Re:Magic Leap One
by tigershark on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @02:54PM
(#15973142)
They got almost 2B$ of investment, I can't see why having 3 years of crazy sprint would be a problem.
3 years...
Also, having more money and no biz model is a bigger issue than you think.
Re:Magic Leap One
by DoreenMichele on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @03:05PM
(#15973246)
Yeah. Can you say Duke Nukem Forever?
Re:Magic Leap One
by whywhywhywhy on Thursday December 21, 2017 @12:53AM
(#15976745)
I don't think we can really compare 3 years to the 15 years Duke Nukem Forever was in development for.
If we're talking videogames plenty of games have 3 year development periods.
Re:Magic Leap One
by WillPostForFood on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @06:20PM
(#15974812)
That's why Amazon's stock crashed and lost 90% of its value in 2001.
Re:Magic Leap One
by sombremesa on Thursday December 21, 2017 @09:42AM
(#15979002)
Amazon ha(d), arguably, a trivial business model - at least for retail.
Things have changed with Prime and supply chain innovations, but there isn't a much simpler model than what basically amounts to consignment.
It's called PR.
Interesting that this came out in Rolling Stone and not another tech site. I obviously couldn't say for sure, but I don't see why it isn't implausible to think that they found a publication that was happy to roll over a few details in exchange for an exclusive dig.
> “We went on this really crazy sprint from basically October 2014 to December 2017,”
This is the part that startles me the most. 3 years of a "crazy sprint" with no revenues is extremely hard for companies to pull off. It leads to all sorts of problems internally and hiring decisions are usually rushed and lack direction. It's surprisingly much easier to do when you have paying customers, because you make decisions based on the market and not just your gut (Slack being a good example of this).