Magic Leap raises $827M in Series C
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
My personal take on this is that they may indeed have some very good, if not revolutionary, display technology. However: The big, big obstacle to delivering credible AR is latency. Contrary to VR, true see-through AR needs to have total latencies (device motion --> display photon hits the retina) of no larger than 10 - 15 ms max. The reason is that in see-through AR you're essentially competing against the human visual system in latency and the HVS is very fast.
Moreover the HVS is also extremely good in separating visual content into "layers". Whenever two things in your field of view don't move in perfect continuity with their surroundings (as it is when there AR content overlaid with latency) your brain will immediately separate them from one another, creating the impression of layers, and, in the case of see-through AR, breaking the AR illusion.
So right now I'm a semi-believer. Iff they can sort out the latency problem and deliver stable yet ultrafast tracking in a wide variety of conditions (also by far not a trivial problem) then this has a bright future.
Magic Leap should skip the fancy stuff (mixing virtual scenes with real), at least at first, and focus the many other useful features of a great head-mounted display system - think mobile notifications, video calls, web browser, etc.
It could easily replace smart watches and later cell phones and computer monitors without solving the latency issue.
Edit: you'd still have the motion-sickness challenge, but perhaps at least the 'layers', so-to-speak, wouldn't appear separately.
zipppy says "what if AR was delayed 15ms to make it equiv. to VR".
Zipppy's intent was to make AR compete with VR, not HVS.
Because we have the head tracker recent history, we use prediction on pose trajectory, and can effectively know where the head pose will be at the time the current rendered frame will be displayed. And use that predicted pose to render the scene. That type of optimization won't be possible with see-through VR or AR.
The second optimization is timewarp, where the rendered scene is distorted in screen space after the fact, based on post-render tracker data (just a few ms before display). I wonder if that type of optimization would create artifacts in AR.
1 - the robot moving behind the table leg (ie you have to do depth recognition of objects in the scene)
2 - the user's hand interacting with the artificial elements in the scene. Some code had to recognize a hand and figure out which element it was touching.
What strikes you as the hard parts of those videos besides the real-time requirement?
I remember reading a while ago about how smart tvs were using ANNs for upscaling, so it has been done at scale. rimshot
(2) Upscaling ANNs process rather small image neighborhood radius, and required processing power is on the order of O(r² * log r), and if a minimally recognizable cat is 50x50 px and for upscale you use a very large window of 16x16, that's 14 times already.
16x16 is a very small window, I have no idea what they're using for TVs, but 128 isn't uncommon in post production ANN upscaling. Also consider the fact that ANNs have not received anywhere close to the level of attention in optimization that compilers have, so there is also a lot of potential slack to be taken up if real time processing demands it.
2 bullshit CGI "this is how we hope it would look like if it was real" demo
Few months ago their apparatus was one color only, stationary and the size of a desk. Now all of a sudden can be strapped to a camera and does colors? color me sceptical :(
* This is largely Google's investment to cover possible future success of Facebook's Occulus or Microsoft's Hololens.
* They could have valuable non-tangible patents or employees. This is way past the "acquihire" funding levels, but perhaps the technology itself is valuable. Perhaps they get around that valuation with 100M/year in patent licensing. For perspective, IBM Research provides ~O(1B)/year in revenue from licensing patents.
* Magic leap has a technology that is going to revolutionize entertainment consumption. It could simply be good execution of augmented reality, but I don't think this is sufficient to get the market excited and stop using their mobile devices or TVs to consume a lot of entertainment. It seems like at best here it is a "better mousetrap" than Occulus or Hololens.
I'd love to hear other thoughts why this could be a useful investment.
The point you were making, however, is well taken. There's just no way for us to know what patent-related assets are involved in a deal like this.
The main reason why ML is able to attract this level of investment is that their technology is literally decades ahead of what anybody else has. I haven't had the opportunity to try their headset out, but I know some people who have, and I haven't heard a single bad thing about it. The closest metaphor I can think of is seeing a GUI for the first time or seeing a TV set for the first time. I've used almost all of the other technology on the market or in development, and nothing comes anywhere close to what Magic Leap has.
Not many people realize this, but Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, and everyone else is pouring millions into AR/MR technology. You only hear about Google and Magic Leap because internal R&D budgets aren't public, but this is a huge area of research for everybody. A number of the largest tech companies have recently opened up small research shops in Seattle, Israel, and Cambridge, where AR/MR researchers have traditionally been based.
Proper AR/MR won't revolutionize entertainment consumption. It will revolutionize all of computing, especially productivity. That's one of the reasons why I love AR/MR so much more than VR, even though I've never experienced AR/MR that's anywhere near the quality of good VR. Good AR/MR is a significantly bigger leap for computing than iOS and Android were over Blackberry, Palm, and Windows Mobile. Again, the best metaphor I can think of is the GUI vs. text-based computing.
