I must be in the minority here, but the AR future is really compelling to me. The amount of money that Magic Leap was able to raise without a real product is astounding. But I do see wearable computing as the future. Of course we all hope it doesn't become a steady stream of marketing directly into our retinas, but I joined tech because I wanted to help build the future, not just watch it happen.

I am actually stunned how there was no displacement of the current input devices.

We fitted keyboard onto our screens, AR devices normally come with a joystick or something.

I have high hopes for similar projects to Tap Keyboard or the Myo armband, that continue to evolve on something that IMO has large implications on how we can evolve as a society the same way smartphones did. A wearable input device that was _good_ (defined by not being cumbersome, probably even fashionable and functional, as should match current input) would be for me the extra step .

I think there's some interesting work done around natural-user-interfaces (using a kinect to control software, etc). I think this is probably a more promising direction than new custom hardware - because hardware is expensive, and quality hardware is far more so.

I mean, if you could use a pen and paper to interface with a computer, you're standing on the shoulders of centuries of experience about how to produce a nice pen-paper experience, at a really cheap price. A newcomer in the world of interface hardware has to overcome the fact that everybody finds a new interface horrible for years, aside from the crazy technical and industrial challenges of producing something at a price/performance ratio that's better than entrenched technologies.

Computer/console input has been really resistant to change. Even the Wii controller, which was something of a fad at one point, pretty much faded away. Six axis controllers is another one that never went mainstream though they were somewhat popular for a time.

There have also been various alternate input styles for phones but nothing's ever taken off.

If anything the amount of money they were able to raise and resources they were able to throw at the problem proves that its at minimum 10 years away, barring some ground-shaking advances in displays and sensors. With billions of dollars they ended up with a clip-on computer, a 50 degree FOV "lens", no compelling demo and the same judder the hololens had. It seems much closer to being at the VirualBoy stage than the Oculus/Vive.

i hope you will actively help to ensure that the future that is built is the one you want to be built, instead of just hoping that everything will magically work out. A lot of old-school nerds (including yours truly) had the same ideological blind spot as your comment, and look where that's gotten us. a god damned cyberpunk dystopia.

I actually can imagine a future AR being a lot more compelling than VR. But it would take a lot of significant advances both from a hardware and software/data perspective to be useful. There's also a pretty significant question of whether it caan overcome the glasshole factor for mainstream use.

I'm not saying that Kalanick et all aren't going to be very well off in any event, but all this cash they raise at eye popping valuations is going to have liquidation preference...and that's scary for a company with serious cash flow issues like Uber.

people with lower liquidity preference (from earlier rounds or common share holders) usually have some opportunities to exit in secondary markets at each of these funding events.

They do, but it's typically relatively small when companies need cash, since any secondary market transactions don't result in net equity issuance.

True. In fact rich people even give money to non-profits.

Uber is a thing that should exist. Profitable or not.

Yeah, it seems more and more that the process is to get as much money as you can and then figure out how to use it.

It's only logical that management raises money when money is cheap. That way the company has extra breathing room to survive and pivot if necessary. And if it turns out they don't need the cash, they can always just return it to investors.

I think there is more to it. For example, when Uber was talking about getting into self driving cars there was really no reason to believe they could take a lead besides having a boatload of money to buy the tech or people.

Do you have any historical examples to back up that assertion?