Silent_Buddha
Legend
Hololens is not a consumer level device. For example PS has PSVR - its own dedicated VR headset. So if PS will come up with something interesting regarding VR - though they seem do not have aresearch division - they can easily deliver it to the end user. While in case of MS it creates some API or standard that may or may not be used and so on.
HoloLens isn't meant to be a consumer level device, so I'm not sure why there are comparisons to PSVR?
It's a successful business/professional device in a market where PSVR is wholly unsuited. They play in different markets and target different things. IIRC - MS is currently the market leader in that segment (small as it is), although there are more competitors springing up.
Would it be fair to claim that Sony failed to promote PSVR because it doesn't sell in the space that HoloLens sells in? No? Then it's also not fair to say that MS has failed to promote HoloLens in the market that it wasn't targetting.
The only mistake that MS had made thus far, IMO, is that they unveiled the first device during a consumer trade show. But at least they didn't compound that problem by doing something silly like claiming it would come to the consumer market (they always said it wasn't coming to the consumer market anytime soon ... IE - years).
While some of the demonstrations have shown some applicability to the consumer market, IMO that's ore of a demonstration to show the variety of use cases it "could" be used for, not necessarily the markets that MS is currently targetting.
Weird seeing these comparisons. Like seeing people complain that the latest Ferrari is a failure because it fails to sell as much as a Ford F-150 and that people that buy Ford F-150's don't buy Ferraris. If only Ferrari could figure out how to market their cars to Ford F-150 users then they could sell more and it'd be a success.
Regards,
SB