5 ms·

Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole differen

Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part. In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed. I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.

drcode 9y ago
I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!
CamperBob2 9y ago
I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.
sytelus 9y ago
But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?
- URSpider94 9y ago
  I have trusted acquaintances who have seen their demos. They are reportedly beautiful. But, they are also reportedly tied to extremely large and complex optical benches. Most optics experts don’t dispute that you can deliver the experience they are promising - they dispute that you can do it in a product with cost and size that is compatible with any kind of volume manufacturing.
UncleEntity 9y ago
> Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? This (less biased) article[0] seems to suggest your analysis is a bit off. Isn't there some old saying about how an engineer can mathematically prove a bumblebee can't fly? [0]https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will-work https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will...
- jfaat 9y ago
  Had to look that saying up [0], but it seems like it’s just a made-up thing to help people who aren’t scientists cope with that fact. [0] https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp
  - rubidium 9y ago
    Not disagreeing that the saying may be made up, but Scientist != engineer. This is Especially applicable here in photonics and sight. Most engineering works in approximations that get taught as rules. One needs to be very careful of the assumptions they're making about the physical world and eyesight when discussing AR.
    - na85 9y ago
      >Scientist != engineer Evaluates to false. Engineering is applied science, and thus all engineers are in fact scientists.
      - alasdair_ 9y ago
        Arithmetic is applied mathematics, and thus all kindergartners are mathematicians.
- yorwba 9y ago
  That article doesn't really address the issue of the fiber speed except for "By using a piezoelectric actuator to achieve this scanning, one can maintain scan rates on the order of 10s of kHz" 10 kHz at a framerate of more than 100 Hz gives you less than 100 vibrations per frame. If each vibration covers a single row of pixels, you need at least a dozen fiber displays to produce a high-resolution display. There will likely be artifacts at the boundaries, but it might be possible to compensate. After reading this, I think that the technology might be possible, but it likely won't be as amazing as claimed by Magic Leap's PR.
sprafa 9y ago
Your articles are mildly helpful. However it's also possible that ML has new insights into this technology or that they have developed new tech whose patent is still under consideration? What if you're right and these particular patents are just FUD designed to mislead competitors and they're going with something else? All of the possibilities could be true. I find it hard to dismiss the personal anecdotes of people going into the ML offices and being blown away though. I am not betting on anything, yet, just that someone somewhere will solve this problem, as it seems insanely profitable to do so. Whether it's ML or someone else I don't know.
- sbarre 9y ago
  I would think Occam's razor would prevail here.. Sure, ML might have discovered/invented some new tech or method that disproves all the previous established knowledge, and they are sitting on some revolutionary new product.. But is that more likely than the idea that they thought they could pull off this technological "leap" in theory, and in practice eventually realized they could not?
  - drcode 9y ago
    Well, some would argue Occam's razor would state "Lots of people who've seen the demo of the technology where impressed, maybe this means they created impressive technology"

drcode 9y ago

I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!

CamperBob2 9y ago

I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.

sytelus 9y ago

But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?

URSpider94 9y ago
I have trusted acquaintances who have seen their demos. They are reportedly beautiful. But, they are also reportedly tied to extremely large and complex optical benches. Most optics experts don’t dispute that you can deliver the experience they are promising - they dispute that you can do it in a product with cost and size that is compatible with any kind of volume manufacturing.

UncleEntity 9y ago

> Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? This (less biased) article[0] seems to suggest your analysis is a bit off. Isn't there some old saying about how an engineer can mathematically prove a bumblebee can't fly? [0]https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will-work https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will...

jfaat 9y ago
Had to look that saying up [0], but it seems like it’s just a made-up thing to help people who aren’t scientists cope with that fact. [0] https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp
- rubidium 9y ago
  Not disagreeing that the saying may be made up, but Scientist != engineer. This is Especially applicable here in photonics and sight. Most engineering works in approximations that get taught as rules. One needs to be very careful of the assumptions they're making about the physical world and eyesight when discussing AR.
  - na85 9y ago
    >Scientist != engineer Evaluates to false. Engineering is applied science, and thus all engineers are in fact scientists.
    - alasdair_ 9y ago
      Arithmetic is applied mathematics, and thus all kindergartners are mathematicians.
yorwba 9y ago
That article doesn't really address the issue of the fiber speed except for "By using a piezoelectric actuator to achieve this scanning, one can maintain scan rates on the order of 10s of kHz" 10 kHz at a framerate of more than 100 Hz gives you less than 100 vibrations per frame. If each vibration covers a single row of pixels, you need at least a dozen fiber displays to produce a high-resolution display. There will likely be artifacts at the boundaries, but it might be possible to compensate. After reading this, I think that the technology might be possible, but it likely won't be as amazing as claimed by Magic Leap's PR.

sprafa 9y ago

Your articles are mildly helpful. However it's also possible that ML has new insights into this technology or that they have developed new tech whose patent is still under consideration? What if you're right and these particular patents are just FUD designed to mislead competitors and they're going with something else? All of the possibilities could be true. I find it hard to dismiss the personal anecdotes of people going into the ML offices and being blown away though. I am not betting on anything, yet, just that someone somewhere will solve this problem, as it seems insanely profitable to do so. Whether it's ML or someone else I don't know.

sbarre 9y ago
I would think Occam's razor would prevail here.. Sure, ML might have discovered/invented some new tech or method that disproves all the previous established knowledge, and they are sitting on some revolutionary new product.. But is that more likely than the idea that they thought they could pull off this technological "leap" in theory, and in practice eventually realized they could not?
- drcode 9y ago
  Well, some would argue Occam's razor would state "Lots of people who've seen the demo of the technology where impressed, maybe this means they created impressive technology"