zlacker

>>gumby+(OP)
For as cool as this is, cost is the problem.

$2300 is an expensive experiment, one that might not be for me.

You want to get developers to bet on new tech, to innovate, then get the cost way down. Make me as an individual developer willing to take the risk that I might not have the time or the mindset to follow through.

I can't imagine that the cost of production is more than $500... start selling them at that price point.

>>zer00e+u2
The original Microsoft HoloLens was $3000-$5000 and sold 50,000 units in two years. Now the US Army is paying them $480 million for 100,000 units. The problem isn't the price IMO, but the fact that Magic Leap hasn't been able to make a case for what exactly it should be used for. Random enthusiasts aren't going to shell out thousands of dollars, but a company or government definitely will.

>>paxys+34
The problem is that it doesn't work, it's bad. You can make a bad product with a company with a "valuation" in the billions, we need to start to understand that. And there's good alternatives to the product that actually do work better at a similar price point.

This is not a "product market fit" problem, this is bad tech being pushed down the pipes until it makes it out of a fucked up company.

>>pvaran+s5
In what way is it bad? From the various video reviews I’ve seen, it seems to work a lot better than the Hololens circa a couple years ago.

>>ericd+qj
Other reviews in this post say that it’s not even as good as the original Hololens

>>gbear6+in
I would call bullshit on that. Just the double FOV would make it barely usable compared to completely useless like the first hololens.