HoloLens Developer Edition Coming In Q1 2016 For Painful $3,000

[heirdeux]

HoloLens is coming to developers in the first quarter of 2016. However, it comes at the very hefty price of $3,000.

HoloLens Developer Edition Coming In Q1 2016 For Painful $3,000 : Read more

 

[DelightfulDucklings]

I don't really see the validity of comparing the price to the Oculus DK2, they're incredibly different products. I was expecting it to probably be closer to $2000 but this doesn't surprise me too much, it's an incredible piece of tech given the demo's they've shown and I'm really looking forward to a consumer version in the future.

 

[Puiucs]

I don't really see the validity of comparing the price to the Oculus DK2, they're incredibly different products. I was expecting it to probably be closer to $2000 but this doesn't surprise me too much, it's an incredible piece of tech given the demo's they've shown and I'm really looking forward to a consumer version in the future.

No matter how you look at it the price should not be over $1000-$1500. We're talking about a product MS wants to push to the general public. There is nothing in it that should warrant such a high price even if they picked the best hardware they could find. No normal dev will buy it.
The oculus for example sold extremely well and it managed to create a market that already has a lot of content even if the consumer version of the product hasn't launched yet. It's ecosystem is very healthy and it gives buyers a lot of reasons to be interested in it.

 

[jasonelmore]

I don't really see the validity of comparing the price to the Oculus DK2, they're incredibly different products. I was expecting it to probably be closer to $2000 but this doesn't surprise me too much, it's an incredible piece of tech given the demo's they've shown and I'm really looking forward to a consumer version in the future.

No matter how you look at it the price should not be over $1000-$1500. We're talking about a product MS wants to push to the general public. There is nothing in it that should warrant such a high price even if they picked the best hardware they could find. No normal dev will buy it.
The oculus for example sold extremely well and it managed to create a market that already has a lot of content even if the consumer version of the product hasn't launched yet. It's ecosystem is very healthy and it gives buyers a lot of reasons to be interested in it.

a 2K price is not that bad considering this is bleeding edge tech and all the R&D needs to be paid for. The first Macbook Air was $1500 for example.

over the years price will come down, and demand will go up. This isn't a device microsoft needs to get into every single living room. This is a business device that the enterprise segment will eat up.

The enthusiast is just gonna have to pony up more $ if they want this kind of bleeding edge tech.

 

[mamasan2000]

If Devs don't pick it up, why would consumers?
Oculus DK1 and 2 is out there, people have it. Theres content for it. That's a big advantage. Hololens might be cooler etc but if noone uses it, it's dead.

Besides, what does Hololens really do that would make a huge difference?
I can think up tons of areas for VR, for Hololens, not so much. Check my mail in 3D? Like I care.

 

[DelightfulDucklings]

If Devs don't pick it up, why would consumers?
Oculus DK1 and 2 is out there, people have it. Theres content for it. That's a big advantage. Hololens might be cooler etc but if noone uses it, it's dead.

Besides, what does Hololens really do that would make a huge difference?
I can think up tons of areas for VR, for Hololens, not so much. Check my mail in 3D? Like I care.

It has a lot more potential for practical workspace type uses than what you're thinking of such as 3D design, you have to think of non-traditional uses to really get the most out of it.

 

[DeadlyDays]

Maybe, just maybe, they aren't aiming for ANY consumers to get ahold of it. Maybe they still consider the product and technology to be too immature, and current hardware to be too expensive/slow at the size for the product to be relevant. But in order to get feedback and lay the legwork for the larger developers of major commercial applications they want to get them involved. In which case the price point makes sense, it is for large powerhouse software developers like Adobe/autoCAD/whatnot

 

[agnickolov]

HoloLens is not for consumers. Microsoft has stated this already numerous times. It's squarely aimed at business applications. As such, the price tag of $3000 is perfectly reasonable.

 

[itmoba]

It's a developer kit, not a consumer product. Developer kits have traditionally been more expensive than their counterpart. For example, the cost of a Xbox 360 developer kit used to be $40,000. Yet, why would one complain when $3000 for a HoloLens kit is less than 10% of $40,000 -- it's a drop in the bucket to be perfectly honest.

People should be happy that the Oculus developer kit costs so little -- it's amazing that it's being sold at an affordable price for regular people. Still, you can't compare the two technologies. At first glance, HoloLens appears to be a bit more technologically sophisticated, but it's ultimately up to the developers and Microsoft to develop an experience suitable for people, be it or be it not in the business world.

 

[Schepkens Hendrik]

At this price range it will fail! the DK should be a bare minimum price and they should not make any money on it because its what is needed to get wide adaptation. Either their price will have to drop soon or they wil fail.

 

[LuxZg]

itmoba and DeadlyDays seem to be only two sensible people in this comments section... It's obvious this is early program aimed at big developers, and it's almost a beta at that. And 3.000$ fee is not only for covering expenses but also to keep consumers to buy it just to play with it. They probably don't manufacture many of these either, so if they have 500 pcs they want them to end up at 500 best / biggest companies with some serious projects. So stop crying about the prices, it's not intended for you.

Second part, you forget that for Oculus and other similar VR experiences you need - PC. It had been told several times that HoloLens is standalone device. So compare 3000$ for HoloLens to a 350$ for Oculus PLUS 2.000$ for PC that's gonna run the content for Oculus. It's more than just pair of screens and some sensors.

