Wow, HBR normally has such good articles. This article's entire argument is based on "some random analyst said that HoloLens will be good, so it must be."

Then starts listing off a bunch of stats which don't really make any sense, like "7.2 million adults in the US have an ideal combination of attributes for HoloLens. If half of them buy it..." Even after they explain these attributes that is still a silly stat that means nothing. There's also no reason to believe that 50% of the potential market will buy the product (and they claim Kindle had twice as large of a market, sold twice as many as they're projecting for the Hololens but was still a huge failure).

> The endgame for enhancing our lives with digital visual tools is not virtual reality, it’s this mixed reality. If the glasses can help you accomplish tasks that matter to you, ones you already do, then it’s not just fun, it’s useful.

Microsoft hasn't, even ballpark, shown that Hololens can be productive. I watched their entire three hour press event, the demos they showed were very unpolished and didn't show anything more productive than can be accomplished on a PC.

It just looks districting. Google Glass's biggest issue was its price, but at least it seemed to be useful for niche things (e.g. turn by turn walking navigation). It is unclear what Hololens' use cases are, gaming maybe comes to mind, but this article is trying to sell it to business people/executives (where the case doesn't exist).

> Because Glass couldn’t actually “see” what you are doing, it can’t really be helpful except as a tool for grabbing information when you’re out and about.

That sentence contradicts itself. Google Glass contained AR functionality and could overlay information on what was in front of you (producing a very "holo"-like experience). Plus that same sentence that claims glass lacked that functionality also claims it had that functionality, which is it?!

> When Allrecipes.com can point to specific cupboards in your kitchen and tell you to retrieve the cocoa, and count out as you measure out tablespoons, you have another game changer.

That's impossible. I'd be seriously creeped out if some random website knew where the spices are, I don't even know where the spices are!

> Consumers are ready for new technology — Apple sold 80 million iPads in its first two years, compared to 1 million iPods in its first two years.

That made no sense. Nowhere do they explain how they know "consumers are ready for new technology" and the iPad example is bad since the iPad didn't compete with the iPod and the iPad had more mass market appeal than the HoloLens.

Honestly this entire article reads like a paid PR piece for HoloLens. I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Most of the stuff said in it is baseless, contradictory, or non-sensicle.

I have nothing against HoloLens in particular (although I do have some concerns about its software catalogue, or lack of, and we still don't know the retail price). However this article in its own right is extremely low quality and will only mislead the reader if you let it.

I just suggest you really consider the arguments it is making. They lack substance and don't stand up to scrutiny at all.