zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. pvaran+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-12-06 20:31:36
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.

replies(1): >>ericd+Yd
2. ericd+Yd[view] [source] 2019-12-06 22:17:44
>>pvaran+(OP)
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.
replies(2): >>gbear6+Qh >>cma+bA
◧◩
3. gbear6+Qh[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-06 22:46:29
>>ericd+Yd
Other reviews in this post say that it’s not even as good as the original Hololens
replies(1): >>tigers+Zy
◧◩◪
4. tigers+Zy[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-07 01:37:09
>>gbear6+Qh
I would call bullshit on that. Just the double FOV would make it barely usable compared to completely useless like the first hololens.
◧◩
5. cma+bA[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-07 01:54:25
>>ericd+Yd
It seems to be significantly worse than the Lenovo AR toy lightsaber thing that clips onto your phone (similar to Meta’s design).
[go to top]