Again, forget about Oculus, and for the time being forget about owning HoloLens. It's future tech, it will come there, don't worry, once it's in stores it won't be 3.000$. But than again, don't expect to have it in stores in 2016 either, at least by the looks of it.

 

[Daniel Ladishew]

HoloLens is not for consumers. Microsoft has stated this already numerous times. It's squarely aimed at business applications. As such, the price tag of $3000 is perfectly reasonable.

How is this true, considering we saw a tech demo showing off Minecraft being played in the living room. At this point if Microsoft fails to offer this as a consumer product somewhere down the line, then there are going to be lots of angry kids out there.

 

[why_wolf]

It's actually more surprising that Microsoft is even offering it for open sale. All their outside work with it so far has been with a small group of select engineering companies. Which makes sense until they figure out a way to expand the field of view it's not useful in anyway for the general public or even hobbyists.

 

[DeadlyDays]

bro, they will offer a consumer version. Probably like 3-4 years down the road.

The technology isn't mature enough, nor cheap enough to gain mass market adoption in the consumer space. So why launch a product guaranteed to fail in the mass market, they don't want to support a product that will fail immediately.
The first step, find a market that WILL adopt the product, and develop it for that. Release it there, build up a foundation, and then release a consumer version. Engineering companies/etc are willing to drop more money on equipment for their employees than your typical person will drop on a product. You don't want to put a product on the market at a high price point, sucks to wear, and with nothing developed for it yet. That's how to flop a product. How many businesses are looking at the oculus as an actual viable tool to use in their industry that they'd actually drop money on? I think the Hololens is far more viable in that space. What we are seeing are teasers, marketing, to gauge and build up interest in the product. This is some long term marketing bro, we won't see anything for us for a longish while.

As it stands, it is either a gimic atm or only a tool for professional use if it were released. I certainly wouldn't use it for much. It is designed as a wearable device like a Microsoft band, something you keep on and use to interface with every day things, or while using the computer normally. Putting on a what is essentially a helmet that needs to be plugged in isn't very convenient, something consumers require in something they are going to use. They need to make it smaller, wireless(wireless power transfer probably as well because I don't want to lug a huge battery inside a helmet), get a cheap yet powerful and very small processor in it, etc etc etc. I'm thinking they may try getting enterprise versions out in something like a year from now to a year and a half, just as an initial launch? Maybe not even a public launch but a private test run where they work with some large companies and have them gauge whether it increases productivity or not.

That's how I would do it, I did my BA paper on replacing the mouse and keyboard as an interface. One of my main points was that since those interfaces are so heavily entrenched, the best way to approach it would be from the business side since they can mandate use and get regular people using it instead of only targeting enthusiasts.

 

[alidan]

It's a developer kit, not a consumer product. Developer kits have traditionally been more expensive than their counterpart. For example, the cost of a Xbox 360 developer kit used to be $40,000. Yet, why would one complain when $3000 for a HoloLens kit is less than 10% of $40,000 -- it's a drop in the bucket to be perfectly honest.

People should be happy that the Oculus developer kit costs so little -- it's amazing that it's being sold at an affordable price for regular people. Still, you can't compare the two technologies. At first glance, HoloLens appears to be a bit more technologically sophisticated, but it's ultimately up to the developers and Microsoft to develop an experience suitable for people, be it or be it not in the business world.

console dev kits are different in the sense they are able to play any code installed on them, in this sense, pirated games.

 

[falchard]

I think this has a practical application in shopping. What it really needs right now is development time. Its new technology so the basics are not down yet. This is why it needs to be released to a select few who will use it in more professional applications to build up the base of the technology that can be added onto later when a consumer release is ready.

 

[itmoba]

It's a developer kit, not a consumer product. Developer kits have traditionally been more expensive than their counterpart. For example, the cost of a Xbox 360 developer kit used to be $40,000. Yet, why would one complain when $3000 for a HoloLens kit is less than 10% of $40,000 -- it's a drop in the bucket to be perfectly honest.

People should be happy that the Oculus developer kit costs so little -- it's amazing that it's being sold at an affordable price for regular people. Still, you can't compare the two technologies. At first glance, HoloLens appears to be a bit more technologically sophisticated, but it's ultimately up to the developers and Microsoft to develop an experience suitable for people, be it or be it not in the business world.

console dev kits are different in the sense they are able to play any code installed on them, in this sense, pirated games.

Excuse me, how does what I've said even remotely reference pirated games? I would never write anything that condones the piracy of software, and my forum record backs me up. Please explain your rationale, as I'm not sure whether you're a troll, a little slow-minded, or pulling some kind of tangential comment out from nowhere.

 

[DeadlyDays]

Excuse me, how does what I've said even remotely reference pirated games? I would never write anything that condones the piracy of software, and my forum record backs me up. Please explain your rationale, as I'm not sure whether you're a troll, a little slow-minded, or pulling some kind of tangential comment out from nowhere.

You misread him bro, more reading comprehension. He is saying consolve dev kits typically aren't locked down, no DRM etc, in order to give software developers an openish platform to test their apps on. This specifically differentiating them from consumer versions, which is why they price them so high.

A reason to price it above what a consumer would buy would be to make it prohibitively expensive so that there is no reason to buy it and use it for pirated software, since the dev kit would be easy to use in that sense.

That is how I understood it, but I try to read when I read, its hard