Experience only matters if you make a new version. Otherwise the experience has no value. The patents are only useful if enforcable, and if they provide defensive value against companies they don't already have defense against, orif the category becomes big enough to leverage against others who do succeed. Seeing as they shut down production, it's unlikely they will create a new version anytime soon. There's not enough demand. They have an extensive patent portfolio, so the defensive value is questionable. The offensive value is also negligible, as they're unlikely to get much out of it given the lack of success in the category. So no, not a good return.

Its useless. It doesn't do anything anyone needs or wants. Which is why VR headsets have failed in the market repeatedly, and at much cheaper pricepoints. That's why it's not a fantastic value- it's no better than existing tech, it doesn't solve a problem, nobody wants the category, and it's priced at nearly 10x the competition. On every front it's the exact opposite of value.

WHat were there expectations? If they were much higher, then it's a disappointment. If it was inline, then it isn't. How much did they spend in R&D on the device? Again, if it was a net loss, it's a disappointment. If it was a profit, it might not be. (A loss might also be ok if it launches a category that becomes successful, but this doesn't seem to be the case here).

Given that they shut down manufacturing, it seems very likely they sold way under expectation and overbuilt capacity. It also seems likely in that case they lost money. Which would make this a disappointment.

I do disagree- it's frequently prohibited by the contracts you sign to get the options. It has been for every startup I've ever worked for.

They probably can't. There's limitations on the ability to sell pre-IPO options. Both legal limitations with SEC regs, and limitations by the terms of the agreement that gives them the options. Not being allowed to sell them at all pre-IPO unless given explicit permission by the company is pretty much universal. The company doesn't want to risk a hostile takeover via random entities buying stock options.

They can't sell those stock options on the open market. It's unlikely they are allowed to sell them at all right now. Even if they go IPO, they will likely be locked in for a significant period. And given the rate the company is burning money, it's highly unlikely to fetch anything near it's last valuation when it does go public. It's likely to fetch a fraction of that (and just going bankrupt is a distinct possibility). So yeah, when you're paying monopoly money you can give really high numbers. In the end, they will likely have made more working at any non-startup big tech company.

This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

Fortran has some optimizations involving pointers that are invalid in other languages like C. So it can be the absolute fastest outside of hand optimized assembly (which is very difficult to do better than a compiler these days). It also has advanced math libraries which are highly tested and optimized. So its niche is highly performant math and scientific programming.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.

The question was literally, "What happens when all car manufacturers are displaying ads?"

In the UK, most medical information will be classified as sensitive personal data, which means it has significant extra protections under our regular data protection law, in addition to the medical ethics implications of breaching patient confidentiality. Letting it escape is a big deal and potentially a serious threat to the business/career of any medical professional who does it. Fortunately the days of people sending that kind of data around over insecure email are finally giving way to more appropriate methods of communication as the technology improves. It's usually governments seeing pound signs and/or businesses who aren't providing direct care to the patients that are pushing for wider distribution (and also those organisations who act as if impossible claims about sanitising the data effectively before releasing it are true).

Good for you! Unfortunately, for a lot of people, having no car isn't really an option, so the answer to what happens next with your strategy is really that all of those people get an inferior product because there's no effective competition or regulation in the market to prevent that, while people like you don't get any product at all.

What should happen is that governments recognise a failure of the market to maintain adequate standards for customers and introduce regulation to enforce minimum acceptable standards accordingly. Whether that actually happens obviously depends on whether your government is more interested in looking out for the people or the businesses.

There's only 2 reasons to have a new piece of hardware rather than make this an app on your phone:

1)It adds new sensors that your phone doesn't have (yet) that will enable new functionality. This won't be the case, as there's no usecase for it
2)It adds a new IO methods that aren't possible on the phone. AR goggles might do this. An AI assistant doesn't, it's all audio and voice.

This is basically just going to be replacable with a bluetooth microphone paired to an app on your phone. Which means nobody is going to buy it- even if they can actually find a usecase people want AI for (doubtful).

Those exist, but divide the view count by number of comments. It will show for the most part thousands of views per comment. That means most people aren't using the social part. I've yet to ever write a youtube comment, but I use it daily. So if you asked me if I use YouTube you'd get a yes, but it's not social media for me. If you limit it to those who read/write comments it would be fair, but I'm not sure they did that.

I'd say the same for YouTube. It's used to watch videos. The number of people who comment on them is minimal compared to the userbase. I'd be very curious to the exact definition of "social media" they use is. I don't think it's what most people consider to be social media.