Holo Lens 2 does it again, sort of.
Reading some of the reviews of the latest iteration of Holo Lens, it certainly sounds like Microsoft made the right move in scrapping the original v2 of the hardware and instead focusing on what would have been v3.
Just as nothing was even remotely half-baked or competitive when the original device was released, it sounds like they have pushed the bar up higher at a time when no when has really reached the mark left by v1.
But, I don't necessarily feel, from what I read that Microsoft made all of the right moves. I feel like they made consumer facing efforts while maintaining the focus on enterprise and this created too many compromises.
In short, doubling the field of vision was mainly a complaint by people the device was never targeted at. Reviewers playing games and "messing around" and end users... doing the same. I never once read a review or critique from users in the enterprise markets where this device was ACTUALLY being marketed, sold and used.
I do believe that in increase in FoV was going to be expected even by those customers. But, I feel like the advances they made with eye tracking and voice commands present more value to those fields than the FoV issue. And I can't help but feel that the reason that the cost is now even higher than the original is primarily a result of that particular investment.
If I'm wrong and the cost increase was largely driven by the other changes and improvements then doubling the FoV makes a lot of sense.
The problem with the price tag is that I don't really see it stimulating growth in sales in enterprise where it continues to be marketed. The price tag still needed to come down with this generation more than the field or view needed to be expanded.
To justify this statement is pretty simple. In addition to not hearing those in the industry complain, another common review from professional reviewers who owned or spent longer periods of time with the device commonly said the same thing; "you get used to the FoV". Once again, this is a group of people NOT using the device for it's intended purpose who are nonetheless claiming that you get used to it.
Sure. Likely, everyone wants the viewable area increased. But, along with the other advances I feel like making it more widely available by reducing the price would have yielded an even greater value. Not being targeted at consumers, it didn't need to come down massively. But, it needed to come down enough to A) encourage companies who didn't buy into v1 to buy into v2 and B) get buyers of v1 to upgrade to v2.
The average customer who was a potential buyer and didn't buy into v1 isn't likely to readily consider on a device where the critics are still griping about the FoV and where it is more expensive. Likewise, companies using the original today are less likely to invest heavily in v2. Instead they are likely to only buy them to replace v1 units that fail.
But, they have moved the bar. The competition isn't even in the rear view mirror. And focusing on more than the FoV has given them an even greater lead. But, as with last time, it feels like they unveiled it too early. If they wait 2 years again for the next iteration, it gives competitors a lot of time to fill in the void in the consumer market and to target even the enterprise users that are on the fence.
You can't play the enterprise game forever if you want to drive future of tech. Sooner or later you need to start taking risks and steer the product back towards the mainstream.
Just as nothing was even remotely half-baked or competitive when the original device was released, it sounds like they have pushed the bar up higher at a time when no when has really reached the mark left by v1.
But, I don't necessarily feel, from what I read that Microsoft made all of the right moves. I feel like they made consumer facing efforts while maintaining the focus on enterprise and this created too many compromises.
In short, doubling the field of vision was mainly a complaint by people the device was never targeted at. Reviewers playing games and "messing around" and end users... doing the same. I never once read a review or critique from users in the enterprise markets where this device was ACTUALLY being marketed, sold and used.
I do believe that in increase in FoV was going to be expected even by those customers. But, I feel like the advances they made with eye tracking and voice commands present more value to those fields than the FoV issue. And I can't help but feel that the reason that the cost is now even higher than the original is primarily a result of that particular investment.
If I'm wrong and the cost increase was largely driven by the other changes and improvements then doubling the FoV makes a lot of sense.
The problem with the price tag is that I don't really see it stimulating growth in sales in enterprise where it continues to be marketed. The price tag still needed to come down with this generation more than the field or view needed to be expanded.
To justify this statement is pretty simple. In addition to not hearing those in the industry complain, another common review from professional reviewers who owned or spent longer periods of time with the device commonly said the same thing; "you get used to the FoV". Once again, this is a group of people NOT using the device for it's intended purpose who are nonetheless claiming that you get used to it.
Sure. Likely, everyone wants the viewable area increased. But, along with the other advances I feel like making it more widely available by reducing the price would have yielded an even greater value. Not being targeted at consumers, it didn't need to come down massively. But, it needed to come down enough to A) encourage companies who didn't buy into v1 to buy into v2 and B) get buyers of v1 to upgrade to v2.
The average customer who was a potential buyer and didn't buy into v1 isn't likely to readily consider on a device where the critics are still griping about the FoV and where it is more expensive. Likewise, companies using the original today are less likely to invest heavily in v2. Instead they are likely to only buy them to replace v1 units that fail.
But, they have moved the bar. The competition isn't even in the rear view mirror. And focusing on more than the FoV has given them an even greater lead. But, as with last time, it feels like they unveiled it too early. If they wait 2 years again for the next iteration, it gives competitors a lot of time to fill in the void in the consumer market and to target even the enterprise users that are on the fence.
You can't play the enterprise game forever if you want to drive future of tech. Sooner or later you need to start taking risks and steer the product back towards the mainstream.
Comments
Post a Comment