zlacker

>>gumby+(OP)
I bought one second-hand a couple months ago. It's neat and all, but between the poor software and the severe extent to which it darkens the rest of the world, it's a pretty resounding 'meh'. I still have hopes for using it for productivity, but it honestly doesn't hold a candle to the original Hololens. (Can't speak to the Hololens 2 yet; going to get one in a little while though, hopefully!)

>>daeken+82
As someone who was a bit underwhelmed by the original Hololens, this assessment is utterly disappointing. Don't get me wrong, a lot about the Hololens was quite interesting, but clearly far from being ready for primetime.

>>Chicag+w2
The original Hololens was underwhelming in some regards, but they got a few things very right: text was crisp in most circumstances, the contrast was great, and the software mostly Just Worked (TM). All of these things are absent on the Magic Leap. The only advantages it really has are the controller (which is ... okay, I guess) and comfort.

>>daeken+Q2
And the double FOV area no? If I remember correctly it’s even slightly bigger than hololens 2 that went out something like 6 months after magic leap one.

>>tigers+TD
It's 45% bigger in area, rather than to a side (~4x overall area) like most people think when they see "double FOV". It's an improvement, yes, but not one that actually substantially changes its utility. If I could trade my Magic Leap for my old Hololens, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

>>daeken+VI
No, it’s not. Hololens was 30 x 17.5 degrees, Magic Leap one is 40 x 30. Ignoring the solid angles and just naively multiplying the two dimensions we have 525 vs 1200. Two me the FOV area seems well above the double.