I agree that you would expect more from a $3000 computer, but that is not what hololens is. Considering all of novel sensors and capabilities with the hololens, it is pretty amazing to me that the hololens is only $3000.
Have you actually used it? I have it on my desk. It's garbage. Low res, narrow FoV display, graphics capabilities from 10 years ago. I wouldn't pay fifty bucks for it if I was spending my own money.
I have used one and everything you said is valid. It is fairly low res and the graphics are mobile quality, but that isn't what you are paying for, and calling it garbage is pretty unfair. Show me another device that is doing AR right now at the fidelity levels of HL. Your criticism is the equivalent of comparing an iPhone with a full on desktop workstation. They are not trying to solve the same problem and therefore do not need to have the same visual fidelity.
That said, IMO, it really is prototype hardware with the intention to iterate on it until it finds a market segment. I doubt MSFT is making any money on the device.
Disclaimer: Work at MSFT, have nothing to do with HL.
> They are not trying to solve the same problem and therefore do not need to have the same visual fidelity.
I think they are trying to solve the same problem. I'd love a desktop AR headset. They do need the same visual fidelity, we're just not there yet. I'm patient :)
Come on man... it's an x86 computer you can wear on your head that projects stable holographics in real time. There's literally nothing like it on the market.
