>I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school.

If you're going to promise specific features(in this case, dynamic lighting, shadows, and animations), then you damn well had better deliver some part of least one of those after a year. It doesn't matter if it's handwavey or anything, you should show that the last year's efforts and money haven't been wasted.

Here's the presentation from last year: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/video-new-g...

><oversimplification of the situation>And it's a really weird argumentation going on as well. "This is a scam - it is totally possible to do". Normally you say that something is a scam if you think it's not possible to do.</>

It's also a scam if you take the results of other people's research and development(ATI has published code for a raytrace/voxel engine) and try to push it of as something brand new and innovative.

Ok then, sorry. I sincerely didn't know that they are using published code and claiming it to be their own.

I didn't mean to imply that they are copying the open source code directly. Without a copy of their code, it's wrong to make that assumption. I'm saying that their entire rendering process, as described in the video, sounds suspiciously like what other people have released in whitepapers and source.

It probably is a completely original implementation, but I do not believe that any of the algorithms being used are original. That is where I think Notch is coming from when he calls it a "scam". It's piggybacking on other people's work, while claiming that it's their own.