I meant gigabyte. I'm trying to find the screen grab I made using Charles Web Debugging Proxy which was over wifi. Regardless, the videos on their front page just keep loading and don't stop on mobile devices.
The marketing team at a company and the technology team at a company are comprised of completely different people. Your comments are ad hominem based and biased. Without being present in the company yourself, you have no idea what they are capable of building based off observations from their website's efficiencies.
That said, I have serious doubts about their ability to secure the hardware and software from intruders who believe it is just another objective reality in which they may speak and act for others.
If they are going to acquire that much venture capital, the same as Theranos did, over other, perhaps, more deserving startups who don't actively bullshit investors I have no problem holding their feet to the fire. When their only example so far of what they are capable of with technology is their website which is a hack I feel it is a valid criticism and should cast doubt about what they are capable of. Yes they have a small group of talented researchers in Washington but the rest of the company is smoke and mirrors. It is also rude to do that to mobile users.
After having learned that it would take us just 300 million to test the latest version of fusion power... Investing that much into Magic Leap Style Hedonistic Ventures feels off.
Anything presented through TedX blows a fuse on my bullshit detector. They have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned as the TedX brand is mostly associated with nonsense.
I don't think it's entirely ad hominem, and your claim of bias is not substantiated by anything you mentioned.
Whether or not different teams are building the marketing website (something you assert knowledge of but apparently don't actually have; companies are constructed all sorts of ways), I'd hope it's true that the core engineers have looked at the company's website. So either they didn't notice a problem, didn't care, or cared but didn't have enough power to get things fixed.
Now it could be that the Magic Leap project ends up amazing anyhow. Maybe the engineers noticed and cared, and so are good engineers, but the marketing side is indeed separate and is kind of a shitshow. But hopefully not enough of one that it impedes a good launch.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to evaluate a company by the materials the put forward specifically for evaluating them.
> I'd hope it's true that the core engineers have looked at the company's website. So either they didn't notice a problem, didn't care, or cared but didn't have enough power to get things fixed.
Nonsense. How is a developer going to notice this? It's a simple misconfiguration of an HTTP header. That's it. Their AR and hardware developers may have never even done web work and may not know how HTML 5 video even works to even THINK this could be an issue.
I work for a company but I don't check their main, consumer facing websites much if at all because that's not what I work on. So you're telling me if there is an issue with one of them it reflects poorly on myself?
> But I don't think it's unreasonable to evaluate a company by the materials the put forward specifically for evaluating them.
Since when does HTML help you evaluate AR and hardware engineering?
I've been doing a lot of research into ways to automate the assessment of website credibility (and thus the organization / company / information presented), even before 'fake news' started to get its 15 minutes...
It may be just a HTTP header issue, but someone's not on the ball. I'd be annoyed if my mobile bandwidth was getting eaten up by a obvious problem. But credibility judgements are always dependent on what the viewer deems to be relevant criteria. So both of you are correct. A simple problem with the website says something about the company, not the tech. It is a minor thing but perhaps means something.
One company I worked for had a website created by a 3rd party, a cookie cutter thing, which I wasn't too impressed by given my experience in websites. It also had some little glitch that I found and pointed out on my first day. And that turned out to be a difficult year and a half... some personal stuff on my side, but the company was also managed in a substandard way. Lots of people were frustrated, it turned out. A tech company with good front end dev/designers ought to have a spiffy website.
I'd be inclined to give ML most of a break, but a tech company that has problems with its marketing side, especially when marketing something like ML is so crucial... what percentage of their initial customers is going to be people in tech? Gamers? Who do notice these sorts of details?
> I'd be annoyed if my mobile bandwidth was getting eaten up by a obvious problem.
When you view in a mobile context it does a download of much smaller videos and only once. It works differently for mobile and requires you to trigger playback.
> A simple problem with the website says something about the company, not the tech. It is a minor thing but perhaps means something.
So email them and maybe they'll fix it? Unless you'd rather continue using it as a yard stick of dubious value.
> I'd be inclined to give ML most of a break, but a tech company that has problems with its marketing side, especially when marketing something like ML is so crucial... what percentage of their initial customers is going to be people in tech? Gamers? Who do notice these sorts of details?
You're putting way too much stock into such trivial things. Unless you're specifically looking for an issue you're not going to find this. The amount of people who would find an issue like this are on the edge of edge cases.
You seem to have an axe to grind against the company.
>You seem to have an axe to grind against the company.
No, I said I'd be inclined to give ML a break. I don't have an opinion about ML other than I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm not the parent commenter.
The main point I was trying to make was that credibility is assessed by people in different ways depending on their expertise / knowledge base / etc. So someone knowledgeable about websites would notice such a thing and the average person wouldn't. So arguing over whether something is an absolute signifier of credibility or not is sort of pointless.
Yeah looks like they're telling the browser to not cache them for very long. Kinda silly and very bandwidth intensive. Still I don't think that type of minor misconfiguration really says anything about what they're doing in AR.
