, as well as its inefficiency (these waveguides waste 70-90%+ of light.)
You can make them more opaque to preserve more light, but then you get VR sunglasses, instead of what the promise is.
The fundamental problem is that the amount of image light transferred is inversely proportional to the amount of light obscured. — they are extremely inefficient, and there is physically no way around this.
For this reason this solution really had to be sent to the wastebin on day one, and not be presented as the next best thing after sliced bread. This is obvious to anybody knowing optics on above a high school level, and it's inconceivable how anybody paying real engineers can opt for this solution.