The HoloLens has many similar features:

* Persistent location tracking

* Processor/GPU power (HoloLens is x86-based with a dedicated HPU unit for hand/environment tracking)

* Custom OS based on Windows Universal

* Multiple apps can run

* FOV is small

* Display doesn't work with nearby objects

* Brief update delay for real objects - there's a short delay for direct object mesh tracking and a longer delay for spatial anchor updates, IIRC

* Can't draw blackness

From the last few limitations, it seems they may just be using the same waveguide displays as the HoloLens. Variable DoF sounds interesting - I suppose they're using eye tracking to provide blur-DoF effects, but I wonder how quickly they can adapt the image. Would also be interesting if variable DoF means something else.

A tracked controller is nice but perhaps nothing too new. I wonder how they track the controller if it's out of the FoV of the head-mounted camera setup? HoloLens has a clicker controller but that's inertially tracked so it's much more similar to a gyro-mouse than e.g. a Rift controller.

I was really happy to see eye tracking in this list as I consider that a "gateway technology" that opens up a variety of additional really cool features. The big one is probably foveated rendering [1] which both allows for a more natural look as well as (hopefully) more efficient visuals.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNX0wCdD2LA

We still have to wait for the exact FoV, and the eye tracking seems interesting but it doesn't seems to be better than the Hololens, and won't be from the 2018-2019 Hololens.

Wait, the Hololens has eye tracking? That's interesting, I'd never heard that before.

Anyway, I think the main innovation Magic Leap seems to be pushing over its competitors is its multiple depth of field display. It'll be interesting to see how big of a difference that actually makes in practice.

No HoloLens doesn't have eye tracking. I think they're saying the device as a whole doesn't seem to be better than HoloLens. Which I might agree with. The form factor may be stranger though, which would be an accomplishment.

Accurate eye tracking UI/UX might be the game changer that puts the ML over the HoloLens, despite its other shortcomings.

Yeah the variable depth-of-field not working well at < 1 ft is a just a property of the hardware sensors. I guess I don't know exactly what they are but if it's time of flight or stereo then they could make it work better at closer ranges but then it wouldn't work as well farther away.

That's referring to the user being < 1 ft from a virtual object, not a physical one.

The docs say "Currently we do not recommend to having interactions with objects within 30 cm of your view for prolonged periods of time. When users approach too close to content for us to display, fade content out gracefully rather than sharply clipping the view."

I worry about the FOV piece as someone that experiences motion sickness from VR and normal non-VR games with narrow FOVs.

For those more knowledgeable, is this something that is less of an issue because it is AR vs. VR?

I think it's very unlikely you'll get motion sick in AR, _especially_ AR with a small FOV. The vast majority of your vision will still be filled with reality, so it won't be all that different from wearing a pair of regular glasses, at least from your brain's perspective.

Not to mention that Magic Leap's multiple depth-of-field display will likely simulate normal vision much better than current-generation VR displays, and that there's no artificial locomotion in AR.

I get dizzy about half an hour into using the HoloLens. I am not sure why, I think it may be because the tracking/rendering doesn't quite keep up with fast head motions making the holograms "inconsistent" with the real world. It might also be that it's because of the accomodation/convergence mismatch ...

Do you think it is related to the weight of the HoloLens? I find that many people feel uncomfortable after 20 minutes of use. And at least one person got a headache using it.