[ericd]

Yes, I've watched a few long form video reviews of the ML One, and I've generally been impressed with what I've seen in the videos. The reviewers have generally seemed impressed as well. They usually say it could use a bit of work before being unleashed to consumers, and that it's a long way from fulfilling all of AR's potential, but being that it's explictly a dev kit of a V1 of potentially a whole new industry, I think that's all acceptable.

This reviewer has clearly had an axe to grind with ML's claims for years, and this is a continuation of that.

EDIT: that doesn't seem like the same comment I replied to, did you significantly expand it?

[muglug]

I think you can quibble about the author's bias, but Magic Leap has so far failed to deliver on the promise that its early videos promised: the ability to seamlessly blend the real world with a computer-generated one.

Other systems in the same space (like Hololens, the Rift and the Vive) didn’t put such simulated imagery front-and-centre in their marketing materials.

[ericd]

They're not quite there yet on their miniaturized consumer hardware, but have you watched the longer form videos? What they've pulled off looks like a very strong start toward that.

The Rift and Vive are not in the same space as Hololens/ML at all, they shouldn't be lumped together.

[Holomakerbot]

You either didn't notice or forgot the bad press Hololens endured for misleading advertising:

https://mashable.com/2015/10/06/microsoft-hololens-misleadin...

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9465839/microsoft-hololen...

Going back further, Microsoft has a history of this with things like Project Milo on the Kinect. These things really don't matter in the end though. Its the technology itself that matters, and how good or bad it is relative to the market.