Magic Leap – Backwards leap.
Massive setback means more money likely to be needed
It appears that Magic Leap has hit a major problem with the commercialisation of its technology and the question really is: are its investors patient enough to hang on while a new solution is found?
Magic Leap is an augmented reality company that has a very high profile because:
First: It has promised a user experience that other augmented reality companies can only dream of.
In most systems the virtual world can only be superimposed on a portion of the user’s field of vision.
Effectively there is a letter box in front of the user within which the virtual world exits and from which it cannot escape.
For productivity applications, this is not really a problem but for the consumer, there is no way this will fly.
This is the problem that we think Magic Leap has solved and if it can produce a good product, it could dominate the consumer market for AR.
Second: It has very high profile investors (Google, Alibaba etc.) and a valuation of $4.5bn.
$4.5bn is a sky-high valuation for a company with no product, no prototype and no time frame within which a product will come to market.
Despite some rumblings around whether one of its latest demonstration videos is genuine, the older demonstrations show clearly that Magic Leap offers a full superimposition of the virtual world onto the real.
However, this is not where the problems that we can see are to be found.
The problem is that the device is huge, clunky and uncomfortable to wear making it completely unsuitable for the consumer.
We have long held the view that for AR to work, the entire unit needs to be no heavier or intrusive than a regular pair of glasses.
The original idea was that Magic Leap would use a laser shone through a vibrating fibre optic lens to create the light field (see here) but it seems that this solution does not work properly.
A recent demonstration of a head unit attached to a PC with multiple cables produced images that were of a lower quality than Microsoft’s HoloLens.
It looks like this has laid bare the weakness in the laser / fibre optic solution in enabling a move from being the size of a fridge into a head unit.
Furthermore, the press does not like being made to feel foolish and so the knives are now out following the possibility that the latest video is a concept rather than real footage.
Either way, it looks like it is back to the drawing board for Magic Leap in terms of figuring out how to ut full field of view AR into a pair of glasses.
This is a huge problem as we suspect it means a lot more time and a lot more money.
With no revenues and aggressive hiring over the last 12 months, Magic Leap’s burn rate must be tens of millions of dollars a month raising the likelihood of another funding round probably at a lower valuation.
The big question is whether its investors will continue to support the longer development time required and if so, what price will they pay?
The longer development time also gives rivals such as HoloLens, Meta and Atheer Labs time to fix their issues with the field of view.
With risks increasing and sentiment souring the valuation can only come down.
Disclaimer - Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss. This material is being provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. This document may contain materials from third parties, which are supplied by companies that are not affiliated with Edison Investment Research. Edison Investment Research has not been involved in the preparation, adoption or editing of such third-party materials and does not explicitly or implicitly endorse or approve such content. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors or markets identified and described were or will be profitable. All information is current as of the date of publication and is subject to change without notice. While based on sources believed reliable, we do not represent this material as accurate or complete. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole. Edison Investment Research does not engage in investment banking, market making or asset management activities of any securities. The material has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence or objectivity of investment research.