Lastly, ML does have an amazing patent portfolio and a world-class workforce that would be a dream acqu-hire for any large tech company, but top-notch VC's don't invest in startups for their patent portfolios.
It's easy to say technology is decades ahead when you haven't even tried it. Rumor/second-hand retellings can be very powerful. I'm really excited to see this tech, but I'm also really skeptical.
Also, what would you consider the best consumer AR and VR experiences available on the market today, or expected to be on the market next year? Super interested in this space, but so far have only been able to demo the GearVR in a BestBuy and have an Unofficial Cardboard 2+ for my crappy Nexus 4 at home.
The best consumer VR in my experience is the HTC Vive. I recommend you check it out if they take it on tour to where you live. I haven't tried the production version of Oculus, but I've heard excellent things with it, and I thought Crescent Bay was quite good. Playstation VR isn't as good in my opinion, but most people in the industry expect it be the most popular with consumers as it doesn't require a high-end gaming PC.
There isn't any good consumer-level AR experience that will be on the market in the next year.
Where is Segway now?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_Inc. [2] http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,186660-... [3] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/well-didnt-work-segway-technolo...
I definitely agree that AR has huge potential in changing how we interact with the world. Although I'm much more interested in technology that leverages things like projects to augment my reality without having to wear a headset. Very related things though.
How do you feel about headset vs no headset AR?
I have a source that's told me they've solved FOV, but I can't figure out how their technology could do that from a technical prospective. Hypothetically you don't need a dark room for ML's technology, but their demo video was darkened which makes me wonder if there is some limitation of this.
Patents expire after 25 years, so at 100M p.a. deal for investors is spend 1B to get $2.5B back, two decades later. I'm not sure that even beats fixed interest. Even with continuation it's still around 10% return.
As others have pointed out O(1B) is same as O(1).
Twenty years. At least in the USA.
Carry on.
That is a (common) myth. If you parse IBM statements closely, they talk about that number for intellectual property licensing. I'm not aware that they have ever made a precise statement on patent revenue.
Imagine if instead of having to put somewhat ridiculous and obtrusive glasses in front of your face, you could just use contact lenses that had this augmented reality capability.
It would be ... life changing.
[1] http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
Glasses plus contacts might be a good idea. The generator could sit on the frames. The contacts would allow you to use a small amount of light to get the same effect as an Oculus, which means much smaller power requirements.
Still, to project light, you need some way of projecting light. It's hard to imagine something that can be embedded into a contact lens which is also transparent. And if it's not transparent, it's not really augmented reality.
Fun to imagine. Hopefully someone will come up with something.
This is a great example of patents being bullshit.
Edit: Specifically: "Referring to FIG. 17, in one embodiment it may be desirable to have a contact lens directly interfaced with the cornea, and configured to facilitate the eye focusing on a display that is quite close (such as the typical distance between a cornea and an eyeglasses lens). Rather than placing an optical lens as a contact lens, in one variation the lens may comprise a selective filter."
If they're anything close to what the second demo video shows, then they're basically building Tony Stark's home computer interface in Iron Man.
> they're basically building Tony Stark's home computer interface in Iron Man.
Since you're bringing up Marvel - I fear the reality, at least with first released products, will turn out somewhat like this:
The first video had a text disclaimer at the bottom of the entire video insisting that there was no post processing or CGI.
The second video did not.
I rest my case ;)
http://www.inferse.com/36577/microsoft-hololens-roadshow-201...
I don't think any magic leap units have ever been used by those outside the company, but I'm excited to see what they come up with.
I used to think along this line too. But examples like Theranos make me more skeptical
There's a certain amount of seeing is believing to Magic Leap. If I were to wear a Magic Leap headset and was able to play the game that they demo, I would sign on in a heartbeat. You can fake a demo, but you can't fake the game. And I'd imagine investors at this valuation/amount of money (which btw is 10x what Theranos raised total!) are definitely getting into the nuts and bolts, making sure that the tech isn't being faked.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/538146/magic-leap-needs...
The second video (newer) though looked legit. Simpler interactions, and the disclaimer was pretty explicit.
Except that Magic Leap's technology problem has had $1B in investment capital thrown at it -- much more than flying cars, no?
Looking cool on TV doesn't mean it'll sell. Movie OSes have every keystroke and action make a sound and use 48pt font for everything. I wouldn't bet much on such an OS selling in the market.
The tech demos are undeniably, but after "Wow!" my second thought was, "If I'm not a gamer, why would I buy this?"
And that means that first, they'll make it do enough desirable things that you will accept ads.
And those will make you want it.
I'm also a little disappointed they've raised so much money if their long term goal is just spamming people in "augmented reality".
Most of these companies that get bought for billions or multi-billions just have eyeballs -- and little to monetize them.
