And they don't really have anything useful. Their claims dont make any sense to someone in the field. Now I have to file ieee spectrum under "willing to pedal bullshit for money" like so many other publications.
I’m in no position to review the legitimacy of their report on this company, but their review of IonQ’s technology, a field I have a recent PhD in, is pretty bad. They might be right about the SPAC nonsense and the business aspects— I don’t know. However, it’s clear they’re talking out their asses about the technology.
That page is amateurish and riddled with absurd statements, like the claim visible light travels faster than radio waves. It also claims LiFi offers speeds "100 times faster than wifi" but their thousand dollar router can only do 100Mbps. To add insult to injury it rips off the Wi-Fi trademark logo as well.
There may be a market for visible light networking but LiFi is total garbage.
They haven't even confirmed with the company yet. The site (http://www.willowgarage.com) lists nothing relevant to this and nothing's on their blog. Did someone at ieee even confirm any of this before publishing?
Edit... Just read again to try and find some more and this "multiple sources" business sounds an awful lot like that X-Surface debacle. I expected more.
Their methodology is rubbish. The fact that they can't possibly be blind invalidates the approach to begin with.
But they also didn't remain within one class of device when the physical coupling method does a lot to affect the result. They also didn't do any work whatsoever to research models which are often recommended as being good.
If Engadget didn't have such high journalistic integrity, I'd suspect it of being a sideways ad for Bose and Monster.
These people have no ethics, if it furthers their narrative they will spin any tangentially relevant story.
Unlike Engineering, there is no Board of Engineers to hold you (or your company) to account for lying about the capabilities of your core product or whether its actually working for the vulnerable people used in a company's marketing :c
As usual, they give us a press release and two or three examples, but no real data or systematic analysis about its consistency, which is the real problem with any of these models.
I'm excited about the potential of things like this, I just don't like this wish-wash way of presenting a technical tool.
Why do people buy into this sort of nonsense?? How are VCs and tech writers so incapable of basic conceptual verification?? This company appears to have built nothing except for ideas which don't stand up to the most cursory physical analysis.
Having just put out a press release yesterday and having been covered on TechCrunch the same day, I can tell you one thing: the press release has nothing to do with getting covered. It's a waste of money if that's all you do.
I actually thought it was really bad propaganda, and quite transparent. The arguments are incoherent, and they don't have any proposal.
They say "we aren't against e2e, we just want big tech to deploy it in a way that is safe". Well, either you have e2e or you don't; it's not surprising they have no proposal.
reply