By the way, how good has Facebook been at acquisitions? Instagram alone has already paid off in gains all the total dollars spent, and they also have WhatsApp and Oculus which are both huge, important "companies". Good for Zuck.
And these guys are getting $1.4b so we can... shoot imaginary robots at the office?
I think AR and VR along with lab grown animal protein of multiple varieties will reverse a tremendous amount of our planetary fleecing. This vision is at least 20+ years away ,but it is definitely a good answer to many of our problems.
Not sure there's a positive tradeoff in terms of resources. And in terms of chronic physical strain (vision, neck muscles) there may be a negative tradeoff.
The more aspects of the human experience we can ephemeralize, the less we need to go out and muck up the physical world to get what we want.
A just released Pew research study has shown that 1 in 5 are online almost constantly. Which is to say, their experience of the world is already largely virtual, and the role that their physical presence plays is, by extension, diminished.
I understand most of focus in on the entertainment market but we can't blame particular set of people for that happening, magic leap is essentially promising something we have been looking forward to from so many years(since we saw stuff in sci-fi movies)!
In the face of the Black Death, our species was basically helpless (and there doesn't seem to be any scientific consensus yet as to how, exactly, it "ended.")
There has already been usage of Oculus Rift headsets during surgical procedures and medical consultations, so that patients don't have to fly halfway around the world to see the specialist for their extremely rare disorder or whatever. I can see contact lens-based augmented reality being very helpful in a surgical procedure.
"It's going to change content consumption in a limitless way" doesn't really mean anything. Based on past predictions, the way we consume content is supposed to have been revolutionized about 100 times by now.
> the way we consume content is supposed to have been revolutionized about 100 times by now.
It has been at least once a decade for at least my lifetime (personal computers, internet, mobile)
I predict in 10 years VR/AR will be as boring as smartphones are now.
How betting on the performance of a company is any different from betting on the performance of an athlete or a horse just boggles my mind. Sure, in the short term the variance is lower, but it's still a fucking gamble. It's also the only legal way to gamble in all 50 states.
AR is definitely the future of all interfaces, not an audacious bet at all, pragmatic in fact.
If we're still poking at tiny screens in 2025, something has gone very wrong.
Then imagine it putting annotations into the real world - review scores of wines floating next to the bottles as you browse the wine aisle, or yelp stars floating next to the restaurants, GPS arrows floating in space, etc. etc.
All assuming they solve the ridiculously hard power, miniaturization, object recognition, latency, etc problems. Even if you have to be tethered to a PC, though, it has a lot of potentially revolutionary uses.
"No, dude, someone is feeding shit into your AR headset! Told you not to open that suspicous 'Thane of Cawdor' e-mail!"
Wearables/wetwear are almost certainly going to be the future at some point. Our grandchildren will laugh when we tell them about having to hold a device in your hand with a tiny screen where you hunt and peck at an even tinier keyboard with your thumb.
Of course we also won't be used to being bombarded with the inevitable massive, vision-filling AR ads that will come.
Unfortunately, if I had to posit a guess, it would be that the main "application space" for AR won't be the free and open web. It will be the walled garden appstore(s). You'll have your staple apps, but they will all be self-contained, and the owners of the hardware/OS will have strict controls around the ability to do things like, block ads from their ad network (which might be the only one allowed on the device).
Big tech companies don't like the users being able to control what they see through a browser that can install whatever plugins the user wants. Make no mistake, they want full control over the experience, and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to own that experience. To not do so enables their competitors to claim a foothold in their territory.
This might be the pets.com of the twenty-teens.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2015/12/09/secretiv...
Another source shows they were seeking to raise $1b at around a $4.5 billion valuation. This one is dated two months ago though. http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/blog/morning-edition...
This, and Hololens, and similar, will fail for a while, and I'm thinking it will be decades. I'm placing my bet now.
If they get it working well with glasses or contact lenses, it will win through. The ability to spin up displays as needed (massive TV in your living room, a screen in the kitchen, shower, ceiling of the bedroom, outside, etc) will mean that fewer and fewer rely on physical displays.
Not to mention the availability of more contextual information (tourism, sports, researching, gardening, socialising, etc).
Thus, the shooter is recoiling the gun himself, to fit the narrative.
Try it really quickly. Hold your hand in front of you like you are holding a gun. recoil your hand. feels pretty cool, right?
Now, just imagine that the software is tracking your hand and the gun shoots whenever you intentionally recoil.
I still think it's staged. The motions look way too "casual" and not deliberate enough to be interpreted easily in software without some revolutionary tech, in addition to the unrelated revolutionary tech needed to do the AR "live".
I would not put much stock (no pun intended) into this unless there are more videos like the first one in the article mentioned.
Would be great if someone with better knowledge would expand on the engineering challenges they face.